Mrs. Brown's Boys: D'Movie Review

Some TV shows should stay away from the big screen. PERIOD.

When I've watched Mrs. Brown's Boys on TV, I've enjoyed it and found it pretty funny. It's not the best show to be found out there, but it's still entertaining with its own charm and its self-awareness.

With that being said, Mrs. Brown's Boys: D'Movie is an utterly painful cinematic experience.

Let's get into the plot before anything else. Mrs. Brown (Brendan O'Carroll) finds her livelihood as a independent trader under threat from evil developers (some of them being Russian). With the help of her family and other stereotypical characters (including Mr. Wang, also played by O'Carroll), Mrs. Brown decides to fight back.

As the film begins, there is some promise with a humourous and witty opening sequence acknowledging the transition from TV to cinema. However, after that, the film becomes a monotonous slog with only a few chuckles to be found here and there. Look at other reviews which have slaughtered the film, and the quote 'a few chuckles' already comes across as superlative. The audience which my dad and I saw the film with apparently had a great time, as they were laughing out loud on a regular basis. I did laugh a few times, but I felt guilty about laughing. This is because the humour was both stupidly offensive and offensively stupid, using excessive swearing and depressingly old-fashioned stereotypes to spear-head their quest for comedy. Mr. Wang, in particular, is distractingly similar to Mickey Rooney's infamous work in Breakfast at Tiffany's, which came out in 1961. That's how dated the humour in this film is (and the news that Mr. Wang may be the focus of a spin-off evokes serious dread).  Plus, the humour which could be wrought from the TV to film transition becomes very lazy very quickly. If they want to get a laugh out of situations, they simply cue recognisable music from classic movies before following them up with a lazy line to puncture the music's grandiosity. I'm not a huge fan of these moments unless they're done really well, and the moments in this film just don't work (with one possible exception). The humour here fails even more so when I compare it to other comedies this year such as 22 Jump Street, Neighbours and The Lego Movie, where I found plenty of laugh-out-loud moments with little guilt attached. All three of those films combined actors, directors and writers who knew how to construct very funny set-pieces with energy and intelligence.

That trio of comedies also had an emotional undercurrent (however slight) which fit very well in-between the moments of humour. But, as if the mediocre handling of the comedy wasn't enough, Mrs. Brown's Boys: D'Movie also throws in some sickeningly obvious and manipulative drama to try and lure the audience in. How obviously manipulative is it? There's actually a dramatic scene with Westlife's 'You Raise Me Up' playing in the background. The music isn't there for comedic effect; it's there to wrench an emotional reaction out of you, whether you like it or not. The drama in the film is wafer-thin and exists for no other reason than to pad out the running time. Also, as I'll discuss next, there is a key rule to drama which the film fails big time. There is a lame attempt at letting the audience in on the fact that this is a film by slapping some bloopers in the middle of the film, but their inclusion creates a serious problem. When a film successfully engages the audience in its drama (as this film shamelessly attempts in its latter stages), it is primarily because the audience has become invested in the film and the characters. By including these bloopers, the illusion of the film is shattered, which makes the attempts at sincere drama even more painful to watch. Some might argue that the cast and crew are constantly trying to play on the fact that this is a film in order to get laughs, but then I'd argue that makes it a even bigger mistake to aim for serious drama.      

The acting in this film is anything but polished. Mrs. Brown's Boys has always been a case of nepotism, with O'Carroll involving many members of his family. None of them are professional actors, and it shows. O'Carroll himself tries hard, but Mrs. Brown just feels out-of-place in her own film and, as I've said before, Mr. Wang is a sterotypical annoyance. The deficiencies of the other actors are expanded on the big screen. The new villains are another of the film's big problems; they're neither funny, menacing or energetic enough to leave an impression. Plus, can we stop using Russians as the bad guys please? If there's one thing which seems awkward in the world of Mrs. Brown, it's Russian gangsters and politics (as emphasised by the other main villain of the piece).

In looking for an example of a British TV show which made a successful transition to the big screen, The Inbetweeners Movie comes to mind. That's because it took the characters in a direction which felt organic based on their journeys on the show while expanding it into a cinematic format and scoring a lot of natural, laugh-out-loud moments in the process. Also, Ben Palmer, a regular director of the TV show, took the helm and did a fine job in the process. Here, Mrs. Brown's Boys: D'Movie loses the charm of the show, takes the characters on a journey which doesn't fit in at all with their TV exploits and uses cheap humour and stereotypes and sickening dramatic manipulation in place of any genuine effort. The director Ben Kellet helmed several episodes of the show, yet seems completely oblivious as to what makes the character so appealing to her fanbase. All of this ineptitude makes for a truly dismaying experience, made even worse by the fact that it smashed the box office in its opening weekend. God, I hope The Inbetweeners 2 does better service to its TV counterpart. Unlike the film exploits of Mrs. Brown, the approach of a Inbetweeners sequel is actually appealing. 

Final Verdict

Mrs. Brown's Boys: D'Movie is a near-total failure of a film and a disservice to the TV show, showing that Mrs. Brown is a character best served by the small screen. The humour is lazy and weak, the attempts are ill-advised to say the least and the acting is of the same quality one might expect from a pantomime. In short, it's the worst film I've had the displeasure of enduring in the cinema this year. I'd advise you to avoid at all costs.

Rating: 1.25 out of 5

Half-Time Look at 2014

As inspired by some of my favourite critics, I've decided to do a half-time examination of 2014. With any year, there will be things to discuss on the cinematic landscape. But with 2014, it's a bit difficult. Why? Because, in all honesty, there has been a lot of greatness in the past six months. Both those outside and inside Hollywood have shown a great deal of care, intelligence and respect in their various undertakings. 

Seeing as there were many films which I've thoroughly enjoyed thus far this year, I'm going to have some runners-up before I go into my Top Ten list. Also, since the area I live in rarely gets films on nationwide release and I don't always have the money to see them when they do, I still haven't seen some films released this year. I will only do a Top 10 Best list here, as I haven't seen any films so far this year which I dislike to that extent (although, given the negative word-of-mouth surrounding Mrs. Brown's Boys: D'Movie and Transformers: Age of Extinction, that could change quite soon). Finally, this is just my opinion at the time of publication. Based on how much I think about these films and how much I watch them, my opinions could change.   

Runners-Up:

The Double - For anyone who has doubts about Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Lex Luthor in the upcoming Batman Vs. Superman, I urge you to seek out The Double. For anyone who has faith in Eisenberg... Well, I still urge you to watch it, as Eisenberg gives one of his best performances yet. There is plenty more to enjoy, whether it be the strong supporting cast, the bleak visual style which feels like a blend of Terry Gilliam's Brazil and David Lynch's Mulholland Drive, the witty and humourous script and the assured direction of The It Crowd's Richard Ayoade. But the star attraction is Eisenberg, who truly shows his range as an actor by being simultaneously suave, pitiful, sympathetic and menacing. As a showcase for an actor who arguably doesn't get as much appreciation as he sometimes deserves, The Double does a very impressive job.
   

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Yes, let's get the problems out of the way. The plot is messy and tries to tackle too much. Much like its predecessor, it feels more like a set-up for future film than its own identity, to the point where certain events feel a bit rushed. While Jamie Foxx's performance is strong, the character of Electro is painted in broad strokes. Finally, the foreshadowing of a particular event is ridiculous, to the point where I had to believe that it was a wink-and-nod to the comic-savvy crowd. But, despite all of those and perhaps a fair few more, I think that there is still a lot to like in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. The action and visual effects are arguably the best the series have had to offer, aided by some well-deployed 3D; the opening Spider-Man sequence, in particular, is dazzling. In the director's chair, Marc Webb shows more confidence than previously. The supporting cast is uniformly strong, with Dane Dehaan a maliciously compelling highlight as Harry Osborn. But the real reason to see this film is the brilliant work of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy. Their relationship is pure romantic perfection, and their adorable chemistry propels the film over most rough spots which can be found. Come the fantastic conclusion, the emotional connection offered by the characters overcomes the obvious franchise-building going on here and overall keeps me interested in seeing what comes next.
 
Only Lovers Left Alive - It's refreshing when a film offers such a new view on something like vampires. Director Jim Jarmusch crafts a fantastic romance where the two participants happen to be ancient vampires. In the leads, Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton exhibit terrific chemistry and make fantastic guides for the audience. They're supported brilliantly by performances from Anton Yelchin, Mia Wasikowska, Jeffrey Wright and John Hurt in small roles. The city of Detroit also serves as a great setting, capturing the isolation of the characters and their struggle to still remain relevant. The cinematography is beautiful, the writing is wonderful and the editing allows the film to move at a brilliantly unhurried pace. As a portrait of the vampires of old in a new light, Only Lovers Left Alive is immensely engaging.     

Noah - Darren Aronofsky's Biblical epic is an unwieldy film, but it's also an ambitious one with plenty to inspire awe. Noah is a visually stunning film with genuine grandeur and a strong cast (including a powerful Russell Crowe). But what really makes the film something special is its final act, which asks potent and chilling questions about how far men are willing to take their faith and is bolstered by stellar work from Crowe, Jennifer Connelly and Emma Watson. It may be silly and over-portentous at points, but when Aronofsky's style serves his ambition well, Noah is an impressive and strong film.

22 Jump Street - Much like its predecessor, 22 Jump Street is hit-and-miss with its humour. Sometimes, the improvisational style seems strung out, building up to a laugh with providing much along the way. However, when directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller and writers Michael Bacall and Oren Uziel strike comedic potential, they milk it for all it's worth with some hysterical results. The film is particularly funny when tackling the the conventions and expectations of sequels. The bromantic chemistry of Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum is just as brilliant as before; Tatum, in particular, continues to impress with his comedic skill and timing. And while there is a lot of laugh-out-loud humour, there are some very clever instances of humour which, like all of Lord and Miller's films, will take multiple viewings to uncover. Come the terrifically over-the-top closing credits, 22 Jump Street has proven itself to be a worthy sequel with more than enough jokes working to balance out those which don't.   

And here's my Top Ten...

10. Godzilla - It was a close call for the number 10 spot on this list. In the end, I decided to go for the film which appealed to me the most personally. Don't get me wrong; Godzilla is flawed. The lead actor (much like in Pacific Rim) gives a performance which is little more than adequate, the characters are clearly built on disaster film stereotypes, there are some stupid moments (why do professional soldiers keep taking their gas masks off around exposed nuclear material?) and the teasing by director Gareth Edwards can be a bit much at times. However, with the exception of Aaron Taylor-Johnson's lead turn and those stupid moments, the faults do have upsides. The superb supporting cast manage to transcend their stereotypes; Bryan Cranston is particularly powerful and delivers some emotionally explosive work. And while the teasing of destruction, only for the film to cut to the aftermath, is somewhat annoying, it does form a palpable sense of build-up and expectation which the final 45 minutes delivers on in spectacular style. In fact, the final 45 minutes arguably has the most well-executed blockbuster spectacle of the year thus far. With strong storytelling, a terrific sense of atmosphere, stupendous visual effects and Alexandre Desplat's typically exceptional musical accompaniments, Godzilla delivers some genuine, crowd-pleasing movie magic in the same vein as Jurassic Park. The big guy has never looked better.  

9. Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Marvel Studios is one of the most reliable studios when it comes to providing big-screen entertainment nowadays, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier doesn't disappoint. In fact, it's one of their most impressive offerings. It works as a thrilling action film, a gripping character study and a terrific political thriller (arguably the first of its kind in terms of comic-book films). Plus, the filmmakers aren't afraid to take genuine chances within its cinematic universe, which deserves major props. Criticised by many at the beginning of their runs, Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson have now proved that they were ideal casting as Captain America and Black Widow respectively. Both actors add fantastic shades to their characters here, and are backed up by first-rate support from Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Mackie and Robert Redford. The writers understand the characters and show that proudly, while brothers Joe and Anthony Russo do stellar work in their first big-budget directorial outing. Based on this outing, I can't wait to see the Cap, Black Widow and co. re-unite in The Avengers: Age of Ultron.

8. The LEGO Movie - Talk about a pleasant surprise. For a film which could have easily come across as a cynical piece of marketing, The LEGO Movie turned out to be a delightful piece of family entertainment with boundless energy, smarts and heart. When a comedy's biggest flaw is that the jokes fly past at such a insane speed that it's difficult to catch them all, that's nothing to complain about too much. It's visually stunning, the cast is first-rate and the ending puts a lovely and touching spin on everything that's come before. Plus, the little winks to the audience are brilliant. How awesome is it that Warner Brothers, a huge studio, allows for some cheeky self-deprecation of their superhero output? With this and 22 Jump Street, directors Phil Lord and Christoper Miller are the kings of comedy so far this year.

7. Edge of Tomorrow - For a Hollywood sci-fi blockbuster, it is refreshingly invigorating to find a potent strain of edginess running through Edge of Tomorrow. I feel that director Doug Liman, capturing the same energy and intelligence which he brought to 2002's The Bourne Identity, is the main person to thank for this. However, that should in no way be read as me underestimating the terrific performances of Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt, who both relish playing characters somewhat different to the roles they usually inhabit. The concept is brilliantly executed and also allows both the characters and action to influence each other. The script is brilliantly written and full of wit, and the visual effects and cinematography make the film a sensational blockbuster spectacle with just enough crazed verve to allow it to stand out from its fellow blockbuster ilk (the antagonistic Mimics, in particular, are jittery and intimidating creatures of barely-contained ferocity). The only negatives are some sci-fi discussions which push the suspension of disbelief and a ending which abandons the edginess found elsewhere in favour of a 'Hollywood-approved' conclusion. However, there are still some terrific things to be found amidst those two flaws, such as the limitations surrounding Cruise's predicament and the wonderful final interaction. Overall, Edge of Tomorrow stands as one of the year's biggest and best surprises.

6. The Rocket - It is rare that a film provides a glimpse into a culture which hasn't been cinematically explored before, but The Rocket achieves this. If that was the film's only accomplishment, it would still be noteworthy. Thankfully, The Rocket comes equipped with a terrifically heartfelt story, loveable characters and genuine surprise and suspense. The lead character's predicament shows how The Rocket is both a strong exploration of the culture and a powerful piece of storytelling, as it both indicates cultural beliefs and makes him instantly sympathetic to the viewer. There is also a sad undercurrent in The Rocket related to small cultural environments being overwhelmed by industrial beliefs, made even more powerful by writer/director Kim Mordaunt seizing the opportunity to immerse the viewers in the world of the characters.

5. Under the Skin - The title definitely fits. This film crawls under you skin and refuses to budge. From the chilling opening scene, Under the Skin captures a style which echoes Kubrick while also capturing its own terrifying identity. The film has some of the most disturbingly jaw-dropping sci-fi horror sequences I have seen for a long time, and the stunning shots of Scotland create a eerie portrait of isolation which makes the premise all the more frightening to comprehend. Scarlett Johansson delivers a fascinating turn as the principal character which stands as one of her career-best, shifting brilliantly as humanity starts to slowly change her. Credit goes to director Jonathan Glazer for using the cold, detached style which this film deserves, and from not shying away from some dark visuals and suggestions. This is 'hard' sci-fi, which almost automatically means that it will not be for everyone. Personally, I highly respect how much it has to offer in terms of production values, visual style and the lead performance.

4. The Raid 2 - The first Raid film was an absolute treat for action fans. For 90 minutes, the film never let up with its series of blistering, brutal and stunningly choreographed action sequences. The sequel shows a higher level of ambition with a gang war, numerous characters and a running time a whole 60 minutes longer than the original. Sometimes this is problematic; some of the subplots and characters are superfluous (particularly a character portrayed by an actor who played a different character in the original, which led to some confusion for my self and my girlfriend) and the film does drag at points. But when it hits its stride, especially in the final 45 minutes when the gloves come off and all hell breaks loose, this is just as awesome, if not more so, as its predecessor. The choreography and staging of the action is still spectacular, and credit should go to director/editor Gareth Evans and cinematographers Matt Flannery and Dimas Imam Subhono for avoiding 'shaky-cam' in favour of capturing the action in all of its messy glory. Plus, the acting and characters are surprisingly strong for the most part. Stand-out honours go to Arifin Putra as the petulant Uco.
  

3. X-Men: Days of Future Past - While the final 45 minutes of Godzilla is the most spectacular blockbuster film-making of the year so far, X-Men: Days of Future Past is my favourite blockbuster overall of the year so far. It has fantastic spectacle, for sure, but there is so much more to love here. There is an array of terrific performances (it's difficult to pick the cream of the crop, but I'm partial to James McAvoy's beautifully human work as the young Professor X), the fantastic script is packed with wit and crowd-pleasing moments and John Ottman does wonderful work at both editing and composing (it was great hearing the theme from X2 again). But the star of the show is director Bryan Singer, who returns to the series for the first time since X2 and brings the heart, intelligence and thrills on display there back to the series. I've been a fan of the X-Men film series since it began in 2000, and after the beautiful conclusion in Days of Future Past, I can't say I've ever felt more rewarded as an X-Men fan.  

2. Calvary - It's official; Brendan Gleeson is one of the best actors working today. If you still need proof, seek out his tour-de-force performance in Calvary. However, he isn't the only great thing about this film. From the rest of the performances (including stunning turns from the likes of Aiden Gillen, Dylan Moran and Chris O'Dowd) to the beautiful cinematography and the dark, compelling writing and directing by John Michael McDonaugh, Calvary is a powerhouse exploration of people's diminished belief in faith. From the attention-grabbing first line of dialogue (quickly followed by a wonderfully wry line from Gleeson) to the phenomenal finale, Calvary is a truly courageous and captivating film which has the intelligence and guts both to ask questions and to not shy away from the answers.

1. The Grand Budapest Hotel - At the top of my list stands Wes Anderson's brilliantly whimsical ode to story-telling and how it is passed down through the ages. In The Grand Budapest Hotel, Anderson laces his usual style with hints of darkness and tension which displays a sense of growing maturity from the filmmaker. Led by a hilariously bravura performance from Ralph Fiennes, the cast delivers terrific portrayals; Tony Revolori is immensely likeable in his big-screen debut as Zero, while Willem Dafoe and Adrien Brody are stand-outs in the villainous roles. The cinematography is beautiful and stands out in numerous scenes, particularly one set in a museum. Alexandre Desplat's work is once again brilliantly unique; Desplat is one of my favourite composers working today, and his work for Godzilla and this film reward my faith in him. The practical effects are wonderfully old-fashioned and typically Anderson. Finally, the script is beautifully written, with Anderson's usual quirky dialogue being interspersed with surprisingly hilarious, dark and emotional notes. While it is a delightful piece of cinematic confectionary, there are hidden depths which make The Grand Budapest Hotel a wonderful piece of surprisingly crowd-pleasing entertainment. I adore this film, and it will have to be a spectacular remaining six months for this to fall outside my top five of the year. As it is, it currently stands as my favourite film of the year.

So far, it's been a great year for films. And with promising titles like How to Train Your Dragon 2, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Guardians of the Galaxy, Interstellar, Boyhood, Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, Lucy, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Paddington, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 and The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies still on the way (just to name a few), here's hoping it gets even better.

          

Edge of Tomorrow Review (Non-Spoiler)

Note: For those unfamiliar with my reviews, I try not to dive too much into the plot of the film I'm reviewing. However, if you still want to steer clear of the main review just in case, I sum up my thoughts in a final verdict which avoids any specific details which might be found in the main review.  

OK, no matter what you think about the trailers for Edge of Tomorrow, you have to admit that the combination of Tom Cruise, one of the biggest action stars of all-time, with director Doug Liman (the man behind one of the great spy thrillers The Bourne Identity) is an intriguing notion. 

William Cage (Tom Cruise) is a high-ranking army official during a war against an invading alien force known as 'Mimics'. As part of a publicity stunt co-ordinated by his new superior (Brendan Gleeson), he is sent in the first wave of an attack intended to wipe out the invaders once and for all. Instead, Cage is quickly killed... only to wake up the day before the attack, somehow having garnered the ability to turn back time upon dying. In order to better understand and utilise this new-found power to continually return from the dead, Cage quickly tracks down Rita (Emily Blunt), who might help him understand his current predicament.

Edge of Tomorrow, based on Hiroshi Sakurazaka's 2004 novel titled All You Need Is Kill, clearly owes debts to films such as Groundhog Day and Aliens. Both the darkly comic and existential repetitions which Cage endures recall Bill Murray's struggles in the former film (not to mention the struggles of Jake Gyllenhaal's character in Source Code, another sci-fi variation on Groundhog Day), while the presence of a heavy military force going up against marauding aliens and Bill Paxton AKA Hicks in a scene-stealing supporting role recall the latter. Thankfully, Edge of Tomorrow manages to construct its own identity from these elements, becoming its own beast without seeming like a rip-off of superior classics.

The film's success lies heavily on the shoulders of Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt, and they succeed beautifully. The character of William Cage is unlike Cruise's usual lead roles in blockbusters, but Cruise tackles the difference courageously to deliver a likeable, relatable and human performance infused with his usual all-star charisma and an underlying darkness. Also, while Cruise can sometimes come across as a stick in the mud (water-microphone gag, anyone?), he stretches unexpected comedic chops here. Meanwhile, Blunt is nothing short of enthralling as one of the most bad-ass female leads in a blockbuster for a long time (the character's nickname, as inherited from the novel, is nothing short of awesome). Blunt has already proved that she is capable of capturing the vulnerability in a character, but her performance here blends that vulnerability with a toughness and a determination to get things done which makes her just as much of a principal hero as Cruise, if not more so. Both Cruise and Blunt share wonderful chemistry in a relationship with great dimension which refreshingly veers away from the typical romance which most blockbusters promote. With The Bourne Identity, director Liman put Matt Damon into the role of an action hero. The role of Jason Bourne wasn't one similar to Damon's previous body of work, but he excelled in it nonetheless. Here, much like Damon in The Bourne Identity, both Cruise and Blunt are placed in roles which are dissimilar to the majority of their previous work. And also much like Damon, both Cruise and Blunt seize the chance to explore different characters and do terrific work. The supporting cast is strong, with Paxton especially having a blast as a war-loving master sargeant. This feels like a play on Paxton's role as Hudson from Aliens, and Paxton has a lot of fun playing with that image. Gleeson and Noah Taylor (as a doctor who helps Cage and Rita) deliver their usual reliable work, while the actors portraying Cage's fellow soldiers all do solid work; it's particularly nice to see Jonas Armstrong (best known as the titular character from the BBC series Robin Hood) getting some big-screen exposure, although I found it a bit odd that Robin Hood co-star Lara Pulver appears in a blink-and-miss-it role.

Director Doug Liman brings the same hectic energy and intelligence to Edge of Tomorrow that he channeled into The Bourne Identity. After Liman seemed to slowly succumb to Hollywood's rules with 2005's decently entertaining Mr. and Mrs Smith and 2008's disappointingly lacklustre Jumper, he has firmly reclaimed his edginess here (perhaps because he's more comfortable with the European style found both in the Bourne series and in Edge of Tomorrow). Thanks to the film's concept, he also have a lot of fun with the ways in which Cage is dispatched. For at least the first half of the film, Cage's predicaments are shown in a more darkly comedic light thanks to the style of Liman and editor James Herbert. While this approach could have easily undermined the high-stakes of the story, Liman, Herbert, Cruise and Blunt play it just the right way. And as both the story and Cage progress, Liman delights in continually keeping the audience on their toes. Just as we and Cage think we have it all figured out, out comes the rug. A lot of kudos should also be given to Liman and Herbert for managing to avoid repetition, which is always a high danger with this concept. This is also thanks to the screenwriting team of Christopher McQuarrie (the man behind the script for The Usual Suspects) and brothers Jez and John-Henry Butterworth (who wrote the script for the upcoming James Brown bio-pic Get On Up). The dialogue between the characters is consistently intelligent and funny while exposing the character's inner selves, and the ways in which the story progresses are clever and often unexpected. Both the direction and the script passionately bring this concept to life.

As with the majority of summer blockbusters, the quality of the action sequences is an important element. Thankfully, the action sequences in Edge of Tomorrow are consistently stunning. This is made even more impressive by the fact that the major battle sequence is returned to again and again; Liman and cinematographer Dion Beebe, while using enough shots to remind the audience that this is the same scenario, still continually find new ways to portray the action from new angles. Even better, the action changes with the evolution of Cage as a character and the ways in which he and Rita choose to approach the situation. Liman applies his chaotic style terrifically to the action, while never allowing the action to get too out-of-control for the audience.

Technically, this film is arguably the most impressive blockbuster so far this year. The score by Christophe Beck (which I'm listening to while writing this review) is pitch-perfect in its playful intensity, matching the edginess of the film brilliantly. The visual effects are spectacular; major props go to the team behind the design and creation of the 'Mimics', as the creatures have a uniquely unsettling appearances and a rampaging wildness which make them legitimately threatening foes. The cinematography is suitably apocalyptic, and makes both the industrial and natural locations look appropriately battle-scarred yet strangely appealing; the main battle scenes are shot with grimly balletic beauty and appear as the equivalent of a sci-fi Saving Private Ryan. Also, it's immensely refreshing  to see locations which stand out as different from your usual Hollywood blockbusters. The use of London and France as key locations not only makes the threat more massive and globe-threatening but it also emphasises how out of his depth Cage is. The we get to the 3D presentation. Thankfully, the 3D isn't completely pointless. On the contrary, the 3D actually allows a deeper immersion into the action sequences, with debris flying in your face and inventive camera shots placing you in the middle of the action (one particular shot in the first action sequence terrifically captures the chaos and panic of the scenario from Cage's POV). However, outside of the action, the 3D doesn't seem to have much of an impact. I am slightly annoyed with this, but if a film is to be shown in 3D, I'd rather that the 3D had a positive effect on the film rather than no effect or a detrimental one.  

I only have two main issues with this film. The first is that, despite the best efforts of the actors and writers, the explanation behind Cage's predicament is convoluted and threatens to stretch disbelief. However, because it facilitates the rest of an exceptionally entertaining film, I'm willing to cut it some slack. The second issue I have is with the ending. I will just say that there were several options as to how this film could end, and the option the filmmakers went with is arguably problematic for, among other reasons, the questions it raises regarding the plot. I would have preferred an ending which didn't appear to poke holes in the plot (even though the very last scene is wonderfully played).

Final Verdict and Rating

Despite a belief-stretching explanation of the main character's predicament and a disappointing conclusion, Edge of Tomorrow is still a great sci-fi action thriller which is easily director Doug Liman's best film since The Bourne Identity. With an intelligent script, great performances, spectacular action, exceptional visual effects and a expertly executed concept which strikes a brilliant balance between dark comedy and high-stakes threat, there is plenty to make this a propulsive piece of blockbuster spectacle. Mr. Cruise, you're still a bona fide action star.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

P.S. If you want more reasons why you should see Edge of Tomorrow, feel free to check out these videos from some of my favourite Youtube critics. Keep in mind that, as they are discussing why you should see the film, details about the film may be revealed and discussed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOixYsF4JYs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wjT6IeuoVw

P.P.S. Geek alert, but for fans of the 50th anniversary Doctor Who special, doesn't that landing space for the helicopter in Edge of Tomorrow's first scene look familar?





  
      

   

X-Men: Days of Future Past Review (Non-Spoilers)

For anyone who hasn’t read my previous two reviews, I would like to establish two things. The first is that I always aim to steer as far away from specific details about a film’s plot and its characters as possible. This may make my reviews seem vague at points, but I believe in letting people go into a film fresh. If you don’t wish to read my full review for fear of spoilers, you can skip to the final paragraph of the review to see my overall verdict and rating. Secondly, as this is another film with a long franchise history (much like Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Amazing Spider-Man 2), I feel that I need to express my opinions on the other films in the franchise before beginning to fully review X-Men: Days of Future Past. So if you wish to avoid my opinions on the other films and instead skip to my views on X-Men: Days of Future Past, jump forward to the fifth paragraph and go crazy. With that being said, let’s begin…

In 2000, X-Men hit the big screen. Seeing as I wasn’t old enough to see it in the cinema (I’ve seen every other X-Men film in the cinema), I saw it on VHS within a year after its release. As a kid, X-Men changed my views on what a superhero film could be. By combining smart allegorical ideas and (mostly) compelling characters with a superhero team dynamic which allowed for a spectacular variety of powers playing out within skilfully constructed action sequences, X-Men provided me with arguably my first adult superhero film experience. Plus, it introduced me to one of the most awesome cinematic superheroes in Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine and one of the most understandably malevolent cinematic super villains in Ian McKellen’s Magneto (the fact that the next role I saw McKellen in was that of Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings confirmed my belief that this guy was beyond cool). Three years after X-Men had its release, X2 hit the big screen and upped the ante. From the knock-out opening to that beautiful tease of a final shot, X2 was more ambitious, intelligently crafted, spectacular and an overall better film than its predecessor. The action stunned, the actors continued to bring their A-game and both Singer and his writers continued to put characters and story first. While it wasn’t perfect, it was still a tremendous film which showed off the immense potential of ’comic-book’ films. Everything was going smoothly…

Until Singer jumped ship for Superman Returns, leaving X-Men: The Last Stand in the hands of one Brett Ratner. Many fans were in uproar, saying that the departure of Singer and the replacement choice of Ratner spelled doom for the franchise. After it came out, it received a lot of heated hate from fans. I’m just going to say this up front: I loved this film when it first came out. Back then, I didn’t have as much critical awareness of films as I do now, so I loved it without much question and saw it more than once in cinemas (using my Cineworld card so that I spent nothing on it). Now that time has gone on, I can understand why people have their complaints. For a film running around 100 minutes, there are too many characters and subplots, some of which get squashed in the shuffle and leeched of some of their power as a result. The delicate yet confident skill with characters and story which Singer displayed is replaced with a more brash style (see every line Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones) utters for evidence). Finally, I’m sorry if anyone disagrees, but Halle Berry’s Storm becomes a royal pain in this film. Apparently, this was due to Berry’s insistence on an expanded role and a higher salary for the third instalment. If this is true, I dislike Berry not only for her greed but also for her inability to understand that she’s not the best actress for this role. She got away with this in the first two films due to her role as a supporting character, but put front and centre, she doesn’t impress. She instead comes across as confrontational, unpleasant and high ‘n‘ mighty. With all that ranting out of the way, I still enjoy this film. Don’t get me wrong; I consider it to be the weakest film in the original trilogy, but I don’t think that it’s anywhere near devoid of merit in its entertainment value. The cast is still superb, with Jackman and McKellen nothing short of exceptional (Famke Janssen and Kelsey Grammer also do terrific work as Jean Grey and Beast respectively), the themes of the first two films are present, there are numerous nods to the comic-book crowd, the action sequences are exceptional and the pacing helps immeasurably in building momentum to a finale with a genuinely operatic punch. So, while I understand the flaws which many might find with it, I can’t bring myself to dislike X-Men: The Last Stand. On the other hand, I’m more than happy to admit my immensely negative opinion of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. This is the only X-Men film where I don’t like acknowledging its existence (and I think that 20^th Century Fox feels the same). It throws in characters to please the fans instead of giving them a legitimate role in the narrative, making them and all the indignities performed upon the characters all the more offensive. It screws up the narrative of the original films and provides answers to long-gestating questions which are so anger-inducing through their laziness (as far as foolish choices in superhero films go, I think that adamantium bullets are in the top tier along with the Bat credit card, emo Spider-Man and casting Ryan Reynolds). The visual effects are awfully awkward and the action sequences make ’routine’ look ’genre-defining’. In the end, despite the best efforts of a fine cast (with Jackman and Liev Schreiber as Sabretooth doing brilliant work), X-Men Origins: Wolverine is nothing less than a stain on the X-Men legacy. Whatever the next film did would have to wash the bad taste of franchise poison away…

Cue the heroic music!

In steps Matthew Vaughn, fresh off his brilliant superhero parody Kick-Ass, to reinvigorate the franchise with 2011’s X-Men: First Class. By putting the relationship between young Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Eric Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) front-and-centre and by turning the story into a globe-trotting Bond-style thriller, Vaughn both reintroduced the emotional undercurrent of Singer’s films while creating a terrifically slick and fast-paced adventure. The performances (particularly those of McAvoy, Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence as young shape shifter Mystique) were beautifully well-judged, the action was powerfully exciting, the characters were engaging and entertaining, the story was thoroughly gripping and the visual effects (with the exception of an awkward rendition of a young Beast) were fantastic. Vaughn not only washed away the stench of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but in doing so, he arguably created the best X-Men film thus far. The next step in re-building the franchise came with 2013’s The Wolverine, the second spin-off for the character of Wolverine. With a focus on character over action (though there is some great Wolverine action) and with a significant focus on Wolverine instead of the scattershot approach to characters adopted by X-Men Origins: Wolverine, The Wolverine proved to be another strong addition to the franchise. Hugh Jackman delivered another fiercely committed and terrific performance in the role, the locations and mythology proved to be both visually interesting and important to the character, the action was refreshingly low-key for the most past and the direction by James Mangold made the character seem new and intriguing by making him the focus of a gangster thriller. Despite a final 20 minutes which disappointingly abandoned the low-key character approach for generic visual effects chaos, The Wolverine still showed that the franchise was heading in the right direction.

And now, we reach X-Men: Days of Future Past. This instalment is important for two major reasons. The first is that Bryan Singer has returned as a director. The second is that Days of Future Past combines both the cast of First Class and the cast of the original film. In short, Days of Future Past would be an essential film to see for any fan of the X-Men film series, regardless of its quality.

It is 2023. Mutants are being hunted by an imposing menace called The Sentinels. In order to prevent the apocalyptic future, Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Eric Lensherr (Ian McKellen) agree to send Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back in time to 1973 to prevent the chain of events which will lead to The Sentinels' eventual domination. In order to do this, Wolverine will need the help of both the young Charles (James McAvoy) and Eric (Michael Fassbender)...

Bryan Singer, you sure know how to make a triumphant return. With X-Men: Days of Future Past, Singer has proved that, no matter what James Mangold (The Wolverine) and especially Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class) excelled in during their directorial stints, he is the key director of the X-Men film series. From the very beginning, Singer takes you on a thrilling roller-coaster ride which never lets up in its ferocious pacing and action while still taking its time with character interplay and a immensely intelligent and satisfying story. Both Singer and his team of writers prove up to the task of capturing the best of the film series' previous accomplishments while moving forward in a spectacular new direction.

X-Men: Days of Future Past wouldn't work nearly as well as it does without the terrific array of performances at its centre. Front and centre is Hugh Jackman, whose star power is still overwhelmingly palpable. Jackman is still nothing less than the perfect choice for the role of Wolverine; he has the indestructible charisma, the thunderous rage, the staggering physicality and the roguish likeability down pat, allowing him to depict the character in a way which couldn't be duplicated. The day when Jackman tucks away the claws for good will be a sad day, indeed. Here, Jackman adds new shades to the character, showing that even after almost a decade and a half, there are still many interesting facets for Jackman to explore. However, unlike the other X-Men films where he has a pivotal role, Jackman doesn't walk away with the film entirely. While I found Jennifer Lawrence powerful in First Class, I felt that her work lacked the physical prowess which Rebecca Romjin brought to the role in the original trilogy. In the original trilogy, Mystique was an active participant, whether it be through infiltration or combat. In First Class, Lawrence had a touching emotional arc, but wasn't much of an active participant in the events of the story. Here, however, Lawrence's Mystique is given a much more important role in the story and is much more of an active character. Lawrence delivers arguably her most physically compelling performance to date through some thrilling fight sequences while still providing an emotionally stirring portrayal, making this the most powerful portrayal of the character to date. Fassbender is once again fantastic as a young Magneto, sharing the same kind of cruelly intense charisma as Daniel Craig's portrayal of James Bond. Not only is Fassbender excessively cool, he also creates a strong sense of sympathy and understanding for the character combined with a chilling determination which continues to make him an exceptional antagonist. Nicholas Hoult once again delivers an impressive performance as a young Hank McCoy AKA Beast, benefitting from a larger role and from much improved make-up. As Boliver Trask, Peter Dinklage (also known as Tyrion Lannister from HBO's Game of Thrones) is suavely menacing and ensnares attention every time he's on screen. Josh Helman also makes a strong impression as an associate of Trask (the character's name will not be mentioned here to retain surprise for those unaware, but if you want to know who it is, you can type in Helman's name on IMDb). Evan Peters is a scene-stealing delight as Peter Maximoff AKA Quiksilver, and he plays a pivotal role in one of the most sensationally executed action sequences in recent memory. And I haven't even talked about the returning cast member from the original trilogy yet. It is fantastic to see Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Ellen Page's Kitty Pryde and Shawn Ashmore's Iceman and Daniel Cudmore's Colossus return, and all of them step back into their roles with ease (I felt a sense of indifference towards Halle Berry's return as Storm both before and after the film), and all of them step back into their roles with ease. Stewart, in particular, delivers some beautifully poignant work. Despite all of the great work from the actors across the board, the performance I found the most compelling was that of James McAvoy as the young Professor Xavier. As much as I love Patrick Stewart's interpretation of the character, McAvoy's work transforms Professor X into a much more fragile, funny and sympathetic figure. McAvoy beautifully captures all of the character's pain and conflict, but he still has some very funny moments. Whereas Stewart plays the man as a wise mentor who has experienced sorrow in his past, McAvoy's face is etched with said sorrow, allowing us to see where Stewart's Xavier was born. McAvoy rivets every time he's on screen. I am not saying that he inaguably gives the best performance in the film (there are way too many terrific, attention-grabbing turns here), but as far as I am concerned, McAvoy's work as Professor Xavier is an unerringly powerful portrayal of the film's most intriguing character. 

The script is fantastic, with numerous nods to the fan base of the comic-books and spectacularly written interactions between the characters. Also fantastically realised is the intergration of real-life events from the 1970's and how they are linked into the story in relation to the mutant struggle. Simon Kinberg, Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn have all done a brilliant job crafting a compelling script and story here, and I'm glad to hear that Kinberg will be behind the script for the following instalment. This, combined with Singer's effortless direction, the characters and story would be more than enough to make this film worth seeing. 

But then we come to the action. The breath-taking action sequences not only provide stirring spectacle; they also lend even more power to the characters and their journeys, while emphasising the never-higher stakes. The visual effects beautifully bring the powers of the mutant characters to life in thrilling and inventive ways; this is particularly true of the characters of Quiksilver and Blink (Bingbing Fan). The action sequences, with one exception, offer a palpable sense of threat and dread. The first and final action sequences, in particular, are dazzling, edge-of-your-seat set-pieces with a genuine sense of despair which should be applauded. For those who are coming to this film for the action, prepare to be amazed.

Technically, this film is worthy of many plaudits. Returning along with Singer, John Ottman provides wonderfully coherent editing which allows the film to unfold with intense urgency while allowing time for the characters to breathe. He also does a terrific job at reprising composing duties, reminding us that his theme for the X-Men is one of the most flat-out awesome superhero themes thus far. The sound editing and mixing is superb, while the soundtrack is brilliantly chosen (Jim Croce's Time in a Bottle is particularly well-chosen). Finally, the cinematography is fantastic, capturing an apocalyptic dread in the future scenes while making the 1970's scenes seem naturalistic without straying over-the top in referencing the period. In fact, when the cinematography does acknowledge the period, it is done in ways which only enhance the events of the story. Finally, the period detail (namely the clothing and the settings) are adeptly accomplished.   

None of the X-Men film are perfect (I doubt that any of them will ever fall into that category), and Days of Future Past is no exception. As with all X-Men films, there are characters who could have been given more to do. One example here is Ian McKellen's Magneto. McKellen is brilliant as always, but I would have liked to see more of him. His rendtion of Magneto still stands as one of the finest portrayals of a comic-book villain to date. With that being said, I can understand why Fassbender's rendition of Magneto was given more focus in this film. He hasn't had as much time in the role as McKellen, so I'm glad to see Fassbender given more time to develop his rendition of the character (especially seeing as he's proving to be just as electric in the role as McKellen). Also, while I often don't appreciate how much the marketing for films can give away too much detail, I was disappointed to find that one scene between two character with a lot of promise didn't appear in the final film. Finally, the 3D conversion doesn't accomplish much in providing immersion, only managing to diminish the film's picture brightness. This 3D conversion merely feels like a cash-grab; if you can, I'd highly recommend seeing this in 2D.

Final Verdict and Rating

Despite some problems (a cast with some given more to do than others and a pointless 3D conversion), I still adore X-Men: Days of Future Past. The cast is phenomenal, the action sequences and visual effects are stunning, the script is terrific, the story is propulsively engaging and the film is technically exceptional. This is, for me, the most accomplished of the summer blockbusters thus far this year. By acknowledging the successes of the past while bravely paving a road forward for the future of the franchise in new and unexpected ways, director Bryan Singer has returned to this series with a deafening bang. This is spectacular, emotional and intelligent entertainment of an incredibly high order. Following the pitch-perfect conclusion to Days of Future Past (as well as the usual after-credits scene), I can't wait to see how he tackles X-Men: Apocalypse.

I was simply going to offer my rating of this film here. But I thought I'd have a bit more fun with it. So here is how I would rank the X-Men films, from lowest to highest...

7. X-Men: Origins - Wolverine (1.5/5)
6. X-Men: The Last Stand (3.5/5)
5. The Wolverine (4/5)
4. X-Men (4.25/5)
3. X2 (4.5/5)
2. X-Men: First Class (4.5/5) - 2 and 3 could change based on me giving them the same rating. 

And taking the top spot as the franchise's pinnacle...

1. X-Men: Days of Future Past (4.75/5)                          

    

  

                       

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Review

                            

Note: The first two paragraphs of this review will be me focusing on my past relationship with the cinematic exploits of the Web-head. While I can understand this perhaps being tedious for those who simply want to hear my thoughts about the film I'm reviewing, I feel that illuminating my background allows me to better establish what expectations I might have had going into The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Also, I have done my utmost to steer clear of spoilers during this review (which might result in me sounding very vague at points). If anyone wishes to use my opinion to judge whether or not they should see this film, I will aim not to give away anything but that which is essential to the construction of this review. With all that rambling out of the way, let's begin...

I am a big fan of the original Spider-Man trilogy by Sam Raimi. It was a bumpy journey, to be sure. I do still love Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, but I acknowledge that, despite their emotional resonance, they can have some very goofy moments. However, they offered enough comic-book thrills, laughs and terrific performances aided by wonderfully engaging story-telling. Then came Spider-Man 3, a film which left many people feeling disappointed and even angry. Too many villains, an idiotically goofy Peter Parker, a badly misused Venom (one of Spider-Man's most famous adversaries), a deluge of subplots... The list of problems is large. But, while I agree with all of those listed and more, I still LIKE Spider-Man 3. Let me emphasise me liking it but not loving it like I did the previous two. Sure, it has its problems, but it had a very troubled back story. After Raimi already had two villains set up, he was put under immense pressure from both the fans and the studio Sony to put Venom/Eddie Brock in the film (hence why the character shows up around the half-an-hour mark and has little screen time onwards). Another theory flying around was that, since Raimi felt this might be his last Spidey film, he tried to cram in as much as possible so that he could leave a bigger impression. The issue of "cramming too much in" is something I want to touch on again later.

A mere five years after Spider-Man 3, Sony released a 'reboot' in the form of Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man. While the brief period between these two reeked of commercialism (Sony basically had to make another Spidey film to avoid losing the rights to Marvel Studios), the film itself was surprisingly strong. Many criticised it for repeating Spidey's origin story, but I honestly felt that it worked for two reasons. The first is that, in showing a different Peter Parker/Spider-Man to the one previously portrayed by Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield needed a film to make his mark (which he did spectacularly). Secondly, it told the origin in its own way. We see Peter before he turns into Spider-Man, we see that his family has secrets and we see more down-to-earth, lovable characters. I like the characters in Raimi's trilogy, but I ADORED them in The Amazing Spider-Man. Their ticks, their interactions, the dialogue... TASM was a superhero film which refreshingly focused on characters and the simple dynamics which evolved. As a result, we got a truly beautiful romance between Garfield's Peter and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy. While it was by no means perfect, The Amazing Spider-Man was a truly satisfying reboot of the character for me. And the ending promised that there was much more to look forward to...

Well, with The Amazing Spider-Man 2, that 'much more' has arrived.

We pick up with Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) as they deal with different events in their life. As is common in the world in Spider-Man, these events are only going to become more complicated by the appearance of new villainy on the streets of New York. This villainy takes the form of Max Dillon/Electro (Jamie Foxx), a walking time bomb with the ability to control electricity. Peter's past also plays an important role through family secrets and the return of once best friend Harry Osborn (Dane Dehaan)... 

From the very beginning, director Marc Webb shows that his craft has improved immensely. This is definitely a more ambitious undertaking than the first film, and Webb handles the task with admirable skill. Does the film at times feel cluttered? Yes, it does. But Webb's confidence keeps the film mostly on track, and he zips terrifically from drama to comedy, from romance to action and back again. Plus, while this film may feel cluttered, it promises to shed more light on some of the elements here in future installments (a promise which was lacking in Spider-Man 3).  

The film opens with two thrilling action set-pieces which not only provide dazzling spectacle but also progress the story. Webb almost seems to dare you to try to watch the first Spidey sequence without transforming into a giddy little kid. I didn't even try to resist; the camera captures Spidey in all his web-slinging glory like never before, and it's an absolutely intoxicating rush. The action in this film is leaps and bounds ahead of its predecessor, both in terms of scope and intensity. If you're looking for big-screen spectacle and excitement, you'll definitely get your ticket's worth.

What makes it so much more than a showcase for wonderful visuals is the exceptional work of the actors, whether they are returning or making their debut in the world of the web-slinger. I'm sorry, Tobey Maguire, but Andrew Garfield is now officially my favourite Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Whether he's shooting off quips left and right, confronting harsh emotional truths or helping to bring life to one of the best film romances in recent memory, Garfield is nothing short of perfect. His Peter Parker is so relatable, likable, sympathetic and genuine that the inclusion of superpowers is just an icing on the cake. Matching him beat for beat is the adorable Emma Stone, whose Gwen Stacy continues to put Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson to shame. Much like Garfield, she is such a lovable screen presence that she lights up the screen every time she appears. She has movie-star charm, wit and intelligence to spare. And the two of them together... The romance between the two is one of the best I've seen in cinema for a long time. I don't have enough superlatives for Garfield and Stone here. They both breathe vibrant life into their characters wonderfully, and this film wouldn't work nearly as well without the two of them at the centre.

For all of my gushing about Garfield and Stone, I do have to give credit to all of the other fantastic performances here. First and foremost is Dane Dehaan as Harry Osborn. Dehaan, in my honest opinion, is one of the best young actors working today (check out Chronicle, Lawless, The Place Beyond the Pines and Kill Your Darlings for proof). As Harry Osborn, he damn near threatens to steal the film from under Garfield and Stone. Dehaan is a captivating screen presence, creating both a threateningly slimy yet oddly understandable character. The motivations for Harry's actions throughout the film are genuinely fascinating, and Dehaan's multi-faceted turn gives Harry's story genuine weight. As Max Dillon/Electro, Jamie Foxx also delivers a sympathetic yet imposing performance. I was really interested in seeing what Foxx would do with this character primarily because Electro is one of my favourite Spider-Man villains. Thankfully, Foxx didn't let me down. Electro is a force to be reckoned with, and while Foxx initially comes across as comical in his portrayal of Max before his turn to the dark side, there is an underlying sadness which quickly boils into a tragic rage. Foxx's terrific work makes Electro an impressive foe. Once again, Sally Field is flawless as Aunt May. Her chemistry with Garfield is wonderfully natural, making it feel like they've really known each other for years, and their scenes together are beautifully understated. In his brief screen time, Paul Giamatti leaves a lasting impression with his deservedly over-the-top portrayal of Russian thug Aleksei Sytsevich. Colm Feore, Campbell Scott, Chris Cooper, Marton Csokas and Embeth Davidtz all provide solid support. My only negative note about the cast is that it's so big that actors like B.J. Novak and Felicity Jones are given almost nothing to do. But I'd have to assume that if a young actor was given even a small role in something as high-profile as Spider-Man, they'd jump at the chance. Judging by a lot of the footage from trailers which didn't actually appear in the film, I'm assuming that perhaps some scenes with them in were cut out. Given how much this film already had to get through, that might not necessarily be a bad thing.

Technically, the film is close to flawless. The visual effects are nothing short of spectacular, especially when showcasing Spidey's agile swinging through the city and Electro's manipulation of electricity. Visually, Electro is Spidey's most impressive adversary by far, his whole body pulsating with power. Electro also gets an exceptional musical theme courtesy of Hans Zimmer and The Magnificent Six (with contributions from Pharrell Williams and Johnny Marr), whose work throughout the rest of the film is equally brilliant. The score perfectly emphasises the emotions of dread, romance, heroism and danger as they appear throughout the film. The soundtrack is also wonderfully chosen, with a particularly pitch-perfect placement of Phosphoroscent's Song for Zola lending beauty to one of the scenes between Peter and Gwen. In fact, I'm listening to the score/soundtrack while writing this, and I'm strongly resisting the urge to purchase the deluxe edition. It is fantastic to listen to, whether in the midst of the film or separated from it. The editing is also strong, helping immeasurably in the film's rapid-fire pacing. Finally, the 3D (which was an unnecessary addition to the other recent superhero film Captain America: The Winter Soldier) is genuinely impressive here, providing a greater level of immersion while never feeling like a gimmick.

While I may have seemed to have nothing but praise for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, there are flaws. There is a lot going on during this film (it's telling that actors were cast in major roles, filmed and then cut), and the seams do sometimes appear. The same charge of ambition could be levelled at this film as Captain America: The Winter Soldier. However, that film played with elements which had already been established within its cinematic universe through multiple films, allowing it to both play with the universe and work as a self-contained narrative. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is introducing several elements within one film. While it does sometimes feel like we don't have much room to breathe, credit is still due to Marc Webb and to writers Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pinkner and James Vanderbilt for their ambition. The film sometimes feels like it's setting up later installments as a result of everything taking place. But much like its predecessor, the characters, their stories and the immensely talented people involved both manage to keep my interest rooted in this story and make me very curious to see what happens next. I would have liked the film to be a bit longer by 10 to 15 minutes, just so that a bit more time could have spent on observing the relationships between characters. In the first film, moments like this were in abundance, but here (with a running time only four minutes longer than the first), there's too much going on for that simple luxury to have the same level of prominence. With that being said, there is enough development and care for us to become emotionally involved.  

Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a strong and immensely entertaining superhero film. The visual effects and action set-pieces are stunning, the performances are enthralling, the direction smoothly courses over any bumps to be found in the story, the energy and pacing rarely flags and the work of Hans Zimmer and The Magnificent Six, combined with a perfect song selection, makes the film an aural delight. Plus, the film's conclusion is tremendously well-handled. Despite some problems with over-crowding, I had a great time with this film and I would have to highly recommend it to any Spider-Man fans or even those with simply a passing interest.

Rating: 4.25 out of 5. At the moment, I still slightly prefer Captain America: The Winter Soldier out of the two superhero/comic book films so far this year. I did debate giving The Amazing Spider-Man 2 a rating of 4 due to how crowded it was. Eventually, I felt that I would go for 4.25 instead. It's not quite 4.5 for me after the first viewing, but it exceeded what I would give a 4 due to its sheer entertainment value. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Non-Spoiler Review)

Please be advised: The following two paragraphs of this review are mainly my thoughts on the wider Avengers Universe. If you are only interested in my thoughts on Captain America: The Winter Soldier; please skip these two paragraphs. However, seeing as this is a large cinematic universe which I haven't discussed at length before, I feel that these two first paragraphs are something I needed to write. Also, I apologise if I seem vague at points during the review, but this is done to avoid giving too much away.  

I love Marvel Studios. Outside of Pixar (before the rocky period brought on by Cars 2), few other studios take both such care and such risks with their products. Take the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark AKA Iron Man. This was a big risk taken right out of the gate. If Iron Man, the first Marvel Studios film, tanked at the box office, the whole Avengers Universe would have been thrown into turmoil. Luckily, Downey Jr. did three things. He owned the role of Tony Stark, he transformed Iron Man into one of the most popular superheroes around and he helped to make the first Iron Man a smash hit. Not that he was the only great thing about the film; I personally rank it among my favourite superhero films. Simply put, Iron Man sparked the creation of a cinematic universe which, while hitting some bumps in the road, took careful steps towards the first 'epic' super-hero team-up film The Avengers. The effort put into this Universe was rewarded with The Avengers becoming a resounding worldwide sensation, beloved by many (including yours truly). Marvel Studios announced that there will be three 'phases' of the Avengers Universe, each ending with a threat so big that the team had to group together to fend off destruction. One phase down, and all was looking well. 

As we entered 'Phase 2' of the Avengers Universe, it became clear that the filmmakers weren't taking it easy. Iron Man 3 had Shane Black at the helm for his second directorial outing (after 2005's hugely underrated Kiss Kiss Bang Bang). Black, along with co-writer Drew Pearce, stirred up a great deal of controversy in the fan community based on certain plot points (which I wouldn't be discussing here). Personally, I loved the fact that both Black and Pearce weren't afraid to avoid the usual Marvel formula, and I thought that Iron Man 3 was a strong film overall in spite of some flaws. Thor: The Dark World, despite taking a risk by having first-time film director Alan Taylor (who had previously done work on HBO's Game of Thrones), felt decidedly more formulaic in structure (bad guy wants to destroy the world, good guy wants to stop him). However, thanks to clever and genuinely funny humour, some really inventive touches and solid performances (with one ace in the devilishly entertaining form of Tom Hiddleston's Loki), I still found Thor: The Dark World to be a great deal of fun. So, in the final step of 'Phase 2' before The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America returns for Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

I really enjoyed Captain America: The First Avenger. I can understand why some people may not enjoy it, but its simple and joyful nostalgia appealed to me. Also, the character of Steve Rogers AKA Captain America is a admirable and strong character. I personally love the character; if these films had come out when I was a kid, Captain America would have been one great role model. Chris Evans proved both with his debut and with his return in The Avengers that he was ideal casting for the part, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier sees him at his most assured, likable and complex in the part. The film itself stands as one of the strongest films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, both adhering to the formula enough to please fans of the traditional Marvel structure while proving ambitious and daring enough to avoid being just another link in the chain to the next Avengers film.

After the events of The Avengers, Captain America has started working for S.H.I.E.L.D alongside Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) under the command of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). However, the Captain has started to question his role in this new world where fear has arguably taken over freedom. His uncertainty is only further clouded by the arrival of The Winter Soldier, a cold and calculating assassin who appears and disappears like a ghost. With this new threat, the Captain must charge into battle with his trusty shield once more...

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is helmed by brothers Anthony and Joe Russo, making their first film since 2006's You, Me and Dupree. This shows Marvel taking another risk with who they choose to direct their latest film, and once again it pays off. The Russo brothers show an unexpected visceral flair in their crafting of the film's numerous action sequences. The majority of blows, crashes and gunfire have a realistic punch to them, which is impressive. Plus, the variety of action sequences is welcome; Captain America is nowhere to be seen during one of the film's most riveting set-pieces.

But the Russo brothers, along with screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, really show their prowess when the characters start talking. The dialogue is intelligent and fun to listen to as delivered by actors who really seem invested in what they are saying. Also, it shows how ambitious the directing and writing quartet are through their willingness to construct a Captain America film with political themes and a less-than-straightforward narrative. I can imagine a lot of little kids turning to their parents and asking questions about what just happened. Kudos to them for not playing it safe.

With a plot slightly more complicated than your usual superhero film, it's important to have characters you can care about in case you lose track of the plot. Luckily, the cast here is more than up to the task. As mentioned before, Evans is great in the role. While Captain America could be seen as a bit bland by some, I feel that Evans gives him great presence and authority. Plus, Evans plays the character's uncertainties beautifully. He also shares great chemistry with Scarlett Johansson. Obviously relishing her role here, Johansson is brilliant. While her character is sultry, Johansson isn't a traditional sex object. She injects her role with great force and wit which shows that Romanoff isn't to be messed with. Samuel L. Jackson is a steely presence in proceedings, bringing his usual cool grace whether arguing with the Cap, facing off against bad guys or talking with Robert Redford's Alexander Pierce. Speaking of Redford, the screen legend does impressive work here. Redford could just as easily shown up for a payday, but it is clear from his first appearance that he is tackling this role with conviction. It's yet another great reminder of the quality talent that superhero films can attract nowadays. Anthony Mackie is also great as Sam Wilson, proving to be likable, charming and genuinely funny. And, last but not least, the actor playing The Winter Soldier does a fantastic job. The Winter Soldier proves to be a great threat, and arguably the best villain of the Marvel Cinematic Universe outside of Loki. People have complained that he's not in the film enough, but I'd argue that he's in it just enough. Much like The Joker in The Dark Knight, he is a character who could have easily overshadowed proceeding if he were over-used. In the scenes when he isn't present, the menace and power of the character is still there, and is justified whenever he comes storming in to cause chaos. I also found the story of the character and how it was woven into the overall plot to be supremely satisfying.

As is to be expected of Marvel films, the technical aspects are superb (with one exception). The visual effects are incredible, especially in the climactic action sequence where they are really essential. There is a refreshing amount of stunt work also evident in the film, making the action sequences feel all the immediate and bruising. Also helping is the terrific sound work, with each clang and clash raising the stakes to more dangerous and deadly heights. Henry Jackman's score has distinct echoes of his work from X-Men: First Class, but still stands as its own thrilling musical accompaniment; the main themes for the characters of Captain America and The Winter Soldier are great examples of music building momentum and power, one with patriotism and strength and the other with a sinister malice. My one complaint on the film's technical value is the unnecessary 3D; it darkens and blurs the image and, outside of Cap's shield (which is never used in 3D fashion here unlike the first film), I see no reason why this film needed to be in 3D outside of more money for the studio. If you want my advice, see this in 2D. You're saving money and you'll probably have a better visual experience.

As with every film taking place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it's important to evaluate how inter-connected that film is with the rest of the Universe. Captain America: The Winter Soldier, while never becoming a sluggish advertisement for upcoming Marvel attractions (hello, Iron Man 2), links brilliantly to the Universe in wide-spanning and unexpected ways.

I've listened to other people's complaints regarding the film, and the most prominent seem to be related to the formulaic nature of the conclusion, the unbelievable nature of some plot points and the overt use of the 'shaky-cam'. I have to agree with people who say that the finale of the film is somewhat adhering to formula. However, I personally didn't mind this for three reasons. The first is that it's very coherently shot and edited, allowing the audience to enjoy what is happening onscreen. The second is that, unlike the final battle in The Avengers, we see casualties here, which ups the stakes significantly. The third and final reason is that we care about the individuals involved. The characters have been so well-developed up to this point that we're engaged with what happens to them. So, personally, I found the film's finale to be a very entertaining conclusion. On turning my attention to the second complaint, I did have an issue with one of the plot points in the film, but one person's theory on what it could be foreshadowing actually made me appreciate it a bit more. If that person is right, it's both a sinister hint of what's to come and another great way of Marvel providing continuity throughout this Universe, both of which I greatly appreciate. Finally, with regards to the shaky-cam, I did find it an issue, but only in one scene. Even with that said, it's nowhere near as bad as it could have been (check out the final fight scene from 2012's Alex Cross if you want an example of truly awful shaky-cam). I could still make out what was happening, so while it was an issue, it wasn't a major one for me and I didn't think that it was present long enough to damage the film as a whole.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a great, grand example of a superhero film. Not only does it serve as a thrilling adventure for the title character, it also proves to be a surprisingly thought-provoking film. It's by no means perfect, but there were few, if any flaws which left an unshakable impact on me. Plus, some of the flaws which could be found are arguably a result of the filmmakers being too ambitious, which is a truly laudable thing. The actors are terrific without exception, the characters are very engaging, the action sequences are stunning, the direction is fantastic, the script and story are constantly intriguing and the technical aspects are phenomenal. I think that, along with the original Iron Man, this is one of the strongest examples of a stand-alone Avenger film. It both brilliantly tells its own story and fearlessly makes changes to the MCU. I'm incredibly happy that the Russo brothers will be back to helm Captain America 3 and, as a fan of the MCU thus far, I can't wait to see what's in store next. Until then, I'd highly recommend Captain America: The Winter Soldier. 

Rating: 4.5 out of 5. Stay tuned for my spoiler review, where I'll go into more detail on things I've vaguely discussed here.

P.S. As usual for Marvel, the film has scenes during the ending credits. The first, which plays mid-way through the credits, is the usual teaser scene. I loved this, and I can't wait to see how the subjects at play here are further explored. The second, which plays at the very end, isn't as important, but I still highly recommend that you watch it regardless. It's a wonderful little moment for the film to end on.