Paddington

Prior to release, Paul King's Paddington was already making headlines as the character that was one protagonist too far for uberthesp Colin Firth - that character being the eponymous bear from Peru. Guffaws aside, you do wonder why he was put forward in the first place as surely most people would expect a younger voice to emerge from the hirsute South American rather than that of a man in his mid-50's? Anyway it was Ben Whishaw who got the gig in the end so let's move on. The storyline is a basic as it comes; Paddington arrives in London, a family takes him in, then can't decide if too keep him or not, whilst a boo-hiss museum owner looks to capture him and stuff him for display. However, despite the script not pulling up any trees it does exactly what its required to do, i.e. just be a peg onto which to hang many silly and amusing moments, plus of course, messages about families and friendships. King's only other previous film to date was 2009's bonkers, but surprisingly tender, Bunny And The Bull. The balance isn't quite the same here (more cheese than real emotion), but its thoroughly entertaining on the comedic front with plenty of laughs for children and adults alike, the latter coming with its dry comments on the banalities of British life and some inspired moments including a sat nav instruction and the best gag ever concerning the "Dogs must be carried" sign on the London Underground. Speaking of the capital, be warned: This is the animated equivalent of Richard Curtis' London. It's all warm colours, empty streets and polite manners. Peeps who live in London (I'm one of 'em guv'nor) might think about a lawsuit for false representation. Stuffed with actors you'll know from mainstream British TV (The Earl of Grantham! Super Hans! Malcolm Tucker!) the performances range from standard to appreciatively more than is required. Sally Hawkins is great as the mother of the clan - Julie Walters "comedy" Scottish cleaner appears to only be in there for the North American audience. Plus, Nicole Kidman basically just channels Cruella De Ville in her role as the baddie, but at least she appears to be having fun and she does a good job. On the animation front, the effects range from seamless to, err, not quite so seamless, but overall this is great fun and one for the whole family, though not quite enough here for adults to take in a second viewing. Rating: 8/10.

The Imitation Game

There’s already plenty of visual media out there surrounding Bletchley Park and the Enigma code, from Channel 4’s informative 1999 series Station X to Michael Apted’s so-so Enigma film from 2001 (complete with Mick Jagger cameo!). Director Morten Tyldum is the latest to throw his hat into the ring, though The Imitation Game focuses squarely on the mastermind who was behind the unlocking of the "unbreakable" German cypher, one Alan Turing (played by Benedict Cumberbatch). The film is basically split into three parts. We have Turing's difficult times at boarding school, his secret work at the Park and, finally, his criminal conviction for his (at the time) illegal homosexuality. Despite the heavy subject matter this is actually quite a light concoction for the majority of the running time, namely as a large portion of the film is based around the middle third of Turing's life, that of his exploits at Bletchley. Cumberbatch is superb in the lead role, though the nature of his distracted performance hints at a mild form of asperger's a la Sofia Helin of Bron / Broen fame. His riffing off the other cast members is great fun, especially Charles Dance giving good stiff upper lip. Matthew Goode gives a subtle performance as a fellow cryptographer and it’s great to see Mark Strong continuing his run of being in every film ever made. Advance warning though: Keira Knightley affects her porsh English accent in this. Speaking of Blightly, there's plenty of British wit on display throughout, no doubt helped by the Scandinavian Tyldum's Norway sharing our similar dry approach to humour. Speaking of Tyldum it’s good to see him being given the keys to the Kingdom following 2011’s bonkers Headhunters and he directs here with a minimum of fuss. If you want negatives, the script is somewhat formulaic and your enjoyment may depend on how true to life you expect Tyldum’s account to be. The film is riddled with historical inaccuracies both in dates and actions - even the sign off regarding Turing’s suicide is actually disputed in many quarters. Regardless of all that, this is solid entertaining stuff, topped off with another starring turn from the chameleon that is Cumberbatch. One other thing though: Regardless of it being named after one of Turing's tests (which isn't even addressed in the film), that title's a clunker. Rating: 8/10.

Nightcrawler

Dan Gilroy has been living in brother Tony’s shadow for a while now which, considering that Tony was the director of The Bourne Legacy and Dan was the writer of Freejack isn’t really all that surprising. It’s good news for the Gilroy family though as Dan has come to the party as writer / director of the highly enjoyable Nightcrawler. Despite being marketed as a sleazy trawl through the LA underbelly, this is more a character study of Jake Gyllenhaal’s Lou Bloom, a young man who stumbles across a car accident one night and becomes fascinated by the freelance camera crews (“nightcrawlers”) who film the situation and are then paid by the news channels for their footage if it’s deemed worthy. What a character it is too, thanks to Gilroy’s sharp script and Gyllenhaal’s star performance. Gilroy’s film sets its stall out early on, picking up Bloom in the opening scene showing him assaulting a security guard and pocketing his fancy watch. He’s a low-life, but he is oddly fascinating as we watch him slowly integrate himself into the nightcrawler scene, eventually reaching Man Bites Dog-esque territory as Bloom starts to become directly involved in causing the carnage that he subsequently films. Gyllenhaal’s performance is superb, helped by Gilroy’s decision to steer clear of mentions of his background and for us to instead just invest our emotions with an individual who at times is so robotic in his approach to life, that he’s like an Alien impersonating a human being. Though this is Gyllenhaal’s film, there is also strong support from Riz Ahmed as Bloom’s naïve “assistant” (look for the hilarious job titles and appraisals that Bloom subjects him to) and Rene Russo (Gilroy’s real life missus) as a news editor torn between her job and submitting to Bloom’s quasi-blackmailing in the shape of having to sleep with him for his video footage. Away from the individual assessment, the rest of the film is solid if not spectacular. Though it appears Gilroy is satirising US news reporters, European audiences will still be cringing at the (true to life) alarmist paranoia put out during the forecasts. Plus, a shock twist towards the end of the film is clearly telegraphed if you’ve been paying attention. Overall though, this is one of the films of the year. To wit: Bloom isn’t a anti-hero, he’s a morally bankrupt sociopath with a serious dark side but, somehow, Gilroy and Gyllenhaal mess with your head so much that you’ll remember Bloom as a charmer who you actually care for. Rating: 8/10.

Boyhood

It's experiment time! Richard Linklater's latest film Boyhood follows the coming of age of young boy Mason Evans Jr (Ellar Coltrane). The twist being that Linklater has intermittently shot the film over a twelve year period, so we literally see Evans Jr grow before our very own eyes. Predictably this approach has had the high bow critics drooling, with the film appearing at the number one spot on many film of the year lists. However, is such adulation worthy for a film that has numerous issues. Firstly, why such plaudits for a technical approach that is hardly original? Francois Truffaut indirectly did the same thing for his character Antoine Doinel back in the 1950's and there are a number of TV documentary series that began in the 1960's that have been following their real life protagonists ever since. For something more contemporary Michael Winterbottom spent five years filming his characters for his 2012 release Everyday. Secondly, it becomes pretty clear early on that Coltrane can't act for toffee and gets worse as the film progresses. By the time he hits his teenage years its hard to tell if he's actually just given up acting or if his character is just reverting to the standard mumbler that permeates virtually all of Linklater's films of this ilk. Also, not much really happens in the near three hour running time, apart from Mason's divorced mum (played by Patricia Arquette) repetitively choosing unsuitable partner after unsuitable partner. There's also some seriously clunky moments in the script, the low point being when the children are being treated to a meal by their mother and are moaning about their lot in life (i.e. indirectly blaming Arquette) when the manager of the restaurant they are in comes over and announces what a special person their mother is due to some advice she had given him in the past. How handy! On the plus side, there's some decent acting to enjoy. Linklater's real life daughter Lorelei is fun as Mason's sister and Marco Perella (as one of Arquette's partners) is terrifying as a controlling aggressive drunk. The performance of the film goes to Arquette though. I know that's hard to believe as she's never really dazzled throughout her career - Plus, can you actually name a film she's been in over the last ten years? Here though she's totally convincing as the single mum who does all she can to financially keep her family afloat, including a heart breaking scene where she breaks down due to her believing she's been a bad parent. In effect, though this is called Boyhood, it's more about the adults of the story as they aid (for good or bad) the development of Mason's personality. On that front, more could have been made of Ethan Hawke's absent Dad, but it's clear that Linklater had thrown his lot in with Mason and he could hardly change things halfway through. Something Hawke has said about the film did strike me though, calling it "Tolstoy-esque in scope". I can only assume ol' Ethan hasn't read much Leo. This isn't even Toy Story-esque in scope. Rating: 6/10.

Transformers: Age Of Extinction

The perceived wisdom is that critics (what ever the discipline) have more fun tearing apart something dire than giving praise to something of artistic merit. I'm not sure that's quite true as I want to spend as little time as possible passing comment on the latest cinematic travesty from our old friend Michael Bay. In fact, if I add this is the new Transformers film from the Bayster, do I really need to type much more? In order for completion I will confirm what you already suspect. Yes, this is over long, loud, stuffed with awful one-liners and is basically scene after scene of the same battle being repeated over and over. At least the awful Shia LaBeouf has been jettisoned, but his replacement as the male lead in the form of the bland Mark Wahlberg is like discovering you've won a million on the lottery, but then discovering it's a million Italian Lira. Any plus points? Well you can't fault the special effects and Stanley Tucci is fun as the smarmy businessman planning on building his own robots, but unless there is some sort of alteration in the space-time continuum, like a goat chained to a post, the output of a Michael Bay film will always chew the cud within a limited circle of mediocrity. Perhaps I'll leave the final word to a young girl who, at a screening of a different film I was at, when Wahlberg popped up to present the trailer to this film with the words "I'm hear to introduce the trailer of my new film Transformers: Age Of Extinction", she replied out loud for the whole cinema to hear "No thanks". Smart girl, she'll go far. Rating: 3/10.