"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

"Tomorrowland" Review

Disney just love to adapt theme park attractions and rides into movies, with the Pirates of the Caribbean ride spawning the Johnny Depp led franchise and a Haunted Mansion movie in 2003 and a remake in production. So they decided to go an extra mile and turn a whole area of the Magic Kingdom into a movie, and thus the Tomorrowland movie came into existence. Right, so what do they do to make this successful? Well, hiring director Brad Bird who has barely set a foot wrong in his career so far is a pretty good start. What could possibly go wrong? Well, apparently a whole lot.

So, the plot of Tomorrowland revolves around a young, optimistic girl Casey (Britt Robertson) and a middle-aged genius (George Clooney) who travel to Tomorrowland, which is....in the future, or another dimension, or....something. Therein lies one of the primary issues of Tomorrowland and that is that the plot makes no sense and tries so hard to build up the mystery behind this world that it turns the final 20 minutes of the film into one big anti-climax (and that's while ignoring all of the other plot holes along the way). The main body of the film is taken up with the journey to reach Tomorrowland. But the biggest insult to injury is that this portion of the film is extremely enjoyable, filled with intrigue, comedy and good action sequences (including one scene with a hilarious amount of Star Wars product placement). The plot falls apart as soon as the characters reach Tomorrowland and the villain is revealed. The climax is so...Disney. What I mean is that it is very predictable and is simply a clichéd, optimistic look at the future.

While the writers may not have produced a spectacular story on the level I was expecting, where they do succeed is coming up with a group of likeable and fun people to follow on their journey. George Clooney is as watchable and as charismatic as ever. However, the real star of the show is relative newcomer Britt Robertson. Her optimistic and comedic personality contrasts with the way Clooney's character is written, leading to some great interactions between the two as the film goes on. Where the quality of the film begins to plummet is when the main villain, played by Hugh Laurie, comes to the forefront. Laurie isn't the best actor in the movie but, to be fair, the script did not give him much to work with. His plan (if you can even call it that) is ridiculous and does not make any sense whatsoever.

However, as per usual with director Brad Bird's films, Tomorrowland is a technical triumph. Lasers, explosions, a whole futuristic city, Paris being blacked out with an EMP. The film tackles a wide variety of effects and excels in the execution of them all. It was crucial for this to be done to perfection as a sci-fi action flick (like pretty much all of Bird's work). Suffice to say, if you can ignore some plot holes and simply enjoy the guaranteed visual spectacle, you're going to have a great time watching this movie.

Tomorrowland's production design and sound are also very well done. The movie's sets, whether CGI or physical all look extremely realistic, a crucial feature if you want to create a truly immersive cinematic experience for the audience, as Bird always does. You could spend hours dissecting the scenery of the fully populated Tomorrowland, studying the incredibly detailed environments, people and hidden references to Disney history and areas (similar to the theme park, I suppose).

I had such high hopes for this movie. In a sea of sequels, reboots and films recycling the same ideas over and over again, Tomorrowland seemed to offer something completely original. But an idea alone cannot carry a whole movie. It's unfortunate then that a weak plot and message plague an otherwise well-acted and visually stunning film. If the movie had been called "Journey to Tomorrowland," I, along with the rest of the world, may be a bit more forgiving of the errors. I suppose I'm a bit let down that this was not the original classic I hoped it would be.

Pros

• Visual effects and set design
• Well-acted, likeable characters
• The first two acts

Cons

• Nonsensical plot
• Poor villain reveal
• Clichéd message
• The last 20 minutes

Rating: 6/10

Original Release Date: May 9th, 2015

Starring: George Clooney, Britt Robertson, Hugh Laurie, Raffey Cassidy, Judy Greer, Tim McGraw