Reviews

For those of you who missed the first one, Insurgent is the sequel to Divergent, Divergent is a series aimed at the new teen girl audience, so think Twilight and Hunger games and you are along the right lines. But the reel question is after the disappointment of Divergent will this second be a Maze Runner or just a Runner Runner? If you look at the poster for Insurgent it looks like it's been directed by the Wakoski brothers, with the two main leads free falling in air, shattered glass surrounding them with guns drawn, but the truth is that Insurgent is nowhere near as physisophrenic as any of the matrix movies. No, Insurgent is a film with it's head on it's shoulders and it's goals always in sight.

I think it's this narrow mindedness that makes Insurgent worth watching, you can feel the movements are counting for something, they are part of a bigger scheme, it's not all juts random or pointless, every scene is measured to fit within it's play in the story and that story is buried within the many levels of social commentary that the movie makes.

Insurgent never gives into the pressure of feeling like "the middle child" with not having any real beginning or end, that's the norm for movies like this, but not Insurgent. Instead it has a clearly defined beginning, middle and end, and just to help us along the setting changes for all three times. It's little things like that which can really lift a film out of the ordinary.

Really we should credit the director Robert Schwentkes for this change. Schwentkes has had VERY mixed success, being responsible for last year's awful R.I.P.D. but before that the quite good Red and the very acceptable Time Traveller's Wife. In Insurgent it feels like Schwentkes has found his calling, he makes something as simple as a shower look incredible, with his expert eyes for framing, but it is in none reality when Insurgent really comes alive.

For at least half the film Insurgent is set in this strange SIM reality which is made to test each of the abilities of a candidate. This setting is both surprising and engaging. I think that's a good way to describe all of Insurgent really. Surprising and Engaging.

It's true Insurgent does not mind bringing out the big guns, with mass suicide being one of the major ones, the entire film has an air that anything could happen and in justice often does. I also like that all those things that no one really cared about from the original, for instance, all the different virtues of each discipline. Yeah that's mostly forgotten about in Insurgent and if not it's made REALLY clear what is required from the given party.

It's interesting to me to see how the 3 main teen leads carry themselves and the film, Shaliene Woodly is clearly trying hard to bring out the level of talent that Jennifer Lawrence has as Tris. Theo James looks like he can have the only troubled expression on his face and nothing else and Miles Teller makes it all look so easy. As for the rest of the players they are all fine, especially Nomi Watt's who I personally didn't even recognise.

The truth is that Insurgent is just flat out better than it's predecessor, it is succinct, clever, brave and beautiful, and I've got a feeling the best it yet to come.

Predestination is an indie film which had an EXCEPTIONALLY limited release in the UK for around a week. However at some point in time in that week, I found myself sitting in the cinema waiting for the movie to start, so I suppose the reel question is, will this new time thriller have me wanting to close my loop or go Back To The Future?

Predestination is brought to us by the Spierig brother, who many might remember for the strange motion picture that was Daybreakers. Well this time they are back and toying with another stable genre in time travel, and honestly? There second outing is far superior to their first.

Predestination is a movie that really tries to push your mind to the limit with what is acceptable in a film, it is frequently borderline flat out absurd however more often than not it's also gripping.

Now I'll be the very first to admit that parts of Predestination don't make sense and it tries far too hard to have an insanely complicated twist, in fact there is a remark made in the film which completely undoes the entire thesis of the movie, but really if you want to enjoy a film (and you will want to enjoy Predestination) you can overlook almost any plot fault or issue that can be found.

If you decide to forget the minor problems with Predestination you will find an exceptionally complicated story presented in one of the simplest ways, with the classical "man walks into a bar" set up. It's this sort of inter genre breeding that makes the Spierig brothers interesting to watch, they did it in Daybreakers and they do is in Predestination.

Predestination is probably better thought of as a biography as the large percentage of the film is the back story of one of the two main characters. The film shifts and moves with the ever changing demands and pacing of the story without ceasing or faulting, it is fluent in its feel and style.

What I like about the Spierig brothers is that they use what they have to their advantage. They (once again) have Ethan Hawke so they use him to his fullest, making him the on screen version of the audience, he's a sounding board to tell the main characters story too. The other counterpart in the film is Sarah Snook who, I've never seen before but puts on a really quite remarkable performance in Predestination. Making a brief appearance is Noah Taylor, but he is only in the film for a handful of scenes.

I think that one of Predestination's greatest assets (and possibly biggest downfalls) is that it's so subtle with how the story arch's play out, they constantly seem inconsequential when really they have an massive impact on the world of the film.

That or the entire movie is just a confusing, random mess that is so ridiculous and stupid it can't even make sense of its own plot threads.

Predestination is a film whose ideas and story almost outreach it's own personal limitations, a movie that is so clever and intelligent that it's own subtlety could well be it's downfall. One that I'm sure most will miss, but any who have seen it won't forget.

5/5

Documentaries are a difficult format because they will always, always be criticized, in some format or way someone will find fault with them. That's why it's always better and more fun to make a mockumentary, and this is where we find What We Do In The Shadows, a spoof documentary about a set of vampires in New Zeland who are flat sharing, so I suppose the reel question is will this have me howling From Dusk Till Dawn or will it just feature Lost Boys?

It's an obvious statement to make but vampires have been around a LONG time in cinema, and we have seen many different interpretations of them from Nosferuatu, to the Bram Stoker's Dracula and now modern age of Twilight. They are probably the 3 hall marks of Vampire films, but there are so many more; 30 Days Of Night, Underworld, Daybrakers and Blade are just a few of the movies that people quickly forget that still have vampires as a main feature, and in the past if we are honest with ourselves all we have ever really seen is spoof films of other Vampire movies, The Fearless Vampire Hunters and Darcula Dead And Loving It are two that leap instantly to mind, but that's where What We Do In The Shadows is strongest, because it's not a spoof of another movie, it is it's own film that makes jokes about vampires as a whole and not just one plot strand.

The principle of having a film crew follow vampires around is funny all on it's own but once you start mixing in well thought out characters, jokes that have pace and a story that develops perfectly you get a movie which all on its own can stand up and be counted as classic. The movie is written and directed by Taika Waititi and Jemaine Clement.Jemaine is one half of The Flight Of The Concords and Taika is a man who wrote many of the episodes for them as well as chunks of The Inbetweeners. I think that sort of inner madness and logic that is clear in The Flight Of The Concords TV show spills over into What We Do In The Shadows, there are so many off beat unpredictable moments that you can't help but laugh at them all.

It's true I could pull out sections of the film and highlight them as funny but what would be the point in that? However I will give you a small measure of how clever the film is, there is a sequence in which the trio are preparing to go out on the town, however because they have no reflections they have to sketch each other so they can see what outfits work and don't. It's that sort of clever overlooked humour which is imbedded into What We Do In The Shadows.

What We Do In The Shadows is a witty, clever, funny comedy which is far superior to most of the main stream trash we have to suffer in cinemas.

Alex Garland, a name that many will be familiar with but won't properly know, is a cult writer who has a flair for appealing to Danny Boyle (He wrote both the books which The Beach and 28 Days Later were based on, he also wrote the screenplay for Dredd) and has decided to take his talents a step further and direct as well, his debut? Ex Machina, So I suppose the reel question is can Ex Machina prove that androids dream of electric sheep? Ex Machina is a film that I'm sure will pass under many peoples radar, no matter how many buses it's written on or billboards with that one sterile face looking back at you, most of you will miss this, and that's a shame because it's a masterpiece, and I don't say that lightly. Ex Machina is a film that in 10 years' time people will look back and see it for the brilliance it so clearly is.

I think there is something to be said about a single human being both the writer and the director for a movie, it gives the film a purer feel, You don't get the notion that someone has changed a meaning, what you see on the screen is what the original source wanted you to feel, and in Ex Machina what Alex Garland wants you to feel is discomfort.

You could almost draw a line under the film at a certain point where it abandons normality and becomes the film it deserves to be. However for the entire movie there is an underlying and brooding power to it. Then there is a single scene in the middle of the film and everything changes. From that moment on Ex Machina is nothing short of a white knuckle rid into the human psyche. Then the ending happens and it leaves you open mouthed and in tatters.

Alex Garland must know what he's created in Ex Machina because the film holds itself with such grace and serenity, and it is so beautifully shot that I could barely look at some sequences for the shear perfection of it all. "The Brain" is a stand out moment of this and of cinema.

Ex Machina is far too much to take in on a single viewing, because it has so much to say, the film comments on quite literally everything but most largely the internet and our collective paranoia towards it all. Garland speaks with such elegance and simple truth that it's hard not to be challenged by it.

What Garland has successfully created is two dichotomous characters in Cleb and Nathan; Cleb being lost and confused while learning every moment more about his situation and Nathan having complete control over every aspect of what is produced and is calm and irrational. From the outset there is something untrustworthy about Nathan, the creator of the machine known as Ava. If you consider it for even a moment this is also the relationship between Director and Audience, the director controls everything that is seen and tries to use it to produce a desired effect while us the audience can only collect information and react accordingly.

Both roles are masterfully played by Oscar Isaac and Domhnall Gleeson. However, all of their talent becomes mute when Alicia Vikander is on screen. She steals the picture as Ava. It's in her movement more than her speech which makes Vikander's performance so incredible, they are somehow natural yet mechanical at the same time. It is impossible for me to explain.

Ex Machina is a movie like no other before it, people will ignore it because of the subject matter but I beg you, ignore what your mind tells you and seek out this film, because in the future it will be looked at in the same light as Blade Runner. To call it anything short of an instant classic is flat out wrong.

It's strange when you consider it, how much the Spy thriller genre has changed and grown because of James Bond, there is not a single Spy movie that is made that isn't and won't be compared to double 'O' seven himself. So I suppose it's no surprise that a film like Kingsman had to be made eventually, so I suppose the reel question is will this make the Sky fall or just be a quantum of nonsense?

Say what you like about Mathew Vaughn the man likes his comics. So far out of the 5 films he has directed, 3 were graphic novels first. Kingsman is one of them. The man's like the anti-Zack Snyder, he directs films based off of comics and brings out real issues in them, as opposed to Snyder who directs films based off of graphic novels and ignores any merit or comment on the wider world the books make and just makes HIS movies. I'm happy to say that Kingsman is probably the most fun I will have in a cinema screen this year.

As I've already said Spy films get compared to James Bond, so let's begin with that shall we? Kingsman is a film that is both totally unique and its own movie whilst fully embracing its British heritage, the films marketing campaign drew strong comparisons to For Your Eyes Only artwork. The film acknowledges all of those stupid spy clichés in a way which is both knowing and clever, and then it ditches them all. The best example of this I can give is in the opening sequence of the film, there is a glass of whisky, a lot of people die and there isn't a drop of said whiskey spilt, and at that moment Kingsman sticks two fingers up at the past and says "we're the future" and from that second onwards Kingsman is its own movie. The film successfully reinvents just about every stereotype imaginable in a spy film.

The villain, who is always central in a spy movie, is Valentine (played by Samuel L. Jackson). Valentine is a megalomaniac who wants world domination, all standard stuff so far, he also has a lisp and is terrified of blood. That's the kind of thing Kingsman does really well, it sets us up with the standard and transforms it to be unique.

The film is of course preposterous in the extreme, but I don't care. It was funny, clever, brilliant and unique. Kingsman has so many pro's to it that you can easily overlook the minor short comings, because in the end the film has a baddie who has blades for legs, I mean who doesn't love that?

What I like most about Kingsman is that even with all its madness it still manages to have some kind of heart; the entire movie is kind of a think piece on class war and the importance of legacy. The movie has a brain and a soul and it has no problem expressing either, the finale to the parachute problem proves this most for me.

I would be remised if I didn't mention something about the cast, let get over the whole "the obvious people are amazing thing" and look forward to the new comers Taron Egerton (playing "Eggsy") and Sophie Cookson (playing Roxy). These two talents have come from nowhere and broken through the glass ceiling, Cookson and Egerton are stars with one film to their names, and they deserve every single piece of praise that comes to them. Taron is such an unbelievably versatile young man, he can be funny, clever, cool, cocky, brash, physical, confident and insecure all without saying a word or moving a muscle. Also, I loved seeing Jack Davenport on screen again.

Kingsman is the film this country needed; it's confident and fun, without being disrespectful or full of nasty. In short, Sic.

Madagascar, there was a film that was truly great. Then there was Madagascar 2, and it all went down hill, then number 3 came out and it just got worst, now we have the best thing about the series going off and it has become it's own monster. Penguins! But I suppose the reel question is, will this be (Europe's Most Wanted or just another movie I want to Escape From (Africa)? There is something knowing about how the entire movie of Penguins is put together that brings a smile to my face, and that's where the best jokes lay. This is first implied in the opening scene (after the credits) when the penguins are at the end of Madagascar 3 and had had enough of the song Move it, Move It. So decide to shoot themselves into fort knous. This is the sort of humour that the film is littered with.

The highlight of the movie comes when Dave (the Octopus) gives any of his underlings commands, it's simple, clever word play, and I love it. Actually mostly anything that Skipper says makes me smile, he is sort of a cross between Captain Kirk and… Nope that's about it. He is like if Zap Branigan was a penguin and more humble.

It's true that Penguins is hardly a film which aims high or calls for social change but I don't think it should do that anyway. Look at a film like Shrek or even the original Madagascar, that didn't aim to be anything more than a film with a lot of film references and to be a joy to watch. They succeeded and so does Penguins.

I think it's how much Penguins openly embraces its own madness which really helps the film work, it taps into our migrant imaginations and makes us all engage, a particular highlight of this is the Venice chase sequence. Which is both ridiculous and funny in equal measure.

Also the four penguins themselves work as a team, we have the leader (Skipper), the brains (Kawalski), the animal (Rico) and the quote one (Private). Each have a role to play in the movie and their natural chemistry just works (and yes I know they are not real people).

From it's very opening scene the film knows where it's going, it wants us to sit back and enjoy, like any good classic children's film does. I should also say the film is visually engaging with lots of colourful and new characters, each with their own unique personality traits.

I'll admit it Penguins Of Madagascar is a film that doesn't set the world on fire nor does it make everything seem OK or solve any problems, but that's OK, it's just a kids film about 4 penguins who are great at special missions. In truth I fell in love with them the second the called Marty their "monochromatic friend" in Madagascar. So clever.

Ultimately Penguins is bright, engaging, funny and sweet. Truly, what more do you want from an animated film about 4 penguins?

When we are children, there is a toy we love above all others, that is a holy grail of imagination and enjoyment. For me that was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I loved the TV and toys so much, and the films still hold a special place in my heart. So here we have a reboot, This will not end well. OK, let me get over my own personal hang ups towards the film straight away. It's not the Turtles I knew and loved, it's not the same premise, it's not the same message ideas and for this reason alone the film should not be watched or tolerated by anyone. Ever. I can't guarantee this side of me won't return later in this review but for now, I'm going to try and judge Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as best I can without bringing in my personal feelings for the product. The Turtles Movie Is a film that attempts to have it's cake and eat it. It wants the integrity and prestige of the original movies and cartoons, but it wants massive set pieces and unoriginal thinking. That's the main problem with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, we have seen it all before. There is nothing to make the movie stand out and be proud of itself, I mean in truth there is nothing horrifically wrong with it enough to make me angry, but considering what the film had to work with I just wanted something more remarkable.

The plot is the same plot of any superhero film, Hero's exists, are hidden from the world, a super villain wants to do something bad, they have to come out of hiding to defend the city they love. That's the other thing; that considering the film is just over an hour and half, there isn't a whole lot of action in it, nor is there much comedy or anything else, the entire thing just kind of runs together without any kind of variety. I think that the films blandness is really what comes to the front of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I just never felt like I really knew anything about the Turtles that made them personally unique, or why Shredder had any ties to their past, the film never goes into detail about anything. I could overlook the look of the turtles themselves if they had enough character, but simply put they don't. This is a travesty that cannot be forgiven. It's not even like we see the turtles fight the nameless foot soldiers that much either. There is a sequence in the middle of the movie, where there is a chase and an escape for the turtles, each turtle is used in turn to achieve a goal but instead of looking spectacular or impressive the sequence just looks messy. Now, I am fully aware that for a child who has never seen the turtles or is just a young kid, this film will be engaging and exciting and fun, but that isn't who I am or how I watch the movie. Also the inner film references in the movie are just lazy. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a bit of big dumb inoffensive fun. However I'm predjudist against a film that would do this to my childhood so it's still awful.

It's strange how films reflect our climate, 2 years ago during the recession, Horrible Bosses was released; a film about taking vengeance on the millionaire tools who we work for, it was a film about justice and revenge, with sex jokes. So try to imagine a film without justice and revenge as a theme, that's Horrible Bosses 2, but don't worry… they have kept the sex jokes.

So what can be said for a film about 3 losers with some style who go on a crazy unplanned adventure together? Well quite a lot really, as there are A LOT of films fitting that outline, so what makes Horrible Bosses 2 different? Was it that Jason Bateman in it? No I mean what makes it REALLY different? Oh that's right. Nothing. So why watch the film you are wondering? Because, as much as it pains me to say this, it is hilarious.

Yes, Horrible Bosses 2 is a film that made me laugh out loud on multiple occasions, it is sharp with its whit and clever with its references. Horrible Bosses was a movie that was confined to one single premise, but with Horrible Bosses 2 the writers were able to stretch their wings, and boy do they.

Sure the film doesn't have anything particularly imaginative in and it won't change the way you see the world, but it's a comedy about 3 idiots kidnapping a billionaires son, did we really expect Hamlet? I know I didn't and that's what made it funny.

The best stuff in Horrible Bosses 2 is when Nick, Kurt and Dale are left to their own devices. It's clear that Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day are naturally funny people, you can see it just by the way they are on screen. When it's just the 3 of them talking or interacting comedy happens, however as so often with great groups the bigger the group the less time for jokes.

It's interesting to see Chris Pine and Christoph Walz join the team as Bret and Rex Hanson. These are two men I would not directly connect with comedy, yet here they are doing just fine in Horrible Bosses 2. It's good to see Christoph Walz chewing the screen up with his deadpan performance as Bert, but I'm starting to think the man is typecast as a villain forever. What surprised me about Horrible Bosses 2 is how good Chris Pine really is, you can see he is truly enjoying himself but he plays an all-out lunatic in Rex. I never knew he had it in him. Just in case we thought we could forget Kevin Spacy and Jennifer Aniston drop in for an appearance. I've always enjoyed seeing Spacey try and convert his natural menacing persona into funny.

Horrible Bosses 2 is a movie that I enjoyed more looking back at it than I did at the time, I'm sure some people will LOVE it, but for me it ticked all the boxes for a strong comedy about 3 guys with no clue. Horrible Bosses 2 is like if The Inbetweeners were adults.

It seems all too common place now that every 6 months or so a film that is aimed at the "Teen" audience will be brought out, always part of a series, always the same kind of tone, this trend started with Twilight. So I suppose the reel question is will The Maze Runner catch fire or just diverge(nt)?

I feel like it's almost unfair to compare The Maze Runner to any of the other movies that are around this genre because it is so wildly different to them, it's true they have similarities but it has similarities to The Hangover in the respect that it has 3 men in central roles, that doesn't mean they should be categorised together, no. That would be a travesty to a film that tries hard to be separate.

What we should compare the film to is Lord Of The Flies or even Stand By Me, because that's what the tone matches, it is morose and brooding. Unlike the other movies around it The Maze Runner is set up so there is no reason to box up emotions or feelings, the characters are free to express themselves however they see fit. Frequently this means spats of violence, but that isn't a bad thing. The entire tone of the film underpins its deepening reasoning for story. From the very opening we are presented with a simple set up, there is a society that consists of only males, living in a large open field and wooded area who have formed a society for themselves.

For me the best parts of The Maze Runner was while they are still in the Glade, that feeling of unending imprisonment was one that fascinated me, and how the boys interacted really worked strongly. That they have a leader and a higherarcy was something I personally wanted to explore more, but I understand the film has to move itself forward into more prosperous places to set up the future movies.

The movie plays its tension well and when the final moment of the final act arrives, it has power and weight to it. It is a sequence that both upsets and astounds us, this is how I know that The Maze Runner had won. That I felt an emotion at the end of the film meant that it's magic had worked on me and I ultimately cared about what happened to these people. The Maze Runner feels like it should do, as if it has a perpetual swing constantly building momentum until it reaches it's crescendo and we receive the pay off. This is clever film making at it's best. It's also nice to see a film that isn't scared to kill of main characters in the first outing, and isn't frightened to show us some truly horrific monsters and sequences.

To say that the cast are impressive in The Maze Runner is a great understatement, this entire film is carried on two actors shoulders; Thomas Brodie-Sangster, who gets more impressive every time I see him and the incredibly talented Will Poulter, who is starting to show such strong promise I'm beginning to watch movies just because he is featured. Mr Poulter is one of the most talented and underrated actors in the world.

The Maze Runner is a film that took a gamble and made a more adult themed movie for a younger audience crowd. The gamble pays off, The Maze Runner is a movie that dares to be different in a world full of the same.

Black Sea is an independently funded British thriller, about a submarine with a hull full of gold and the captain who wants to reclaim it, but I suppose the reel question is will this water thriller be more A Hunt for Gold October or UB-regret?

You can tell where Black Sea plans to go from the outset, there is something clandestine about Roberson, much like Maximus in Gladiator, his destiny is written in the stars and ultimately the film is about him. It's about his thirst for gold, his decisions and his want for redemption, all of which is perfectly articulated by Jude Law, who seems to be getting more talented with every film he makes. But make no mistake Black Sea is just what we find in the movie, an abyss.

The longer Black Sea is on the screen the more the reality dawns on you that this won't end well. The concept of murder and flat out hatred is woven into the very fabric of the film from the start. Unlike other films of this ark, where the crew stick together until they get the money shows up, Black Sea has it on it's mind the very second the submarine's hatch closes. This makes for a tense experience because you are never sure when the simmering menace is going to bubble over into physical violence. When it finally does, Kevin Macdonald makes it have weight and an impact. The exchange hangs in our minds like it does the crew.

Black Sea articulates perfectly how it must feel to be trapped in a submarine, the claustrophobia and cabin fever that goes with it, the entire movie looks like it was shot in a phone box, everything is closed in and dead ended, we are given no relief from this harshness, only more shots of grim looking corridors filled with pipes.

Fear. That's one of the central themes for Black Sea, fear is an idea that is in every scene and an uneasy sort of air to the proceedings. There is no trust between any of the crew, only apprehension mixed with greed. This is a portrayal of real men; each character feels true and worn in. They are rounded and battle scared, this comes completely down to the talents playing them.

Black Sea has a sort of harshness to it that is rare in current cinema, but not uncommon in British movies. You can tell it's a British film even without all the idents in the opening credits. We know our own. Speaking of own, Black Sea has a plethora of British actors, many of whom I recognize from various smaller roles; Michael Smiley, Scoot McNairy and Tobias Menzies spring instantly to mind. But it's not that batch I want to highlight, no. It is the Russian cast members I want to comment on, they didn't even speak English, but yet they all carry a presence and power that truly adds to the overall tension of the film.

Black Sea is a sleek compact thriller that has it's ideas right to begin with.

Paddington bear is more than just a story or a toy in British society, he is an icon, he is a hallmark of England and everything it means to live in this country, so with this in mind the reel question is will this new live action animation just panda to the masses? As a child I can't really remember Paddington being a big part of my life, I remember the animated show on T.V. from somewhere and that's about it, I know for some people it was an entirely different manner, I know that for some Paddington was so important, and truly? I believe this movie has done them proud.

In its essence Paddington is about a very clumsy, lovable bear and the family he lives with. It's the adventures that Paddington gets up to that really make the story come alive. He is so very clumsy and it is beautiful to watch on screen. To watch Paddington reminds me of how it must have felt to watch an incredible physical comedy actor perform like Norman Wisdom or Charlie Chaplin, to watch a master at work is always captivating.

It's more than that though, Paddington appeals to us as a nation because he represents what it is to be British. The chase sequence in the film shows this best.

The film is also incredibly smart and funny, it has moments of shear brilliance mixed in with all the other kinds of comedy you would imagine from a strong family event. This comes mostly from the writer Paul King (who also directs the work), he is famous for directing The Mighty Boosh. I truly believe it is only from a mind so Macabre that you could get a work as eloquent as Paddington.

The other thing that Paddington has going for it is that he is so sweet as a character and Ben Whishaw presents him perfectly. Whishaw is a man who has unlimited potential, from his early beginnings here is a man who watch in the future.

I know that Paddington the character is a two pronged attack, not only is it his voice but also his presence that works in tandem to create the charming young bear. The animation for Paddington is incredible, every follicle of hair is accounted for and perfect.

Paddington is the sort of movie you will take your children to see when they are tiny and they will laugh and enjoy the bear, then you will watch it again with them when they are a little older, and they will laugh at the jokes and love the silliness of the bear, then again you'll watch it in their teens and they will understand the love dynamic of the family and then you'll watch it with them as adults and they will see the film for the piece of cinema it really is. This is a film that is built to last and for generations.

Paddington is a family film for the entire family, it is upbeat, touching, funny and British to it's very soul.

Alan Turning is a name many of us will already know, it's a name that is attached to a lot of controversy and prestige, he is a man who literally changed history. So why is there a film being made about him and given that there has been so many war films this year, what makes this one different? I suppose the reel question is, will this be an Enigma we can't break?

The Second World War, the period in history where we look back and always feel both pride and regret. Pride that ordinary people stood up to an evil tyrant and regret because so many had to give their lives for our freedom. That's how Imitation Game makes you feel, both proud and hurt.

The film has a 3 way split in narrative structure, all revolving around its main character Alan Turning. We are given the Past, present and future almost, with one strand being told as Alan when he was still in boarding school and he is first developing a love for cryptography (the past), the second is picking up with him at the point when he is entering into the war effort employed to decrypt the enigma coding (the present), and then via an interview and subsequent investigation on Turning for indecency after his service was terminated (the future). This kind of blending could have been a catastrophe for the movie and completely ripped the rhythm out of the film itself, it could have taken away any level of mood or tension put in the wrong hands, but the hands that The Imitation Game is placed in is Morten Tyldum, and he is a master of suspense. I implore you if you enjoyed The Imitation Game please watch his previous work Headhunters.

I think that there is a twist in the film (which I am going to reveal now as to what I can piece together it's common knowledge anyway), Alan Turning was gay. Now, for me that isn't where the impact of the movie stood, nor was it in the moment when he finally cracks the enigma code (that's not a spoiler, it's a true story, and we won the war, mostly because we cracked the enigma code), no the true power of this film is in it's 3rd act in "the present" when Turning reveals what he has to do to keep the fact that he had broken the code a secret.

Alan Turning the man is presented as a broken and lonely human, who has no social skills at all and can barely function without a riddle to solve (So really a lot like Sherlock Holmes then). But it seems the film unfortunately has a hidden agenda, The Imitation Game is a strong work it's true, but it seems to be more concerned that Alan was gay than any other aspect of his life, this is a terrible shame because I think it ultimately sits awkwardly along side the rest of the film, which for the majority of the time is outstanding.

The Imitation Games is an exceptional portrayal of a different side to the Great War. It is focused and concise, this is how a film with a message should be made.

Dan Gilroy is a man who is famous for writing films that are both surreal and strong from Hollywood, but now he has made the choice to direct as well as write. Will this be the beginning of his (Bourne) Legacy or just the start of Gilroy's Fall? Jake Gyllenhaal is an odd fish. He seems to be a man who specializes in playing oddities. Nightcrawler is the panicle of that. Nightcrawler is a film that totally embraces it's bizarre feeling and runs with it.

Nightcrawler is one of those films that isn't really about a subject as it is about a single man within that subject. He is an abnormality, he is something of the strange; he is Louis Bloom. This is our main character and the role Jake Gyllenhaal portrays. From it's opening scene Bloom is noting less than a sociopath. Nightcrawler doesn't waste it's limited screen time on giving you false hope, Bloom is a man who is breaks bad from the start. In the opening sequence Bloom violently beats a man without hesitation for literally a wristwatch. This is how the film approaches. It wants to make us uneasy from the start, keeping us on the edge of our seats throughout.

How can I describe Bloom? He is like a new variation on Patrick Bateman to be one of those cult icons, he's deliberately like he is so that from American Psycho. Bloom is psychotic and driven in equal measure, he is a man who's ends always justifies his means. Bloom is carved out people will like him more for it, and somehow it works. We are given one of these about once every 2 or 3 years, Bloom is just the latest. He is man without the need for morals or empathy. He is like a black hole moving in the world.

Gilroy is a director who wants us to react to his product, he doesn't care if it's positive or negative, he just wants us to react. That's how the entire film is carved out, with the intention of our reactions.

Nightcrawler doesn't have any hero's, so each of the characters are as vacuous as the last. However I think it is how Bloom prays on the depravity of those around him that makes him the central character; he is poison for the people he meets as he drags each of them down into his world, the world of a Nightcrawler.

I think that to give credit for Nightcrawler to Gyllenhaal alone would be foolish, It is as much the people around him that contribute to Nightcrawlers success, Riz Ahmed for example is a man who has truly come a long way since his days in Four Lions. This film is a team effort.

Nightcrawler has enough going for it to be successful, but lacks something to make it the indie classic it craves to be.

It's amazing to me, how we can treat Liam Neeson and not feel guilty. Here is a man who has made many, many films in his lifetime (lest we forget he was Oscar Shindler) yet we remember him for one somewhat ridiculous role in Taken. We should come to the realisation that actors are people and they are in the business to make money. Neeson is a man who has paid his dues, he has made independent little films, he has done art house and now he is an action hero. I just wonder if we would be as harsh as people are to Neeson to someone like Bruce Willis, so for this review I will be looking at Liam Neeson from a completely impartial perspective.

A Walk Among The Tombstones is a compacted thriller, in the first 10 minutes all of it's ideas are laid out on the table and for the most part they never really change. This isn't a film with twists and turns and it isn't ambitious, but then does it really have to be? Why can't a movie just be serviceable? Why can't a film give you an outline of a story, with the hints of more to it, a handful of characters and a situation for them to cope with? Adequate, that's how I would describe A Walk Among The Tombstones, it's never reaching too high and it's never stooping too low, the film is just happy to ride the middle of the road and let you enjoy it. Try to imagine a Jack Reacher without the wit or compelling storyline.

The story line for A Walk Among The Tombstones is obvious, and if you have seen the trailer you've seen most of the movie (including some of the final act movements), and I think that one of the films major set backs is that it's so restricted being based from a book, it feels like all the time the movie wants to kick the whole thing up a gear and make something REALLY compelling, but instead it has to coast along on the track it's been nailed to.

I'm sure if A Walk Among The Tombstones had come out at a different year it would be a stronger film, but when it's surrounded by titles Like Cold In July, The Equalizer and The Two Faces OF January, the film can't help but get lost in the shuffle.

The cast are near non existent apart from the headliner Liam Neeson, and for once I think this is a mistake, I would have liked to see more from the supporting player, because in truth most of them are stereotypes; we are given the psychotic killers without emotions, the street wise kid who doesn't really know how to take care of himself, and the drug addicted friend who is the go between for the two worlds.

A Walk Among The Tombstones is a film that's easy to mock, and simple to pull to bits, but for me it was a nice thriller that ticked all the required boxes.

The Hunger Games, when it first arrived I bet everyone thought it would just another "Twilight" genre film. Oh how wrong they were, instead of sparkly vampires we are given necks being snapped and poisoned foliage. So I suppose the reel question is with this being Part 1 will it be a Desolation of Lawrence or a Battle of 13 Districts? Mockingjay has something so much deeper locked inside of it's run time than what is produced. Considering the film now after watching it and having time to think, it has so many ideas and themes. It articulates them so precisely and so subtly that it's only with distance can we truly understand how measured a movie this is. Here is a film that comments on every single major issue in our society simultaneously. The film talks about fashion and our own personal image, racism and decimation, oppression and slavery and so much more. For that alone, it deserves to be seen by all, for it's cultural significance in our world, but that's not it's only success.

The film also succeeds as a film. It's true that a film that's all comment and no action would be a documentary, and Monckingjay isn't that, Monckingjay is a film that feels like a grand sceptical, it knows how important it is to fan. It has clearly learnt from Harry Potter, which is the benchmark for adaption fandom, and it just about reaches it. This is from a director who hasn't really had a good success rate with adaptions from other mediums, his previous work includes Constantine and I Am Legend, however it looks as if Francis Lawrence has became stronger over time and I can honestly say that Mockingjay is one of the strongest films I have seen all year.

See the problem with Mockingjay (and in fact any 2 part film) is that you have to split the movie in two, and you have to give people a reason to come back for more. Mockingjay does this perfectly. Having read the books I would have split the film exactly where the film does, and the final movements are nothing short of spectacular. It leaves the stakes high and many questions hanging in the air, as soon as the credits roll you only want to know one thing, what happens next? (and let me reassure you the best is yet to come) I should say that Mockingjay is probably more of a drama in comparison to the other 2 films which were more action, but this is how the book is, and at no point feels forced, but more like a logical evolutionary step in what would happen after the events in Catching Fire.

I could list of all the cast and explain how they now inhabit those roles, but what would be the point? We all know it anyway, however it should be said that the stand out cast members are Elizabeth Banks and Josh Hutcherson, both of who's stark contrast in previous movies are what brings the reality of the message of the film home to us.

Mockingjay is violent, and savage, it is brutal and nasty. It is also gripping and beautiful and one of the best films I have seen this year. It is superior to other films in it's genre in just about every way that could matter.

Christopher Nolan. My how you've grown, from the tiny hatching's of thrillers like Insomnia, to the forever puzzling Inception, and no one could dare to forget The Dark Knight trilogy. You sir are a man who has redefined cinema in so many different ways you have transformed the way we look at our dreams and our comic book heroes, so it was truly only a matter of time before you stopped looking down and into people and started to look up to the sky and say to yourself "what if?" this is where Interstellar comes in. Normally I would make some kind of pun at this point, but this film deserves more respect than that.

When I first heard about Interstellar it was 2 years ago and someone said to me "It's Christopher Nolan playing around with parallel dimensions" I knew I would love it instantly. I knew that this was a film that couldn't fail, how could it? I know many people thought this might be a film that was just "too clever for it's own good" but this is the same man who created Inception, which is still for me the benchmark of films forever.

Interstellar has a totally different tone to all of Nolan's other works, in Interstellar he has taken a concept and applied his imagination and thinking to it, and that concept is "what if the world started to die on us". It's a question that has been asked many times before, in any apocalypse film you care to name (The Road springs instantly to mind), but in Nolan's mind it's fresh and new again, because even in the very end of the world Christopher Nolan still believes there would be hope that we could survive past our own lives and existence. In fact that is what the very word Interstellar means. Interstellar shows something different from Nolan's other works and that is the evolution of an idea, you can see the concept of Interstellar take shape and grow in front of you, as if you yourself are creating the movie you are watching, because it's all so logical that the entire film makes sense from one step to the next. Nolan covers every single question or wish list that you would have in Interstellar, if you watch the trailer and find yourself thinking "That looks incredible, I really hope this happens.... " the chances are that in Interstellar it happens. That's not to say this movie feels like fan service, because Nolan still strongly keeps his identity during the film; his trademark shots and moments he has become known for are written all over it.

I feel I'm stating the obvious here, but the film is just about the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in cinema. As always there are so many moments to enjoy which are stand alone and also the film as a whole, both make you at times cry with the shear magnitude of what you are watching.

Interstellar also has some truly heavy themes and also some heart rending scenes. Also it's so pleasing to see that Hanz Zimmer has finally found something else to use apart from the ticking of a watch, in this instance it's a grand organ, which only adds to the feeling of grandeur that the films vibrates.

Like all of Nolan's work, Interstellar draws you in, slowly at first and then quickly, drawing to it's conclusion with a grace and confidence rarely seen in cinema, Nolan rushes for no one, he lets each scenario and point take hold of us and rest on our shoulders before moving on, there are several scenes at the beginning of the film which continually reinstate each other, but they never get repetitive.

One thing I will say about Interstellar is that it doesn't have the riddle of Inception, it's not compulsive to watch it again, but you want too. That's not to say the film isn't complicated, it is very in depth and at times a challenge to understand, however by the end everything comes perfectly together to fit into place and make one of the greatest movies ever seen.

The cast are something to behold, there are a number of surprises in Interstellar for people (Much like David Bowie in The Prestige), but for the majority of the movie this is Matthew McConaughey show. When it was announced I'll admit I was somewhat confused as to why Nolan has picked him, but as the movie progresses it becomes obvious and MaConeys natural talent shines through.

Interstellar is everything we hoped it was going to be, redefining the sci-fi genre and pushing at the boundaries of what we understand, Nolan is a pioneer of the mind. The moment the credits roll for Interstellar there is only one thing you want to do, watch it all again.

Stonehearst Asylum (known in some territories as Eliza Graves) is a Psyoclogical thriller that seems to have been released sometime last year, but not in this country, I can gather that no one in England is interested in distributing it, which begs the question, why is a writing desk like a raven? I am trying to think of a word apart from "Mental" to describe Stonehearst Asylum but nothing stands out. This is a film that is totally barking mad, from the opening sequence to the closing credits it truly embraces insanity, and that's not a bad thing. The entire thing has a feeling of "through the looking glass" about it. But I suppose that has been inherited from the original text.

Edgar Allen Poe. Poe is one of the grandfathers of horror, he is the writer of so many original ideas, and Stonehearst Asylum is based on one of his such tales. It takes a lot of its note from Poe and his general theme of life; there is all the creepiness of a Gothic horror merged with the psychological challenges of the modern era, compressed with a cast that is really quite staggering.

See what Stonehearst Asylum want's to ask us is what really is madness? How do we define it? What makes someone mad or sane? And how can we tell the difference? That's the questions it wants to pose to us, and at points it does, but for the most part it's just a great thrill ride that often makes no sense at all but is always enjoyable.

Stonehearst Asylum attempts to give us a riddle to solve that links back into the bigger questions of the movie, but in truth no one cares for them, because we get so wrapped up in the shared fun of the film that we can't help but ignore anything that will take away from it, like continuity or a plot. I am perfectly happy to watch this film which feels like a mash up of The Adam's Family, One Few Over The Coockoo's Nest, Van Helsing and Downtown Abbey to worry about story.

That's what the film does well, it keeps it's ideas and self together, it's ideas are in focus as in the central plot; Man goes to Asylum, something isn't right, what's he going to do about it? That in a nutshell is the story, apart from we are missing the tiny point that EVERYONE is MENTAL in it, and when you think of the names attached to the piece it's quite surprising.

Firstly we have (and I should state that everyone I'm about to mention is either: out right mad, accused of being mad or pretends to be mad) Brendan Gleeson who turns up for 5 minutes at the beginning and the end of the movie, and then we have (in no real order) Jim Sturgess, Kate Beckinsale, Michael Caine, Ben Kingsley, David Thewlis and Jason Flemyng, all of whom play nutters.

Any one of those cast members could carry a movie alone, but to see them all together in such incidental small parts is baffling.

Stonehearst Asylum is a film that embraces what is it, and that's a fun, crazy, surreal, thriller that has an all-star casts and a plot that doesn't just goes off the rails but starts a new track, all aboard, next stop the looney bin!

Sometimes a TV Show is so big that it defines an actor and they become boxed in because of it, this is the way with Michael C. Hall, Famously Dexter from the hit TV show of the same name. So I suppose the reel question is can this cold blooded thriller carry it's dark passenger? Cold In July calls to mind movies like Killer Joe and Drive with is serpodic violence and dark story. It's a film that draws you in, slowly at first then as time passes with more pace, letting the lesser characters fall away until there are only 3 men left to look at. It sets out it's cards on the table early, with a single second of pure ferocity and then falls silent again. That's how the entire film is, like a beautiful concerto, every time the film reaches it's dizzying heights of gore, it is booked either end with a stillness that makes the entire affair so much more harrowing.

Cold In July makes a bold move in handing us our main character; Richard. Richard is a man who is outside of this world that he finds himself in, he is drawn into it against his will. Richard is the audience on screen, he asks all the questions we are asking and makes all the actions we would do. Cold In July, is Richard and Richard is the personification of our curiosity on screen.

It's clear that one of Cold In July's greatest traits is that it never forgets the after math of violence and the actions that are taken, the film is practical in it's approach to pain, and fear. That's what's really impressive about Cold In July. The whole movie feels so logical, like it all evolves on screen in front of us, the action and tension is on at all times, there is no rest for us as an audience, no moment or reprieve, as soon as the first gunshot is heard the film begins it's decent towards it's ultimate goal and gripping finale.

For the very opening Richard is a man who makes a terrible mistake and is unhinged from that moment onwards, he is clandestine, his fate inescapable, he is a man who's choices quickly run out in front of him.

The cinematography for Cold In July needs to be motioned, there is something beautiful about every single shot of the entire movie, something poetic and fluid in it's movements. Much like the soundtrack which compliments the film, the whole thing is a kind of pop dance mix up that calls to mind Drive. Cold In July is definitely an exploitation film, I'm just not sure who it's exploiting.

As I mentioned before Michael C. Hall, is a man famous for one role. In Cold In July, Hall pushes away the images of Dexter and blood slides and shows that he can be his own man. The rest of the cast are just as outstanding as Hall and match the low key tone of the film.

Cold In July is the dictionary definition of a perfect thriller, it is downbeat, subtle and all times controlled, a fine piece of film making.

People seem to think that war films are pretty hot right now, but they aren't. Having my ear so close to cinema I know for sure that there is always one or two war films floating around in the projection booths, but people are making somewhat of a big deal out of Fury, so I suppose the reel question is will this be a Flag For Our Fathers or will it make us wish for Apocalypse Now?

So lets get this out of the way now. Fury isn't as good as Saving Private Ryan, but then I don't think it ever meant to be, comparing the two movies is like saying that Saun Of The Dead isn't as good as The Book Of Eli, just because both films has similarities (in as much as they are set at the end of the world) doesn't mean they are anything alike. These are two films that are near logger heads with each other.

You see Fury is contained, and given an almost claustrophobic feel to it, the entire film is either inside or at close proximity of the tank that Collier commands. This gives the movie a focus, and a focal point. We are never given a rest from the tank and it's enforcing nature, we are given no repreave from it, just like the men themselves, we are trapped in a steel giant that is only purpose is to kill people.

To say that Fury is bloodthirsty would be an understatement, actually that's not fair for me to say. Fury doesn't enjoy itself in gore, it only tries to give us an accurate portrayal of what it must have been like for those brave men and women who faced death on a daily basis.

That's what David Ayer does really well, he controls his audience. In the opening scene we are shown Collier (Brad Pitt) ambushing and attacking a German officer, it is crude and desperate and over quickly but we can tell even then that is a man who cannot cope with the horrors he has had to endure.

Looking back there are so many moments in Fury that stand out as impressive. There is a single second where Collier shows his true emotions and it is incredible to view. Collier is a man who is forced to be a hero, he never chooses it, he wants only to survive this war.

Any war film can be impressive in it's action sequences, anyone can make loud noises and explosions and fighting, but if a war film can still shock and grip and captivate you in the slower periods, in the silences, that's when you know for sure you have an outstanding movie, and that is what happens with Fury.

Like all war movies, Fury ultimately builds to a climatic finale and truly I think it's one of the best I've ever seen, not because of the action or it's quality of visuals but because we have invested too much into the characters we have seen on screen.

The film of course would be nothing without the men inside the tank, those being Brad Pitt (who helms the best), Shia LaBouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal. With these men there is no star, or main character, outside the tank the two leads are Logan Lerman (Who plays the new recruit) and Brad Pitt, however once we are inside the tank all men are equals, and dare I say it, but Shai LaBouf is actually quite good in his role. It's also always nice to see Jason Issacs on screen (hello to you).

Fury is a poignant and painful reminder of how much war can take from each of us, it is a film that never wants us to relax and we never do. Gory and gripping, Fury deserves a high spot in the history of war movies.

As Above, So Below is a new documentary style horror film from the man behind The Devil (As in the film not as in the ruler of hell), this time we are descending down under Paris, so I suppose the reel question is, will this horror belong in Quarantine or on V/H/S?

Ah Paris, the city of love, and of death it seems, is the new hand held horror to be trusted. Apparently under Paris there is the catacomb which is the biggest single grave in the world. As soon as the film starts the overall surreal and creepy nature begins. The opening of the movie shows a woman trying to uncover quite literally a golden calf, but something isn't quite right even at this early stage, John Erick Dowdle begins to sow seeds of discomfort for us.

That's As Above, So Below's true power the film keeps you on edge for the entire duration, in truth there probably is only around 20 minutes of horror in the 90 minute movie, but you never know when those moments are going to strike, they come in seconds of pure terror or flurries of violence and horror. Both styles are beautiful and elegantly executed, at its strongest points As Above, So Below reminded me of Silent Hill, in the fragments at the start when ANYTHING could and does happen and you are on the very edge of your seat, and then Sean Bean turns up.

As Above, So Below isn't as generous as Silent Hill, it doesn't give us an outlet or a rest. The entire picture from start to finish is designed to scare us. To make us sweat out our fears and we do. As Above, So Below is a horror in the most fundamental way, it is a film which sets out to scare us, everything in it works to that one idea. Fear. As Above, So Below works because it starts to feel less like a film and more like an endurance test, as soon as the team enter the catacombs; you know bad things are going to happen.

As Above, So Below has an elephant in the room and it is call "justification". All films have this, but documentary horror films have it the hardest because they have to (on some level) explain away why everyone is holding cameras and for what purpose. As Above, So Below takes the Blair Witch option and just says someone is making a documentary. The actual plot of As Above, So below is probably it's weakest feature. We follow the quest of a young British archaeologist (Scarlett) as she searches for (And I'm not making this up) The Philosophers Stone, which legends has it holds the secrets to alchemy. That's a dumb plot but to counterbalance this As Above, So Below takes it's time to build it's characters properly. I truly cared about what happened to the people in front of me in As Above, So Below and that's one of the highest compliments you can give any horror movie really.

Tension, in a single descibes As Above, So Below. A film that doesn't need to explain itself because it's just too scary to, by far one of the best horrors I have ever seen.

You know Luc Besson has had a strange career, he has directed some great classics like The Fifth Element, Leon and Nikita, he has produced over 100 movies and written above 50, he is a man who has had a hand in everything and still has the most random of tastes in movies, if there is a man who can be shown as the metre stick of both success and failure in Hollywood then I submit to you it is indeed Luc Besson, and Lucy is a perfect reflection of the man who stands behind it.

Lucy is a film of both highs and lows, the movie starts strong and has a premise we haven't seen 10,000 times before (but we have seen at least once previously), then around the middle it starts to show moments of weakness (spliced with a feeling of an ulterior motive) until it totally loses it's way and comes clean off the rails for it's finale. Now, that's not to say there is nothing to be enjoyed or there is no fun to be had with Lucy, in fact far from it.

Stop me when you've heard this one before; an average nobody takes an experimental drug which lets them unlock all of their brain capacity, because of this new power foreign gangsters chase after them. The ironic thing about Lucy is that the film is at it's best when it's most parallels Limitless, because that is when the entire affair is most lucid, once Besson is allowed to indulge himself things become overly complicated and bizarre.

The pinnacle of Lucy's madness (Without giving away the ending) is that there is a sequence in a plane where Lucy quite literally disintegrates, we are never shown the end of that scene or how she is transported to an airport hospital. It is one of the most obvious gaping holes in a movie I have ever personally seen, and it feels careless, as if Besson doesn't care about the script or story as long as he can have the sequences he wants in his movie.

It's true, Lucy filming has this surreal kind of schizophrenia to it, there are points in the movie that are spliced together with stock footage of human society and how we have evolved or an animal being hunted down and attacked, just randomly placed in the middle of a sequence as if Besson is having trouble concentrating on his own movie and needs to liven up the joint.

I can't express how odd the ending of Lucy is and how much it degenerates into just a pleasure factory for Luc Besson's visual joys but by the end of the film we were all left scratching out heads in wonder of what the hell it was really all about.

Lucy is portrayed by Scarlett Johansson who is trying her very best to make the role into something of merit, but she rapidly fails, the rest of the cast fit the weird tone of the film, with Morgan Freeman, Min-sik Choi and Julian Rhind-Tutt all putting in an appearance.

Lucy honestly feels like an art house movie without the art. There are moments of pure beauty and brilliance but seconds do not make a movie, minuets do and no matter how hard it tries Lucy always feels like it's a couple of seconds out of time with perfection.

Sin City was a powerhouse of a film, true it drew less flies than all the corpses it created piled up in some kind of wall (possibly to stop the Persians from invading Sparta?) but in the end there is nothing that Hollywood won't make a sequel for and Sin City is one of the few tropes that actually have numerous source materials that are yet to be explored. So I suppose the reel question is will this be more Urban Saints or just a city of sins? Sin City is striking, for all it's short comings (And there are many) it is a movie that demands to be seen, if only for the outstanding visual qualities of the film. Sin City is like an incredible painting on a box of cereal, you look at it in pure wonder at how something so boring can look so impressive, and you enjoy just being in it's company because of what an engaging look the movie has, and yes I am comparing Sin City 2 to art but if we look at the comics the statement becomes true. So how does the film translate? Here's the problem with Sin City 2: A Dame To Kill For, is that it never expected to be a sequel, Sin City was a film apart from the rest it was bloodthirsty and horrible to women and just plain nasty, and it even bombed at the cinema, yet here we stand today with the movie having another 90 minutes to sustain. And here in lies the problem, because Sin City never thought it would have to make another movie, it used all it's very best stories first. By comparison, the tales we have in A Dame To Kill For are either tame or boring. We are presented with 3 tales, which are each given around half an hour (No change from the original there), however none of the stories even come close to anything in Sin City. There is nothing on par with the nastiness or The Yellow Barstard or as shocking as The Long Hard Goodbye, no, A Dame To Kill For has 3 films mostly about vengeance. The highlight of these 3 fables is The Long Bad Night (Which was written originally for the film), but more on that later.

Sin City has always had some simple problems, it's treatment of women being prime. The word "objectified" is perfect for A Dame To Kill For, because every single women (And I do mean EVERY SINGLE WOMEN) is a whore in Sin City, there are no above it, they are all the lowest of the low, I mean in fairness the men are not far above them, but still!. At least in A Dame To Kill For they try and empower women a little bit, with Ava being a man eater and a manipulator of the lesser sexes. But all of this justification feels flimsy when Eva Green spends most of her screen time completely naked. I can't justify something like that, it's just not going to happen.

A Dame To Kill For is still the same visual frenzy as the first movie, with the now iconic black and white with splashes of colour used to enhance our experience of the world. That's why you watch Sin City to have something incredible to view, not engaging nor clever, just incredible.

The cast are all B lister's with a handful of highlights making cameo appearances, Bruce Willis and Ray Liotta being top of this. Most of the cast are in truth average, however the majestic grace that Joseph Gordon-Levitt commands while on screen is really quite something.

A Dame To Kill For is a movie that's all about the coating, don't look at the picture it's painting, don't even look at the artists or to find some deep meaning in it all, just sit down, switch off and enjoy. Nothing wrong with that, when done right. For all it's short comings A Dame To Kill For is still it's own movie which refuses to bow down to the needs or whims of any Hollywood company, I respect it for that.

The Riot Club is for posh boys, who all attend Oxford university. There are only ten of them at a time and they have a notorious reputation, and best of all? They are looking for new members. So I suppose the reel question is will this be Dirty Pretty Things or just Filth? The Riot Club is a film that has a feeling of disappointment, not from me, but from itself, it feels like a movie that had more to give us and wanted to but can never quite get into the right gear with it's own inner mechanics, it's a film that comes across as unhappy with it's own final piece.

The film has a lot of things going for it despite this, it has an INCREDIBLE cast of young men, the whole premise is pitched just right and when it needs to the tension is palpitatable, So why isn't it a better movie? I think we need to take a second look at this to get to the bottom of it properly.

The Riot Club begins as it means to go on, within the first 5 minuets we are shown hard drug use, strong sex scenes, violence and bad language, it never tries to hide or conceal what it is, but then I suppose this is where the problem starts because a movie like The Riot Club (much like A Clockwork Orange really), tries to live in two camps at once, those being the one of class commentary and the other of exploitation cinema. Nobody is going to defend The Riot Club for not being an exploitation film.

I think the thing that The Riot Club lacks most noticeably when compared to both the trailer and the general air of the film is ferocity. When I sat down to watch The Riot Club I expected darkness and debauchery, and what I ended up getting was something mildly unsettling, sure there are flurries of vindictiveness in the film, but they are in the trailer. I wanted to see a film that would justify the tenseness that I felt during some of the periods of the movie, but instead what I came out with was a feeling of confusion to what the hell happened to it all.

The Riot Club works perfectly to a pint, and then during the third act totally loses its way and decides it's run out of time anyway, so brings everything to a screeching halt almost mid flow. That is a crime I can't forgive, to deny me a justified ending to a film I was largely enjoying is wrong.

I feel it goes without saying that film has a superior showing of young up and comers, but what I feel should be said is that aside from the main male dominated teens, there is a surprising mix of other actors and actresses too, this is always a welcomed surprise.

At times The Riot Club is funny, at times it's uncomfortable but it never reaches the depths it desires or needed to for me. The talents on display are strong and that's what lifts it above the mundane.

Grand Piano is a Spanish mystery thriller based around a brilliant pianist returning for one last show. That's the concept so I suppose the reel question is will this be a Mozart or more a Beethoven? Grand Piano tries so hard to be a gripping thriller, one of those on the edge of your seat affairs where ANYTHING could happen, and while it's true that there are a handful of twists and turns the overall feeling is that it is less than a masterpiece. Mind you, ironically, there is something classical about the piece.

Grand Piano attempts to reach back to the glory days of Hitchcock, when I watch Grand Piano, features like Rope and North By Northwest spring to mind, the entire film comes across like a throwback, there is nothing wrong with throwback movies you just have to be VERY careful what you do with them. In that respect Grand Piano achieves its aims, the film works on a level of interesting but not gripping, clever but not thrilling. I suppose what is lacking in it for me personally is a level of edge, if Tom stops playing he dies, that's it. Nothing more. There needs to be more at stake, because ultimately Grand Piano is just too simple for its own good.

The film has an easy set-up and plays out as you would expect from the pitch of the film, there is nothing ground braking in the story or anything exceptional in the plot, the movie is what it is, a story of a pianist who suffers from stage fright trying to face his fears whilst being threatened by an anonymous gunman (however the distinctive voice of John Cussack is unmistakable).

It's a shame because Grand Piano tries so very hard to please it's audience, it has several random throw away characters which pile in to the picture in the first 10 minutes, and might as well simply be named "Collateral" and "Damage" to save time, they even give these walk on guys a tiny back story to help deepen the world, but you will quickly find yourself ignoring the disposable additions and paying full attention to one man and one man only. Elijah Wood.

Many times I have seen Elijah take to the stage but this is the performance to define him. As Tom Selznick Wood has to run the marathon of emotions, from fear to bravery to anger to love, Wood shows them all in 90 minutes. That in itself it an impressive act. Wood puts on a performance on par with the whole of Lord Of The Rings in 90 minutes.

There is only one more element worth speaking about in Grand Piano, the music. The movie is directed by a composer and it shows, he lets the music be as important as the stars, and when the moment comes to play, the film sores, it forgets it's shabby story and set up and it rises like a phoenix of splendour.

A film that has highs, lows and oboes. A movie where music is the star, if you watch it for the orchestral flurries it is perfect, however with these pitches of mastery shows just how drab the rest of the movie really is.

I'm sure only a few of you will remember Frank Sidebottom from the 1970's but he was a man who went around and wore a huge paper mashie head, he had a TV Show and was from Manchester. Honestly, I have no idea how that all leads to the movie Frank which is about a man wearing a head and being in a band from America but still, here is it all the same. So I suppose the reel question is will this be A Rock For Ages? Or just some Blues, Brother? Frank is strange. There is just no getting around it, the whole film is a surreal journey into the mind of a total lunatic who's motives and reasoning only become clear at the end of the film, which personally I love. I think this is a bold movie. I defy anyone to find me another film like Frank in the last 10 years, because it is somehow totally relevant while being off it's crazy rocker too. They are two difficult hats to wear at the same time. One demands discipline and a reality to it and the other beckons you into a world of pure imagination where ANTHING is possible.

How this duality is maintained is that we are given a window into this world via Jon (Domhnall Gleeson), he is an average man. He is a bored human who is trying to write songs and ultimately find his voice with his chosen creative outlet, it's a place we have all been. This is the relatable part of the film, this man is us. However he is quickly drawn into a world of total chaos by Soronprfbs; an electric band which Jon stumbles upon and there bizarre front man Frank (Michael Fassbender).

In truth I am unconfident in calling Frank a comedy or any kind of genre at all really, it isn't laugh out loud funny, but at times it is pitch black in it's humour. Frank is truly a movie that defies definition, it's a film that shift and moves restless in its own skin and demanding you to consider it, and you do, because ultimately when it matters most Frank doesn't bottle out with the hard hitting stuff, Frank makes you confront your own darkest desires and they are wrong. The way this is revealed to us is nothing short of perfection.

Frank also has a very cunning use of social media, the film isn't just a crazy ride down a rabbit hole. No the movie also provides social commentary on how stardom is made in current society. Frank cuts through all the usual playfulness you find in a film and holds each of us accountable for what is happening to the characters.

Frank is masterfully played by Micheal Fassbender, but he is a man who is humble enough to know this isn't his show, it is Domhnall's and he is perfect for it, this is Dom's movie and everyone knows it.

Frank is a film that is one of those rare films that is so bold you truly don't know what to make of it, at times it is beautiful poetry and at others it strays into total madness. No matter what it is, it's powerful.