Thor: The Dark World

Chris Hemsworth gets his hammer out and gives it a good polish, oo steady on. This time he is a little more well rounded as a human being/god and is a very sensible one at that. Tom Hiddlestone is still a bit of a bellend but is in prison now so he can just shut the hell up. Natalie portman is back on the scene but decides its good old London she wants to hang around in doing science and wotnot with one of the two broke girls. Chris thinks its about time he went to see Natalie who isn't best pleased about the hole New York Avengers and not taking the time to even drop her a text, ultimately though she can't stay mad at those abs. Whilst this is going on Christopher Ecclestone has big ears and an army and wants to turn all the lights off in the multiversey thing that Anthony Hopkins looks after. This does not go down well with the hammer wielding one who sets about hitting anything with pointy ears very hard and trusting too much in his ne'er do well brother. Oh and Renew Russo is there a bit aswell.

Superhero films rock, end of, and recently they have been very very good. The first of the Thor films was one of these good superhero films and the second is just as good if not better. Thor and his family and friends are now well established and are given a little more breathing room to expand within the universe they preside. We learn a bit more about Sif and her feelings towards Thor, we learn about the motivations and relationships between Loki and his family and Natalie's character shows a bit more of her personality. The story is a good one and flows very nicely and the action sequences are suitably over the top with bags of hammer smashing nonsense. Not only is the action good but in true marvel style they pepper the film with comedy moments that do not feel out of place and if anything add to the experience. If marvel keep this level of film making I will be a very happy boy, all they need now is to stop making that nonsense agents of shield and life will be right.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Mud

Two teenage boys in America like to go out on their little boat looking for things. Once out they find a bigger boat stuck in a tree that has a man living in it. That man is Matthew McConahuey?, McConnahey?, McConauhey?, I dunno, and he has done some bad bad things and is hiding out. The boys befriend Matthew and start getting food and other things for him whilst he waits for Reece Witherspoon to show up. The boys then potter about living their lives and collecting boat parts and we learn lots about both them and the naughty things Matthew has been up to.

Much to my surprise Matthew is actually starting to become not only a good actor but a brilliant one. It seemed to start with the great film Killer Joe in which he played a psychotic hitman and does not slow down in this. He is outstanding in this almost to the point where he is unrecognisable and plays the title character with a complex mix of emotions that make him hard to read and figure out. That being said the film is as much about the two boys as it is mud and both of them again are brilliant. Their friendship is explored and also their individual feelings towards mud and the decisions they make regarding him and their lives in general. This makes it a coming of age story as much as it is a full on drama. The support cast are also on top form and not a single person lets the side down. The story is as engaging as you are going to get and you really feel for all concerned as the film progresses. I must admit I was slightly bored in the middle as like myself it began to sag a little around the midriff but on the whole I thought it was great. Well done Matthew, well done.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Behind The Candelabra

Michael Douglas puts on a lot of make up and plastic stuff to become Liberace the uber homosexual piano player of a few years or so ago. He meets Matt Damon at a party and takes a shining to him, so much so he invites him to live at his big house. Once there they start having the most sacred of all love, the love between two makeup caked men. Once here ol Liberace gets a bit weird and gets Rob Lowes plastic surgeon involved to alter poor Matts face in very creepy ways. Their relationship develops again in a very odd manner and we all find out that Liberace may have needed some sort of therapy.

This is probably the campest film that has ever graced the big screen. The amount of sparkles is verging on the blinding level and the man love is not shyed away from with Matt and Michael really going for it in some scenes. Michael Douglas is unrecognisable in his Liberace get up and is frankly brilliant in the role. Matt Damon is also unrecognisable as the love interest and don't even get me started on Rob Lowe. The whole thing is a true story also which makes it even creepier. They also make a good attempt at injecting some comedy into the film which works in some respects but not in others. Despite the good story, acting and direction I couldn't help but get a little bored. It plods along nicely but in some places not a lot happens. Top marks for effort but not so for execution unfortunately.

Verdict: 3/5

Olympus Has Fallen

 
Gerard Butler has a job protecting the president, Aaron Eckhart. Not only is it his job but he is well in there being Aaron's bestie at the same time, that is until he makes a bit of a risky decision that ends a little badly. Due to this he is let go and spends his time doing something else, not sure what, and annoying his other half over a morning smoothie making session. Meanwhile Aaron is meeting with a South Korean guy and some other Koreans, presumably some angry northern ones, start blowing up walls and stuff and take over the White House. Once they have taken over they start making all sorts of evil bad guy demands and threatening to off the rest of the cast. Of course the American government are occupied by a bunch of incompetent boobs and its up to Gerard to bust in, bash in some Korean skulls and save the god damn day.

If when deciding what film to watch you are looking for high brow, intelligent filmmaking that delivers a message and changes your entire perception of life itself then I would keep moving as you are not going to find it here. If on the other hand you are looking for mindless nonsense that will entertain and potentially burst your eardrums then take a seat and grab some popcorn. There isn't really anything new on offer with this film but that isn't the point of it. It is meant to be a bit of throwaway rubbish that you can switch your brain into neutral for and it delivers in heaps. The story is engaging enough and the action is on the verge of Taken type brutality. Gerard won't win any oscars but he is believable as a damaged tough guy who does not think twice about shooting people's faces off. The rest of the cast do their job properly and the setting is refreshingly claustrophobic spending all it's time within the White Houses walls. I really enjoyed this film and urge everybody that if you want to be entertained you could do a hell of a lot worse than rent this.

Verdict: 3.5/5

Film review: Boy In The Striped Pyjamas

Right so there were these Germans in the 30's mad 40's who had a real go at being the biggest bunch of douchebags ever. They liked starting fights and invading countries and then later on killing Jewish people. They were led by a small angry man with poor choice in hairstyles who was very good at public speaking. The boy in this films father likes this small man very much and as a result moves his entire family to live on a camp, not the scouts kind but the concentration kind. Once there the small boy meets another small boy who, you guessed it, dresses in striped nightwear. They become pals whilst playing chess through an electric fence without realising that they should hate one another.

This film is first and foremost depressing. The subject matter is extremely heavy and does not shy away from that fact. It is terrifying and difficult to watch but at no point does it feel the need to be gratuitous or violent. These are by no means bad things as the film is excellent. Both the main children in it are very good and show you the horrific events of the Second World War through innocent and naive eyes. Not only does the film highlight how nonsensical some if the adult decisions are in the minds of children but by using the German child's older sister they show how indoctrination and propaganda can destroy all that innocence. It is genuinely scary what people will do when they think they are doing right. You will not enjoy this film in the traditional sense but that isn't the point of it. It will move you and show you a well known subject matter in a different and fascinatingly clever way. Loved it.

Verdict: 5/5

Film review: G.I.Joe: I wanna say retaliation?......o well it's something

Channing Tatum returns with his ragtag band of muscle bound soldiers to fight more unbelievably bad bad guys. O wow look Dwayne 'the rock' Johnson has a big gun and is shooting some stuff and there's a Japanese guy in a mask, who to be honest could in reality be a fish for all we know as he never removes the bloody thing, who likes cutting people. Channing takes these people and some others and fights a guy with plastic surgery related issues who wants to take over the world by using exploding motorbikes and somesuch. Things start to go a tad wrong for Channings crew until Bruce 'yippee-ki-ay' Willis turns up and joins Dwayne in the act of kickin some serious ass.

Ok to start off this review I would like to say that the first GIJoe film was an absolute puddle of horse piss, which did not set the sequel up for a warm welcome. To my surprise then I didn't hate it and actually found myself quite enjoying some of it. Yes I know it won't win any awards and yes I know in reality it is mindless drivel but we all need some mindless drivel once in a while. The reason this film worked when the first didn't is because it is well aware that no one expects it to be amazing. It is a film made for boys who like fighting and guns and guess what it is full of fighting and guns. The Rock is on fine form and smashes his way through both walls and ridiculously cheesy dialogue and the rest of the cast also seem to be having a lot of harmless fun with these ridiculous characters. The first film helps this one in slamming our expectations through the floor meaning that because I didn't want to use a Bunsen burner on my eyeballs after this second film I ended up pleasantly surprised. S to wrap up it is not a masterpiece but I would happily watch it again and probably enjoy it for the throwaway nonsense that it is.

Verdict: 3/5

Film review: Seven Psychopaths

Colin Farrell is a writer and is struggling to come up with a new script idea. His mate Sam Rockwell likes to steal dogs with Christopher Walken and return them for rewards. One day they accidentally steal mob boss Woody Harrelsons dog and things start to kick themselves off. During this Sam is helping Colin to write his story about a variety of psychopaths whom we meet throughout the other dog stealing nonsense. This all culminates in violence and some such.

I have to admit that the premise of this film is mildly interesting at best and that being said I did not have brilliantly high expectations before pressing play on the DVD player. It starts in a pretty simple way but does not unfortunately remain in simplicity. It is not to say that the story is confusing at all but it is very bitty and flits between the psychopath stories with some involved in the main story and some seemingly just there to make up the numbers. The films 4 main characters are played by 4 of my favourite actors with Rockwell, Walken and Harrelsons on fine crazy form. Farrell is not bad but due to the nature of the story does not really have the breathing room within his character to really let himself go nuts. Rockwell is by far the best thing in this and clearly everyone concerned is having great fun it's just a shame we as the audience are not invited to join in to some of it. That isn't to say the film is dreadful but with a title like this you would expect something better than run of the mill.

Verdict: 2.5/5

Film review: Flight

Densely Washington loves nothing more than getting his end away whilst completely rat arsed and off his head on cocaine. Good news then that he decides to do all this the night/morning before he is due to fly a plane, full of people. Once on the plane he seems ok until some turbulence kicks in and the plane decides to break in spectacular fashion, can a pissed up Denzel save the day and if he does should we punish or praise him? For the answer to these questions and more please visit a blockbusters near you..........does that count as advertising? If so I take cheques or bank transfers.

The premise of this film is a great one. Put simply if this happened in real life how would the drunk pilots actions be viewed and would society put him on a pedestal or throw him under a bus. Interesting question and if I am honest I don't really know where I stand on it and still don't even after seeing the film. This is where the film is at its strongest. Denzel is great as always and his support in Don Cheadle, John Goodman and others are just as good and play their roles with conviction. Unfortunately the film does not carry this all the way through. The relationship with the drunk girlfriend is boring for the most part and feels a little out of place. It delves quite convincingly into the psyche of an alcoholic but in my opinion strays from the main premise a little too much. As per usual there is a little cheese sparingly grated throughout but thankfully does not overwhelm the other flavours of the film. Despite my reservations it is a very good, unique film and you won't see anything like it.

Verdict: 4/5

Film review: The Hunt

Mads Mikelson (apologies for spelling) is a nursery school teacher who just loves kids. He plays games with them, tells them stories and generally runs around acting the tit with them. He then gets accused of being a little too fond of them and ends up in a right ol' pile of poo poo. Once here he finds out who believes him and who doesn't and has to try and clear his dirty dirty name.

Before seeing this film I had heard a lot of very good things about it. Some reviewers were even heralding it as one of the best films of recent times and safe to say it doesn't fall far short of that accolade. The story is pretty uncomplicated but this is no bad thing with the story hinging on a simple premise, what would people do if someone they knew was accused of something awful. Mads central performance is outstanding and genuinely one of the best pieces of acting I have ever seen. The standard does not drop with the support cast either, especially the children who are excellent. It is not an easy watch but then it is not meant to be and does not shy away from the difficult aspects of the subject matter. It is cleverly written and hooks you right from the start and for all those who say that subtitled films are not worth watching I say stop being a tit and suck it up, you have no idea what you are missing. Honestly you would be hard pushed to find a better film.

Verdict: 5/5

Film review: The River Murders

Ray Liotta is a hard hitting, straight talkin homicide cop in somewhere, U.S.A. He has a generically foreign wife and stereotypical cop friends who he hangs out with and overacts with. Some murders keep happening by a river, wink wink, see what they did there, eh, eh, EH! Sooner or later Ray becomes the main suspect as he has played hide the purple parsnip with all of the dead people concerned. Due to this Christian Slater is roped in to play the obligatory dickhead and accuse everyone left, right and centre. It is then only a matter of Ray and his pals running around trying to find the actual killer before Christian has his way.

What the hell has happened to Ray Liotta? Anybody who has seen Goodfellas will tell you that he had real potential as an actor and is nothing short of amazing in that film. Why O why then has he done pretty much bugger all other than second rate rubbish since then? Christian Slater also has been in some very good films but has the same habit of doing rubbish. This film unfortunately does not redeem either of them. The story itself is ok and plods along nicely and whilst it wont show you anything you haven't seen before it is pretty inoffensive with it. It is a shame then that even the seasoned actors feel the need to overact. Christian Slater is the worst culprit closely followed by the talent vacuum that is Ving Rhames. Alongside the seasoned actors are the support cast the worst of whom is the wife who really should find herself a different career path, preferably something that doesn't require her speaking voice. The only other half decent performance is the bad guy, whom we do meet early on so this isn't much of a spoiler, who does creepy pretty well. Ultimately though the film is a bit shite and should be avoided.

Verdict: 2/5

Film review: Amour

A french old man is married to a french old woman. They live in Paris and like to go to classical music recitals and other stereotypically french activities. One morning Mrs French person has herself a bit of a medical issue and becomes handicapped. Mr French person then spends the film looking after her and trying to cope with the fact his wife is no longer the person he married.

This film is not an easy film to watch. It deals with very serious issues that I can imagine all old couples, and to a certain extent young ones, fear never happen. The acting is bang on with the majority of the scenes containing only the married couple in question and you genuinely believe in them as a pair and that they are struggling with this terrible event. The support cast are also very good but are used sparingly as the main focus is, and rightly so, centred on just the two people. You are not going to watch this film and feel elated at the end but there is a strange sense of relief on the part of the characters that reaches out from the screen. I can't say I enjoyed this film as that's not really the point of it but it is fantastically well done and a powerful watch.

Verdict: 4/5

Film review: Pacific Rim

Luther goes out and grabs himself a couple of Americans sticks them in a big robot and asks them to punch godzillas mates into oblivion. The big lizards turn up through a hole in the sea and try to eat large cities for some inexplicable reason. Luthers plan goes a little tits up and the united nations tell him to pack it in coz some guy likes walls. Typical Luther style he shoves his middle finger up and carries on regardless. He then hires a geordie pretending to be american, a londoner pretending to be Australian, stereotypical Russians and Chinese and a Japanese lady. Two sort of scientists also tag along and ramble on about maths and biology and wotnot until Ron Perlman walks in makes a joke and then walks out again. After all that they decide that yes robots giving giant lizards an ass whoopin' is immensely fun and resume where they started.

A lot of comparisons seem to be flying around between this film and transformers. The first that comes to mind is large robots............then I've got nothing, I mean seriously just because they have robots does not mean they are alike. The crucial difference is that Guillermo Del Toro is a great film maker and Michael Bay is a boob. In this Del Toro creates a simple yet effective premise and builds a beautiful world around it. The robots, or Jaegers, look brilliant and like they could actually exist and the monsters, or Kaiju, are inventive and unique. The film starts where it means to go on by chucking you full on into the action with a ear drum bursting fight scene. Here lies another difference in that Del Toro realises that you don't need to shake the camera round as if having a seizure in order to demonstrate action sequences. You can see and follow everything that is going on and get a real sense of the scale of the fights with buildings and other scenery crumbling away with each gigantic hit. Now that that has been said the film is by no means fawless and is arguably Del Toros worst film but that is no bad thing. The acting is pretty shoddy from all but a few. Idris Elba is great but then again he usually is, the main guy is ok considering he is a geordie playing a convincing yank and Ron Perlman is a legend but aside from that it is lacking somewhat. Also I did find myself getting a little bored in the middle as they decide to focus on character development and cheese instead of fighting. Don't get me wrong I like a bit of story but don't have it all in one big stilton ridden chunk, break it up with some lizard smashing. Ultimately you will fall into one of two camps with this film, if you like robots and giant lizards ripping each other apart you won't be able to find much better, if not then go watch the notebook or something you ponce.

Verdict: 3.5/5

Film review: Despicable Me 2

Steve Carrell is an ex evil dude who is now nice due to three small kids he adopted. He now makes jam alongside his scientist friend and a small army of yellow tic tacs with limbs. Kristen Wiig then shows up in order to kidnap Steve and convince him to join the good guys to root out some bad bad people who stole a science lab with a magnet. Steve decides that this sounds sensible and proceeds to do just that whilst the tic tacs channel their inner Laurel and Hardy and slapstick the crap out of the film.

The first despicable me came as a complete surprise to me. When I watched it for the first time I thought 'this can't be good as its not pixar' and dismissed it completely out of hand. To my surprise it was funny, heart warming and a genuinely good film. Understandably then I was looking forward to the second instalment and thankfully I was more than satisfied with the result. It is a hilarious film and stands up to most of the adult comedies on offer. The main character Gru is loveable and funny but the comedy awards need to go to the minions who are probably the best kids film characters in a long time. The slapstick comedy works completely and I would happily watch them potter about for 2 hours hitting each other and spouting their made up gobbledee goop. That isn't to say the rest of the film isn't good because it is both cleverly written and well voiced by all concerned. The only flaw is Kristen Wiigs character whom I found to be a tad annoying in spots but hey who cares when every other character in the film is brilliant, especially the chicken.
Loved it.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Film review: End Of Watch

Jake Gyllenhaal and his buddy are cops in LA. Jake is also studying some such or other and this means he carries a camera around with him to capture all their shenanigans. We then follow them all through their day as they chat and bust some crims. Inadvertently they piss of some serious cartel people who also for some reason carry a camera. Heads then butt and the action is ramped up somewhat unrealistically and we all want to become LA cops, hoooah!

On paper the premise of this film may have seemed a bit rubbish and unoriginal. This is due to the sheer amount of home footage films and due to the majority of them being rubbish. Good news then that this breaks the generic mold and is actually a very good film. Yes the reasons why they all seem to have cameras don't fully make sense and yes sometimes they don't even explain who is even meant to be filming but if you can overlook that it doesn't really matter. Jake Gyllenhaal is turning out to be one of the best actors out there, he rarely does a film I don't like and even when I don't like it he is often the best thing in it. In this it is all about his relationship with his partner which is both believable and entertaining. A lot of the film is just them two in a car talking about their lives and surprisingly is the best bit. I would have happily followed the two of them around for the entire film. Due to this it feels kind of out of place once the action sequences occur. Its not to say the scenes aren't good or that they don't fit its just that the understated buddy cop scenes are so good you just feel like you want more of them. Overall it is a very good film and I enjoyed it very much.

Verdict: 4/5

Film review: Alex Cross

Some guy is a really good cop despite looking like he may have taken a few too many detours to the local donut shop. He is a doctor of something or other but instead hangs around with overactors in order to catch all the crims. He has a lovely family and a happy life until Matthew Fox turns up and starts killing the odd person. The guy and his mates then try to stop Matthew before he kills any more people and Matthew doesn't take too kindly to this and starts killing people the guy likes. Once this happens Dr Cox, who runs the police, starts shouting and making awful decisions but don't worry the main guy seemingly has precognitive powers and will save you all from your apparent incompetence.

This film is an adaptation of a book by James Patterson. I can't say I have ever read the book in question and after this film then I can't say I ever will. My first clue that this film was shite was the fact, as far as I can tell, it skipped out the cinemas and headed straight for DVD town, never a good sign. Despite this love film sent me the dvd anyway so open it up I did and in the dvd player it went. The acting is beyond shocking with even Matthew failing to hold his head above water. The main actor is dreadful and is not believable as a top flight cop and psychologist. Dr Cox is just Dr Cox in a police uniform and even Jean Reno turns up, after having eaten a few pies since the last time we saw him, to rub salt in the wound of his career. Then comes the dialogue which is cliched up to its eyeballs with gems such as 'I'm just here to catch bad guys'. This rubbish may work in books, which I doubt by the way, but it does not in films. The story itself is dull to say the least and not even an interesting and original concept. As I say I haven't read any James Patterson books but if this is the standard of the storytelling then I doubt I ever will. I don't know who was reading this and thought 'O my god this would make an amazing film' because whoever you are I may come slap you. I did not enjoy this film.

Verdict: 0.5/5

Film review: Man Of Steel

The big chested indestructible one returns in the form of Henry Cavill. Henrys real life dad is Robin Hood, a.k.a. Russell Crowe, and is involved in a dying planet that is being threatened by Michael Shannon. To combat this Russell thinks its a sensible idea to send his new born son off in a rocket to earth. Once on earth baby Henry is found by Robin Hood, a.k.a. Kevin Costner, and his missus who raise him as a human. During this raising Henry lifts heavy things and burns doorknobs. Once grown he keeps himself to himself saving the odd person and then buggering off before anyone realises he is special. Amy Adams is a nosy cow who realises who Henry is and keeps following him and trying to expose his secret and convince Laurence Fishburne that the truth is indeed out there. Whilst all this is going on Michael Shannon turns up again in order to grab Henry and take over the world. Lots of smashing and crashing fighting occurs and we all fear for our lovely planet.

Generally superman is a bit dull as a character, or at least I used to think so. My big problem with him is his apparent invulnerability to everything other than kryptonite. This led to every bad guy who turns up having some form of kryptonite bullet, gas, frying pan in order to slap ol' supes with it and it makes for a boring run of similarity. Then Superman Returns came out and lo and behold kryptonite was involved and even Kevin Spacey could not drag the film from the dreary, dull depths it found itself in. Then superman seemed to get put on the sidelines for other superheroes to take centre stage. To my surprise then I actually really enjoyed this film. To start Henry Cavill is very good as the farm boy goody two shoes Clark Kent/Kal'El and Amy Adams is very good as Lois Lane. The support cast are equally as good and Michael Shannon as General Zod is brilliant. Like all good bad guys he is genuinely bad but there is a reason and a warped logic to what he is doing, this makes him believable and you almost feel for his plight. Being an origin story there will always be a 'how he got there' section and often they can become tedious but in this they choose to use a few short explanatory flashbacks instead and it works very well. You don't feel bored at any point and don't feel like you are being fed a load of filler. Another problem superhero films can have is once the hitting each other sections start which can become CGI heavy nonsense (see Ang Lees Hulk for an example) and again this film does not do that. There is CGI obviously but it doesn't look or feel out of place or over the top and it looks very good. Ultimately when you watch a superhero film you want them to beat the hell out of each other and this delivers in heaps and includes one of the toughest female bad guys you will see for a while. I came out of the cinema with a smile on my face and a warmth in my heart for the big laser eyed Kryptonian. Very good film.

Verdict: 4/5

Film review: The Hobbit

Martin Freeman grows some hair on his feet, shrinks and moves into a hole in the ground. Sir Ian McKellen then rocks up at Martins door with a bunch of dwarves among which is Richard Armitage. They all have a little meeting which lasts about 20mins real time and eat a lot of food. These guys then convince Martin to go questing to try and get Richards castle back from a dragon and also this mountain crystal thing. Along the way they run into trolls, orcs, goblins and big dogs. There are also some elves and wizards who talk weirdlike about bad people. This all takes about 3 hours and nothing really gets sorted.

The lord of the rings trilogy is brilliant. All three are a joy to watch and completely envelope you in a world of swords, shields and short people. The books of lord of the rings are mahoosive and are full of fluff that is not really needed in the film world. Peter Jackson realised this and cut a lot of crap out and still was left with 9 hours of greatness. The reason I mention all of this is that the book of The Hobbit is about half the size of one of the books of the lord of the rings yet the plan for the film adaptation is exactly the same, three three hour films. I have read The Hobbit and cannot honestly see how they can make three long films from it. That isn't to say there isn't 9 hours worth of stuff in the book but like most books there is a lot of fluff and unfortunately this film suffers slightly for it. The main area that drags is the start. They seem to spend forever in Bilbos house chatting, singing and eating and it makes you want to shout at them to just get the hell on with it. Thankfully once they do the pace picks up and familiarity returns dragging you back into the fantasy world. Many special effect and costumed monsters turn up and look fantastic and the battles they are involved in are typically epic in scale. As you can tell I enjoyed the film very much despite the slow start. I am still skeptical about how they will stretch it to three films and worry that the 2nd one especially will suffer for it but I will reserve judgment for now. Good stuff.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Film review: Wreck It Ralph

John C Reilly has got himself a job as a big guy who likes to destroy the same building over and over again whilst a little guy with a hammer fixes it. This is a computer game in an arcade called Fix it Felix where all of the characters come to life after the arcade is closed. They all meet in the plug sockets and have drinks and fun and all sorts of craziness. They can visit each others games but there is one rule, do not die in another game as you will never respawn. John is sick of being a bad guy and being treated like crap and decides to ignore the one rule and visit other games to try and win a medal in order to be deemed as good. When out in other games he meets a little girl who like racing. She robs his newly acquired medal and they have to work as a team to get it back. Then there is some baking of cars and racing around lakes of cola and punching floors. By the end we all learn lessons about what it is to be bad and to have job satisfaction.

Disney are giants of children's films. They have been making them for god knows how long and for the most part they are brilliant for both kids and adults. Now they have, alongside Pixar, carried this high level into the computer generated world. This continues in this film. Ralph is a troubled character with a loveable core and a big heart who develops in complexity through the film. The story is clever enough for the adult audience but not too complex to bore kids. The animations and worlds created are frankly beautiful and a feast for the eyes. True to form there is comedy liberally drizzled all over the film mostly in the form of Vanelope the little girl Ralph meets. The idea for the film is genius as it feels very current but also makes the 80's/90's child within reminisce about old school arcade games and makes you fall in love with them all over again. A particular highlight of the film is the self help group for bad guys in which Zangief from Street fighter opens up to a room that includes Bowser, M Bison and the ghost from pacman, brilliant. As you can probably tell I loved it.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Film review: A Good Day To Die Hard

Bruce Willis is back to fight crime and kick some guys in the ass. This time he is off to Russia to see his son who is working out there for the CIA. He is now bezzies with his daughter seeing as in the 4th film he saves the crap out of her but bestest son still hates him. McClane Junior is protecting this Russian guy who had something to do with plutonium from another Russian guy who also had something to do with plutonium. Herein starts the drive a bit, shoot a bit, clever line, blow stuff up method of storytelling we all know and love. During this all Bruce and Bruce Junior bond through the medium of wanton destruction but hey they're only messing up Russia so who in all honesty cares.

Like most of the world I am a huge, huge fan of the Die Hard films. The first two are two of the best action films not just of their time but ever, the third is not far off and whilst some didn't I enjoyed the fourth. Safe to say then that I was looking forward to the fifth instalment and yes I wasn't expecting an amazing film but I was expecting an enjoyable romp that would keep me entertained throughout. Unfortunately Die Hard 5 just didn't live up to my expectations. It is not a bad film it is just a nothing film which in some respects is worse. The storyline is a bit rubbish and Bruces relationship with his son is an exact replica of his relationship with his daughter in the 4th film right down to calling him John instead of dad until realising he is not bad as a dad and calling him as such. It pains me to say but I was bored throughout pretty much the entire film and sadly so it seems was Bruce. He put his foot on the clutch and cruised in neutral and frankly looked like he didn't want to be there. This in itself is odd and as a Bruce Willis fan a little disappointing. Overall I can't say I hated this film but I also can't say I liked it, I nothinged it.

Verdict: 2/5

Film review: I Give It A Year

Rafe Spall is going out with Rose Byrne. They haven't been together too long before they decide it would be a good idea to get married so off they trot to become wed. The wedding is lovely despite Stephen Merchants best efforts and they pootle off to begin their wonderful life together. Shortly after this they realise that they don't have a lot in common, if anything, and start to have problems. Herein every single human being they meet is weird or kooky sometimes in equal measure. Then 2 bloody yanks turn up and start chucking spanners left right and centre. One of these is Anna Faris who seems to have visited Lesley Ashes cosmetic surgeon and the other is Simon Baker who has literally no sense of sarcasm or irony. The married couple then start to have feelings for their respective americans and start to realise they maybe shouldnt have got married, even though Minnie Driver told them as much at the start of the film, smart lady.

I had very high hopes for this film. It stars some great actors in Rafe and Rose and some great comedic presences in Merchant and a lot of the support cast. It is also a british comedy which, no offense americans, usually means it is a cleverer comedy full of wit and invention. All of this made me think it was going to be in the league of About a Boy or Four Weddings, shame then it is actually a bit shite. Rafe and Rose are perfectly fine in the lead roles but are never believable as a couple. They are completely different people from the outset which just makes you question time and again why did they get together in the first place? Yes I understand that things change and early marriages may reveal hidden problems but these people literally have nothing in common which would be a stumbling block right from the first meet. Then come the americans one a past love, Anna Faris, and one a hunky business partner, Simon Baker. The couple then start to behave awfully towards one another and especially in the case of Rose Byrne are just outright bitches. Simon is a humourless douchbag who is only charming to people he deems worthy and is a judgmental prick to everyone else. Anna is equally as dull as Simon and verging on the annoying as an almost free spirit hippy type. All of this would be forgivable if the film was funny. That is not to say I didn't laugh but the filmmakers are trying sooo hard to make you laugh that it becomes very annoying. Every single peripheral person is weird and inappropriate. From the marriage counselor to the solicitor drawing up their will weird jokes and one liners are thrown around willy nilly. I don't know about you but I have never met people like that and if I have it is very few and far between. All of this makes the entire thing unbelievable and frankly disappointing.

Verdict: 1/5

Film review: Sinister

Ethan Hawke is a writer who lives in a really big house. He writes primarily about bad stuff and decides to move himself, his wife, his daughter and his son, who needs a haircut, to a house where bad stuff went down.  In this new house he finds some old home movies that seem to be of families before they cark it in increasingly horrible ways. We don't see who is filming but there seems to be some funny looking bloke who pops up every now and again in bushes and mirrors and stuff. Then O look something scary......O no wait it was in the trailer, never mind, moving on. Ethan then thinks its a good idea to keep watching these films and writing about them and more creepy stuff starts to happen and.......hang on something scary is about to occur.....nope, another trailer bit.......O well maybe next time. Once Ethan is done watching the films over and over again his kids start doing weird things like sitting half nude in boxes and drawing on the walls and his wife shouts a lot, very dramatic of her I know, and more trailer related scares keep the tension in the lounge position as far away from the edge as it can be.

To say that watching the trailer ruins this film is a complete and utter understatement. It is meant to be a scary film right so that in itself should tell you that there should be some things to make you jump, scream, wet yourself or whatever your involuntary fear response may be. Even if there are no scares then the very least it should be creepy and make the hairs all over your body stand to attention. There was none of that in this film and I blame it on the trailer and the weak scare mechanic they use. When are horror films going to stop the quiet bit, quiet bit, BOO! method of scaring you, it doesn't work in the long run and it is boring and predictable so stop it! Then the bits that could have had potential they shove in the trailer, I am not kidding it is literally all of them. Because of all that there is zero tension which is more annoying than anything because the premise is actually not that bad, creepy films of murders with a big question mark as to who is a) doing it and b) filming it. Due to this premise it is at least interesting for about 25 minutes and then the holes start to form in both plot and explanation. Once the big reveal happens you have stopped caring and even more questions are both opened and unanswered. The most annoying of these is, WHO THE FUCK IS HOLDING THE CAMERA? Its not to say it isn't explained but it is only in a few situations where it makes even an ounce of sense. God I want to say the big reason why most of the films don't make sense but alas that would break my no spoiler rule, but I also don't recommend watching it so you will never know and your life will be better for it, believe me. I will end it there and with that all there is left to say is rubbish, complete rubbish.

Verdict: 1.5/5

Film review: Frankenweenie

A small boy has a dog. He has no friends but has a dog. He runs around with this dog doing science and filming toys when all of a sudden the dog gets hit by a car. The boy then thinks that plugging his dog into the mains is a sensible thing to do and turns out it works. The dog is then dead but not dead and many monster movie in jokes and references pop up and the dog runs around scaring people. Then some funny looking fat guy tries to burn the dog and probably the child. Good thing everybody is made out of plastecine or some other art and/or craft.

Even without prior knowledge you will know who made this film right from the opening scene. It is so completely Tim Burton it may as well be getting its end away with Helena Bonham Whatsherface. This is by no means a bad thing as Tim has a certain way with animation that personally I rather enjoy. The great thing about this film is it has so many references to old horror films that are subtle and obvious in equal measure. I am not the biggest horror film fan but I can appreciate the thought and effort that has gone into this film. The story is a sweet one and gets your cockles well and truly warmed whilst remaining entertaining. It is by no means Tims best and is by no means the best animated film you will see but if you like dogs/horror/animation/Tim Burton, delete where applicable, you will have a good enough time. Not the longest review I know but I have said all I want so back off.

Verdict: 3.5/5

Film review: Anna Karenina

Keira Knightley puts on yet another period costume to become a Russian housewife. Her husband is Jude Law who is a wonderful human being whom every bugger loves and dotes upon. Whilst visiting her brother, I think, she spies out of her little vodka filled eye a young whippersnapper who should be dating her cousin???friend???? I dunno. Then there is a slight Russian reference to remind us we are in Russia and not England. She then becomes a naughty girl and decides the borderline child is worth a rumble in the jungle. Jude figures it all out, to be honest Keira doesn't make a good job of hiding it, and gives her a right tongue lashing. Another Russian reference. Someone gets her preggers and she turns into a right moody bitch who mouths off at everyone and their mother, O yeh and we are still in Russia, not that you would know.

*Sigh*. I kind of want to end it there to be honest but here goes. I really dislike Keira Knightley and find the majority of her films tedious. Its not to say she is a bad actress but she literally has one character that she copies and pastes into all of her films and then adjusts the volume/overacting dial accordingly. Whether she is a queen, footballer or even bounty hunter she remains the posh public schoolgirl throughout. Jude Law is pretty good and the only person in the entire film who looks remotely Russian and thats only because they stuck a Leninlike beard on his face but he is not enough to save it. The young bloke spends 75% of the film looking creepily at Keira from a distance and the other 25% stalking. All the other characters are fine but they don't ever really feel the need to explain who they are or how they know Keira and Jude or why they are even in the film. Then there is the most annoying part of the film which is the stage play mechanic they add to the filming and cutting between shots. It is so out of place both me and Sara weren't 100% sure they didn't actually live in a theatre. Some of the cuts even had people moving scenery, which I found to be beyond annoying, and there are moments when people synchronise typing, moving and other actions in a sub dance routine. I half expected them to break into song. Then they expect us to buy into the serious undertones of the relationships between Keira and her two men, it just doesn't work. Whichever bright spark thought this would work needs to be punched in the crotch, even if they're a woman, or a eunuch. Awful, just awful, and misguided.

Verdict: 0/5

Film review: One Day

Anne Hathaway is a student from tup north who goes to uni with some really handsome dreamboat of a guy. They start their relationship on the 15th July and keep revisiting this date a few years jump at a time. During these jumps Anne likes the guy who meets someone else but then breaks up with them and starts liking Anne by which time she is with Rafe Spall. Also on these dates it turns out handsome guy is a prick and Anne is a bit of a wet lettuce. We then dip in and out of these snippets of their lives and get to see how relationships develop both good and bad and also how Anne Hathaways accent develops both good and bad.

This film is based on the book of the same name which I have been informed is actually very good, I can't actually remember who told me that the book was good so the source may not be reliable but lets go with it. I am not much of a reader as Sara will inform you it can take me up to and including a year to finish one book, and not even a big one, so I decided to watch the film instead. What a mistake I made. Firstly I would like to say I like Anne Hathaway, this has no bearing on the film but I felt the need to say it before putting the gloves on. Her accent is confusing at best. Half the time she is speaking in a reasonable northern accent and the other half she sounds like she would fit in in Pride and Prejudice, "One would rather like to go t' shop by 'eck" and such other monstrosities. The next problem is the male lead who is beyond irritating, admittedly this is on purpose some of the time but he is unable to switch it off even when he is meant to be charming. I spent most of the film wanting to cut his tongue and staple it over his eyebrows just so I didn't have to listen to him or see his uneven eyebrow 'look at me I am so handsome' smile. The only person I actually felt for in this was Rafe Spall who is great and gets stomped all over by Queen Anne of Yorkshire and her slimy pal. The mechanic of the same day being visited across time actually works reasonably well but the story just isn't interesting. Overall I did not care for it.

Verdict: 1/5

Film review: Beasts of the Southern Wild

A little girl lives in the swamps of some american state with her dad. Its a place called the bathtub and here they catch crabs, row around in car parts and get rained on. The little girl is an imaginative little thing but unfortunately has very poor command of the english language. She potters about setting fire to the odd thing and narrating her life. Her dad randomly goes to the hospital on occasion and then comes back to shout a bit and talk about how good the bathtub is. Her dad then gets a bit sicker and we have to learn whether or not she can look after herself and daddy dearest. Annoyingly there isn't much more to say as that is pretty much all that happens.

This is going to be a pretty short review, just thought I would say that, you know flesh it out a bit coz I'm a proper writer now innit. The little girl in this film is brilliant. She is meant to be a six year old and as far as I know she is that age or not far off it and considering that she is a cracking little actress. The rest of the cast are also convincing as slightly backwater people with real problems and a real sense of community. Unfortunately the story is really quite dull, well I don't really mean dull in that I wasn't bored and was engaged with the characters, but nothing much really happened. It's one of those films that doesn't feel the need to have a start, middle and end with most of it at best being a hazy middle all the way through. I can't however say I didn't enjoy the acting, characters and the bathtub itself, almost a character on its own. Overall good aside from the lack of story.

Verdict: 3.5/5

Film review: The Sapphires

Four Aussie aborigine women whose names I do not know and cannot be bothered to look up like to sing to  white people in crappy bars in the 70s, maybe 60s, wait when was Vietnam??? At one of those crappy bars they meet the guy from the IT crowd, the irish one not the fuzzy haired one, who plays the piano and loves soul music. The girls then convince him to become their manager and to go and sing to american soldiers in Vietnam to boost their spirits. They argue about who is the lead singer but quickly realise it is the one who can mime the best and off to Vietnam they go. Here they learn that family and love are more important than colour and the Vietcong and try their damndest to warm our cockles with their irreverant comedic talents.

On paper and on trailer this film had quite a bit of promise. Everybody loves an underdog story especially those that involve women with attitude and a bit of spunk, the american kind not the reproductive cell carrying kind and from that point of view the film is not too bad. Unfortunately the film does not deliver on its earlier promise. Yes there are funny bits, yes the music is great but beyond that I was bored. The story moves along a little too quickly and does not bring anything we haven't seen before, black women trying to make it in a white world via music, I give you Dreamgirls; love that blossoms despite initial reservations, I give you any romcom; family disputes that resolve through hard times, I give you any episode of Eastenders. What I am trying to say its it has all been done before, which in itself is not a dreadful thing as long as the film does it well. This film however is just meh in all forms of the word.

Verdict: 2.5/5

Film review: Star Trek Into Darkness

Captain Chris Pine straps on his phaser and takes the helm of the starship enterprise for a new stab at space travel. He and Zachary Quinto seem to be bff's now and have a wonderful romp around observing things, fixing things and generally sticking their honkers into other peoples business. That is until Chris gets a right telling off from his surrogate dad and Benedict Cumberbatch rocks up in order to ruin everyones day. They all then run, jump and space travel around a bit trying to catch one another and many large objects get written off. The big question really is is everything all it seems and for that children you will have to go yourselves, you lazy sods.

The first of the rebirth Star Trek films was nothing short of brilliant. The casting was perfect, the story well thought out and retained the feel of the original series whilst setting up a completely new version of events. It was one of the greatest surprises and films of its year and I bloody loved it. Due to this my excitement could not have been higher for the second installment, so much so I may have let loose a rather feminine squeal. Adding in Benedict was another stroke of genius as not only is he a great actor but he is one of the weirdest and most unique looking people on screen and that is by no way meant as an insult. On top of this JJ Abrams, whilst becoming a little tedious with his televisual efforts (revolution, lost, alcatraz), is still churning out outstanding films (super 8, involvement with cloverfield, star trek). Its a shame then that I was ever so slightly disappointed once leaving the cinema. Don't get me wrong it is a great film but the expectation was just too high to ever really meet, and yes I realise that that is my problem and not the films. A good example of this happening before is Prometheus, although that film was actually rubbish. For me there was not enough of Benedict who is brilliant as the villain of the piece and there was a little too much overacting. Again the overacting is very minimal but I expect there to be none in a film like this. Maybe I have seen too many films and maybe I am being a little critical, who knows. Just to be clear I did like this film very much and I would urge anyone to go and see it because you will not see much better but it just wasn't quite up there with the first one.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Film review: Ironman 3

Robert Downey Jr puts on his metal suit again to fly around and cause a bit of world saving mischief. This time he is not the cocky little sod we know and love as he has slight PTSD issues from the avengers film. As a result he spends most of his time locked away in his basement trying to upgrade his many many suits. Stuff then starts blowing up due to Sir Ben Kingsley who is a terrorist and all round troublemaker. Gwyneth is still around running Bobs business and occasionally getting down to business with him. She has a meeting with Guy Pearce who has lovely hair and some healthy muscles and has a great idea for maximising the human body and mind. Bob then decides to gob off at Ben and his stuff becomes the target of the explosions and this guy who burns things when he touches them. Eventually everybody meets up and has a big ol' fight and also Don Cheadle is there for a bit.

Ironman was one of the first films of the new resurgence of superhero films, good superhero films at that. Robert Downey Jr could not have been more suited for the role of Tony Stark and continues to bring wit, sarcasm and life to the character. The rest of the casting in this third instalment is also fantastic. Gwynny is pretty good as the love interest and even gets to throw a couple of punches herself. Don Cheadle is still solid as war machine and Guy Pearce is just great, but then again he always is. Even Ben Kingsley gets to let his hair down and have great fun playing the terrorist The Mandarin. The story itself is much better than the second film and the bad guy for once is not just another nutjob in a metal suit. There is even a slight twist woven into the storyline which is a pleasant if not completely out of the blue suprise. Overall the direction is very good, the acting and storyline great and the special effects are pretty awesome. It isn't as good as either Ironman 1 or the Avengers but it is up there as one of the best superhero films out there.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Film review: Dredd

Karl Urban puts on a leather jacket, a weird helmet with seemingly no way of seeing out of it and gets on a very gay looking motorbike to lay down the law one bullet at a time. He takes some blonde girl out on a routine with him to assess her merits as a Judge (read police who kill people) who turns out to be a bit of a mind reader. They go to this whopping great block of flats that is run by the incestuous sister from Game of Thrones. She takes over the block and locks everything down in order to hunt Karl and his student so she can skin them both. She has developed this drug that slows everything down for the user and doesn't want this secret to get out. Many guns are then fired and lots of things are blown up as Karl punches and shoots his way out of the building.

Most of us will remember the frankly awful first attempt to make a Judge Dredd film with the Judge himself played by good ol' Sly Stallone. No surprises then that along with the majority of the film watching public I was less than enthused when I heard a new one was coming out. Good thing then that this film is nowhere near as bad as the original. To start with Karl Urban has audible diction which is a big help with a guy whose mouth is the only part of him you see. Usually I don't like Karl, not really his fault but he tends to be in shocking films, but in this he is actually pretty good. Judge Dredd is meant to be deadpan and emotionless and Karl channels this energy very well. His student is also not bad in the psychic role and holds her own throughout. Incest girl again does well the bulk of which is evident in the fact she looks vile and in reality is probably a 7/10. The story is very similar to the film The Raid, which is no bad thing as The Raid is one of my favourite films of recent times. Dredd pulls it off very well surprisingly, I mean yeah they could have bothered to write an original story but who cares when the action works very well. Ultimately its not going to top anyone's favourite film list but it is a solidly put together, entertaining ride that I would happily take again.

Verdict: 3/5

Film review: We Bought A Zoo

Matt Damon's missus is no longer with us and he has been left with two kids and a job that is no longer satisfying. He then decides to move house and have a somewhat fresh start. He takes his daughter on a little trip with some very enthusiastic estate agent who shows him many a house and then for some unexplained reason a zoo. Matt thinks a zoo would make a perfectly sensible environment for raising two children and decides to purchase said zoo. Whilst there he meets Scarlett Johansen and Dakota Fannings almost as annoying sister. Then through hard work and good spirits we are taken on a ride of discovery and good feelings that teach Matt and his family, particularly the douchebag son, how to get on with each other and deal with the past.

This film is based on a true story of a guy who actually bought a zoo for him and his family. I am not 100% sure how much of the story is true or artistic license but I would imagine not a lot. As you can probably imagine the filmmakers were quite liberal when adding the parmesan to this story and it does get a little bit strong on the palate at certain points. Most of the actors do a decent enough job and carry the story along nicely. Scarlett Johansen is a little on the annoying, saccarine side but is good enough for the bad points to become bearable. Matt Damons kids are actually very good and bring a healthy amount of life to their roles. Matt Damon himself is typical Matt Damon and is very good. Admittedly I am a self confessed Damon fan so do allow him a lot of leeway when watching his films, but god dammit I love the guy so who cares. The only really annoying person is Fannings sis who is completely over the top and downright slappable at times. Its odd because she is normally quite good, take Super 8 as a prime example, but in this she is way too over the top. Overall watching this film is a little like wading through treacle with a packet of Tuc biscuits for a break from the sweetness but I would be telling porkies if I said I didn't enjoy myself.

Verdict: 3/5

Film review: Gambit

Colin Firth is a bumbling posh british guy who likes art but not his boss. His boss is Alan Rickman who is a rich bloke who loves ridiculously priced art. Colin wants to screw over his boss so he gets his, I wanna say butler???, to paint a fake Monet so that they can sell it to Alan. In order to do this they need a Texan Cameron Diaz and oh look theres one on a horse. They get Cameron to pretend the painting is hers and Colin will authenticate it for Alan then pocket the cash himself. They perform all this in a hilarious fashion and we are all meant to laugh heartily at their hijinks.

Oh dear god this is awful. It starts with a cartoon in the opening credits that pretty much explains the entire story frame for frame and to be honest I could have ended it there. For a film that is trying its upmost to be as funny as it possibly can it didn't make me laugh once. Not even a slight titter made its way past my lips. The situations that Colin finds himself in are typical and boring of a comedy like this and draw out a disappointed sigh as opposed to a guffaw. The story trudges along as if wading through treacle, bitter treacle I might add, with nothing really making any attempt to grab your attention or interest. The worst thing of all however is the cast and not in the way you might think. All of them are great actors who should know better. The main three have been in some great comedic roles throughout their careers along with some serious ones to boot and then they add in Stanley Tucci who is also a brilliant actor. Why oh why did any of you give this script a second look and not just keep it in your toilet for those emergencies when the toilet paper runs out.

Verdict: 0/5

Film review: Looper

Joseph Gordon Levitt puts on some Bruce Willis blusher and eyeliner to become a guy who lives in the present but kills people who live in the future but are sent back for the purposes of the killing by the mob. Time travel only seems to work one way and is controlled by some unknown future guy who pretty much runs the world. Joseph works for Jeff Daniels in the present who was a future guy but is now a present guy. Joseph works for them killing people until the day he is sent back for himself to kill in order to close the loop. This happens but somehow future Joseph, Bruce Willis, has got his hood off and escapes. He then runs around trying to find the person who rules the mob in the future and kill them whilst they are a child. Joseph is hot on Bruces tail as he still needs to close his loop and a game of cat and mouse and smaller mouse runs throughout. O yeh and some people have telekinetic abilities for some unknown reason.

As you can probably tell from my synopsis this film very loosely makes sense, it's a good thing then that it doesn't actually matter. You have to give the film certain artistic license before fully accepting it as a film and many great science fiction films follow this rule. This is a great film. Joseph Gordon Levitt is usually very good  and does not disappoint here. Bruce is also on top form and proves that he can act and not only in shitty things such as G.I.Joe. The story whilst confusing works well and flows very nicely and grips you from the start. There is a slight problem with the film which is the addition of too much science fiction. In that I mean the film tries to focus on both the time travel and telekinesis mechanics and has to flitter its focus between the two without 100% explaining either. As I said before however if you can  forgive this then you will enjoy the film very much, if not then get over it you only live once you miserable sod.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Film review: Silver Linings Playbook

Bradley Cooper is a bit mental and a bit overenthusiastic about life. He is bipolar and spent some time in the nuthouse after overreacting a tad to a particular situation. He comes out of hospital and goes to live with his equally mental dad Robert De Niro. Bobbys affliction is more in the OCD camp as opposed to the bipolar one but safe to say the whole family has issues. Bradley wants to get back with his missus and spends the entirety of his time attempting to do so. Jennifer Lawrence then turns up and she has some psychiatric issues also and keeps bothering Bradley until he dances with her. Bonding and fun times ensue and we start to change our views on life and certain romances within life.

Usually Bradley Cooper is average at best in films. That is not to say I don't think he has merit as an actor but he just can't seem to break through the 'meh' genre of filmmaking, good thing then he decided to do this film. His character is hyperactive, over the top and frantic which fits Bradleys fast talking, energetic method of acting. It is a superb piece of casting as a lot of people wouldn't have looked twice at him due to his previous films. The story is very good and uses mental illness in a way that makes you aware of it but does not manipulate or poke fun at it. Then comes Jennifer Lawrence who as usual is great as the sort of friend/love interest. She feeds off of Bradleys energy and the two of them are great on screen together. Robert De Niro also brings a lot to his role and again proves that he is one of the all time great actors. The rest of the cast put their all in as well, even Chris Tucker who surprisingly reigns it in and does a really good job at it. Overall I thought it was a great film, admittedly I did fall asleep but that is not a reflection on the film hence why I have not mentioned it until now. I have issues.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Film review: Argo

Some Iranians are pretty mad in the late 70s and decide to overrun an American embassy. Whilst this is happening they take hostage the majority of the yankee staff there and start making a mischief of themselves. 5 crafty little americans manage to escape the building including Joshua from friends. They find shelter with a canadian guy who protects them until a newly bearded Ben Affleck can figure out how to rescue them. He decides the best way to do this is to fake make a movie with John Goodman. Turns out all that nonsense was true and also extremely tense.

Ben Affleck has made a few rubbish films in his time. As an actor he has had some great moments, Dogma being one of the best, but it seems his decision making process involved a modified twister spinner. Since he started directing this trend has died out and he only seems to be able to make good films. To go along with this he is also extremely good at directing himself, a skill which cannot be attributed to many, I'm looking at you Shyamalan you douche. Anyhoo Affleck is turning out to be a real talent in the directors chair and does not disappoint with this. I must admit I did not know much about this story before seeing this film and the whole thing came as a pleasant surprise. The acting is great with Affleck being a joy to watch, the tension is almost palpable and keeps you firmly rooted to the edge of your seat and the story verges on the absurd which makes it all the more believable and unbelievable in equal measure. All of the support cast do a brilliant job and bring life to all the characters concerned. Admittedly the story does take a slightly 'o come on it can't have happened like that' turn towards the end but is that way for dramatic effect and is in no way out of place. I think I can safely say I absolutely loved it.

Verdict: 5/5

Film review: Perks Of Being A Wallflower

The guy from Percy Jackson is a right weirdo and is moving to a new school. Nobody knows or likes him at this new school and even his sister ignores him for the most part. Then he meets the kid from We need to talk about Kevin and Hermione Granger and they all become bestest pals. They are all misfits in their own way and all have some serious stuff going on in their lives. Hermione is a little bit cooky and out there and Kevin is gayer than Dale Winton whilst Percy is quiet and loves a good book. All three of them then learn a lot about their lives and friendship and show us snippets aswell.

We have all seen the trailer for this film but for those that haven't here is a brief overview. Emma Watson climbs on the back of a truck because she is a free spirit then describes how out there and unique they are then screams on the truck again. This did not fill me full of confidence when putting this film on. You can imagine my surprise then when I actually found myself engaged in the characters and storyline and by the end I could honestly say I loved it. The lead actor, Logan Lerman, is great at being lost and alone and really makes you feel for his story and life. Ezra Miller (Kevin) is also brilliant as the gay best friend bringing real heart to the performance. You can tell how good he is in that it takes a while to realise he ever played Kevin, also a brilliant performance. Even Emma Watson is great despite the cooky lines she spits out. As the film develops you realise there is more to each of their characters and stories and the filmmakers feed you this information beautifully. It all culminates in a surprising way that I didn't see coming but in typical form Sara the great predictor did (despite the fact these predictions often occur as the revelation is happening). Genuinely a great film made all the better because I thought it would be shite.

Verdict: 5/5

Film review: The Croods

Nicholas Cage is caveman, caveman have family and scared of everything, not know fire or shoes or end of world. Daughter is disobedient and meets Ryan Reynolds who does know fire. World then starts to end and family wants to follow Ryan to mountain. That's enough of that. Ryan then leads the caveman family across the newly ruined countryside and teaches them the ways of the world throughout the journey. Nic resists to start with but learns many a life lesson and becomes a better caveman because of it. There may also be a small love story in there somewhere aswell.

Dreamworks are a little bit hit and miss with their animated films. For example How to train your dragon and Shrek are great whereas Shark Tale and Shrek 3 are toilet. This falls somewhere in the middle being neither amazing or awful. The characters are likeable enough and the world they inhabit is very pretty and well animated. Nic Cage isn't bad at voiceover work but for me his voice didn't really fit the character, the same can be said for Ryans character, neither were done badly but neither 100% fit. The story is pretty good also and trundles along at a decent enough pace. I must admit it does get a little boring here and there but picks up towards the end in both story and comedy. I laughed quite a bit actually throughout and did enjoy myself. The family message part of the story also works well even if it is laid on a little thick. Overall however I would say its pretty good but not the best animated film you will ever see.

Verdict: 3/5

Film review: All Good Things

Ryan Gosling has a rich real estate owning dad but doesn't want to be a rich real estate owning dads son, he wants to be a health food shop owner. He meets Kirsten Dunst and they become all loved up and wotnot and try to live the health food life together. Daddy then rocks up again and forces Ryan to become part of the business. Once home and in the biz Ryan starts to become a bit of a douchebag to Kirsten. Then weird stuff keeps happening and people go missing and Ryan is the main suspect. Did he do it? Well that would be telling now wouldn't it.

I'm a big Gosling fan as he has been in some cracking films. The best of which are Drive and Crazy, Stupid Love. Unfortunately this isn't up there with the best but is still a pretty good film. The story is true. The main character did indeed exist, did become a douche and did do things to his wife and other people, allegedly. Herein lies one of the problems of the film. The blurb at the end explaining the real life version of events states that the true course of events never came out whereas the film seems to have its own opinions on what happened. This does not mean the way they take it is bad but it doesn't exactly sit on the fence. This takes away some of the did he, didn't he mechanic which in my opinion would have made the film stronger. Aside from that the performances are strong from all concerned and the story does work. I enjoyed it but not the best film in the world.

Verdict: 3.5/5

Film review: Cosmopolis

Robert Pattinson has a hell of a lot of money and likes to travel round in his limousine and meet with lots of important people. He is young and as a result is arrogant about his money and stuff and has no problem lording it above all us insignificant poor people. He rides around having very important meetings with other very important people and occasionally has sex with some of them without washing himself at any point. Robert likes to use a lot of big words to describe his work, life and all things considered without at any point actually describing or explaining everything. Then Paul Giamatti turns up and also uses big words to explain nothing and I consider seeing how far you can actually push a cotton bud into your ears before the bleeding starts.

I hated this film with a passion. It is genuinely one of the worst films I have ever seen in my entire life if not the worst. The story is non existent. You follow Robert around in his day to day life as a billionaire business owner without at any point letting us know what he actually does for a living. This wouldn't be that bad if the majority of the other characters either work with or for him. Then there is the progression which again is non existent as nothing happens of any worth. Yes there are certain events that occur during the film but none of them make any sense and none of them fit with any form of a coherent narrative. Again this could be forgiven if the characters were likeable or realistic in any way. It seems as though David Cronenburg (director) is trying to aim for real characters with real problems but they talk in a way in which no human being has ever spoken in their entire life. An example of a sentence from the film may go something like this 'all I can see is an enigma, an enigma of the passion I hold for all the decisions that serve as measurements of my disdain'. I made that shit up myself but that is honestly how everybody talks in this film. They might as well be talking swahili I would have understood just as much, actually if they had been talking in swahili then they would have had an excuse whereas as it stands they have butchered a language I have been speaking for 26 years and consider myself somewhat fluent in. It is beyond pretentious and makes me want to hurt the stuck up morons who thought it would be a good idea to make films 'artsy' and 'existential'. All of you piss off and let me watch Twins.

Verdict: -7000/5

Film review: Breaking Dawn Part 2

Robert 'Pasty' Pattinson puts his fangs in and covers his body in glitter and has a baby with the miserable one Kristen Stewart. She is less of a sourpuss this time round as she has joined the legions of the Cullen family as their newest blood sucker. Taylor Lautner is hanging around as the resident borderline paedophile and they all seem mega happy, that is until Michael Sheen gets wind of the little nipper and decides that it certainly is not cricket to have a vamp baby. He then gets together all his gang and trundles on down to the Cullens crib and has a heated debate involving deadly gas and some wopping great dogs. All while this is going on Kristens dad is once again not considered at all and is just expected to put up with his daughter buggering off at the slightest sign of trouble and telling him nothing.

Anyone who has read my reviews before will know that I am not a fan of the Twilight series so much so I actually hate them. Believe me then when I say this is the best of the films bar maybe the first, however this does not in any way shape or form make it a good film. I will start with the positives, hell I am in a good mood. The story is actually not bad in this one and for once isn't wholly centred on the 'do I love Edward, do I love Jacob, do I love neither?' mechanic with some of the other characters actually getting a look in. We get to explore some of the other Cullens and also see a bit more of the Voltari, aka Michaels gang. This all culminates in a frankly impressive, if not a bit CGI heavy, battle at the end and I must say I was actually enjoying it. Herein starts the negatives. In true twilight form the best bit of the film, the battle, is completely ruined, I wont say how but it is the most stupid, rage inducing nonsense I have ever seen and I was so disappointed in the way they took it. Another negative is that sourpuss is still on the screen. Originally I thought it was the character that warranted the performance from Kristen but seeing her in other films I realised that she plays every character with an air of a teenager that has been told by her dad she has to come home an hour earlier than normal. Admittedly she attempts to crack a smile in this film but still ends up whining. Lastly there is still the ridiculous professions of love throughout the entire thing which make me want to scratch out my eyes. Love is not like that, fact. I would love to see them have an arguement or at the very least say something other than 'I have never loved anyone like this before' or 'you are so beautiful it hurts'. I am not sure those were actually in the film as I tune out when that shit starts but you get the gist.

Verdict: 1.5/5, and you were lucky to get that.

Film review: The Artist

Some french guy is a mute and is in a bunch of silent movies in the 20's. He meets a french lady who also has a volume problem and wants to be in the movies alongside her silent heroes. They then use over the top facial expressions and the occasional written bit to tell the story of how talking is starting to be introduced but he doesn't want to talk in films however she does and John Goodman also thinks its a cracking idea but the french guy resists and thinks he knows better but turns out he doesn't, idiot. O yeh and none of them talk, ever.

This film won a lot of awards, like a bunch of super special ones meaning it should be a good film, right? Every year the awards season flags up certain films that we should all see for various reasons and for the most part they're wrong. Some of the shite that has won awards is in fact pretentious and frankly boring. This unfortunately is both. To start the story isn't original which by movie standards doesn't actually mean a lot but in an award winning film it should be a little more original. The story is the same as Singin' in the Rain which is one of my favourite films of all time, not really a good indicator I would like this version then. The acting is frankly annoying with the actors having to over accentuate every single facial expression so that we know what the hell they are going on about. Also a failing of silent cinema is the fact that music has to accompany it, again in itself not a problem but the music in this is really quite annoying and I just wished they had turned the volume down once in a while for a bit of respite. I don't have anything against silent cinema and it is historically very important for the entire film industry but I feel that in this case it is a gimmick. By that I mean that if it wasn't a silent film then nobody would really care about it and it certainly wouldn't have won all the awards it did. Its a shame because I wanted to like it but just couldn't get on board.

Verdict: 1.5/5

Film review: Margin Call

Zachary Quinto and some guy who I am reliably informed by Sara is from gossip girl work as risk analysis people for Stanley Tucci. Stanley Tucci works for Paul Bettany but gets made redundant because the firm cannot afford him anymore. Paul Bettany works for Kevin Spacey who's dog is ill. Kevin Spacey works for some other guy who works with Demi Moore. They all work for Jeremy Irons who I think runs a stock broker firm. When Stanley buggers off he gives Zachary a computer file that says the company is leaking money from every orifice. People then have meetings at the most unsociable of hours and discuss how this will affect the world and its money. We spend the rest of the film following these people around whilst they talk quickly to each other about things I really don't understand like shares and business and stuff but the gist of it all is that its these bastards fault the financial world is on its arse.

Unfortunately for me this film is much smarter than I am. The lesson this has taught me is that I know nothing, and I mean nothing, about finances and the world in which they live. Despite this fact and that the film doesn't dumb anything down I really enjoyed it, however I can't really explain why but I will try. The acting is brilliant and the cast is a who's who of acting talent, other than the gossip girl guy who is trying bless him but cant really keep up. The story is complicated yes but is gripping to the end and is brilliantly written. The subject matter is very much of the time and is relevant to everybody, even the simplefolk like myself. That's about all I can say really other than this film is great and the fact I only understood about half of it and still loved it is testament to the film itself.

Verdict: 4.5/5

Film review: Total Recall

Colin Farrell puts on his Arnie shoes and shacks up with Kate Beckinsale. They live in Australia and take a big tube like thing through the middle of the earth to work in Britain where all the oppressive douchebags live. Colin wakes up from a weird dream and wants to have some memories injected into his brain until Kate tells him 'stop being stupid and get to work'. Colin doesn't listen and ends up finding out he may or may not be a spy for some aussie resistance. Turns out that Kate is a bit of a bitch and actually wants to give Colin a right old spankin' and not in a dirty way. We then get to watch Colin meet Jessica Biel and the both of them run around a lot and travel through tubes with Kate and the dad from Malcolm in the Middle hot on their heels. After they have run around the film ends reasonably predictably, almost like I have seen it before, mmmm............

Remakes don't work, full stop. The big problem with them is either the original was rubbish and wasn't worth making again or the original was awesome and a remake just doesn't add anything we haven't seen before, this is the latter. The original Total Recall was great and was one of Arnies best and lets be honest weirdest. The makers of the new version obviously feel the same way as I do about the original as there are tons of references that show a true love of the film. The problem here is that they can't decide whether to change the film a lot or keep it the same. As a result we get some major changes, removing Mars completely from the scenario and replacing with Australia, and some exact repetition of the original script. All this leaves you to do as a viewer is sit and say 'that bits the same, oo no wait that bits different, yeh that bits the same aswell' and you never really get into the film itself. Its a shame because I get the feeling if the old version didn't exist then this would be a really good film. The acting is good, with particular props to Kate Beckinsale who plays sadistic bitch quite well, the action sequences are exciting and the premise works well but you cant stop thinking I have seen this all before and the story is ruined because of it.

Verdict: 3/5

Film review: Madagascar 3: Some Subtitle About Europe I Couldn't Be Arsed To Look Up

Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, Jada Pinkett Smith and David Schwimmer are a little tired of living it up on the African plains. They start moaning that four penguins didn't bother coming back and flying them to New York so they take it upon themselves to make their own way back. The most sensible route they can think of is to swim to france and then try to find the penguins there who are scamming people alongside some monkeys. Some french woman then starts hunting them and chases them onto a circus train. They then all join the circus and learn lessons about their lives and that the circus is much better for animals than both the zoo, where husbandry, breeding programs and the like are making zoos the best they have been in history; and the wild, where the animals are meant to be and where they had decided in the last film was the place for them.

How in the hell did they manage to squeeze three stories out of these characters? No really I want to know. The first of these films was passable and had a few laughs in it, King Julian for example I found rather funny in the first film. The second again was passable, admittedly by the hair on its chinny chin chin, and also had a minor amount of sense to it with the animals returning to their natural habitat. Why, oh why did they then bother to make this mess? The story makes no sense whatsoever, the jokes are nonexistent and the characters whom I used to find funny I now want to skin and wear as shoes. For an example of making no sense why when they find it so easy to swim to France from Africa did they not just swim to the States and before you all say America is much further from Africa than France I will ask you to recall the last time David Attenborough showed us footage of a giraffe, lion, zebra and hippo swimming across any major body of water. The rest of the film and plot follows this inane loose weave of nonsense. I really wanted to turn this shite off but I have never turned a film off and will not let this rubbish defeat me.

Verdict: 1/5

Film review: The Bourne Legacy

Bourne is back but he isn't Bourne he's some other dude. This other dude is Hawkeye from Avengers who is a little bit addicted to blue and green tictacs and likes hanging out in the woods with other dudes who also love a bit of pill popping. Rachel Weisz turns up as a scientist who does some naughty testing on army men but no-one really knows why any of this nonsense is occurring other than Edward Norton who pops up every now and again to not bother explaining anything. Hawkeye then runs around a lot with Rachel giving lots of people a right old thrashing, don't worry though most of them deserve it, although worryingly some don't.

The original three Bourne films are brilliant, fact. There is however a problem with this fact in that every bloody action film following it had to have 'The New Bourne' or 'Its Bourne meets The Matrix' plastered all over it. Due to this, to be honest, well deserved attention some clever pup decided to make a fourth film, this pup, however, was not clever enough to actually make a good film. I must just say that this as a film is not that bad but it has two fatal flaws. One is that it decided to stick itself to the Bourne trilogy and to do this it keeps playing random clips and snippets from Ultimatum throughout that don't actually fit in all that well. It could be argued that the idea behind this film, super soldiers hooked on pills, is a very good one and would have made a great standalone film. Herein lies the second problem in that if it was a standalone film then people would have constantly been saying 'well thats just copying Bourne'. This leaves the film sort of hovering loosely between Bourne and its own story and it never really settles anywhere long enough for a coherent story to develop. Its a real shame as I love the premise, love Jeremy Renner and his supportings and really liked the start of the film. I can't honestly say I didn't like the film but I also can't say I loved it. Ultimately I don't think its a bad stab and can sort of see what they were trying to do with it, the ending comes out of nowhere though which did jump up on me pretty sharpish.

Verdict: 3/5

Film review: The Lorax

A kid who lives in the odd world of Dr Seuss wants to impress a girl by getting her a tree. Trees happen to be pretty scarce in the Doc's world and the kid goes off on a little jolly to find one. Here he meets a guy who may or may not be a serial killer who turns out was the guy who cut all the trees down. He then tells a story of how he meets some bears, singing fish and some furry trees. He uses these trees to create what may or may not be a snood. Then Danny DeVito turns up with an orange tache and annoys everybody immensely. Overall we all learn some sort of environmental lesson which may or may not be do not buy air out of a bottle from a small man with bad hair.

I watched this film with Sara, whom you must know by now, and my friend Elliott. Both of them fell asleep roughly halfway through and did not wake until the film had finished. The reason I tell you this is because it doesn't actually have any bearing on how good the film is but does set up nicely for an assessment to where the film has flaws. About halfway through the film does lose its way a little bit, not in story but in entertainment. I found myself getting slightly bored, admittedly this may be because my company for the morning had decided unconsciousness was more favourable to spending time with me but hey ho cant win em all. The film itself as a whole is not bad at all. Danny is surprisingly good as the Lorax itself and the film is peppered with little jokes that do keep you entertained. The environmental message does get a little 'inconvenient truth' on us but thankfully the producers do steer well clear of Mr Gore himself. I am not saying I don't believe in saving the environment, I am as big a fan of Captain Planet as the next guy so much so I may once have considered myself a Planeteer, but I don't want it shoved down my throat by a short orange bloke. Forgetting that though I did enjoy it more than I was expecting.

Verdict: 3/5

Film review: The Wedding Video

Rufous Hound has got himself a video camera and is off to his brother, Robert Webbs wedding. He has decided that as best man it is his job to give the groom and bride a gift they will never forget in the form of a video of the build up to said day. He then potters about filming all the stuff that happens and some inappropriate stuff for real life but that furthers the plot. The blonde woman Robert is marrying is really cool and pretty and stuff and Rufous remembers her from school days. They then spend a little bit too much time together reminiscing. Towards the end the plot goes somewhere really boring and stupid and they forget to even bother with the home movie angle and just go with regular movie.

Found footage, home movie, mockumentary and all other films of that ilk have been done brilliantly in the past but that does not mean that every bugger needs to have a crack at it. The premise of this film actually sounds reasonably promising; funny british people, check; interesting little gimmick, check; attractive blonde woman, check; shame then its a pile of faecal matter. Rufous Hounds character is annoying to say the least and Robert Webb plays the same character he always plays but manages to suck all the comedy out of it. The script is average at best and the story meanders along with little to nothing happening and that that does happen makes no sense or is completely unbelievable. The most annoying thing about the film by far often befalls home movie films in that they just give up on the premise. Whole chunks of the final third are filmed from angles no home movie person could achieve and most importantly the person who is meant to be filming it is on screen way too much. If you have a gimmick running through the film then for Christ's sake stick with it don't just give up because it doesn't quite fit where you want the story to go, show a little effort. Rubbish beyond belief.

Verdict: 0.5/5