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)