"Spectre" Review

The Bond franchise certainly has come a long way since "Dr. No" 53 years ago, hasn't it? Going from a once-new spy movie to the campy films of Roger Moore to the violent era of Timothy Dalton, it's great to just rewatch all of these movies and watch them evolve over time. Spectre is the latest entry in the Bond series and Daniel Craig's 4th outing as the famous spy. This is a special and highly anticipated movie though, because of the titular group: Spectre. After a long lawsuit over the rights to the name, Spectre is finally back where it belongs. Is this movie a worthy return for the organisation? Absolutely.

Daniel Craig is my favourite version of Bond, bringing the charm of Connery and the brutality of Timothy Dalton. Skyfall brought a new dimension to the character, exploring his past in a bit more detail, showing off his childhood home and his parents graves. Through all of that, he gave an emotional performance, but also kept the witty humour associated with the character. He continues to show off in this film, especially in his interactions with the rest of his team, such as Moneypenny, Q, or Ralph Fiennes' M (who gets the best line in the film, by the way). Lea Seydoux acts as the film's Bond girl, and also does a good job, particularly in some scenes in the middle of the action. Let's be honest, though, Bond is known best for it's iconic villains. And Christoph Waltz is best known for playing bad guys! A match made in heaven!  Waltz is great as the film's villain, Franz Oberhauser, but is unfortunately held back in the shadows too long to really let us get to know the character.

The plot of Spectre might seem familiar to fans of the franchise. Not the whole thing, mind you. I'm not saying at all that this is a rip-off of any classic Bonds. Don't be surprised though if you have seen Bond on the trail of a terrorist group before, and especially this group. That's not to say that it's not enjoyable, as it is kept full of action and humour. The writing in the movie is great, and gives a lot of development to the regular supporting cast in particular, fleshing out people like M and even bringing Q into the field with Bond. If I have one complaint regarding the plot, it is that this film feels long. Clocking in at 148 minutes (just under 2 and a half hours), sections of this movie feel like filler and completely unnecessary. 

Spectre is a technically brilliant film. Its sound design and lighting are great, but what it really deserves credit for is the camera work. As the film starts in New Mexico, the audience is greeted to an uninterrupted 4-minute long tracking shot that follows Bond through the crowd, into a hotel, up a lift, into his hotel room and onto the roof of the next building to get into a good position to kill his target. Then the film cuts. Maybe it's just me but that is incredible work by the cinematographers. Whatever they were getting paid, they should have gotten an extra pat on the back for their work here.

CGI has always been a slight issue for this series though. Even Skyfall, which some hail as the best Bond film, had its odd moments. Spectre is no exception, with some sections such as the much advertised plane sequence, have some strange effects in the background. That's only the computer effects, though. The practical effects, like the explosions and the car chase, still look great. Just keep looking at them, and you'll be fine.

James Bond is not the typical spy. Not so well known for how he uses gadgets to extract information without being seen, but rather the lines he comes up with to fit whatever crazy way he might find to kill someone, Bond is renowned for its action. Spectre is a little different from other Daniel Craig films, though. While Craig's films have focused a lot more on brutal hand-to-hand combat, Spectre adds in a few more fun sequences with great stuntwork and gadgets (unfortunately, no barrel role and kazoo whistle here). Thankfully, they still maintain the intensity of other Craig movies, and will keep you engaged the whole way through.

Overall, Spectre is a highly enjoyable and worthy addition to the Bond franchise. With great performances all round and some brilliant writing, the only thing holding this back is its bloated length. A good movie? It's fantastic. As good as Skyfall? I don't think so but I'm still looking forward to seeing Bond return in the future, hopefully with Daniel Craig for that one film he's still contracted for. That is, if he doesn't kill himself first like he keeps threatening.

Pros

• Tying up loose ends
• Great writing
• Performances
• Fun but intense action sequences

Cons

• A tad long
• Holds back villain too long

Rating: 8/10

Release Date: 26th October, 2015

Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Dave Bautista, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Andrew Scott, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Bellucci

"Everest" Review

As we enter the second half of 2015, we enter the standard Oscar season, when the majority of films are competing for Academy attention after a block of summer blockbusters. And what do the academy love the most (not LEGO based on last years nominations, apparently)? True stories, of course (bonus points if its set during a war). Standing at 29,028 feet, Mount Everest is one of the most beautiful and deadly natural wonders the world has to offer. Director Baltasar Kormakur has opted to focus on the latter aspect in his new film "Everest." Based on the 1996 Everest disaster in which no less than 8 people died, Everest is a beautifully shot and brilliantly acted film unfortunately let down by some aspects of writing and an inconsistent tone.

The casting directors and the studio have managed to assemble a great cast to star in this picture, including Jason Clarke, Josh Brolin, Jake Gyllenhaal and John Hawkes. These four characters are the best developed in the movie, each being given an effective backstory for why they are climbing Everest. Each of the actors manage to convey strong emotions in each of their performances, particular Clarke and Hawkes towards the film's climax, while others such as Brolin excel at other parts during the course of the action. In disaster movies like these, it is crucial for directors and screenwriters to spend time in order to flesh out these people so as to allow the audience to emotionally connect with them, thus allowing any potential death scenes to have a much more powerful effect. However, the reason I highlight these four is partly so that I can contrast that with other supporting characters who are not as well developed. While some may receive a quick throwaway explanation as to why they are there in the first place, others are hardly touched on at all to the extent that I sadly could not remember some of their names. Unfortunately, that only means that any of their deaths which I will not spoil did not hit me as hard as they possibly should have.

As I mentioned at the start, we have now entered the race for Academy affections and, while it is far too early to call definite winners, I think it is pretty much assured that this movie will be recognised for its cinematography. The lighting, sound and set design in the movie are all impeccable but is difficult not to specially mention some of the early shots of the group walking up the mountain, with the camera starting from the leader's face and slowly panning down through the ranks until we get a full shot of the mountain. These shots are all spectacular and really help to emphasise the difficulty of the challenge these climbers face when tackling Everest. However, the mountain and views itself could not have been brought to life in such vivid detail without the help of modern computer effects. The CGI in the movie is stunning, in particular the sight from the top of the mountain through the clouds to the ground. Without the colossal amount of detail crafted into these sequences, the director would have been unable to fully immerse the audience in this scenario, no matter how good his actors were.

Everest is by no means meant to be a funny or light-hearted affair, mainly focusing on the helpless climbers at the mercy of nature. I have no problem with movies like this having a bit of humour at the start, allowing the audience to let their guard down and grow to like these people, making the inevitable disaster much more powerful and terrifying when it eventually hits. However, switching back and forth between them for an hour before the main set piece makes the movie seem more inconsistent than smart. For example, one moment people are collapsing halfway up the mountain due to exhaustion and exposure to the elements, and the next Jake Gyllenhaal is lying shirtless offering whiskey to Jason Clarke. This is the rough style that the writers have chosen to adopt for the first act, before moving on. It's a small gripe for sure, and I'm certain that some of you will disagree with me, but it did seem really strange to me at times how the film constantly shifted between them.

Everest should be commended for its cinematography and CGI. Of that, there is no doubt. However, it is still let down by some poorly written secondary characters and an uneven tone, which hold it back from greatness. Based on a horrifying true event and featuring a stellar cast, Everest is proof that the Oscar season has truly begun. Brace yourselves for even more award hungry films in the next few months. At least we've still got Star Wars to look forward to for some light-hearted fun, though.

Pros

• Cinematography
• The cast
• Visual effects

Cons

• Some poorly developed supporting characters
• Confusing tone

Rating: 8/10

Release Date: 18th September, 2015

Starring: Jason Clarke, Josh Brolin, Sam Worthington, Jake Gyllenhaal, Keira Knightley, John Hawkes, Emily Watson, Robin Wright

"Doctor Who: The Witch's Familiar" Review

People talk about history repeating itself, but it's a phrase I've never had to use. Well, folks, tonight on Doctor Who, history did indeed repeat itself. The last time Davros appeared, he had a great first part in "The Stolen Earth" which had great moments and a killer cliffhanger when the Tenth Doctor seemingly began to regenerate. Last week, writer Steven Moffat delivered a great opener in the shape of "The Magician's Apprentice", with Julian Bleach reprising his role as the creator of the Daleks. Unfortunately, this episode, while not terrible, delivers a laughable resolution to the crisis and introduces even more contrived concepts into the universe. To dive into both the good and the unbelievably stupid, I'll have to talk spoilers though. You have been warned.

Thankfully, the performances last week were not a one off. Peter Capaldi seems to have turned over a new leaf in his role of the Doctor, having much more fun with the part. Rather than embracing the humourous side of the character in this episode, however, he instead focuses on giving a much more emotional performance, showing the Time Lord being pushed to his limits, believing everything has been stripped away from him. He plays perfectly off of arguably the real star of the episode, Julian Bleach as the villainous Davros. Instead of being the generic mad scientist, he attempts to show a different side to the character to try and allow the audience to humanise with him. That is before he reverts to his standard screaming madman at the end. Writer Moffat also paired this duo with the dynamic of having Missy and Clara forced together, with Missy's psychotic nature contrasting well with Clara's down to earth human. However, this best pieces of acting in the episode come near the end when the Doctor confronts the Dalek shell Clara is controlling. Both Capaldi and Coleman deliver strong and powerful performances in an episode packed full of great acting.

However, while the acting remained great, the plot began to fall apart in this second part. First of all, who thought it was a great idea to replace the iconic sonic screwdriver with the ridiculous sonic sunglasses? This could quite possibly be once of the worst decisions made since the revival of the series 10 years ago. and I hope that this is not a long-term feature in the show. Secondly, how did Missy kill that Dalek exactly? This links in perfectly to my final primary issue with the story and that is why deadly sewer water is responsible for the destruction of the Dalek capital of the universe. Now, I do understand that the "sewer water" is in fact ancient Daleks. What confuses me is why these particular Daleks would kill their own kind and turn against their "lord and creator" at any moment and how they are able to even do so considering their state and lack of weapons. I'm not saying a TV show, especially Doctor Who, needs to be completely realistic but I don't think it's too much to ask for the writer's to at least fully explain and develop any new ideas they are going to throw at the audience 9 series in.

Stellar visual effects have always present in Doctor Who, which luckily continue in this latest episode. The Daleks have always been practical, being controlled by men inside the suits. It's difficult to imagine how different the Daleks would look if they were completely rendered with CGI, but they almost certainly would not look nearly as good as they always have as real suits. Other practical visuals such as explosions are also great.That's not to say that there aren't still issues though, in particular with some of the purely computer generated effects. While some of them like lasers look good, some, like the undeniably silly TARDIS reforming shot, still look strange.

Overall, "The Witch's Familiar" is a good episode but not a brilliant follow-up to the opener. Despite some great performances and solid visuals, the episode is still plagued by a silly plot suffering from an overabundance of confusing plot points. Series 9 is off to a good start, but it still has room for improvement. Next up: an underwater base filled with Victorian looking ghosts. Just another day at the office for Who fans then.

Pros

• Emotion between Davros and the Doctor
• Visuals
• Dynamic between Missy and Clara

Cons

• Confusing methods to kill Daleks
• Sewer water? Really?

Rating: 7/10

Original Air Date: 26/09/15

Starring Peter Capaldi, Jenna Coleman, Michelle Gomez, Julian Bleach, Nicholas Briggs, Jami Reid-Quarrell, Joey Price

"The Angry Birds Movie" Trailer Reaction

Movie adaptations of video games are an unfortunate reality of the film industry. Typically poorly written, terribly acted and just downright bad, you need look no further than "The Super Mario Bros Movie" to understand my point. However, what do all of these movies, like "Tomb Raider" or "Prince of Persia," have in common? The games they are based off of have already established the background of the world and characters, giving the writers something to work off of. Imagine my shock then when and Angry Birds movie was put into production as an animated feature. Barely anyone can name all of the birds in the game and we don't really know the history of the conflict between the birds and the pigs, besides that the pigs want eggs? I had literally no hope for the success of this movie despite the inevitable box office pull due to the appeal of the game to kids. Imagine, then, my equal mix of shock and pleasant surprise when I watched this trailer:

Well, this is a conundrum isn't it? Has this movie genuinely had some heart put into it or is it the soulless cash-in it appears to be on first glance? Are all of the birds going to have as funny and inventive backstories as Red and Bomb, or have they put all of the best bits into the trailer? Personally, I'm still at sea regarding what to make of this. Credit where credit's due, the voice acting seems top notch. Maya Rudolph seems to perfectly capture the hippie type character of Matilda (the white bird) while Bill Hader seems like the best choice to voice the leader pig of the pack. However, the stand-out of the trailer was of course Jason Sudeikis, who voices Red (guess which bird he is). His voice is brilliantly tuned to the character's facial reactions. The stand-out line for me was the quick statement "Oh, I'm horrible." His sarcastic tone along with the animation quality is fantastic. Hopefully the writers and directors have not put all of their best moments into the first tease. Unfortunately, some of the rest of the jokes fall flat due to a lack of originality. A person getting their hopes up by a girl signalling someone behind him? Oh, great, haven't seen that before.

The aforementioned animation quality is exactly what should be expected from a cartoon movie or TV show in 2016. The simple locations of the game have been beautifully realised in 3D animation, along with the wide cast of characters (just look at the picture above if you were scared your favourite didn't make the cut). Whether the animation can hold up under the inevitably fast-paced catapult sequences as the birds attack the pigs' fortresses is another story, with any sort of tease of these scenes suspiciously absent from the trailer. I'm sure that is my skepticism of any video game adaptation kicking in but the style of animation is phenomenal so far.

My biggest concern with this movie as a whole is the plot. As I mentioned before, the story of the game is not very fleshed out. It is clear that the writers are hoping to show the origins of the rivalry between the birds and pigs but I am still unsure, if only because the plot seems quite familiar so far, with the pigs starting as friends with the birds before turning against each other. What I would want the screenwriters to have ideally done would be to flesh out both the background of the world while also giving the characters the necessary development to justify this movie's existence.

Will a lack of original jokes and a well-written story ruin this movie? Perhaps, but strong animation and voice acting will still be there. Not fantastic, but not awful. In my opinion, this perfectly sums up this trailer and will probably be used to describe the film when it releases it 8 months.

Excitement Meter: 7/10

Directed by Clay Kaytis and Fergal Reilly

Starring: Jason Sudeikis, Danny McBride, Josh Gad, Bill Hader, Maya Rudolph, Peter Dinklage

Release Date: May 20th, 2016

"Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials" Movie Review

Nowadays, people talk about superhero, and especially Marvel, fatigue due to the overabundance of superhero blockbusters that appear throughout the year. However, I think that YA franchises have almost been given a free pass. For those of you who don't know, a YA movie (which stands for "young adult") is a film typically based on a book where the main actors tend to be teenagers and have to go through a journey in a realistic or, more likely, a fantasy setting. Harry Potter was the primary YA franchise for a number of years, not having a lot of real competition for the top slot. In 2015, though, the list is considerably longer, with Divergent, the Hunger Games, an endless list of Nicholas Sparks novels, and the Maze Runner series all competing for the pocket money of teenagers. With so much to choose from, these movies need to shake up the formula and add new elements with every installment. The original Maze Runner seemed to do this, placing a small group inside a confined space and adding tense action, making it seemingly distinct from the grand affairs of other movies in this genre. Unfortunately, the sequel takes certain steps that seem to suggest that the series could fall into the stereotypes that have come before.

As I previously mentioned, what made the original Maze Runner special was its confined environment within the maze with a relatively small cast. It's clear then with the sequel that both the writer and the director wished to give this follow-up an entirely different feel to it, setting it in a post-apocalyptic desert, the titular Scorch. However, there is little done to differentiate this world from every other disaster or action movie you have seen a hundred times before. The story of course follows the group from the original as the attempt to escape from the villainous W.C.K.D. (seriously, the evil organisation's name is pronounced "wicked"). Although initially intriguing in the first half, the plot soon becomes plagued by a few problems. The second half of the movie is relatively slow compared to the fast-paced, action-packed opening. The second issue that I found involved the ending (don't worry, no spoilers here). Now, not everyone will agree with me here, but there were no less than 3 points where I thought the movie had ended and I was ready to leave but it kept going. It almost felt like there were several points where draft scripts had ended but the studio wanted more to be added on.

However, these are only small gripes. A primary issue with the movie is that it raised more questions than it actually answered. Why were they in the maze in the first place? How did the disease that has ravaged the future start? These are questions from the first movie, not even the things that puzzled me after this movie. It is obvious that Fox wanted as little to be addressed as possible so as to ensure that people will still come back to see the third film, currently slated for release in February, 2017.

The performances of the actors in the original Maze Runner were great and, for the most part, they carry over into this film. Although some actors do not do a good job at all (watch out for a hilarious Alan Tudyk performance as Marcus), the lead actors do succeed. Although it is Dylan O'Brien's Thomas who is meant to be the star of the movie, it is the supporting cast who are members of the group who are the stand-outs, such as Ki Hong Lee's Minho. These characters receive significantly more character development, and convey the emotion they are feeling very well. The reason I mention these actors rather than the main stars is that, apart from a quick scene showing how he came to meet W.C.K.D, the character of Thomas receives very little development over the course of the film, leaving the actor with very little opportunity to show off.

Although the primary cast are generally well written and likable, where the film suffers is in its secondary characters that appear while the group is travelling. These characters are very typical of any apocalypse movie: the rebellious henchman? Check. The gang leader who actually isn't a bad guy unlike his crew? Got that. Generic head of security chasing our heroes? Done. These are the kind of stereotypes that make appearances over the course of the film. They are not all badly written or acted (although some still are). My issue is the predictability of their arcs in the movie as we have seen them all before.

The movie may have these problems, but it is undoubtedly a visual triumph. Utilising a mix or both practical and computer-generated environments, the set design of the movie is impeccable, particularly in a scene in a shopping mall early on, really immersing the audience in this wasteland. Credit should also be given to the make-up artists who have done stunning work, especially on the zombie-like Cranks roaming the Scorch. Without their frightening and deformed appearance, the chase sequences would not have been as tense or as thrilling as the final result. Easily one of the best images of the film is the group waling into the abandoned wasteland. This is a true show of the capabilities of modern technology in film and any other crew looking to create a desolate city should take note.

I just mentioned various chase sequences throughout the film. These are easily the best and most intense action sequences present, with various types of zombies being revealed as the film goes on (and yes, there are jump scares). However, there are also several conflicts that occur between the heroes and the villains using guns or in fistfights. Despite having literally no directing experience apart from this series, director Wes Ball has done a good job of choreographing these sections of the movie.

"The Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials" is not a terrible movie by any means, but it's not perfect. Although there are many issues, particularly with the pacing and the new cast members. However. the film does boast great performances for the most part and is a visual spectacle, with action sequences scattered throughout to stop the audience getting bored. I hope the third movie can rectify these issues and bring back the unique factors that set this franchise apart from others in the genre. Don't count on there not being an announcement for the movie being split into two parts, though.

Pros

• Solid performances
• Action sequences
• Visually excellent

Cons

• Slow second half
• Questions STILL unanswered
• Often generic secondary characters

Rating: 6/10

Original Release Date: 14th August, 2015

Directed by Wes Ball

Starring: Dylan O'Brien, Ki Hong Lee, Kaya Scodelario, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Jacob Lofland, Rosa Salazar, Giancarlo Esposito, Aiden Gillen

"Doctor Who: The Magician's Apprentice" Review

The last series of Doctor Who was undoubtedly a massive disappointment. Rather than embrace the humour that assimilated so well into both David Tennant's or Matt Smith's turns as the Time Lord, writer Steven Moffat clearly wanted to take a more "edgy" approach to the story. Unfortunately, that only meant that the Doctor only occasionally came across as unlikable while the roster of villains was abysmal apart from the addition of Missy. With only a few gems and no classics, fans were let down by Peter Capaldi's first run in the TARDIS. It makes me very happy then to report that series 9 is already a massive improvement on the average episode. Featuring a stellar cast and plot, with a few surprises along the way, "The Magician's Apprentice" is a great start to this new season. But be warned before I start:

Still here? Then let's begin. Steven Moffat clearly wanted to start the episode and series in a big way, quickly revealing the child Davros, the creator of the Daleks, who has been one of the best kept secrets of the premiere and the series as a whole. From there, the episode kicked into high gear, revealing that the Master/Missy had (somewhat unsurprisingly) survived after last season's finale, although the question of how still puzzles me. This is only the first of many twists that are introduced throughout the episode, with the writers revealing that not only had Skaro and Davros survived (again, I don't know how after he was left to die in a space station in David Tennant episode "Journey's End"), but then proceeded to kill Missy, Clara, and destroy the TARDIS. Let's face the facts though: we all know that they are not dead. Sure, it'll be interesting to see how this epic cliffhanger will be resolved come next week but some of the weight was taken off for me since I have both seen the trailer for the rest of the series and have noticed over the years that Dalek guns do not disintegrate people.

Not only has the plot already significantly improved over last year, but so have the performances and villains. Peter Capaldi seems to have settled into his role as the Doctor, finally having more fun with the role and enjoying the light-hearted moments that previous iterations have done so well. Jenna Coleman also does a great job as Clara, who thankfully has not wasted the brilliant character development she was given in the last series. Credit should also be given to Michelle Gomez's psychotic performance as Missy. All you need to do to understand her nature and how far she is willing to go to get what she wants is watch the sequence where she heartlessly murdered two innocent soldiers. However, I knew these characters would be appearing but, as soon as Davros was revealed, I began to hope that Julian Bleach would reprise the role from the character's last appearance. Thankfully, he did and the episode benefited massively from it. Bleach's distinctive voice fits the character of the evil genius so well and he is believable as the Time Lord's archenemy (much to Missy's dismay).

As a sci-fi show, visual effects are one of the most crucial sections that must be perfect. For the most part, the effects team have done quite well. While some animations are questionable, such as Missy's face coming out of the screen as if the audience are watching a 3D movie (which is never good), others are relatively well done. Stand outs for myself included the addition of the hand mines to the Doctor Who universe and the extermination effects of the Daleks (it was nice to see Daleks from throughout the history of the show on Skaro, by the way). I have to also mention the work of the make-up team, and in particular the work done on Davros and Colony Sarff (pictured below). The look of Davros is remarkable throughout the episode. The set design also deserves recognition, as always, for really immersing the audience in these historic or cosmic environments. 

I wasn't in any way excited for this series of what had once been my favourite programme on TV after last year. However, this premiere has changed that. Despite the odd strange effect, this episode of Doctor Who proved to me that Steven Moffat can still write tense and exciting stories and his actors can still do great work. The fantastic ending has made me intrigued to see the follow-up "The Witch's Familiar" and how Capaldi's Doctor is going to escape his toughest situation yet.

Pros

• Great performances
• Killer cliffhanger
• More humour

Cons

• Some dodgy effects

Rating: 8/10

Original Air Date: 20th September, 2015

Starring: Peter Capaldi, Jenna Coleman, Michelle Gomez, Julian Bleach, Jemma Redgrave, Clare Higgins, Daniel Hoffmann-Gill

"The Jungle Book (2016)" Trailer Reaction

The Jungle Book is one of Disney's all time classics. Originally released in 1967, it is a movie that I fondly remember from my childhood and is still a much-loved film today. However, recently, Disney have decided to adapt a number of their classic animations into live action, including Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty (albeit from the villain's point of view) and the upcoming Tarzan and Beauty and the Beast. Nonetheless, it was a big surprise to me when not one, but two Jungle Book live action adaptions were announced, this particular Disney produced version and the other to release in 2017 under the direction of Gollum himself Andy Serkis and with the title "Jungle Book: Origins." The reason for my shock can be summed up with one question: what makes the Jungle Book different from these other movies? It is dominated by an animal cast rather than majority humans. I was afraid that this was maybe a step too far for Disney and they might not be able to pull this off. Luckily, the trailer released today put some of my fears to rest. Check it out below and then I'll tell you my thoughts.

First of all, I'd like to address a common complaint in the comments of the video above: the effects are not terrible. Look at the images below of Baloo the bear and Shere Khan the tiger. These visuals are incredibly realistic. That is, of course, my opinion and some people might not agree. Bare (sorry for the pun) in mind then that there are still 7 months until release for the studio to tighten up the effects and improve any issues brought up by the fans. However, there is something to be said for the size of the animals. While characters like Bagheera (the panther) and Shere Khan look to be an average size for their species, others are ridiculously large, such as Kaa. And as for King Louie? More like King Kong if he was an orangutan. Now maybe that's just in the trailer or maybe the director is trying to approach things in a different way by showing the scale of these jungle creatures from the perspective of a young boy. We'll find out come April next year.

I acknowledge that this trailer was a teaser and that is why I am not as irritated as I typically would be if a trailer did not give any idea of the plot. However, aside from being a teaser, this is a movie that outlined the entire plot with only one character speaking throughout the whole video (unless you count the awesome Baloo whistle at the end): a young boy is raised in the jungle and comes across a number of talking animals. Simple. I'm sure more will be revealed that has been added in later trailers. For example, I don't remember a volcano action sequence in the original but it is something I am excited to see more of. This teaser was designed to show off the main selling point of the film and that is the look of the animals and the environments which I have already discussed.

I said that I didn't remember a scene in a volcano in the 1967 classic. However, what I am certain of is its status as a musical. Funnily enough, that is one of the things oddly absent from this trailer. Apart from the voice of Scarlett Johnasson as Kaa (who sounds perfect in the role), we hear no characters talk. The studio seem to be marketing the movie as a darker take on the tale, and I hope that this is nothing but clever advertising. While I am interested in the direction being taken, there is still fun in the original Jungle Book. I only hope that Disney hasn't completely reinvented the wheel and removed all essence of humour in their possible desperation to create an entirely new version. However, Bill Murray has been confirmed to be singing "The Bare Necessities" in his role as Baloo so I still have hope that the film will still share some similarities to the original.

I love the 1967 Jungle Book and I am excited to see this movie. This is looking to be a visual masterpiece while offering some new additions to the plot. However, I think that some humour and light-hearted scenes will still be included despite the tone of the teaser. Hopefully Disney can once again deliver something special with this movie.

Excitement Meter: 8/10

Directed by Jon Favreau

Release Date: April 16th, 2016

Starring: Neel Sethi, Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, Lupita Nyong'o, Christopher Walken, Scarlett Johnasson

"The Man From U.N.C.L.E." Movie Review

It is no secret that writers are struggling to come up with completely original concepts for movies nowadays, with many studios relying heavily upon remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels and more in order to turn a profit. Reboots are a particular minefield. There is always the risk of remaking a franchise too early or too late. They can be terrible (looking at you, Fantastic Four) but they can also be tools to reinvigorate audience interest in older franchises. Just look at Mission: Impossible and the Daniel Craig Bond movies. Both of these are based upon series from the 60s, and have made money by adding a modern twist. "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." is the latest series to go through this process, with director Guy Ritchie, most well known for the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes films, taking the helm of this project. 

Ritchie is consistently praised for the unique style of his films, and for good reason. Consistently well shot, scored and edited, the director has certainly set himself apart from all other Hollywood directors. Fortunately, he continues his streak with this latest effort. The film does perfectly recreates the 60s vibe of the show, featuring an impeccable soundtrack, stunning lighting and an editing style so far unseen this year. The editing harks back to shows such as "24" during the action sequences and manages to keep the audience consistently engaged by keeping up the tension.

The plot of the movie revolves around a CIA agent and a KGB agent being paired together by their respective governments to track down an international terrorist organisation at the height of the Cold War. Unfortunately, the plot is predictable. Although it suits the time period well, audiences have seen this movie's plot a hundred times before: every twist, turn and character arc. What is strange though is the way that the movie has been marketed. Trailers have sold this movie as a film with a great deal of action when it is, in reality, a buddy cop movie, meaning that it focuses much more on laughs instead of adrenaline fuelled. stunts. Having humour is not a bad thing though. The writers have injected doses of humour into almost every part of the film, giving the plot a light-hearted tone throughout.

Due to the film's premise, one of the crucial elements for the crew to get right was the casting of the two lead actors. Once again, they have succeeded at this, with both Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer delivering strong performances. The two have excellent chemistry on screen, with the two contrasting performances, Cavill's suave and sophisticated Napoleon Solo and Hammer's brash and reckless Illya Kuryakin, play very well off of each other. 

However, the rest of the cast should not be forgotten, being equally well cast and giving equally good performances. Alicia Vikander is a rising star in 2015, previously starring in "Ex Machina," and next performing alongside Oscar winner Eddie Redmayne in "The Danish Girl." She is once again excellent in this film as the female lead, coming across as strong and interesting as the two leads, while undergoing her own character arcs. Elizabeth Debicki appears as the cold and calculating antagonist for the spies, with the actress doing a particularly good job of giving audiences cause to detest her character. The final supporting cast member I'll mention is Hugh Grant, who finally performs in a role that isn't the bumbling, romantic Brit, with the actor stealing every scene he is in, despite only having a very small screen time.

If you go to see a movie for the action sequences, and the action alone, you absolutely should not see this movie. The writers have opted to focus more on the detective work of the main characters rather than Bond-esque action scenes, filled to the brim with gadgets and ridiculous, over-the-top stunt work. These scenes are in fact few and far between, with only the opening, one boat chase and the finale really standing out,  disappointing considering the aforementioned marketing of the film. However, what little action is there is excellently choreographed and highly enjoyable.

Reboots are here to stay. That is a fact of the modern film industry. However, if they keep being made like this, I don't really mind. Although the plot was unfortunately generic with a severe lack of action sequences, "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." packs enough humour, excellent acting and style to make it worth seeing. Certainly not the best film of the year so far, but the quality of the film does enough to give me a glimmer of hope for all upcoming revivals Hollywood has planned.

Pros

• Unique style
• Performances
• Chemistry between lead actors
• Good sense of humour

Cons

• Lack of action
• Predictable plot points

Rating: 7/10

Original Release Date: 14th August, 2015

Directed by Guy Ritchie

Starring: Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, Elizabeth Debicki, Hugh Grant, Sylvester Groth, Luca Calvani, Jared Harris

"Fantastic Four (2015)" Review

The Fantastic Four have had a rocky history to say the least. They have already had 3 movies, the latest of which being the 2007 sequel "Rise of the Silver Surfer," infamous for turning one of Marvel's best villains into a cloud. To make matters worse, none of these movies have received universal critical acclaim. You would think that Fox would realise that audiences would not be excited to see yet another movie featuring Marvel's First Family and thus would attempt to enter into a shared partnership with Marvel Studios to have this team appear alongside the Avengers and the like, much like Sony recently did with Spider-Man. Apparently not. The studio instead decided to have a third crack at bringing the Fantastic Four to the silver screen, hiring a talented cast and director Josh Trank, most known for his work on found footage film "Chronicle." Match that with modern effects, and this would seem like a recipe for success. Unfortunately, Fant4stic (which is how the film was stupidly marketed) is plagued by just as many, if not more, problems as its predecessors, producing arguably the worst superhero film since "Batman and Robin."

First of all, I have to give Fox credit for at least trying to do something different to what has come before. Rather than have the team go into space and be transformed by cosmic radiation, the writers have opted to have the group be studying teleportation and dimensional travel. However, when they reach "Planet Zero," they are genetically modified after having contact with the new materials and elements there. This leads onto undoubtedly the most emotionally effecting sequence of the film, where the writers explore the potential horrors of becoming a superhero, particularly through The Thing. If only the writers had not waited until over halfway through a movie that barely clocks in at over 90 minutes to actually give them their powers. The plot is an utter mess from start to finish, suffering especially from poor pacing. Case in point, the movie spends an hour setting up unlikable main characters, leaving them with only one sequence with the entire Fantastic Four in the finale.

The writing of the movie has been a point of extreme criticism, and for good reason. The whole movie is a completely joyless affair, refusing to embrace the undeniable silliness of its premise. The very few potential laughs that the movie has to offer are showcased in the trailers released online. It is painfully obvious that Fox sought to create a darker version of the characters, which has only resulted in a lack of humour. However, it is not only here that the writing falls flat. The characters are downright annoying and it left me longing for what little characterisation was given in previous iterations. However, the complete absence of any team dynamic is the killer. Some characters have very little, if any, interactions (I could swear that the Thing and the Invisible Woman do not share any dialogue at all).

The worst written, most poorly developed character is not one of the main four, however. That honour goes to the main villain of the flick: Doctor Doom. The legendary supervoltage first appeared 53 years ago in the comics and since then has committed thousands of evil acts and come into conflict with almost every hero in the Marvel Universe. However, the only thing this Doctor Doom is guilty of is inconsistency and boring the audience. The character appears at the beginning of the movie before disappearing entirely for an hour only to return in the terrible third act. The character of Doom is given very little motivation besides one throwaway line close to the beginning. His powers are the main point of concern though, with having the ability to manipulate matter one second, the ability to shape the earth to his will the next.

I mentioned before that the cast of the movie is talented. Miles Teller who became famous from last year's Whiplash, Toby Kebbell from "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes", and Billy Elliot himself playing the Thing. However, they are completely wasted. Credit where credits due, some cast members are trying to make their lines work in the film, such as Teller. He does pull off the role of an extremely clever scientist well. The same applies to Reg E. Cathey, who plays Franklin Storm. However, the rest of the cast is evidently aware that they are in a terrible movie, and thus do not put any effort into their performances. In fairness, the writing team has made the characters so one dimensional that it would be impossible for anyone to deliver a truly outstanding performance.

One of the crucial aspects that the modern blockbuster has to achieve is creating a visual spectacle. Fortunately, Fant4stic at least achieves this. Although it can look strange during the (few) fast-paced action sequences, the characters in action look as realistic as it can, especially the Thing, something essential given the decision to make the Thing completely computer-generated rather than use a ridiculous rubber suit. 

However, visual effects and a talented cast cannot save a movie. Let down by a dreadful script, a dull storyline and an absolute lack of comedy, Fant4stic is one of the biggest movie disappointments in recent memory to me. It may be time now for Fox to stop trying to make Fantastic Four movies and I hope that the poor box office performance will prove that. As a superhero movie fan, I am sad to say that Fantastic Four is nothing more than a fantastic bore.

Pros

• Visually good
• Some members of the cast (like Miles Teller) actually trying....

Cons

• ....but others are not
• Lack of a team dynamic
• Doctor Doom
• Noticeable absence of action sequences
• Humourless 
• Pacing

Rating: 2/10

Original Release Date: 6th August, 2015

Directed by Josh Trank

Starring: Miles Teller, Kate Mara, Michael B. Jordan, Jamie Bell, Toby Kebbell, Reg E. Cathey, Tim Blake Nelson

"Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" Movie Review

This is certainly a massive year for spy movies, isn't it? We have already had the phenomenal Kingsman, and now he have another Mission: Impossible movie, with a reboot of "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." and the return of James Bond in "Spectre" still to come. Over the last 19 years, the M:I series has promised a blend of adrenaline fueled action, humour and well rounded characters.  Each entry has been helmed by a different director, who have each brought something different to the franchise. For the fifth film, Paramount have brought on director Christopher McQuarrie, most well-known for "Jack Reacher," another Tom Cruise flick. Despite this being only his third directing job, McQuarrie has added on the brilliance of "Ghost Protocol," creating a gripping plot guaranteed to satisfy both longtime fans and newcomers.

The plot of M:I 5 revolves around Ethan Hunt's discovery and investigation of a new terrorist group, called The Syndicate, led by the mysterious and deadly Solomon Lane. While it is unclear for the majority of the plot the ultimate goal of the evildoers, it is made clear that they are as equally skilled as the lead agents and capable of unlimited horrific acts. Unfortunately, the movie's story is strongest when the audience is kept in the dark. While I do not wish to spoil the rest of this terrific movie for you, the plot soon becomes very familiar, a flaw only made worse considering the Syndicate being set up as a seemingly unpredictable enemy. However, despite the serious nature of the film, the writers wisely decided to inject doses of humour throughout, helping to create some more light-hearted moments in between the intense action sequences.

There is no doubt that Tom Cruise is a good actor, with the wit, humour, and star power to lead a film franchise. Once again, he does a fantastic job as Ethan Hunt, continuing to bring the likability but also sharp nature to the character, although he does not receive much development in this entry. This time round, however, he shares the spotlight with Rebecca Ferguson. The actress does a great job as Ilsa Faust, with her acting rivaling that of Cruise and the two playing off each other very well in tense and comical scenes alike. The film also has a stellar supporting cast. Simon Pegg returns, with his part acting as the vessel for the writers to deliver the majority of the movie's humour. Ving Rhames and Jeremy Renner are also a part of Ethan's team, although they do not have nearly as much to do as the others.

One recurring issue with the Mission: Impossible series is weak, one-dimensional villains, with only the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman's Owen Davian in M:I 3 really standing out. There was a fear that this problem would also appear in this latest venture, with Sean Harris' nefarious character being oddly absent from the movie's marketing campaign. Luckily, this was not the case. Although he does not speak a great deal over the course of the film, Lane still manages to be among the most menacing and intimidating villains of the series. Harris conveys well the cold and calculating personality of Lane, making it clear that he was more than a match for Ethan both intellectually and physically.

Tom Cruise is 53. Let that sink in. Most actors considerably younger than that will use stunt doubles for all of their stunts, some as simple as riding a motorcycle. That just makes it all the more impressive that Cruise is performing all of his own death-defying stunts, with this movie adding an extended underwater scene and the well publicised airplane sequence. These are only a couple of the action-packed set pieces that are present in "Rogue Nation." Director McQuarrie has managed to achieve the perfect balance between action, humour and emotion, filling the run time with these highly entertaining and exhilarating moments without sacrificing an interesting storyline.

Undoubtedly, this series has its fans, and for good reason. However, as with every series, whether it be a film, video game, or in television, people begin to look for new elements in movies when they have been being made for nearly 20 years (although each film is released 4 or 5 years apart). Unfortunately, this entry in the spy series, no matter how successful, does not massively innovate on what has come before. That only means that these fans may be disappointed if they recognise certain aspects. Aspects like the IMF being shut down, similar to "Ghost Protocol." Aspects like the motorcycle chase from M:I 2. I could mention some other elements but that would involve delving into spoiler territory, but keep that in mind when you see the movie, and you absolutely should. 

That being said, "Mission: Impossible- Rogue Nation" is not a bad movie at all. Although the plot may become more common in the film's later stages, that did not take away from the overall feeling of satisfaction I felt after spending 2 hours watching the film. The film does a great job of keeping the audience engaged throughout the run time, with heart-racing stunts, moments of humour and superb performances across the board, this movie will certainly not disappoint those searching for another brilliant summer blockbuster. 

Pros

• Intense action
• Performances from all actors
• Finally, another strong villain
• A good sense of humour

Cons

• The plot becomes laughably generic later on
• Will be familiar to fans of the franchise

Rating: 9/10

Original Release Date: July 31st, 2015

Directed by Christopher McQuarrie

Starring: Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, Rebecca Ferguson, Ving Rhames, Jeremy Renner, Sean Harris, Alec Baldwin

"Ant-Man" Movie Review

It's difficult to think how people ever thought movies about Marvel superheroes and comic books could ever not succeed, isn't it? However, after a chain of terrible movies throughout the 1980s and '90s, it seemed we would never see adaptions of Marvel's big names. Then Spider-Man and X-Men happened. The popularity of the comic book genre began to boost as they proved just how exciting these movies can really be. Marvel began to get much more confident and soon we saw the dawn of what has now become the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's unbelievable now that characters like Iron Man, Thor and even the Guardians of the Galaxy were once some of Marvel's lesser-known icons. That being said, there are still some concepts so ridiculous that they simply should not be adapted into film, like "Squirrel Girl" and "Howard the Duck" (again). That was only one of the concerns when Marvel announced the production of this movie. As if we needed any more confidence in Marvel's ability to make great films, Ant-Man is in fact a great film and one of Marvel's best comedies.

Having already built a world populated by a Norse god, a billionaire in a metal suit and a super soldier, it was crucial for the company to sell the idea that a man who can shrink and talk to insects could exist alongside these characters. Cleverly, they themselves realised the silliness of the idea and embraced it, making Ant-Man a much more comedic affair than other superhero movies. While following the structure of a heist movie, the story of the movie places a greater emphasis on the light-hearted moments between different characters. That's not to say, however, that there are no deeply emotional scenes, particularly between Michael Douglas' Hank Pym and Evangeline Lilly's Hope Van Dyne. I won't spoil the nature of the scenes here, but I will say that both actors deliver great performances.

Marvel are well-renowned for their excellent casting for lead actors, and I'm happy to say that they have continued their streak here. Paul Rudd has a history as a comedic actor and writer, something that is clear in his performance as leading man Scott Lang AKA The Ant-Man. The character is very likeable while also being quite different to Marvel's other main heroes due to Scott being an everyman rather than a tech genius or magical being. However, he shares the spotlight with co-star Michael Douglas, who delivers an emotional  but amusing performance as Hank Pym. The two actors have great chemistry and play very well off each other in their scenes together.

Unfortunately, the movie is not flawless in the character department. While Marvel consistently receive critical acclaim, there is one recurring issue: the villains. The writers do not seem to know exactly how to write well-motivated, strong villains who can appear in multiple films (besides Loki, of course).  Recent examples include Malekith from "Thor: The Dark World" and the infamous Mandarin twist from "Iron Man 3." It's regrettable, then, that Ant-Man continues this trend, with evildoer Darren Cross AKA Yellowjacket also falling into this category, despite the best efforts of actor Corey Stoll. The character of Cross is very generic and not well written, with his only aim seemingly to become even more rich and powerful than he already is.

Aside from uninteresting villains, there are some positives guaranteed from Marvel, one of these being fantastic effects and action. When Ant-Man shrinks, the effects team does a phenomenal job of making the audience feel as if they are on his level and feel the terror of seeing everyday objects like a chair or a mouse from a tiny size.  This transfers well into the action sequences, with their unusually small scale differentiating them from any comic book movie seen before. The humour does not stop in these scenes with some fun modern jokes and scenarios, such as Siri, Scott's relationship with the ants and a well advertised Thomas the Tank Engine appearance.

One of the big concerns going into this movie was the departure of original director of Edgar Wright, who had supposedly been wanting to make and direct this film for years. The apparent reason for this was that, in a similar fashion to their other movies, Marvel wanted to tie this film into their expansive, shared universe. The basis of the concern comes from the suspicion that the script had been so heavily re-written by the studio in order to emphasise the set-up for the next Avengers movie over the standalone story of Ant-Man. Luckily, this was not the case. The references are there, one even making up one of the movie's main action scenes, but they do not take over from the character himself.  

Against all odds, Marvel have proven their capability to produce exciting and highly entertaining movies. Despite a continuing issue of uninspired one-off villains and a potential lack of public interest, the studio pushed forward and delivered one of their funniest movies. With a stellar cast, intense action sequences, and an engaging plot, Ant-Man is an extremely enjoyable movie that is worth seeing for comic book fans and general moviegoers alike.

Pros

• One of Marvel's funniest
• Performances (but especially Michael Douglas and Paul Rudd)
• Great action 
• A great story for a relatively unknown character.
• Tie-in to the wider MCU.

Cons

• Once again, the villain

Rating: 8/10

Original Release Date: July  17th, 2015

Directed by Peyton Reed

Starring: Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly, Corey Stoll, Michael Pena, Judy Greer, Bobby Cannavale, John Slattery 

"Jurassic World" Movie Review

Back in 1993, Steven Spielberg helmed and released the original "Jurassic Park," an incredible movie that boasted ground breaking special effects, a creative plot and great performances from Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and the late Sir Richard Attenborough. It's a movie that still holds up today. Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there. 4 years later came sequel "The Lost World" which fell short of the original's brilliance and then another 4 years later in 2001 came the terrible threequel. The plots got dumber, the effects considerably worse (somehow) and so the studios began to invest less and less money in the franchise as time went on. It seemed that the series would be unable to recover and return to form. Apparently, Universal maintained faith and, 14 years later, we have what is undoubtedly the best sequel to the classic original.

While the two Jurassic sequels opted to take the action to another island, "World" returns to Isle Nublar, the setting of the series' first instalment. In the movie, John Hammond's vision of a fully populated theme park has been fulfilled and has been renamed "Jurassic World" (how this was allowed to happen is only one of the questions you will be asking after viewing this movie). And, yes, there is a hilarious amount of product placement. However, visitor numbers are falling so the company decide to introduce a new, hybrid dino to attract more customer but things soon go horribly wrong. Unfortunately, every plot twist intended to be shocking is oddly predictable, removing much of the intended tension of what is going to happen next. One big plot point in particular was completely spoiled given that it had been released online a week or two before release. Some of the best parts of the film reference the events of the previous films. While I won't spoil them here, I can say that they play a crucial part in the plot and are impossible to miss.

The cast of the film is mixed to say the least, although that may be partly down to how some characters are written. The clear stars of the film are Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard. Chris Pratt has been in the public eye in particular since his starring roles last year in both "The Lego Movie" and "Guardians of the Galaxy" due to his humour and acting ability to rival Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man. His comedy background continues to shine through in this film but also his future as an action star. He is the highlight of the cast. Bryce Dallas Howard also gives a great performance, even though her character goes through the clichéd change from uptight to more relaxed. For the rest of the characters though, it's bad news. They all have little to no personality and are very basic characters: the rich and charismatic billionaire, the military representative who wants to use dinosaurs as weapons, the dull scientist, and the two siblings, one smart and one into technology (you know, like the original).

However, there is one particular aspect of the movie that the filmmakers absolutely had to get perfect: the visual effects. Despite relying much more heavily on CGI rather than animatronics like the first instalment, it pleases me to say that the studio has done a fantastic job of bringing violent carnivores and gentle giants alike back to life once again. That's not to say that practical effects are completely omitted, as the effects crew have achieved the perfect balance of the two.  Sets and locations are incredibly detailed, something essential to creating an immersive cinematic experience.

Action sequences take up a large portion of Jurassic World's run time. It just makes me even more relieved that the effects team did a good job. While you are not fearful for the characters lives, these scenes are still full of excellent stunts and great action, meaning that they are fun to watch nonetheless.

The movie still suffers from some flaws, however. One of the main ones is that the tone is all over the place. The movie begins with the two kids arriving at Jurassic World, with the John Williams masterpiece booming as they see the attractions. You really feel the wonder as you are introduced to the park at the same time as these characters. Then the tone shifts entirely to a much darker and sinister atmosphere when we are introduced to the hybrid dinosaur. However, the tone soon begins to move back and forth throughout the movie. It almost seems like the writers did not know whether or not to lean more towards action or comedy.

While Jurassic World is not a perfect movie, due to the inconsistent tone and lack of character development, it is the most worthy sequel to the Spielberg classic. Utilising modern technology to create a true visual spectacle and with a great supporting duo, Jurassic World is well worth a watch. Assuming, of course, that you're able to suspend all disbelief for 2 hours.

Pros

• Impressive special effects
• Lead performances from Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard
• Connections to the first film
• Fun action sequences

Cons

• Tonally confused
• Generic supporting cast
• Predictable plot points

Rating: 7/10

Original Release Date: May 29th, 2015

Directed by Colin Trevorrow

Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'Onofrio, Ty Simpkins, Nick Robinson,      Omar Sy, B. D. Wong, Judy Greer