Reviews

Loosely based on the 1939 short story by James Thurber, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty explores the idyllic fantasies of its titular protagonist, as he attempts to escape the mundane motions of his daily routine employment at Life Magazine. When Mitty (Ben Stiller) discovers that photojournalist Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn) has misplaced negative 25, intended for the cover of the final print of the publication, he sets out on a larger-than-Life journey to locate the missing photograph, while reducing his need for daydreams as he discovers that not even his wildest fantasies are a match for an adventurous reality.

In addition to starring, Stiller also takes on directing duty, and does a mostly wonderful job of collaborating with writer Steven Conrad in adapting Thurber's classic tale of a man's yearning for more out of life.

A fantasy adventure with glimpses of comedy, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is, in one word, pleasant. Envision a pyramid of qualities; the film's dreamlike sequences comfortably and rightfully sit atop its magnitude of highlights. With the lines between fantasy and reality often being blurred in Mitty's zoned out state of paralysis, he invites us into his crazy, hazy, even mazy lapses into daydreams of romanticism, adventure and pleasure.

Why are The Secret Life of Walter Mitty's fantasy sequences so successful? Because of their relation to our own imaginations: the things we wish we could say but don't; the places we wish we could go but won't. The film's fantasy references are inspired by popular movies such as The Matrix, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Harry Potter and pretty much every superhero film ever. This hilarious and creative approach to Mitty's fantasies offers an insightful look into how uninsightful our own imaginations can be, as they crave originality but settle for what has been imagined before.

Perhaps a slight disappointment to Mitty's on screen daydreams is their quantity. While Thurber's short story is dominated by the character's constant drift into his fantasy worlds, Stiller's adaptation favours reality and narrative over fantasy and themes. The film's aforementioned highlights are too few and far between throughout the 114 minute feature. Thus, it may have been Beneficial for Stiller to lengthen the film slightly in order to incorporate more of Mitty's fantasies, which would have better established his dissatisfaction with life.

Despite this, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty does have a story investing and intriguing enough for it not to be the film's demise. The secrecy behind negative 25 drives the film along, with love interest Cheryl (Kristen Wiig) also spurring Mitty on in the passenger's seat, inspiring the anxious and rigid dreamer to take his unpredictable ride and become the person he desires to be.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is refreshing in its lack of reliance on dialogue. Instead, the film's beautiful soundtrack and score, cinematography in exceptional landscapes and even the quietness of Mitty, tells us pretty much everything we need to know. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty consists of visual wonderment, with superbly selected and composed music to harmonise the scenery, complementing each other as they stroll hand in hand through Mitty's perfectly paced journey.

"Life is about courage and going into the unknown." If you fail to relate to Mitty's early illusory state, cautiousness and absence of courage, then you probably live a somewhat audacious lifestyle, in which case good for you! For the rest of us, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is a relatable, pleasant and semi-inspirational modernisation of Thurber's story.

Just as the film's concluding third appears to have little payoff considering its memorable opening two, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty wraps up with a revitalising, picture-perfect moment, fulfilling enough to make cinema-goers reconsider 2013's most impressive movies.

In spite of its imperfections in almost keeping Mitty's secret life somewhat of a secret from the audience at times, and preferencing the film's plot over his fantasies, this adaptation is nonetheless a satisfying, fun, visually and audibly pleasing present for the holiday season. Not even Walter Mitty would fantasise about battling you through the streets of Manhattan if you waited for The Secret Life of his on DVD or Netflix, but this delightful film is definitely worth the time and box office cost if you find yourself looking for inspiration for your own imagination.

Thor: The Dark World expands on the beloved Marvel Cinematic Universe, quite literally, this time with one of the least exciting Avengers taking the spotlight for Hammertime.

Despite the devoted fan-base of this incredible world of Marvel superheroes, you can't help but feel that Thor: The Dark World is the first instalment in the franchise to feel most contrived and out of place. Yet, this sequel is still a mild improvement on its predecessor, though together they combine for the weakest in the series of superhero films, even though Thor is probably the strongest out of the bunch. The film finds Thor doing his thing in Asgard, before his lady love Jane Foster conveniently stumbles upon a weapon known as the Aether, which the Dark Elf Malekith intends to use to destroy the universe. Asleep yet?

Negativity aside, Thor: The Dark World is a mostly enjoyable comic-book flick with some superb action, actors and, I can't think of another word that begins with 'a' so, humour.

For an incredibly cheesy character, Chris Hemsworth still has the oh my demigod factor to bring a great balance of confidence, charisma and physicality to the role of Thor. This can be said of all of the Asgardians, including Anthony Hopkins as Odin and Tom Hiddleston's fan- favourite portrayal of Loki. While narratively Thor: The Dark World is predominantly yawn-inspiring, the presence of Hiddleston's Loki compensates as fans are genuinely interested to see his current personality and relationship with Thor following the events of The Avengers in 2012.

It is the human characters that are the dull, annoyingly cheesy and unnecessary obstacles that often get in the way of the overall pleasant 112 minute sequel. Notably, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is used as a pathetic damsel in distress signal masquerading as a character with any significance, while Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) is pretty much the idiotic joke machine waiting for her cue. These characters, along with the contrived villain Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) are really the Aether to what could have been a very promising second outing for Thor. With no disrespect to these actors whom deliver fine performances, it is their characters that suppress absolute enjoyment of Thor: The Dark World.

Apologies for this tennis match I am having with myself in complementing and then hammering Thor: The Dark World's qualities; still I'll continue to play. More positively, the film is possibly the greatest comedic achievement for the superhero squadron on screen to date. One moment had the audience in an uproar of laughter; those that have seen it will know the moment, and those that are yet to see the film will know when they bear witness to its hilarity. Even during other scenes where the humour feels slightly inappropriate given the circumstances, you'll easily yield with laughter, or at the minimum, a low-key grin.

It's almost superfluous today to commend a modern blockbuster for its CGI quality. However due to its stark visual improvement over its 2011 predecessor, Thor: The Dark World is certainly worth mentioning as an aesthetically potent force which makes the movie a Thorful lot of fun!

Whilst the Thorsome Asgardian actors, humour and visual effects are enough to keep Marvel fans entertained for two short hands around the clock, it doesn't take too long to realise that Thor: The Dark World is probably the most forgettable and forced in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, though by no means the first for Marvel (I'm looking at you 'Amazing' Spider-Man). Thor's lack of character development since the end of Thor, along with the villain out of nowhere and no care Malekith make this sequel feel pretty purposeless in the grander scheme of things. And that's not even mentioning Jane Foster: Marvel's version of Daphne from Scooby-Doo, except more pointless, boring, unconvincing and no fun for anyone.

After a Thortless and needlessly dull opening 45 minutes, Thor: The Dark World has plenty of surprises along the way to amuse the fandom inside of devotees, that'll shadow its flaws until you really start to think about the film, but it's some fun while it lasts.

A story so compelling and worth telling, Captain Phillips is the biographical account of one Captain Richard Phillips' actions in response to a hijacking by Somali pirates on his cargo ship in 2009. Despite accusations of the film's depiction of real events as misleading, as a standalone piece, Paul Greengrass' thrilling direction and Tom Hanks' phenomenal performance combine for one of 2013's most surprising, intense and breathtaking cinematic offerings.

The less you know about the factual events going into Captain Phillips, the more enhanced the experience of seeing a recreation of others' experiences will be, due to the surprising turns and uncertainty of the film's climactic moments.

The severe intensity and feeling of insecurity shroud your senses throughout the 134 minute duration of Captain Phillips. Like watching Breaking Bad, the sensations that the film evokes in you are indescribable, plentiful and so miscellaneous, causing you to become a servant to Greengrass' masterful filmmaking. This is how a biographical drama should feel: real, regardless of the fact that most watching will never experience the actions represented on screen.

An area in which the film arguably lacks is in its treatment of the sensitivity of piracy as less of a one-dimensional issue as it can often be perceived. While the themes around the social issues of Somali piracy are present, they are not entrenched into the narrative as the most memorable aspect of the film. More so, the film emphasises and brings attention to piracy more broadly as a global issue to be taken seriously. Prior to the intense hijacking sequences, Hanks, as Phillips, is consistently undermined in his concerns about the threat of piracy upon the MV Maersk Alabama, until of course the ship is successfully boarded by the four pirates. Captain Phillips favours thriller over drama, intensity over the propensity of piracy for many, but this by no means is a downfall for the film, just an observation I've spent too long writing about so let's move on.

Hanks' portrayal as the seemingly heroic Captain is not only one of his most memorable, but one of the most unforgettable performances in recent history. It is literal insanity how tremendously the actor clutches us all in to his character's palm, in order to give us an almost POV seat into the tribulations of his character. In addition to the film's perfect pacing, Tom Hanks' portrayal completely makes you lose track of time as your awareness is at one with the film's pace; you go wherever the Captain or Captor Abduwali Muse (brilliantly played by Barkhad Abdi) go. The film's concluding scene alone is a triumph in cinema, in acting and in emotional expression as Hanks delivers a heart-wrenching, throat- lumping and tear-inducing performance, so powerful it almost makes his acting throughout the rest of the film seem like a school play, but not quite...or at all.

Though not executed perfectly, Captain Phillips brings to light the darkness and seriousness of piracy. With a heavier concentration on Richard Phillips and its thriller genre, the biography based on the book by the Captain is a heart-pounding survival film that leaves you sweating, in awe and only able to reclaim your breath once the credits begin to scroll. In spite of the numerous bodily functions the film's wonderful score, masterful direction, talented actors and overall experience have you performing, they are functions worth having. Exhaustingly intense, Captain Phillips is an undoubted contender for the year's most outstanding feature.

Biographical sports drama Rush tracks the strictly competitive rivalry between Formula One racers James Hunt and Niki Lauda during the 1970s.

Even before you've arrived at the starting line, there may be understandable scepticism on whether Rush is really a race you wish to run with. However, like Moneyball (2011) before it, I was pleasantly surprised at how investing a story about a sport I know nothing about and care nothing for could be. Cars are useless without people to drive them. Rush is a vehicle painted with a core theme of the professional and personal consequences of fierce rivalry, between it two primary passengers. Formula One racing is just the fuel to push the vehicle to its eventual destination.

It is a story worth telling, both for those who were spectating during the 1970s, and for those like myself who are still taking driving lessons and didn't know the names Niki Lauda or James Hunt until this film existed. Behind Ron Howard's careful direction and sensitivity to the story, Rush invites its audience to witness the depth of competitiveness that Lauda and Hunt travelled through. Its expertly crafted pace, detail and tone complement the (f)actual events also, with Niki Lauda even expressing his positive reaction to the film's look and accuracy.

Despite a 123 minute run, your legs feel motionless. Rush is a timeless tale in two senses: 1. Its great display of the triumphs and pitfalls that competitiveness can have are accessible and applicable throughout history, throughout the modern world, and probably will be throughout the future 2. The film is so engrossing that not once did I question how much time had passed nor how close we were to the end. Rush has enough continuous momentum to take us to the end of the journey without exhausting emissions, as we cruise through seamlessly to the finish line

With its fantastic editing and storytelling techniques to push the story along without making it feel, dare I say...Rushed, Rush masterfully places its two protagonists in lanes so far apart that only their egos are able to fill the empty space. Like Batman and The Joker, Hunt and Lauda are represented as polar opposites whom were almost destined to become competitors, as it is only their mutual rivalry that fuels their motivation to win. Without one competing with such passion, the other wouldn't have the passion to compete at all.

The story is only complemented further by the enthralling performances of Daniel Brühl (Lauda) and Chris Hemsworth (Hunt), in addition to Olivia Wilde's brief yet brilliant supporting role. Rush's arrival at the finish line is as smooth as the ride that Ron Howard takes us along throughout. Thrilling, investing, interesting and well-made flawlessness, is about all one could request of a biopic that centres around such sensitive source-material. Rush is exciting, frightening but most of all the right thing to catch up to in theatres as its release seems to be on its final laps around UK tracks, so rush to see it. Oh dear I wrote it again.

The greatest flaw of the written word when encountered by languages' other supreme companion, the spoken word, is the absence of voice. More specifically, the power to speak in an epic manner (like that of voice-over artists in film trailers) is silently nonexistent on paper. Nonetheless, if you get vocally equipped to impersonate legendary voices such as Don LaFontaine, then this review may make slightly more verbal sense.

(*Cue voice) In a world, where actress Lake Bell makes her feature- length writing/directorial debut, one woman peruses her dream of achieving success in the male-dominated profession that is, movie- trailer voice-over artistry.

Starting out as an amateur vocal coach, the film's protagonist Carol (Bell) battles prejudice, unlikely competitors and 'sexy baby' voices in her aspirations to be heard and eradicate squeaky vocal trends women have adopted. Even with its ambitious yet necessary purpose, In a World... is grounded by its comedic realism and vocal propriety.

In a World... is genuinely hilarious throughout almost every scene. There is something peculiar about observing real world annoyances as opposed to experiencing them. Watching someone awkwardly climb in and out of the backseat of a three-door car is, for some reason, a lot more amusing than attempting the feat yourself. Lake Bell's witty writing, timing and controlled comedy is astonishingly insightful due to its relatable nature, proving how being loud, obnoxious and repetitive is the inferior course for cinematic comedy.

Its realism is really the film's greatest contradiction. In a World... orbits and gravitates towards the world of voice-over artists and the business elements behind it. The film tells its audience of the deceitfulness that can occur in industry to get ahead. It echoes the dishonesty of voice over work itself, as essentially the artists are just pretending that films are great with modified voices when they work. Bell enlightens her audience to the falseness and often harsh reality of being an undervalued artist, by conveying these motifs as modern day issues, with genius, real humour to ensure its eventual light-hearted and grounded purpose.

In a World... articulates the nonlinear path towards silencing prejudice. As Carol's voice breaks through an industry monopolised by males, she realises that the resolution to gender equality can perish and give way to tokenism. In a World... establishes that idealism is achievable through correcting the minor issues ('sexy baby' voices) before the more important feminist battle of universal fairness can be accomplished. Even with its truths of the current state of female representation and tokenistic values in the workplace, In a World... thankfully doesn't force its values down your throat, instead allowing a clear airway for you to express how undeniably likable, enjoyable and cool the film actually is.

In a World... is its own voice. It speaks of the power of the spoken word, of language, communication and how devastating or fantastic it all can be. It verbalises and gives recognition to a visually hidden yet audible industry. It reveals the many talents of Lake Bell and surprising range in Rob Corddry's (Hot Tub Time Machine) acting, whom we usually see in wacky, comically hyperbolic roles. In spite of all its resonance, In a World... is unlikely to be heard or appreciated by a large number, due to its limited release.

(*Cue voice) Witness one of the funniest films in years. Lake Bell has established herself as an excellent writer/director, in her creation of an effortless and pleasant film about the world of voice-over. Stop at nothing to hear, see and experience Lake Bell's In a World... while you still can.

Avoiding temptation, I will use my powers to circumvent writing Kick-Ass 2 "Kicks Ass" in this review. This should be made easier by the fact that this sequel to the 2010 original is immensely disappointing and will mostly entertain teenagers who are too young to see it.

Unlike most soul-squashing sequels, Kick-Ass 2's pitfalls cannot be found within the film's narrative...for the most part. Kick-Ass 2 continues the story of its titular character (Dave Lizewski) and Mindy Macready (Hit-Girl) as they deal with the temptations of both vigilantism and 'normal' life in high school. When Colonel Stars and Stripes assembles "Justice Forever", a group of aspiring heroes, Kick- Ass leaps back into the green and yellow spandex, while Hit-Girl decides the school hallways are a more fitting suit for her. Meanwhile, a 'super'villain calling himself The Motherf*cker assembles his own team to take revenge on Kick-Ass and other heroes after the events of the first film, completing the premise.

The premise is promising, and opens up some fun and entertaining altercations throughout Kick-Ass 2. Though predictable, it doesn't force itself not to be, and so is simple enough to follow also. Seeing the formations of opposing hero/villain teams gives the film its super strength and flight that elevates the story higher than almost all other abilities and features the sequel has. The more underwhelming aspects of the story involve Hit-Girl's, or now Mindy's, affliction with high school drama. While Chloë Grace Moretz does a great job in her role, the strikingly odd and alienating Mean Girls similarities feel exploitative of current trends, thus eliminating your enjoyment for the narrative overall.

Kick-Ass 2 doesn't take itself too seriously. The film promises profanity, effortless viewing, blood and entertainment. Unfortunately, the latter of the four falls through the floor and is brutally ravaged under the new direction and writing of Jeff Wadlow. As if the director thought Kick-Ass (2010) was too acoustic, he attempts to amplify and exploit the sequel's predecessor with a messy, jarring and unbalanced 103 minute melody.

Wadlow drops the genesis into a tank of thrashing sharks, hoping the messy splashes are enough to mask the abysmal continuation of a franchise that would have been better left unscathed. To reveal my true meaning, which no character in Kick-Ass 2 ever does, the simple and moderately enjoyable plot is surrounded by monotonous humour, senseless motivations and uncomfortable sexual exploits, involving 15 year-old dancers and a supposedly 'funny' scene suggesting rape. Further, the violence feels over-the-top even for over-the-top violence. This makes Kick-Ass 2 difficult to enjoy because the camera is shaking around in unison with your head's attempts to keep up, along with the shakes of disappointment and disbelief.

It appears that the writer/director took the common comic book theme of identity crises far too seriously. There are too many moments of Kick- Ass 2 that feel out of place or imbalanced. Some scenes delve into dark narrative turns that force Kick-Ass to deal with the consequences. Then the following scene will have crudely unfunny moments of abnormal bodily dysfunctions. Unlike the first film, the two tones do not blend well as they are of such extremes that they can hardly see one another as they drift apart.

More positively, Wadlow manages to introduce a few new cool characters to the team. The most notable members include Jim Carrey as Colonel Stars and Stripes, Donald Faison as Dr. Gravity and Lindy Booth as Night B*tch. Carrey and Faison aren't given an amount of screen time that would justify their characters being embedded into our memories. Nonetheless, they are appreciated when on screen as being some of the only actually funny and enjoyable elements in Kick-Ass 2.

It is two hours of escapism sure, but there are times when the fire escape in the corner of your eye looks more appealing as you feel your head is about to explode. Kick-Ass 2 is essentially a recycled version of the first Kick-Ass film meets Mean Girls; it's the same gift with a new bow on top. Though you may wish to keep the receipt for this one as once unwrapped, you'll have wished you never received it. Kick-Ass 2 most definitely does not Kick A...ny other recent cinematic release from your attention, and I would recommend forgetting this film completely as it fails to bring justice to its significantly superior predecessor.

Many had presumed that Marvel's mutated franchise and even their indestructible adamantium machine could not heal after the disappointing releases of X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) and then X-Men Origins: Wolverine in 2009. Nonetheless, the 2011 prequel X-Men: First Class and this 126 minute journey half way across the world to Japan have managed to mend these wounds. The Wolverine unleashes a fresh, X-citing and much anticipated focus on the character that is not impenetrable from criticism but is pretty much what any Wolverine fan and cinemagoer could have hoped for.

The Wolverine opens with the titular character inexplicably placed in Nagasaki, where he rescues a military officer from the tragic atomic blast during The Second World War. In the present day, following the events of X-Men: The Last Stand, Logan, no longer considering himself the Wolverine, wanders the wilderness in anguish over the deaths of those close to him, which he must deal with eternally due to his curse of immortality.

What sets this film apart from other comic-book adventures corresponds to what makes Wolverine a unique character. The Wolverine sees its anti- hero on a quest for death more so than anything else. He does not seek heroics, recognition, justice or anything good, only the privilege of an end to his everlasting misery by death, which is brought to life tremendously by the film's screenplay and of course the Wolverine himself: Hugh Jackman.

The Wolverine calmly claws you in almost throughout its run in a beastly variety of ways. The Japanese landscapes provides a fresh setting, and makes the film visually interesting even when we are away from the action. Cinematographer Ross Emery captures the really X-traodinarily beautiful Japanese backdrops that are a refreshing change from New York skyscrapers.

While The Wolverine is great to look at when the beast's claws are retracted, the film is equally appealing when a regrettable soul gives Wolverine a reason to unleash the beast within. Notably, a scene involving a moving train is Class 5, stands out most memorably as the strongest amongst the film's action sequences. The final battle, while albeit a little uninteresting due to its loudness and surrender to clichés, can be forgiven due to its eventual satisfactory outcome.

One unfortunate element to the film that is less forgiving however, probably primarily from my own and comic-book fans' perspective, is the disappointing, unintimidating and lacklustre villain in Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova). The actress is just a little difficult to understand at times, through both voice, and the fact her and the character seem to hold no real motivation or clear threat.

Unlike X-Men Origins: Wolverine, this significantly improved 2013 attempt is considerably well, more considerate to the character, with attention to plot, pacing and overall a more focused and consistent tone. The Wolverine dives claws first into the darkness of its protagonist, exploring how Logan's emotional scars cannot heal and are ever present, becoming increasingly burdening over time as he attempts to fix these unfixable wounds that torture him eternally.

It is almost redundant at this stage, 13 years after the first X-Men film was released, to praise Hugh Jackman for his consistently tremendous and irreplaceable portrayal of Logan/Wolverine. Almost, but not quite. Redundancy can be sliced and forgotten because Jackman simply owns the role of the X-Men's most beloved mutant. I have my suspicions that he actually might be the Wolverine, because the actor does not appear to age and is getting increasingly powerful with each performance. Hugh Jackman simply dominates his character, and hopefully will continue to do so for as long as mutantly possible, which in Wolverine's case, should mean forever.

The Wolverine is one best of the X-Men film franchise, with its cool story, fresh setting, great and appropriately slow pace for a broken character, X-citing action scenes and a mostly perfect cast. The Wolverine may be picked last in class when many retrospectively consider 2013's best comic book adaptations. However, the James Mangold film is so far the surprise pick of the pack as it has exceeded expectations and filled any dubious doubts with cinematic satisfaction. While not quite a match for Superman's Steel, Wolverine's adamantium has far surpassed Iron (Man 3) and now has cinema-goers, comic book fans and I, anticipating next year's addition to the mutated series, X-Men: Days of Future Past.

The Incredible, Brave and universally Monstrous animation studio Pixar have undeniably been heard roaring the loudest with their 14 feature films amounting to their reputation at the forefront of motion picture animation, and film in general. The studio's small in number yet great in quality features make it unsurprising that there is a particular expectation for the animators to deliver more masterful art in the present and future. However, most recently Pixar have delved into the past with their first and very highly anticipated prequel, Monsters University.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) brought Pixar into the 21st century by opening doors into an entirely unique universe for audiences of all ages to enter. 12 years later, and the children who grew up with Sully, Mike and the rest of Monstropolis have been invited back to experience a stage in these great characters' lives that many of us also find ourselves in: university.

Monsters University sees Mike Wazowski and James P. Sullivan meet for the first time as they both desire to attain their major from the Scare Program but both have different views on how to pass the class. While Mike operates as the educated, hardworking, fearless yet physically unintimidating scarer, Sully excels fearsomely well at the scaring, but lacks the motivation, courage and book smarts Mike possesses, causing the pair to become rivals.

The writers constructively use the beloved on screen relationship between Mike and Sully to explore their differences in Monsters University, which are ironically everything they need to complete each other as a pair, as classmates, as colleagues and as who knows what if Pixar decide to expand the Monsters franchise further. This prequel justifies itself solely in the exploration of Mike and Sully's match as the perfect scare team; yin and yang embodied on screen.

As if Pixar were not punctual enough with the timely release of Monsters University (MU) for those who grew up with the original, but its setting also plays host to the film's central storyline which follows the MU Scare Games. With the release of this monster movie coinciding with the one year anniversary of the hugely successful London Olympics, Pixar manages to capture a marginal fictionalised element of magic that the 2012 Games accumulated, but a fraction alone is enough to captivate audiences, which Monsters University does indeed.

The parallels between the challenges that the MU fraternities must face and those accomplished last summer are certainly not forced in this prequel, and so make for delightfully relevant entertainment as we see Mike and Sully reluctantly join the same fraternity to fight for their survival in the university's Scare Program, overcoming numerous, humorous obstacles along the way.

Monsters University has a mix of fun features, all contained within a single, fun feature film. Whether you're a toy, bug, monster, fish, superhero, car, rat, robot or most likely just an everyday human, Monsters University will almost definitely delight and satisfy with enough laughs to energise the whole of Monstropolis. Pixar really unhooked the leash in 2013, having changed the tone from Monsters, Inc. whilst still managing to keep the collar on this prequel to ensure it belongs to the 2001 animation. While it lacks the heart and depth of the original, Monsters University surpasses its predecessor with a blend of humour, visual vibrancy and enough universityisms to keep any student mentally reaching out to the screen in relation, as the film reaches out to us in so many ways.

Monsters University has many welcome throwbacks (or throw forwards chronologically speaking if you prefer) to Monsters, Inc. that are only supplementary magical moments to the energetic, Monstrously good, nonstop party of animated fun. Monsters University proves that Pixar can graduate to prequels and still remain successful. The studio has just about every metaphorical studious qualification imaginable, and yet their fantastic writers, directors, animators and actors continue to imagine and conceive new, unique artwork. This provides us with excellent family fun, heart-warming stories and allegories, with Monsters University as the latest, and certainly one of the greatest. In all fairness however, most of Pixar's features sit atop their greatest offerings as it is difficult to favour one over the other.

"We always thought alien life would come from the stars, but it came from deep beneath the sea". In fact, director Guillermo del Toro brought new life to the monster movie genre with the epic and undeniably entertaining Pacific Rim right here on land.

Pacific Rim delivers just about what one might expect from seeing its trailers or even just hearing about it. Guillermo del Toro's vision is complex in its ambition and scale, but simple enough in its high-concept premise. When the Pacific Ocean receives an unwelcome portal between dimensions, alien life invites itself into our world and certainly doesn't wish to remain unnoticed as mass destruction of Earth's infrastructure ensues. In response, the Jaeger Project is born, creating monsters of our own to combat the deadly, in a sense, subterranean species. Del Toro immediately invites us into his multidimensional universe, with the cinema screen acting as the portal where for 131 minutes you are transported on a journey of majestic imagery.

The initial 30 minutes in this new universe, (a universe which is only further enhanced by the third dimension and IMAX experience) is unfortunately spent telling us what we probably already know. There are certain films where you wish you had known less going in as surprises are spoiled by your anticipation and natural assumptions. Pacific Rim differs in no way and in fact could have benefited from more constructive and ambiguous pre-released material as its opening half- hour is more or less an extended version of the trailers. As with most stories however, judgment should really be reserved until its middle and end have executed their purpose.

Pacific Rim is effortlessly enjoyable, tie-in toyable, with monsters and robots readily deployable into battle sequences so convincing and grand, that you look up to the screen as you would these monsters in real life and this makes Del Toro rightly employable.

While the action has you synchronised unbreakably with Del Toro's vision due to the prowess of the CGI, which just feels like I alone, you cannot help but wish for the camera to take a giant step backwards. Although obviously done intentionally, Del Toro leaves the camera awkwardly in between the action at times, and the result is perplexing. With films such as Jaws (1975) and Cloverfield (2008), the devastating creatures are purposefully obscure visually and shown infrequently to heighten the sense of danger and fear of the unknown. Meanwhile, with Jurassic Park (1993) and other similar creature features, we are monstrously engaged and aesthetically informed by being able to see the action and nonhuman characters clearly afar when necessary. Pacific Rim is uncomfortably framed in between this spectrum at times and this unfortunately lessens the visual value and experience of the film overall.

While the battle sequences are the most anticipated, decorated and appropriately stated highlights of Pacific Rim, they are only setpieces to the much bigger war. The primary point of interest away and even importantly within the action is the film's central theme of unification. Seeing the abandonment of international conflicts, petty feuds and meaningless separation between Earth's people holds a great deal of truth to it when faced with a common enemy. Del Toro maintains this theme consistently throughout the feature, with the giant Jaeger robots even requiring a coalition between two pilots emotionally and cerebrally to function capably.

While puny individual Earthlings are thrown in for purposes of making the film grounded and recognisable, it's really the robots and aliens you came to see. Nonetheless, Idris Elba and the brief yet excellent performance of child actress Mana Ashida stand out chiefly even when facing the immeasurable monsters at their doors.

Pacific Rim is quite literally a groundbreaking feat in cinematic excellence because Guillermo del Toro immerses his audience into his world, his galaxy, his universe with relative ease, and the goal to please, which he achieves. While it has its flaws and calculates its fair share of question marks for itself, Pacific Rim is difficult to deny as anything but entertainment. It's simple, it's smashing, its scale is felt with incredible zealous. It's Pacific Rim.

Where to begin? Well this origin story begins as a Superbly Magnificent retelling of one of the most recognisable fictional figures on the planet today. Man of Steel remains consistently loyal to its title, showcasing Clark Kent's perceived misplacement into a world unknown to his abilities, introducing Kal-El as the lost part of this misunderstood Man, who finally Steels the show once a threat to Earth results in his acceptance of his freedom to do right, and become the shining beacon of hope for mankind: Superman.

With Henry Cavill as our nearest, powerful star, and a near unfathomably remarkably talented and irreplaceable cast to play the supporting characters orbiting him constantly, Man of Steel is nothing but awesome to watch from just an acting and characterisation aspect alone. Director Zach Snyder, Writer David S. Goyer and Producer Christopher Nolan, along with the perfect casting of Cavill, all manage to converge the three parts of the protagonist's identity (Clark Kent, Kal-El and Superman) with such delicacy and flawless excellence that makes the titular character, the Man of Steel himself, the highlight in this comic book film. Narrative, visual effects, music and everything else aside, Man of Steel is carried through galaxies because of its tremendously executed character study that cements itself firmly into the realms of other great superhero films including Spider-Man (2002) and Batman Begins (2005). Of course, the existence of a star is meaningless if the satellites orbiting it are not naturally flourishing with life, but oh Man do the supporting characters make gazing upon on screen stars a privilege to be a cinemagoer. Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Antje Traue and Michael Shannon among others, certainly collaborate as their own glowing constellation, and you cannot help but gape in enjoyment, and in doing so you might attain heat vision with how intensely enchanting the actors are.

Structurally, Man of Steel adopts a fairly unique craft in presenting Clark Kent's craving for a legitimate identity, with flashbacks to expose the routes of his anguish set upon him by his paternal father Jonathon Kent (Costner). These scenes are surprisingly amongst the greatest that the film offers, with Superb character development and emotional depth that has yet to be reached by any other comic book adaptation other than Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. As someone not at all fond of the Superman character before seeing Man of Steel, I was captivated by Snyder's and the cast's ability to provoke such emotion from what I thought would only be an action film, though I could not have been more incorrect, as it is so much more.

The main narrative is by no means unique. Primary villain General Zod of the Kryptonian race, attempts to carry out plans we have seen a number of times before, but his motivation behind this is extremely convincingly elaborated and explored through Shannon's portrayal. Though at times slightly overshadowed by his sidekick Faora (Antje Traue), Shannon is worthy of the title General as it is in his DNA to be so. This is what sets him apart from Cavill's iconic character. Superman's DNA enables the freedom to decide what is right and wrong, but is primarily nurtured by the presence of biological father Jor-El (Crowe) and both Kent parents.

There are honestly too many features to applaud throughout Man of Steel. The film is undoubtedly a masterful work of filmmaking in its aesthetically astounding set-pieces, which while very much overloaded into Man of Steel, are still appropriately contained by the visual prowess of Zach Snyder and the special effects team. Additionally, Hans Zimmer yet again delivers his trademark composition; that trademark being majestic excellence that is simply a pleasure to listen to, with or without the Super images to accompany it on screen. There is almost no escaping the beautiful visuals and sounds that make up this 144 minute feature, not that you would want to miss a second. Watching Man of Steel, you feel like Superman taking his first flight, taking in the incredible sights with an enormous grin of delight in spite of the fright that the experience might not have reached the height of your expectations. Well right from lift off, Man of Steel is a truly thrilling and enjoyable cinematic experience, frame by frame, scene by scene, act to act, Man of Steel is immensely wonderful until you feet get back on the ground and the last credit scrolls out of you vision.

Even though towards the film's conclusion, the title Men of Steel feels more appropriate as seemingly unwanted characters begin to overshadow General Zod and the Man of the hour (well two hours, twenty-four minutes), indeed, Superman Returns (pun intended) and the on screen revival of the character comes to a most satisfactory end. This is a thankful return, as without the core character to standout amongst the features that orbit him, Man of Steel would not have been the phenomenal film that it is. You could pause Man of Steel at almost any moment and witness sensational cinematography. You could close your eyes and just listen to genius Hans Zimmer composition. You could even just walk into the theatre midway through the screening and avoid the character development, and appreciate the jaw-dropping action sequences. Doing any of these would result in substantial enjoyment I can almost assure, but you would also most likely miss out on the Man, who is actually quite Super even without the cape.

"Come in close. Because the more you think you see, the easier it'll be to fool you..." Not only do the distributors of Now You See Me use this piece of gripping dialogue as the tagline for the film, but exhibitors will also utilise it to trick international audiences into delving into their pockets and wasting their time with this enormously disappointing and unexciting caper film. Now You See Me follows the story of four magicians, known as The Four Horsemen, as they captivate the world with 'magical', near inexplicable bank heists before rewarding their audiences and supporters with the money they take. The only trickery happening here is being hypnotised by the highly intriguing trailer, only to find you yourself have been robbed as you sit in disbelief that you paid to see a film that is about as unique and intricate as a card game of snap!

Despite the sensational ensemble of Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Mélanie Laurent, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, they fail to assemble accordingly. They all deliver satisfactory performances but are not given the opportunity to flourish as we may have seen them do so in past roles. This is primarily due to the fact that director Louis Leterrier, along with the writers, attempt to pull too many rabbits out of the hat at one time and so rather than enjoy one bunny at a time, we instead see a ton of terrific actors be undervalued and restricted in showcasing their talents. Most oddly, The Four Horsemen (Eisenberg, Fischer, Harrelson and Franco) are even given surprisingly little screen time after their thirty minute introduction as the film begins.

In all fairness, Now You See Me does remain consistent. Consistently unintriguing that is. The film's aforementioned tagline, along with unsubtle hints scattered dubiously throughout regarding the illusionary concept of misdirection, completely ruin any surprise and twist that the 'suspense' film has to offer. By doing this the film leaves little to be unveiled during the climax, one would think, though time is actually wasted explaining all of the plot points you already guessed, while conjuring up new components to the story that remain unresolved and/or illogically explained to the extent that even in a film about magic/illusions, you fail to believe any of the tricks being performed. The illusion of cinema fails as much as the illusion of magic fails to prevail in Now You See Me.

Now You See Me is comparable to the student who believes they are the cool fresher on campus, the funniest, with a unique personality, and a mistaken sense of self-intelligence that causes them to continue to contribute to seminars despite the fact they never answer anything correctly. No, in fact, Now You See Me needs to be told by its peers (let's say that's us) that it is not nearly as intellectually gifted, cool, witty or exceptional as it pretends to be. You most certainly will not miss out on anything if you chose not to befriend this dull, generic and embarrassingly misleading film, that is posing as an intricate and sophisticated figure on the surface.

When the first thought on my mind after exiting my cinema seat after Now You See Me was "I actually wish the film had been sold out so I could have returned home to watch The Prestige (2006) or see Man of Steel (2013) again", it pretty much encapsulates my attitude towards the disappointing Leterrier film. While there is nothing necessarily evident to hate in Now You See Me, there is not a single component to commend as great either. Now You See Me is truly a forgettable 115 minute time thief, and though I have Seen it Now, I would have preferred instead to have missed it and been kept under the illusion that it was in fact an intricate tale, rather than a misdirected fail.

Even with an extremely strong and enticing premise at the forefront to paint over the array of farcical stupidity and predictability, The Purge's core foundation that caused audiences to stop and stare is unable to completely gloss over the film's plethora of flaws as they seep through the cracks. The finishing coat that is the idea behind the film does just about enough to prevail and not fade away to the questionable layers beneath it. The Purge follows a family's struggle on one very 'special' night of the year; a night in the near future, where all crime is legal (including murder) and emergency services are disbanded for a period of twelve hours, which has radically reduced crime and allows for economic prosperity throughout the rest of the year. That premise alone intrigues via only a simple synopsis, and in the film, this fascinating night just about maintains what could have been a disastrous and laughable trip to the cinema, as a moderately enjoyable one.

The Purge successfully creates its world in the opening title sequence. You instantly believe and accept the film's set-up and despite some annoying characters, the film undeniably has your attention, if only for a little while longer. The greatest feature of The Purge is its ability to remain relevant, before, during and after seeing it. While many may remember it for the wrong reasons, it can certainly impress by encouraging the audience to consider during to themselves, and ask aloud to those around them after, "What would you do in that situation?" The trailer reveals the family's son as a young and somewhat idealistic figure whom opens the family's security system to allow an unknown victim of the purge to find solace in their home. Would you risk your own safety for the potential rescue of a wounded stranger? These are the kinds of questions that The Purge elicits very triumphantly, and it is nothing but a shame that these social, moral issues were not delved into more critically. The Purge is a film that should be remade into a drama/thriller piece, taken more seriously and produced more coherently to restore its purpose that got lost along the way of this 2013 supposedly 'horror' effort. It doesn't really warrant the categorisation of horror, due its lack of fear inducing power other than a couple of jump scares.

The Purge manages to defy logic and reason on multiple levels, and not the levels that one would expect it to. The film in fact has a very convincing, albeit radical, premise that you adopt as reality, and with its rising action to maintain a sense of intensity rather than fear, The Purge disappoints by behaving foolishly elsewhere. First and foremost, the decisions of certain characters make little to no sense, leaving the audience to ponder over their judgement, rather than remain engaged with the film itself. Additionally, The Purge treats, or more so mistreats its audience very condescendingly, to the extent that you actually question whether the filmmakers just gave up trying to convince anyone of anything half way through production. There are countless instances of characters being save 'just in the nick of time', and it becomes frustratingly disappointing as after the first successful try, they just continue to demean all viewers by creating a idiotically predictable plot that a toddler could decipher in seconds.

On the arrival of that moment in The Purge when you come to the realisation that it failed to live up to expectation and is disregarding so much logic and reason that you think at any time gravity might be dismissed, then you can finally just have fun with the film. Despite its refreshing premise, The Purge breaks its promise of being an inviting social commentary and becomes a simply disappointing yet watchable slasher-like flick.

Oddly, I would have to concede that in spite of all of my hate for The Purge's silliness, woeful acting by some, and the frustrating delusional mentality of many of its characters, the film is overall still reasonably enjoyable and not completely worthless. In fact, it is certainly worthwhile, which is exclusively attributable to the conception of the foundational idea that is required to juggle the remaining frightful (not in the intended manner) features of the film, whilst balancing itself. Unfortunately, many of these features are such abysmal that The Purge's premise can only handle so much responsibility, and many of these disastrous elements of the film fall to the ground, in the mud, where they belong. Nonetheless, The Purge is memorable for its highly unique criminological approach that maintains intrigue throughout most of the film, and shall perhaps linger importantly for its impressive aptitude for giving the audience something to debate amongst themselves after walking out of the 85 minute feature.

Being forcefully persuaded into seeing a film when you have no interest or knowledge of it is one thing; but to then be pleasantly surprised at your own delight and enjoyment of that very same film is certainly another. Behind the Candelabra follows the contextually tragic moments in the life of the musical entertainer Liberace, and unfortunately is likely to remain somewhat of a hidden treasure due to its limited release. The cinephiles that are fortunate enough to discover it beneath the grains of less humorous, less glamorous and less genuine cinematic offerings (which all still garner abundantly more popularity) will hopefully have discovered a truly refreshing gem of a drama film.

Behind the Candelabra is a HBO Films production that has been reserved to a US television release as well as a limited European exhibition, due to its thematic content being "too gay" as director Steven Soderbergh articulated. This devastating justification from the Hollywood studios for not picking up the film is as tragic as Liberace's own fear for the economic impact and public reputation that he believed he would see diminish if his personal life were to be known. Sadly, as the majority of fans probably never knew of Liberace's true personality, today's majority will not have the pleasure of witnessing this pure and remarkably emotional biographical film.

Despite the film itself being projected on screen, Soderbergh's true intentions are for the emotion of the film to be directed and projected onto us: the audience. Behind the Candelabra is truly enjoyed and experienced as a collective group with every other cinemagoer in the room, though you yourself will forget there is another soul in the theatre due to the emotionally investing 118 minute feature in front of your eyes that takes you away from your own reality and places you in an interpretation of Liberace's.

Michael Douglas' magical performance as the once internationally renowned entertainer captivates your consciousness with his electric charm, fabulously worn costumes and overall tremendous acting ability. Douglas' performance however only constitutes 50% of the relationship that the film revolves around, and is irrelevant without Matt Damon's pivotal and magnificent portrayal of Liberace's other half, Scott Thornson. The relationship they share, IS the film. Without the two talents to confidently and charismatically carry Thornson and Liberace into the 21st century, the film would certainly fall apart and lack the sense of purity that the two actors manage to organically create as they collaborate. It is a great sadness to see the relationship stumble over avoidable hurdles, and conversely a thing of beauty to see the non- fictional characters high jump over obstacles to sustain their romance.

Other features of the film greatly supplement the focal relationship and characters to a quite notable degree. While Douglas and Damon certainly carry the film, Soderbergh piles other cinematic elements atop of the actors' hands which make for a visually and audibly delightful experience. The costumes, sets, locations and most emphatically the soundtrack are powerfully incorporated to give Soderbergh's film an enjoyable charm, and while only supplementary to the core relationship, they are distinctly memorable due to their grandeur through both sight and sound.

The only thing lacking in Behind the Candelabra is that there is nothing negative to criticise about the film. This is a rare feature of any motion picture, and it is the result of great filmmaking. Behind the Candelabra is consistently purposeful from one scene to the next. It is subtly humorous when appropriate, tragically emotional on cue and ultimately continuously engaging throughout. While it may not receive the attention it deserves, Behind the Candelabra remains amongst the best of the opening half of this year's film releases that I have seen, and particularly is the most genuine and purposeful.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a superior sequel in every way compared to its 2009 predecessor. J. J. Abrams' second effort in the franchise travels galaxies further in action, characters and overall storytelling which makes the sequel overall, indisputably an enjoyable experience.

Cats would be all over my tongue if I attempted to approach Star Trek Into Darkness from the perspective of a Trek fan due to my unfamiliarity with the Star Trek universe that fans hold dear. Rather, this 2013 instalment is a much more approachable story than Star Trek (2009), and this mass appeal may discourage some loyal fans to the series, though I am unable to confirm such a claim. What I can say is that the film simply entertains and certainly makes Paramount's profuse marketing worth the effort. Even more so than the lavish yet appropriate CG effects, the character interactions emerge victorious in the quest for cinematic supremacy. The experience is only heightened by the trekmendous cast, particularly Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and

Benedict Cumberbatch (Yes, he is that good he deserves his own paragraph). The Sherlock actor absolutely dominates each and every second of screen time through voice, actions, persona and the intentions of his character John Harrison. He is so spectacularly, ostentatiously gracious is where he takes the character, and that destination will almost undoubtedly flourish over time, into one of the most memorable motion picture villains of the early 21st century. Each time his scenes conclude or the camera cuts away from him, inside you feel a little disappointed "ohhh, ahhh" hoping for his return soon due to Cumberbatch's franchise-defining performance. If you fail to take much away from Star Trek Into Darkness, I can almost assure you that the iconic, villainous portrayal by Cumberbatch will be imprinted into your mind for a long time to come.

While Cumberbatch's performance remains isolated from the film's other elements in its magnificence, the interdependent relationship between James. T Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) prospers so greatly as their relationship develops, and feels more genuine than their previous collaboration four years ago. They share such a magical dialogue between one another, filled with wit, rhythm and even emotional chemistry, which is most explicitly examined during the unexpectedly heartfelt climax of the film. The writers (Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof) warrant an enormous amount of credit for displaying how films that are primarily action based, can in fact posses scenes of characters verbally interacting with one another and still remain as strong blockbuster fun.

Of course, Star Trek Into Darkness wouldn't achieve its blockbuster status by having its array of adored characters talking for two hours. No, the film requires an enormous amount of visual effects in order to achieve its title, and fortunately, the action is actually quite remarkably enjoyable. Dazzling images of majestic terror, colourful settings and of course explosions captivate your gaze for 132 minutes as they make you feel you are drifting through space for the first time, surrounded by unknown sights to behold. All the while, Star Trek Into Darkness manages to stay on course and not allow itself to divert into overlong and frustrating routes of action.

The film is certainly not without its conveniences to presumably satisfy its audience; though ironically by doing this it dissatisfies the viewer as the level of predictability increases throughout and the story's resolution irritatingly pounces on an opportunity to conclude itself 'happily' and keep the narrative self-contained. This is primarily frustrating due to the manner in which the film could have ended: as an emotionally investing, sacrificial and unpredictable satisfying film. Instead, the plot's direction puts the clutch into reverse and ends up going back on itself due to its level of predictability as equilibrium is restored.

If you are able to forgive the film's weaker elements and preserve judgement for the highly enjoyable experience that surrounds the characters and action, then Star Trek Into Darkness is likely to fulfil everything that it has promised. Even if in six months the four words Star, Trek, Into and Darkness fail to mean anything to you, be warned that the wrath of Cumberbatch's prevailing performance will likely remain prevalent amongst the mind's of us cinema-goers when considering who the greatest cinematic villains of recent history are.

Baz Luhrmann commits infidelity in a treacherous betrayal to F. Scott Fitzgerald as he is lured towards a modern, more attractive mistress named Style. This affliction with unnecessary aesthetic causes The Great Gatsby to appear disloyal to the novelist's source material. While Luhrmann often returns to Fitzgerald at instances of faithfulness, too frequently he is enticed by Style, all the while leaving substance to be "borne back ceaselessly into the past."

Literary adaptations are always difficult to execute perfectly, partially due to the variety of interpretations that page readers have on a particular text, partly because not all screen viewers have even read the literature in question, and primarily since cinematic perfection cannot exist as not all would agree on it. It is even more difficult, as a reader turned viewer, to leave your novelistic perspective at home. All this considered seems an unavoidable detriment to The Great Gatsby as a motion picture. Baz Luhrmann's interpretation of the 1925 Jazz Age novel simply feels far to contrived, for a story that deals with themes of such realism. The film contradicts itself in its collision between incessant noises, artsy visuals and disloyalty, and then eventual credibility through dramatic action and characterisation. The Great Gatsby is far from being a narrative regarding the binary opposites of good and bad, though these themes manage to organically surface by themselves through the conflict that Luhrmann implements between aesthetic artificiality and genuine storytelling.

Thankfully, The Great Gatsby offers its least genuine, borderline unbearable act for the opening 45 minutes, though this sense of near cinematic torture continues to emerge, though less frequently, throughout the picture. It is unfortunately this opening act that leaves a bad taste in your mouth, a ringing in your ears and a stain on your retinas. It cannot be described more appropriately than deafeningly loud and unnecessarily stylised, causing absolutely nothing to feel important as your brain is just trying to process the narration, dialogue, diegetic and non-diegetic sounds that are each battling for supremacy. The desire to cover your ears is only prevented by the knowledge that you will then have to withstand the visuals alone. The film throws such a variety of information at us that we cannot appreciate or take notice of anything in particular. Gatsby's introduction feels as important as a speck of dust on Nick Carraway's tie. Furthermore, the snappy editing techniques incorporated just assist in giving The Great Gatsby a sense of delusion and vertigo, which really needs to settle down before it causes irreversible cognitive harm to its audience.

Like a babysitter's hopes for the misbehaving child to calm down, our wishes are answered as following an abundance of hyperactivity, The Great Gatsby becomes a more endurable, peaceful and in fact quite magnificent drama film. As our two paramours eventually acknowledge one another, the volume lessens, and the film becomes a story not an acid trip. It is only from this moment in the film when one can finally begin to enjoy and care about any character, relationship or any aspect at all for that matter. The Great Gatsby becomes and exceeds our expectations. It fulfils the literary imagery (if you have read it) placed into your mind by Fitzgerald's novel during that first reading. For those that haven't, you finally, albeit behind schedule, are introduced to these wonderfully broken souls. These lost, tragic, misunderstood souls are portrayed quite phenomenally by an exceptionally talented cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Jay Gatsby; Carey Mulligan is Daisy Buchanan; Tobey Maguire is Nick Carraway; Joel Edgerton is Tom Buchanan; and that's not just because the credits tell us so, it is due to their ownership over their respective roles and fulfilment of our expectations of their literary description.

Now back to my dislikes for the film, which I only think is fair as The Great Gatsby itself negotiates between giving the audience what they came to see, and disappointing them beyond belief and so I shall negotiate between what the feature does greatly, and what it does not. This convergence of polarised characteristics within one film is most evidently seen, and heard, through the party scenes, in addition to the hugely dubious soundtrack choices. While actually outwardly suitable and creative for the promotional trailers for the film, when translated into the feature itself, the musical choices of Kanye West, Jay-Z amongst other contemporary artists are so unfitting that you feel it is repeatedly necessary to ask the musical supervisor to check if they have the right pair somewhere else. Meanwhile, the oddly choreographed party scenes are constructed for no purpose other than to appeal to a modern, young and presumably intoxicated audience. In coalition, these two elements feel more like we are in an updated version of the 1920s (the era of Fitzgerald's novel), rather than the era itself. You feel you are being thrown through Luhrmann's time machine as you enter different periods and this is not as enjoyable as you think time travel could be.

Like Gatsby himself, the film is introduced as a perplexing mystery, and much like the film itself, you contemplate on how much you think you know and are understanding, though I am sure this parallel was not the intention of Luhrmann. Overall, a forgivably improved second half and a more than satisfying emotional conclusion leaves Baz Luhrmann's piece, not quite at master status, but as an enjoyable yet disappointing journey to see The ( ) Gatsby, that was missing its Great.

The Place Beyond the Pines makes the conventional three-act structure fear for its existence as director Derek Cianfrance ambitiously reaches beyond most standardised narrative methods. Essentially, we are told three interrelated stories that are connected through themes of legacy, family and guilt, and while one can be consistently intrigued by the manner in which the story is told, we can only appreciate it as a whole once every cinemagoer has vacated their seat, the lights turn on and the theatre staff ready the room for the next set of ticketholders who made the great decision to see The Place Beyond the Pines.

Rather than expose you to its greatness in one overflow of majesty, the filmmakers manage to keep you intrigued with just a few elements at a time. From the establishing shot it is the cinematographic style that grips even our peripheral vision so intensely that even if the fire alarm was to sound, you wouldn't hear because you would be so invested into the beautifully shot film. Additionally, the score in The Place Beyond the Pines is so superbly appropriate and enchanting that your other three senses establish a sense of jealousy that only sight and sound can witness the film. Overall though, the entire film is held together by the terrific cast and you feel the project would collapse had lesser actors been chosen due to the surprising amount of dramatic tension involved. Eva Mendes, Ryan Gosling and Bradley Cooper as the principle cast are simply sensational in their respective roles. Most notably, Ryan Gosling as Luke, the stuntman turned criminal provides such a calm demeanour that you feel could detonate into an aggressive monster at any moment. Gosling has such control over his emotions and upon the early discovery of his son's existence, a thing of beauty takes place on screen where anyone watching can feel the emotional depth and dramatic reality.

The narrative techniques that are incorporated into The Place Beyond the Pines resemble that of the recent Cloud Atlas, though not nearly as convoluted as the Wachowski film. Quite simply put, the story sees the figurative passing of the torch as we follow different characters that enlighten us to their path and perspective of the one story as a whole. It really does take you until the end of the film in order to determine your individual verdict, as throughout there are directions that are taken which, at their particular moment appear to be unwelcome, but when they are given an opportunity to flourish and express their intention to the story as whole, you realise their relevance and your perhaps slight benevolence to your appreciation. The benevolence arises due to your (or at least my) complete surprise at what unfolded before my eyes for 140 minutes. My expectations were completely misinterpreted, by my own self, because what The Place Beyond the Pines delivers is such a exceptionally delightful astonishment that you leave feeling quite fulfilled because you received a lot more than what you thought you were in for.

In spite of the almost undisputable array of fantastic characters accompanied by their portrayers, unfortunate mention does need to be given to one character. Avery Cross' (Bradley Cooper's) son in the film is given a fine performance by Emory Cohen, but it is the characterisation that is questionable. The film offers absolutely no reason for the character to behave in such an undeniably uncharacteristic manner. His accent, behaviour and attitude appear to be contrived and attained from some cinematic cliché of a high school, as some term, 'douchebag'. It shouldn't probably infuriate as much as it does because everything else that surrounds the character is brilliant, but it still is the cause for much irritation.

The Place Beyond the Pines is an exceedingly entertaining and engaging experience that almost feels like a game show. Breathable air in the theatre diminishes due to the profusion of gasps that occur at each instance of unpredictable exposition. You feel this is a collective outing at the cinema as all audience members respond to the surprising elements of the film in a similar manner, we all laugh at the same time, we all cry at the quite emotionally unanticipated moments and we all enjoy. The Place Beyond the Pines is much like a game show in that you feel compelled to scream at the screen in order to tell the on screen participants what to do. Maybe it is the knowing that they cannot hear you, maybe it's your social fear from having 100 pairs of eyes divert their attention to your rudeness, but either way, that is how engaging and intriguing The Place Beyond the Pines is.

Experiencing DreamWorks' The Croods leaps beyond giving you the feeling of a cinematic spectator, but instead the film actually accepts you as a member of the Crood family. This delightful animation follows a family of cave people as they are forced to depart from their comfort zone and embark on an adventure that will not only determine their physical and evolutionary survival, but also allow them to recognise that life can be worth living even when risks are taken.

Out of respect for The Croods (the film and the family), it would only be fair to divulge the negative aspects of the animated film first before pouring out the praise. This is because the 98 minute feature itself thankfully reserves its lesser qualities for the first half of the film, before unveiling a sensationally satisfactory conclusion, as well as everything leading up to it. The Croods does suffer at times from some annoyingly loud and unfunny slapstick comedy that becomes borderline awkward in the confines of a theatre when not even the young children (the target demographic) are laughing. The humour most definitely is not intended to accommodate to all ages, though there are still plenty of laughs to be had, but you feel you are searching for them, rather than they are finding you. Furthermore, the 3D contributes nothing; as opposed to enhancing the experience, it actually (albeit only slightly) diminishes it. It should perhaps be known I am not a fan of 3D cinema anyway, but the visual novelty in The Croods really is questionable as not only is there no aesthetic augmentation, but the 3D in fact causes blurred vision when wanting you to focus on unimportant objects. The answer surely lies in the studio's economic, rather than artistic, justification.

The animation itself is absolutely consistently energetic. It is both figuratively and literally full of life throughout, and the animators intentionally paint a bleakly coloured landscape for the initial setting of a repeated and oppressive lifestyle, before they allow a pallet of luminosity to blossom as the adventure commences and we and the characters are exposed to a greater sense of diversity. This parallels with the narrative of The Croods. The film essentially is a tug of war that sees the character Eep (voiced by Emma Stone) as the rope being pulled towards a life of safety and overprotectiveness by her father Grug (Nicholas Cage) while also allowing herself to be drawn to the exciting stranger guy named err... Guy (Ryan Reynolds). It is a battle between fear and hope and while Grug and Guy stand at the opposing ends of spectrum, the remaining characters are left to contemplate on which side they wish to be tempted towards.

The comedy that is greatly genius in The Croods is that type of humour that humanises and personifies elements of primitive civilisation in a way that is updated so that modern beings can appreciate its cultural value. There are a number of really terrific comedic instances in the film that are aided by the perfect voice casting of the ensemble, but unfortunately these are often overshadowed by the abundance in dull physical humour. The characters that the actors voice are all likable in their own unique way, and cohesively lovable as a family. Like a family, you may find traits that you dislike, but in the end, you know that you love them.

The Croods is certainly one of the superior animations that DreamWorks has to offer, though I would not necessarily guarantee that everyone will enjoy it as it becomes evident from the first second of the film that it has been made for a very young audience and is missing that adult appeal. The Croods is just a lot of fun with a predictable plot, but why regard that as negative criticism when in reality you desire for your predictions to come to fruition as you become so attached to this fictional family, especially at the surprisingly emotionally investing conclusion. No other two polysemic words could probably encapsulate the film more appropriately than: beautiful animation.

When the previews before the main feature show about as much promise as a toddler would in a university seminar, your hopes for what you paid for on your trip to the cinema certainly diminish. The Guilt Trip is a high-concept film that revolves around a mother named Joyce (Barbra Streisand) and her son Andy (Seth Rogen) as they embark on a (you guessed it!) road trip across the US for Andy's career, and throw some romance in there too for no apparent reason.

It's never a good sign if you leave a supposed 'comedy' film being able to count the number of times you laughed with just one hand (I tallied three). The first hour or so of The Guilt Trip just continues to play off of the same non developing character traits and one archetypal joke. Joyce is the stereotypical, overly-attached mother whose incessant nagging and unwanted presence in her son's life is a fact oblivious to her. The film continues to regurgitate this one aspect of their relationship, and in no way deals with it with any style or substance.

It's as if screenwriter Dan Fogelman conjured up a single sentence for the bond between the two protagonists, then when he could write no more, just decided to rearrange the words of this sentence, hoping nobody would ever notice. The writer's intentions were clearly to be annoying but funny, but instead it is annoyingly unfunny just the way that this mother and son interact. It honestly felt as if my brain cells were being violated by hearing the same joke over and over again.

To be more optimistic, The Guilt Trip certainly leaves its worst qualities in the first half of the film. Midway through their trip, they refuel and begin to gain some momentum that makes the 95 minute journey considerably more tolerable, and my desire to punch the unlikable characters did in fact decline. The humour begins to become less one- dimensional but still can only manage to extract a minute amount of audience laughter. Nonetheless, this is most definitely what the picture needed following its motionless first half; the successor provides more instances of cheap amusement that keep you engaged enough to appreciate the minor modest revitalisation in cinematic quality. One way to have fun throughout The Guilt Trip is to try and guess the punch line of every joke during the time that the set up is being told. This is probably the only feeling of accomplishment one could obtain from their time experiencing the film.

The Guilt Trip is not a dreadful film by any means, but nor is it a good one. This is easily the least entertaining and most forgettable Seth Rogen film that his catalogue of comedies has to offer. It's predictable, it's a comedy without humour and the only thing that could make some of jokes more awkward (not in a good sense) would be if Barbra Streisand's character was sitting beside you, behaving in her annoying role. The only reason I would have for recommending you devote your time and money to this 'comedy' would be if you desire to occupy some time and nothing else appeals to you. Even then, I would suggest waiting until a Wednesday to use your Orange code and throw in your student card for extra discount, as full admission price would almost unquestionably make you feel a sense of guilt for making the trip after you leave the cinema screen.

Forget all that cinema has taught you. If you can manage to not use fabricated expectations that you have gathered throughout your cinematic life when experiencing Cloud Atlas, then the altitude of enjoyment you are left with following the film, will be elevated amongst some of the other most original concepts film has to offer. Yes, Cloud Atlas does contain familiar storytelling elements, but no, they are not enhanced and adapted into conventional territory; in fact, quite the opposite. The trailer prepares you well, without giving much of the plot away, in that the tone is set and you are prepared to be mesmerised by the power of being told a similar story several times over, though they are adapted to different spatial and cultural contexts. Cloud Atlas is one of those rare visual experiences whereby you take an outsider's perspective of reality, as the film's originality in embarking on a mythology of ancestry and its message alone are enough for you to continue discussion on its brilliance for generations to come; though I am sure our descendents will have another approach to this work of art.

My apologies if that perplexing piece of prose above did not make the slightest bit of sense. There are just too many points of celebration to enforce onto my appreciation for this magnificent film, and trying to encompass each of them within a single piece of writing is rather difficult when even the premise is a potential topic of ongoing discussion. The acting, editing, costume design, stunning visual effects, dialogue/language use and many other superb elements in Cloud Atlas are almost taken for granted; they are left in the backdrop in order to supplement the sensationally superior foregrounded concept that makes this feature unique. We are taken on a magnificently original journey, that is aided by the seamless editing as we leap from era to era: one moment we are dealing with the issue of 19th century slavery, and the next shot will see us transported to a future post apocalyptic condition with similar oppression. The beauty lies within seeing the similarities of each generation that they pass on to the next, which saddens and intrigues at the same time. It certainly does take perhaps a few seconds to realise that the film has shifted in time, and for you to draw the necessary parallels between characters that make up the story, though once you fit these puzzle pieces into place, you see the utter genius and appreciate the film for all of its gloriousness.

This could quite possibly be the worst film for attempting to leave your seat for a restroom break or to purchase refreshments. I would recommend holding it in/refraining from wasting your money. Missing a second of Cloud Atlas (not that you would want to) results in becoming more lost than skipping an episode of, well...LOST. Every single second of the 172 minute feature is imperative to comprehending the narrative as a whole. The film certainly requires your absolute attention, though that is no issue as there is no other way to feel about Cloud Atlas in its entirety, than intrigued. In fact, you are so intrigued that watching the film for a second time would probably be as useful to grasping all of the aspects to the plot, as much as it would be for your reinforced enjoyment.

After an incredible first hour of primarily exposition, there is a brief inkling that the film will suffer from an inevitable decadence because of the inconceivable strength it has exhibited so far. Surely, it cannot endure additional weight to the narrative and take the pressure of our developed expectations? Well it does, and in spectacular fashion! Cloud Atlas actually gets better as we progress through the modified three-act structure. It climbs to a beautiful climax (plural?) and its two main overarching stories draw themselves to such a satisfactory conclusion that you want to stand and applaud before running to tell every human being that if they have the opportunity, to go and experience Cloud Atlas. Those that believe Cloud Atlas is just another drop in an ocean of insignificant and forgettable modern cinema, I say "What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?" and this is in an instance when this particular film has the stature of a rogue wave when up against the majority of other theatrical releases that drop into our cinemas.

The term 'Disney magic' has become somewhat of a cliché in the realms of 21st century animation. Nonetheless, it cannot be more so appropriately applied than in the consumption of these two delightful Disney animations on your trip to the nearest cinema. If you are confused by my pluralisation of animation, then I will elaborate by saying that the acclaimed studio treats their audience, old and young, with a heart- warming animated short titled Paperman prior to the 92 minute pleasure that you purchased the tickets for. The 7 minute short serves as the appetiser to the enchanting experience that we so commonly associate with the studio's family films, and there is plenty of room left for us to enjoy the great taste of magic at the conclusion of Wreck-It Ralph.

While Wreck-It Ralph pushes many of the formulaic storytelling buttons, you simply do not care. The level of enjoyment is too high to be concerned with attempting to criticise the film for its venture into familiar territory. It still contains a great deal of individuality and originality, primarily through its homage to retro and contemporary video games that many of us know and love. It is recycled material that is so clean and unique that it works as well, if not better than, any original. Put simply, you have fun watching Wreck-It Ralph and I believe no matter the age of the viewer, something will appeal to you in this film. The humour is seemingly directed towards the youngest of demographics for this feature, and I will admit my own slight disappointment at the fact I laughed very few times, a lot less than I was hoping for. However, what the animation may lack in humour, it certainly makes up for in other regions. Many, including myself, will appreciate the nostalgic throwback to video games of the recent and not so recent past. Furthermore, the story of Wreck-It Ralph is exceptionally, and even slightly surprisingly sensational! Each and every element of the plot fits together so incredibly well, that screenwriters Phil Johnston and Jennifer Lee have clearly demonstrated their phenomenal talent to make everything in their story relevant, balanced and unanimously appealing. Similarly with previous Disney animations, they manage to take something from many of our everyday lives, and adapt it by creating and exploring a new world of unequivocal genius. One of the most admirable aspects to Wreck-It Ralph is the way in which different gaming worlds interact with one another, whilst staying loyal to their own arcade home. For instance, those in the title character's game possess robotic manoeuvres, while other games appear as actual modern video game gameplay, and as a gamer, I can vouch that these individual attributes are most definitely appreciated and entertaining to experience. Even the product placement (which I am not generally fond of in film, though understand its use) is so appropriately implemented that even a sceptic can appreciate its presence.

If Disney were to instigate a consumer guarantee that stated any audience member may have their money back if they failed to in some way, shape or form, be entertained by Wreck-It Ralph, I can almost assure that the volume of tickets returned to theatre desks would fewer than the amount of times my eyes diverted their attention away from the screen the film was presented on (do note that I did not look away once). Despite quite useless use of 3D (as in 99% of films), the colourful and developing animated aesthetic absorbs your mind throughout, and you leave with the desire to play a video game, or watch the film again; either is likely to entertain. There are only brief nitpicks to mention in relation to Wreck-It Ralph, as for the overwhelming majority of the film, you have a great amount of fun. The protagonist's relationship with the main supporting character is one that is inevitable and frankly cute to see occur. Yet the transition from their annoyance to adoration for one another could have been developed further, to make it more convincing. In addition, the humour is an unfortunate element due to its elementary reservation, though I am just being too critical and will stop typing because overall Wreck-It Ralph is a fantastically pleasurable animated film.

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln consists of a unique quality, in that you know the outcome of the film before you even pull the handle of the door to the cinema screen the film is playing in, and yet the filmmakers still manage to keep the audience engaged, enthused and frequently amused. Just as scholars have praised Abraham Lincoln's political leadership as the key factor in accomplishing abolition, this 21st century film adaptation of the same man's life is primarily accomplished by the strong performance by Daniel-Day Lewis, in addition to an absolutely impeccable supporting cast.

The first half is certainly not without its dull moments, though it is difficult to argue that the 150 minute feature-length needed to be shortened, due to the fact that every second of Lincoln is relevant, important and well-paced. Furthermore, the historical epic has been so incredibly produced and cared for that the film has a particular power of you; it grips the audience and transports each cinemagoer back to the 19th century, and you feel inferior and helpless to the situation that these historical figures must deal with. The climactic scene is the greatest example of this. Everything the film has led up to, everything these people have worked for (or against) and the defining moment in the political career and life of Abraham Lincoln is presented, edited and felt as nothing else but masterful. The only sound that can be heard in the theatre is the clasping together of hands in hope that history will translate to the outcome of the film. Of course, you know it will and yet the intensity that the writer, director, editor, actors and more create is of astounding cinematic quality.

To attempt to articulate the sublimely outstanding acting performances throughout Lincoln would result in failure to accommodate those words with justice. Though now I feel the irony as I have very briefly attempted to do so. Though some cast members protrude more than others, not one role or performance can even be considered faintly weak or unconvincing. Subjectively speaking (as all reviews do), Tommy Lee Jones' phenomenal portrayal of Thaddeus Stevens is the greatest and most intriguing to have the privilege of witnessing, not just in this Spielberg epic, but in recent cinematic history. From his inception on the screen, you just continue to wish for him to reappear again in the next scene, and in the scenes he does, his superior feat as an actor, almost makes the others around him languish, though they most certainly do not.

Lincoln is most definitely not the most entertaining of films, but it has no intention to be. On storytelling techniques alone, it reaches for the highest of quality while grabbing the audience and making us vulnerable to the powerful nature of the drama.

Enter destination. Purchase tickets. "No outside food or drink". Second door on your right. Take seat. Await the journey that lies ahead. Once the ambiance is set and the morale of the cinema-goers is lifted at the conclusion of thirty minutes of abundant previews, Flight commences in a dramatic, surprising and frankly rather entertaining fashion. For the most part, the first half hour of the Robert Zemeckis film is everything you wanted and expected following your presumed consumption of the trailer beforehand. Unfortunately however, it becomes evident throughout the 138 minute feature that we are victims to a cinematic bait-and- switch, by which I mean our expectations become decreasingly fulfilled and the film's title only supplements the key theme of substance addiction, that is ever-present in the character Whip Whitaker's life.

The first 30 minutes of Flight are cared for with a great deal of delicacy. We encounter THE scene of the film; the title scene, the scene that most likely sparked 90% of the viewers' interest to actually go to see the film in the first place. How does this sequence levitate against our expectations? Above and beyond without question. The entire scene engulfs the theatre seat occupiers as much as it does those in the plane seats. You feel you are them. Almost all camera shots are interior, enforcing the claustrophobia, panic, and gasps in the environment, all of which are difficult to differentiate between the characters in the film and the cinema-goers surrounding you. Other incredible gripping scenes later in the film focus entirely on drama and realism. Protagonist Whip's battle with alcoholism is treated as the primary focus of the feature, and if not for the strong performances, the film would have fallen apart from the opening credits, like the runner who forgot to stretch or the student who was too lazy to take notes. Something that may be taken for granted is in fact the key component which helps bring Flight home safely and satisfactorily. Denzel Washington's role as an intoxicated and irresponsible pilot makes the film alone worth seeing. Every time he makes a morally questionable decision, we the audience react in a manner that parallels the game show enthusiast's desire for gratification. You almost want to scream and the screen each time Whip makes a decision you are not fond of, though still wish to see where it takes the film. You never want him to succeed in the sense that he desires, but more achieve success through facing his responsibilities. He is a broken character, a tragic hero, perhaps relatable to some, but certainly intriguing to all.

Regrettably, from takeoff Flight suffers from instances of turbulence and an unwanted delay. Kelly Reilly injects a fine performance as Nicole, who eventually meets Whip and their mutual difficulties with substance abuse elicit a romance that should have never boarded the Flight. Her existence in the film is irrelevant and increases running time also, though there is never a dull moment in the 138 minute picture, therefore the integration of this romance will probably please some, though I most definitely declare my slight annoyance at its unnecessary presence.

Zemeckis rectifies the troubling turbulence by securely landing into a graceful and exceedingly fulfilling conclusion. He essentially does what Denzel Washington's character does, by taking control over his line of work and doing a great job of it, until some slight mishaps that needed correcting, otherwise they both would have headed for disaster. The director saves his film with a remarkably powerful conclusion that really could not have given you anymore that it provided. Hopefully Zemeckis was not under the influence of any illegal or physically altering substance during principal photography, though if he was, he sure did a fantastic job of completing a very fine project.