THE PEANUTS MOVIE: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

It’s that classic tale of the little boy who’s the text-book walking-talking definition of a childhood neurotic who flicks between depressed and anxious whilst constantly becoming paralysed through his own over-analysis of any given situation. That’s right, it’s the perfect children’s movie about handling your thoughts, feelings and anxieties: it’s Inside Out oh wait, no it’s the other one: The Peanuts Movie, oh wait, they changed the name again for international audiences; it’s Snoopy and Charlie Brown: The Peanuts Movie!!

Yes, based on the classic ‘Peanuts’ tales that we all grew up on, the work of Charles M. Schulz has finally been realised on the big screen, providing you don’t include “A Charlie Brown Christmas”, “Why, Charlie Brown, Why?”, “Charlie Brown’s All Stars!”, “A Charlie Brown Valentine”, “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” and every other made for TV movie that came before it. However, in the big screen debut, featuring cutting edge 3D animation, we find Charlie Brown looking for love, whilst Snoopy embarks on a mission to finally defeat “The Red Barron.”

Look, as far as a movie goes, The Peanuts Movie is not pushing the narrative up to cinematic levels so don’t expect any large domes to be dropped on top of Hennepin County or for the Devil and Saddam Hussein to be attacking James Street Elementary School. What you do get though is a simple story essentially wrapped in a series of Charlie Brown’s greatest hits. They’re not doing anything meta, they’re not throwing in lots of adult innuendo to keep the parents entertained, they’re not doing a gritty-reinterpretation of the characters (let’s face it, can you get any grittier than Pig Pen?), but what they are doing is relying heavily on nostalgia - and in this case, there’s nothing wrong with that. 

The animation itself is a good blend of 3D animation for the characters and the backdrops, whilst they use 2D sketches for the character’s mouths and some of their facial expressions which helps to keep the look and feel of Schulz original drawings. Occasionally they even bust out some of the original artwork to keep the visuals entertaining. But whilst staying true to the look of Charlie Brown, the characters remain true to who they have always been: Charlie Brown is still neurotic, Pig Pen is still filthy, Patty is still a tomboy, and Lucy is still expectant; at the end of the day these kids are all very complicated individuals but are still loveable and annoying in their own little ways. 

The film really does do what it says on the box: it gives you a fun, feel-good time with characters that you grew up with. The story is simplistic and this keeps it true to the original comic book strips, so that works from a nostalgic-perspective for the parents, whilst if you’re a kid who knows nothing about Peanuts, then this is the perfect entry-level way of getting them interested in Charlie Brown and his assortment of supporting characters. If you go in expecting a Peanuts story and not a movie then you should not leave disappointed. 

The Peanuts Movie, I mean, Snoopy and Charlie Brown: The Peanuts Movie gets Four out of Five feel-good Stars (so Snoopy’s name comes before Charlie Brown’s name even though it’s a Charlie Brown movie? Man this is Batman V Superman all over again!)   

FIREPLACE: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

From Netflix, the network that brought you House Of Cards, Orange Is The New Black and Daredevil comes a new short-run series that follows the perils of several blocks of wood as they fight against one of nature's oldest enemies: Fire. Fireplace 4K:Crackling Birchwood has astounded audiences so far with its unique depiction of fire versus wood but the big question on everybody's lips is, does Fireplace 4K burn up the small screen or is it failing to light a spark in audience's hearts.

The film itself is fairly simple, several pieces of wood gather together only to discover that they are part of a deadly and sadistic car and mouse game with one of their greatest mortal enemies, fire. Sure the narrative may be lacking in detail and specifics but watch in horror throughout the whole 1 hour and 4 minute runtime as the director, George Ford, the director behind Aquarium For Your Home and Mountain Stream, chooses to complete the entire film in one unflinching camera take. This approach harkens back to the work of Gasper Van Noe and his single unflinching take of Monica Bellucci's brutal rape scene in Irreversible. Another interesting aspect of the cinematography is the rich earthy lighting that gives off an amber glow that also echoes the lighting style of Gasper Van Noe's infamous rape scene. Was this the director's intention to film with such striking similarities, at this stage we're not entirely sure but you could be forgiven for making that assumption.

There is also the interesting choice of the soundtrack which seems to be exclusively Christmas music. It is certainly a bold choice and one can't help but wonder if director Shane Black had a hand in the scripting of the film considering the Christmas setting.

The ambiguity of the film certainly will leave the viewer with many questions: will the log to the left of screen survive considering its inability to control its current circumstances? Were the rumours of Don Cheadle's scenes being cut due to a dispute with the director true? Could we expect another shocking twist ending such as the Red Wedding scene from Game Of Thrones or is Netflix above that kind of sensationalist filmmaking? Does this fit with the Marvel Cinematic Universe already established by Daredevil and Jessica Jones and if so, will the fire come back as one of the major villains in The Defenders mini-series?

Of course Fireplace 4K hasn't been out even a week and the film already has its' imitators. Netflix applied the same template to another new show titled Oscillating Fan 4K that also using the single camera take approach and natural lighting. The one key artistic difference here is that the film works exclusively with ambient noise recorded on set. This is certainly a bold choice on the directors part to choose to push the narrative forward with only ambient noise and this should be celebrated but this doesn't make up for the fact that Oscillating Fan 4K is just a pale imitation by comparison.

Ultimately Fireplace 4K may not be to everybody's taste due to the fact that the lot is about as thin as Transformers: Dark Of The Moon, however sources do say that the script was originally completed during the writer's strike of 2007. If that is true then considering the film's high production values some of that money could have gone towards polishing some of the finer elements of the script. However only see this if you have a burning desire to watch art-house fire-porn. Will it be remembered like other great TV series such as The Wire and Breaking Bad? Only time will tell.

Fireplace 4K: Crackling Birchwood gets Three out of Five stars (or Three out of Five missed opportunities for a Don Cheadle cameo...)

THE GOOD DINOSAUR: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

It’s a harrowing tale of survival in one of the most dangerous and vicious terrains known to man, as a scared and callow young boy, having only recently witnessed the death of his father during a brutal flood, must find his way home with the aid of a feral and wild child of the forest. Oh yeah, and before I go any further, I should admit that this is a kids movie, made by Pixar.  

The Good Dinosaur is set in an alternate universe where the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs missed the Earth and now dinosaurs have become farmers that live off the land. When young Arlo, a frightened and weak-willed Brachiosaurus, is separated from his family when he is washed away down the river, he must find his way home with the help of a young neanderthal boy. Along the way he meets an assortment of other colourful dinosaurs (which all seem to have weird Nebraska accents) and learns to face his fears as he bonds with an unlikely friend.

This is the second Pixar movie this year, and if that seems unusually frequent for the animation studio then that’s because this was originally supposed to be released back in the middle of 2014. However Pixar decided to scrap the release in favour of redoing the film from scratch, this meant firing the whole production team and starting again. Did this bold move pay off? For the most part, yes. 

Firstly, the animation is beautiful. The backgrounds and settings are truly amazing, it’s gorgeous to see water running off leaves or a swarm of birds taking off as young Arlo runs through them. The landscapes are photo-realistic, yet almost more beautiful than anything that we can see in nature, this is then mixed with colourful animated dinosaurs to make a unique looking animation that is different from previous Pixar efforts. The two main characters play off each other very well, however Arlo does become annoying from time to time. Spot, the silent part of the pairing, does well at articulating emotions in ways that only Pixar can.

The film’s storyline is fairly simple: little lost boy, or little lost Brachiosaurus, must find his way home and learn how to be brave. It’s easy enough to follow for kids, however it may be too simple for adults, which is unusual for a Pixar movie. This one seems to lack a lot of the nuances and clever catering to adults that we have in normal Pixar movies. The two main characters just seem to float in to other characters stories ever so briefly and then move on, there is no clear “big bad” nor are there any characters that really stick with you after they have left the screen. The narrative itself is very scattered and often lacks a sense of purpose. All of this could be because of the rewrites, but the animation certainly makes up for a lot of the films short comings.  

Overall, this is not the best of the Pixar movies and you can’t help but wonder what the original version of this film could have been like, however, even the weakest Pixar movie is better than most movies released today. 

The Good Dinosaur gets Three out of Five Stars (or Three out of Five eye-wateringly beautiful shots of rain running of prehistoric leaves)

THE NIGHT BEFORE: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

Christmas movies; what monotonous, repetitive, cliched pieces of shit that, nine out of ten times is cynically churned out by studios to capitalise on the small portion of people who want to be reminded of the Christmas spirit that is already attacking them from every angle from November first through until Christmas Day itself.  It almost makes you want to get drunk and take drugs instead of watching Christmas movies, thankfully man-child stoner Seth Rogen has at least produced a movie that doesn’t require you to drink and take drugs because it’s already up there on screen.

The Night Before is the latest Seth Rogen vehicle where he, Anthony Mackie and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are life-long friends who are having one last hoorah during their annual evening of debauchery on Christmas Eve as they make their way to the clandestine Nutcracka Ball, the Christmas party to end all Christmas parties. Like any Seth Rogen fare, the story is about bros learning to grow up and adjust to being adults while taking copious amounts of drugs and referencing that fact that he’s Jewish as often as possible.

The film itself has a lot going for it: it’s incredibly funny, the key cast have great chemistry and there are lots of references to things you loved from the early 90’s including Micro Machines, Nintendo 64’s Goldeneye and Home Alone. As a man in his mid-30’s Rogen certainly knows how to appeal to my inner-child. Another great strength, like all of Rogen’s films,is that he really has a knack for creating genuine and authentic feeling relationships and concerns for his key characters. The characters are always able to articulate thoughts and feelings we’ve all had at one point or another, whether we want to admit it or not. 

Another great addition to the film is the inclusion of Boardwalk Empire’s Michael Shannon as Mr. Green, a super-creepy drug dealer and spiritual mentor to the trio in a weed-dealing version of the Ghost of Christmas Past, Present and Future. 

However, for all the positives, it’s hard to deny that there is nothing surprising or new in this latest adventure. Sure it is funny, it’s filled with lots of dirty and guilty jokes, but almost all of the story elements are predictable and repetitive due to the film being so reliant on the “Rogen Template.” You know the template I’m talking about: drugs, bros do stupid stuff,  Rogen’s buddy cameos, butt-stuff, more drugs, bros fight, and of course the random cameo of a musician or sports star who is referenced earlier in the film during a throwaway line only to appear in the third act to offer sage-like advice to our heroes. As I said, it is funny, but you pretty much see every story beat coming before it happens, so it kind of takes the impact out of the comedy. 

When you look back at Rogen’s career, he’s been doing the whole man-child attempting to grow up and take adult responsibilities for the last ten years. The Night Before is certainly an improvement on last year’s The Interview, but some of the same complaints are still there, his routine is starting to become too routine. One can’t help but wonder how many movies he has left in him doing this schtick before he hits Adam Sandler level of repetition.          

At the end of the day, there’s only a small handful of good Christmas movies: It’s A Wonderful Life, Die Hard and Bad Santa; the rest are just awful. Now we have another Christmas movie that fits in that small handful, it’s certainly not as good as Die Hard but it doesn’t fit in the awful pile. 

The Night Before gets Three out of Five Stars (or Three out of Five weed-dealing creepy dudes giving you advice you don’t need - and just for the record: that’s not me)

STAR WARS THE FORCE AWAKENS: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

Jar Jar Binks, Jake Lloyd and Midichlorians. These are all things that ruined many fully grown men’s childhood memories of a film series about incest, genocide and a super dysfunctional father-son relationship that’s actually not Game Of Thrones. Star Wars The Force Awakens is arguably the most anticipated movie of the last 30 years and when the driving force behind the series revival is nostalgia for the original trilogy, will this new film live up to the astronomical expectations that many people have built up in their heads?

Ok, look, the honest truth is I’m not the biggest Star Wars fan. I was born two years after A New Hope and I was too young to remember seeing Return Of The Jedi in the cinema.  So I didn’t really get the chance to fully digest the original trilogy properly until my early teens. In hindsight, I think they only ever made two good Star Wars films, Jedi was the start of everything getting silly and slap-sticky, whilst the prequels only appear to get better because they are only slight improvements on the cinematic definition for disappointment that is The Phantom Menace.   

Of course, when reviewing the Star Wars Saga there are two approaches: 1) Overlook the things you would normally criticise other films for because it’s Star Wars, or 2) Over-criticise elements of the film you would normally overlook in other movies because it’s Star Wars. So for full-disclosure, I’m not going in to reviewing The Force Awakens with rose-tinted nostalgia glasses that many fans do. So let’s get to it: how does J.J. Abrams journey into a galaxy far far away hold up to the original trilogy and the prequels?

Everything that is old is new again. Abrams has found a way to keep the core elements of Star Wars, that were missing from the prequels, there for everyone to enjoy, but has added new characters that fit perfectly in this world. As a matter of fact, it’s the new characters of the franchise that are probably the most exciting, sure it’s great to see Han and Chewy and Liea and eventually Luke, but it’s the new cast member that really keep your attention once you get past the nostalgia-factor. Daisy Ridley and John Boyega bounce effortlessly off one another, whilst some other characters screen time may be short lived, such as Oscar Isaac and Andy Serkis, they are clearly being set up for bigger roles in future films. But it is Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren who really does steal the show in my opinion, he has all the markings of a villain like Darth Vader, but there’s an emotional range to his character that we haven’t seen in other Star Wars movies, as a matter of fact, that’s one of this film’s strongest points: all characters, old and new have an emotional core that isn’t cringe-worthy like in the prequels or for the most part missing from the original trilogy.

One really surprising thing about the film is how funny it is. You are going to laugh, like a lot in this film, there are so many funny moments that are natural and don’t feel forced that all the humour really hits their marks effortlessly. There is probably only one unintentionally funny scene in the film when one of the villains makes a speech which is so over the top that you can see the tears forming in his eyes as he overacts his way to laughing-gold.

We have all the traditional Star Wars wipes, musical cues and opening crawl to help keep things familiar but one of the great things that Abrams has done is the camera work: we get nice long takes where the camera moves in and out of these practical environments as they follow characters and there’s also an incredible amount of depth in every shot that doesn’t look like two dudes walking around in front of a green screen. The mixture of practical effects and CGI blends in a way where one never over powers the other and it reminds you where Lucas’ prequels went wrong.

As great as the film is there are some elements that don’t always work. We have plot holes all over the shop, whilst there are story threads that are introduced and then kind of forgotten about. Characters, both new and old, constantly seem to be talking in expositional foreshadowing to the point that you can pretty much predict where a characters storyline is going within their first two scenes. Some interesting cast member are introduced and then underused, if not used at all, seriously if you were holding your breath to see the cast of The Raid in action, I’d maybe lower your expectations with respects to that.

Honestly, I think it is really really good. It’s not perfect, but it is really good. Fans of the original trilogy will feel more than satisfied with the way J.J. Abrams has littered the film with references and Easter eggs to Episodes 4 - 6, however if you’re a fan and you’re looking for something more, you are going to have to be reliant on the new characters of the series because ultimately, The Force Awakens trends too much familiar ground from A New Hope to feel completely fresh. If I had one criticism, it would be that Abrams was too much of a slave to the original series.

Star Wars The Force Awakens gets Four out of Five Stars (or Four out of Five middle-age men sobbing uncontrollably in the aisle) 

BY THE SEA: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW

 
It’s Brad Pitt! It’s Angelina Jolie! It’s... f*cking boring! Yes, that’s right: Brad Pitt, one of the most versatile and coolest actors of the last two decades and Angelina Jolie, who... is I guess just famous for being Angelina Jolie, team up for the first time since Mr & Mrs Smith for this naval-gazing pretentious piece of sh*t also known as By The Sea.

Set in the 1970’s, we find Brad Pitt playing a struggling writer who travels with his wife, Angelina Jolie, to a sleepy sea-side town in France where he hopes to find inspiration. However one of the biggest issues for Pitt is that whilst bereft of inspiration, he is also struggling to keep his marriage together as he and Jolie stare silently at one another for the majority of the 2 hour and 12 minute run-time.

Written and directed by Jolie, it seems that she herself struggles with Brad Pitt’s characters problem of trying to write something good or worthwhile. The dialogue is some of the most shocking I’ve heard in a long time and if dialogue is not your thing then you’re in luck because we have lots of scenes where the characters brush their teeth, sit on a bed and do nothing, stare at the beach and say nothing, or just stare out a window and look at the ocean.

The film itself is trying to capture the look and feel of the New Wave French Cinema from the 60’s and with it’s muted colours and beautiful backdrops that’s almost enough. Except it’s not. The film lives almost exclusively in a single hotel room, with the exception of the occasional moment on the beach or at the bar, and you know what, many films have managed to pull off a single location narrative before very well, this film does not.

Now look, if you are going to have two of the biggest actors in the world sit in a hotel room for over two hours then you need to have a compelling reason for the audience to sit there in the cinema and watch this. And this is one of the key things this film has completely forgotten to do. I saw two separate people get up and walk out of the screening I was in within the first 40 minutes of the film, and there were only four people in the cinema! You know your film is poorly planned if you can’t engage with over half your audience in the first 40 minutes, so in the future, Jolie should seriously consider getting someone else to write her scripts.

Overly long with no pay off, this return of the Hollywood power couple will only interest the most dedicated voyeurs who get off on watching Brad Pitt brush his teeth and Angelina Jolie sit in a bath for two hours. I know people joke that they would gladly watch Angelina Jolie in the bath or Brad Pitt brush his teeth for two hours, but the reality is really, really f*cking boring.

By The Sea gets no stars (just a really long list of all the venereal diseases I would rather have than watch this movie again)

CREED: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

Scott Stapp, the lead singer of crappy ’90’s soft-rock Christian band Creed isn’t the biggest fan of the new movie Creed, mostly because it lacks any resemblance to his band and the film’s lack of “epic guitar solos on top of a mountain.” Thankfully, no one gives a sh*t about Scott Stapp’s opinion because he was the lead singer of crappy ’90’s soft-rock Christian band Creed.* However, the movie Creed is definitely worth your time and effort.  

Creed is the story of a young up and coming boxer who’s ambitious, angry but in serious need of a mentor, oh yeah, and just happens to be the youngest illegitimate son of former World Heavyweight Champion Apollo Creed. Not wishing to ride on the coattails of his father’s name, he seeks out his father’s former rival and friend Rocky “The Italian Stallion” Balboa. That’s right, this is a Rocky movie! And quite honestly, probably the best Rocky movie since the first one.

Look, for full disclosure, I should admit that I’m a massive Rocky fan, I enjoy all of them, even number five, well maybe not number five. Very few films can make me cry, the original Rocky film is one of those films. Every time Rocky screams out Adrian’s name at the end of the film after getting the Hell beaten out of himself just gives me watery eyes and a lump in my throat. This new film will also make you shed a tear on more than one occasion and for very different reasons.

There are so many good things about this film. Yes, it is a Rocky film, but it is a modern day Rocky film that uses many of the Rocky templates but is not a slave to these templates. We have some really creative camera work, particularly in the boxing scenes; the camera always floats over one of the boxer’s shoulders which really brings you into the ring. The editing cuts effortlessly to small intimate details of a scene to really paint a picture from the set up of a fight to the conversations two lovers can have together. The lighting dips in and out to draw attention during intense scenes to highlight the character’s focus during a fight.

The narrative has a much more human approach than you’d expect in the Rocky film series. They’re not afraid to touch on the darker implications of life as a boxer, there is far more humility in this film, the kind of humility that hasn’t been seen since the first two Rocky movies. The characters in this film are far more human with genuine motivations and relationships that go past the motivations of previous Rocky films such as “I must break you” or “respect”. As a matter of fact, the motivation for Creed is revealed in the final fight of the film and it’s a real punch in the gut which makes the final fight all the more meaningful.

But let’s focus on the two leads: Michael B Jordan is charming and likable, he’s has a remarkable likeness to Carl Weathers and has worked hard to get in shape for this film. He is in many ways the new and improved Rocky. However Sylvester Stallone is the surprising talking point of the film. This is Rocky at his most humble, gone is the vanity that often hindered the other Rocky movies as we finally see a broken down and retired Rocky Balboa. Many have been suggesting that Stallone could be up for an Oscar nomination and to be honest, I would be shocked if he wasn’t nominated. This is the best version of Rocky we have seen since the very first Rocky movie, the emotion is there on his face and is real - from when he talks about his son to when he receives some devastating news.

Ultimately, Creed is a solid film that lives within the world of Rocky but still stands on its own two feet. In many ways it’s like an indie film that just happens to exist in the Rocky universe. This film work for Rocky fans and is still accessible for people new to the Rocky franchise.

Creed gets Four and a Half Stars (or Four and a Half guitar solos on a mountain top)       

* Disclaimer: Yes I know that the Scott Stapp Creed review is a Funny or Die sketch.

ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW

Monty Python are back, and this time they have brought along Simon Pegg to star in their first feature film in over 30 years. Not only that but they even have the late great Robin Williams voicing a dog. That should be a three hit combination and after seeing it I can confidently say, that you should see ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING else!

Absolutely Anything features a bunch of poorly CGI’d aliens, voiced by the cast of Monty Python, that decide the best way to choose the fate of the planet Earth is to bestow absolute power to one human, if that human uses the power for good, the Earth survives, if not, well... you know. If the plot sounds familiar it’s probably because it’s been used constantly from Bruce Almighty to episodes of The Simpsons and so on and so forth.

So look, this is supposed to be a comedy: it has Simon Pegg, it involves the creative team from Monty Python, it should be a home-run, but it’s not. It’s an unfunny mess of a film with so many awkward and uneven jokes with no real story. The film sets up a basic story with basic jokes, the biggest problem is that the story is too basic and the jokes don’t land mostly because they don’t know what kind of comedy they want to be: the jokes are either family-friendly but then switch to expletives that don’t really fit with the rest of the jokes. The only real saving-grace of this disappointing movie is that it mercifully only lasts 81 minutes.

Monty Python has always been an acquired taste when it comes to comedy; I’m a huge fan but I understand if people find the comedy too random and too left-field to always comprehend. It just seems in this film though that they have played it far too safe to the point where it really is unrecognisable as a Python endeavour. Gone is the iconic visual animation we’ve seen from The Flying Circus in favour of really poor CGI and the humour lacks any of the clever overtones, play on words or silly walks that make it recognisable to fans of the ensemble.  

You know, I really feel for Simon Pegg because I’ve been really hammering a lot of his films lately. I thought Man Up and Kill Me Three Times are horrendous pieces of sh*t and Absolutely Anything slides perfectly into the middle of this sh*t sandwich. He’s a great comedic actor and I am forever in his debt for his work on the TV series Spaced not to mention Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz. Outside of that though, he seems to only work well when he’s likable side-kick in blockbuster franchises such as Mission Impossible and the revamped Star Trek. Put him in as the leading man for anything else and it just seems to be a waste of his talent. Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s a great guy, he just really needs to make better film choices.  

At the end of the day, this could have been so much better and really should have been so much better. This is one of Robin Williams’ last roles and unfortunately it is not one that he will be remembered for. The script for this film sat on the shelf for years, how it ever got off the shelf is a mystery, but as I said at the beginning: do yourself a favour and watch Absolutely Anything else.

Absolutely Anything gets Half a Star (that’s Half a Star for that one time that I laughed while watching this movie - although that might have been gas)

JESSICA JONES: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

She's a hard-drinking, hot-tempered mess of a private eye who is also capable of punching a hole through your chest. That might not seem like the recipe for the kind of person you'd want to hang out with, but you could definitely afford to lose 13 hours of your life getting to know Marvel and Netflix's new small-screen super-heroine, Jessica Jones.

Yes, the sophomore follow-up to the smash-hit that was Daredevil earlier this year is Jessica Jones, a private dick (without the dick) in Hell's Kitchen who uses her wit, intelligence, smart mouth and super-strength along with the ability to fly and consume copious amounts of liquor to solve whatever case needs to be solved. Just imagine Veronica Mars with super-powers and a bad drinking habit. When distraught parents hire Jessica to help find their missing daughter, this reluctant superhero with severe PTSD becomes caught in a deadly cat and mouse game with a man known as Kilgrave, who has the ability to control anyone with just a few simple words.

Filled with the grit and darkness that had Daredevil leaving all other comic book TV series looking slack-jawed, Jessica Jones ups the dark tones with some really disturbing concepts and scenes touching on domestic abuse, sexual abuse, self-harm and all those other feel-good, happy-fun time themes. 

One of the great things about these Netflix series is that it’s a lot like watching one 13 hour long comic book movie, so we aren’t dependent on having the “freak of the week” approach to the storytelling that you often get in other shows like The Flash, Arrow and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. We essentially have one long overarching narrative that’s sprinkled throughout with supporting character’s stories that for the most part serve a genuine purpose. Often one of the biggest cliches in comic book TV series and movies is the “will they/won’t they?” trope; The Flash does this, Arrow does this, Iron Man did this for three films, but with Jessica Jones, the big question is “will they/won’t they stop f*cking?” which is so incredibly refreshing as it is good to see a real adult relationship fleshed out in the superhero genre (no pun intended).

One of the strongest elements of the show is its unflinching portrayal of abusive relationships and how the strong female characters handle and react to these situations. Kristen Ritter and Rachel Taylor are perfectly cast and bounce off each other so well; you can see a genuine friendship and what is also refreshing is that at no point are any of the female characters pining for men or succumbing to other negative stereotypes associated with women in leading roles in TV and film. The show also really comes alive whenever Mike Colter’s Luke Cage or David Tennant’s Kilgrave are on screen, but both for completely different reasons: Luke Cage is calm and confident, not to mention indestructible, but in a surprise gender-reversal he plays the femme-fatal to Ritter’s hard-boiled detective. Whereas Kilgrave is skin-crawling creepy, incredibly funny and yet able to, on occasion, make you feel sorry for him despite some of the horrific things that he does.            

The show itself is not perfect. Admittedly the slow burn approach can sometimes be a little too slow. There is a sudden and dramatic character change for one of the supporting cast which really comes out of left-field and is never really explained and doesn’t really make sense when you think about how that character was first introduced. The show, much like Daredevil, is continually building to several things including a final confrontation but unlike Daredevil, none of these things really pay off come the end of the final episode. The show teases everything from flying, to the “Purple Man” to “The Man Without Fear” just to name a few, but I honestly wouldn’t hold your breath for many of these things.

Overall Jessica Jones is an absolute train-wreck of character but with some great humour, charm and strongly positive feminist messages this is definitively the show you should be watching right now. It may not quite reach the lofty heights of Daredevil, but the tension this series ratchets up throughout its thirteen episode run really does give the other hero of Hell’s Kitchen a run for his money.

Jessica Jones gets Four and Three Quarter Stars out of Five (What are you doing? You need to be watching this show now!! Already watched it? Watch it again!!)

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY PART 2: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

It seems you can’t be a legitimate franchise nowadays unless you’re willing to split your final installment into two parts. Let’s face it, Harry Potter did it with The Deathly Hallows, Twilight milked it with Breaking Dawn, Divergent is going to be doing it, The Avengers are doing it to squeeze the most out of Robert Downey Jnr’s contract, plus Peter Jackson turned a f*cking 300 page book into a nine hour three part film with The Hobbit; so now we have The Hunger Games milking all those young adult fiction audience’s wallets with Mockingjay Part 2.

Granted the most frustrating part of this approach is that as an audience we are being forced to pay twice for what is essentially one long film that clearly didn’t need to be so long. As seems to be par for the course with these films, Part 1 is nothing more than filler before hitting the part everyone wants to see. In the absolute final chapter we see reluctant rebellion leader Katniss Everdeen risk everything to form an army to take out evil President Snow played by Kiefer Sutherland’s dad Donald.

As we’ve already said, everything has been building to this, so it’s fair to assume that we are going to just jump right into it, but yet again, we have to build. This franchise has been very good at tricking you into thinking you’re watching a full-blown action movie, but when you step back and look at it, there’s a lot of talking. We’ve got deep heart-to-hearts, lots of pontificating, strategic meeting after strategic meeting always focused on building the importance of what is at stake. This may seem like a criticism, and in some ways it is but in other ways it is not.

As far as films based on Young Adult fiction go, The Hunger Games series is far stronger than your Twilights and Divergents. They cover broader themes, they know how to build tension, story and character, they have a stronger pedigree of acting talent involved between Lawrence, Harrelson, Sutherland, Moore and the final on screen performance of the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman; but the series still has Peeta. Yes Peeta, the most useless person to have in a death-battle royale. Once again, Peeta is being dragged around by other characters and like always, he serves as more of a hindrance than help, which really makes you wonder about his appeal or purpose beyond a forced love interest.

Now let’s quickly get through the nit-picky stuff: There are some conflicting narrative elements between propaganda and priorities; characters are killed for not confirming Everdeen’s death but then later the Capitol are completely happy to televise and report on her supposed death with no actual confirmation. We have two warring factions obsessed with their own brand, yet do nothing when they are being hacked during their own broadcasts. It all seems to just be convenient for the plot. Jennifer Lawrence has definitely outgrown this franchise to the point where throughout most of the film she just looks bored and looks to have taken a leaf out of the Kristen Stewart book of acting. The film is overly long and easily could have been condensed, you know, like into one film. The ending is so long and drawn out that it makes Return Of The King seem conservative.

However, all these negatives don’t overshadow what this series does well. For a blockbuster, it is not afraid to tackle themes that really relate to our current climate. Previously, they have tackled the issues behind Reality Television and have shown the impact of propaganda; this time the focus is on the politics and casualties of war, the impact of being displaced, allusions to the Syrian refugee crisis and blurring of the lines between heroes and villains during times of war. Say what you will, but you will not find themes like that in your Transformers movies or many other of your big-budget affairs.

The finale is dark and grim with some huge action set-pieces, explosions, black-oil runs, weird alien-like faceless creatures, falling ground and all the other things you’ve come to expect from a Tomb Raider game - I mean *cough-cough* a Hunger Games movie.

Overall, the film series wraps everything that needs to be wrapped up nicely, if not grimly, but the question of whether it was worth splitting into two would best be answered by readers of the books. For my money though, I still feel that I’ve been charged twice for one film.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 gets Three and a Half out of Five Stars (although if you half that like they did this final installment then that score doesn’t seem too crash-hot)

SPECTRE: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

What does an estimated $350 million get you? Unfortunately second place when compared to previous Bond efforts. Yes Bond is back, and after reinvigorating the franchise by punching us in the face with a fist full of stripped back, low-tech awesomeness that was Casino Royale, and then delivering the ADD-fueled continuous chase sequence clusterf*ck that was Quantum of Solace, we were then treated to the sleek class that was Skyfall with it’s beautiful cinematography and old school charm; now we have Spectre and... um.... yeah.....

When Bond goes rogue during an unsanctioned mission in Mexico this begins a series of events that sends 007 on a personal mission to uncover the sinister organisation that has been teased since Casino Royale. Meanwhile, Ralph Fiennes’ M battles it out with his bureaucratic counterpart C, no I’m not making that up, who’s played by Sherlock’s Andrew Scott, who to be fair is a bit of a C. Well anyway, giving away anymore of the plot verges on spoilers territory, so let’s try to answer the big question: does Spectre live up to the incredibly high standards set by Skyfall?

Now the follow up to Skyfall was always going to struggle to match the bar that was set, let alone exceed such standards, but you can’t deny that both Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes have given it their all in what could be their final Bond. Like any Mendes’ film the stunts, set-dressing and cinematography are all top-notch, don’t believe me, then watch any other film he’s ever made. Craig is still brooding, intense and pretty mopey for a Bond but at least this time he looks like he’s having fun from time to time.

The rest of the cast are quality when they are on screen, but that’s part of the problem, many of them are not on screen for very long. We have Monica Bellucci, who stuns as the most age appropriate Bond girl in a long time, she’s cool, calm and sexy, but she’s also hardly in the film. Of course then there’s the second Bond girl who has a lot more screen time but very little to do, even though she is a great actress, just see Blue Is The Warmest Colour for evidence of that, her character’s priorities and beliefs turn on a dime meaning she has very little impact on the story and will not be a memorable Bond girl. Then there’s Dave Bautista, who finally brings back the Bond henchmen to the series and is nothing short of a muscle-bound bag of fantastic but once again he’s only in a few short scenes. It honestly feels like they’ve dropped in a series of great characters and alluded to the fact that they are important to the narrative but in most cases, when all is said and done they actually aren’t. And then of course there’s the villain.     

Since the very beginning of the Bond franchise, these films have lived and died on their villains and during the Craig era we have had Mads Mikkelsen’s brilliant Le Chiffre in Casino Royale, Javier Bardem’s ultra creepy villain in Skyfall and the forgettable one in Quantum of Solace, sorry but do you even remember the character’s name? We now get an in-between kind of villain from two time Oscar winner Christoph Waltz. Look, Christoph Waltz is a great actor but highly under utilised in this film. As a villain, there's lots of room for development and unfortunately doesn't even come to the menace of Le Chiffre or his Oscar winning role of Col. Hans Landa. This is due mostly to the fact that his whole motivation for his angst towards Bond is cliched, far-fetched and confusing when you really think about it. He’s the character that ties the three previous Bond films together but this is where the far-fetched stuff comes into play, because, if he really is the architect of all of Bond’s pain then he’s been playing the long game to the point where you almost expect him to claim responsibility for that time Bond nearly choked on a peanut. 

Spectre covers some of the same old ground with regards to the "meta" question of whether Bond is actually relevant in the modern world, which is fine to a point, but considering the extent that Skyfall went in to exploring this idea and proving that he is still relevant, kind of makes it a bit repetitive here and regresses any progress the characters made in Skyfall. The film also explores themes of surveillance and data retention in the modern world which echoes many of the ideas touched on in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, however The Russo Brothers massaged these ideas far better when they tackled them. There is also a question of tone for the film. For the most part the film keep the same over serious tone that we've had throughout the Daniel Craig era but this time we get very brief and rare moments of humour that borders almost on slapstick. Some critics say that this film is more akin to the Roger Moore films but I honestly don't think there's enough of that kind humour to really make a legitimate comparison.

Overall, the film struggles to reach the lofty heights set by Skyfall. The twists can be seen a mile away so there are no real surprises, just the audience waiting for the film to acknowledge what everyone already knows. It may not be the best Bond of the series but you can’t deny that even a mediocre Bond films can easily outdo most blockbuster movies these days.

Spectre gets Double-O Three Stars

MAN UP: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

Imagine going on a blind date with what you expect to be a talented and funny person; only to discover that you’re actually trapped on a date with a hypocritical, narcissistic, self-absorbed couple that ends after 87 minutes with very few laughs. That may not be the exact plot for the new Simon Pegg film Man Up, but it is definitely the feeling you will have after you have left the cinema.

Man Up is the new British Rom-Com from the Director of The Inbetweeners, which sees a down on her luck yet still incredibly smug, Lake Bell going on a blind date with a newly divorced, incredibly shallow and highly hypocritical Simon Pegg after she is mistaken for someone else. Taking place over the span of one night, Lake Bell’s character struggles to keep up the charade of being someone else as the evening becomes more and more chaotic and when the truth finally comes out you still have to sit through another 48 minutes of the film.

Now it may sound like I’m giving this film an unnecessarily hard time considering the talent that is involved, but that is actually part of the problem. Yes Simon Pegg and Lake Bell are both incredibly charming people, but that doesn’t mask the fact that their characters are incredibly horrible people. Simon Pegg’s character is incredibly hung up on his divorce, so shouldn’t really be going on a blind date, but also is obsessed with rubbing  fake relationship in his ex-wife’s face and fixating on the idea of dating a 24 year old at the age of 40. Add to this the fact that Lake Bell’s character is actively choosing to ignore one of the most important nights of her parent’s life, a 40th anniversary, in order to keep up this lie, but then makes it all about herself when she arrives at the party.

One of the other big issues with the film is that it doesn’t know whether it wants to be a raunchy, dirty comedy or a Richard Curtis film. It tries to be both and fails on both ends: the raunchy jokes do not land as well as they would in The Inbetweeners and the characters and situations do not live up to the standards set in a Richard Curtis film. A Richard Curtis film will have flawed yet endearing characters worthy of redemption, yet this film is filled with self-serving unlikable characters from the two leads all the way through to Lake Bell’s family who clearly created a pathological deceiver within their daughter by fixating on relationships being the defining feature of an individual.

On top of all this the film seems to have borrowed it’s soundtrack from, well, whatever seems to fit at the time. The soundtrack moves from odd covers, to piano renditions of familiar tunes used in much better movies to every cliched tune you’d expect to hear when the film verges into the romantic or comedy cliche.

Overall, the film does not really know what it wants to be with many of the jokes falling flat, many of the situations being nauseating, and many of the characters being incredibly unlikable when you actually stop and think about it for a minute. It is unfortunate because all the talent involved really do deserve better than this featherweight Notting Hill Rom-Com of banality.

Man Up gets One out of Five Stars (the one star comes from the fact that the film is mercifully short) 

LEGEND: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

What’s better than Tom Hardy in a movie? Two Tom Hardys in the same movie. The strongest selling point about the new gangster movie Legend is easily Tom Hardy’s dual performance, unfortunately though, this might be its only selling point.

Based on the true story of the infamous London gangsters known as the Kray Twins, we see Tom Hardy flexing his acting muscle as both Reggie and Ron Kray as they built their criminal empire during the 1960’s. Using many of the techniques we’ve seen in The Social Network to make Armie Hammer appear as the Winklevoss Twins, we have Tom Hardy go one better by shaping two very different twin brothers. We have Hardy playing the charming and stylish Reggie Kray, who can easily break some hearts and break some heads, but then we also have him as Ronald Kray, a physically and mentally twisted man who will really get under your skin.

The film also stars Emily Browning as Reggie’s long-suffering partner along with some other great English stalwarts such as David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston and Paul Bettany to name a few. One of the surprising pieces of casting is Kingsman’s Taron Egerton who plays one of Ron’s gay lovers/heavy-hitters, I almost didn’t realise it was the same actor. But all other actors aside, it really is Hardy that everyone is going to be talking about.

Much like the fantastic series Orphan Black, Hardy has created two very distinct individuals within these roles. He has tweaked each character to appear as if they are completely different people; from tone of voice, delivery of lines, how they walk, how they stand, facial ticks, stares and gestures all really shape these two equally volatile people. Reggie is tall, handsome and could easily make you go all gay for Tom Hardy, but then there’s Ron who’s short, always flaring his bottom teeth, looks like an angry rabid pit bull and... seems to have no neck, and even though his character is gay, you don’t want any of that, even though it’s still Tom Hardy - that’s how good he is in this film!

Once we get past Hardy’s performance though, the film starts to feel a little hollow and empty. Sure the film has some great things going for it with regards to a solid cast, great back and forth between characters, some cool swagger here and there, but it doesn’t really feel like anything amounts to anything. There’s no development of characters outside of the Kray Twins and despite all the jokes, the violence and the cockney banter you feel like you’ve seen this story a thousand times before. Sure it’s based on a true story, but it just feels like every other gangster movie. It attempts a lot of the tropes and techniques used in other gangster films which make this feel a little tired, but even though this might sound a little contradictory, the film really could have used some Guy Ritchie editing flair.

Overall, the film has a lot of fun elements and the performance of Hardy-squared is worth the cost of the ticket alone, but despite all the swagger and cool the film tries to deliver you are not going to get anything new out of this retread of the gangster genre... Except for Hardy, that guy is the f*cking man!

Legend gets Three out of Five Stars (or Three out of Five no-necked-rabid-pit-bulls with a cockney accent)

BLACK MASS: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

Goodfellas, Godfather, Donnie Brasco and Carlito’s Way. These are all fantastic gangster movies and Black Mass has certainly taken a leaf from each of these films and manages to hold its own in many ways against these cinematic heavyweights and mostly because of Johnny Depp.

Yes that’s right, Johnny Depp. The man obsessed with eye liner, hairspray and prosthetics being stuck to his face as he prances around and pulls odd ball faces whenever he needs to emote a reaction to camera pulls back from his consistent pantomime performances of the last decade to give us a truly terrifying performance as James “Whitey” Bulger. Black Mass is the true story of how FBI Agent John Connolly colluded with Irish mobster “Whitey” Bulger to take down the Italian mob, however as the story went on the balance of power shifted to Bulger who was in to anything, as long as it was illegal and became almost untouchable.

With Boston as the backdrop for the story and a large ensemble cast of quality actors such as Joel Edgerton, Benedict Cumberbatch and Breaking Bad’s Jesse Plemons it becomes a competition for who can pull off the best Boston accent. We’ve got the Brits, the Aussies, and the Texans all battling it out for who can out-BOSTON the others in the cast. But Boston accents aside this film is all about Depp’s performance.

Johnny Depp looks f*cking scary and intimidating as Bulger which is refreshing after his long foray into silly faces and wide eyed reactions in big budget pirate movies and the like. It shows that he can still give a great performance when he gives a sh*t. It’s his eyes that really sell it in this film with a death stare so criminal he could easily serve six consecutive life sentences just off one look. On top of this it’s his delivery that makes him sound like a man you do not want to mess with along with the skin crawling way he’ll touch people when he wants them to feel uncomfortable.

The film itself borrows from all the great gangster movies of the 70’s and 80’s but not in a way that feels like a blatant rip-off and not in a way that is to the film’s detriment. At times it has the lighting of The Godfather whilst using the camera moves of Scorsese’s Goodfellas and borrows here and there from the other greats. This all adds to the look and feel of the film, it feels like this could have been made in the late 70‘s or early 80‘s it just feels so authentic. The only issue I find these homages is that the originals still did it better. For all the violence of Black Mass it doesn’t compare to the Goodfellas and the Godfathers it just feels that little bit more reserved. Whilst the camera is not willing to linger uncomfortably the way DePalma or Scorsese might have done back in their heyday. This doesn’t hurt Black Mass in any way, it just reminds you that other films have done it better.

Overall, this film holds itself up as a good example of a modern day gangster film that has the look and feel of Scorsese and Coppola if not necessarily the edge of their work. It’s a return to form for Depp and a wish that he would take on more roles like this in the future and if you only need one reason to see the film then let Depp be that reason.

Black Mass gets Four out of Five Stars (or Four out of Five reasons for Depp to put down the eye-liner)

THE MARTIAN: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW

So Matt Damon is stranded on a desolate planet again so it kind of feels like a prequel to Interstellar. Thankfully though, it's a much more energetic and fun version of Interstellar, however you will still need to brush up on your maths and science skills.

The Martian is the latest film from director Ridley Scott, based on the best selling book by author Andy Weir which sees astronaut Matt Damon left for dead on the fourth planet from the Sun after a brutal storm forces the rest of his crew to make an early exit from their Mars expedition. With limited food and resources Damon’s character Mark Watney must find a way to communicate with Earth and stretch his resources for the best case scenario of four years before he can be rescued.   

Watching The Martian, its hard not to compare it to Interstellar with the whole last "Mann" on the planet thing and even though I'm a big fan of Interstellar, The Martian just reminds you of what Interstellar sorely lacked: humour. I mean Interstelllar is great with all the crying and existential wondering, but it really could have used more "I'm going to have to science the shit out of this" and less sobbing. It’s good humoured and well paced throughout whilst using science and maths in fun and creative as Damon runs around Mars.

Much like Tom Hanks in Cast Away, Matt Damon has the unenviable job of carrying most of the film by being the only guy on a desolate planet so as a result there's a lot of pontificating to a GoPro camera but if anyone can pull that off its Matt Damon. And he does it with charm and good humour throughout, there’s just something incredibly funny about him talking to a camera about how he’s going to need to ration food whilst continually eating peanuts and jelly beans.

Being a Ridley Scott Sci-Fi there are a few things that you can guarantee: the alien-landscape is shot beautifully, the spaceship design work is sleek and the spacesuits always look cool. Another strength of Scott’s is his ability to handle large ensemble casts because for a film about one man stranded on Mars, the supporting cast is great with a combination of Oscar nominated and comedic actors. This combination means that we get some great banter between characters that’s very natural but also very funny.

Now some critics are saying that this is Ridley Scott's best film in years and a return to form, and for me, I think that's incredibly harsh on Ridley Scott. His direction, skill and attention to detail has never faltered. Prometheus and Exodus look amazing, it's just that they have incredibly weak scripts. And keep in mind, even if the script is weak, Scott still always gets great performances out of his casts, hell, he even almost made Orlando Bloom appear interesting for once in Kingdom of Heaven. Almost.

Overall, The Martian has got a lot going for it and as enjoyable as it is you’ll eventually pick up on the narrative pattern within the film. It’s basically “Science yay! Maths yay! F*ck you Mars!! Science yay! Maths yay! F*ck you Mars” and repeat. Of course that’s not a negative in this case. 

The Martian gets Four and a Half out Five Stars (I took half a star because the film really needed more Donald Glover - I think I have a man-crush) 

EVEREST: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

You know, I’m never going to climb Everest. Not because of the danger, the risk of death, the fact that my fitness level is the equivalent to a half-eaten Big Mac, no, I’m never going to climb Everest because it just looks too damn tiring.

So Everest is out and with such a hugely talented ensemble cast, breath-taking cinematography and some edge of your seat moments you’d expect this to be released during the blockbuster season considering all the trappings of a blockbuster. Probably one of the reasons that this wasn’t released during the blockbuster season is because it does choose to play it safe on one too many occasions, but that’s not to say that this is not an exciting film.   

Touching back on the cast again, I can’t emphasise just how much everyone looks like they belong in this film. They just all feel so genuine with lots of great weathered actors like Josh Brolin, Jake Gyllenhaal and Emily Watson looking like they belong on a mountain, and we even get some decent turns from people like Sam Worthington. Jason Clarke is the heart of the film as climber Rob Hall and he brings a real human and humble touch to the role, he’s just a good man trying to do the right thing as opposed to the usual Hollywood approach of making him overly heroic. The only weak link in the cast for me was Keira Knightley as Rob Hall’s wife. Her acting is top notch with respects to the ugly crying and I mean ugly crying with the snot and everything, the only issue is her very distracting accent. It could be Australian, it could be a New Zealand accent, I don’t think even she knows... 

It is filled with large sweeping scenes of mountains and the amazing terrain of Nepal that really needs to be seen on a decent quality I-Max screen to appreciate the magnitude of what the maniacs who trek the mountain actually overcome. Unfortunately this is a movie about characters who don’t necessarily overcome said mountain, so don’t get too attached to any of the climbers. Character deaths are interesting in this film, often choosing to have someone disappear off screen as a reminder that in an environment like Everest, there's no way to know what is going on around you.

There is no ham fisted foreshadowing like in other similar films. Instead we are treated to the process and procedure that everyone must go through when attempting Everest. It’s detailed, it’s thorough and the main reason I’d never go up Everest because it just sounds so tiring.

Now you have certain expectations going into a film like this, especially off the back of the trailers however the film chooses to forgo a lot of the cliches and goes down a much safer path. Was this the best choice by the filmmaker? Hard to tell... It's still a survivalist movie but might have been misleading advertising it as s disaster movie. Instead of going for the big over dramatic avalanche scenes or everyone screaming in terror whenever something happens you have very downplayed but realistic moments for what would probably happen all the way up there. And considering that this is based on true events it would probably be doing the people this film is based on a huge disservice by presenting it any other way.

Overall, this is a really well made film that needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible, but just adjust your expectations from a disaster film to a survivalist film and you should not be disappointed... except for the weird Aussie/Kiwi hybrid accent.

Everest gets Four and a Half out of Five Stars (or Four and a Half nightmares about frostbite)  

SICARIO: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

Sicario is the latest movie to entice audiences to visit Mexico by highlighting all the drug trafficking, people smuggling, cartel-killings and dismembered bodies strung out for the locals and tourist to see. Besides the highly positive representation of Mexico one thing you can’t deny is that Sicario is one of the most bad-ass movies of the year.

With a stellar cast and some brutal concepts we find FBI agent, Emily Blunt, being brought in to assist with an elite government task force that are trying to squeeze out the last few avenues available to the murderous drug-cartels across the border. It's a quality film that packs a lot into its 2 hour running time, however this has real potential to be a six to ten part TV series that could really flesh out some more of the elements that make this film so great.

The film is structured really well with some really eerie landscape cinematography that shows Mexico in a way like never before. There’s birds eye views of Mexico looks like twisted contorted body more than sparse desert landscapes. On top of this the camera also serves as Emily Blunt's eyes often teasing out information about locations, character traits and character reveals. There some interesting choices with framing where sometimes intense conversations are shot at an extreme distance in order to just show the distress of the whole body as opposed to just the face.

Much like the brilliant but little seen Arnold Schwarzenegger film Sabotage, Sicario pays close attention to the procedural aspects of large scale tactical operations. The film works hard and works well with regards to bring you into the thick of the action without always having to resort to a first person shooter, sure they do do this at times but only to ratchet up the tension as opposed to "just because it looks cool." There's a grittiness and realism to the crimes in Mexico that it makes you wonder just how brutal the actions of the real-life cartel might be in reality.

The casting around Emily Blunt is really impressive. There’s some really weathered actors bringing some intimidating performances. From Josh Brolin’s head of the elite task force to Benicio Del Toro’s enigmatic consultant just bringing body bags in spades, you have a whole series of supporting cast that look like they’ve walked straight out of the actual cartel, or straight out the back of a people smuggling truck or straight the nastiest army regiment they could find. Plus we throw in the new Punisher Jon Bernthal for good measure. All this just adds to the realism and the blood, sweat and tears of the film’s surroundings.  

There's a sudden and dramatic change in protagonist briefly towards the end of the film which reinforces the reason for this film to be a ten part series. It is a little jarring and does diminish Blunt's character in many ways, but as Josh Brolin's character continually reminds us, she is just one piece of a much larger story.The ending itself is quite bleak and in some ways reminiscent of No Country For Old Men, this ultimately serves as a reminder that despite all the horrible things in this world, life continues to move on.

Overall, Sicario is definitely a film you should make time for. Granted I still feel that the movie had the potential to be better served as a TV series, but I’m certainly not going to hold that against it when it’s this good.

Sicario gets Four and a Half Stars out of Five (or Four and Half out of Five reasons to not f*ck with the cartel)  

PAN: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

So it's "Peter Pan Begins" with an origin story that was never really necessary but follows in the footsteps of Maleficent as we learn.... well, very little about any of the characters in the Peter Pan mythology in the new Hugh Jackman film Pan.

Set in England during World War II we find Hugh Jackman's Captain Blackbeard pulling a Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as he pays nuns to allow his men to snatch orphan children, where he takes them to Neverland in order to work in his mines (to be fair, it's never been proven that Brangelina have their children work in mines but it would explain why they have so many.) During one of these raids the Pirates steal young orphan Peter only to discover that he will one day fulfil the prophecy to defeat Captain Blackbeard.

Now the film is directed by Joe Wright who gave us Atonement and spy-thriller Hanna, and the guy really lets loose with the visuals and the choreography with some amazing set pieces, fight sequences and splashes of colour that make it feel like it's a commercial for a high definition TV. On top of that you just have Hugh Jackman chewing scenery and clearly having a ball in the role of Blackbeard as he gets the masses signing along to Nirvana and The Ramones, although it does look like "what if Hugh Jackman was a meth-addict?" Jackman's band of pirates look amazing but also look like a bunch of drag-queens who have just finished the world's biggest bender but this all just adds to the visual splendour if the film. Honestly, you cannot fault a single cast member, everyone gets into their roles, give it their all and look like they have a great time doing it as well. Even the normally wooden Garrett Hedund is a really interesting and comical James Hook and relative newcomer Levi Miller makes for an excellent Pan.

Admittedly I've never been a big advocator of 3D but if you are planning on seeing this film then 3D is the only way to go. There is so much depth to the scenery and so many layers all interlocking with one another that 3D just enhances the experience. I often find the 3D effect often wears off after 20 minutes but it really sticks with you until the end with this film. The film is ultimately aimed at a child audience so it is easy to assume that the character of Peter Pan is unadaptable and outdated, looking at the film from an adults eyes you would be right, but kids are sure to love the thrills, the music and the colours that this film offers.

Although the film is not without its faults: some of the scenes border of pantomime and this isn't helped by the continual foreshadowing that goes on throughout the film. From Hedlund carrying a hook for no good reason, to lots of suggestions that he might loose his hand to really cringe-worthy lines like "you and me Hook are going to be friends forever!" Even though there are some great visuals, there is also some really questionable CGI. There are flying/falling scenes where the body just doesn't move right, arms bend in places where they are not supposed to and there are some jaw-droppingly bad CGI colourful skeleton birds. I mean my jaw literally dropped when I saw them because I thought to myself, you can't seriously be putting something so shite in such a big budget movie.

The film still features the noble savages but instead of racist Indians like in the Disney version you have every other ethnicity from Aboriginals to Chinese Acrobats to Pakistani Indians to Malaysians to the American Girl With The Dragon Tattoo... So that's, less racist... I guess.

One of the other big issues, and this is common for these "prequel-type" movies is that often the things that made you love the original story so much are held off to the very end and sometimes not even shown at all because of the "we're sure we'll make a sequel" approach to film franchising nowadays. Also, much like Maleficent there's a strong desire to make a famously reviled villain be viewed as a misunderstood tragic figure, which is fine but let's face it, it's going to get predictable and boring after a while.

But when all is said and done it's important to remember that this film is aimed squarely at kids so the target market will certainly feel satisfied come the end, adults on the other hand are just not going to feel that their needs are getting met.

Pan gets 3 out of Five Stars (or 3 out of Five surly drag-queen pirates) 

PIXELS: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

OK so the guy behind Home Alone, the first two Harry Potters and Night At The Museum has a new film based on that awesome short film from 2010 about an alien-invasion featuring all the big video game characters of the 80’s. Sounds awesome right? There’s a catch though, it stars Adam Sandler and all the baggage that comes with a Sandler film.

Yes, Pixels has finally made it to our shores, after a dismal box office in the U.S. and a hammering by critics, it has resulted in many think pieces on the internet asking if Adam Sandler’s dominance in Hollywood is finally over. Now he’s always been a target for critics but the big question is does he or this movie really deserve such a beating? Yes. Yes he does. The film... a little bit. 

Pixels is set in an Adam Sandler world where Kevin James is the President of the United States and is life-long buddies with Sandler’s video game protege back in 1982. When the world is attacked by giant pixel video game characters like Pac-Man and Donkey Kong, it’s up to Sandler, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage, token pretty lady (played by the stunning Michelle Monaghan) and.... groan.... Kevin James to save the day with their superior video game skills. Peter Dinklage is good for his small role in the film (no pun intended) but he’s still delivering  that cringe-worthy humour that Rob Schneider would have normally delivered.

The film does have some flickers of Columbus magic, especially during the build up to the reveal of the giant pixel monsters but despite his best efforts this film still has Sandler’s grubby man-child fingerprints all over it. We have all the usual “Sandlerisms”: eighties rock music and power-ballads, people just accepting idiotic scenarios like a President who can’t read, and the casting of all of Sandler’s friends who would have died of starvation years ago had they not been his buddy. It’s not David Spade this time, not Rob Scheinder, that other guy.... yeah that one... f*ck I hate that guy. One of the other big “Sandlerisms” that happens in every Sandler film is, SPOILER ALERT, things always work out for Sandler no matter how illogical the resolution may be.  

So look, lots of discussions have been had about Sandler refusing to grow with his audience but I don’t think that Sandler is 100% to blame for this most recent effort. I think the problem lies with Sony Pictures enabling him and also applying their own kind of, what I’ve started to call “Sony Logic” to things. For example, Sony’s need to always ensure in any of their films that there are personal links between all the characters regardless of believability and it gets shoe-horned into the storyline no matter how much lube is required. They’ve done this with films like Men In Black, Spider-Man and pretty much every other Sandler production.There is no reason for Adam Sandler to personally know the President before being asked to save the world, there’s no need to have Sandler meet Monaghan’s character before visiting the White House, and spelling out plot devices in a slow phonetically sounding delivery by Dan Aykroyd is a greater insult to him than it is to us. Oh yeah and the Aykroyd cameo is stock-standard in any film when you’re trying to say your film is the “new Ghostbusters”, which it is not.   

But ultimately the biggest issue, regardless of which actor is in what role is that none of these characters are likable or interesting enough to care about let alone spending 106 minutes with them. If you have to watch it then keep your expectations low, there are some good moments, but not enough to tolerate Sony and Sandler’s contempt for you as an audience member.

Pixels gets One out of Five Stars (One Star for Peter Dinklage’s  appearance alone) 

STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

It's the movie based on the meme that's been flooding you Facebook feed for weeks. You know the one, it started out funny, then became irritating, now you're saying "Jesus Christ! I don't care what you're 'Straight Outta...'" So the big question is, does the movie live up to the meme?

Straight Outta Compton is the biopic that focuses on the formation of N.W.A. which led to the formation of Ruthless Records, Death Records, Snoop Dogg’s career, Tupac’s career, Beats By Dre and Ice Cubes recurring role on Law & Order S.V.U. Tracing the events of the mid-80’s to the mid-90’s where N.W.A. was formed by Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, Dj Yella, MC Ren and Ice Cube under the guidance of Paul Giamatti’s Jerry Heller, who took his 20% (and if you know your N.W.A. history a whole lot more.) We see the band get together, the band break up and the band tries to get back together all against the backdrop of racial tensions between the mean streets and the police.

As far as biopics go, this is definitely a step above many of the other recent biopics of the last decade because it chooses to forgo many of the stock-standard plot beats. For once we are spared the flashback to a traumatic childhood event or the artist ready to play their biggest gig only to go backwards in the narrative and work our way back to that point. The film runs chronologically and really sets the tone from the beginning with a look at Eazy-E’s drug-dealing days. The cinematography really builds a sense of place as the camera moves effortlessly through locations that establish the streets of Compton, the L.A. Riots and stages where they performed. The editing adds to the energy as we move through the progression of an album’s creation and the tours which is all threaded together with a great soundtrack.

The casting is strong throughout especially with the key cast of Dre, Eazy-E and Ice Cube with Ice Cube’s own son, O’Shea Jackson Jnr playing the main-man himself. The likeness is amazing and this is one case where nepotism hasn’t been a complete train wreck *cough-cough* Jaden Smith *cough-cough* because O’Shea really brings that intensity that Ice Cube had back in the day. Corey Hawkins and Jason Mitchell play Dre and Eazy-E respectively and they play them well, but it’s also the casting of the smaller, but more famous roles of Snoop Dogg and Tupac are so well done that you’re questioning whether they’re the real deal or not. The film also stars a lot of brand placement with Adidas, Nike and Raiders taking center stage in almost every scene and we even get Beats By Dre rubbed in our faces before the end credits start rolling.      

Like any biopic there is always the question of how accurate and true the film is. All biopics will add additional drama to make the story more engaging but in a case where dealing with a group of people as opposed to a single artist such as Ray Charles, Jeff Buckley or Johnny Cash then there are bound to be disagreements as to the accuracy of how events played out. Even Ice Cube himself admitted that there could have been five different versions of this film so getting a definitive point of view was never going to happen. Omissions can and do happen when making a film based on a true story and when you have a film produced by the artists the movies based on then the omissions could be even more heavily scrutinised. We gloss over a lot of the past indiscretions of almost all involved but hey, if the Academy was willing to overlook this for the Stephen Hawking biopic then I’m sure we could have a few nominations come award season.

Overall, with great casting, excellent cinematography, a good soundtrack along with choosing to actively avoid many of the tired cliches of biopics, you are willing to forgive the glossing over of some of the more interesting elements of N.W.A.

Straight Outta Compton gets Four out of Five Stars (or Four out of Five really annoying memes)