Reviews

Much like Christmas, Halloween, and public disgust towards the headliners of Glastonbury, sub-par Jason Statham action movies are kind of expected now going into the new year, with The Mechanic, Parker, Homefront, and Hummingbird, all being released within the last four or so years, with each seemingly blending in to one another so much it would be hard to tell them apart. So now in 2015, we have Wild Card. based upon William Goldman's novel Heat, with it being, much like it's predecessors, instantly forgettable, with bog- standard action scenes, but for the most part enjoyable enough to withstand ones' attention for the course of its' run-time. Hit me.

Jason Statham plays Lee Christmas, no sorry, Chev Chelios, nope, still wrong film. That's it, Nick Wild! He plays Nick Wild, a recovering gambling addict who sticks to his addiction by being chaperone to Las Vegas's rich and famous by guiding them around the different casinos, bars, strip joints, whatever, until one day he receives a phone call from an acquaintance named Holly, who claims she had been raped and attacked the previous night by Peter Petrelli himself, Milo Ventimiglia's character, Danny DeMarco. The film then decides to go a bit revenge drama, followed by Martin Scorsese's Casino, and then into full Statham style action mode, whilst incorporating the much-loved need to hit everyone in the throat from Taken. In a nutshell, it's a bit of a mess.

A mess it may be, but I can't deny I didn't enjoy it for the most part, particularly in scenes when Statham turns full ninja and takes out everyone in the room with a spork or something of similar strength. Like previous Statham efforts however, Wild Card is instantly forgettable and even worse, seems to act as an OTT advert for the "wonders of Las Vegas". Still, we have Furious 7 to look forward to. Not.

Overall Score: 5/10

Although I was chuffed when Big Hero 6 walked away with the Oscar for Best Animated Feature at this years' ceremony, my joy was short- lived when I realised I hadn't seen any other contender in the category. Yes, not even How to Train Your Dragon 2. One excuse was that The Tale of the Princess Kaguya hadn't been released in the UK yet, even though it had been floating around cinemas across the world for the past couple of years. Now released and featuring an English-dubbed cast consisting of Chloe Grace Moretz, James Caan, and Lucy Liu, it was time for redemption, and to watch what once slipped through my fingers. Or eyes. You know what I mean.

Once upon time, in a galaxy far, far away, Mr Bamboo cutter, voiced by Sonny Corleone himself, James Caan, finds the tiniest of children hidden in a magical bamboo shoot and decides to take her under his, and his wife's, wing, raising her like their own and naming her Princess, due to her ability to grow at the speed of knots and develop much quicker than that of a mortal human. One day, Mr Bamboo cutter finds gold and cloth of fine quality in the same place he found his beloved Princess, and decides that she must be moved to the capital in order to fulfill her fate of nobility and become a real-life princess. First off, the film looks beautiful. In terms of effort and sheer elbow-grease the film must have required from the makers, it deserves a standing ovation, and I'm rather glad it got recognised by the Oscars, albeit losing out to the much more mainstream Big Hero 6. Each scene looks like it should be paused, printed out, and shoved in the Louvre for close examination. It is simply a wonder to behold.

Now on to the story. Imagine the wonder of Pans Labyrinth. but set in the delicate world of a U rated movie; that's what came to mind during the course of Tale's simply glorious story that deals with all the key subjects of childhood, moving home, arranged marriage, and finally, fulfilling your destiny. The length of 137 minutes for an animated movie might be questionable, with the film suffering slightly during the half-way mark, but sticking with it results in one of the most heartbreaking, yet inevitable, endings of an animated movie you may ever see. In a nutshell? It's lovely.

Overall Score: 8/10

Julianne Moore. Oscar Winner. Jeff Bridges. Oscar Winner. Kit Harrington. He knows nothing. In terms of an A-List cast, Seventh Son does pretty well, with it even having the chance to show off rising star Alicia Vikander who seems to be in absolutely everything this year, from Ex Machina to Testament of Youth alongside Jon Snow himself. Based upon the novel, The Spook's Apprentice, something of which I was unaware of before watching the film, Seventh Son tells the tale of seventh son of the seventh son Tom Ward, played by Prince Caspian's Ben Barnes, who is taken under the wing of Jeff Bridges', John Gregory, the legendary "spook", who is tasked with defending humanity from the dark supernatural forces around them, including Julianne Moore's Mother Malkin, the renowned evil blood- magic witch. With such a cast, and a pretty cool premise including all the mystical tropes of dragons, witches and sword-fights, Seventh Son has to be nothing short of amazing, surely? Erm. no. It really isn't.

Firstly, from the kick-off, Jeff Bridges is incomprehensible. Imagine Bane from The Dark Knight Rises, mashed together with a drunk Billy Connolly and that's pretty much how Bridges has chosen to play this particular role, although, to be honest, none of what he says really matters throughout the 100 minutes run-time, with the script being unbelievably dull and the characters even more so, particularly Barne's, Tom Ward, who will take some beating to not win worst and, or, most forgettable main character in a film released this year. Truly awful. As for newly crowned "Best Actress", Julianne Moore, her performance as the witch/dragon/thing antagonist has made me think twice whether she was right to gain such an award earlier this year. In my opinion, Moore and "Best Actor", Eddie Redmaybe, both made secret pacts with Hollywood that involved both of them being given Oscars as long as they performed as bad as they could at being baddies in other films released this year.

Talking of Eddie Redmayne and Jupiter Ascending, Seventh Son at least has one up on the latter by having rather enjoyable action sequences throughout, particularly in ones when the General Grievous/Kali- esque warrior is present, but Seventh Son is definitely at the level of the abomination that was Jupiter Ascending earlier this year. It's dull. It's badly CGI'd. It's a total waste of time. There was talk of Seventh Son being turned into a franchise for the future. If that franchise is going to be at this level however, don't waste your time lads and lasses. Wait for Star Wars.

Overall Score: 4/10

Oh I do love a good horror movie. Last years' The Babadook took home first prize for being the best in it's respective category whilst so far this year, there has been an array of sub-par horror films such as The Woman in Black 2 and REC 4. Now we have It Follows, which has been dubbed, "smart, original, and above all terrifying," by the critics consensus on Rotten Tomatoes, starring Maika Monroe, last seen in the rather bonkers, The Guest. Although I am usually in accordance with what Rotten Tomatoes say about the quality of films, this is a rare occasion where I have to disagree, with It Follows not being overly smart, not really being original, and definitely not being terrifying. Sorry RT.

It Follows tells the tale of Monroe's character, Jay, who after having a bit of fun-and-games with boyfriend Hugh, starts to become haunted by a shape-shifting wraith-like entity which only she can see and can only be "passed on" by having more fun-and-games with other people. Sounds like a cool premise doesn't it? I mean you have the generic teen-sex-is-bad-and-should-be-punished vibe running throughout, which has been done countless times before, and a pretty funky 80's synth soundtrack, which has been done before, rounded off with those kind of eerie and spooky long shots of people walking down even longer pavements, or sidewalks if stateside, which has been done before, and more effectively in umm what's that film? Oh yeah, Halloween. So in terms of originality, I wholeheartedly disagree, with It Follows basically ripping the foundations of Halloween from it's feet and replacing Michael Myers with combination of a really tall guy, a naked woman, and a guy who gets really angry when near a swimming pool.

In terms of fear factor, I think I managed to properly jump once, and this was only when the film resorted to the ever-so-original quiet, quiet, quiet, LOUD process which horror films tend to go for these days when they think the audience might have become bored or even worse, fallen asleep, with the loudness of cinemas these days being more than capable of wakening anyone from the deepest of sleeps. In fact, they should have put Schumacher in one when he was in his coma. That would have woken him up. Hope you get better soon Mike. So, back to the movie, not one time during the film could I honestly say I felt under threat, whilst the long-drawn out scenes in between each entity attack becoming seemingly more boring than the last. So, in terms of being, "above all, terrifying," I once again disagree.

Enough slating. In it's best moments, It Follows is a solid re-hash of better films of its' type, such as Halloween, with the acting being pretty much top-notch, particularly from leading lady, Maika Monroe, who gives a particularly good performance as the victim of the slowly walking entity that I will name "It". When it's dull, it's dull, and the originality and scares that the film promised were overly lacking, resulting in another film that has suffered from it's necessity to generate hype and declaration at being, "one of the most striking American horror films in years." Um, it's not.

Overall Score: 5/10

Oh Wachowski siblings. Your once promising career has all but ended thanks to this latest offering to the people of this much loved Earth. Such an unwelcome gift comes in the form of Jupiter Ascending, a film that can only be described as being this decades' Battlefield Earth, a statement that does not come lightly, whilst being a complete shame when remembering how brilliant The Matrix was when I first watched it. Now, in 2015, instead of The Matrix, we have a film with no soul, no depth, and seemingly not a care in the world, aside from one that has a massive bank note wrapped around it, with its' lead characters being almost as soul-crushingly dull as the film itself. Rant mode activated.

I would attempt to give a brief synopsis of Jupiter Ascending, but the truth is, I really cannot be bothered. The plot is so ridiculously uninspiring and sleep-inducing that it's making me yawn even as I think about it now, whilst simultaneously making me cringe so hard, I feel like I am looking at early photos of my dress sense in the 1990's. So plot done with, what's next I hear you ask! Characters. Okay. Firstly, I have a fundamental problem with Mila Kunis as a bog cleaner. It just wouldn't happen. Also, being cursed with a name such as Jupiter Jones, surely she would have legally changed it by now? No sane human being would walk around 21st century society with a name so laughable being called Ben Dover is a step up. Unless that's the actual underlying point of the film, that she is actually so insane that she dreams of meeting a topless, roller skating, wonky eared, Channing Tatum and flying off to badly CGI'd planets, because whoever pitched the idea of Jupiter Ascending was clearly mad and needs to be heavily sedated and sectioned ASAP.

As for Channing Tatum, his reputation as a "serious actor" has been dealt a crippling blow. Why would he, after doing so well in Foxcatcher, want to be in this turkey of a movie? Surely he must have read the script? The same goes for Sean Bean, who throughout the entirety of his scenes in the film looks as bored as I did watching him, yet acting bored in a movie is better than acting as a humanised wooden plank, a feat which Ms. Kunis passes with flying colours. And now on to Eddie Redmayne. Oh Eddie, Eddie, Eddie. Your Oscar win is not as clear-cut as it might once have been. His portrayal as the villainous I-don't-care-what-his-name-is is exceedingly laughable and can only be described as the dull second- cousin of Gary Oldman's, Zorg, in The Fifth Element. His constant need to quietly whisper instructions to badly designed flying reptile things was bad enough, but when juxtaposed with sudden belts of screaming, it was like watching my 13 year old brother having a hissy-fit after not being allowed on the PlayStation. Sorry Eddie, but you were utter pants.

In conclusion, Jupiter Ascending, is complete tripe. The attempts at acting are terrible. The plot is ludicrous. Okay, it might look good and fancy, but fanciness cannot save Jupiter Ascending from being one of the most boring and pain-inducing sci-fi films I think I have ever sat through. I think it's time to watch The Matrix again.

Overall Score: 3/10

Paul Thomas Anderson films in general, so far, have been films that I haven't really warmed to. I didn't really dig Magnolia and I couldn't stand The Master, so with this in mind, my expectation level going into Inherent Vice was rather flat. After watching it though, it's safe to say Inherent Vice is probably my favourite Anderson film to date, which in itself is faint praise due to my distaste for his earlier material. The film focuses on Joaquin Phoenix's, private investigator Larry "Doc" Sportello, and his plot to help his ex-girlfriend have her wealthy boyfriend Mickey Wolfmann committed to an insane asylum, yet that's as clear as the film's plot gets, with its' two and a half hour run- time being full of ambiguity and a distinct haziness which clearly attempts to parallel the drug-infested era of the early 1970's. The challenging nature of the film will definitely not be for everyone, particularly those who depend on a film's narrative being explained to the last detail, yet it's lack of explanation adds a strange layer of mystery, which in itself is rather compelling.

Inherent Vice is full of solid acting, strong comedic moments, and a plot so out-of-control, it ends up being both painful and fascinating, Its' run-time is way too long, and the film suffers as a result, as many times I began to lose patience and checked how long we had left. Like I said, Inherent Vice is my favourite Anderson film to date, and it makes me want to watch his previous efforts again to see if it was just me and not the films themselves. Peace Out.

Overall Score: 7/10

To say Matthew Vaughn has had a rather entertaining film career would be a slight understatement. Shooting to the attention of many after producing Guy Ritchie's, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels in 1998, Vaughn has had a directed a wonderful array of films so far, with Layer Cake, Kick-Ass, and X-Men: First Class, all being particularly brilliant. Now we have Kingsman: The Secret Service, a film so unavoidable, particularly in my local Vue cinema, where trailers have been hyping it extensively for the past month or so, which in my own experience, is a risky business, with this level of hype more than often leading to a rather high expectation level from cinema goers such as myself. So as I walked into an empty, late- night, EXTREME screening of Kingsman, the bar was set reasonably high, probably more so than any other film so far this year. Mission commence...

First off, the plot is basically Kick-Ass meets the Bond franchise, with a helping of Johnny English. which on paper, sounds pretty damn fun. To sum Kingsman up in one word however, you do not to need to stray far from the film's choice of music; it's completely bonkers, with it's ultra-violent tendencies, including a wonderful Scanners- esque death scene, and ludicrous plot, albeit stealing riffs from 28 Days Later, Stephen King's Cell, and even Channel 4's wonderful Utopia, making it a highly entertaining couple of hours,.Furthermore, it's clear to see the amount of fun everyone involved in the film were having, particularly Colin Firth who makes the most out of playing the suave, smooth and exquisitely dressed Kingsman agent Harry Hart, perhaps making up for his lost opportunity at playing 007 himself*.

Amidst all the fun however, the film does have it's weaknesses. Firstly, it's not as good, or as funny as, Kick-Ass, where comparisons to such are inevitable. In fact, I laughed a lot less than I thought I might, which only results in seeing the flaws within the film much easier, especially in certain scenes when the film is attempting to get a chuckle out of the audience and falls flat on its' face. Secondly, the film is all over the place, and is shot at 100mph, which in an action flick is generally acceptable, yet for some reason, in Kingsman I found it rather annoying, much like I did every Samuel L. Jackson talked (seriously, what was with that strange lisp?). These weaknesses however, are outweighed by the positives, where if for some reason you are looking for a stupid, semi-funny, action spy romp, Kingsman is definitely the film for you.

Part Johnny English, part Kick-Ass, Kingsman is pretty much what it says on the tin. Funny? Sort of. Action-packed? Most definitely. Violent? Unbelievably. Until the next time Mr. Vaughn...

Overall Score: 7/10

* http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/colin- firth-kingsman-the-secret-service-star-on-netflix-bridget-jones-3- and-why-the-james-bond-ship-has-sailed-9991024.html

J. C. Chandor's, A Most Violent Year, is the second of two films released in the past week, the first being Ex Machina, that include Star Wars -bound Oscar Isaac, who is slowly becoming one of my favourite actors. I first noticed Isaac when watching Inside Llewyn Davis, yet after looking at his back catalogue, it's surprising to see the wide range of films he has been a part of, such as Drive and two Ridley Scott efforts; Robin Hood and Body of Lies respectively, all of which are pretty fab, particularly, Drive. Similarly, Jessica Chastain also seems to be in films that particularly appeal to me, such as Zero Dark Thirty, and most recently, Interstellar, yet the third cog in this particular wheel, director J, C. Chandor, hasn't won me over, yet, with his last effort, All Is Lost, not enthralling me in the slightest. Still, two out of three ain't bad.

The film is set during the latter stages of 1981 New York, a time in which, statistically, crime rates reached an all time high, particularly those consisting of a rather violent ilk, and tells the story of Abel Morales, who attempts to expand his business by purchasing a new, and valuable, piece of land. In the background however, his oil trucks are repeatedly being stolen and sold on, whilst the DA, played by Selma's, David Oyelwo, is running an investigation into potential illegal activity within his empire. Within my review for Ex Machina, I stated Isaac's performance was, "top notch," and the same can be said for his performance in this film, with his portrayal of a character, who, although the title suggests otherwise, attempts to stay within the boundaries of the law despite all of the ongoing threats to him and his business, being simply brilliant.

Adding to this brilliance, is Jessica Chastain, who plays the role of Anna Morales superbly, and who, in contrast to her husband, is no stranger to violence thanks to her father's gangster background. The chemistry between the two leads is explosive, and helps develop the way in which each character changes throughout the course of the movie, particularly Abel, who transforms from an almost reluctant hero into a no-nonsense hard-man. These strong performances help keep the film going, particularly when it is at its' weakest, with the rather shallow plot taking a while to kick in, and just slightly stretching its' two-hour run-time.

Overall, A Most Violent Year, is J. C. Chandor's best film to date, helped particularly by two terrific performances from Isaac and Chastain. Although its' rather simple plot is stretched into the film's run-time, the film is an entertaining and gripping crime drama that can stand strong next to other films in the same genre.

Overall Score: 8/10

I, Robot Another week, another bunch of brand new film releases, with this weeks' most anticipated (for me anyway) being Alex Garland's Ex Machina, starring Domhnall Gleeson and Oscar Isaac, both of whom are set to star in that little thing called Star Wars which is out later this year. After discovering Garland had wrote screenplays for both 28 Days Later and Dredd, both of which I love, I was instantly compelled to go and see his latest effort, and his directorial debut. Off we go...

For the plot, I will try not to give too much away, (I went in to the showing hardly knowing anything) so I will stick to the basic premise which is laid out within the trailer. After Domhnall Gleeson's character, Caleb, wins a competition to spend a week with the CEO of his company, "Bluebook", he soon becomes part of a groundbreaking experiment that focuses on Ava, an AI created by Oscar Issac's character, Nathan, and is asked to determine whether it is capable of exhibiting human behaviour by means of the Turing test. First off, Ex Machina, benefits slightly from last year's release of The Imitation Game, which documented the life of Alan Turing, so those who saw it may indeed have the upper hand already in understanding the basis of the test used in the film. In terms of similarities between the films however, they most certainly end there as Ex Machina is a creepy and claustrophobic, proper sci-fi film, reminiscent of last years' Under the Skin, which I named my top film of 2014. Good start...

Much like Under the Skin, Ex Machina, relies on an overall sense of isolation, with each having very little cast, and both focusing on the differences of what is is to be human against what it is to be considered the "other" or the "outsider". In the context of Under the Skin, the "other" was an alien who had taken the form of Scarlet Johansson, whereas in Ex Machina, the other can arguably be recognised as the AI Ava or Nathan, whose paranoid and untrustworthy tendencies have pushed him into a reclusive lifestyle, where the interaction with Caleb only succeeds through Caleb signing his freedom away. Literally. The secluded nature of the film gives it an overarching feeling of forthcoming dread, especially in the scenes where we witness power cuts, where the sense of danger is emphasised by the colour changes from natural to a bold, blood-like red.

The film also includes top-notch performances from Isaac and Gleeson, but it is Alicia Vikander's portrayal as AI Ava that really steals the show, so much so that it would have been interesting to see if her, or the film in general, would have been recognised by the Oscars if it had been released only a few months earlier. Although the film does suffer slightly from being rather too slow in places, it is strong and effective addition to the sci-fi genre. I look forward to seeing Mr. Garland again.

Overall Score: 8/10

Now that the Oscar nominations have been let loose on the world, it is time for me to catch up on all the films that I haven't seen which have been nominated for 'Best Picture'. Beginning my journey, albeit a very small one with only three films needing to be watched, is American Sniper, the new movie directed by The Man With No Name, starring Bradley Cooper, last heard as a gun-toting raccoon in last years' wonderful Guardians of the Galaxy. Shall we begin?

American Sniper focuses on the life of Chris Kyle, the "deadliest marksman in US military history", who during his time as a Navy Seal, racked up 255 kills. 160 of which were confirmed, whilst attempting to highlight the effects war can have on soldiers, both in a wartime environment and a 'normal' one. The word, "attempting", is probably the key fulcrum on which this review is based as the movie fails to paint a picture of how horrific war actually is, and instead, relies too many times on scenes that go full-on Call of Duty, with Black Hawk Down being the obvious inspiration, which in my mind, is something I have seen too many times before.

In terms of the good, Bradley Cooper does a solid job portraying Kyle, whilst Sienna Miller, who subsequently has seemingly reappeared out of nowhere in American Sniper and Foxcatcher, does an equally as good job playing the role of the estranged wife who is caught between Kyle's love for her and his love for war. Aside from the two Kyles, the rest of the film is seemingly enriched with 2-D characters who come and go in relatively forgettable fashion, whilst the contrast between Kyle and the enemy sniper is rather poorly done and should have had more depth in order for me to actually care for the twisted relationship between the two. The word "depth", in general, springs to mind, as their simply wasn't enough in this film to justify its' two hour plus run-time, and it seemed to drag on and not really grip me like I wished it would.

Overall, American Sniper, is a solid, yet unspectacular, flag-waving war film that attempts to show the true horrors and effects of war yet only succeeds in falling flat on its' face. Although it has been nominated for "Best Picture" at the forthcoming Oscars, it is probably the weakest of all the films in that category and in my opinion, should easily be replaced by Foxcatcher.

Overall Score: 6/10

It's award season everyone! On the day I am writing this, the Golden Globes is set to descend upon us with the majestic two-hour red carpet special lying in wait along with my pot of coffee and sugar- filled lemonade. Cheers time zones. Of the films listed in the "Best Films" category, Foxcatcher, Selma, and The Theory of Everything, are the only ones I hadn't seen when the nominations were announced so I decided to catch up when they were released in UK cinemas, starting with Foxcatcher. Foxcatcher brings to life the true story of Jon Du Pont, played by Steve Carell, and his efforts in hiring the Olympic wrestling champions Mark and Dave Schultz, played by Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo respectively, to train under the "Foxcatcher" estate and ready a team for the 1988 Olympics. Although, from this short synopsis anyway, Foxcatcher seems to be primarily a sports film, the reality is that Foxcatcher is a different monster entirely.

When I first watched the trailer to Foxcatcher, I was astonished at the transformation of Carell, whose unrecognisable performance as Du Pont is undeniably the best feature of the film, with his character's eerie presence and ambiguous nature symbolising the tone I felt the film was trying to convey throughout its' two hour run- time. Both Carell and Tatum portray characters that are undeniably against type, and I felt this only enhanced the film's strengths, as it's dark and grim tone was unexpected, due in part to the fact that I had no previous knowledge of the events surrounding the story.

Another strength of the film is Ruffalo's performance, who, like Carell, is nominated for a Golden Globe, yet what stuck me most about the film was it's clear emphasis on the notion of family, with themes throughout focusing on brotherhood, paternal and maternal instincts, as well as feelings of isolation, particularly in relation to Du Pont, whose Gatsby-esque wealth and fame, brings with it a sense of loneliness and despair, helped only by his unusual love for his very own Daisy Buchanan, in the form of Mark Schultz.

Overall, Foxcatcher is a dark and twisted tale of one man's isolation which engaged me throughout. Its' grim nature and rather depressing feel may be too much for some, but in my opinion, Foxcatcher is a solid and surprising piece of cinema. Roll on the red carpet.

Overall Score: 8/10

As an avid guitar player, I vividly remember watching the amazing Steve Vai battle against Ralph Macchio during the simply superb guitar duel at the end of the 1986' film, Crossroads (No, not the Britney Spears film). Soon after watching it, I was amazed to find out that Macchio was not entirely playing the guitar during the film and instead, the music was performed by Ry Cooder, yet to me, the performance by Macchio was really happening in front of me. Aside from the guitar duel, Crossroads was pretty pants, yet the knowledge that Macchio must have had intense training regarding where to place his fingers on the fret-board, when to strum, and when to make Vai- like facial expressions still amazes me to this day. After watching Whiplash, I felt, and still feel, the exact sense of sheer wonder I did the first time I saw that guitar duel, yet unlike Crossroads, Whiplash isn't pants. In fact, it's pretty much perfect.

The plot of the film focuses on Andre Neiman, played by Miles Teller. a 19 year-old jazz drummer, who is taken under the wing of notorious teacher Terrence Fletcher, at renowned music school, Shaffer Conservatory, in order to fulfil his dreams of becoming a legend in musical history. Much like Macchio in Crossroads, Teller is flawless in attempting to present realistic and uncanny musical performances throughout the film, and even goes one better by perfectly portraying a character who literally combines blood, sweat and tears with total dedication into his musical ability. Following him all the way is J.K. Simmons', who surely must regard this as a career best performance, with his portrayal of Fletcher characterised by one moment, being undeniably cool and calm, and then suddenly morphing into this all-swearing, larger than life, musical monster who takes no prisoners, accepts no excuses, and will literally throw chairs at you for being slightly out of time with the rest of his band.

Aside from the two actors, another winner in this film is surely Tom Cross, whose editing within the film allows Teller's performance to propel into greatness, and it is good to see that he has been recognised by the BAFTA's for such outstanding work which surely means an Oscar nomination is set to land at his feet. Good job. Obviously the soundtrack is brilliant, with it already being on my wish-list, but what truly exceeds in this film is it's hard-hitting nature in its' attempt to show characters whose lives are not only engulfed by their passion and love for the music, but will do almost anything to keep that feeling flowing, evidenced during the very last performance within the film in which both Teller and Fletcher give a performance worthy of endless applause and shouts for just one more.

Overall, Whiplash is a brilliant piece of cinema, packed full with spot-on performances, not only from the actors, but by editor, Tom Cross, a brilliant soundtrack, and a sense of wonder which gripped me from start to finish. Can I have an encore?

Overall Score: 10/10

When it comes to films, I try and stay hidden from advance reviews in order to always go into the cinema with an open mind and thus, be unaware of what anyone has said about the film before I have seen it. Unfortunately for the case of Birdman, this was unavoidable. After seeing a range of films in the cinema over Christmas, a Birdman trailer was always guaranteed along with the many 5 star reviews that are presented to you during its' run-time. Because of this, I went into the screening of Birdman with my expectation level moderately high yet, once the film had finished, it is fair to say I wasn't disappointed.

In terms of plot, Micheal Keaton plays Riggan Thompson, a washed-up Hollywood star famous for playing the role of superhero 'Birdman' who, at an attempt to get his career back on track, takes a shot at Broadway by means of writing, directing, and starring in an adaptation of the short story What We Talk About When We Talk About Love by Raymond Carver, an idol of Thompson's. Unbeknownst to anyone else, Thompson is plagued by the subconscious voice of Birdman, who, along with a faltering family and disruptive cast, place Thompson's life and career firmly in the balance.

Firstly, it is fair to say that Birdman is something unlike anything else I think I have ever seen before within cinematic history, with its' mix of genres, (Is it a drama? Black comedy? Satire? Superhero movie?) fantastic cinematography, (by Oscar-winning Emmanuel Lubezki who won the award for Gravity) and a brilliantly barmy plot performed perfectly by an equally superb ensemble cast. Secondly, Keaton is excellent (I am running out of superlatives) as Thompson and should easily be recognised within the upcoming awards season, even if I couldn't help but draw parallels between his character's life and his own (Keaton played Batman in the Tim Burton films). Lastly, the satirical notions regarding cinema in today's society were greatly emphhasised and executed throughout the film, particularly the scene with a fancy dress Iron Man fighting Spider- Man which, in my opinion, was rather splendid. The films' two hour running time, in general, went quickly, although I felt there seemed to be too many scenes where the film was set to end and then quickly carried on, yet this didn't deter the utter joy I felt whilst watching it.

Overall, Birdman is a brilliant, barmy, and bonkers piece of cinema which no doubt will end up somewhere in my Top Ten films of 2015. Keaton is superb. The visuals are stunning. The plot is splendid. RIP Batman, long live Birdman.

Overall Score: 9/10

A film starring Jake Gyllenhaal always seems to attract me, and it always will do, due to the knowledge that Gyllenhaal portrayed one of my favourite characters in one of my all-time favourite films. That film was Donnie Darko, a film so unlike anything i had seen before in my lifetime when it was released, a film that had endless meaning, a film which featured an awesome soundtrack, capped off with a perfect performance by Gyllenhaal as the titular character. Now we have Enemy, the second film from the Gyllenhaal/Villeneuve partnership, filmed instantly after the completion of their first effort, Prisoners, in 2013, and boy, is it a weird one.

In terms of the plot, Gyllenhaal plays history teacher, Adam Bell, a man whose life seems to be going nowhere and is stuck on repeat, whilst his relationship with Melanie Laurent's character, Mary, follows suit, and is seemingly only held together by the physical aspect it brings with it. During one evening, Bell watches a film recommended to him by another teacher, named, Where There's a Will There's a Way, and sees someone physically identical to him starring in the film. That's where i will end the plot synopsis, as what follows is a film laced with mystery, suspense and downright creepiness, in a vein which reminded me of works by David Lynch, particularly Mulholland Dr., bubble-wrapped with notions of identity, totalitarianism and arachnophobia, particularly for me.

Features of the film include top-notch performances, particularly from Gyllenhaal, who practically has to play two completely different roles, a heavy sense of surrealism, accompanied by an almost grunge-esque feel to the film, and an ending which freaked me out so much, i had to lie down and digest slowly what had occurred before my eyes. On the bad side, the film obviously won't appeal to a mass audience, with its' ambiguous tone throughout leaving a range of questions unanswered, whilst the dark colours of the film sometimes required me to peer nose-first into my screen in order to figure out what was happening and bring clarity to the situation.

Overall, Enemy is dark, bizarre, and features an ending that will shock almost everyone. Honestly, i'm still shaking. I believe it is a better film than Prisoners and will take some beating to not be in my Films of the Year List for 2015. Please feel free to comment on your feelings, ideas, and meaning of the film and i hope you enjoy it as much as i did and remember, "chaos is order yet undeciphered."

Overall Score: 9/10

Here we are at last. After 726 minutes of Lord of the Rings (I'm including the extended Blu-Ray editions as i recently watched them all) and 343 minutes of The Hobbit so far (once again, the extended editions) we have the final instalment of our journey through middle-earth. What a ride it has been. Shall we do it one last time?

The Hobbit series so far hasn't at all gripped me in ways that LOTR did. I found An Unexpected Journey way too long, yet a solid start, and although The Desolation of Smaug was a much improved addition to the Middle Earth saga, it still stood in the shadow of all films within the LOTR trilogy. Now we have The Battle of Five Armies, a film that starts with a superb opening scene following on from the conclusion of the previous film, in which the monstrous Smaug descends upon Laketown with death, and death in huge numbers, in mind. Ironically, the epicness and awe-inspiring first section of the film is never really surpassed in the two hours that followed.

In terms of the good, the first is that the film is much shorter than the previous offerings resulting in a better pace as well as eradicating the feeling that the story was dragging on, something which i had felt particularly in the first film. Secondly, Richard Armitage is fantastic as Thorin, and in my view stole the show portraying a character battling with his inner demons in a way not too dissimilar from the effects of the one ring, although this inadvertently results in Freeman's perfect portrayal of Bilbo almost being sidelined. Other positive points include the way in which Christopher Lee, aged 92, can still kick shadowy butt, and the way in which the film nicely rounds off the middle-earth saga by leading the audience straight into The Fellowship of the Ring.

Now for the bad. For some reason, the makers of The Hobbit Trilogy have gone CGI crazy, particularly within this last instalment, and for me the sheer amount of reliance on such sadly reduces the feeling of epicness i should have been feeling. CGI orcs? Not needed. The orcs in LOTR were brilliant. Why change that? CGI Dain? WHY? You could have easily just asked for Billy Connolly to be in the film directly, yet instead, Mr Jackson or whoever believes his voice is all that is needed and a computer generated version is much better. No. The over-use of CGI also results in the film looking like a video game in some occasions, with some scenes looking like they have been lifted from last years' Shadow of Mordor. Other minor problems included Orlando Bloom looking very scary as a post-plastic surgery looking Legolas, some cheesy love-in moments, and an overall sense of repetitiveness during the titular battle.

In conclusion, The Battle of the Five Armies has rounded off the middle-earth saga in a solid, yet strangely unspectacular fashion, featuring a brilliant opening scene as well as a stand-out performance from Armitage, weakened by an over-reliance on CGI and a feeling of repetitiveness throughout the battle sequences. Farewell Middle- Earth. It's been emotional.

Overall Score: 7/10

What is the essence of comedy i hear you ask? In my own view, comedy relies on the importance of timing and delivery in order to effectively produce laughs. British humour is the greatest humour in the world, (No Bias Intended) highlighted by famous British comedy shows/films such as Monty Python, Fawlty Towers and most recently the Thick of It which is easily the funniest and most intelligent comedy show i have seen in the 21st century. My overall feeling after watching The Interview, was that comedy has died. And in a bad way, as well as feeling that there is a clear target audience which, in my view, consists of young males, between the ages of 12 and 15, who will find Rogen/Franco's new film unbelievably funny whereas I, who is reaching their 21st birthday, found it distasteful, crude and a complete waste of time. The rant continues...

In terms of plot, Franco plays a non-likable caricature, symbolising the laddish-culture that seeps through a range of films and TV programmes that are ripe in society today, who is tasked with Rogen's "Samwise" to Franco's "Frodo", character in bringing down the "most famous man alive," Kim-Jong Un, after they are both invited to interview him in North Korea. What follows is a 115 minute orgy of racism, swearing, violence and casual misogyny which most importantly, is not in anyway funny, but instead made me wish i had been bombed during the showing as it would have saved me the pain of following the film all the way until the credits came up.

Anyone who is alive will have been aware of the impending bomb threat North Korea have sanctioned in response to the film and so far, i am still alive and well but that may soon change, meaning my last ever review may be on a film that is not only highly racist, but entirely lacks taste and charm, all of which i expect somewhere in a film classified as "comedy". The Interview, in a word then, is pants. Of the highest order, and is only prevented from 1/10 by the ONE smile i managed during the course of the film which was brought upon by the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel that featured in the film. Seriously, that was the best bit. A dog. Enjoy. Overall Score: 2/10

I vaguely remember seeing the previous Fuqua/Washington effort, Training Day, before i began watching The Equalizer and my overall feeling once the credits began to roll was to watch it as soon as possible in order to reassure it couldn't be as bad as the film i had just watched.

On the negative side, The Equalizer is overlong, (30 minutes easily could be cut from the film) over-violent, (i know it's an action film but it just seemed to deter from the seriousness of the tone it was trying to achieve) and rather quite silly in places.

On the positive side, Washington gives a good performance but that's pretty much about it.

5/10