Reviewed

I was really looking forward to this one, and why shouldn't I? It had everything going for it, Action! Adventure! Boats! Steven Moffat! Unfortunately, I wasn't all that impressed... I guess it wasn't bad, it just didn't do that much for me. I never read the books. I saw the TV show a few times when I was younger but unlike others who saw this film, there was no real sense of nostalgia for me. While the film started off well, there was no real sense of growing danger and for someone who isn't the biggest Tintin fan, it was hard to care about these characters or what happened to them. The slapstick also got old pretty fast. That aside, there was plenty of things that did work well, the CG work here is great, the visuals are incredibly detailed and plenty of work has been put into them. They also do a great job of not making the motion capture actors look completely terrifying. Which is always good. The action scenes were a bit uneven but the scenes that were well done were truly enjoyable. Unfortunately for Weta digital, unlike Avatar. The effects alone aren't enough to pull the film for me. While others have enjoyed this film, for me Tintin felt dull and forgettable, which wouldn't have been so much of a problem if it didn't go for two and a half hours.

6/10

I think my reaction was the same as everyone else's when this film was announced... Why, Dreamworks? You have 4 Shrek movies already! Why do you need to make another? Whhhyyy are you doing this to uuussssss? But as it turns out, it wasn't all that bad. It certainly wasn't a great film but it did have some good ideas... No Shrek, no Fiona, and no Donkey. Thank God. Instead the focus is shifted to the titular character, the sword fighting, horse riding, milk sipping outlaw, hero and lover, Puss in boots and his adventures before meeting Shrek. While it doesn't blend as many fairy tales together as you would usually expect from the Shrek series, the story and is still entertaining and original. The characters and voice acting are all enjoyable and the further backstory for Puss and Humpty Dumpty was particularly interesting. The animation, strangely enough seemed to be one of the most inconsistent elements, likely due to the fact that that realistic fur is particularly hard to animate, making the facial closeups all very off putting. Annother issue was that the film, for me felt as if it was on a much smaller scale than any of Dreamworks' more recent films, it seemed to be lacking the sense of largeness that you come to expect from most animated films nowadays, which would have been fine if that wasn't what that whole movie was trying to be. But that might just me. Or the piddly screen I saw it on. Either way, Puss In Boots is plenty of fun, it just feels as if Dreamworks are going through the motions.

6/10

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, an ok sequel to another ok film that was less Sherlock Holmes than it was Iron Man in victorian England... hey, that actually sounds pretty cool. Did I enjoy it? At times. Is it all that good? Not particularly, but to give it credit, Sherlock 2 does exactly what it sets out to do. It's a big dumb action movie set during the industrial revolution that pretends to be smarter than it actually is and that's completely fine. The acting is pretty good, Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law as Holmes and Watson are enjoyable as ever and now we have Steven Fry thrown into the mix too which is always good. Because Steven Fry is awesome. The action was pretty good and there were plenty of juicy explosions, but the constant use slow motion seemed like it was only there to pad out the film and extend the action sequences so that you wouldn't worry too much about the story. The story being... um Watson got married and then there was some trains and uh, gypsies and... do explosions count as story? Not really. Does it matter? In this film, not really. This movie isn't great by any means but you may as well borrow it out when it comes to video, just remember to switch your brain off first.

5/10

My thoughts on this film prior to seeing it have been all over the place, on one hand you have Jason Segel and James Bobin, two huge muppet fans taking charge, writing and directing the first muppet film to hit the big screen in 12 years. Not to forget Bret McKenzie of FOTC fame writing the songs. Everything is perfect, what could possibly go wrong? On the other hand you have Frank Oz and many of the original muppeteers flat out refusing involvement with the movie, claiming that it is disrespectful to their beloved characters... but then again, on the other, other hand, It's a muppet movie! How can it not be good? It has the muppets and everything! Who cares what Yoda thinks, it'll be amazing without them or not! And then I saw the trailer... JASON SEGEL. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO MY MUPPETS. And then I saw the whole thing... And I completely loved it. The songs are great, the comedy is great, the characters are great. Well, it is the muppets. There were however, a few things that did bug me about the film. In a film that tries to squeeze in a joke every minute and make these jokes the centre of each scene, in 103 minute long film, while most jokes are funny, really funny, sometimes it felt like they were trying too hard to think of a joke so they just threw something really gimmicky in instead. And speaking of gimmicky, Rico Rodriguez, who gave you the right to stand between Kermit and Whoopi? Those things aside, I really enjoyed this film. It was great to see Kermit and the gang on the big screen (a first for me), the jokes were great (mostly), the songs, new and old were great, the story... doesn't... matter... The Muppets was a great family film and succeeds far, far more than it fails and will convert even the biggest haters of puppets, musicals, and fourth wall jokes.

7/10

Anyone who has read the original book like I have would understand completely when I say that it lends itself perfectly to the big screen. The Invention of Hugo Cabret plays out like a film on paper with its rich story and detailed illustrations by visionary author Brian Selznick, a vision that is fully realised in colour and motion by long time 'grown up film' director Martin Scorsese in his first family film. Hugo is, despite the similarities, a polar opposite to The Muppets. One is a fun, story light comedy musical full of puppets and fourth wall jokes, the other is a deep period drama about orphans, robots and early cinema. Both of which, I enjoyed immensely. Along with a name shortening, Hugo features a wonderful story paired with equally wonderful set pieces and cinematography as well as plenty of enjoyable performances, particularly from Asa Butterfield and Chloë Grace Moretz as the two young leads. As well as being so visually stunning, the switch from paper to screen has also allowed so give a larger look at the history of cinema allowing insight into the production and emergence of early film. If I had to find any complaints in the film, I suppose the subplot about old people with dogs seemed a bit out of place but even then, it hardly disputed the rest of the story. As Martin Scorsese's first family movie, Hugo is, as cheesy as it sounds, a magical film about the magic of cinema that can be enjoyed by children and adults alike.

8/10

Okay, yes... I saw it. In 3D as well... Now that I've had a week to properly digest and allow my thoughts to simmer, I can safely say, George Lucas should be ashamed of himself. Someone should send him to his room and make him think about what he's done. Just... Urgh. I suppose 'Phantom Menace' is alriiiiiiiight as a stand alone movie... I mean, the effects are pretty good for 1999 and the pod race is great to watch. BUT. As an extension of the original Star Wars trilogy. I just... I... brksdjgs. Screw you George Lucas. While watching this on the big screen I had trouble deciding on what was worse, the bumbling abomination that is Jar Jar Binks or Jake Lloyd's painfully wooden Anakin Skywalker. The characters are as dull as planks with faces painted on them, the story was just as bad and the script. The script. Not even 3D could save this movie, while I normally can't stand "It's like they're really throwing rocks at us!" type 3D, it would have worked perfectly in something like this. With the robots and the spaceships and the lightsaber fights, that's what this movie was meant for! What do we get instead? 'Wow, look at the depth on Jar Jar's face! Just look into his lifeless eyes!' No thanks. When the original Star Wars hits theatres again, I'll be there no doubt, but until then, I think I'll live without seeing Hayden Christensen make the transformation from surly teen to sith lord on the big screen. Phantom Menace is a bad film on DVD and it's just as bad in theatres.

4/10

Chronicle is a rare kind of film, the sort that you don't see often. It may be a big dumb action movie, but that said, it's good big dumb action movie. Chronicle follows the story of three regular highschoolers, Matt, his friend Steve and his cousin Andrew, who has recently stared videotaping his life. While the film may start out rather dull, things start to pick up when the trio find a strange hole in the ground which, as all strange holes in the ground do, gives them all super powers. Why not? It could happen. Now, if you were an obnoxious american teenager with telekinetic powers, what would you do with them? Fight crime? Help the elderly cross the road? Feed the starving children of Africa? Of course not. You'd mess around and play pranks on people. This however, doesn't last, as while the boys' powers become stronger they have a harder time controlling them and their emotions, particularly troubled cousin Andrew. While in most superhero movies, the hero will get their powers one second and be totally cool with it the next. Chronicle on the other hand shows the awe and amazement that these teens have as they test their powers, leaving you eager to see what happens next. Sure, it has its faults, no doubt. The characters might seem a tad obnoxious at times and the first half could feel a bit slow for some. The found footage technique seems a bit gimmicky at times but even then, the film does a good job trying out new things with the style. Yes it's big and loud but Chronicle has something really genuine about it. Yes it's a dumb film, but it's a good dumb film.

7.5/10

Some are calling it the next Harry Potter, some are calling it the next Twilight and some are calling it a shameless ripoff of a Japanese film from a few years ago. I am of course talking about 'The Hunger Games' the first instalment of the hugely popular teen film franchise, based on the first instalment of the hugely popular teen book franchise. Director Gary Ross does an excellent job in creating such this futuristic dystopia, which provides the perfect setting to match the film's chilling premise. That being... kids killing each other on live television. It's not as bad as it sounds... really... well... it is but, it's okay... it's just... I'm not helping am I? Maybe some background will make things a little clearer. Every year in the country of Panem, a young man and woman from each of the 12 districts are chosen to fight until only one remains in the annual 'Hunger Games' a punishment from the government and reminder of the failed uprising against them. While some participants have devoted their whole lives training for the event, others like Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark are thrust from poverty into fame and tasked not only with defending themselves against the other tributes but also remaining popular with the public of Panem. One thing that The Hunger Games does really well is showing the events before the actual games begin. While other films would skip right to the grisly bits, here we get to see Katniss make her way through all of the glitz, glamour and talk shows leading up to the games themselves in an excellent satire of our own fixation with reality television. Jennifer Lawrence provides a stirring performance as Katniss alongside a host of other great performances. If you can handle the grisly premise and unwelcome use of shaky-cam, The Hunger Games is a gut wrenching and emotional experience that is well worth the two hours of your time. And it can't be that bad, it's for kids isn't it?

7.5/10

In this world where computer animated family films are the norm, studios seem to be very much neglecting the simple beauty and grace of 2D animation, which once ruled the family film market. After Pixar and Dreamworks began to share their digital wizardry with the world, every other studio has decided to follow suit. And yet, there is another form of animation being pushed further and further back into obscurity, and that is stop motion. After following the crowd and giving CG a go for 2006's Flushed Away and last years Arthur Christmas, it seems that stop motion is still something the animators at Aardman Studios hold very dear. The Pirates! Band of Misfits (or 'The Pirates! in an adventure with scientists' as it is known elsewhere) is a wonderfully pleasant comedy bringing back much or the silliness and charm seen in Aardman's 'Wallace and Grommit' shorts. Pirates stars Hugh Grant as Pirate Captain the pirate captain who, aside from his luxurious beard is rather bad at his job. Despite this, he is willing to do whatever it takes to win the pirate of the year award. Director Phil Lord packs so much charm and wit into the 88 minute running time and expertly creates a film that manages to be both very clever and very very silly, something that Aardman is particularly good at. With a host of excellent voice actors (including David Tennant as Charles Darwin), an excellent script and plenty of laughs, The Pirates! Band of Misfits is a delightful swashbuckling adventure that everyone can enjoy. Also, ham night.

7/10

Okay, this is it guys. The Avengers, the movie we have all been waiting for, is finally here... Is it good? Did it live up to the hype? Did Joss Whedon find yet another reason for us to sacrifice our firstborns to him? Yes, mostly. Just the fact that this movie exists is amazing enough, the film was first hinted at in 'Iron Man' back in 2008, and now 4 years and 4 movies later, The Avengers has hit our screens. I have to hand it to marvel, introducing our heroes film by film so that all that the entire 143 minute running time can be dedicated solely to one liners and basassery. Genius. As far as popcorn entertainment goes, The Avengers has it in the bag, it's big, funny, exciting, and it works. That said, The Avengers is somewhat lacking in certain areas. Whie it has a great script, great characters, great action and great one liners, I spent much of the film waiting for something truly mindblowing to come out and hit me in the face. It didn't, the film hardly goes beyond the boundaries of the superhero genre. Another significant issue I found was that, given the large ensemble cast that Whedon has to juggle screen time between, unfortunately The Avengers falls short in depth and the story is paper thin. The story in question being Loki, Thor's adopted brother having a hissy fit and trying to take over the Earth. Again. That said, The Avengers still works, and it's definitely worth a watch.

7/10

While much of the hype this year has been geared towards all of the superhero blockbusters being thrown here and there, of which there are plenty, there is another film grabbing everyone's attention, first thought only to be a legend, thrust forth from the heavens' blessed bowels, leaving the earth convulsing with anticipation, Ridley Scott's long awaited return to science fiction, Prometheus. Unfortunately for Scott, even before becoming besties with Russell Crowe his films have been rather hit and miss over the years, so this begs the question… Is it good? Does it live up to the hype? Yeah, mostly. It's good, but it certainly has it's flaws.

But before I talk about that, what is Prometheus even about? Imagine travelling for years across the universe in search for the meaning of life and all you end up finding is dimply lit cave full of death and bloodthirsty aliens…. Heyyy, didn't Ridley Scott already direct a movie with an alien in it? I know everybody's been asking this, particularly given conflicting quotes from Scott, is Prometheus a prequel to Alien? Yeah, definitely, sure, maybe, honestly I have no idea and It doesn't really matter. Despite taking place within the same universe as the original, this film never links up directly to the original Alien, rather aiming it's subject matter at arguably more philosophical question, where did we come from? Rather than answering many of the questions that we were left wondering from Alien, Prometheus chooses mostly only to answer the questions it asks itself. While this has enraged many a sci-fi fan, it didn't bother me so much.

Now, what's good about the film? First of all, the look of everything, the cinematography is excellent, the effects are great and everything just looks beautiful, from the landscapes of this alien planet to the film's namesake, the ship Prometheus. It's all good. Also good, the acting. We have Noomi Rapace, the original 'Girl With the Dragon Tattoo alongside Idris Elba and Charlize Theron, who are all great but are completely blown out of the water by Michael Fassbender as the terrifyingly eerie David, the maybe evil, maybe not android of the ship.

Despite the film's outstanding elements, it is in no way perfect and suffers from a number of issues ranging vastly from mildly annoying to film breaking. First of all, the script. Which is, in need for a better word, awful. The violation of reason in question was written by The Darkest Hour's Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof of 'Cowboys and Aliens' who was also a writer for 'Lost'. Surprise surprise, and it shows, falling to pieces in every aspect. First of all the character's reactions to anything, whether it be in casual conversation or in life threatening situations are truly preposterous. These characters are meant to be the best in their fields, that's why they are on this expedition to the far side of the universe in the search of the origins of life, you wouldn't hire a team of complete morons when the possibility of meeting our creators is on the cards. And yet, Prometheus still begs the question, what would you do if you were suddenly approached by a rather angry looking snake creature currently unknown to science? Say awwww and try to pet it of course! I'm sorry, I should be sympathising with you here as you get viciously ripped to sheds but honestly, I'm cheering the alien on. You are an idiot and you deserved what you got. But it wasn't just on a character level that the script fell to pieces, the entire story is riddled with more holes than a piece of swiss cheese and nobody has any motives to support their actions. As great as you are here, Michael Fassbender, to this day I still have no idea why you thought it would be a good idea to put alien embryos in bargain bin Tom Hardy's drink. Why?

And speaking of bargain bin Tom Hardy, Prometheus has far too many characters, I can think of four off the top of my head who could have been wiped from the script completely. While the cast of Alien was picked off one by one, each of them still had a reason to be there, they weren't just there to die, and that's what you get in Prometheus. The pilots for one, what do you two even do aside from clunky delivery? We already have Idris Elba who, as he says countless times in the film 'just fly the ship' so what are you two doing here? Ugh.

That said, Prometheus is not a bad movie. It is a flawed movie, but it has enough to pull the movie through despite this, you can tell that Ridley Scott has tried here, and what he does well, he does really well. Despite it's shortcomings, it's a great looking film, with some really great actors that sets up neatly for a sequel and there's no doubt I'll watch it. But seriously, screw you Damon Lindelof.

7.5/10

Reboots. How soon is too soon and how long is long enough? In recent days, it is this question exactly that has wafted through the heads of many a spidey fan and sparked many a heated argument on the hate fuelled ImDb message boards. So how long is long enough for a reboot? Just 5 years it seems, according to 'The Amazing Spider-man'. And in an era when every movie coming out is a sequel or a prequel, an adaptation, remake or re-imagining, some people weren't happy. But ultimately, it shouldn't really matter how early or unnecessary this reboot is, so long as it's good. And is it? Yeah, It's a pretty solid superhero film.

Prior to the film's release I was worried, not because of it's rebootdom but because of the director, Marc Webb (Stop looking at me like that, I'm not doing the pun). His only other film being the romantic comedy '500 Days of Summer', which despite being an excellent comedy, it's anything but a superhero action film. So I was pleasantly surpassed to see how well the action holds up here with Andrew Garfield as the web slinging vigilante, most notably the fight in the school. I was also glad to see his talents in directing comedy, moments passed on here from 'Summer' as both films feature plenty of awkward moments.

It is kind of a shame to see this as a reboot, particularly to such a well loved franchise as Raimi's Spiderman as there are many aspects, particularly story-wise that 'Amazing' does much better than the originals. For example, while both films have Peter visit Oscorp where he's bitten by the radioactive spider, both feature the murder of Uncle Ben and both show Peter becoming the web-slinging vigilante Spiderman, Webb handles the story much better, bringing the disappearance of Peter's parents into question and giving the story a much more realistic (read: dark and gritty) tone than the over the top cartoony style of the Raimi films. Unfortunately both films cover much of the same ground and this seems to be bothering plenty of movie-goers annoyed at seeing the same story twice. Many of the actors give effective performances and are perfectly cast in their roles, particularly Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben despite his relatively shot screen time. Also enjoyable is Sally Fields as Aunt May and Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy as well as Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone as the two leads, Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, who seamlessly and believably slip into their roles and exhibit an enjoyable on screen chemistry.

Despite succeeding in most areas, 'The Amazing Spider-man' still has its downfalls. Firstly, the villain, Dr Curt Connors, or 'The Lizard' who is, on the most part, largely forgettable. Which is a shame as we are introduced to him as a well meaning and and mostly 'armless (I'm sorry) scientist set on making the world a better a better place and is tied in to the story rather well with the mystery surrounding Mr and Mrs Parker. At this point he is likeable, we can see that he maenad well, while still maintaining an air of danger around him. Unfortunately, rather than making a clean descent from good guy to bad guy, after his first rampage in New York as cut price Godzilla, once he sheds his skin, he also loses anything that made him previously likeable, rather jarringly transitioning him from 'interesting character' to little more than a CGI end boss with questionable motives. While the action itself is enjoyable enough, the Lizard never felt like any more than a creature and his plan to 'make the world as strong as him' felt tacked on and over-simplified. Also fitting rather awkwardly into the film is the inclusion of a number of scenes that just seem bizarrely out of place, for example a training montage in which Peter simultaneously tests his newfound powers while skateboarding as if they didn't have time to film anything and just put a 90's cereal commercial in the place of a real training montage. This isn't helped at all by a weak soundtrack that seems unable to find the right tone for each scene, it sounds like nitpicking but when it is something that control the entire feel of the film… okay no, it's not nitpicking.

Ultimately, 'The Amazing Spider-man' is largely successful with enjoyable performances from a perfectly selected cast and provides an engaging and more believable retelling of spidey's story despite being bogged down by a forgettable villain and a tonally awkward soundtrack. And really, why does Spiderman use bing? Nobody uses bing. I mean, seriously. What the hell.

6/10

Up until now I didn't realise Jack Black was an actor, I just assumed that whenever a studio needed him for a film, they'd just lure him onto the set with rock music before releasing him onto the scene like a an attack dog on a robber. Bernie proved me wrong.

Bernie, the latest from director Richard Linklater (School of Rock) is a strange little film to say the least, this bizarrely true black comedy tells the story of Bernie Tiede (Jack Black) the small town mortician with a heart of gold, documenting his unlikely friendship with the controlling and vindictive 81 year old millionaire Marjorie Nugent (Shirley Maclaine). When Marjorie's controlling ways begin to take control over Bernie's life, things take a turn for the murderous and Bernie is forced to go to great lengths to convince the town that she's still alive.

The first thing worth mentioning here is that Bernie is not a Jack Black film. Yes, it has Jack Black in it, but it is not a Jack Black film. Gulliver's Travels was a Jack Black film. It was also a horrible memory that will never go away, no matter how much bleach I drink. The first thing he does here to prove this, he doesn't just fall back into his usual routine of Jack Black the laid-back rocker, turned talking panda, tuned incurable mental scar. It seems that what was once fresh and plenty of fun, over the years, has become anything but, as evidenced by Gulliver's Travels. As if the timing couldn't be any better, in a bizarre twist of character, Black seemingly inverts his usual on-screen persona, becoming Bernie the soft spoken effeminate Texan mortician. Nega-Jack, if you will. Here, Black proves the seemingly impossible by giving a funny, sympathetic and beautifully nuanced performance as Bernie Tiede, supported by an array of fine performances all round, specifically Shirley Maclaine and Matthew McConaughey.

Aside from Black's portrayal of Tiede, another standout aspect of the film are the numerous interviews with seemingly real townsfolk, commenting on the events after the fact, giving insightful and sometimes hilarious perspectives and opinions on the story of Bernie and Marjorie Nugent, never falling back on yokel stereotypes for the odd cheap laugh. Linklater's integration of these documentary style interviews and more conventional scenes really kept the film moving, always coming at the right time and never intruding on the story, rather adding to it.

In Bernie, Black couldn't be further from his comfort zone, but he makes it look like he's been playing this character for years. This is a slow moving film, but it never becomes stagnant, thanks to a brilliant script filled with chuckles and all manner of unusual characters while carefully making it's way around a risky subject matter. Jack Black has proved the impossible by playing against type from the opening lines all the way to his dainty walk at the end, and good lord do I thank him for it.

9/10

If time has taught us anything, it's that good threequels are hard to come by. Hell, good sequels are had to come by. So it's fair to say, when two great movies are about to become a trilogy it's time to start worrying. That is unless you're taking about Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight Rises', in which case you're in good hands. Here's my review of this year's most anticipated threequel, and I'm not talking about the one with the fresh prince fighting aliens.

Much like the Nolan's previous instalments of the Dark Knight trilogy, Rises is able to rise, for lack of a better word above it's genre in this smart, fast paced action flick. While this year's Marvel's blockbusters 'The Avengers' and 'The Amazing Spiderman' were perfectly enjoyable comic book films but are very much rooted in their paperback origins and never reach further than that, only getting worse with memory. Rises on the other hand, set 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, works as a great film even without having to sandwich 'superhero' between the eighth and ninth words of this sentence, expanding Nolan's gritty Gotham in the largest film of the trilogy, both in length and scale.

If there's one thing that Rises does really well, it's the way Nolan handles all of the characters in the film, new and old. Just as I wouldn't strictly call it a superhero movie, I wouldn't necessarily call it a batman movie. While batman is very much here in the film, sandpaper voice and all, the focus is ultimately on the citizens of Gotham, Commissioner Gordon, John Blake, Catwoman, Alfred, each having their moment in the sun and giving great performances as ever. While the cavalcade of costumed heroes that was The Avengers, while still a fun movie nonetheless, felt ready to burst at any second from having so many faces on screen at a time, spurting one liner after one liner. Rises, on the other hand never lets the characters get in the way of the story, leaving their screen time evenly spaced throughout the film, rather than letting it become a blur of characters and shiny costumes.

And while I'm on the topic of characters, what about the new ones. Essentially the cast of Inception. In his portrayal of Bane, Tom Hardy creates an aura of intimixdation everywhere he goes. Despite my initial concerns over his voice resembling the love child of Darth Vader and an old-timey newscaster, aside his sounding eerily detached tone from the rest of the film, a side effect of post production tinkering, the voice brings a menacing charisma to the bulky villain, making him a perfect competitor for batman's gravelly mumbling. Also great here is Anne Hathaway as the incredibly saucy catwoman and Joseph Gordon Levitt as pseudo-robin, John Blake.

But alas, it can't all be good and I do have a few minor gripes. As thrilling as the final act of the film is, which it most certainly is, it ultimately becomes a race against the clock, with the clock in the form of a significantly more dangerous atom bomb, a time worn trope that has graced many an action film in the past. This is made particularly puzzling as the bomb in question seems much more like a weapon stolen from the significantly more reality-lax Marvel universe than Nolan's gritty and realistic vision of Gotham. Aside from being simply cliche, another issue raised by the bomb is that of timing. Seriously Bruce, you can't just be wandering around the desert one moment and suddenly appear back in Gotham the next. That doesn't make sense. Why.

That said, The Dark Knight Rises able to shake these faults like water off a duck's back. Christopher Nolan has delivered a fast, sharp and smart action film, with plenty of great characters, great performances and a twisting plot sure to keep you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end in this suitably brilliant conclusion to a brilliant trilogy.

8/10

And so, it has come to this. After being generally lazy for far too long, and subsequently banned from tumblr for exams, I seem to be running late on a few reviews, only two of which are still in cinemas… Better late than never I guess, here is my review for Moonrise Kingdom.

Yellow titles? Check. Impossibly symmetrical set-pieces? Check. Bill Murray? Check. Wes Anderson's latest, 'Moonrise Kingdom' may well be the ultimate Anderson film, turning all of his usual trademarks up to eleven, with enough quirk to put Zooey Deschanel in a coma. And I loved it from beginning to end. Despite losing his footing somewhat following 'The Life Aquatic', Anderson has found his niche once again, with a new warmth and storybook quality, thanks to 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' and extended here in Moonrise.

While good child actors are hard to come by, two young leads, first timers Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward are perfectly cast, perfectly embodying their characters with a superb balance of maturity and innocence. The grown-ups don't do a bad job either, particularly Bill Murray (as always), Bruce Willis, Edward Norton and Frances McDormand. Anderson's trademark cinematography blends perfectly with the 1960's island setting of New Penzance, creating a true feast for the eyes, accented with a great script and soundtrack.

Wes Anderson is a love it or hate it director, and and there's no question where I sit on the matter. Moonrise Kingdom is beautifully shot and hilariously written, with a great cast and undeniable charm. If you're a fan of all things Wes, Moonrise is a must, if not, avoid it like the plague.

9/10

Much like in reality, time travel in fiction can be notoriously hard to get right, though somewhat more elusive in the former. While botched time travel writing is unlikely to have much of a profound effect on the universe when confined to a two hour film, bad time travel movies tend to make for pretty lousy viewing experiences nonetheless. Sure, reality hasn't begun to unravel or come loose at the seams, but little can be worse than sitting in the cinema, trying to piece together contradictory plot points, while waiting for the inescapable deus ex machina to tie everything up far too neatly, only to undone in the inevitable sequel. Thank god this wasn't one of those times. Rian Johnson's Looper proves that with the right guy in charge, time travel can be done very right.

Looper tells the story of a gun named Joe, a 'looper' as he is known, played by a prosthetics laden Joseph Gordon Levitt. While time travel is yet to be invented in Joe's present, in the future this illegal tech is used by the mob as a sticky end for anyone who gets on their bad side, sending the unlucky individual back in time to be taken out and disposed of by one of the aforementioned loopers. Unfortunately, all hell breaks loose when Joe's latest target is revealed to be his older self, played by Bruce Willis. This is is where the film truly succeeds, its marketing. While the premise as shown by the trailers could easily carry a half decent action flick, Looper is so much more. By keeping the audience almost completely in the dark before stepping into the theatre, Johnson is able to keep the surprises coming right to the end of the film. And it is for that reason that I intend to keep spoilers to a minimum here.

As one may expect, Levitt, Willis, and Emily Blunt give strong performances, and despite his small role, Jeff Daniels steals nearly every scene he's in. Looper is able to tell a great original story, effortlessly balancing cutthroat action, a witty and intelligent script and plenty of nifty sic-fi in it's 118 minute runtime. Another great addition of the film is the relationship between Levitt with Blunt's character and her son Cid, played by Pierce Gagon, who as a child actor gives a surprisingly effective performance, particularly given his complicated… role.

Unfortunately, the film isn't without it's downfalls. As a plot device, time travel is certainly a double edged sword, and while largely effective here, tears it's fair share of plot holes in an otherwise watertight story. Another issue is the sadly unfulfilling ending, which while tying up most loose ends, feels contradictorily inevitable and ends the film on a weak note, though this may be more of a personal gripe. And have I mentioned JGL's face yet? I think the prosthetics speak for themselves.

Ending aside, Looper is a great third film from director Rian Johnson, with strong performances all round, great action and a mind bending iceberg of a plot that twists and turns far deeper than the trailers let on.

8.5/10

As a regular consumer of food, I've noticed over the years that most foods tend to fall somewhere between two extremes. On one side you have your biscuits and gummy bears, substanceless junk that you could eat all day but always leaves you wanting more. Sure they taste good but it's never truly satisfying. On the other end you have your grandma's rich chocolate cake that makes you feel full just looking at it, tasty after the first bite, maybe even the second, but once you reach the third bite, you're trapped. You can't bear to stuff any more into your mouth for fear of your stomach tearing open, but you can't just drop it in the bin for the even greater fear of insulting your emotionally sensitive grandmother, it's just too much. The same goes for films, and Argo falls smack bang in the middle. This is what I like to call a 'BLT film', it gives you all you need for a perfectly satisfying film experience, no more and and no less, just the way it should be. I promise the food analogies stop here.



As if giving Bernie a run for it's money, Ben Affleck's latest, Argo brings us yet another absurdly true story. The year is 1979 and all hell is breaking loose at the US embassy in Teheran, Iran. 50 embassy staff has been taken as hostages, but 6 were able to escape and are now hiding for their lives in the nearby Canadian embassy. Now it's a race against time for Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) to get these 6 out of there before the Irani government realise who's missing, and how? Send in a team of CIA agents to pick them up, posing as Canadian filmmakers scouting exotic locations for an upcoming sic fi blockbuster a la Star Wars, Argo. Now throw in some great performances and seriously nail biting suspense and you have yourself a thoroughly entertaining film.

One of the film's greatest strengths, I feel is the duality in tone, as it often feels like two very different movies running parallel to each other, switching seamlessly between opposing tones, working surprisingly well. On one side you have Mendez' preparation for the mission in Hollywood, with John Goodman and Alan Arkin (As real hollywood make up artist John Chambers, and fictional film producer Lester Siegel, respectively). While a sense of tension hangs lightly in the air, these sections have an overall lighthearted and comic tone, and you can tell that the trio are just having fun with their characters. That said, when the film wants to get down to business, the suspense just builds and builds, giving a real sense of danger that Ben Affleck and co could be sprung at any second. Needless to say, both halves are hugely entertaining, creating an effective blend of humour, tension and grit.

In short, Argo is a great third film from actor-turned-director Ben Affleck, juggling fun and suspense like a Cirque Du Soleil performer, making for an excellent BLT of a movie sure to leave viewers perfectly satisfied.

8/ 10

For me, Bond films have always been there. I'd never seen them or anything, but they were always there, they just… existed. Not that it ever really bothered me, I'd picked up enough from cartoon parodies to know all I ever needed of the series, I knew the character, I knew the tropes, I could recognise the theme tune in a heartbeat. I just assumed I'd seen all I ever needed to see of the series, all played out by Homer Simpson, what could I have possibly been missing out on? Plenty it seems, If Skyfall is anything to go by.



From the get go, director Sam Mendes throws you right into the action with Daniel Craig as Bond leaping over buildings and whatnot in Istanbul. Ol' James and co are hot on the trail of a mercenary, who had stolen a computer chock full of data on agents working undercover for terrorist organisations. Put simply, it isn't something that you want to fall in the wrong hands, and now it has. To make matters worse, while in the middle of a train top punch out, Bond is hit with a bullet meant for his adversary, fired by another agent under the orders of M. So now, the bad guys still have the information, everyone thinks Bond is dead and it's all on M's head. Cue Adele.

While some have complained that Skyfall is a tad light of action compared to other entries in the Bond franchise, this leaves more screen-time for the story and characters, particularly Judi Dench as M and Javier Bardem as the sinister villain, Silva, who are both brilliant. And before you begin to worry that 007 has dissolved to little more than well acted exposition, then fear not as Skyfall still has action to boot. While Roger Deakins' cinematography adds greatly to the action sequences, it is the vast and varied locations that really allow these scenes to shine, ranging from the Grand Bazar of Istanbul to the dazing high-rises of Shanghai and an explosive finale somewhat closer to 007's home.

To conclude, Skyfall boasts some great performances and packs plenty of punch. As my first Bond, consider myself sold.

8.5/10

Good films can come in all shapes and sizes, whether it be a barely feature length 80 minutes, or a hulking 3 and a half hour affair, it doesn't matter. So long as these films tell their story and tell it well. Unfortunately this is where problems often begin to arise, with certain movies cutting narrative corners to ensure the children watching are still awake by the time the credits roll, or by padding out a perfectly pleasant tale with endless exposition and singing dwarves to ensure all three instalments of this duology turned trilogy meet the required 'epic' length. I'm looking at you, Hobbit.



Okay, don't let that intro fool you, this isn't necessarily a bad film… but it does suffer from a handful of fatal flaws. But before I dive right into the bad, I should give credit where credit is due. If anyone was ever born to play Bilbo Baggins, it would be Martin Freeman. From the moment you first see him in his hobbit hole, Martin lives and breathes Bilbo. And on the topic of actors who are their characters, Ian McKellen is great once again as Gandalf the Grey, and Andy Serkis is expectedly riveting as Gollum. Even through the layers of CGI, Serkis and Freeman have a great onscreen chemistry, perfectly balancing humour and nail-biting tension in the riddles in the dark segment, making for a brilliant scene.

Unfortunately, despite some great scenes like the one mentioned above, there are just too many sections that just… aren't. Or at the very least, started well but long overstayed their welcome. The film is studded throughout with glimmers of excellence, but weighed down by more filler than a box of chicken nuggets. This is particularly evident at the beginning and the end of the movie, which starts with a far from graceful stretch of exposition before moving over to Hobbiton where the film just sits. Sure there are plenty of Dwarves, but Pete, you don't need to spend so long introducing them all… and now they're singing. That's nice. Similarly, the film just refuses to end. We've gone from riddles in the dark, to a great battle in the goblin lair to a significantly less great battle with the orcs. Yes, it may have made sense to end here from a narrative viewpoint, but after that goblin battle my brain had already decided 'okay, that's it, movie's over, wrap it up', and it just wouldn't.

The Hobbit: And Unexpected Journey is the sickly chocolate cake to Argo's BLT. It takes far too long to get going, overstays it's welcome and is ready to burst with padding, but giving credit where credit is due, the film has it's moments and Martin Freeman is perfectly cast. I can only hope that Peter Jackson picks up the pace for The Desolation of Smaug, I might even give high frame-rate a go next time.

6/10

Oh, video game movies. Where did it all go wrong? Whether it be Mortal Kombat, Mario Bros or even the latest Resident Evil sequel, so long as it's roots lie in the arcade, on PC, or home console, Hollywood just seems incapable of doing existing games justice. So what about games that don't exist? Games that never saw the light of day until the big screen? Enter, Wreck It Ralph.

Disney's latest effort, Wreck it Ralph follows the story of video game bad guy Ralph who, tired of living in the shadow hero Fix It Felix, sets off to become a good guy in a game who'll accept him for who he is. The story here is great fun, and the first act borders on excellent with John C Reilly truly selling it as the sympathetic Ralph, hopping from game to game, meeting all manner of cameos. Unfortunately, once Ralph steps foot into the candy coated Mario Kart clone that is 'Sugar Rush', all this changes and not necessarily for the better.

It's at this point that Ralph's arc takes a back seat as we're introduced to the exceedingly annoying Vallenope (Sarah Silverman), a would be racer bullied, ostracised and exempt from competition for her game breaking buggy tendencies. Here the fun references to gaming yesteryear that littered the first half of the film disappear completely to be replaced by bizarre snack-food based product placement and Vallenope takes centre stage. Now, this wouldn't have been a problem if the sugar frosted brat ever saw the fault in her ways and actually became a better person by the end of the film and decided to give the abrasive quips a rest… which she doesn't. That said, even when bogged down in candyland, the film still does its best to keep the plot fresh with more than a handful of nifty ideas, and one or two surprisingly dark turns.

Despite its drawbacks, Wreck it Ralph is still a solid family film, and an enjoyable effort from Disney with buckets of action and bright colours for the kids, and plenty of throwbacks to the days of gaming yore for the parents.

7/10

CGI is a wonderful thing. Assuming you have the time, money, and talent, you can create almost anything your heart desires. Be it giant angry robots fighting giant angry pies, adorable singing pies, sprawling alien worlds where everything looks like pie, sprawling alien worlds where everything is pie, or… once you've satisfied your hunger for pie, this film… which, disappointingly has absolutely nothing to do with pie.



They say consistency is everything, now I don't know who they are bit sure as hell isn't Ang Lee. With a filmography as varied as his own under his belt, Lee has worked on everything from Sense and Sensibility to Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, The Hulk to Brokeback Mountain, it comes as no surprise that Yann Martel's supposedly unfilmable 'Life of Pi' would be his latest project.



Life of Pi follows the story of Pi, a young indian lad who, after a string of events beyond his control finds himself cast away on a lifeboat miles away from land, with nobody to keep him company but a vicious man eating tiger named Richard Parker. Pi and Parker are both scene stealers, with a brilliant chemistry reminiscent of an old bickering couple. First time actor Suraj Sharma gives a truly believable performance as the resourceful Pi, enduring whatever life throws his way, and the team at Rhythm and Hues work wonders creating the nuanced and truly lifelike Richard Parker. Nowadays CGI rarely impresses, with photorealistic animation becoming more and more commonplace, but to reach the energy, fluidity and emotion captured by Parker is something truly masterful. On top of this, Ang Lee's beautiful visuals make the absolute most of the limited setting, through the interplay between the near claustrophobic lifeboat and the immensely vast ocean, magnifying Pi's highs and crushing lows to make his journey a rule personal one.



While much of the film takes place out at sea, the movie does take some detours along the way. Unfortunately this is where the film is at its worst. The film is scattered throughout with flash forwards to present day Pi, which while effectively tying the story together, feels particularly clunky doing so as the actors dully recite their lines as if having never seen them before. Ironically, the on location shot scenes in Canada feel jarringly stagey when compared to the picturesque green screen ocean. The inclusion of Pi's brief romance rewards the beginning of the film also felt forced, serving no narrative payoff or real reason to be in the film at all rather than filling trailers and pulling attention away from Pi's far more interesting spiritual journey.



While it didn't quite make me believe in God or fulfil my expectations of gratuitous pastry, Life of Pi succeeds, not only as a visual spectacle but an emotional one, brought to life with Lee's dazzling visuals, and anchored by Sharma's performance.

7/10

2012, you have some explaining to do. I'd be lucky to see just one stop-mo released in a year, to spot two is a sure fire miracle. Now, when you have three stop motion releases in one year, something fishy's going on and surely people are bound to get suspicious…

Lakia's second film after 2009's Coraline, Paranorman is the third stop motion film released in 2012, following Aardman's Pirates! and Tim Burton's Frankenweenie remake with Disney. Now, I love stop motion, who doesn't? But three major stop mo releases in a year? Have the planets aligned? Has the prophecy been fulfilled? To put this into perspective, there hasn't been that many traditionally animated films in cinemas since 2009, four years ago. Now, this isn't to say that so much stop motion is a bad thing, it's just… strange. Then again, none of this really matters so long as the films are good. And is Paranorman good? Yes it is.

Lakia's really stepped up their game in the animation department, everything looks so tactile and fluid, and the level of detail is astounding. I spent the whole time at the cinema freaking out over the visuals, the physics, the nuances, the hair, the eyes, the cracks in the pavement… And yet, as beautiful and intricate as everything is, you never lose sight of the fact that everything on display was made by hand, with hands. I don't know how you guys made all this, but I love it. The team behind Paranorman have stated their intentions to make a cross between John Carpenter and John Hughes, and in the case of the latter they hit the nail on the head. The characters all assume their designated stereotype but still remain likeable thanks to a funny script and a strong voice cast. It takes a bit of getting used to, hearing McLovin' as the school bully, but it works a treat.

Unfortunately, it's when we get to the Carpenter side that things begin to go downhill. In an attempt to turn the tables on the traditional zombie formula, all sense of danger is lost with nothing at stake, and any driving force that once fuelled the story soon dissipates. While Paranorman's opening half retains some of the creepiness from Coraline, once it tries to delve into the horror nitty gritty, the story begins to fall apart. Now I understand the trouble here in trying to make a John Carpenter flick for kids, with blood and gore is a clear no go zone, but it's just such a shame. From beginning to end, it's evident that directors Chris Fell and Sam Butler have tried their best to tone down the scares that left so many parents with screaming children after Coraline, but in doing so they've lost part of what made their predecessor so great. Damn kids, not appreciating body horror when they can get it.

Now, despite story gripes and a lack of scares, Paranorman still remains entertaining throughout, boosted by a consistently funny script, likeable cast and some truly mind blowing animation. Here's hoping that 2012 marks the beginning of a new wave of silver screen stop motion.

6.5/10

Growing up, Quentin Tarantino always had my curiosity, he was the one name that forever had my mind bubbling. It seemed, wherever I went, his name would follow close behind. Either heard from a conversation nearby, or spotted at the petrol station, plastered on a Pulp Fiction DVD, complete with R18+ rating. While grade three me knew nothing of his work beyond Kill Bill's enticingly succinct title, I did know two things. There was no way my 10 year old self would see any of his films anytime soon, but as soon as I did, I'd love them. Fast forward a few years, and my prediction has proven more than true. It's safe to say that Tarantino has my attention.

As if basing his genre choices by throwing darts at his DVD collection, Tarantino takes aim at the often neglected blaxploitation western, delivering with power, panache and more than a bucket of blood. Here the beautiful settings are used to their fullest with some top notch cinematography, and Tarantino's script is sharp as ever, packed with plenty of laughs and delivered with ease by a brilliant cast. Foxx and Waltz share great chemistry as the bounty hunter duo, Django and Dr Shultz, and both are instantly likeable. Also great is Leonardo Dicaprio as head honcho of the deceptively titled Candyland plantation, Calvin Candie, who cant help but remind us with every word how much of an entitled dick his character is. Also worth a mention is Tarantino regular Samuel L Jackson as Stephen, perhaps the most depressing character ever put to film. The action here is brilliant, but a fair warning, this film certainly isn't for the squeamish. To call Django violent would be quite an understatement, and there are plenty of moments sure to make you cringe.

Unfortunately, as enjoyable as the story is, Tarantino's pacing is the film's major downfall. In a way, Django feels like two films in one, not that this is a bad thing in itself, that's fine. It's just that these two films, while both good in their own right, just don't fit together very well. In the first half we have the action packed adventures of Django and Shultz, it's fun, it's fast, and then it stops. As soon as Leo first steps on screen to signal the second half, the film slows down to a crawl in Django's quest to rescue his wife Broomhilda. While this allows for buckets of tension to build between Candie and the bounty hunters, leading to an explosive finale, this change in pace can be particularly jarring when coming out of the first half.

While it ain't perfect, Django Unchained is still one helluva ride and a great watch if you can get past its gruesome, blood stained coating.

9/10

If the Oscars were a person, it'd be that racist old guy who lives at the end of your street, sitting on his porch all day screeching at passing comedies and sic-fi's to 'go back where ya came from'. It's a simple fact that comedies have never sat well with the academy, nobody is 100% sure why. Perhaps laughter reminds them that they are human after all, and not the superior master race they like to say they are. Perhaps they are the superior beings they say thy are, and laughter causes their alien anatomy to rupture. Whatever the truth maybe, they were certainly playing against type nominating the romantic comedy Silver Linings Playbook for 8 oscars earlier this year, including best picture, best director, and all four acting categories. But how? Oh, it's about bipolar. Yeah that explains it.

And it's really good. Romantic comedies seem to fall under one of two extremes, either one and a half hour long exercises in making every one of my sensory organs bleed, or… the opposite of that. Silver Linings Playbook is the latter. The first film by David O Russell since 1996 not to feature Marky Mark, Silver Linings stars Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence as Pat and Tiffany, two bipolar sufferers doing their best to get by. Both give great, believable performances but still keep the laughs flowing from beginning to end. Also well worth their nominations are Robert Deniro and Jacki Weaver as Pat's parents. The film tackles the serious subject matter with care and humanity, without veering too far into oscar bait or tacky rom-com.

That is until the ending… Without giving anything away, it's certainly the Silver Linings' weakest link, cheesier than a trip to the easymac factory and as cliche ridden than a Days of Our Lives episode. That said, the It could've been very easy for the film to fall into the void of soggy sap much earlier on, and it's commendable that Russell was able to hold off the cheese tsunami until the end.

Silver Linings Playbook is a solidly funny rom-com, living up to both halves of the abbreviation, tackling a serious subject matter head on with humanity and energy, uplifted by a great ensemble cast.

7.5/10

Sure, the word 'truth' gets thrown around a lot these days, but in this world of science and youtube comments, where anything can, and has been disputed at one point or another, only one thing can be truly certain. Ninjas are cool. You know it's true, so don't try denying it. Ninjas are objectivley cool. Why? It's the whole ensemble, it's the mystery, the mythology, the weaponry, the agility, their ability to improve any just be being there, no matter how dull and brainless.

If anything else in certain, it's that GI Joe 2 is not a good movie. The script is awful, the characters are interchangeable, the story is… incoherent, and yet I can't find it in myself to dismiss it completely. If you're wondering why, just give the top pargraph another read, I thought I'd made it pretty clear. In a film as loud and obnoxious as this, I'm glad that our elite from the east had a chance to give the film some silent treatment, just not enough.

What I could never understand in films like this, particuarly Hasbro's ever stellar range of kids toys turned blockbusters, is the stories. Yes, they're dumb explosionfests, the plot doesn't have to be good my any means, but at least try to make sense. Just as science fiction stories use incomprohensible technobabble to explain concepts that neither audiences or the writers fully understand, these films use that as the plot, replacing any understandable narrative with a convoluted cocktail of psuedo-technological psuedo-scientific psuedo-political psuedo-honorific garbage that nobody could ever make sense of, let alone the lowest common denomiator audence being targeted.

Sure, the plot's there for no other reason than to segue between uninspired action scenes, but why not tell one that makes sense? I may not have seen the original film, or even know anything about the action figure beyond the name, but I doubt I'm at too much of a loss here with so many unneccessary new characters, uninteresting old ones and glossed over plot points where the writers themselves forgot what was going on.

GI Joe aims for spectacle, but aside from one excelent ninja mountain fight and the annihilation of CGI London, the action offers nothing to the table but a general air of blandness. Explosions are a marvelous thing, but like all good things, only in moderation.

While it didn't leave any mental scars, the film was nonetheless boring and confusing. With a story as mindless and dull as the ensuing action, GI Joe 2 has little to recommend beyond the honour-bound assassins, but won't leave audiences planning their retaliation.

4/10