Author: Jennifer Heaton

Starring: Sharni Vinson (Step Up 3D), AJ Bowen, Rob Moran (There’s Something About Mary), Nicolas Tucci

Director: Adam Wingard (V/H/S)

Writer: Simon Barrett (V/H/S)

Runtime: 1 hour 34 minutes

Release Date: 23 August (US), 28 August (UK)

If you were to look at any of the marketing for You’re Next, it would be easy to assume that it’s just another slasher flick, providing the same scares you’ve seen over and over and over again since the 1970’s. But get past that, and You’re Next is actually a lot more than that. Do these hidden elements heighten it above its bloody brethren, or does it just make matters worse?

For the first 20-30 minutes, You’re Next does look and feel like every other cheap horror film. The set-up, the characters, the kills; its all very familiar. But once s*** starts to hit the fan, the film suddenly springs to life and not only will you forgive the clichéd first act, you’ll understand why they did it. The film is much more humorous than the advertising lets on, but wisely plays the comedy straight for full effect. I just wished there was a little more hinting of the tonal shift during those opening moments. Movies like Scream and The Cabin in the Woods set the tone immediately at the start, but still managed to keep up the suspense and mystery. But the main reason that You’re Next succeeds is that the characters, whilst not all the brightest bulbs in the box, at least feel like real people. Sure, they bicker and argue but it all feels natural and it makes sense. When bad stuff happens, they sit and talk about what they should do instead of blindly running into danger. After years of stupid, unlikable “characters” populating the horror movie landscape, it’s relieving to see a film where you rarely find yourself saying, “You f***ing idiot!” The film moves at a decent clip, and once past the opening you won’t be bored.

Acting in horror movies is rarely the most polished or well directed, and You’re Next doesn’t change the game here. Not to say that anyone is terrible; they’re all either competent or bland. Luckily, the writing and characterisation helps to make up for this. There is one exception in this though: Sharni Vinson. She may seem like your typical horror scream queen on the outside, but behind those eyes are the eyes of a badass killing machine. Her competency in fighting and survival skills not only make her stand above most female protagonists, it’s also a major plot point. Her performance in this movie stands with Ellen Ripley and Katniss Everdeen as one of the most badass females in film.

You’re Next was made on a shoestring budget, and that is plainly obvious. The cinematography is simple but effective, though I felt they too often used shallow depth of field and dodgy focus pulling; I know it’s a style, but I find it really distracting. The music is brilliantly old school, with techno beats that feel like they were pulled right of a John Carpenter film. But the best technical achievement of the film is the make-up. Sure, the wounds and blood levels are exaggerated, but they are well done regardless and enhances some of the more inventive kills of the movie.

You’re Next is just plain fun. Once it gets rolling, it doesn’t let up and will keep you engaged until the ludicrous conclusion. Though it may have lost some of its charm if it had been made by a studio, some better production values could have helped the film immensely. It may not be the best horror film of the year, but it certainly is the most enjoyable.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Matt Damon (The Bourne Ultimatum), Jodie Foster (The Silence of the Lambs), Sharlto Copley (District 9), Alice Braga (Predators), William Fichtner (Drive Angry)

Writer/Director: Neill Blomkamp (District 9)

Runtime: 1 hour 49 minutes

Release Date: 9 August (US), 21 August (UK)

District 9 was a revolutionary film back when it came out in 2009. It showed that films could be action-packed and still be socially relevant. It did for $30 million what most Hollywood movies would spend $100 million dollars on and get the same results. And it was one of the few sci-fi films to receive major critical acclaim, getting an Oscar nomination for Best Picture in the process. Neill Blomkamp suddenly became a figure to watch, and now he’s back with his sophomore effort Elysium. Has the man struck gold twice, or is he a one-trick pony?

The plot of Elysium is basic but structurally sound, taking its time setting up the world and our protagonist Max (Damon). Much like District 9, this is a film with a message relevant to problems in society today. However, I felt the allegories were much more blatant here; I sometimes felt like they were slamming my head against the wall shouting “DO YOU GET IT?” Yes, I do get it. Now please just let me watch the movie. But other than that and an over-reliance on flashbacks to things we’ve already seen, this is a well-paced ride with lots of thrilling action set pieces and an interesting world to explore. I just wish the film had a bit more of a sense of humour to balance the constant dour tone the movie mostly follows. It isn’t pessimistic; quite the opposite in fact. But for a film that’s about uniting humanity and creating a better world for everyone, the film sometimes lacks a soul.

Matt Damon is a really good actor, and can pull off almost anything. He serves the role of Max perfectly well, but he doesn’t always have the juiciest of material to work with. Apart from some early wisecracks and some sentimentality, Max never seems like a fully rounded character; that is hardly Damon’s fault but it does reflect upon him. Jodie Foster is usually a fine actress, but for some reasons she’s decided to go for some strange Anglo-French accent that no one else has; it’s off-putting and unnecessary. Alice Braga is a pretty underrated actress, and she puts in a good performance here too. The ever-awesome William Fichtner makes an appearance, doing his usual smarmy douche performance that never seems to get old. But the real scene-stealer here is Sharlto Copley as the villainous Kruger. He’s the only one who seems to be having a lot of fun with the material, creating a performance that could easily come from an 80’s action movie but he still manages to remain threatening and engaging. It really shows how versatile an actor Copley is, and he’s a talent that deserves a lot more attention than he is currently getting.

Blomkamp has a particularly great talent for creating conceivable futures. The design and technology of everything in Elysium feels futuristic and cool, but stays grounded enough in reality that you can accept it. For the most part anyway. For a film that takes place over 100 years in the future, I found it odd that everyone’s computers ran on DOS for some reason and that all the Earth computers look like they were built in 1997; I know they’re trying to make the world look rundown, but most of their technology looks dated even by today’s standards. Blomkamp’s other fascination, blowing people up, also makes a welcome return for some truly inventive kills. The cinematography is beautiful when it shows off the scenery, but shaky-cam is too prevalent during action beats and, combined with some choppy editing, can create a nauseating effect. I get they want to make the film seem more gritty and raw (there’s even one point where they’ve blatantly stabilized a shot in post and don’t even bother to hide it), but I found it more distracting than invigorating. The special effects look amazing; probably some of the best I’ve seen in a while. I won’t say too much, but there is one particularly cool effects moment involving Sharlto Copley’s face that is as fascinating as it is revolting. The score is mostly pretty good, but again like District 9 it uses way too much poetic choir music to ram home the point that “this scene is emotional”.

I know it may seem like I’ve been s***ing on this movie, but I’m not. I enjoyed Elysium a lot throughout and do think it’s a much more interesting and smarter film than most pictures that Hollywood are putting out these days. It’s never dull, it keeps a good pace, and the amount of effort that has gone into designing this world is staggering. But the more I though about and the more problems I found I had, I couldn’t call this movie great. I know I shouldn’t be comparing it to District 9 so much, but they are so similar in many ways that they could easily take place in the same universe. Neill Blomkamp is still one of the most interesting talents we have, and he has great potential to do some amazing things. But for this, I felt he too often fell back on many of his old tricks and just ramped them up. I’m fine with films with strong messages, but it should never get in the way of what’s important. I’m just worried that if he continues on this route, he could go the way of Andrew Niccol.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Anna Karenina), Chloe Grace Moretz (Hugo), Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad), Jim Carrey (The Truman Show)

Writer/Director: Jeff Wadlow (Never Back Down)

Runtime: 1 hour 43 minutes

Release Date: 14 August (UK), 16 August (US)

The first Kick-Ass was a breath of fresh air for the comic book movie genre. Whilst it took place in a grounded universe, it didn’t take itself too seriously. It balanced humour and ultra-violence perfectly, and Chloe Moretz’s breakout performance as Hit-Girl instantly jettisoned her to one of the most fun and original characters in superhero movie history. How can you even attempt to top it? Whilst I have been looking forward to the release of Kick-Ass 2, the lack of Matthew Vaughn in the director’s chair always made me cautious. That combined with the fact that the comic book version of Kick-Ass 2 was already an inferior follow-up. Were my worries put to rest, or does it feel like they kicked this movie’s ass out the door before it could put its trousers on?

Sequels always have a lot to live up to; they always have to be bigger and better but rarely ever succeed at it. Sadly, Kick-Ass 2 falls into this trap almost immediately. When the Universal logo popped up and the Kick-Ass theme began to play, I felt at ease; “This movie is going to be good”, I thought to myself. But not long after that, I found myself thinking something a little different. The plot moves way too fast at the beginning, leaving little time to re-establish the main players. I know that they expect the audience to have seen the first one and remember who everyone is, but they could have spent just a little more time reintroducing them and reminding us why we liked these characters in the first place. The opening scenes, as well as a few others scattered around, pay way too much homage to the first film to the point where certain scenes feel like pallet-swapped versions of ones from the original. Any opportunity to show a stock photo of Nicolas Cage or Mark Strong, they’ll take it. The plot of the film does expand on the world of the first film, introducing supervillains to the fold, and it does contain a lot more action, but other than that little feels improved. The stakes may have been raised and the tone darkened somewhat, but nowhere near enough to make it feel like a worthwhile continuation. Whilst the film looks almost exactly the same as the first one in nearly every way, it still feels obvious that someone other than Vaughn is behind the camera. Wadlow seems more interested in shooting fight scenes, which are executed well, but all other elements feel ill attended to. Kick-Ass wasn’t a good film just because it was irreverently violent; it was a great film because it had good characters, an interesting premise and a witty sense of humour to back it up. Speaking of humour, that has definitely has taken a step backwards on an intelligence level. Moretz spouting crass one-liners simply doesn’t cut it anymore; the novelty of a little girl swearing has worn off, especially since it is obvious she has…ahem…”developed” since the first movie. The jokes feel too sophomoric and lack the subtlety and wit that many of the gags in the first one had. They even resort to using toilet humour in an attempt for a gross-out joke, but that just ends up looking like a deleted scene from Movie 43 (ironic, considering Moretz and Mintz-Plasse were in that travesty too). That’s not to say the all the humour is bad; in fact, I did get quite a few laughs in the movie but most of the jokes just felt too in-your-face for their own good.

Taylor-Johnson (who was just Johnson last time he played the Wetsuit Crusader) slips back into the role as if he never left, and delivers an equally good performance. But much like last time, Kick-Ass ends up feeling like a second banana to a cast of colourful supporting players. Moretz again steals every scene she is in as Hit-Girl; it’s just a shame that she spends half of her screen time in a mostly pointless subplot that feels like an OTT Mean Girls with more cursing. Mintz-Plasse is again surprisingly good as the villainous Motherf***er, balancing evil with comedy to levels only surpassed by Biff Tannen and Lucas Lee. Jim Carrey is great as Colonel Stars and Stripes; his character is as fresh and as interesting a play on the costumed vigilante as Hit-Girl was in the first movie, but ultimately feels wasted. There are plenty of other big names in the movie such as Donald Faison, John Leguizamo and Iain Glen, but they are all criminally underutilized and again feel superfluous to the overall story. But most criminally of all, Lyndsy Fonseca’s Katie is tossed aside like a dirty rag. Her role is nothing more than a brief cameo that writes her out of the movie in a way that feels like a slap in the face to anyone who cared about her and Johnson’s relationship in the first movie (and I did).

As I mentioned before, if there is one thing Wadlow seems to be good at, it is staging a fight scene. Hit-Girl again gets all the best action, particularly a standout scene where she fights goons atop a moving van. The brawl at the end doesn’t match the ridiculousness of the end of the first movie, but works in its own way. The cinematography is mostly well done; the bright colour palette and lighting really fits the exaggerated nature of the film. The costume design is very creative, but I’m still perplexed by the decision to shorten the skirt on Hit Girl’s costume; they do still remember that she’s a minor, right? The editing is fast and fluid, but never impairs the flow of action. The score, whilst mostly slight alterations of themes from the first movie, is still awesome and their choice of soundtrack at points often feels just as brilliantly absurd as listening to The Banana Splits theme whilst watching a little girl eviscerate some thugs did in the first movie.

Ultimately, Kick-Ass 2 feels like a pale imitation. Whilst some glimpses of brilliance do occasionally emit from it, it never even comes close to the original. For every step they’ve taken forward, they taken several steps back. I get the feeling that whilst Wadlow clearly is a fan of the first movie, I don’t think he liked it for the same reasons I did. Wadlow seems to think that Kick-Ass was awesome because it had blood, swearing, and a jetpack with Gatling guns. Those were cool, but they weren’t ultimately why that movie worked. That movie worked because it had a genuine love for the genre and did its utmost to respect it whilst lampooning it. That movie worked because it knew when to slow down and focus on the characters. That movie worked because it never tried to play down to the audience and always strived to do something that no one watching it expected. Kick-Ass 2 is by no means a bad film, but it doesn’t do enough to make itself stand out from both its predecessor and all other superhero movies this year; even the somewhat controversial Man of Steel felt more distinctive than this did. It’s worth a watch, but I don’t see myself watching it repeatedly as I did with the first one.

FINAL VERDICT: 6/10

Starring: Ryan Gosling (Gangster Squad), Kristin Scott Thomas (Salmon Fishing in the Yemen), Vithaya Pansringarm (The Hangover Part II)

Writer/ Director: Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive)

Runtime: 1 hour 30 minutes

Release Date: 19 July (US), 2 August (UK)

You know my normal review format, right? Unless this is the first review of mine you have read. In which case: hi, how’d you do? Anyway, back to proceedings. At the start, I normally do a brief intro about the movie, any expectations I had, and then question whether it is good or not. Well, f*** that. Let’s just cut to the chase: Only God Forgives sucks. It is pretentious, boring, and lacks any sense of personality or soul. And this is coming from a person who absolutely loved Refn’s previous film Drive; in fact, it was my favourite film of 2011. You need more than that? Fine. Allow me to go into more detail on this travesty.

Now at this point, I’d normally go over the plot. But Only God Forgives seems above having a cohesive narrative. I literally only saw this movie about an hour or so ago, and I couldn’t tell you what the overarching story of this movie is. I could describe you some scenes, but that would just confuse you more. So for 90 minutes, prepare for unlikable and unrelatable characters with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, gratuitous violence that lack any sense of wit or meaning, scenes of staring that rival those in any Twilight movie, creepy sexual moments that will have you wincing whilst questioning why you’re still watching this trash, and karaoke. No, seriously, there’s like three scenes where the movie just stops and we listen to someone sing some karaoke. It’s like stepping into one of Nicolas Winding Refn’s wet dreams: a land full of violent and sexual images that ultimately mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. What’s that you say? Only 90 minutes? That doesn’t sound that bad. Sure, the movie only lasts 90 minutes, but has such poor pacing and lacks anything of interest that the film feels like it lasts at least twice that long. Combine that with the fact there are several scenes that just go nowhere and ultimately have no impact on anything. You could cut this movie down to about 20 minutes and it would make about as much sense, if not more. I’d go on and on, but I don’t want to waste too much of your time; that’s something Only God Forgives is more than happy to do if you’re interested in wasting time.

Here, I would normally talk the characters and the acting skills of those who play them. But to call what most of the cast of Only God Forgives do “acting” would be a disservice to the profession, and to call who they play “characters” would indicate they actually had personalities and depth to them. Ryan Gosling, whose stoic but menacing performance in Drive was truly effective, fails to play an even more enigmatic “character” here. He barely talks nor even emotes; his range of facial expression and tone of voice here makes Keanu Reeves look like a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Pansringarm plays the “villain” I guess, and he is equally robotic and lifeless. As is most of the rest of the cast. Kristin Scott Thomas seems to be the only person who seems to have any kind of personality, even if it is a really s***ty one. Any time her and Gosling are on screen together, it feels like a battle between overacting and underacting.

If there is anything nice to say about this turd, at least they’ve attempted to polish it with the finest materials. The cinematography is very pretty, utilising colour and light in a very similar way to Drive but also feels unique enough to stand on its own. The music is also very fitting, and helps to ease the terrible pacing. I usually don’t mention sound design, but that is also done very well and helps make all the gratuitously pointless violence feel that much more brutal and senseless. But no matter how much effort you put into it, you can’t gold plate some s*** and expect me to buy it.

What more do I need to say? This movie is terrible. Don’t see it unless you like hitting yourself in the face whilst naked, covered in blood and dancing to techno. This is style over substance at its worst. That’s not to say that Only God Forgives lacks substance; the substance is just pretentiousness soaked in entrails and excrement. I guess Refn wanted to do something more experimental after doing Drive, a film that is more mainstream than his usual work (but that’s not saying much). But you didn’t have to go and make something this full of wank. To quote Steve Martin in Planes, Trains and Automobiles: “Here’s a good idea. Have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!” Couldn’t have said it any better myself. F*** this movie!

FINAL VERDICT: 1.5/10

Starring: Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables), Tao Okamoto, Rila Fukushima, Will Yun Lee (Die Another Day), Svetlana Khodchenkova (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), Famke Janssen (Goldeneye)

Director: James Mangold (3:10 to Yuma)

Writers: Mark Bomback (Die Hard 4.0) and Scott Frank (Minority Report)

Runtime: 2 hours 6 minutes

Release Date: 25 July (UK), 26 July (US)

I am a big fan of the first two X-Men films, particularly of Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of Wolverine. Despite initial fan issues, Jackman turned the role into one of the most iconic characters of this generation and jumpstarted his career to Hollywood superstardom. But after the misfires of X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Jackman took a break and was relegated to a cameo in X-Men: First Class, which helped to rejuvenate the struggling franchise. Now back in centre stage, does The Wolverine help the character gain back his former glory, or is this just a further descent into mediocrity?

Picking up some time after the events of The Last Stand, The Wolverine is very much a character piece. Whilst occasional references to the events of the previous movies are made, this is a stand-alone tale. There are very few other mutants in the film, and I personally think this is a good thing. One of the reasons Origins didn’t work was because there were too many other characters distracting from what is supposed to be the main attraction. Here, we are given plenty of time to delve in Wolverine’s psyche and emotions. Logan is an even more damaged character this time around, and now he is at his most vulnerable. The decision to take away Wolverine’s healing abilities for most of the movie is a genius move, as it not only ups the stakes and the challenge, it also makes every fight seem that much more dangerous. Even when he has all his powers, the movie always makes sure he is evenly matched, avoiding the dull monotony that plagued Origins. The focus on character also means that the film is much slower, giving time to develop Logan and the supporting cast. This all makes the film feel less like a superhero-action film and more like a classic samurai or western, and the change of pace is refreshing. In a world where every superhero movie has to be either The Dark Knight or Iron Man, it’s nice to see one that tries to do its own thing and succeed. Whilst the film does fall back into more traditional comic book fare for the climax, it didn’t bother me too much and didn’t make the first two thirds of the film any less weak. Oh, and make sure to stay through the credits for some foreshadowing of things to come.

Hugh Jackman has played this character so much now that it is hard to separate the two, but he is as good as ever. His portrayal of Logan here is probably the most human he has ever seemed, but also gives him plenty of opportunity to go bezerk. The supporting cast is good too, mostly made up of relatively unknown Japanese actors. Tao Okamoto is an effective love interest at Mariko, being vulnerable enough to feel danger for her but not helpless enough to seem like a complete damsel-in-distress. The badass female role is left to Rila Fukushima as Yukio, and she is suitably dangerous and fun. Where the film falters slightly is in the villains. Whilst Svetlana Khodchenkova (boy, that’s a mouthful) is effectively menacing as the slivery scheming Viper, the rest of the main bad guys aren’t that interesting; mostly just a bunch of Japanese guys going on about honour and respect. Whilst the final battle between Wolverine and Silver Samurai is a good physical match, I felt a film with this much focus on character would have a good psychological match for our protagonist too.

Despite the focus on character, there is still plenty of action in the film and a lot of it is really fun to watch. Particular standouts include a thrilling battle atop a bullet train, and a standoff between Wolverine and a s***load of ninjas. For those worrying about the PG-13/12A rating, don’t fret too much; this is as violent and bloody as a movie can get without falling into R territory. Whilst occasional wonky camera work and editing can ruin the experience, the technical presentation is generally well executed. The visual effects, whilst not outstanding, are decent enough and a big improvement over the amateurish quality they were in Origins, and the score by Marco Beltrami combines east and west vibes to good effect.

The Wolverine is one of the best surprises of the summer. Whilst not a perfect film, it is the Wolverine movie I think fans have been waiting for and washes away the bad tastes of Origins for good. Much like how Iron Man 3 did, this is a film that lets the character control the story and reminds you why you fell in love with him in the first place. The X-Men franchise is back on track, and I can’t wait to see what happens when Bryan Singer returns to the franchise next summer with Days of Future Past.

FINAL VERDICT: 8.5/10

Starring: John Goodman (Argo), Billy Crystal (When Harry Met Sally), Helen Mirren (The Queen), Nathan Fillion (Serenity), Charlie Day (Pacific Rim)

Director: Dan Scanlon

Writers: Daniel Gerson & Robert L. Baird and Dan Scanlon

Runtime: 1 hour 44 minutes

Release Date: 21 June (US), 12 July (UK)

Pixar has had mixed success when it comes to sequels. Whilst the Toy Story sequels were just as good as the original, there’s Cars 2. But how does the company fare with a prequel? Is Monsters University a worthy predecessor to the original Monsters Inc,., or is it another disappointment for one of the best animation studios in the world?

Monsters University is very formulaic; you’ve probably seen the basic plot of this film at least half a dozen times. It’s your basic underdogs vs. the cool kids story filled with your standard archetypes, and for the most part doesn’t stray from that. But for a film like this, what really matters is the charm and the humour. And whilst not anything groundbreaking, the film is pretty charming. The jokes don’t always click, but the film is consistently amusing enough to stave off boredom. But what really makes the film work are two elements. Firstly, the relationship between Mike and Sully; there’s a lot more tension between these two this time around, and the way they play off each other is just as great as it was twelve years ago. You really do get the feeling that these two are good friends by the end, and the film truly shows why these two are inseparable. But the main reason I think the film works is that it sends out a harsh but necessary lesson for kids. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, you’re just not cut out for something but that doesn’t mean you’re useless. It’s nice to see a kids’ film with a message that goes beyond the usual “believe in yourself” kind of stuff we’re used to.

The film is full of characters, some returning from the original and others brand new. As mentioned before, Goodman and Crystal’s repartee from the first movie feels like they never left, and their performances carry the film well. Steve Buscemi returns as the villainous Randall (before he became villainous), but I feel he doesn’t get enough screentime and seems like he is there to just remind you of the original. Helen Mirren as the dean of the university is a good casting choice, and it gives her an opportunity to flex her villainous muscles. Firefly’s Nathan Fillion plays the main jock d*****bag, and he seems to be having fun with his clichéd character. Charlie Day is also worth a few laughs, bringing his trademark awkwardness to a particularly strange character. There are also a few other cameos from original cast members, but I’ll leave it to you to spot them.

The quality of Pixar’s animation is just astounding at this point. The attention to detail in even the tiniest of things make a setting as pretty basic as a university seem like a thing of wonder. The monster designs are just as inventive as ever, with many of them reflecting the nature of their characters. The score by Randy Newman is catchy and up-beat, but also scary and touching at a moment’s notice.

Monsters University may not be Pixar’s crowing achievement, but it is certainly worth watching, especially if you’re a big fan of the original.  It’s the best movie Pixar has put out since Toy Story 3, but I do hope that they focus more on original ideas in the future.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Simon Pegg (Star Trek Into Darkness), Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz), Martin Freeman (The Hobbit), Paddy Considine (Dead Man’s Shoes), Eddie Marsan (Sherlock Holmes), Rosamund Pike (Jack Reacher)

Director: Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs The World)

Writers: Edgar Wright & Simon Pegg

Runtime: 1 hour 49 minutes

Release Date: 19 July (UK), 23 August (US)

In my opinion, Edgar Wright can do no wrong. Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim vs The World are all among my most favourite films of all time, and even films with minor connections to him like Attack the Block and The Adventures of Tintin are great. Finally closing out the Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy, is The World’s End a perfect capper to the franchise, or has his winning streak unfortunately come to a stop?

In a very similar move to Shaun of the Dead, The World’s End’s first act features nothing out of the ordinary. It begins as a simple tale of old friends reuniting, remembering the good and not-so-good old days, and coming to terms with their lives. But in the fashion of From Dusk Till Dawn, the film kicks into gear and becomes the kind of film we all expect from Mr. Wright. Running gags, both from within the film and ones continuing from its predecessors, are major parts of the film, and for the most part the gags click. Wright and Pegg have always been firm about the fact that they are not parodists, and The World’s End feels the least like one of the trilogy. It feels much more adult than the first two, and it also has a lot more to say than them. Whilst Shaun and Fuzz were content to just throw out gags, this film has more of a message about maturity and the nature of human behaviour. That’s all fine, but it does sometimes distract from what we’re all here for. This, along with a runtime that feels a little stretched and an ending I’m sure some people will be disappointed with, leaves us with a film that isn’t perfect but still stands shoulders above most summer fare.

The duo of Pegg and Frost are what make these films great, and their camaraderie is still intact in this third outing. It’s refreshing to see them swap roles, with Frost now the responsible adult playing off of Pegg’s man-child. It all eventually comes down to them getting over their differences and admitting their friendship as usual, but they’re still the cement keeping the gags together. The supporting cast is suitably up to the challenge and all get their moments to shine. Marsan is the biggest surprise of the bunch, getting in a lot more laughs than I expected. Freeman is his usual cheery self, and whilst Considine isn’t playing a character as OTT as he got to in Hot Fuzz, he’s still worth a few laughs. Rosamund Pike is good when she’s on, but she keeps disappearing for long stretches and her subplot between her, Pegg and Considine feels a bit rushed. Other Wright regulars are strewn about the film, but I’ll leave it to you to spot them.

Edgar Wright has a very distinct visual style, and that style is very evident across the film. Wright clearly learnt a lot about staging fights from his work on Scott Pilgrim, and that is clear in the way he’s staged the action scenes here. They are inventive, exciting and expertly shot by the master himself Bill Pope. The visual effects are used sparingly, making use of practicality as much as possible, and both the score and soundtrack is perfectly chosen to fit the mood.

The World’s End is the Return of the Jedi of the series: a film that caps off the trilogy in good fashion, but could have been better in many areas. I get that Wright and Pegg wanted to make a more mature film to reflect their evolution as filmmakers and their own maturity. But sometimes that got in the way of the humour for me. It’s easily Wright’s weakest film, but that by no means that you shouldn’t see it. It’s a fun-filled time at the cinema, and one of the best films of the year so far. Don’t worry, Edgar; your winning streak has yet to fail. Now get to making Ant-Man already!

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10

Starring: Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy), Rinko Kikuchi (The Brothers Bloom), Idris Elba (Prometheus), Charlie Day (Horrible Bosses), Burt Gorman (The Dark Knight Rises), Ron Perlman (Hellboy)

Director: Guillermo Del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth)

Writer: Travis Beacham (Clash of the Titans) and Guillermo Del Toro

Runtime: 2 hours 12 minutes

Release Date: 12 July (US, UK)

In a world where Hollywood is mainly churning out sequels, remakes and adaptations for use as blockbuster fodder, Pacific Rim is an original idea. One that has a familiar story and takes obvious influences from many areas, but original nonetheless. It’s a risky move to put this much money into such an outlandish idea, especially when there’s little established fanbase to fall back on. Is this a gamble that pays off, or does it crash harder than a dead monster impacting on hard ground?

Pacific Rim does a great job of quickly and interestingly establishing the world and history of the film. The backstory and environment is dense with detail, but it never manages to feel overwhelming or ridiculous. This is a living, breathing world and a very fun playground with plenty of potential for expansion. The plot is formulaic for sure, with plenty of story and character clichés. But it all gels together because the world is so well-defined and characters fleshed out enough that you don’t mind. As much action as there is in Pacific Rim, there is plenty of drama and character to back it up. Of course, comparisons to Michael Bay’s Transformers films are inevitable, but Pacific Rim doesn’t fall into the same traps those films kept falling into. Our characters are likable and engaging; archetypes for sure but not so blatantly. These characters are the centre of the action instead of just people to run away from it. There’s no military mumbo-jumbo to distract you, no out-of-place comedy in the middle of the destruction. When the film gets into action gear, it is exhilarating, refreshing and, most important of all, comprehensible. Combine all that with terrific pacing that makes a two-hour plus movie feel like a breeze, and you’ve got yourself a fun time at the multiplex.

Charlie Hunnam takes centre stage as protagonist Raleigh Beckett and he does a fine job, but he is honestly the least interesting character in a sea of colourful supporting roles. Rinko Kikuchi (having finally grasped the English language after her mute role in The Brothers Bloom) is an engaging actress with a strong character to back her up. It is great to see a film with a male/female duo where the connections and conflicts doesn’t stem from romance, and Hunnam and Kikiuchi make a believable partnership when on screen together. Idris Elba is his awesome self as usual, barking orders and being all mentor-ish, and gets to make a brief badass speech that rivals President Bill Pullman from Independence Day. Del Toro regular Ron Perlman also makes a brief but brilliant appearance that is cemented by his ridiculous choice of wardrobe. But the real scene-stealers (other than the all the robots and monsters, of course) are Charlie Day and Burt Gorman as a pair of screwy scientists that are constantly at each other’s throats. They provide the comedic relief for the film, and in the hands of lesser actors it could have fallen into Skids and Mudflap territory. But Day and Gorman put their all into it and they are both excellent whether together or apart.

Guillermo Del Toro is one of the most unique and interesting directors working in the biz today, and he has finally been given enough of a budget to go all out crazy. All the promise shown in Pan’s Labyrinth, Blade II and the Hellboy movies has paid off and, whilst not as Del Toro-y as his previous works, his signature is clear on every single design. The robots and monsters (sorry, Jaegers and Kaiju) are all uniquely designed, taking clear influence from their forefathers but never feeling like rip-offs. The special effects are some of the best in recent memory, and there is a lot of it. Whilst practical effects are used when possible, the CG is so good that you often forget that these machines and creatures don’t exist. The cinematography and editing, whilst occasionally being a little too close for comfort, do a good job of letting the action flow and it is always clear what is going on. Top it all off with great sound design and a riveting score from Ramin Djawadi, and that is what you call technical excellence.

Pacific Rim is what every summer blockbuster should be: loud, ridiculous fun, but with thought and effort behind all the special effects. Following in suit of last year’s The Avengers, this is a film that takes its ridiculous premise and runs with it to great effect. Other than some occasionally janky storytelling and structure (seriously, the government thinks the best idea is to shut down the giant robots that have mostly been effective against the threat and quickly set up a flimsy, unreliable wall?), this is the kind of movie Hollywood should be making. Now we just have to hope it makes enough money for the studios to pay attention. God help us all if Grown Ups 2 manages to beat this at the US box office.

FINAL VERDICT: 9.5/10