Author: Jennifer Heaton

Starring: Hugh Jackman (Prisoners), James McAvoy (Wanted), Michael Fassbender (12 Years A Slave), Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games), Nicholas Hoult (Jack the Giant Slayer), Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones), Patrick Stewart (Star Trek: The Next Generation), Ian McKellen (The Lord of the Rings) 

Director: Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects) 

Writer: Simon Kinberg (X-Men: The Last Stand) 

Runtime: 2 hours 11 minutes 

Release Date: 22 May (UK), 23 May (US)

The X-Men film franchise has had its ups and downs over the past 14 years, with quality ranging from some of the best comic book movies out there to some of the worst. If only there was a way to fix all of these issues, getting rid of the plot holes and misconceived storylines that the lesser films have given us. Or is there? Bryan Singer, the man who started it all, has come back to the series to tie together two timelines and adapt one of the most beloved storylines from the comics in Days of Future Past. With such enormous hype and insurmountable goals, can this seventh instalment be as good as it possibly sounds?

Having read the original “Days of Future Past” storyline, I can say the film’s plot is certainly not a direct adaptation but does take a lot of the key elements as well as the spirit of the tale; comparable to how X2 was a loose adaptation of “God Loves, Man Kills”. But as a story on its own, it works tremendously well. The time travel element is a welcome addition to the X-Men flavour and it never feels like a cheap gimmick, evoking both The Terminator and Back to the Future in execution and style. The film is packed to the brim but it never feels overstuffed or weighty like some comic book movies do, and the pacing is so air-tight that it both breezes you through the story and leaves you wanting more (in a good way). I only have two minor gripes with the plot. Firstly, I felt the balance between the two timelines was a little imbalanced. Once Wolverine (Jackman) travels back, it’s a long time before we see the future cast again and they unfortunately don’t get as much to do. What we do get is great, but I would have loved to see maybe just a few more character moments or another action scene with them. And secondly, the method of time travel isn’t really explained too well: Kitty Pryde (Elliot Page) has suddenly gained the power to send people’s consciousnesses back in time with nary an explanation. They could have maybe put a few lines in to explain this, but they don’t and it bugged me a bit; it felt like little more than an excuse to keep Kitty an important part of the plot (as in the original story, she was the one who got sent back in time). But besides these niggles, Days of Future Past is a rollicking good time and one of the better stories from the X-Men series, especially with its sentimental ending that could easily move devout fans to tears (it nearly did fore me). By the way, there is an after credits scene, but unless you’re a serious comic nut you are going to have no idea what it means (perhaps even more confusing to the uninitiated than Thanos’ appearance in The Avengers).

What the bad X-Men movies always forgot is that, at the heart of it all, the series is an ensemble piece about these complex and interesting characters and not just an excuse to throw special effects around. Days of Future Past remembers this key fact and makes it the centre of the entire piece. Whilst Wolverine is a key part of the story and Jackman himself is still as ace in the role as ever, the real focus still remains on the main trio from First Class: Xavier (McAvoy), Magneto (Fassbender) and Mystique (Lawrence). Their characters and their triangular relationship is so fundamental for the film to work and thankfully it does. McAvoy delivers the standout performance of the film, portraying a Charles Xavier far more bitter and sorrowful than we’ve ever seen. His contemptible attitude makes him almost unlikable at points, but McAvoy manages to balance it out well enough that we don’t forget the kind man we know he was and will become again, as shown in a wonderful scene where he meets his future self (Stewart). Fassbender and Lawrence’s characters have certainly advanced much more towards their characters’ demeanours in the original trilogy, but also still keeps those slivers of humanity that made them so sympathetic in First Class. It’s these three that really make the movie what it is and, not to detract from everyone else in the movie, that’s how it really should be. As cool as it is to see all these characters from the comics, X-Men shouldn’t be treated like a Roland Emmerich film with a cast of thousands of unimportant characters. When it comes to the other mutants in the story, they all play their part but none of them detract from the core cast nor do they feel like wasted fan service like certain characters did in The Last Stand or Origins. In terms of new players, the key ones are Peter Dinklage’s Bolivar Trask and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver. Dinklage is always great to watch and he delivers a fine performance, though as an antagonist he lacks the menace of, say, Brian Cox’s Stryker from X2. Peters doesn’t get a whole lot of screen time, but when he’s there he’s one of the film’s surprising revelations, adding some clever and much needed comic relief to the proceedings.

Days of Future Past is easily the most visually distinctive of the X-Men films. The design of the apocalyptic future owes as much to Terminator as the film’s plot does, but it feels just unique enough to separate it from that classic franchise. Plenty of detail has also gone into the 1970s section of the film, creating a similar atmosphere to First Class with a slightly different twist. The action sequences continue to find new ways of exploiting all the impressive powers on display, key highlights being Blink’s (Fan Bingbing) ability to create portals (any fans of the Portal series will clearly have some fun here) and Quicksilver’s superspeed. The cinematography manages to keep these two disparate eras distinct but unified, as well as making fun use of Super 8 footage during certain scenes. The visual effects are better than ever, and it’s so wonderful to hear John Ottman back doing the score and to hear a remixed version of his excellent theme from X2.

X-Men: Days of Future Past is one of the best of the franchise, ranking up there with X2 and First Class easily, as well as one of the better comic book movies in recent memory. It weaves a great story that respects the source material whilst giving it a new spin, the cast put in tremendous work in both big and small parts, and it reveres the series’ past whilst remembering its mistakes and leaves you with a warm nostalgic feeling inside. The franchise could easily stop here and I would be satisfied, but they are continuing and as long as they stay this consistently good I think we never have to fear anything as horrible as Brett Ratner’s dirty fingers ever again.

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10

Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Kick-Ass), Ken Watanabe (Inception), Elizabeth Olsen (Kill Your Darlings), Sally Hawkins (Blue Jasmine), David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck), Bryan Cranston (Argo)

Director: Gareth Edwards (Monsters)

Writer: Max Borenstein

Runtime: 2 hours 3 minutes

Release Date: 15 May (UK), 16 May (US)

The self-proclaimed King of the Monsters has returned to the big screen after a ten year hiatus (his last appearance being 2004’s Godzilla: Final Wars), and this time the Americans are taking another shot at it. After Roland Emmerich’s 1998 disaster of a disaster film, Monsters director Gareth Edwards has been given the reigns to try and salvage Godzilla’s reputation in the western world. In a land inhabited by Cloverfield, Transformers and Pacific Rim, is there room anymore for the original giant movie monster?

Right off the bat, I can easily get this out of the way: yes, this is a much better film than the Emmerich version and a much more accurate representation of Godzilla himself. He looks like Godzilla, he sounds like Godzilla, and he does the things you expect Godzilla to do. But getting that part right alone won’t make this a good movie, so how does the rest of it pan out? Godzilla certainly takes itself very seriously and strikes a good tone. It’s pensive enough that you can buy the somewhat ridiculous premise, but not so po-faced that it sucks the enjoyment out of the picture. The film takes the right approach by being coy about showing us the monsters at first before unleashing them onto the world, but I felt the pacing consistently lagged. It takes just a tad too long to get to the action, and even once the plot gets really going there’s too much time spent away from the main event. The film has about enough plot for a 90 minute romp, but it feels needlessly stretched out to just over two hours. When the film finally gets to its big climax it does deliver on its promise, but it feels less like a treat for your patience and more like an apology for the delay: you’re glad it’s finally here and you feel satisfied by the quality, but you can’t shake the fact that it should have come sooner.

I could accept the long stretches spent on the human characters if they were interesting, but that’s the problem: they’re not. The film’s cast is impressive and they give it their all at every chance they can get, but their roles all feel a bit thinly drawn. Taylor-Johnson’s Ford Brody is your basic stock protagonist with no flourish: the brave hero with a family to get back to, a connection to the crisis at hand, and with just the right skills needed to help avert it. He feels too much like a passive observer of the narrative; an avatar for the audience to inhabit while they watch all of the excitement but doing very little to engage with it. Up until the climax, Brody never impacts the plot in a significant way and he’s only given the barest of motivations to keep going. That motivation happens to be played by Elizabeth Olsen, who shares good chemistry with Taylor-Johnson but their screen time together is minimal and we aren’t given enough time to connect with them as much as the film thinks we are. Pretty much everyone else feels like an archtype, but ones cast with really good actors. Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins play the classic “scientists that initially hide the truth as they try to avert disaster”, whilst David Strathairn is stuck with the old reliable “military man who will take drastic measures that threaten others in order to end the disaster earlier and ignores the scientists’ better solution”. They all do it very well, but it’s hard to excuse stereotypes especially when they play them so straight. Only Bryan Cranston manages to break this mould and he delivers a powerhouse performance despite the script’s deficiencies. Sure, he’s also stuck playing the traditional “crazy scientist who saw it all coming but nobody believes him” role, but Cranston sells it through sheer force of personality. He’s easily the acting highlight of the movie, and it’s a shame his screen time is fairly limited.

Where Godzilla thankfully shines is all in the spectacle. On a technical level, this gets everything pretty much right. The action sequences, when they decide to show up, are phenomenal. The scope and choreography of them is stupendous to behold, packed with plenty of crumbling buildings, fiery explosions and monsters throwing each other about. The cinematography really shows off the scale of the entire production, and the moody colours and lighting help sell a world in peril. The visual effects are top notch, creating the most believable and accurate representation of Godzilla on screen so far, and the design of him and the other creatures are interesting and unique. The sound design is masterful, with thunderous thumps and reverberant roars kicking in at all the right moments, and Alexandre Desplat’s score is saturnine and oozing with dread. If you can see this movie in IMAX, do so; the size of it all alone is worth the price of admission.

Godzilla is an enjoyable film for the most part. The tone is well balanced, the action scenes are exhilarating and it represents Godzilla himself in the way he should be. But the story’s pacing issues and bland characters do put a serious damper on the fun. I understand that the film needs human characters, as Godzilla himself doesn’t have a personality to hold the entire film, but the humans don’t seem to have much persona either so it doesn’t work. Next time around, either give us more compelling characters or just make the movie about Godzilla; a remake of Destroy All Monsters done in this style would be much appreciated.

FINAL VERDICT: 7.5/10

Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Terminator), Sam Worthington (Avatar), Olivia Williams (The Sixth Sense), Terrence Howard (Prisoners), Mireille Enos (World War Z)

Director: David Ayer (End of Watch)

Writers: Skip Woods (A Good Day to Die Hard) and David Ayer

Runtime: 1 hour 49 minutes

Release Date: 28 March (US), 7 May (UK)

Arnold Schwarzenegger has had a surprisingly hard time since coming back to the movies. Aside from The Expendables franchise (where he only makes glorified cameos anyway), his recent fare has been either critically panned, done poorly at the box office, or both; a real step down for the man who helped define a generation of action movies. So does teaming up with the man behind End of Watch and Training Day seem like a good idea? On paper: sure. But in execution? Unfortunately no.

Skip Woods, easily the worst screenwriter working in Hollywood right now, has struck again with this one, but with Ayer doing rewrites and directing you’d hope he could do something to make Sabotage watchable. But he hasn’t, and what ends up on screen is a sloppy mess. The plot outline seems good in concept, mixing hardcore action with mystery-thriller, but the actual script lets everything down. The pacing is horrendous, making what should feel like edge-of-your-seat thrills feel like a chore. The plot feels needlessly complicated and goes on for too long, and the reveals are so obvious because the film doesn’t cover its tracks well enough. Note to Mr. Woods: when you want to create a mystery, you make it seem plausible that it could be anyone. You don’t go sticking flashing arrows over the culprits, because it not only makes all the other characters look like idiots but it bores your audience to tears. The film’s tone is all over the place too, mixing crude humour with extremely violent imagery but in a way that doesn’t work at all, and even the film’s morals seem mangled and confusing.

Woods seems to only have two character archetypes that he keeps using over and over again: bland or obnoxious. He made Wolverine a stodgy brute, he wrote John McClane as an ignorant blockhead, and now he’s managed the impossible: making Arnold Schwarenegger boring. The man just has nothing to work with here, and so he’s left feeling cold and uninteresting. I get that he’s played a much darker individual than usual, but Schwarzenegger doesn’t pull it off and his character’s motivations are left unclear until so late into the film that you just don’t care. The rest of his DEA team are just as flat. Sam Worthington continues to be the blandest man in movies despite his attempts to look tough, Mireille Enos comes off as so batsh*t insane that you can’t believe this woman would ever work for the government, and everyone else is just forgettable. When Josh Holloway’s name popped up in the credits, I had genuinely forgotten that he was in the movie. That’s how unmemorable most of the characters are. All you will remember about this band of twats is that their banter is annoying beyond belief. The only person I felt any connection to was Olivia Williams, mainly because she spends most of her time calling out all these character on their bullsh*t.

The film has that same gritty look that all of Ayer’s films have, utilising a lot of grimy locales and handheld photography. When the film finally gets to the action scenes, which are spread way too thinly across the runtime, they’re actually not too bad; a car chase near the end of the film I’d even call pretty fun. But it’s not worth sitting through everything else to get to it.

Sabotage holds the honour of being one of the most boring and irritating films I’ve seen in a long time. The story is messy and fails to follow up on its intriguing premise, the characters are one-dimensional and contemptible, and…you know what? That’s all I need to say. You fail at story and character, you fail overall by default. I don’t care if the action’s decent. David Ayer has done much better than this, and hopefully will continue to. As for Skip Woods? All I have to say is: who keeps hiring this schmuck?

FINAL VERDICT: 2/10

Starring: Seth Rogen (Pineapple Express), Zac Efron (Hairspray), Rose Byrne (X-Men: First Class), Dave Franco (21 Jump Street), Ike Barinholtz (The Mindy Project), Lisa Kudrow (Easy A)

Director: Nicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall)

Writers: Andrew Jay Cohen & Brendan O’Brien

Runtime: 1 hour 36 minutes

Release Date: 3 May (UK), 9 May (US)

The frat house comedy is a subgenre that just never dies. Ever since John Landis kick-started the trend with Animal House, every couple of years there comes along a movie that tries to become its generation’s Animal House. Revenge of the Nerds, Van Wilder, Old School, the list goes on. So how does Bad Neighbours (or just Neighbors as it is called in the US, changed overseas likely to avoid confusion with a certain Australian soap opera) fare against such a wide fair of similar offerings? Does it pass the test and join the fraternity, or is this one pledge that’s going to chicken out?

Bad Neighbours is a breath of fresh air for the genre mainly because it views the proceedings from a fresh perspective. The film is primarily from the point of view of the sensible adults for once but without making them look like spoilsports. They call out the frats on their behaviour, but they also get in on the fun every once in a while and even end up doing some devious stuff themselves. But that’s not to say that the frats themselves are one-dimensional obnoxious twats, no sir. Their perspective is painted with just enough sympathy that you never hate them completely even when they go over the line. The film manages to strike a good balance between the two sides, never making either one seem too despicable whilst still making both of them funny and entertaining. The story even manages to have morals better written than most comedies of this ilk, with Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne’s characters learning to be responsible adults without becoming curmudgeons, and Zac Efron coming to realise that his life as a party animal is coming to a close. It’s effort like this that makes Bad Neighbours that much more entertaining and not just a lazy hodgepodge of sex and stoner gags.

Seth Rogen may not have much range as an actor, but he’s dependable and always worth a few laughs. He is playing a somewhat more responsible character with a job, a wife and a kid on his shoulders, but he’s still the pot-smoking dunderhead we’ve all come to love. His chemistry with Byrne is surprisingly good, working off each other both comedically and emotionally well enough that I bought them as a couple. Zac Efron, much like Rogen, has also been somewhat typecast as the pretty boy for most of his career and he’s always been, somewhat unfairly, thrashed about. Sure, he was in those High School Musical movies, but every other Hollywood teen crush was in a similar position at some point in their careers. Efron has proven himself to be a pretty decent actor at points (see the criminally underrated Me & Orson Welles for proof of that), and in Bad Neighbours he both transcends expectations and does well doing so. He manages to be everything you want from a stereotypical bro-douche, but imbues his role with enough character and motivation that he comes off like a somewhat real person and not someone you want to punch in the face, and he even plays off against Rogen startlingly well. It’s the most surprising comedic turn I’ve seen from an actor since Channing Tatum in 21 Jump Street, and I’d be happy to see him continue in this fashion. The rest of the cast works but don’t get a lot of focus. Dave Franco is pretty good; especially when opposite Efron (a scene where they exchange plentiful variations of the “bros before hoes” mantra is a particularly good moment). Ike Barinholtz also gets some good laughs, but everyone else just comes and goes. Lisa Kudrow is relegated to two brief scenes, Submarine’s Craig Roberts melds into the background for half the movie before being given something to do, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse feels completely wasted. His subplot with Barinholtz and Carla Gallo is seriously underdeveloped and mostly pointless. Why even hire McLovin if you’re not going to do anything with him?

Comedies aren’t usually where you go looking for a technical extravaganza, but Bad Neighbours does manage to look a bit more distinctive. The party scenes in particular look great, with lots of neon and pastels flying around to give these sections a different feel to the rest of the movie. Brandon Trost has become one of my favourite cinematographers lately, and he again proves he can make anything look cool. This is the guy who shot Crank 2, what else would you expect?

Bad Neighbours works because it puts in far more effort than you’d expect. It’s got all the laughs you want from a frat house comedy, but sweetens the deal with a well-conceived screenplay, relatable human characters, and excellent performances to carry it all. It’s not exactly revolutionary, but it is a lot of fun.

FINAL VERDICT: 8.5/10

Starring: Kit Harington (Game of Thrones), Emily Browning (Sucker Punch), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Lost), Jared Harris (Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows), Carrie-Anne Moss (The Matrix), Kiefer Sutherland (24)

Director: Paul W.S. Anderson (Resident Evil)

Writers: Janet Scott Batchler & Lee Batchler (Batman Forever) and Michael Robert Johnson (Sherlock Holmes)

Runtime: 1 hour 45 minutes

Release Date: 21 February (US), 30 April (UK)

Films based around real events are tricky, doubly so when those events are very well known so everyone knows how it ends, and quadruply so when that ending is “everyone dies” (don’t you dare say that’s a spoiler). Pompeii is all of these things, and it would take truly deft hands to manage to make a film like this enthralling and worthwhile. Unfortunately, Paul W.S. Anderson lacks those hands.

The story of Pompeii is so simple and derivative, it can be summed up in no more words than it would take to do an elevator pitch: it’s Gladiator meets Titanic. No need for more than that. Just take all the major elements from those two films, mash them together, and fill in the blanks with other clichés. That is it. It feels this script was written to cash in on the success of those two Best Picture winners, but it’s been made way too late for it to be relevant. Everything in this film is taken wholesale from other better movies that you’ve most likely seen, but without any semblance of depth or investment. You spend most of the movie going through drab, uninteresting drama just waiting for that volcano to finally go off, and if you forget it’s there the filmmakers have been kind enough to ominously cut to it every ten minutes or so to remind you “Oh yeah. It’s coming.” The film at least moves at a decent clip, making sure your boredom is short-lived.

A film as generic as this could be carried by some strong lead performances, but Pompeii can’t even muster that much. Kit Harington is already one of the weaker links on Game of Thrones, but as a leading man here he is just terrible. His stone-faced demeanour and emotionless voice add nothing to a character that is already as uninteresting as a water biscuit. Faring even worse is Emily Browning, who seems to be playing a doll whose been magically brought to life but lacks a human soul. I don’t know; it’s only explanation I could come up with that explained her painfully wooden delivery. Her and Harington completely lack chemistry, not helped by the fact that these star-crossed lovers barely share three scenes together before disaster strikes. Kiefer Sutherland is at least interestingly bad, hamming it up to dangerously high Jeremy Irons-levels of scenery chewing, playing a bad guy so unquestionably evil that all he’s missing is a scene where he kills a henchman who “failed him for the last time”. Only two actors escape out of this disaster somewhat respectfully. The first is Jared Harris, mainly because he looks confident and dignified enough to make this tripe sound convincing. The other is the great Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (names like that make me glad these reviews are written, not spoken), who manages to provide the only pieces of humanity this film has. Sure, he’s basically playing the exact same character Djimon Hounsou played in Gladiator, but he’s convincing enough in the part that the film gains a small amount of credibility whenever he’s on screen.

I will give Anderson this much: he does have a decent understand of the technical stuff. The film looks fine on a cinematography level, if a bit generic. The editing can be choppy, especially during fight scenes, but is otherwise OK. The music is a bit repetitive but does give it a good sense of scale, and the production design is colourful and sets the scene well. The special effects department is clearly where the money went on the picture, as all the stuff with the volcano and the destruction caused by it does look pretty nice. But without a solid foundation, all of these details feel like a fine curtain used to mask a shoddy product.

Pompeii is bad, but not at all in the interesting way. It’s derivative and tedious, without an original thought in its head on any level. The story is bland, the acting is stiff, and the dialogue is laughable. Paul W.S. Anderson isn’t a completely talentless hack, he’s made some entertaining movies in his time like the genuinely creepy Event Horizon and the enjoyably cheesy Mortal Kombat (still the best video game movie ever), but too often he ends up making uninspired dreck like this. Skip this movie, because more than likely you’ve already seen a much better version of it.

FINAL VERDICT: 2.5/10

Starring: Johnny Depp (Edward Scissorhands), Rebecca Hall (Iron Man 3), Paul Bettany (Priest), Kate Mara (House of Cards), Morgan Freeman (The LEGO Movie), Cillian Murphy (28 Days Later)

Director: Wally Pfister

Writer: Jack Paglen

Runtime: 1 hour 59 minutes

Release Date: 18 April (US), 25 April (UK)

It’s always an odd prospect when someone in the film industry who is well known for, and often very talented at, a certain profession manages to bag a directing gig. Whilst more common with actors or writers, plenty of production designers, cinematographers, even visual effects supervisors, get a chance to direct. Sometimes it works beautifully and they go on to successful careers in that field, and other times their lack of experience or their incompatible sensibilities can create for an unusual piece of film. Considering Wally Pfister has been working as a director of photography under the great Christopher Nolan since Memento, you’d hope he would have picked up a few good tips and that his directorial debut Transcendence would fall into the former category. Quite sadly though, it’s in the latter.

A lot of the core ideas behind Transcendence are certainly an interesting foundation to build a story around. The film does certainly tackle the subject of technology and how advanced we should let it become with some intelligence at points, throwing in plenty of moral quandary for good measure. It is certainly evocative of the more contemplative science fiction works of the 1960s and 70s. Unfortunately, it’s lacking in almost every category. The pacing is slow and drawn out, which I think is intentional but it doesn’t work here; instead of building tension or suspense, it just induces boredom. The passage of time feels unclear: we know that the film supposedly takes place over several years, but if not for a few title cards telling us so it would seem like this all happened over the course of a month at most, and the fact it does take place over such a long period of time makes the characters seem that much more incompetent (seriously, it took the government TWO YEARS to go “Hey, should we check out this huge facility being built in the middle of nowhere by a supercomputer and his worker bees?”). But the main problem with Transcendence is that the science just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. I’m not a scientist and I don’t know much about how computers work, but there were plenty of moments in this movie where I thought “I don’t think computers can do that” and a bunch of others where I went “OK, even for a super-advanced computer, that’s just ridiculous”. When it reaches the point where basically anything is possible because ‘computers’, it’s kind of hard to accept this takes place in a reality similar to our own.

It’s great to see Johnny Depp not playing an eccentric loon with a silly hat and too much eye make-up. Pity his performance in Transcendence is the absolute opposite of that persona. Depp sounds monotone and uninterested throughout the movie, even before becoming a sentient computer. Rebecca Hall fares much better as his wife, clearly putting a lot of emotional investment into this, but it falls apart due to the flimsy writing. These two are supposed to love each other more than anyone, but we never really get to see any moments to prove this before the plot kicks in; show, don’t tell. I couldn’t get invested in their relationship because I never got an idea of what it was. This lack of character detail is something that pervades every single one of the main performances. Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy feel like their playing caricatures of themselves from a bunch of their other movies, with little to no defining character traits. Kate Mara often feels even more robotic than Depp, saying every line with uninvolved contempt. And Hollywood, please stop wasting Clifton Collins Jr. He’s a much better actor than you keep thinking he is. The only one who manages to feel genuine in this entire thing is Paul Bettany, but it’s not enough to save the picture.

Considering Pfister’s a cinematographer, it’s almost a given that Transcendence would look nice and it does. The colours have a stark sheen to them appropriate for a sci-fi, and there are some pretty looking shots of both technology and nature. The editing is fine, the visual effects are fine, the music is fine, everything is just…fine. Not much really to say about it.

Transcendence isn’t an utter disaster, but merely flat and uninteresting. It takes a solid premise for a sci-fi thriller and makes it as invigorating as a physics lecture, and one where the science doesn’t even add up. Wally Pfister fails to find a voice for himself, leaving everything from the acting to the storytelling feeling bland. I can’t blame him fully, as I feel the script is more responsible than anything else, but it doesn’t exactly reflect well on him. Perhaps this is a case where he should return to doing what he does best.

FINAL VERDICT: 4/10

Starring: Andrew Garfield (The Social Network), Emma Stone (The Help), Jamie Foxx (Django Unchained), Dane DeHaan (Chronicle), Sally Field (Forrest Gump), Paul Giamatti (Sideways), Chris Cooper (Adaptation.)

Director: Marc Webb ((500) Days of Summer)

Writers: Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci & Jeff Pinkner (Fringe)

Runtime: 2 hours 22 minutes

Release Date: 16 April (UK), 2 May (US)

If you held me at gunpoint and asked me who my favourite superhero is, I’d say “Spider-Man. Now why did you need to put a gun to my head to make me answer that?” Whether it’s comics, movies, TV shows, video games, pyjamas (oh yeah, I’ve rocked the Spidey PJs) or whatever, I love me some Spider-Man. Sam Raimi’s first two Spider-Man movies still stand as some of the best of the superhero genre. His third one does not (though I still say its not quite as bad as everyone says), and so a reboot happened. Thankfully, The Amazing Spider-Man was a solid movie that did some things better than Raimi’s efforts and other things not so much. Now they’ve returned with the imaginatively named The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Does this electrifying tale help bring the webslinger to new heights, or have his web shooters run dry?

What The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does that no other Spider-Man film has done before is that it nails the tone. The film never gets too serious or too goofy. It straddles that line perfectly, allowing for plenty of heart and tragedy whilst not losing the fun, creating the atmosphere a true Spider-Man story needs. It at times reminded me of blockbusters from the 1990s, but in a good way. The pacing is expertly judged, balancing high-flying action, comedic banter and emotional resonance all at once. The film even has a strong moral centre and an effective message. All of these elements fit together to what should be the perfect Spider-Man movie. So…why isn’t it? The answer is something this series has dealt with before it its previous incarnation: overstuffing. Let’s be clear about this: it never gets quite as clogged as Spider-Man 3 did, nor is anything that is there objectively bad. There are no massive holes in the plot, no questionable character motivations, no embarrassingly out of tone sequences, nothing. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, everything that is there works pretty damn well. But too much stuff is still too much stuff, whether it be good or bad, and it all becomes a bit too much to handle at once. This abundance of content creates for a story full of many threads that do all tie together but not in a completely satisfying way. This mainly becomes apparent in the film’s final act where, after a terrific battle scene between Spidey (Garfield) and Electro (Foxx), it picks up another thread, follows it for a while, but then resolves it so quickly that it never quite sinks in. I wish I could explain myself better, but doing so would reveal major spoilers so I’ll let you see for yourselves. Everything beforehand works so well, but those last few moments do leave a sour aftertaste that clouds everything that came before. Oh, and just to save you some time, there is no after credits sequence.

Andrew Garfield was a great Peter Parker in the first film, and he is still great here. He so naturally embodies everything the character is and stands for: he’s smart, he’s witty, he’s heartfelt, he’s relatable, my praises could go on and on. This is the Spider-Man I remember from the comics and I’m so glad someone finally nailed it. Making matters even better is Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy. She is honestly one of my favourite female characters in superhero movies, mainly because she is an assertive and confident character who never becomes just another damsel in distress. That and her chemistry with Garfield is through the roof; their moments together is what really makes the film seem genuine. Jamie Foxx works well in the part of Electro, imbuing the character with a sense of tragedy and honesty. He doesn’t come off as outright sympathetic considering he’s clearly a bit screwy even before gaining power, but his motivations are understandable if twisted and he is an imposing challenge for Spidey. Dane DeHaan is an excellent Harry Osborn, being able to pull off being both friendly and devious. His and Peter’s relationship seems as genuine as Peter’s romance with Gwen, making it all the more tragic when they drift apart Akira-style. The problem with both of these antagonists, however, is that they aren’t given quite enough screen presence. The film bounces between Electro and Harry’s stories, never quite giving enough focus to either, and when they do finally intersect it’s not for long. It makes it hard to decide who the real villain is, as neither seems fully developed. Again, it’s not Spider-Man 3 levels of unfocused but it is troublesome. Those wondering about the presence of Paul Giamatti’s Rhino complicating matters should rest easy; his role is nothing more than a fun cameo with room for expansion later on, as is Chris Cooper as Norman Osborn. The cast of Amazing Spider-Man 2 is really what saves the picture, as without all this talent I think the flaws in the storytelling would become more apparent.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 really comes alive during its action sequences. The acrobatic nature of the character has been fully embraced, creating for some really inventive aerial manoeuvres; even the simple action of web swinging is a joy to behold. Electro works wonderfully as a visual threat, one not simply defeated by punches and kicks, and that uniqueness really pushes the creativity of the action. The cinematography and production design is vibrant and colourful, giving the movie a real comic book look to it, and the visual effects are pretty seamless with the practical elements. Those who bemoaned Spidey’s costume in the last film should be quelled by the film’s new suit, which looks great and is nigh on exactly like his comic book attire. Also gone is James Horner’s grand but overdone score from the previous film. In his place sits Hans Zimmer, who gives it a much more modern and electronic feel. It’s an odd choice at first but it does fit with the film’s aesthetic and it grows on you, one that sets it apart not only from Horner’s score but also Danny Elfman’s score for the Raimi films and Zimmer’s own work on the Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel.

Despite its obvious imperfections, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is still a fun ride. The cast are all excellent, the direction is spot-on, the action sequences are thrilling, and it’s the first Spider-Man film that fully understands what the heart and soul of the character is. Unfortunately the film is majorly bogged down by a sprawling storyline whose complexity gets in the way of itself by its conclusion; it is working proof that you can have too much of a good thing. Those who weren’t thrilled by the last movie probably won’t be satisfied, as a lot of the elements certain people had problems with haven’t been changed, but those who didn’t take umbrage with the first one should find here some enjoyable but flawed blockbuster entertainment.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Russell Crowe (Gladiator), Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind), Ray Winstone (The Sweeny), Emma Watson (Harry Potter), Logan Lerman (The Perks of Being a Wallflower), Anthony Hopkins (Thor)

Director: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan)

Writers: Darren Aronofsky & Ari Handel (The Fountain)

Runtime: 2 hours 18 minutes

Release Date: 28 March (US), 4 April (UK)

Biblical epics used to be a big deal. Films like The Ten Commandments were huge tentpole pictures with lavish sets and packed with stars. Now they’re a scarce breed, with most of the ones that remain being religious propaganda. But happens when a filmmaker with not only a bold presentation style, but is also an atheist, takes on a biblical epic? Noah has been stirring up controversy on both sides of the fence since its inception, with rumours abound about botched test screenings and trouble between Darren Aronofsky, Paramount Pictures and various religious groups. But now that the director’s true vision has been released, was all the hubbub worth it?

Most of you are probably familiar with the basic beats of the story of Noah’s Ark, and the film hits on all of these moments. But in the grand scheme of things, the most familiar aspects of the story are both the least interesting and least focused-on parts of the film.  The film is actually much more character-based than you might expect; it’s less a tale of survival and instead a story about one man’s crisis of faith. It deals with the struggle to be a good man and the temptations that come with it; a story about learning to not always follow everything to the letter and decide what you think is best. It’s a fascinating tale to watch, and it’s well paced and engrossing enough that it makes those two-plus hours fly by in an instant. Aronofsky’s approach to the religious elements of the story is somewhat ambiguous (the word “God” is never uttered for example) but I think respectful in many ways too. The film examines the good that can come from faith, but also the bad; it neither demonises the religious nor does it hold them on a pedestal. Regardless, I can see why the more fervently faithful have a problem with its depiction of the story but I don’t think Aronofsky has done anything to sully the original text. In many ways, I think he’s made it a much more approachable and timely story. In viewing it from an unbiased perspective, Aronofsky has crafted a narrative that can be viewed as a metaphor for any struggle, both internal and external. A scene where Noah tells the whole “Earth created in six days” story whilst we are shown a montage of the world’s creation from a more scientific perspective epitomizes the film’s goals in mere minutes, and if that sounds like too much for you then this film clearly wasn’t made for you.

Russell Crowe doesn’t always hit the mark in every film he does, but when he’s good he’s good. His portrayal of Noah is far more complex that you’d think at first. Remember: this is a guy who believes a man in the sky wants him to build a giant box to save the animals from a flood. As such, Noah in this story is less of a kindly idol and more of a mildly deranged obsessive. By the time the flood nears, you don’t even particularly like Noah but you still understand and sympathise with him. He’s a man trying to do what he thinks is right but constantly questions his beliefs and motives. Crowe manages to convey all of this tremendously, investing fully into a much more layered and fascinating portrayal of the character. Jennifer Connelly isn’t always given a huge amount to do as Noah’s wife Naameh, but she seizes every moment she is given and somewhat voices the audience’s frustration with Noah’s actions in the final act. Ray Winstone’s villainous Tubal-cain is a somewhat basic antagonist, but the role works to Winstone’s strengths and he remains a threatening presence throughout. Anthony Hopkins’ role is small but key, and he milks every moment he can. Emma Watson gives what is arguably her best performance since Harry Potter ended, and whilst Logan Lerman is by no means an astonishing actor he does manage to bring his A game in a role that is admittedly a little underdeveloped. Still, it’s far more than Douglas Booth and Leo McHugh Carroll are given as Noah’s other two sons, which is especially puzzling in Booth’s case since his and Watson’s relationship is a key part of the film.

Darren Aronofsky’s visual aesthetic has always been both striking and bizarre, and Noah is no exception. His vision of a pre-flood Earth is one that seems more at home in a fantasy film, and this fanciful approach to the material is one that permeates every aspect of its design. After all, this is a film where fallen angels are depicted as giant rock monsters. The cinematography is gorgeous and emphasises the epic scale of this story. The grandeur of the production is vast and impressive to behold, with desolate landscapes and the harsh griminess of Tubal-cain’s camp contrasted against luscious forests and the massive wooden crate that is the ark. The visual effects are consistently impressive, both in its depiction of the animals and the flood, and Clint Mansell delivers an impressive score worthy of a film of this scale.

As a person with an indifference towards religion, I didn’t expect to like Noah as much as I did but it really is an impressive piece of cinema. It takes the material in interesting and bold directions, making for a film that can be enjoyed by everyone and not just those of faith. In fact, I think you’re more likely to enjoy it if you’re not a religious person. Noah is either the artiest blockbuster ever made or the most expensive art film ever made, but either way you look at it it’s just awesome. Ignore any prejudices you have and go see it for yourself.

FINAL VERDICT: 9.5/10

Starring: Iko Uwais (The Raid), Arifin Putra, Oka Antara (V/H/S 2), Tio Pakusodewo, Alex Abbad (Merentau)

Writer/Director: Gareth Evans (The Raid)

Runtime: 2 hours 30 minutes

Release Date: 28 March (US), 11 April (UK)

The Raid was an espresso shot of a movie: fast, frantic and full of energy. It contains some of the best fight sequences in recent memory and puts most Hollywood action films to shame. How the hell are they going to top that? Well, Gareth Evans has returned to try and do just that with The Raid 2. Has the impossible been accomplished or was this fight over before it even started?

The film picks up right where the first one left off but quickly resolves the loose ends and throws Rama (Uwais) into a new story. Whilst the first film had a very basic plot that was mainly there as something to connect a series of increasingly badass fights, The Raid 2 has much more of a story which works to both its advantage and disadvantage. On the good side, this gives the film much more of a backbone to build on than just “police go into building and sh*t hits the fan” and allows the filmmakers to explore a wider variety of locations and situations. On the other side, the plot isn’t anything that special. It’s your basic undercover cop story full of betrayal, warring factions and greed. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, the first film’s plot wasn’t anything to write home about either, but it didn’t spend nearly as much time on it. The film’s second act is a bit of a drag as it becomes more involved in the dealings and politics of the warring gangs which isn’t that interesting; action beats become more sparse and Rama is pushed out of sight for a long stretch. It’s during this period that the film’s extensive running time begins to take its toll.

But right when it starts to get frustrating, the third act kicks in and…holy sh*t! That long period of waiting for something to happen becomes totally worth it and the movie goes from 0 to 100mph in no time flat. The preceding actions scenes were fun and cool to watch, but nothing can prepare you for the sheer awesomeness of the last hour or so of The Raid 2. Punches are thrown, guns are shot, sharp objects are swung, pints of blood are spilt and pretty much every bone in the body gets broken at some point. The film even expands its scope by adding a car chase into the mix and excels at that too, combining vehicular mayhem and fisticuffs into one huge ball of F*CK YEAH! All of this wonderful action spectacle is shot and cut to perfection, never allowing a single moment to drag or become incomprehensible. Considering how many fight scenes take place in such tight quarters as toilet stalls or the back seat of a moving car, it again calls into question how huge blockbusters with ten times the budget of this film keep messing it up. I won’t go into any more detail about the fight scenes but trust me on this. By the end of this film, you’ll have completely forgotten about the dry spell in the middle.

The Raid 2 is an impressive feat of action cinema and one that is sure to go down in the annals of the genre as a defining moment. I won’t say it’s better than the original as the dry middle section of the movie is a big demerit against it, but get past that and anyone with a love for action will be smiling with depraved glee at what this film has in store. A third instalment seems inevitable, and I can’t wait to see what Evans and co have in store for us next.

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10

Starring: Ricky Gervais (The Invention of Lying), Tina Fey (30 Rock), Ty Burrell (Mr. Peabody & Sherman)

Director: James Bobin (The Muppets)

Writers: James Bobin & Nicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall)

Runtime: 1 hour 47 minutes

Release Date: 21 March (US), 28 March (UK)

2011’s The Muppets was a highly enjoyable nostalgia trip that effectively reintroduced those classic felt characters with plenty of affection and self-deprecation. And, as the film’s opening number tells us, popular demand means we get a sequel. But without star and co-writer Jason Segel, can this new Muppet adventure continue the success of it predecessor?

The story picks up exactly where the first film left off (literally to the final frame) and continues from there. Anyone wondering what happened to Segel and Amy Adams should be disappointed as, other than the backs of some stand-ins, they are never seen or mentioned again. The film’s plot is a basic but effective set-up, allowing for a variety of worldwide locales to be lampooned but the formula does quickly fall into routine. The Muppets go to a new country, they put on a show whilst Konstantin and Dominic (Gervais) rob a place, they leave, Sam the Eagle and Jean Napoleon (Burrell) pick up the clues, repeat. The film does pad out proceedings with some sub-plots, but a lot of them like Dominic’s desire to be number 1 or Nadya’s (Fey) affection for Kermit feel underdeveloped. Luckily, the film manages to hide behind its humour a lot, which keeps proceedings jovial and entertaining.

The Muppets are all pretty much as you remember them but, much like the last film, many of them have been pushed to the sidelines (major note to filmmakers: needs more Swedish Chef!). Walter is still here from the last movie and is as bland as ever, especially considering he doesn’t have as much reason to exist anymore. The human performances are mostly good. Ty Burrell is easily the standout as Interpol agent Napoleon; his chemistry with Sam the Eagle is consistently amusing and the constant jokes about how lazy and laid-back the French are kept me laughing throughout. The two of them together are funny enough that they could easily hold an entire movie on their own. Fey is effective when she’s around, but she doesn’t get quite enough the screen time. Like in the last film, they’ve pack this thing to the brim with cameos. I won’t spoil any of them, but though most of them are brief many are very hilarious. Unfortunately, Ricky Gervais’ Dominic sticks out like a sore thumb and somewhat ruins proceedings. He’s clearly trying, but his dry comedic skills aren’t suited to this brand of humour and the script never plays to his strengths. A much more lively and charming actor would have been better suited to this role.

The Muppet films have always been known for their songs, and Bret Mackenzie of Flight of the Conchords returns to compose the new tunes. The film gets off to a great start with “We’re Doing a Sequel”, which is both catchy and humorous in all the right ways, but after that they somewhat fall into routine. The songs are fun to listen to as they play out, but none of them stick in your head like the songs from the first film. It sometimes feels like the filmmakers went, “They’re hasn’t been a song in twenty minutes! Throw in another one!” On a technical level, the film looks fine. The Muppets are still all done practically, but there does seem to be a lot more CG assistance this time around as the film calls for them to get involved in more action beats. When these moments arise, it can look somewhat cheesy but you could say that just adds to the charm.

Muppets Most Wanted is enjoyable and amusing, but it never quite hits the high notes of its predecessor. I was definitely entertained throughout (Ty Burrell alone is worth the price of admission), but I think it ultimately lacks the sentimental charm of the original. If you’re a Muppet fan I’m sure you’ll find plenty to like, but I’d advise calming down your expectations. As the film is ironically aware, “everybody knows the sequel’s never quite as good”.

FINAL VERDICT: 7/10