"Independence Day: Resurgence" Review

What is the acceptable time gap between movies in a franchise? Nowadays, pretty much every movie is going to have a sequel churned out, normally within 2 to 3 years, so that it isn't too rushed, but isn't too late that audiences have forgotten about the first movie and still care about the franchise. The only time that the gap tends to be smaller and results aren't terrible is when the movies are filmed back-to-back as part of a trilogy or a similar set of movies. Anything released later tends to receive criticism for having come too late, although it many not necessarily be bad. With that said, here we are with a sequel to the iconic "Independence Day," 20 years after the release of the original. Clearly 20th Century Fox thought that they could pull off this revival of the franchise based entirely on love and nostalgia for the original movie. However, while I enjoy Independence Day and all of it's fun, over-the-top 90s action, that is not going to stop me pointing out all of the problems with "Independence Day: Resurgence" and how it is undoubtedly one of the most disappointing movies of the year so far.


The plot of this movie takes place 20 years after the events of the original movie, with Earth having advanced all of our technology through the use of the alien weaponry and ships used in their attempted invasion of the planet. However, now they're back and ready to continue what they (apparently) started. Look, I understand that it's incredibly difficult, if even possible anymore, to come up with a completely original plot for a movie nowadays. However, that does not mean I am going to forgive filmmakers for pretty much making the exact same movie as the first one. Besides a couple of additions regarding the actual goals of the aliens and some laughable attempts to expand this universe, there is very little innovation to be found here. No spoilers here obviously, but characters even begin to talk about how their plan and how the movie will inevitably end is exactly the same as the first movie in the second act.

The writing in the movie is unbearably bad as well. I know it's a big, dumb sci-fi movie and the suspension of disbelief is required but this can only go so far. The movie consistently breaks it's own logic and makes absolutely no sense. Not only that, but the character dynamics in the movie are not very believable or realistic, particularly the relationship between Liam Hemsworth's Jake and Jessie Usher's Dylan. The movie attempts to build tension between the two throughout the movie due to a past accident. However, this is a cringeworthy subplot in the movie which makes no sense considering the apparently once close friendship between the two. Throughout the movie, I found it unbelievable that once of the characters would not simply just apologise and, if he did, the other was being pretty petty and unreasonable. However, of all the writing, the worst comes towards the close of the movie, where another movie is set up in a shameful and embarrassing manner. The movie is more concerned with setting up the rest of this cinematic universe for the future and the next movies for this series. It's a shame that after seeing this one, I don't want to see them.

I just briefly mentioned the characters in the movie, and they are a mixed bag. many characters return from the original movie, and they are the best characters here. Jeff Goldblum is doing his best as David Levinson, reprising his role from the original movie, and is one of the few characters to actually inject some personality into his character. It's true that Goldblum has become a bit of a running joke on the Internet in the past few years, with many poking fun at his "ums" and "ooms" in the middle of lines. However, that is exactly what gives the character his likeable and more believable personality. Bill Pullman also does a good job as former President Thomas Whitmore. Although he unfortunately doesn't get to deliver his rousing speech from the original movie, Pullman delivers an emotional and hard-hitting performance as the character is now facing PTSD due to his past experiences. However, besides these two, the returning characters are simply annoying, particularly Brent Spiner's Dr. Brakish Okun. The character is devised to be the comic relief for the majority of the movie but his over-the-top nature just left me wishing for him to be removed from scenes entirely. Another subplot revolves around Judd Hirsch's Julius Levinson character, and it simply another distraction to add more and more characters to the already bloated roster. From that list, who's the one character from the original movie who I haven't mentioned? Will Smith's Steven Hiller. The character is not just gone from the movie without a cameo, but he is shamefully killed off-screen, taking away all hopes for him to make a return in the inevitable third movie. 

However, since this is 20 years later, we do need some new actors and faces added to the cast, but there are far too many to keep track of. It doesn't help that most of them are unlikable as well. The one exception to this is Maika Munroe, who plays Patricia Whitmore, the daughter of Bill Pullman's character. Monroe is great in the movie and has some particularly great moments with her character's father. Everyone else, on the other hand: dull. Jessie Usher's Dylan (meant to be the son of Will Smith's original hero) is terribly written and incredibly boring. Liam Hemsworth's Jake is your generic, witty hero character. There's also the stereotypical Chinese pilot, the wacky sidekick struggling to talk to a girl, a pointless female scientist to work with Jeff Goldblum, and yet another irritating comic relief character. The worst offenders are the ones who are actually set up for some proper development. For example, take Deobia Oparei's African warlord. Initially set up to be an interesting character with an emotional backstroke relating to the aliens, any backstory established early on is forgotten about and never mentioned again.

Look, chances are that the biggest selling point on this movie for a lot of people was the massive set pieces and over-the-top action that has been showcased in the trailers and is a staple of director Roland Emmerich's works. However, despite Jeff Goldblum's character stating that the aliens "love to get the landmarks," you might be surprised that nothing quite matches the spectacle of the White House being destroyed in the original movie. The only thing that comes relatively close is the destruction of London early on, but even then disaster movie fans are destined to be disappointed by the lack of huge, city-crushing set pieces on show here. However, that's not to say that some of the action that is included in the movie is impressive nonetheless. Some of the dogfight sequences in particular using the jets that have been advanced with alien technology. It's not that the action of the movie isn't dumb fun, but it's strange that the action isn't as large-scale or world crushing, despite this movie's $165 million budget as opposed to the original's $75 million.

However, hands down the best part of the movie is the visual effects and spectacle provided throughout the runtime. These visuals are phenomenal and deserve to be commended. The shots of the moon base, and the action sequences (which involve far more green screen and alien weaponry this time round), are all fantastic and never break the audience's immersion. In fact, all of the technical aspects of the movie are on point, with the cinematography and sound design also being worthy of a mention. Most of Roland Emmerich's movies succeed in these departments, and it's good to see that he has managed to at least succeed in these aspects with "Resurgence."

I am a huge sci-fi fan, and the original Independence Day is one of the classic alien invasion movies of the 1990s. That's why it makes me very upset to have to say that "Independence Day: Resurgence" is a colossal disappointment and is not a good movie. Although there are some good performances scattered throughout the movie and some spectacular effects work, there is simply too much wrong here to forgive and give a passing score. A plot that makes absolutely no sense and repeats what we've seen before, an over-abundance of characters to handle with barely any of them being sufficiently developed, and not enough massive action sequences that were promised in the trailer. These are all problems present throughout "Resurgence." If you only go to see a movie for mindless action and don't want to think at all, then you might have some fun with this one. However, if you care about watching a movie with good characters and a logical story, give this one a miss.

Pros

• Impressive effects
• Some good performances

Cons

• Terrible characterisation
• Way too many characters for its own good
• Does nothing original
• Unforgivable logic errors
• One of the worst and most sequel-baiting endings in recent memory
• Surprising lack of large-scale set pieces

Rating: 3/10

Release Date: 23rd June, 2016

Starring Jeff Goldblum, Liam Hemsworth, Bill Pullman, Maika Munroe, Jessie Usher, Sela Ward, William Fichtner, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Judd Hirsch, Brent Spiner

"X-Men: Apocalypse" Review

It's hard to believe that the X-Men franchise kicked off 16 years ago with the original "X-Men." Since then, we've had sequels, reboots and spin-offs galore, all of which have had varying levels of critical success. Personally, I prefer the entries in the prequel series, with "First Class" and "Days of Future Past," to the original series, with the only spin-off living up to the standard of these movies being "Deadpool" this year. "X-Men: Apocalypse" is the next part of this series. Just as "First Class" was set in the 1960s, and "Days of Future Past" in the 70s, "Apocalypse" sees the X-Men is the 80s and they are faced with tackling an ancient being with seemingly unlimited power. Don't expect to see the team being part of any historical events this time round though. Besides some fashion choices, the only major signpost of the period is when the young X-Men go to see "Return of the Jedi" in the cinema. When discussing the movie afterwards, Jean Grey says that "at least we can all agree one thing: the third one is always the worst." However, what may have been intended as a jab at "X-Men: The Last Stand" unfortunately refers to this movie as well. Make no mistake, "X-Men: Apocalypse" isn't a bad movie, but it is faced with a number of problems which make it weaker than both of the other prequel movies.

As I just said, the plot of this movie revolves around the X-Men of the last few movies coming together, along with some younger versions of some mutants from the original movies, to take on a new threat in the form of Apocalypse, the world's first mutant. This would appear to be a credible threat but the plot strangely feels much smaller in scale to "Days of Future Past." In that movie, the problem and danger felt real after seeing the devastation brought by the Sentinels in the future. In this movie, we see very little of Apocalypse's powers which set him apart from other villains in the franchise. The plot of the movie is quite messy throughout, particularly at the beginning with lots of different scenes around the world being shown. Additionally, there is one particularly lengthy filler sequence in the middle of the movie set on a military base which seems to be in the movie for little reason other than to implement a certain cameo unfortunately spoiled by the final trailer into the movie. Thankfully, these scenes are well-written and very well acted nonetheless.

As I just said, the actors in the movie all do a fantastic job, and their characters are very well developed over the course of the movie. There are a few characters in the movie who do not go through much of an arc, such as Nightcrawler, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, who is mainly in the movie to provide some silly comic relief at certain points. Additionally, other characters feel completely pointless and inconsequential, like Havoc (played by Lucas Till), who is only there to introduce Cyclops into the plot, and Moira McTaggert (played by Rose Byrne), returning from First Class and only present here to act as a love interest for Professor X. The best returning characters are Hank McCoy/ Beast (played by Nicholas Hoult), Mystique (played by Jennifer Lawrence), although these two characters go through the same tired will they/won't they love story from the last two movies, and the aforementioned Professor, who is once again played brilliantly by James McAvoy. The new cast members generally fare well. Besides Nightcrawler, we also see young versions of Cyclops and Jean Grey, played by Tye Sheridan and Sophie Turner respectively. We once again see these two characters go through the love story they were a part of in the original movies. Although this is a tired subplot, thankfully not too much time is spent on it, and the two characters are better developed separately, with Sheridan delivering an emotional performance as the character first discovers his abilities, while Turner does an excellent job of showing Jean to be just as tortured and hurt as she is in the comics.

The villains of the movies, on the other hand, do not fare quite as well as the heroes. Apocalypse (or En Sabah Nur) is played very well by Oscar Isaac, who manages to make the character just as intimidating as he is in the comics. The same cannot be said for his power level, as he lacks a number of powers possessed by his comic book counterpart, which does not make his appear to be the god who stands far above these other mutants. And what is going on with his voice? I have no problem with an ancient mutant sounding otherworldly, but is it too much to ask for some consistency. Isaac goes from quiet whispering to a tuned voice to a strange English accent to shouting as loud as he can. The better villain of the movie is Magneto, played once again by Michael Fassbender. The character is much more motivated than any other character in the movie, and Fasssbender delivers a powerful, emotional performance, particularly in some of the movie's earlier sequences in Poland. However, if you are a comic book fan going to this movie excited to see Apocalypse's Four Horsemen, you are going to be mortified. Besides Magneto, Apocalypse's other followers (Storm, Psylocke, and Angel) are terribly developed and are ultimately little more than an afterthought. Storm is literally the first person Apocalypse picks off the street, Angel has a good fight sequence and transformation early on before practically never speaking again, and the only thing Psylocke's got going for her is that her costume is pretty much an exact replica from the comics. Which doesn't even make sense when the other Horsemen have got tactical armour.

Excellent action has always been a staple of the X-Men franchise, and thankfully that is continued over into this movie. Many of the early sequences presented here are fantastic, particularly the ultra-violent military base scene featuring that certain cameo I mentioned before and the Quicksilver sequence, which once again steals the show. However, the finale is an issue that has to be addressed. With so many different characters involved and fighting, many characters have very little to do, and the scene feels extremely long and boring. One fight in particular feels like a retread of the same fight from much earlier in the movie. It's unfortunate that this sequence feels so bloated, especially when we've seen from other X-Men movies that Bryan Singer can do much better in his finales.

One of the aspects of the movie that had to be spot on was the visual effects, and this is an area where the filmmakers have succeeded. With so many mutant powers in play throughout the movie, it is incredible that almost nothing in the movie looks fake at any point. The only scenes which could raise some eyebrows are during the finale, particularly with regards Magneto and a couple of fights involving Beast. However, the section of the movie where the visuals will cause jaws to drop is the aforementioned Quicksilver scene once again. The slow motion effects on display are phenomenal and also shows off the excellent cinematography as the camera accurately follows Quicksilver's face and the environment around him while keeping every bit of detail in the scene clear. In fact, every technical aspect of the movie is on point and deserves to be commended.

Ultimately, "X-Men: Apocalypse" is a mixed bag. There's plenty of good filmmaking on show here, with great performances from all of the cast members and spectacular action and visual effects. However, all of this is countered by the weaknesses of he villains and a severe lack of development, while the finale (and quite a few other scenes for that matter) is a messy affair. If you are going to see this movie for a very well-written story with no major plot holes, then you may be disappointed. However, if you are more forgiving of these errors, and are able to enjoy some great action, then you'll be able to have a good time watching this movie. Let's just hope the next movie keeps this action, but improves on the writing and direction. Also, since the next movie is supposedly set in the 1990s, let's hope for the return of the incredible theme song from the old cartoon.

Pros

• Performances around the board (especially Fassbender)
• The Quicksilver sequence
• Visual effects
• Cinematography and editing

Cons

• Development of the Horsemen (besides Magneto)
• Bloated finale
• What is going on with Apocalypse's voice?

Rating: 7/10

Release Date: 29th April, 2016

Starring James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Oscar Isaac, Nicholas Hoult,  Rose Byrne, Tye Sheridan, Sophie Turner, Evan Peters, Alexandra Shipp, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Olivia Munn, Ben Hardy, Josh Helman, and Hugh Jackman

"Beauty and the Beast (2017)" Trailer Reaction

It's been great to see Disney returning to some of their animated classics over the last few years, albeit to varying degrees of success. For example, last year's Cinderella being very well received by audiences and getting largely positive reviews from critics while other movies such as Maleficent had a far more mixed response. Now, in continuing this trend, Disney has decided to produce a live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast, the first and one of the only films to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. So far, announcements made regarding the production have only bene met with positive reactions, and with a star-studded cast (check out the pictures below to see who everyone is playing), there's a chance that this could turn out to be Disney's best live-action retelling yet. The first teaser trailer has now arrived and given me much reason to doubt the movie yet. Then again, it doesn't really show much in the first place.

Yeah, there really isn't too much to see here. OK, admittedly it's a teaser trailer so the purpose of it is to inform casual moviegoers about the film and to start building excitement around it. That shouldn't be too hard because what's on show here is a love letter to fans of the original and Disney fans in general. The music in particular is on point here. The use of the original movie's opening theme is enough to get lovers of the animation excited immediately before the short hint at Beauty and the Beast at the very end of the trailer. The movie has bene confirmed to be a musical and the score is being composed by Alan Menken, who some might recognise as the same composer responsible for the 1991 classic. He won the Best Original Score Oscar for that movie, and it looks like he is recreating the same magic for this new take on the tale.

Emma Watson plays Belle while Dan Stevens plays the Prince/Beast. Luke Evans plays the villainous Gaston with Josh Gad playing his sidekick, Le Fou

I also have to say, the cinematography and set design on show here is incredible. Beast's Castle from the outside looks fantastic and the glimpses we get at the different rooms of the castle are picture perfect replicas of the animated movie. The designer of the ballroom set should be especially applauded for his contribution. That brings me quite nicely to the editing of the trailer. The before and after effect of the different rooms is excellent and is likely taken from the opening act of the movie, with the icicles of the chandeliers and the cobwebs of the castle growing after the Prince becomes the Beast. While all of these technical aspects should be commended, the trailer unfortunately did nothing to end my main worry for the movie: the effects. This is a movie about walking and talking clocks, wardrobes, teapots, candelabras, and a massive Beast. This will have to look extremely good and realistic for Disney to justify this movie being live-action. However, as we saw in "The Jungle Book," Disney do have and are willing to use the money necessary to put these effects into action, so I have faith that this movie will look every bit as good as it needs to.

Ewan McGregor plays Lumière, Gugu Mbatha-Raw plays Plumette, Emma Thompson portrays Mrs. Potts, and Sir Ian McKellen plays Cogsworth

The only cast member that we see in this trailer is Emma Watson as Belle in an obscured close-up. However, we hear another 2 characters towards the end of the trailer: Ewan McGregor as the candelabra Lumière and Ian McKellen as the clock Cogsworth. When the cast list was announced for this movie, my initial reaction was extremely positive. Everybody in this movie seems perfectly cast. This trailer did little to change my opinions on these 3 cast members. Ian McKellen seems to have nailed the cynical nature of Cogsworth and I'm sure Emma Watson will be great although she is not shown a lot in this trailer. The same applies for Ewan McGregor, who definitely has the charm required to play Lumière. Hopefully his French accent won't sound so strange by the release of the full movie though.

Kevin Kline plays Belle's father Maurice, Audra McDonald plays Garderobe, Hattie Morahan plays the Enchantress and Adrian Schiller plays Monsieur D'Arque

Overall, this is a very small but encouraging first look at this movie. Director Bill Condon seems to have nailed the atmosphere, music and cinematography, at least in this trailer. However, I do think that we need to see more of the cast and the visual effects work to settle some of the understandable concerns that I for this production. This teaser trailer has succeeded in it's main job, however, and made me excited to see more of this movie and only confirmed that Disney know exactly what they are doing with their live-action slate of movies.

Beauty and the Beast is releasing on March 17th, 2017.

Starring Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Josh Gad, Emma Thompson, Kevin Kline, and Stanley Tucci

New Power Rangers Movie Costumes Revealed!

I've talked time and time again about reboots in Hollywood, and how they can be both good and bad. For example, the trailer for The Magnificent Seven reboot looks pretty good. Fantastic, on the other hand, is complete and utter garbage that you should avoid at all costs. Clearly this practice can produce both good and bad results. So when a new Power Rangers movie was announced with a 2017 release date, I was skeptical to say the least. When they announced that they would be sticking with the original character names, fans (yes, believe it or not there are some adult Power Ranger fans) were given some hope for this movie. However, some recent pictures of the costumes featured in the movie have suggested that this is going to be quite different from the old show. Now, the new costumes for the Rangers have been revealed, and there is no spandex to be seen. Check out the new, more...anatomically correct costumes below.

In all honesty, I don't hate it. The more high-tech designs make sense for a modern reboot, and the 5 Rangers look like their suits have been designed by Iron Man. Let's face it, this lot wouldn't just be going up against people with swords. The aliens that they'll be taking on in this movie will more than likely be armed with some guns or futuristic laser weapon, so this more armoured design makes sense.

Everything else, however, is just a bit....wrong. Mainly with regards the female Rangers. The costume designers look to have been working hard on making these outfits as detailed as possible, especially in some areas the old kids show certainly didn't make a big deal of. And then there's the high heels. Who thought this was a good idea? After the criticisms the character of Claire in Jurassic World received last year, mainly due to how she spent the whole movie running around in high heels, I cannot imagine anyone who would have green lighted this idea, especially since it suggests that girls have to wear high heels while the guys get the trainers.

Overall, I am not sold on this movie yet. While the designs are interesting, we just don't know enough about the movie yet to make a sound judgement. Hopefully it'll be good, but some costumes aren't enough to convince me that this is a good idea

Power Rangers is releasing March 24th, 2017.

Starring Dacre Montgomery, Becky G, Ludi Lin, Naomi Scott, RC Cyler, David Denman, Anjali Jay, Elizabeth Banks

"Captain America: Civil War" Review

Marvel are arguably the most consistent movie studio working today. Constantly delivering great characters, often hilarious writing, and spectacular action, their movies have taken audiences on a couple of thrill rides a year since 2008. As the cast of the MCU (the Marvel Cinematic Universe) continued to grow, we soon saw the formation of the Avengers, who have now had 2 movies together. DC Comics, on the other hand, have only just begun and put Batman up against Superman. The only reasonable response? Put Captain America up against Iron Man, of course! Now, a month after Dawn of Justice, the MCU has erupted into Civil War. Is it better than Batman v Superman? Civil War is not only better than that movie, but it is one of the best superhero movies ever made and the best movie of this year so far.

One of the main reasons that Civil War works so well is because, as I just mentioned, Marvel have been building up the relationships and character dynamics in their movies for 8 years, since the release of the original Iron Man. We have seen Captain America and Iron Man clash over their ideologies and thoughts on how the Avengers should be run before. It makes sense in this universe for the government to be so distrustful of the team because of the number of international incidents that have taken place since Iron Man, and this is a point that is raised in the movie. With the groundwork already placed, the central conflict of Civil War is already far more believable than that of Batman v Superman. Not only that, but directors Joe and Anthony Russo have succeeded in making it very difficult for audiences to actually choose a side to root for. Rather than simply portraying Iron Man as the villain of the piece, the motivations of Stark to support the main government act to regulate the Avengers is backed up by a very powerful scene beforehand and the evidence of how much chaos the team has been involved in. Cap's side is equally developed, however, with his patriotism and talk of freedom throughout being strong enough to give Mel Gibson a run for his money.

The acting in the movie is on point, which is to be expected from Marvel at this point. It is impossible to imagine anyone other than Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr. playing Captain America and Iron Man at this point. Evans is an excellent Steve Rogers and he gets plenty of chance to show his emotional range throughout the movie, empahasising how far his character has come from being the little guy who was beaten up in seemingly every Brooklyn alley. Downey Jr. has provided the MCU with much of its humour in his own solo outings and the team-up films. However, he gets to give a much more dramatic performance in this movie, with the character clearly feeling a great deal of guilt over the deaths the Avengers were involved in and his creation of one of their villains, Ultron. His performance as Tony Stark gives the audience a reason to support his cause rather than simply siding with Captain America because his name is in the title. 

The supporting cast also get plenty of time to shine, particularly Bucky (played once again by Sebastian Stan) and new players Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany). The latter characters get to see their relationship develop over the course of the action (a sure pleaser for any comic book fans), with the two helping each other through their different problems, with Vision struggling with his humanity while Scarlet Witch continues to grow far more powerful and unstable. Bucky, on the other hand, goes on a rough journey over the course of the movie. His relationship with Cap is very much one of the focus points of the movie, with the the character's past as the Winter Soldier clearly haunting him throughout the movie. Stan does a great job of  One more character I have to mention, although he doesn't get a lot of screen time, is Ant-Man. Paul Rudd has a great comedic presence in the movie and brings one of the movie's (many) jaw-dropping moments.

However, there are plenty of new characters as well, who are just as well written as the returning players. Daniel Brühl plays the true villain of the piece, Zemo (no comic book fans, he does not don the iconic purple mask and suit). While I cannot talk a great deal about him without jumping into spoiler territory, what I can say is that he is certainly one of Marvel's best developed villains and his motivations make sense, even if it does take a while for his endgame to be revealed. A character I can talk about is Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther. The true standout of the movie for me, this character is given an emotional backstory which makes him relevant to the story but also a distinct personality that sets him apart from his co-stars. An example of his no-nonsense nature comes during one of the action sequences where he swiftly shuts down a conversation in order to get back to business. I can't wake to see more of the Panther when his solo movie rolls around in February 2018. Now, let's talk about the big one, the show stopper, the announcement that caused fans around the world to rejoice: Spider-Man. Yes, the web slinger is back where he belongs at Marvel (after a deal was reached which would see Marvel and Sony sharing the rights to the character) and he is definitely the best iteration of the character ever to grace the big screen. Tom Holland is a perfect Peter Parker and Spider-Man, successfully conveying the different characters of both of Peter's personas: the nerdy teenager and the joking, confident Spidey. Something that is also done very well is the relationship the character has with Tony Stark. Both Downey Jr. and Holland are excellent during their scenes together, and it'll be interesting to tee how the relationship develops in next year's "Spider-Man: Homecoming."

One aspect of the movie that has been heavily advertised is the action sequences, and for good reason. In this outing, the heroes aren't just fighting mindless drones, like the Chitauri in The Avengers; they're at war with each other. There are plenty of great scenes in the movie, such as the tunnel chase between Captain America, Bucky and Black Panther, or the climatic action sequence. However,  none of these compare to the airport scene that is featured in every trailer and TV spot. Some early reviews praised this section of the movie as one of the best action sequences in the history of the superhero genre, and you might have thought that maybe some were exaggerating due to excitement. After actually seeing this 15 minute scene myself, I can say without a doubt that this is not only the best action beat of any superhero movie, but one of the best set pieces of all time. The choreography of every separate fight is brilliant, and every character is given a chance to shine, and the effects work is absolutely spectacular. Even Spider-Man's new costume, which some were skeptical about after it began making the rounds in the trailers, looks incredible when it is actually in action, and never brakes the immersion of the audience. Whether you go to superhero movies as a fan of the source material, for the action, or just because you liked the other movies, this sequence is sure to impress.

It's not just in the airport sequence that the technical work of the movie is on point, however. Throughout the movie, the cinematography of the movie is excellent, with the pacing and speed of the shots never being so fast that the audience cannot understand what is happening, as is the problem with some modern action scenes. The set and costume designs for the movie should also be commended, with everything the production team have created matching the tone of the rest of the MCU. Overall, I can think of very few problems with Civil War. If anything, the movie does feel long, with the conflict of the movie taking a long time to be properly set up. Many scenes in the movie do feel quite lengthy. Don't get me wrong, the movie does feel like like it has had the majority of it's fat trimmed in editing but, nonetheless, some of these scenes could probably have been cut down.

The length of a movie does not ruin it, however. The fact remains that, although Captain America: Civil War may feel slightly long at some points, it never has a dull moment and never fails to disappoint. Flipping the Marvel Universe on it's head, and full of spectacular performances and action, this movie is one of the best entries in the MCU and is one of the best superhero movies ever made. Marvel have set the standards for how a conflict should be built up across a long period of time. By building their character dynamics over 8 years, the audience is guaranteed to feel an emotional connection to the conflict, watching the heroes tear themselves apart and be forced into a fight neither of them want to be in. All film and TV writers, take notes.

Pros

• The conflict feels earned
• Great character moments
• Phenomenal action sequences
• Black Panther and Spider-Man
• Brilliant visuals
• Cinematography

Cons

• Maybe a tad long

Rating: 10/10

Release Date: 29th April, 2016

Starring Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Anthony Mackie, Paul Rudd, Sebastian Stan, Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Don Cheadle, Chadwick Boseman, Tom Holland, Emily VanCamp, William Hurt, and Daniel Brühl.

"Jason Bourne" Trailer Reaction

In 2007, Matt Damon's Bourne trilogy wrapped up with "The Bourne Ultimatum." These 3 movies were all fantastic, and brought a new cleverness to the plot of a summer blockbuster. Ever since then we've been seeing a string of very clever stories popping up amidst the swarm of action and explosion ridden movies. Think an "Inception" among the Michael Bay Transformer movies. Bourne also redefined the spy genre in the same way, given that we were just coming out of the Roger Moore and Piece Brosnan Bond eras. "The Bourne Legacy," on the other hand, was seen as something of a step backwards by many, with the movie certainly not reaching the critical and commercial heights of the Damon trilogy. Thankfully, Matt Damon is back as Jason Bourne in the latest instalment of this franchise to uncover more conspiracies and take out a whole bunch of bad guys. Check out the trailer below.

Bourne is back kicking and shooting! This looks exactly like the original Bourne movies, which is by absolutely no means a bad thing. The action looks incredible here, from the heavily publicised one-punch knockout that can be seen once again at the end of the trailer to the car chase on the Las Vegas roads to the riot scene that takes place in Athens (in the movie, at least). All of the action sequences look to be keeping the brutal, realistic style that Bourne is known for, such as the quick cuts of Bourne knocking a random henchman into a chair. The swift and quick movements are also great to watch, like when Jason pulls a molotov cocktail straight out of a rioter's hands to use for himself. Basically, the action all looks incredible, which is helped by the fact that barely any CGI is on display here, if any at all. Practical effects will always look better than some computer-generated effects, and the movie should be highly commended if it focuses on the use of these techniques throughout the entire run time.

The plot of the movie looks to have been updated for the modern world, bringing in a story surrounding hacking and technology, with Scott Shepherd's character saying near the beginning of the trailer that a new breach of security could be "worse than Snowden." This kind of plot is unlike any that we've seen in a Bourne movie before but that's not the only difference between this and the other movies. The entire dynamic between the FBI and Bourne looks to have flipped in this newest instalment. Whereas it was only really Joan Allen's Pamela Landy who supported Bourne and believed that he was trying to help, it looks like Alicia Vikander and Tommy Lee Jones (the director of the CIA) will also be on the side of Bourne and help him track down the real villains of the story, potentially played by Vincent Cassel. I am happy to see these additions to the story this time round, rather than just a re-run of the stories that took place in Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum.

This movie also looks to have had some real star power injected into it, with the aforementioned Tommy Lee Jones, Vincent Cassel and Alicia Vikander going the cast in addition to the returning Matt Damon and Julia Stiles. While Jones and Cassel are both great additions to the line up, the real member of the cast that I am most excited to see is Alicia Vikander, who has done some amazing work in both "Ex Machina" and "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." last year. Thankfully, she looks to be playing a strong female lead in the CIA opposite Tommy Lee Jones, and hopefully she'll be able to show off her talents to a mainstream audience in this role. All of the cinematography and production design also looks excellent, with the action all being very easy to see and understand despite it's fast-paced nature.

I love action movies. I love smart plots in movies. What I really love to see in a movie is an equal balance of strong, action sequences and an intelligent plot to drive the story forward. The Bourne franchise has always had this and Jason Bourne thankfully looks to have all of this. With some great-looking performances, set pieces which will be scattered throughout the world and some amazing technical work. It's definitely not hard to see why this is the movie many people are most excited for this summer and, thanks to this trailer, I am one of those people.

Jason Bourne is releasing on the 29th of July, 2016

Starring Matt Damon, Alicia Vikander, Tommy Lee Jones, Julia Stiles, Vincent Cassel, Scott Shepherd, and Riz Ahmed 

"The Magnificent Seven (2016)" Trailer Reaction

As the years go on, it's becoming to look more and more like Hollywood are relying on remakes and reboots of old franchises to make money. This isn't always the case, but for some it's seen as ridiculous. So, when a remake of "The Magnificent Seven" was announced, it was met with a fair amount of scepticism. What was the need to remake this classic movie which has become an icon of pop culture since it's release in 1960? Two movies released last year even had titles which were pretty similar to this (Quentin Tarantino's successful Hateful Eight and Adam Sandler rightfully panned Ridiculous Six). Westerns, however, have been on the decline for a few years now, so perhaps MGM saw a chance to bring the genre back by remaking one of the most popular Westerns ever made, while making quite a bit of money on the side if it's successful. The first trailer has just been released, and it looks pretty encouraging for this reboot. Check it out below.

Overall, this movie looks quite gritty but also a lot of fun. The one thing that the trailer has sold me on is the dynamic between Denzel Washington and Chris Pratt's characters. It looks like they should have some fun banter, with Washington playing the tough bounty hunter while Pratt is the relaxed, explosion-loving scoundrel. Hopefully, that was not just the one scene we're seeing here. However, my main worry from this trailer is that the remaining 5 members of the group will not be developed as well as these two, partly because of their star power. In a movie about a group of criminals, bounty hunters and killers banding together, there has to be some interesting conflicts and team dynamic throughout the movie. Wouldn't it be boring to see these characters, who are used to being on their own and against the law, immediately work together as a flawless unit? Just look at Suicide Squad. This is something that the movie needs to achieve, and will hopefully be a main focus in some of the later trailers.

That said, as a Western, the movie is not just about fun character interactions and drama, but also some lengthy action set pieces throughout. From what we see here, the movie seems to have given us everything we wanted in that regards. Bows and arrows, gatling guns, mini cannons, revolvers, and horses are all on display here, which will hopefully be spread throughout the movie. A lot of the action looks like it will be very claustrophobic and close combat despite the use of ranged weapons. Just look at the scene with Denzel Washington in the bar scene, where glass is exploding all around him and he is fighting some gang members in close proximity. If all of the action is as detailed and as well filmed as this scene, then action lovers have got something to look forward to.

Not only the cast and the action looks great though, but also the production value of the movie. All of the sets and costume design look pretty typical of a Western movie but it all still looks incredible. I'm also going to praise the trailer for it's editing work, with the clips being put together in such a way that it doesn't give away all of the story and set pieces but still gives enough to set the tone and give audiences an idea of what to expect. This, of course, does not always reflect the outcome of the movie itself, but trailer editors need to be recognised nonetheless for their incredible contribution to the final profits of the movie. Great marketing can make or break a production.

Look, reboots are a part of the modern film industry nowadays, whether we like it or not. There's no point in complaining about it, so we might as well accept it and try to enjoy it. That said, this version of the Magnificent Seven looks like a fun remake of the classic. As long as it doesn't discard drama and characterisation, this movie looks like it should have a great team dynamic, a stellar cast and some big action sequences, all of which should make it well worth a watch come September.

The Magnificent Seven is releasing on the 23rd of September, 2016

Starring Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D'Onofrio, Lee Byung-hun, Manuel Garcia Rulfo, Martin Sensmeier, Peter Sarsgaard, Haley Bennett