Cold In July

Jim Mickle's three films so far (Mulberry Street, Stake Land and We Are What We Are) have all been competent well directed efforts that no-one has bothered to see (though Stake Land has since been picked up on the cult circuit). Cold In July should raise his profile considerably, though it's clear he's had a battle to make a coherent film out of Joe R. Lansdale's novel. To say too much about the plot in this crime-thriller would be to spoil many of the twists, but the film begins with Richard Dane (Michael C. Hall) accidentally taking out an intruder in his home. Though no charges are bought against Dane, the intruder's father (a recently paroled convict played by Sam Shepard) begins to menacingly stalk Dane and his family. This though is just a jumping off point for a story that goes off in all sorts of unexpected directions, from a touch of comic relief with the excellent Don Johnson as a Southern P. I. (Billy Bob Luke, of course) to a moment where the plot diverts into highly disturbing snuff film territory. Six Feet Under and Dexter veteran Hall is believable as the average Joe, helping to banish the memories of most of his big screen career thus far (hello Gamer). However, this is all about Mickle's direction and a film that has more genre and tone shifts in any production you'll see outside of the South Korean market. Whether he succeeds or not depends on how well you can cope with the ever changing tempo's and rhythms as the film unfolds. Overall this is highly entertaining, though a couple of things do stick in the craw. First is that the film concludes with a cinematic standard which, though thrilling in parts (and artistic - look for the moment the screen becomes red filtered following the splashing of a lone light bulb in human claret) it seems too easy a wrapping up for the complexities that have informed the characters up until that point. Plus, comment must be made about the overbearing 1980's style synth score. Though faithful to the period the film is set, it's completely out of context with the content of the film itself and an unwelcome distraction throughout. Rating: 7/10.

Bad Neighbours

Nicholas Stoller's last three films as director have been Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him To The Greek and The Five Year Engagement, so you'll be unsurprised to hear that Bad Neighbours doesn't venture far from the formula inherent in those movies, i.e. bawdy humour, physical pratfalls, with a touch of human emotion thrown in. The set up is simple: A couple (Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne) with a young baby have their lives (well, their sleep patterns) turned upside down when the neighbours from hell move in next door to them. In this case said tormentors take the form of a college fraternity (led by Zac Efron) well known for their outrageous behaviour and parties. What starts off as mutual friendship between the houses, soon spills into all out war. As the poster aptly puts it: It's Family v Frat. The film is basically an assortment of, mainly funny, set pieces as the protagonists do their best to antagonise each other. Scripters Andrew J. Cohen and Brendan O'Brien's attempts to add a dramatic touch by showing the strain that the situation is having on Rogan and Byrne's relationship doesn't really work (it hardly needs some party boys next door to exacerbate the pressure a young couple with their first child go through), plus Rogan as an actor just can't garner sympathy unlike, say, Stoller's old mucker Jason Segel can. This was a calculated approach by the writers as they felt things would have got too repetitive, but it's clear they would have got by on the gags alone, from some nice one-liners ("The old people have the upper hand!") to a Simpsons-esque scene where a doctor informs the couple that their baby may have HIV. On the acting front Byrne takes the plaudits, continuing to show she has great comic chops and even the usually painful Lisa Kudrow adds some laughs as a non-plussed college dean. If this is your type of comedy you'll come away happy, but Rogan's standard shtick is starting to outstay it's welcome and though this delivers exactly what you'd expect, Stoller's latest can't shake the feeling that we've done this dance many times already over the past few years. Rating: 7/10.

Godzilla / The Fault In Our Stars / Chef / As Above So Below

An eclectic mix of films here to briefly go over, all falling within the solid if like that sort of thing bracket, but unlikely to elicit second viewings. First up is Gareth Edwards new take on Godzilla - a genre in itself. You'll be aware of the irony of Edwards taking this on as his sophomore effort as his debut feature, the slightly over praised Monsters, featured very little in the way of creature action. Edwards sticks to that blue-print here, giving us a slow and lengthy build up to the main engagements of the film. This isn't a problem and it's well marshalled by Edwards, and the main twist of the film has been nicely disguised pre-release. The drawbacks begin with the analysis of the script, which treatments from numerous writers (Frank Darabont and David S. Goyer amongst them). Edwards has said that Jaws has been an influence on this film, which is clearly covered by the drip-drip build up, but, whereas Jaws had fully developed protagonists we cared about whilst we were waiting for the mayhem to occur, not much effort has been made in Godzilla to flesh out the characters. There's just the standard Hollywood family tragedy back story applied and this is one of those films were anyone could have taken on the main roles and the film would have been exactly the same. Overall it looks and sounds great, and though it can't be denied that Edwards has honoured the legacy of Godzilla, it's just a shame he didn't do it via a more entertaining film. Moving on from monsters we tackle a genre that many people find monstrous - that of the dramedy concerning serious illness. The Fault In Our Stars (based on the book by John Green) stars up and comer Shailene Woodley as a teenage cancer sufferer who meets and falls in love with fellow afflicted teenager Ansel Elgort. Teenagers (or the easily manipulated emotionally) will lap this up and it will certainly do the trick for its intended audience. Director Josh Boone doesn't rock the boat and just simply joins the dots from scene to scene and Woodley and Elgort certainly click as the main couple, though Elgort does come across as unbearably smug at times. That's down to the script though, which touches on pretentiousness and is also a little cold in it's engineering of the tears. Plus, as an examination of cancer it's laughably trite - these are the healthiest looking people you'll ever see suffering from the dreaded illness. Moving on, it's food time in Chef as Jon Favreau stars as professional cook Carl who, following an altercation with a restaurant critic, quits his high profile job in order to start over again on the culinary front in the form of his own food truck. As you'd expect the nosh on show looks amazing and this is well acted (Hello John Leguizamo!), with a number of decent comic moments. The script is a bit muddled though (at times it could be a documentary about an examination of how modern social media can make or break a person / business), with the family dynamic as clichéd as it comes and the sticky feel good ending is just plain daft. Faverau's cronyism also means we have Robert Downey Jr. stinking the place out with a conceited cameo. Director Favreau  has stepped back from the glare of blockbuster territory with this low budget effort and whilst it's a passable film, Favreau himself has stated he pretty much made it for himself. No doubt he's earned the right to do that, but whether the general public will indulge is a different matter. Finally, time for a few silly thrills in John Erick Dowdle's As Above, So Below. This is Dowdle's first film since 2010's Devil and he continues the theme of supernatural shenanigans directing from a script penned with his brother as we follow a team of young explorers as they venture into the catacombs below the streets of Paris. Yep, you've guessed it, before long strange things begin to occur. This wasn't screened in advance for critics, but it's not that bad an effort. With it's eye catching poster, this also employs the current dynamic for horror films: Low budget, no name stars (though look for the chap that bears an uncanny resemblance to a young Ruud van Nistelrooy) and healthy box office returns. It also has an authentic touch, as the film was actually shot within the real catacombs of France's capital. That trivia aside, plot wise its eye-rollingly stupid at times (look for the moment when the characters stumble upon some handily placed cleaning products!), but at least it avoids the dark and ambiguous endings that have somewhat blighted recent horror productions. Rating for all films: 6/10.

Edge Of Tomorrow

Doug Liman is supposedly a massive pain in the arse, which would go some way to explaining his hardly prolific output since his 1994 debut Getting In. The excellent Swingers and Go followed soon after, but he hasn't really made a memorable film since then (Bourne only really got going when Paul Greengrass arrived on the scene) with 2010's poor Fair Game suggesting Liman's early promise had been lost for good. Time for a surprise though as his new film Edge Of Tomorrow (though its somewhat confusingly been pushed as Live. Die. Repeat. on the marketing front) is big screen entertainment and Liman's best since that mid to late 90's heyday. Based on Hiroshi Sakurazaka's novel All You Need Is Kill, the film is based in the near future where aliens have had their standard fun following an invasion but, hurrah(!), the humans are staging a fight back. However, some are more reluctant than others to get their hands dirty and when Major William Cage (Tom Cruise), an army PR man with no combat experience, attempts to blackmail his way our of fighting for the cause he is forced into battle, soon becoming brown bread. So that's the "Live" and "Die" bits covered then. Soon comes the "Repeat" as Cage is resurrected and starts his mission over again before croaking it once more. We're in time loop territory here and on each of his life cycles, with the help of real soldier Vrataski (Emily Brunt), his knowledge of fighting the aliens improves with the aim of finally defeating the imposters. You can take your pick of film mash ups here (Independence Day v Groundhog Day et al), but Liman brings a freshness to the film and, for a subject matter that revolves around repeated killing, it's surprisingly funny. That freshness comes from the way the story is crafted. Initially the audience's knowledge is on a par with Cage's, but a sudden piece of sleight of hand in the middle (slowly revealed by Cruise and Blunt's excellent acting - both using body language to intimate unsaid things) reveals that we're now possibly hundreds or thousands of "repeats" into the future. From then on we have only snippets of conversation that hint at what's happened over the "repeats" with a nod to Cage's and Vrataski's back stories. It's surprising that the script has turned out so nicely balanced as there were problems with the screenplay before and during the shoot (Liman actually started filming before an ending was even penned in), but everything has turned out for the best. On the acting front Cruise is genuinely convincing as a coward thrown into a terrifying situation, plus the smart narrative solves the usual credibility stretching problem of the man on the street becoming a gun-toting hero within two hours of the running time. Blunt is great as the kick-ass soldier and what a joy to finally see a kosher strong female character in a film like this. You also get a fun cameo from Bill Paxton as a no-nonsense army Sergeant (somewhat amazingly the first film starring Paxton and Cruise together, so a new link for fans of the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game). On the down side, the alien creatures are portrayed as such vicious speedy killers when any of them are killed its somewhat unbelievable and the film goes off the rails slightly right at the end (it's painfully apparent that some of the final "outdoor" scenes are being shot internally), but overall this is great fun, keeping you on the edge of your seat throughout and it has the greatest moment involving a hand grenade pin since Leon. Rating: 8/10.

Sabotage / Fury

I've linked these reviews together for a purpose, that being to highlight what an odd choice David Ayer was to direct Fury, a film supposedly showing the bleakness of war and it's human side at the same time. Ayer doesn't do subtlety, so why, especially when you consider his back catalogue, was he chosen for Hollywood's latest stab at humanising the horror's of war? Let's start with Sabotage though, Ayer's previous film to Fury and Arnold Schwarzenegger's next film in his (not really cheered by anyone) return to mainstream films. It tells the story of an elite (aren't they all?) drugs task force led by Arnie who, following some pilfering of a cartels moolah, find themselves being bumped off one by one by unknown forces. It's basically Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None with added swearing, violence and gore. What's frustrating is that there's a good film in here somewhere, but Ayer doesn't have the subtlety or patience to explore it further, though Ayer himself claims that the studio cut the film to make it resemble an action film as opposed to a mystery thriller. Whatever the truth, no-one comes out shining from this, but one prize the film does win though is an entry into the worst line of the year category. Brace yourselves: "Some of us are getting paid, the rest of us are just getting dead". Try and say that with a straight face at your next audition. To be fair, this isn't actually a really terrible film and if you like Arnie and this kind of thing you should get by. Leaving Sabotage behind, let's move on to Fury and return to my original question. Is the man behind Harsh Times, Street Kings, End Of Watch and, yes, Sabotage, really the person you'd hand the reigns to for a mature consideration of some of the world's darkest years? I think the end result speaks for itself. A quick summation is that we follow a US tank crew (lead by Brad Pitt) as it rumbles into the heart of Nazi Germany during the latter months of the war. Much has already been written about Ayer and Pitt's research into tank warfare and the conflict in general, but they appear to have jettisoned it all in favour of producing a movie that more often than not resembles a video game and appears to be designed for the Marvel crowd. What veterans of the conflict would make of this fantasy rubbish I dread to think. Before you go off on one with the old "..but it's a film" defence (I myself use that all the time), the main reason for my annoyance is that Ayer and Pitt have promoted the film as being the complete opposite of what they've actually constructed. The claim is that Fury isn't really concerned with action or any event in particular, but more a portrayal of the people involved in the conflict, concentrating particularly on Pitt's tank crew. If that's the case, why then is there virtually no examination of the characters or, and this is something Ayer and Pitt really pushed in interviews, life inside the tank itself? If that is the kind of film you do want to see, then check out Samuel Maoz's vastly superior Lebanon instead. What you have here is the "war is hell" mantra shoved down your throat by one of the most unsubtle directors working today. Faces are blown off, heads disintegrate, children are found hanged and people cut open fresh horse carcases for meat. Shame that such carnage isn't equalised out by a script that addresses the lives of the protagonists, as there is little characterisation regarding the Allies and the Germans are just embarrassing "Hun" standard stereotypes. Laziness permeates throughout, from the majority of the tanks crew (Shia LaBeouf, Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal) mumbling their lines so much it resembles a Bane convention at times to a scene at the end that flicks from daylight to night time in about five seconds of screen time with no logical explanation. This is light years away from Saving Private Ryan (arguably it's most comparable challenger for the balance of horror, action and appraisal of character) and, judging by the reports of how much the cast loved being directed by hard task master Ayer, comes across as no more than jobs for the boys. Sabotage Rating: 5/10. Fury Rating: 4/10.

Blue Ruin

Jeremy Saulnier's debut film was the love it or hate it Murder Party back in 2007. The good news for Saulnier was that enough people must have enjoyed it for him to get a second crack at the big screen (albeit a number of years later). It's also good news for the cinema going public as Blue Ruin is one of the thrillers of the year. A slow moving story of revenge punctuated with scenes of tension and high violence, Saulnier's film has struggled to get a mainstream release and returned only average box office. I would say that's a travesty, but hardly surprising given that (political comment alert!) film audiences are becoming less cerebral year on year. Though the producers do have themselves somewhat to blame as well, what with the awkward film title and marketing campaign that at times just seemed to centre around a bearded hobo in a vest. Said vagrant is Dwight Evans (Macon Blair) who, on hearing that the man who murdered his parents is to be released from prison, returns to his home town in order to gain brutal revenge. However, when things don't go quite to plan Evans finds himself in a desperate battle against the local hoodlums who want to bump him off and his estranged family. To say more would be to spoil what is a cracking film, told with economy and efficiency by Saulnier. Where the film really works is that Saulnier's script is the inverse to the perfectly planned "hit". Everything's a struggle for Dwight, from the moment he steals a gun, swiftly followed by the realisation he won't be able to use it, to a hilarious moment at one of the film's key points where he's interrupted by someone asking him to pass the Ketchup. It's nice touches like this from Saulnier's writing that give this a real-life feel as opposed to watching fiction. Overall there's comparison with the Coen Brothers (and I'm taking good Coen Brothers here) what with the moments of black comedy and fierceness (brace yourself for one of the most gruesome head shots since John Hillcoat's The Proposition) mixed in with the straightforward narrative. Blair is great in the lead role, his everyday man looks (think Nathan Lane meets Kermit The Frog) just adding to the feel that this could be a tangible tale you'd read in the paper one day. No doubt this is destined to become a cult favourite, with a number of quotable on-liners, not least when Dwight, showing that this is a tragedy at heart, utters "You know what's awful? Just 'cause my Dad loved your Mum, we all end up dead....and he was right". This is film making for adults at its best. Rating: 8/10.

How To Train Your Dragon 2

Unless it's a blatant standalone story (a la Pixar's Up) the one guaranteed thing that a money spinning animated film will bring is the inevitable follow up a few years later down the line. So Dreamworks' 2010 success How To Train Your Dragon begats 2014's How To Train Your Dragon 2: Train Harder. I've made that strap-line up by the way, but the fact Dreamworks couldn't be bothered with a sub-heading just shows that they already know they have the audience in the palm of their hands following the first film's success. The good news is they haven't been complacent with the final production though. Dean DeBlois, co-director of the first film, takes the reigns all on his own this time out whilst also penning the screenplay as well. He can be pleased with his efforts. A simple summation of the plot has a now older Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) meeting his long lost mother and the villagers under attack from a big bad who can control dragons at whim. The film is a success as it builds on the first outing, developing the overall story and doesn't revert to rehashing the same jokes. Despite a number of great laughs (including arguably the most adult (and funniest) gag regarding homosexuality in an animated film for quite some time) the tone here is also a lot darker, with a third act that has an emotional and hard edge that comes as quite a shock. Visuals wise this is the first Dreamworks film made using "scalable multi-core processing", so there's one for you if you're ever struggling for a chat up line. Joking aside, such is the quality of virtually all animated films these days I think you'd have to watch the two films back to back to see if your peepers can spot the difference. Something that isn't quality is the bete noire of modern day cinema: 3D. I hate it at the best of times, but its calibre here is very suspect, affecting the (visual) focus of the film on numerous occasions, particularly during the first 10 minutes. Other downers are the surprising (considering the rest of the film) lack of thought that has gone into Djimon Hounsou's villainous Drago (he looks like he was drawn up over a sandwich at lunchtime and bears a resemblance to a Gene Simmons / Al Pacino love child) and some members of the audience might find the script a bit too heavy on the family dynamic when there's battles that could be fought instead (on that note, look for a neat twist on the fire from the nostrils standard). Whether this leaves you yearning for more or not, you'll be unsurprised to hear that How To Train Your Dragon 3: Train Hard With A Vengeance is already in the pipeline. Rating: 7/10.

The Inbetweeners 2 / The Expendables 3

Sequels time again, this time with a couple of films that already have a following based on a standard template, so you'll be unsurprised to hear that things don't vary far from the norm with either of these productions. Starting off with teenage exploits, it was more by chance rather than preparation for watching The Inbetweeners 2 that I recently happened to catch the first film again. I wasn’t overly impressed first time I watched it, but this further viewing made me shift my opinion slightly so perhaps I had already been influenced pre-review by the below average third series and the terrible conversion rate of British TV comedies to the big screen. This time though there can be no mistake. The Inbetweeners 2 scrapes the bottom of the comedy barrel and only die hard fans need apply. The storyline is basically exactly the same as last time, but this time just substitute Malia for Australia. The main problem is that the crudeness has been increased to lowest common denominator levels and far too many one liners are leader than the leadest of balloons. Though the suggestions from some commentators that the film is misogynistic is laughable - they're fictional characters you bumders! However, I think it says something that the funniest gag from the whole thing ("Fire wankers!") comes from the teaser trailer and isn't even in the final film. Rumour was that 50% of the main cast didn't even want to do this film and that the series creators (Damon Beesley and Iain Morris) weren't keen on stepping up to directorial duties, which goes some way to explaining the by the numbers final output. Moving on, the protagonists of The Expendables 3 have more to worry about than getting their end away, what with a new motley collection of baddies intent on removing them from the face of the planet via various violent means. Having said that, this is the first film in the series where series overlord Sylvester Stallone and his producers have made the conscious decision to tone down the violence in order to get better footfall. It hasn't worked as the box-office has been poor and the film itself just looks badly edited. Patrick Hughes is the director here and he's clearly just a man for hire and badly out of his depth (a great shame as his debut feature was the excellent, though little seen, low budget modern western Red Hill).You don't need the plot for an Expendables film as you already know what you're going to get, i.e. lots of explosions, bad dialogue and thoughts of “Blimey, he really is getting on a bit”. They have tried to mix things up here as well though with the introduction of a new younger group of Expendables (i.e. basically going against the idea of the whole franchise), but almost everything is ruined by the total over-reliance on CGI. Virtually every explosion, shot of a helicopter et al. is digital and it just looks awful. Things also aren't helped by Stallone (hardly known for his sense of irony) taking the whole thing far too seriously (the script has Arnie saying a version of “Get to da chopper” twice, with no hint of contrariness). On the plus side the start of the film begins with a stupendous performance from Wesley Snipes (yes, you’re reading that correctly), but unfortunately his character is soon just relegated back into the cluster of also-rans. I think the fact that I fell asleep halfway through watching this but, within a minute of waking up, had already worked out what I had missed pretty much tells you this ain't Shakespeare, baby. Rating (both films): 4/10.

Frank

Despite sounding like a rejected member of ABBA, Lenny Abrahamson is an Irish director whose previous low budget films have been generally well received. He steps up a level here with a larger pot to play with and some major names within the cast. The plot is simple mind: Jon (Domhnall Gleeson), an aspiring young musician, joins a band ("You play C, F and G?", "Yeah", "You're in"), travels to Ireland with them to record an album and attempts to raise their profile via social media. However the band is full of eccentric characters meaning Jon and his band "mates" spend as much time arguing as they do putting down tracks. For British fans of surrealist comedy the main draw here will be the sight of band leader Frank (Michael Fassbender) wearing a papier-mache head for the majority of the film a la Chris Sievey's Frank Sidebottom character. However, apart from that striking visual, Abrahamson's film has little connection to Sievey's invention. In fact, what Abrahamson is actually aiming for is slightly unclear as he throws in so many themes (some of them contradictory) the film never quite settles in a sufficient fashion to be narratively coherent. The tone is a bit all over the place at times as well (there's a blackly comic moment where one of the main characters brutally stabs another), but Abrahamson just about pulls the film off by making it oddly endearing throughout. There's some nice digs at the pretentiousness of the music scene and the people who inhabit it (the band are so dysfunctional they don’t even know how to pronounce their own name) and we also get the best ashes gag since The Big Lebowski. If you can't stand indie quirk (cinematically or musically) then this won't be for you, but if you've got Captain Beefheart hidden away somewhere on your iPod then I suspect you'll enjoy this more than the average cinema goer. Rating: 6/10.

Lucy / A Million Ways To Die In The West

Time for a couple of disappointments from Luc Besson and Seth MacFarlane, though with Besson these days would you expect any different? Actually, when I was settling down to watch Lucy, I was thinking its been twenty years since Luc Besson made a decent film and though (in any art) if someone has produced credible past works we tend to forgive their crimes of the present, Leon seems a long time ago now. In fact, for anyone that's seen anything from Besson since that 1994 high point, you'll be unsurprised to hear that Lucy doesn't address the standard Besson stumbling blocks; that of poor acting, incomprehensible scripts and an over-abundance on (usually) poor special effects. What's doubly disappointing about Lucy though is that the first twenty minutes are a riot, what with Scarlett Johansson's innocent worker abroad being caught up in a drug deal and forced to become a mule by having a bag of synthetic drugs sewn into her abdomen. However when the bag bursts her body absorbs such a large quantity of the drug she begins to develop almost supernatural abilities. It's as silly as it sounds and Besson's films always require some serious suspension of disbelief in order to fully enjoy them, but Besson makes the foolish error of playing the whole thing straight faced meaning it becomes inanely nonsensical very quickly and then somehow just gets worse. There was a kernel of an idea in here somewhere, but it would take someone with significantly better skills that Besson to microwave it into something edible. To wit: Besson himself stated that it took ten years for him to get this to the result he put before us. Ten years and this rubbish was the final outcome? At least it's a short film, whereas Seth MacFarlane's A Million Ways To Die In The West starts outstaying it's welcome about twenty minutes in...and there's still another 100 minutes to go. MacFarlane is an acquired taste no doubt, but even his biggest fan would be hard pressed to defend this over long mess of egotistical nonsense camouflaged as a film. For his second feature as director MacFarlane has settled on taking the star role himself, portraying a sheep farmer with a yellow streak a mile wide in late nineteenth century Arizona. Plot machinations mean he becomes involved with the wife (Charlize Theron) of a notorious outlaw (Liam Neeson), whilst also pining after his ex (Amanda Seyfried). MacFarlane throws as many gags (both verbal and visual) at the audience as he can, but virtually none of them find the target. It's not overly offensive (it's as juvenile as you'd expect from MacFarlane). It's just drastically unfunny. There is the very occasional chuckle and Neil Patrick Harris has some fun as a foppish toff, but each problematic road leads back to MacFarlane himself, all starting with the fact that he can't act for toffee and is horribly bland as the leading man. Perhaps its the years of doing voice work having got to him, but this is a horrible misjudgement from MacFarlane, not helped by his terrible direction. Scenes of improvisation, which any director worth his salt would have trimmed in the edit, drag on and on and the whole film suffers from MacFarlane's unfocused leadership and scratchy plot. A number of bizarre cameo's (Ryan Reynolds and Ewan McGregor among them) do little to suggest that this isn't just a jolly for MacFarlane and chums, and whilst it may have looked funny on paper, everyone here should be giving themselves a good talking too. Rating (for both): 3/10.

Guardians Of The Galaxy

Unless you're a real comic aficionado you probably haven't heard of Guardians of the Galaxy, which would go some way to explaining the two vastly different trailers I saw for it. The first portrayed James Gunn's new film as a dry take on the superhero genre, whereas the follow up suggested a more standard family space adventure. Unsurprisingly it turns out to be a mixture of the two, but it raises its head above the waterline by leaning more towards the former, which is a blessed relief in this era of comic book films just for the sake of it (looking at you Marvel - though, irony ahoy, this is actually from Marvel as well). Storyline wise it's a fairly basic space standard, that of a group of misfits thrown together by circumstances beyond their control who team up to defeat evil forces. If you feel you've seen that all before well, you have, but Gunn's direction coupled with his and Nicole Perlman's smart screenplay overcome that by producing a film which is just pure entertainment - in a completely bonkers type way. Gunn is best known for the low-key cult favourites Slither and Super, both films that took a sardonic approach to their specific genres. So it's no surprise then that he was hand picked to provide a light hearted touch to a field that needs to stop taking itself too seriously. The film itself is still epic in scope mind, with a nice blend of practical effects, motion capture and CGI which crucially still lend it an "earthly" feel, though the acting of some of the protagonists is lost amongst the pixels that represent them. The aforementioned misfits are "led" by Chris Pratt, who gives a great performance anchoring the whole film with a routine of heart and comedy. Pratt pitched Quill as a mix of Han Solo and Marty McFly, and that's pretty much what he delivers. On the minus side the plot does get a bit over-stuffed at times and the ending makes little sense, but what with Guardians being one of the more obscure parts of Marvel's back catalogue you don't have time to worry about such things, and if a film can pull off one of the biggest laughs I've heard from an audience this year based on a tree smiling you know you're onto a winner. Perhaps the most impressive thing of all though is that Gunn and co have managed to pull off an almost unbelievable human emotion come the films finale. They've given us a Marvel film where you actually want to see a sequel to it. Rating: 8/10.

Into The Storm

Director Steven Quale's last film was the surprisingly enjoyable Final Destination 5 but, whilst his new film is also about death and destruction, it's a lower certificate outing following a bunch of storm chasers (professional and amateur) documenting a series of tornadoes as they ravage a small US town. The lack of edge is a problem as despite some decent special effects the whole package can't shake the feel of a TV film, not helped by a selection of US small screen stars from such varied shows as Prison Break, The Walking Dead and Veep. There's a family element thrown in in the shape of Richard Armitage's strict dad and the relationship with his sons, but its the carnage we've come to watch, right? The film utilises the now basic staple of telling a large portion of the story from the characters own camera's, smart phones etc, but like most films that do this there isn't really any exact science behind it. Talking of science, there isn't much background or explanation to the storms which might annoy some, but in a film that's only 90 minutes long it really doesn't make much sense to dwell on things you can read about on-line in five minutes. The lower certificate means more mild peril than blood and terror (apart from the only real on-screen death which is somewhat disturbing and I suspect will give the youngest members of the audience a few nightmares), though the safety message seems to be somewhat lost in the mix as at no point do any of the characters shown much respect to the destructive power that tornado's can bring. On that note there's a problem at the end of the film where, after watching death and destruction for ninety minutes in the form of entertainment, we're shown some real news clips of devastated US towns and the effect on its residents. This doesn't really sit very well. Have the producers of this film given any of the revenue over to such causes? I doubt it. Apart from the impressive effects (Unmanned flying 747's! Though why a one horse town in the middle of Oklahoma has what appears to be an international airport in it needs a bit of explanation) there's not much here. Don't worry though Twister fans as, yes, there is a flying cow. Rating: 5/10.

The Babadook

The trailer to Jennifer Kent's low budget The Babadook is as mis-leading as it gets, portraying what appears to be a balls to the wall horror film where a mother and her young son get terrorised by a mysterious creature called Mister Babadook. Obviously from a marketing point of view the film had to be advertised in such a way, but there are actually very few moments of terror throughout the running time, so I can understand how scare veterans have been a bit miffed by being wrong-footed when watching this. However, what the The Babadook (or Baba-duk as the Aussie intonations on show here would have it) is, is a breath of fresh air in these times of constant cinematic gore and jump shocks. The plot concerns widower Amelia (Essie Davis) and her attempts to control her son Samuel's (Noah Wiseman) erratic behaviour following their reading of bedtime book Mister Babadook. It soon becomes a stand-off between the two; Samuel is convinced that Mister Babadook is real and is out to get them. Amelia tries to suppress his outbursts, especially in terms of limiting embarrassment when around her family. However, it isn't long before Amelia herself begins to experience odd events that can't be explained. To say anything more is to give the game away, but though the ending is ambiguous, it becomes fairly clear around halfway through what is really going on. It spoils the film slightly, but it does mean you'll want to go back for a further viewing just to confirm the theory. I always like to give the benefit of the doubt to debut directors and Kent knows what she's doing here in manipulating abiding suburban anxiety in which the hint of supernatural gives voice to the real fears and anxieties of an individuals psyche. The actual "horror" in the film comes from Kent's script where she addresses the unfeeling side of human nature from adults who haven't experienced bereavement of a loved one not understanding why people "just can't get on with things" to some of the worst verbal taunting that children spit at each other. Though there's also some moments of high comedy, particularly when social services come round to check on Samuel's well being. Davis and Wiseman are both great in the lead roles, their love for each other shining through, even in some of the film's most disturbing moments. Overall this won't be for everyone and the ending is a bit limp. However, if you're after a film that contains a scene involving the most unsettling pop up book you'll ever see then this is for you. Oh yeah and clear your throat as well. All together now: "Ba Ba Doooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkk...". Rating: 8/10.

Begin Again

John Carney is the writer director of the much admired Once, so it's no surprise that Begin Again (wisely ditching its clunky original title of Can A Song Save Your Life?) shares plenty of DNA with that effort but, despite a larger budget and more starry cast, it doesn't lose the charm of his debut feature. When boozed up, down on his luck music exec Dan (Mark Ruffalo) stumbles upon female singer songwriter (no wait, come back!) Greta (Keira Knightly – again, keep with me) in a New York bar, they eventually agree to collaborate on an album of songs to be recorded out in the open air of the Big Apple.  Told partially in flashback we also have a story strand that follows Greta’s arrival in NYC with rising crooner boyfriend Dave (Adam Levine of Maroon 5 fame – of course I knew that) up to how she ended up on said night out that leads to the two main protagonists meeting up. Some things don’t work (especially Dan’s interactions with his estranged wife and daughter), but there’s lots to enjoy here, from a scene where Dan first spies Greta playing in a bar and envisions her with a back up band represented by instruments playing by themselves to the script which has a few cracking zingers (at one point Greta says her cat enjoys her songs because it purrs, to which Dan responds “Maybe it's booing”). The songs dotted throughout the film also hit home and, even if soft rock isn’t your thing, you’ll do well to not tap your foot along to a cracking New York roof top jam towards the end. On the performance front Knightly has been a punch bag for virtually everything she's ever done (usually justifiably), but here she's excellent and can certainly hold a note. Ruffalo is well case as the shabby, but enthusiastic Dan, and James Cordon is good fun in a small supporting part as one of Greta’s best friends. Not so great is Levine, who can play the rock star quite well (natch), but doesn't have much depth beyond that and the less said about the moronic Cee Lo Green popping up as a rapper client of Dan’s the better. I would say his performance is ironically mockful, but that would be being kind. The “sticking it to the man” ending is a bit naff, but when a film based around music makes you want to pick up an instrument and / or listen to your MP3 as soon as you get home, you know it’s done a good job. Rating: 8/10.

Black Coal, Thin Ice / The Keeper Of Lost Causes / Betibu / The Golden Bug

Somewhat falling behind again (as usual) with the reviews so time for a quick round up of four foreign language productions that have recently graced our shores, starting off with Diao Yinan’s Golden Bear bothering Black Coal, Thin Ice. This has a great start what with the discovery of human body parts at numerous different coal factories, a police arrest which is botched by the sudden appearance of a hidden gun (a brilliant piece of direction by Yinan, going from 0 to 100mph in just a few seconds) and a great tracking shot that moves us from the POV of a car to a motorcycle, whilst also indicating the passing of five years. It falls apart very quickly though after that as any intrigue and detective work is jettisoned for following ex-cop Zhang (Liao Fan) and his mooching (well obsessive mooching…and not the good kind either) after pretty laundrette employee Wu (Gwei Lun-Mei), who may or may not be tied into the whole nasty business. There’s some other sumptuous shots (particularly in many of the cold and snowy outdoor scenes), but it’s all too slow and the outcome to the mystery makes little sense with the final scene trying to peak interest which you will have long since lost (though it does explain the films Chinese title of Daylight Fireworks at least). Moving on we have a couple of films that may have had cinema releases despite the fact they would probably work best on the small screen. A couple of years ago you couldn’t throw a Danish Blue at a cinema screen without hitting a Scandinavian thriller or drama, but things have trailed off a little since then. So it’s good to see that The Keeper Of Lost Causes carries on where others have left off with this solid (though not spectacular) policer. When Danish policeman Morck (played by familiar BBC4 face Nikolaj Lie Kass) bungles an operation he is re-assigned to solving cold cases and given a new partner in the shape of coffee loving Assad (Fares Fares - not a typo). All the standards are here (awkward relationship with son, cultural differences between the partners, badges revoked etc.), but it still holds the attention due to the intriguing case they investigate concerning the disappearance of a politician from a passenger ferry. Director Mikkel Norgard moves things along briskly enough and though there are the pre-requisite shots of the cold and murky unforgiving Danish countryside, this isn't really cinematic enough to convince it wouldn't work better on the small screen. That's by the by though as the follow up has already been filmed, which will at least be interesting to see if it moves into something a little less formulaic. Plus, lets hope the poster for the new film will make a bit more sense than this one, which has the protagonists standing on a scrapheap looking like two well dressed relatives of Stig of The Dump. Also struggling to persuade that the cinema is it's optimum premium is the Argentinian release Betibu. It's billed as being from the producers of The Secret In Their Eyes (arguably the greatest film of the last five years), but this is a long way off that masterpiece. When a successful businessman is found dead in an upmarket neighbourhood, two local journos and a well known novelist team up to get to the bottom of things, but before long other bodies begin to pile up. The mystery part of the film works well, but the script is quite disheartening in its portrayal of how the two sexes get on and the ending goes around in circles with it's grubby depiction of virtually everyone being corrupt and untrustworthy. Finally we have the crushingly unfunny The Golden Bug. Not to be too harsh on (what appears to be) a first time director's effort, there's a difference between making a film for a wider audience and one that only you and your mates will find entertaining. The latter is what we have here when an Argentinian film crew attempt to subvert a European film production by sneakily moving the production to a location where they believe there is buried treasure. Even taking the unwritten filmic suspension of disbelief into account, the premise is ludicrous (why don't the Europeans just do a simple search on the internet to see they're being taken for a ride?). There probably was a decent film to be found in here somewhere, but something has clearly got lost in the translation of this joint Argentinian-Danish-Swedish effort and the cheap production values coupled with the same gags every five minutes just make for a hugely disappointing experience. There’s a chance of course that the whole film could redeem itself with some sort of Planet of the Apes-esque shock twist at the end. Not that I could tell you though, as I (along with many others) had already left by then. Black Coal Rating: 5/10. Causes Rating: 6/10. Betibu Rating: 6/10. The Golden Bug Rating: 2/10.

Noah

So Russell Crowe is portraying a historical figure who, at one point in this film, wields a knife and marches menacingly towards a young girl holding a new born child with the intention of a bit of baby killing. The character in question? Genghis Khan, perhaps? No, it’s Noah. You may have already guessed that Darren Aronofsky’s latest film isn’t quite as a straight forward telling of one of the Bibles signature moments as you might expect. Having said that, the tale of Noah needs some fleshing out if you’re going to make it into a full length feature film (the actual story itself takes up a surprisingly small amount of space within the Bible and omits such details as Noah’s wife’s name), though you can’t help but chuckle that Paramount were having to put disclaimers in cinemas stating that “artistic license has been taken”. License or not, this is a pretty awful film. Christian groups may have welcomed the film and it’s message, but that’s a different factor than the actual quality on show for a paying audience. In effect this is Aronofsky’s interpretation of Noah and he can't be faulted in some areas. The look of the ark is surprisingly unconventional compared to it's usual standard depictions and you can't deny that Aronofsky and Crowe make their assessment of Noah, as a bloody-minded stubborn man who will let nothing get in his way of worship and the job he believes he must do, extremely convincing. The rest is complete gubbins though, highlighted by "The Watchers". Ah yes, The Watchers. They are explained away as "fallen angels" and in the film they are represented as gigantic stone golems who help build the ark and, in scenes where you may suspect Michael Bay has made a guest appearance, protect (and kill) anyone trying to rush the ark. They are utterly ludicrous and it's hardly surprising that they were not shown at all in the trailer. The fact that Aronofsky and Paramount argued over the final cut tells you all you need to know really, though I bet the suits were wishing they could have cut all of Emma Watson's scenes. She is dire and whenever she appears on screen you want one of the (very unconvincing) CGI animals to gobble her up as a snack. What could have been a biblical epic is just cinematic incomprehensible rubbish. The novelist Fay Weldon was once asked why she kept writing books. She replied: “To make amends for the last one.” Better start your new project soon, Darren. Rating: 4/10.

Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes

Virtually nothing was expected of 2011's Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, so the fact it turned out to be one of the best films of the last few years was a joyous surprise both for the cinema goer and, crucially for their planned reboot of the Apes series, 20th Century Fox. Therefore, we now have the follow up film. The problem is though that expectations have been raised and new director Matt Reeves (following on from the impressive Rupert Wyatt) can't deliver a product which lives up to the previous outing. Storyline wise we're now ten years on from the previous film and, following a world wide pandemic which has annihilated the human population, we explore the interactions between a number of human survivors and the disease free apes. After a nice start showing the apes hunting some prey, the films pace slows to a crawl and never recovers. The first hour is basically spent telling the audience that apes have feelings too which, for those that know their evolution (i.e. anyone with a brain) is hardly a shocking revelation. With far too much time spent on dialogue the set pieces need to deliver and, surprisingly for Reeves who has decent form in this area, he can't produce the required goods. In fact the set pieces are a good marker to use when describing all aspects of the film: passable, but Rise did it better. For example, whereas in the last film the sight of Caesar emerging from the San Franciscan fog atop a horse was a truly breathtaking moment, the equivalent scene here of a ape charging into battle sitting on a steed whilst firing two machine guns just looks ludicrously silly. On the plus side there are a couple of scenes of impressive tension (with the now somewhat already infamous moment of a when an ape murders a couple of humans a nice draft of how to build up tension in a scene where it's already implicit what the end result is going to be), but they are few and far between. Script wise this lacks the emotional impact that the last film had between Caesar and his human "family" and there's a lack of a strong female character. Overall, when watching this it feels like there's a film in between Rise and Dawn that they just forgot to make or that we're actually just picking up the story on disc five of a ten disc DVD box set. The film ends on a mesmerising and menacing close up shot of Caesar's baby blues as he contemplates what the future holds but, as with the original franchise, it looks like this storyline has run its course already. Rating: 5/10.

The Raid 2

Gareth Evans didn't pay much attention to plot or character development in his surprise 2011 hit The Raid. It was mainly all about lashings of claret and some of the most bonkers action scenes seen since John Woo was in his prime. For this follow up Evans has a much broader canvas on which to paint his violent masterpieces, but the film gets stuck between telling a fuller story and Evans trying to throw in as many outrageous moments as he can. This sequel starts off but a few hours following the end of the last film, but the uninitiated will be able to pick up what’s going on as this is basically an undercover cop in the criminal underworld type deal. This is a frustrating film from Evans. At times he’s a skilled operator behind the camera (some of his swooping tracking shots are reminiscent of Wells and Scorsese) and whist the sub-plots of feuding between gangs and family’s are old hat in gangster films, the script has enough to distract you from the over the top action. To that action then; this is where the film (unless you’re a card-carrying genre fan) falls down. Despite some great moments fight fatigue sets in well before the end and it’s all a bit silly in parts (a scene of hammer mayhem on a train is where the film comes dangerously close to parody). Plus it’s hard for Evans to deny this isn’t just violence for violence’s sake, especially an infamous shotgun head shot that is shown in such hideous detail it’s really only gone in for shock value. Throw in other negatives like Iko Uwais’ performance (he can certainly kick bottom, but his thesping leaves a lot to be desired) and odd plot devices like the one involving a bug which is so huge it wouldn’t look out of place in a 1960’s episode of Mission: Impossible, you’ll begin to wonder if these films are getting better critical plaudits than they actually deserve. Still, if you like films that involve scenes of bloody murder involving characters called such things as “Hammer Girl” and “Baseball Bat Man”, then step right this way. Rating: 6/10.

Calvary

After the fantastic The Guard, John Michael McDonagh’s follow up has been eagerly anticipated. Be warned though that Calvary is a change in style and tone from his directorial debut that may leave some disappointed. Teaming up again with Brendan Gleeson, we kick off with a verbal assault on the ears as during a confessional an unseen parishioner explains to Father Lavelle (Gleeson) that he was sexually abused by a priest when he was child and that he will take revenge on the Catholic Church by killing Lavelle the following Sunday. Lavelle pretty much takes the threat in his stride and the film follows him as he goes about his business for the week, mixing and speaking to a number of eclectic people that are resident in the town. Gleeson is great as always, but the film gets a bit lost in its addressing of it’s weighty issues. McDonagh has said he made this film as he wanted to tell the story of a “good” priest, which in effect he has done, but the constant church bashing gets tiresome, highlighted by a forced scene where a father “protects” his lost daughter from the kindly Lavelle. It’s more dramatic than funny (though the occasion moments do produce some hearty guffaws), but the storyline doesn’t hook you like it should due to the slow pacing and a cast of mainly unlikable characters. McDonagh has a way with a script though and the films conclusion will certainly play on your emotions. Throw is some beautiful cinematography and the end result is an above average production overall but, unlike The Guard, this is unlikely to warrant further viewings. On that note it’s rumoured that McDonagh is teaming up with Gleeson for a third time for a film where Gleeson will play a paraplegic ex-copper who hates able-bodied people. Now that sounds a bit more like it…..Rating: 7/10.

Locke

I read a hilarious review of Locke just after I had seen it in which the person was complaining that 50% of the film is taken up with discussions about concrete. Frankly, they're not too far wrong. To explain further, the film follows construction manager Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) as he attempts to supervise a large concrete pour planned for the next day. Now, when I say follows, this is the crux of the matter, as Steven Knight's film takes place entirely inside Locke's car. It's hardly a revelatory approach and there's that famous film quote (well the quote that isn't the one about the gun and the girl) which says that all you need to produce a film is a camera, a light and an actor. Knight is most well known for being the co-creator of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, though he has also written many a screenplay as well as having one previous film (the little seen Hummingbird) as director under his belt. Knight's script (plus Hardy's solid performance - not sure about the Welsh accent mind) just about keeps this on the right side of entertaining, with Locke taking numerous phone calls as both his personal and professional lives unravel. On that note, Knight gives even screen time to each of Locke's problems, but his domestic issues hardly set the film alight (not helped by them all being Locke's own fault). More fun is had with his manic attempts to organise the concrete pour, especially his comic conversations with colleague Donal (Andrew Scott). On that note you can have fun trying to decipher the actors voices popping up on the hands free as the film progresses (Scott sounded so much like Chris O'Dowd I had to do a double take when the end credits came up). Apart from that there isn't much else here to hold the attention and even with a short running time this feels like it's outstaying its welcome well before the end. However, if you fancy seeing something different then give this a chance - Blockbuster fans need not apply. Rating: 6/10.

The Double

For his directorial debut Richard Ayoade adapted Joe Dunthorne’s Submarine with critical success. For his follow up feature he’s also turned to a literary source, that of Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Double. Dostoyevsky’s work splits people who read it and there’s no real agreed analysis as to what the final interpretation should be. Though Ayoade’s film doesn’t actually stick all that closely to it’s source material, I think the diagnosis will be the same i.e. enjoyably confusing, but somewhat ruined by its ambiguity. Due to the success of Submarine, Ayoade has a stronger cast to play with here with Jesse Eisenberg and Mia Wasikowska taking the lead roles. Well, I say “leads”, but it’s Eisenberg who does most of the heavy lifting. We follow Simon James (Eisenberg), a sad sack employee in a nameless and soulless organisation, who’s duty of going to visit his frail mother and from-a-distance yearning for his colleague Hannah (Wasikowska) the only things lifting him out of his drones existence. Soon enough though things take a turn for the bizarre when a doppelganger of James (called James Simon – also played by Eisenberg) shows up at his place of work and becomes everything James is not, i.e. a hit with colleagues and, much to James’ chagrin, Hannah. Where it goes from there would be too spoiler-rific, but this is one of those classic productions where the good and minus points pretty much even themselves out and you’re left with something that is good as opposed to great. Eisenberg clearly has fun playing both parts and there are amusing cameos from a number of people, not least Sally Hawkins in a blink and miss it role at a party and (rejoice!) the lesser spotted Chris Morris as a member of personnel with a Catch 22 approach to giving someone a new ID card. Script wise things don’t really click mind (the constant references to the red tape and bureaucracy that hold James back wear thin), not helped by James being so wet you just think he deserves all he gets when Simon start to exploit him. Things are better on the aesthetics side of things and James’ place of work is nicely realised with a set design that is a bland and dreary Kafka-esque nightmare, though some may find it a rip off of Brazil. Ayoade is already known as being somewhat of a cineaste when it comes to being behind the camera and he does some nice work here, including a great Hitchcockian moment when James, whilst spying on Hannah through a telescope, spots a man on a ledge who waves at him and then promptly jumps off. Overall: Enjoyable, but a backwards step for Ayoade from Submarine. Rating: 6/10.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier / The Amazing Spider-Man 2 / X-Men: Days of Future Past

I’m bunging these latest Marvel films (stop yawning at the back) together as its the perfect opportunity to make an overall comment on the films that make the big bucks these days and their, in the main, lack of quality. I read a great article recently comparing the box office hits of 1984 with what we have this year. The roll call for 1984 is barely believable: Gremlins, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom, Beverley Hills Cop, The Karate Kid, Romancing The Stone, The Neverending Story, A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Terminator. Now granted not all those films are bona fide classics or appeal to everyone, but there's a wide mixture of genres in there and how many households worldwide don't have a least a couple of them resting on their DVD shelves? Now compare that list to three of the top five films (in terms of box-office returns) so far this year: X-Men: Days of Future Past, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. In effect, just further churning out of the same old same old, with only the law of averages meaning every now and then we get a great film. The usual defence is that if these films really were so bad people wouldn’t go and see them, but for a long time now (Hello, Michael Bay) the connection between quality and returns is a fractured and unquantifiable one. I won’t deny that part of my moan comes about as a generational thing, but even the staunchest comic book fan would be hard pressed in keeping a straight face in claiming that any of these films are ones for the annals. Lets start with the best of these three, that being the return of Chris Evans as Steve Rogers in the somewhat grammatically misleading (what the film and you’ll understand) Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Director’s Anthony and Joe Russo’s last film was, ahem, You, Me and Dupree so I can only assume they got the gig here as the production was running short on coin. However, this is a fine effort, especially when you consider that the plot itself is as old as they come (there’s a spy in the ranks, but people believe it to be Capt himself). There’s a sleekness to their direction and many of the set pieces are short and sharp, plus we get arguably the funniest Stan Lee cameo yet. Producer Kevin Feige’s talk that this is modelled on classic 1970’s political thrillers doesn’t hold true though (despite casting Robert Redford!) and the talk of practical effects over CGI has to be taken with a serious pinch of salt. However, the little touches just about see this one home, especially in the form of the “Catch-Up” list that Cap refers to at the start of the film. Depending on what territory and country you’re watching in, the list varies to reflect the culture of the area. Hmm, if it’s not included as one of the DVD extra’s, I can already see geeks worldwide trying to get their hands on all the different versions in order to complete their Marvel collections. Moving on to The Amazing Spider-Man 2, being the sequel to an unamazing film to start with. this didn’t have to do much to be an improvement on its predecessor. It’s a shame then that despite a step up in quality, they really haven’t done much to get there. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone put in the requisite effort so hats off to them, but the rest of the film is mainly a large blur of effects and the film suffers from what was eventually Sam Raimi’s undoing with its introduction of character after character. The narrative can’t cope and we move from different storyline to different storyline with no real structure underpinning the whole thing. Keeping in line with it’s lighter approach than other’s within the Marvel stable there are a few nice one-liners, but it’s unclear from the rest of the cast (Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti, Dane DeHann – who appears to be getting typecast as a nutter for hire early on in his career) whether they should be knowingly hamming it up or not. It’s all too one dimensional and sluggish, summed up by the Stan Lee cameo which appears to have been thought up in a thirty second brainstorm in a break between filming. It’s odd then that the film finishes with such an emotional and weighty gut-punch. Even with this surprising development, it doesn’t alter the impression that the film makers are just happy to settle on what’s tried and trusted box office wise, rather than putting effort into giving us something different. Such accusations of laziness also hold true against X-Men: Days of Future Past. Nice title aside, this brings little originality to the party and comes across as a quasi-“X-Men: The Greatest Hits”. The main problem the film has is that it’s time travel premise is old hat and all the stock scenes are here (i.e. the time-traveller waking up in a strange place; having to convince the person that sent him through time that it was them that sent them etc.) that you would expect to find in films that have a similar concept. Director Bryan Singer apparently spent ages revising time travel and related japery such as string theory, but has somewhat missed the point that it’s all (currently, for you facetious types out there) a load of balls anyway. X-Men: First Class was surprisingly enjoyable for such a late entry in a film series, with the “re-boot” in the form of the new actors involved being the main reason. Here though it appears the well of ideas has quickly run dry, highlighted by the fact the film can’t find a balance between the “old” and “new” X-Men. Throw in the fact there’s no real villain and bizarre scripting decisions (at one point we’re introduced to a mutant who has such super fast speed he seems to be the saviour of all problems, but he suddenly disappears from the film for no apparent reason) and you can see why original director Matthew Vaughn did a runner early on. So, going back to my original discussion, will any of these films have the longevity of 1984’s crop and will we be watching any of them in 2044? I’d say about as much chance as me sitting through the end credits of any of these films to catch any additional scenes. America Rating: 7/10. Spidey Rating: 5/10. X-Men Rating: 5/10.

Rio 2

Back by popular demand! Sorry, back by contractual demand, Jesse Eisenberg and Anne Hathaway reprise their roles as the blue macaws from 2011's Rio, a film that was enjoyable enough, but certainly doesn't warrant a sequel. Money talks though and so here we are. This time the macaws make their way into the Amazon to help out other members of their species, though it mainly comes across as an animated version of Meet The Parents. It's all pretty lazy with Carlos Saldanha's direction lurching from dull to head-spinning with no rhyme or reason and all the voice actors sounding like their just going through the motions (Eisenberg's whiny shtick really starts to grate in films like this). Kids will love it, but there's nothing here for adults unless you want to decipher exactly what the film is about. Numerous plots and messages run throughout, but it's a complete mess, highlighted by the producers dropping an eco-message of serious contradictions into the script in respect of logging. The denouement involves the birds and other animals of the rain forest protecting their precious land from loggers and developers. Why are these events occurring in the first place, though? Ah yes, because the human population is growing at an unsustainable rate and so more natural resources need to be destroyed to cope with the demand. In effect, the film's target audience is what's causing the destruction of our land. Nice one Blue Sky Studios. Overall this should have been a straight to DVD release, but if you've got kids you want to keep distracted for a couple of hours, then you won't really go wrong with this. Rating: 5/10.

Starred Up

The list of excellent prison movies is a long one and the low budget Starred Up is the latest new entrant into that particular roll call of honour. David Mackenzie’s film follows Eric (Jack O’Connell) as he’s “starred up” (being moved ahead of schedule from a Young Offenders Institute to an adult prison – so now you know) and how he integrates into his new surroundings. With a bang is probably the best way to describe it, as no sooner has he put his bag of belongings down in his cell a misinterpretation of events ends up with Eric putting someone into the infirmary. Things are made more complicated for Eric in the fact that his father Neville (Ben Mendelsohn) is also in the same prison wing. Much like Jacques Audiard’s excellent A Prophet, the reason for Eric’s incarceration is only briefly mentioned, but the message is clear – this boy (now man) is a caged tiger. Though most recently seen getting lost amongst the CGI in the dire 300: Rise of an Empire, if you know your low budget British films you’ll more likely recognise O’Connell from such fare as Harry Brown and Eden Lake. He usually plays unlovable angry characters, but here he’s channelled that aggression into something of more substance. Despite his quick hands and arrogant swagger, it’s clear he’s been sculpted this way due to his upbringing and you can’t help root for him. Jonathan Assers script is based on his own experiences working in a prison as a therapist, so whilst it does heavily skew at time towards the inmates sitting on plastic chairs talking about the feelings, its pretty sharp all the way through with nods to both addressing the relationship between Eric and Neville and the usual grind through the official and unofficial prison hierarchy. On that note, you get to see Sam Spruell as the Deputy Governor of the prison, a man born with a face to play such a sneering role. Yes, it is grim at times (hey, it’s a British prison film), but there are some moment of humour thrown in, not least when father and son are pulled from their cells and embark on a stream of sweary insults that would please Malcolm Tucker. There are some negatives. Mendelsohn’s character is meant to be one of the daddies (though not the daddy), but he comes across a bit of a snivelling buffoon and Rupert Friend’s position (as a quasi con-counsellor – obviously the Assers role) is never fully explained. Plus, the film does slip into prison movie clichés at times (shower attacks, bent Screws etc), but the argument against that would be that it’s a film set in a prison, so what else would you be expecting to see? MacKenzie’s direction is palm-sweatingly claustrophobic and despite the father-son dynamic he never lets things dip into over-sentimentality. Plus, when MacKenzie holds the shot of the final scene of Eric disappearing through a revolving door, you really do wonder what route in life the young man will eventually end up taking. Mackenzie’s CV has been middling so far, but this will burn brightly from it for many a year to come. Rating: 8/10.

Labor Day

So, Labor Day. A film following the exploits of Ed Milliband as he goes about his daily grind? Or a snapshot of a day in the life of a hospitals maternity ward? Ah, no. This is the US kind of labor, though there is little hard graft on show in Jason Reitman’s drama unless you find cooking peach pies particularly taxing. Based on Joyce Maynard’s novel of the same name, we follow single mum Adele (Kate Winslet), who when out on a shopping trip with her son is accosted by a injured stranger (Josh Brolin) and forced to take him back to her house. Alice and rugrat soon discover that their new guest, Frank, is in fact an escaped convict. From the poster you can guess the rest. Yep, Frank becomes a father figure to the boy and Adele and Frank fall for each other. It’s all fairly straight forward, though there are a couple of mysteries that the script keeps well hidden in the form of what crime Frank was actually convicted of (shown in flashback with Tom Lipinski bearing an incredible resemblance to a young Brolin) and as the neighbours and townsfolk grow ever more suspicious of Adele and Franks actions you genuinely don’t know what the final outcome for them will be. Reitman is one of the more reliable directors around, but his wont of mixing up his genres from film to film fails him here as there isn’t enough going on to overlook the implausibility of the script. It’s hinted that Alice suffers from depression, but its never addressed to the point that intimates she’s so lonely that she would allow a threat like Frank into her life. Plus despite being set in 1987 the look and feel is a lot more contemporary than that. The film shares its DNA with Clint Eastwood's vastly superior A Perfect World, so if you’ve seen that you don’t need to bother with this. Probably best filed under: “If you like this sort of thing….”. Rating: 6/10.

Muppets Most Wanted / 22 Jump Street

Though Muppets Most Wanted isn't a sequel per se (it's actually the eighth Muppet film all in all) it has a similar approach to 22 Jump Street when addressing how follow up films can better what came previously. That is, they just blatantly say they can't and what you're about to watch is basically the same as what you paid for last time out. Hell, the Muppets film even starts with a song and dance number addressing this exact point. It's a risky approach and, the intentional irony aside, the self-prophecy soon comes true. Starting with the puppets first, the last film was a right barrel of laughs, helped in no end by the decision to have many of the chuckles based on a self-referential basis. This film follows the same approach, with the gags dotted around the plot which involves the Muppets getting unintentionally mixed up in a number of jewel heists thanks to a Kermit the Frog lookalike. Director James Bobin returns and does a steady job, but the film misses the affection that Jason Siegel's input into the last script bought to the previous outing and this feels more like we're just going through the motions, not helped by a ridiculous number of pointless and unfunny cameos (Lady Gaga is literally in it for about three seconds). On the plus side Ty Burrell is great as a French Interpol agent, Tina Fey looks pleased to be doing something other than 30 Rock and it's hard to be totally against a film starring Kermit and Co, especially one that throws in a reference to Park Chan-wook's Oldboy! Moving on to 22 Jump Street, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are Hollywood's current golden boys, but even they falter somewhat here with the "wink-wink-it's the same plot" approach (this time Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill are trying to infiltrate a drugs ring in college as opposed to high school). Using irony as the excuse of repeating the same storyline over again can't cover the laziness of the approach of Hill and Michael Bacall's treatment. On the plus side, though it lacks the smarts of Lord and Miller's previous work, it just about falls on the right side of the line due to still being very funny in parts, particularly during the end credits which are utterly hilarious and have had more thought put into them than the whole script of most Hollywood comedies. There's also a great gag revolving round the mis-pronunciation of Cate Blanchett and nobody does a better unimpressed face than Ice Cube. Basically, it's a case of if you like 21 you'll like 22, but this is vastly inferior to the original film with great moments counter-balanced by too many segments that fall flat. An extra mark mind for those cracking end credits. Muppets Rating: 6/10. Jump Rating: 7/10.

Under The Skin

A film where Scarlett Johansson plays an alien who picks up hitchhiker's and then harvests their skins? Hmmm..sounds kinda intriguing. What's that? You get to see Scarjo in the nuddy? Sold! Cynicism aside re that second point, this is a tough watch for anyone unless, like Monty Python once said, you're the type of person "...who talks loudly in restaurants". From it's bizarre 2001-style opening, Jonathan Glazer's latest film moves along in slow motion and just never gets going. Glazer's background is mainly in music videos and commercials and he struggles with this longer format of entertainment. Much has been made of the guerrilla style of filming Glazer used in making this (Johansson basically interacting with unsuspecting members of the public via hidden cameras), but that can't compensate for a lack of substance. What saves it from being a total disaster though is Johansson's superb performance and the actual portrayal of the difficulty of an alien trying to fit in to contemporary society is nicely realised. Plus, the way the unsuspecting humans are killed is different than the usual "killed by zappers" and somewhat queasy to watch (think implosion and innards). You'll also elicit a wry smile as well when you think of foreign audiences trying to decipher some of the molten thick Glaswegian accents. Things aren't helped along the way though by the obtrusive score that is so over the top it elicited a few unintentional laughs in the screening I was in. Glazer's approach has obviously been less is more, which works up to a point, though the script is far too clunky, shown up by a key moment in the film where the alien appears to want to understand humanity, but the first person she stumbles across happens to be an opportunist rapist! So, will this be remembered as an intriguing study of an outsiders perspective on the human condition? Or will it be known as that dull arse film where Scarlett Johanssen drives around Scotland in a van and not much happens? I suspect it will be the latter. Rating: 6/10.

300: Rise Of An Empire / Pompeii

It's double review time again, this time the tenuous link being swords, sandals, computer generated imagery and, er, history. Starting off with 300: Rise Of An Empire, director Noam Murro's (no me neither) film is the the follow up to Zack Snyder’s seriously over-rated 300, though it actually takes place around the same time of the battle depicted in that film. To go into plot, characters etc. would take forever, but it's basically 300 again, though this time mainly set at sea. There's clunky dialogue, male characters who all look alike (apart from one who looks like Zlatan Ibrahimović) and 99% special effects. So, as you were then basically. Though this time there's also a sex scene so bizarre it genuinely looks like it's been cut in from a soft porno. If you like hacking and slashing there’s plenty of red stuff on show (at one point someone's head meets a horses hoof with very squelchy results), but it does little to challenge the preconception that once you've seen one CGI slicing with a sword you've seen them all. On the plus side Eva Green is good fun as the main baddie and some of the battles at sea are genuinely ingenious with one including the most surprising appearance of a horse since Caesar climbed aboard one in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. In the end though there's nothing here to suggest that this was more than just a sequel for sequel's sake and the whole thing just lacks soul. Murro was slated to direct A Good Day To Die Hard, but dropped out to direct this. Looks like he would have lost either way. Anyway, moving on it’s Paul W. S. Anderson time! Settle down there at the back. Anderson easily makes the short list for worst director of the last twenty years but, much like a broken clock still showing the correct time twice a day, occasionally he gives us something that isn't actually all that bad. The anomaly this time is Pompeii which, despite appearances, just about sneaks into the guilty pleasure bracket. The basic storyline is as old as Pompeii itself, as a boy from the wrong side of the tracks (in this case a slave played by Kit Harington) catches the eye of a girl (Emily Browning as the daughter of a city ruler) from a social standing miles above him. Will true love prevail, not only over the social divide, but also over a volcano in a very bad mood indeed? The thing about disaster films is that you can’t just show a load of death and destruction without a human element to engage the audience and, though they're written pretty thinly, Anderson makes us care about the characters. Browning and Harington will probably only appeal to certain demographics of the audience, but for the rest of use we can enjoy Kiefer Sutherland (who at times sports an accent that is so bizarre it looks as if he’s attempting an impression of Anthony Hopkins whilst wearing a gum shield), clearly having great fun as a Roman Senator and his dry comment when watching a re-enactment of a slaughter during a gladiatorial smack down provides the film with a high moment of subtle laughter amongst all the mayhem. Though Anderson has received lots of praise for the historical accuracy of the Pompeii he's put on screen and the depiction of the eruption of Vesuvius itself (when the old girl finally erupts its an impressive moment and nicely pitched dramatically) you get the feeling that (though morally not really all that on), for once he isn't taking things too seriously himself either. 300 Rating: 5/10. Pompeii Rating: 7/10.

The Lego Movie

Phil Lord and Chris Miller have only been around for a few years, but they already have some serious pedigree. First up was 2009's under seen but widely praised Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs. Next they gave us one of the best comedies of recent years with 21 Jump Street and, lets be honest, who saw that coming. Recently they've given us the worthy Brooklyn Nine-Nine television series, but now they return to their computer animated cinematic roots with The Lego Movie which, despite not hitting the heights of their earlier output, still has enough original thoughts and laugh out loud moments to make it one of the films of the year so far. The storyline is as standard (basically good vs evil) as it is gets, so lets concentrate on other aspects. First up are the visuals which, despite being computer animated, have been done in such a way that it comes across as stop motion, deftly reflecting the way you would use Lego piece by piece in reality. It's a smart touch. In respect of the humour it's Lord and Millers usual mix of jokes for the adults (there's plenty of satire in here, mainly based on the characters happiness about everything - see (or hear) the films signature tune - "Everything Is Awesome") and colourful mayhem for kids. Lord and Miller also utilise the physical traits of the Lego characters in a number of imaginative ways (Liam Neeson is a police officer who has a two-sided head which means he literally changes between Good Cop / Bad Cop) and nostalgia abounds in many places, not least with the appearance of the astronaut figure with worn-out logo and broken helmet. The film does have couple of problems though. The first is that it's just too manic for it's own good and things start to get exhausting rather than staying constantly thrilling (and on that note some of the action scenes are so briskly edited it's hard to tell what's going on - listen out for a Wilhelm Scream though!). Secondly. and somewhat spoiling the whole party, the ending is truly terrible as we partially enter the "real" world in order to tie up a number of plot points. No doubt it happens due to what must have been agreed with the Lego company itself (and its marketing concerns) in the pre-filming negotiations, but it means the production limps over the finish line. Rating: 7/10.

Need For Speed

Though he's appeared in a few films over the years, now that Breaking Bad has ended it's time for Aaron Paul to properly kick start his big screen career. One of his new vehicles (sorry) is Need For Speed, which has Paul (who appears to have been spending his Bad wages at McDonalds) starring as a street racer who, stop me if you've heard this one before, is framed for a crime he did not commit and on release drives cross-country on a mission of revenge. Or something like that. The plot is basically a side issue here as it's all about the cars and I'm sure petrol heads will get their fix from what's on show. In addition, there's good news for anyone who is moaning about the quieter F1 engines as this film is loud, loud, loud. Comparisons with Fast and Furious can't be ignored, but whereas that series spectacularly floundered as soon as it went computer effects heavy, the film makers here have gone with practical effects and it adds some metal bending realism and genuine danger to the proceedings. Paul (though not really having much to do) is solid enough, with his laid back style of acting evoking (intentionally or not) the road movies of the 1960's and 1970's, but the supporting cast is hit and miss. Imogen Poots provides some sass as Paul's front seat passenger and Rami Malek gets the best job quitting scene in years. Less enjoyable is Scott Mescudi who is irritating beyond belief, playing the sort of wise cracking smart ass that can only best be described as a Berkshire Hunt. If there's a more annoying character put on celluloid this year we'll all be very unlucky indeed. Director Scott Waugh previously only had the critically panned Act of Valor under his belt. He does a better job here but, at the end of the day, isn't this just an amalgamation of all of the Smokey and the Bandit films? Rating: 6/10.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

I've said this before about Wes Anderson, but there can't be a film maker alive today who's idiosyncratic style is so paramount you can tell who the director is within thirty seconds of the film beginning. For The Grand Budapest Hotel it takes about five seconds. The rest you know. Kitsch sets. The lock-pan-lock camera movements. The mix of live action and (knowingly) obvious special effects. The ensemble cast. This is quintessential Anderson all the way. Arguably, it's also the most audience accessible film he's ever given us, with word of mouth helping to contribute to its impressive box office return. Overall though, it's just more fun than what you'd expect from Anderson. Set in a fictional European state in the the early 1930's we follow Ralph Fiennes as concierge Gustave in the aforementioned hotel, who finds himself framed for murder following his inheritance of one of his guests valuable paintings. As this is Anderson you'll be unsurprised to hear there's a lot more going on as well, but Gustave's storyline is the focal point and rightfully so. Fiennes is hilarious and gives one of his best turns for years, portraying Gustave as a proud man with an eye to detail and a loyalty to all those around him, but it's the moments of touching insecurity and cheerfully comic swearing that really add to the performance. On the aesthetic front Anderson's use of models and hand painted back drops is a nice compliment to the old fashioned setting. Throw in some surprising moments of gore and some laugh out loud one-liners and you start to wonder where this side of Anderson has been hiding. It's not all gravy though. The marketing has made use of its wide cast, but many actors (virtually all Anderson regulars) only pop up for 30 second (or less) cameos and, Gustave aside, there's virtually no characterisation anywhere else. Anderson also continues his unfortunate wont of including scenes where animals are harmed and the one here is drastically unfunny. In the end though the good outweighs the bad and you even get to see Willem Dafoe (as an enforcer) looking more like someone from the undead than he did in Shadow Of The Vampire. Rating: 7/10.

Robocop

...and so to the latest entry in the remake of violent 80's films dumbed down for today's cinema paying public. Everywhere you look in respect of this remake / relaunch of Robocop there are danger signs. The budget doubling from $60m to $120m. Delays in production. Darren Aronofsky (wisely) doing a runner. Arguments over the look of Robocop's get up and the tone (i.e. certificate) of the final product. Though perhaps the fact of who ended up in the lead role sums it all up; Crowe, Cruise, Depp, Fassbender were all considered. We've ended up with, er, Joel Kinnaman. Though he understandably towed the company line during marketing and press for the film, Brazilian director Jose Padilha has been widely reported as saying the making of the film was "hell", and the "worst experience of his life". Frankly I don't have much sympathy for Padilha (the film was already in a hell of a mess pre-production when he signed on) and both himself and the studio seem to have completely missed what made Paul Verhoeven's 1987 effort so memorable. For clarity the storyline isn't too different (in a crime-riddled Detroit of the future a cop is injured and a multinational corporation turns him into a part-man / part-robot crime fighting machine), but this is missing all the wit and satire that subtly counter balanced all the bloodshed of the original film. On the plus side, some of the nods to the first film find the mark (there's a neat reference in respect of buying something for a dollar) and Gary Oldman as the scientist / inventor behind Robocop gives a great performance that the film really doesn't deserve. Overall though there's nothing here to justify this remake and you're better off just re-watching the original or checking out Padilha's great Brazilian Elite Squad films instead. Rating: 4/10.

Her

Spike Jonze's name always appears to be everywhere and I had to double check that Her is actually only his fourth film as a director since his 1999 debut Bring John Malkovich. However in the intervening years (along with two other films as director) his polymathic tendencies have seen him writing, acting, producing and choreographing in various medium, so it's not a surprise to see he's on triple duties with Her as writer, producer and director. Set in 2025 (though the poster has Joaquin Phoenix looking like an 1970's F1 driver) the film follows Theodore Twombly (Phoenix), an introverted man who (loaded irony ahoy!) works for a company that writes heartfelt letters on behalf of other people. To help address his loneliness Twombly purchases a computer operating system with which he can interact on an emotional level. Before long however Twombly falls for "Samantha" (the tones belong to Scarlett Johansson) and Jonze's film explores whether or not humans and computers can ever really sustain an emotional (let along a physical) relationship. Acting wise this is great, with Phoenix perfectly capturing the temperament of someone experiencing love for the first time and then seemingly having it taken away, whilst Johansson's voice smoothly shifts from caring to cold in an instant (speaking of voices also look out for Jonze's himself as an amusingly sweary Alien in a computer game). Jonze spent well over a year in post editing sub plots, but the actual crux of the matter is still somewhat hit and miss. Though it does work in the fact we engage with the protagonists, Jonze's analysis of the situation (i.e. humans need to talk to each other more!) is hardly earth shattering news and the films ending is too conventional (and obvious) for what has transpired in the previous two hours. Even if you don't fully buy into the story, there is some superb cinematography to enjoy (2025 looks lovely, so good news people) and some nice wry moments to look out for on the social / aesthetic front, not least that in ten years time it appears the belt line of our trousers will be somewhere near our necks. Rating: 7/10.

The Monuments Men / The Book Thief

Double review time again, this time for two extremely vapid depictions of the second World War. The Monuments Men and The Book Thief are joint American-German productions so it's hardly a surprise each take a safe approach in their portrayal of Nazi Germany. The problem is it means both films loose instant credibility. Starting with the George Clooney's latest stab at direction, The Monuments Men is loosely based on a group of soldiers who were tasked with saving pieces of art before they could be destroyed by Hitler. Clooney's directorial career has been going good film-bad film thus far and, considering last time out he gave us the worthy The Ides Of March, we're safely back in underwhelming territory this time round. Making a comedy set around WWII is a tricky and delicate task, with the result that the film itself was delayed in post as they tried to balance the comedic aspects with the dramatic. The re-editing hasn't worked and Clooney and Grant Heslov's script is all at sea throughout. The cosmopolitan cast (Damon, Murray, Goodman, Dujardin, Balaban, Bonneville) are completely unmemorable and the films structure in which its splits them all up into various groups just highlights what a problem having such a large number of characters can cause when it comes to the narrative. Clooney certainly loves to be involved in productions set around dubya dubya too, but people (especially Europeans) are just too wise to this kind of nostalgic nonsense these days. I mentioned Hugh Bonneville above and his Downton Abbey director is the man calling the shoots for the film adaptation of Markus Zusak's The Book Thief. However Brian Percival appears to be stuck in the mindset of making everything stiff upper lipped and pretty what with the protagonists of his film appearing to live in a snow covered version of Germany that appears to have come straight off of a Christmas card. Said protagonists are Liesel (Sophie Nelisse) a young girl living with her adoptive family (Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson are the parents) who borrows / steals books from the mayor's house and shares them with a hidden Jewish refugee. Despite hints at the real darkness going on (and to be fair the film does pack a punch in the gut finale), this is just too whimsical for it to be tenable in any way. To wit: Whenever anyone expresses concern about terrors such as starvation or the punishment of harbouring a Jew, Rush's stock response is to wink! A voice over by "Death" which, though is the narrative device utilised in the novel, is completely unnecessary here and script wise things really don't work. At one point Watson puts their lives on the line and goes to Liesel's school to tell her some news about their stowaway - Why not just wait until she got home? As for the historical inaccuracies (apparently Germans play "soccer" and towards the end we're told that the US has occupied Germany, not the Allies).......Gott im Himmel......Rating: 4/10 (both).

Dallas Buyers Club

Director Jean-Marc Vallee has a short and somewhat eclectic resume, but in hindsight he was probably the perfect choice for Dallas Buyers Club what with his films heavily focused on relationships in both the straight and gay communities. Here we have Ron Woodroof (Matthew McConaughey), a rodeo cowboy and electrician who, following admittance to hospital after an accident performing the latter occupation, is diagnosed with AIDS and given thirty days to live. However, on discovering there is (US unapproved) medication which helps improve his condition available in other countries, along with the help of fellow HIV sufferer Rayon (Jared Leto), he sets up a smuggling racket and distributes said drugs to other sufferers. This has been on the Hollywood slate since the mid-90's, but has only now found the financial backing. You can read into that what you will. Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack's script avoids clichés and addresses the attitudes of the time both blatantly (Woodroof is quickly ostracised by family and friends) and more subtly (at the start of the film the hospital staff wear surgical gloves and masks, which are slowly discarded as fuller understanding of the disease is made known). Jennifer Garner is good as a kindly doctor, but quickly gets lost amongst the tour-de-force performances of both McConaughey and Leto who, you'll be unsurprised to hear, both went method for this to capture the physicality of both their characters. In fact, both performances are so great the worthy subject matter gets a bit lost about halfway through and the film eventually meanders to a finish. On a side issue, the character of Rayon is actually a transgender woman which has to lead to complaints from various pressure groups that an actual transgender actor wasn't given Leto's part. Wrong though that may be, I'm afraid its just naivety to think that a dollar-chasing studio would have ever picked an unknown (regardless of sexual status) for such a prominent role. Going back to Vallee it's impressive he delivers such a solid production from a relatively small budget. With quick set ups and a one take only approach the order of the day this was wrapped in less than a month, which suggests a lot of studios and directors out there are missing a trick. Rating: 8/10.

Lone Survivor

The last film that Peter Berg presented to us was the risible Battleship, a film that only young teenage American boys would have got anything from, though what that was is open to debate (hopefully it was "I'll never direct a film as bad as that"). This time Berg moves away from such silliness as Lone Survivor tells the real life story of a group of US Navy SEALS and how, once their mission had gone awry, they had to fight for their lives in the Afghan hillside. Before going any further is should be made clear that the film is a dramatisation of the events (in reality it is highly inaccurate in places) and any mud slinging that has occurred post release you can read about yourself elsewhere. This is actually quite an odd film when all the dust has settled in the fact that it's actually too professional a production. Berg and company are getting some serious back slapping for all the extensive research that was undertaken before the camera's starting rolling, but for all the authenticity a film must still engage an audience. This is where the problem's begin. For all the correct uniforms, guns and military lingo you can give a soldier, you still need to explore their character and Berg's script fails miserably here. The fact the film is over long (even after being chopped in the editing suite) and still doesn't shine a proper spotlight on the persona's of the combatants just proves that Berg should have spent less time on getting the explosions as loud as possible and more time on getting some emotional balance into the end product. Speaking of the battle scenes, they are a mixture of brilliance and (unintentional) confusion. The scenes where the soldiers fall down the rugged mountainsides are bone-crunchingly captured with some highly impressive stunt work, but a lot of the action is captured with Berg getting as close as possible with the camera, meaning that at times its not only hard to tell what's going on, but also which soldier is which. It certainly isn't all bad though, particularly in the surprising final third where you'll be educated (surely only the most well read of us could tell you what pashtunwali is) and also feel uplifted that such heroism and humanity still exists in sure dire and brutal situations. In the end though, especially as this veers dangerously close to propaganda, I can't escape the feeling that some things are just better being read about and not shown. Rating: 6/10.

Inside Llewyn Davis

The title of the Coen brother's latest film doesn't appear on screen (at least, not in the traditional sense) throughout it's run time, but frankly, even if it did, I'd suggest you'd be hard pressed to remember it's name anyway further down the line. There's a theory that the Coen's output is either "one for them" (i.e the audience) or "one for us", with the "us" usually belonging amongst the weaker of their films. Inside Llewyn Davis doesn't break that trend, though in terms of its cinematic quality it's not bad at all. The acting and production values are spot on, but the film has a major hurdle to overcome in the fact that the main character is incredibly difficult to like. Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) is a down on his luck folk singer in early 1960's New York, but as the Coen's spend the entire film basically showing us what a complete selfish arsehole he is, you'll just be thinking that he deserves all he gets. Though based on the real life story of folk singer Dave Van Rook, the film itself doesn't really have much of a plot and it's more of a mood piece. Plot lines that do show promise (the suicide of Davis' musical partner) are not really explored and all that happens is we just go from scene to scene watching Davis give effrontery a bad name. On the plus side there are a few decent one-liners and a mix up with a cat ("Where's his scrotum?") provides a chuckle. Overall though, much like John Goodman's part as an odious jazz musician, it's all just a bit pointless. Plus, if the Coen's think people will warm to a character that abandons an injured cat, well, good luck with that. Rating: 5/10.