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)