The Incredible Hulk (Marvel Review 2 of 11)

In Week 2 of 11 analysing the films of Marvel Studios, we come to the black sheep of the family, 2008's The Incredible Hulk. So, first things first, why could this be called the black sheep? Well, there are a few possible reasons.

For whatever reason, the film wasn't much of a success at the box office; in fact, it's arguably the only film from Marvel Studios thus far which could be considered a financial failure, grossing $263 million at the worldwide box office on a production budget of $150 million (and that budget doesn't include the money spent on elements like marketing). To put that into perspective, every other film from Marvel Studios so far has made at least two times its production budget at the worldwide box office. Since Iron Man had come out the prior month and defied all expectations, you'd think that interest in another product from Marvel Studios would have been pretty high. To find a possible explanation, let's go back to 2003. A lot of people excitedly anticipated Ang Lee's Hulk, the first big-budget cinematic outing for the Jade Giant, were severely disappointed when they saw more psychological exploration of the characters than the big guy actually smashing things; on a side note, I actually admire and respect 2003's Hulk for what it was aiming to accomplish. There are definite problems and pretentious moments, but I still find it intriguing and can't bring myself to hate it. Why is the 2003 Hulk important here? Simply put, I think this instilled a 'fool me once' mentality in many people when it came to 2008's The Incredible Hulk. Since many people were left disappointed by the first attempt, they may have felt reluctant to give the Hulk a second chance. Then there's Iron Man, which could have thrown up a few barriers unintentionally. What do I mean by this? Well, let's compare the two. Which the titular character of Iron Man is a playboy with plenty of money and toys, the character of Bruce Banner (the human side of the coin otherwise occupied by Hulk) is a desperate, depressed man with very little to help him in his quest. While Iron Man is more than happy to flaunt his inventions and heroism, Banner is constantly attempting to contain the raging power inside him. Iron Man is a cool, classy and immensely fun film, whereas The Incredible Hulk is a more traditional chase thriller focused on a man persecuted and terrified because of the monster he could become...

Those are some of the reasons why audience could perhaps perceive Iron Man more favourably over The Incredible Hulk and therefore rally around the former more than the latter, but the BIG reason is Robert Downey Jr. With his portrayal of Tony Stark AKA Iron Man, Downey Jr. arguably redefined the mainstream audience's perception of what a superhero could be. On the other hand, while I mean no disrespect to Edward Norton's portrayal of Bruce Banner, it lacks the explosive power of Downey Jr.'s performance. Bringing an end to this particular rant, The Incredible Hulk is the black sheep for one more reason; it marks the Hulk as the only major Avenger not to receive the sequel treatment. While Iron Man, Thor and Captain America have all received the trilogy treatment, the Jade Giant has been relegated to team outings only.

So what's my take on this? Decidedly split. There is a positive side in that, while the Hulk is an immensely enjoyable presence, there aren't many different ways to approach the character in a stand-alone format. There is a definite approach (he tries not to change, he changes, rinse and repeat). Then again, the negative side is that, after looking at the underwhelming box office, The Incredible Hulk is actually pretty good. It's a simple formula done well, nothing more and nothing less, and sometimes that's enough to make a solidly entertaining film.

After an accident where he is exposed to high levels of gamma radiation, Dr Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) develops a unique problem. Whenever he gets too angry, Bruce loses control and transforms into a green behemoth which comes to be known as the Hulk. When the film begins, Bruce is hiding in the Brazilian favelas, training to control his anger, searching for a cure to his condition and keeping a low profile to avoid detection by those who seek his power for their own morally dubious plans. When an accident exposes him, Bruce finds himself fleeing from General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' (William Hurt) and his man on the ground Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth). Deciding that enough is enough, Bruce seeks the help of his former colleague Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) in tracking down a permanent cure. Meanwhile, Blonsky develops an obsession with the Hulk which sets him on a dark path...

One of the pleasant surprises offered by The Incredible Hulk is that director Louis Leterrier and writer Zak Penn take their time between revealing the Hulk. The big guy's first two appearances are kept mostly in shadow. The first brief appearance showing up right out of the gate in a masterfully edited and concisely executed opening montage which tells us everything we need to know about the Hulk's origins and Bruce's current predicament. Once that's done, we are given time with Bruce in hiding in Brazil to see how he's coping with his condition. We see him searching for a cure, striving to control his anger and doing his best to fit in through his job at a local bottling plant and learning Portuguese (the latter of which has some funny results as Bruce gets one of his key catchphrases wrong). The opening montage and the time spent with Bruce here sets up all we need to know about Bruce and allows us to sympathise with him, while the editing team of Rick Shaine, Vincent Tabaillon and John Wright does strong work in making these scenes (along with the rest of the film) fly by without the important to character and story being diluted. Once Bruce is discovered, Leterrier kicks off the action with Bruce being chased across the favelas by Blonsky and his fellow soldiers before the Hulk shows up to turn the tables. The first part of this scene, which is prominently stunt-driven, really lets you feel the sweat and desperation of Bruce's flight; there's a great visceral punch to the scene (when one soldier takes a tumble, the impact resonates with a palpable crunch). This both establishes Bruce as a real human being and builds up the first proper reveal of the 'other guy'. When he finally does, there is brilliant satisfaction to be had from the unrestrained destruction. The Hulk isn't meant to be subtle, so seeing him commit violent acts like flinging one of his antagonists through two panes of glass and into the opposite wall brings the right burst of pulpy adrenaline. And, as said before, the Hulk is kept mostly in shadow, evoking memories of old monster films (not for the first time, either). This is highly effective approach which makes the Hulk's initial appearances all the more menacing. Cinematographer Peter Menzies Jr. deserves high praise for these moments and many other beautifully framed and lit scenes throughout.

From then on, Leterrier keeps things going at a steady clip. Part of the reason it's so easy to become invested in the scenes amongst the carnage is the performance of Edward Norton. Norton is an exceptional actor capable of tackling many different roles (compare his performance in 2000's Fight Club to his work in the recent Birdman), and he excels at capturing the haunted pain and fear which grips Bruce. I'm not sure if others have said this before, but part of what intrigues me the most about the character of Bruce Banner / The Hulk are the possible parallels to addiction. Imagine if you are going to give into the temptation which addictions evoke, but by doing so, you risk major destruction and possible casualties. Ideas like this fascinate me, which is possibly why I have a great affinity for the character. By looking at the character through that perspective, Bruce's desperation to simply kill the 'addiction' which is currently destroying him rather than learning to control it is much more sympathetic and understandable. Norton's frail, world-weary and intensely committed portrayal makes Bruce's quest all the more worthy of investment.    

But for every hero, there must be villains, which is where General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' and Blonsky come in. Sadly, the bad guys in this film are a mixed bag, so let's get the bad news out of the way first; William Hurt isn't a very good fit for the role of the General. I think that Hurt can deliver great performances (his turn in A History of Violence is incredible), but I have to agree with those who accuse him of being too bland sometimes, which is annoyingly the case here. While Hurt definitely looks the part, he fails to give the character the power and stature he should have. There's a reason the character has the nickname 'Thunderbolt', but Hurt's performance never makes it clear. Compare this with Sam Elliott's portrayal of the same character in the 2003 Hulk, which was effortlessly imposing and authoritative, and Hurt's shortcomings become clear. While he is far from terrible, Hurt is still clearly not the best fit for the role. Fortunately, the opposite is true of Tim Roth and the role of Emil Blonsky. Roth is a terrific actor, and his portrayal of Blonsky provides a truly vicious opponent for Banner to overcome. There is a ferociousness to the character which is evident very early on and throughout; Blonsky is a soldier with an almost-animal desire to be the best warrior he can, and Roth totally sells that with his physically aggressive work here. To quote critic James Berardinelli, this is Roth 'at his bad-ass best'. Special kudos should also go to the make-up department for their work making Roth look suitably gaunt in the later stages of the film, as Blonsky's envy for the Hulk's power leads him to some dark places.

Outside of Norton, Roth and Hurt, there are only two other roles important enough to discuss. As Betty Ross, Bruce's former colleague and girlfriend, Liv Tyler looks her usual lovely self. This plays into the 'Beauty and the Beast' element which develops between Betty and the Hulk, with Betty apparently being the only one who can calm the big guy. However, one of the film's greatest successes is the relationship between Betty and Bruce. It is clear that both characters share a genuine affection and love for each other, but Bruce's isolation and inability to re-kindle their relationship makes their relationship stilted in a sadly efficient way. Credit has to go to Norton and Tyler for their wonderful chemistry in bringing the relationship between these two characters to life. There are two scenes which summarise the relationship perfectly; the first scene effectively cuts between the two characters lying in separate beds obviously longing to be together, while the second shows them trying to physically rekindle their relationship. The latter scene ends on a funny yet sad note, which emphasises the film-maker's understanding and often witty contemplation of how, while the Hulk may be a lot of fun, there are definite drawbacks. The other notable performance comes from Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns, a man who might be able to help in Bruce's search for a cure. Nelson delivers a funny performance which sticks on the right side of quirky, as Sterns is a character who comes across as being a sandwich or two short of a picnic. While I do have an issue with the character of Sterns (which I will focus on later), Nelson's performance is more than solid for what his role in the film entails. As is to be expected from a Marvel Studios film, there are some cameos, one of which would have been a great surprise if the trailers hadn't given it away (I don't know why they do things like that, but I'm keeping quiet for those who haven't seen the film). They're nice little touches which emphasise the world in which The Incredible Hulk exists. 

While there are only three action sequences in the film, Leterrier and his team of editors space them throughout the film expertly and each showdown is lengthy enough to satisfy those looking for ample Hulk carnage. Each of the set-pieces lasts at least ten minutes and continually ups the scale from its predecessor; the second set-piece on a college campus shows the General throwing everything he has at the Hulk (including Blonsky) with somewhat predictable results, while the final showdown between the Hulk and 'The Abomination' concludes the film on an large-scale 15-minute battle royale. All three action sequences are brilliantly done with plenty of fan-boy moments; the final show-down, in particular, captures the pure comic-book thrill of seeing the Hulk square off against another super-powered and generally angry foe. All of these scenes are realised through CGI which, if not spectacular, is still more than effective. Both the Hulk and the Abomination are well-realised (even though I have to agree with those who say that the Hulk looks nothing like Edward Norton), and hold the gravity and menace which one might expect from characters like these.

However, in case it seems like I'm being excessively positive here, there are definite issues here. While I have no problems with Nelson's performance here, his character is victim to sequel begging which, given the unlikelihood of another stand-alone Hulk film, makes the moment all the more superfluous for annoyingly commercial reasons. Also, while he does what he can with his role, Ty Burrell is under-used to the point where he also feels superfluous as Betty's current boyfriend. His character is meant to represent how Betty has moved on with her life in Bruce's absence, but given how quickly she seems to forget him, he's pretty much pointless. Finally, this isn't so much a complaint as it is a statement, but The Incredible Hulk isn't one of Marvel's best. Don't get me wrong; it's a very well-made action film with mostly solid performances, expertly crafted action sequences, a nicely paced story, a good script and strong technical credits (credit has to go to Craig Armstrong's wonderfully atmospheric score which captures a mixture of action, monstrous menace and romance brilliantly). But, despite welcome levity and dedication to character, this is still a mostly standard smash-'em-up. I know that I have no right to really expect any more from a stand-alone Hulk film and I freely admit that this is probably the best I could have hoped for, but I just think that the Hulk works better as a part of the Avengers ensemble than on his own. It's more interesting watching him interact with these other superheroes who have true control over their abilities and seeing him struggle to fit in. But I still highly enjoy this film and what it achieved for both Bruce Banner and the Hulk and I love how perfectly it sets up the characters for The Avengers, so I can't complain too much.

As for my thoughts on Edward Norton leaving the role after this film, I admit that I was disappointed. I would have liked to see him interact with the cast members playing the other Avengers, especially Robert Downey Jr. But if the studio and he couldn't get on, I suppose there was little that could be done. Besides, just like Don Cheadle replacing Terrence Howard as James Rhodes in Iron Man 2, the decision to replace Edward Norton with Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner in The Avengers could turn out for the better...

Final Verdict

While The Incredible Hulk may not be one of my personal favourites of the Marvel Studio films, it's still a solid outing for the Jade Giant. The smash-'em-up action makes for satisfyingly visceral comic-book excitement realised through efficient visual effects, the cast is mostly solid (with Edward Norton and Tim Roth standing out as the hero and villain respectively) and the direction by Leterrier and the work of the editing team keeps the film moving along at a decent pace while still giving the characters and their relationships enough time to make an impression. Some of the characters feel awkward (either due to miscasting, shameless sequel begging or a sense of pointlessness), and the film lacks the overall flair which can be found in other, better Marvel Studio efforts, but come the final scene and the terrific appearance from a familiar face in the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe), The Incredible Hulk earns its place as a entertaining entry from the output of Marvel Studios.

Rating: 4 out of 5  

Iron Man (Marvel Review 1 of 11)

Note: While I try my best to steer clear of spoilers, anyone who hasn't seen the film but want to might want to see the film before reading this review just in case. You've been warned!

Let the Marvel madness begin!

Back in 2008, I was incredibly excited to see Iron Man, the debut feature from Marvel Studios. This was partially due to my love of all things super-powered, despite  my love taking some hits like Ghost Rider. Still, Iron Man's promotional material made it look like a very cool, fresh and funny superhero film with a bad-ass lead in Robert Downey Jr. Luckily, Iron Man proved to be all that and much more. This is still one of the most entertaining superhero films I've seen to date.

Weapons manufacturer Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) is living the high life. He is, to quote a future Marvel film, a genius, billionaire, playboy and philanthropist. He can build, buy, charm and seduce just about anything or anyone he wants. One fateful day following a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan, his convoy is attacked and Tony is injured and kidnapped. When Tony awakens, his terrorist captors demand that he build them his latest weapon using materials they have acquired from his company. Using his gifted brain, Tony tricks his captors with the help of fellow hostage Yinsen (Shaun Toub) and builds a suit with which to make their escape. Once safely home, he continues to build and improve the suit with the intention of stopping those who would use his technology for nefarious purposes. Meanwhile, his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and friend James Rhodes (Terrence Howard) worry about Tony's change-of- heart, while Tony's business partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) has his own plans...

From Iron Man's brilliantly constructed opening sequence, director Jon Favreau and Downey Jr. prove that they know what they're doing. The opening to Iron Man is easily one of my favourite opening scenes out of any of the Marvel Studios productions, showing Tony quickly charm the soldiers in his Humvee before all hell breaks loose in a surprisingly brutal attack. There's little blood, but the visceral impact of the sound design is terrific in emphasising every bullet and piece of shrapnel. And when Tony gets injured, it firmly establishes that, underneath all the swagger and charisma (which arguably serve as the figurative armour when he's outside the Iron Man suit), the character is still a vulnerable human being. This is where Downey Jr. is to be praised big time. Before Iron Man, he was a talented actor who had already come two comebacks (1992's Chaplin and 2005's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) amidst his personal struggles with substance abuse. Here, Downey Jr. was given a huge gift of a role and he knocked it out of the park. There are parallels which can be drawn between the character of Tony Stark and Downey Jr. Both men lead lives which, while perhaps personally fulfilling, result in a somewhat blinkered view of the world (which I've heard is an effect of addiction for many people). However, through harsh experiences, both men strive to change themselves for the better. I honestly think that Downey Jr. identified with the character in the same way because he flat-out inhabited the character of Tony Stark to the point where he IS Tony Stark. Downey Jr. captures all of the charisma, charm, quick-witted humour and swagger of the character, but he also shows riveting glimpses of Tony's soul and insecurities. His scenes with Paltrow's Pepper and Toub's Yinsen are genuinely sweet, human and occasionally moving, as they are really the only two people he bares his soul to, and Downey Jr. effortlessly sells the moments when Tony's defences drop. Overall, there's a big reason why Tony Stark AKA Iron Man is the one many would name their favourite Avenger. Not only is the character truly captivating and intriguing, but he is brought to life by an utterly electric performance. Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is a spectacular and inspirational example of the phoenix rising from the ashes.

Elsewhere, there are other highly effective performances which, while not as euphoric as Downey Jr.'s, are still worth mentioning. Gwyneth Paltrow is wonderful and slyly energetic as Pepper Potts and makes a great comic foil for Downey; their scenes together crackle with humour and romantic tension. Meanwhile, Jeff Bridges is great as Obadiah Stane, nailing the moral ambiguity of the character; a late scene between Stane and Pepper is expertly played by the two actors and simmers with a suggestively tense undercurrent. Terrence Howard does solid work as Jim Rhodes, whose friendship with Tony is brought to life with the believable chemistry between the two actors. It is a shame that Howard didn't get to reprise his role in the sequels (especially getting the teaser indicating where his character could go), but what can you do? Besides, Don Cheadle might just be a better Rhodey, but we'll have to wait and see... Meanwhile, Shaun Toub turns Yinsen into a likeable and sympathetic character, Leslie Bibb makes a snarky impression as a reporter looking to burn Tony for the casualties of his business and Faran Tahir deserves credit for his menacing portrayal of Raza, the leader of the terrorist group that kidnaps Tony. Making smaller but no less noteworthy contributions to the cast are Paul Bettany as Tony's electronic butler and confidante JARVIS, Clark Gregg as 'SHIELD' Agent Phil Coulson (who would go on to become arguably one of the most unexpected fan favourites of the Marvel Universe) and director Jon Favreau as Tony's bodyguard Happy Hogan (whose role is expanded in the Iron Man sequels).

Given that this is a superhero film, there is almost a necessity to talk about the quality of the visual effects and the action sequences. Fortunately, the film is exceptional on both fronts. The visual effects on display in not only the big 'blockbuster' moments but also the smaller moments of Tony designing and perfecting the Iron Man suit are terrific (and huge credit must go to Stan Winston Studios for the practical Iron Man and Iron Monger suits - seeing those suits as an actual reality is awesome!) The scene where Tony first attempts sustained flight in the suit perfectly encapsulates the excitement, fear and overall rush of being a superhero through Downey Jr.'s performance, Ramin Djawadi's pitch-perfect score, Favreau's direction and the fantastic effects. The action sequences are exceptional, with wonderful build-up and plenty of cheer-worthy moments once the thrills get under-way. However, I have to give credit to the film-makers for never losing sight of the film's humanity along the way. There is always a human element to these action sequences; even the final clash, which many have accused of turning into a visual effects extravaganza (then again, when hasn't the finale to a Marvel production been accused of that?), allows time to emphasise the humans both inside and outside the armour. One of my favourite moments from the aforementioned flight scene is the reaction of a young child who sees Tony flying across the sky; I'm pretty sure that any child seeing something like that would have a similar reaction, and that gives the scene a welcome sense of human connection. Far from detracting from the story and characters, the visual effects and the action sequences embellish them, which is precisely what they're meant to do rather than the other way around.
               
Apart from 2006's Zathura, director Jon Favreau had little experience with big-budget films before Iron Man, which makes his expert handling of the film even more impressive. Favreau not only crafts the action sequences with unexpected skill, but he brings a great understanding and patience to the character moments. These moments are imperative to establish these characters as human and therefore making them worthy of care, affection and fear, and Favreau knows this and gives the scenes and actors time to breathe and explore their characters. A lot of the directors for Marvel's films are more well-known for character work than blockbuster action, and this is why most of them work. When you are dealing with super-powered, larger-than-life characters with abilities far beyond any ordinary person, you need to work hard to make them identifiably human. Favreau was the first (but not the last) director to achieve that, and he should get a lot of praise for accomplishing it. Equal credit should also go to the script by Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum and Matt Holloway; the dialogue in the film is fast-paced, smart, revealing and often hilarious (one of my favourite lines is Pepper's happily vicious put-down of Bibb's character), although apparently the actors, particularly Downey Jr., deserve a lot of credit for the dialogue as much of it had to be ad-libbed due to an incomplete script. Whatever the case, it's great to listen to these people talk.

Final Verdict

Iron Man is nothing short of awesome. From the opening scene where AC/DC's Back in Black blares out (and makes AC/DC the unofficial band for the Man in the Iron Suit), the film oozes effortless charm and sheer cool charisma. The supporting cast is fantastic, the script and direction allow the characters and the story to naturally develop without rushing and the visual effects and flight/action sequences awaken the sense of child-like awe and wonder that comes from seeing a superhero thrillingly brought to life.

Rating: 4.6 out of 5

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Note: While I steer clear of major spoilers, there are some minor spoilers here (mainly relating to the setting of some scenes, the characters involved and some of the cast). If you want to go into the film with as little knowledge as possible, I'd recommend that you simply check out my final verdict and then go and watch the film before reading the review in full. You've been warned...

I'm a huge fan of director Matthew Vaughn. Layer Cake, Stardust, X-Men: First Class... I have immensely enjoyed every one of these films. However, if I had to pick a favourite from Vaughn's filmography, it would probably be 2010's Kick-Ass. With that film, Vaughn not only crafted a loving tribute to comic-book and superhero films, but he also took several riotous pot-shots at those very same things. It was a difficult tightrope to walk; mock the traditions too much and the film's own story and characters might not work, take it too seriously and the violence on display would be too vicious. Fortunately, Vaughn walked that tightrope near-flawlessly to deliver an absolute blast. With Kingsman, Vaughn attempts to do for old spy films what Kick-Ass did for he comic-book and superhero genres. And, as is to be expected from Vaughn, this film is a ton of fun. From the very first scene, when Dire Straits' Money for Nothing kicks into action, it's immediately clear that Vaughn is taking the spy genre in his own silly, infinitely stylish way.  

The Kingsmen are, unsurprisingly, a secret service which strives to independently combat conflicts around the world. When a new threat in the form of internet billionaire Richmond Valentine (Sameul L. Jackson) threatens the world, Kingsman Harry Hart AKA Galahad (Colin Firth) and his colleagues must spring into action. Meanwhile, Hart sees potential in young Garry 'Eggsy' Unwin (newcomer Taron Egerton) and puts him forward for training to see if he is Kingsman material...

As one might expect from the quality on display, the cast is uniformly excellent. Colin Firth not only nails the gentlemanly charm of his character with ease, but he also proves to be a surprisingly bad-ass action hero. Firth did most of his own stunts for this film; that would have been impressive even if he was a young man who'd done plenty of stunts before, but considering that Firth was 53/54 when shooting for the film and has little experience with action films and stunts, that's pretty damn remarkable. Most importantly, Firth makes Harry into a truly likeable and emotionally warm character; for all of his gentlemanly demeanour and awesome fighting skills, Harry and Firth's performance have a wonderfully human core. The same can be said for Eggsy and the performance by newcomer Egerton, whose debut here suggests bright prospects for the future. Egerton makes us root for Eggsy early on and his charismatic presence maintains that likeability throughout the rest of the run time. Egerton easily holds his own with Firth acting-wise and the two actors share a great chemistry; the relationship between Eggsy and Harry lends the film a heart which might have risked being lost amidst all the silly, crazy action. Much like Firth, Egerton also convinces as an action hero and did most of his own stunts, which is to be commended. As the film's antagonist, Samuel L. Jackson is a blast. Affecting a very funny lisp which makes all his usual bad-ass ticks surprisingly endearing, Jackson is an immensely enjoyable presence every time he pops up; a dinner scene between Jackson's Valentine and Firth's Harry is fantastic, particularly in establishing the wonderfully meta approach which Vaughn and co-writer Jane Goldman are taking with the spy genre. What is most interesting about Jackson's Valentine is that, while his plan and the execution of that plan are absolutely bonkers, his motivation is unexpectedly understandable. And when Valentine doesn't want to get his hands dirty, he has his lethal right-hand lady in Sofia Boutella's Gazelle. Armed with terrifically realised razor-sharp prosthetic legs which slice and dice with bloody abandon, Boutella delivers a brilliant and intimidating physical performance; her dancing skills allow her to be confident and viciously graceful in her fight scenes. Gazelle is a woman who you wouldn't want to mess with. To my great surprise, Vaughn veteran Mark Strong (who was a villain in both Stardust and Kick-Ass) has a much bigger role here than I expected, and delivers one of my favourite performances of his thus far. As the 'Q'-like Merlin, Strong is extremely likeable and funny, and his chemistry with both Firth and Egerton comes across as genuinely human. Sophie Cookson also makes a strong cinematic debut as Eggsy's friend and fellow trainee Roxy; Egerton, Cookson and Boutella all look set for big things thanks to their debuts here. There are also strong turns by Michael Caine (as Kingsmen leader Arthur), Jack Davenport and Mark Hamill. On a small note for those who've seen the film, did anyone else have a Star Wars fan-boy moment when Luke Skywalker and Mace Windu briefly shared the screen?

As great as the acting and characters are in Kingsman, the action is equally impressive, if not more so. From the very first fight scene involving Davenport's Lancelot and a room full of thugs, Vaughn shows that he has bought his usual crazed energy, imagination and verve to these fight scenes. Also, there is a clear level of escalation on display here. As Kingsman progresses, every action sequence get more and more jaw-dropping in scale and execution. A sky-diving sequence in the second act is easily amongst the best of its ilk, whilst a scene set in a church is one of the most impressive fight sequences committed to the screen in recent memory. The choreography, the stunts, the dominantly single-take technique, the madly inspired use of Lynyrd Skynyrd's Free Bird, the all-out carnage... The scene is destined to be one of the most memorable scenes of 2015 for pretty morally questionable, off-the-chain reasons, and I absolutely loved it. It must be seen to be truly believed. A scene with that much spectacular energy and vibrant destruction is damn-near impossible to top, and while the finale might not quite manage that feat, it still comes pretty close with plenty of fantastic fighting, exceptional camera-work, strong stunt-work, laugh-out-loud moments, all-out silliness and a confrontation both intimate and surprisingly epic.

It would be unfair to discuss Kingsman without mentioning Matthew Vaughn and his co-writer Jane Goldman (Mrs Jonathan Ross), as both of them are very skilled at taking the core values of a genre and crafting love letters to that genre which simultaneously poke fun at those genre's conventions. Here, Vaughn and Goldman have a lot of fun taking the tropes of the older Bond films and either dialling them up to 11 or simply poking fun at them. Also, much like Kick-Ass, Vaughn and Goldman relish ripping up the rulebook. There are no instances where Vaughn and Goldman seem to be holding themselves back in order to be more 'mainstream', and there are elements of the plot which some audience members won't be able to predict. It's refreshing to see a film which tries its best to throw the audience off the scent every once in a while.            

As much fun as the film is, there are some issues. The film is too long by 10-15 minutes; as the result, there are points where it drags. Most of this happens during the second act, which, despite some memorable scenes including that sensational sky-diving sequence, feels like it could still have been trimmed a bit. Once the church scene gets under-way, the film mostly rectifies itself, but given how well-paced some of Vaughn's films have been (Kick-Ass was near-perfect in that area), the uneven pacing is still a problem I can't overlook. There's also a conflict set up throughout the film which ends on a strangely anticlimactic note, especially when there's an almost gift-wrapped opportunity to bring that confrontation to a close at the film's climax. Also, despite great work on areas such as Gazelle's prosthetic legs, some of the visual effects look a bit ropey. Then again, since this film refers to the old Bond films on a regular basis, I can let it slide, especially since the film is pretty solid on other technical levels. Special mention has to go the soundtrack choices (along with Lynyrd Skynyrd, there are songs from the likes of Dire Straits, Bryan Adams and KC and the Sunshine Band which fit perfectly) and the excellent score by Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson, which hits every dramatic and action-packed note brilliantly.

Final Verdict

Despite some problems such as pacing issues and an awkward end to one conflict, Kingsman: The Secret Service is still an utter blast. Director Matthew Vaughn adds another strong title to his resume which continues to emphasise just how good he is at crafting cheeky, often subversive and above all exceedingly fun popcorn entertainment. The cast and characters are excellent and memorable, the action sequences are sensational and Vaughn's direction and script with co-writer Jane Goldman show a clear love and affection for the spy genre while they also either flaunt or dispel the tropes common in that genre. For those longing for a sillier take on the world of espionage, Kingsman celebrates the days of old while establishing the foundation for a franchise which could thrive in the present day.

Rating: 4 out of 5          

    

Marvel Mania Intro

Over the past decade, arguably no other studio has made a more meteoric rise than Marvel Studios. Back in 2008, a lot of people got prepared for Iron Man, the studio's debut feature, to be labelled a flop and a failure because of the supposed 'risks' (with fallen-from-grace star Robert Downey Jr. portraying a relatively unknown superhero and mostly inexperience blockbuster-director Jon Favreau at the helm). However, these cynics were proven wrong when Iron Man became a surprise hit with both audiences and critics, also helping to rejuvenate Robert Downey Jr.'s career along with fellow 2008 hit Tropic Thunder (the latter of which scored Downey Jr. an Academy Award nomination).

From there, Marvel Studios moved forward in often bold and courageous ways, bringing lesser-known and lesser-appreciated heroes like Captain America, Thor and the Guardians of the Galaxy to the big screen in pleasantly surprising ways which exceeded many people's expectations. Parts of the risks Marvel took extended to both the actors cast as the heroes and the directors chosen to helm the films. When actors such as Downey Jr., Chris Evans (Steve Rogers/Captain America), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Scarlett Johannson (Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner/The Incredible Hulk), Chris Pratt (Peter Quill/Star-Lord) and Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer) were announced, many people took to the internet to fiercely complain. However, every one of those casting choices quickly developed a large fan-base based on their acclaimed work in their respective films. Meanwhile, directors most well-known for their work on 'indie' films (or non-blockbuster fare) and TV such as Favreau (Iron Man and Iron Man 2), Kenneth Branagh (Thor), Anthony and Joe Russo (Captain America: The Winter Soldier and the upcoming Captain America: Civil War), Shane Black (Iron Man 3), Alan Taylor (Thor: The Dark World) and James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy and the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy 2) proved to be inspired choices who, along with more blockbuster-familiar directors such as Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk) and Joe Johnston (Captain America: The First Avenger), all proved mostly up to the task of doing justice to Marvel's characters and their stories.

But Marvel's greatest risk turned out to be its greatest success when Joss Whedon, a veteran of beloved cult television but whose only prior film Serenity was a commercial flop, took the director's chair for the much-anticipated epic superhero team-up The Avengers (or Avengers Assemble, as it's sometimes known in the UK). While Whedon was considered a risk by some, his craftsmanship and individual voice shone through and The Avengers became not only an object of adoration for both critics and audiences alike, but also the third highest-grossing film and the highest-grossing superhero film of all-time to date (non-adjusted for inflation). The Avengers concluded Marvel's so-called 'Phase 1' of its film slate, so it's only fitting that 'Phase 2' concludes with the second outing for the Avengers as a team, Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Without Age of Ultron, this would still be one of Marvel Studios' busiest years yet. Not including the concluding half of Agents of SHIELD's second season, the studio will see three of their TV shows being shown: Agent Carter, Daredevil and A.K.A. Jessica Jones (Agent Carter is already half-way through its run in the US). Then there are the new plans to make a standalone film for newly-acquired superhero Spider-Man in 2017, along with the July release of Paul Rudd-Michael Douglas head-liner Ant-Man, which serves as the first step of 'Phase 3' in the cinematic universe. Throw Age of Ultron into the mix, and this is arguably Marvel Studios' most important year thus far. So, to commemorate the end of 'Phase 2', I will be reviewing all of Marvel Studios' films thus far, one per week, starting with Iron Man and ending with Age of Ultron. For the most part, I am a huge fan of this studio's output, and I'm looking forward to tackling every one of their films. So 11 reviews over 11 weeks...  Let the countdown commence!            

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

In a way, I feel bad for director Peter Jackson. I can see why he would want to take The Hobbit and turn it into a trilogy, thus allowing him to put in a lot of material from the appendices which he might have been unable to bring to the screen otherwise. However, good intentions don't always lead to good decisions, and while I will always have affection for the Hobbit trilogy, I think I would have had more affection for the two-part story the film-makers were originally planning. As a trilogy, there is a lot of bloat and filler which detracts from the overall quality and care which everyone involved is clearly putting into the project. So I think that a two-part telling of the story would have been a better product. But with that being said, at least they wrapped up the trilogy on a high note with The Battle of the Five Armies.

The Battle of the Five Armies immediately picks up where The Desolation of Smaug ended, with the angry dragon (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) making good on his word to reign fiery terror on the people of Lake-town, including the heroic Bard (Luke Evans) and his family. But a even bigger threat approaches in the form of Orc armies led by the vicious Azog (Arrow's Manu Bennett) and his son Bolg (Lawrence Makaore). With the armies of Dwarves, men (led by Bard) and Elves led by King Thranduil (Lee Pace) converging on the Dwarven Kingdom of Erebor where Thorin (Richard Armitage), Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the rest of the Dwarven company are waiting, the stage is set for a showdown of epic proportions...

The Battle of the Five Armies cuts right to the chase with a terrific 10-minute airborne assault. No flashbacks, no exposition; just intensely harrowing destruction. Talk about putting your best foot forward. With this scene, Jackson and co. show that they mean business and that, in my opinion, they really care about their audience. While the biggest complaint about the first two Hobbit films is arguably the excessive bloat, Jackson and co. open up with the goods. And they are some glorious goods. Keep in mind these are just the first ten minutes, and yet they may make the most spectacular segment of the film. 

After that, the film mostly focuses on character for the next 45 minutes. Don't get me wrong; there are the expected sweeping shots of giant armies marching to war and there is also a fantastic rescue scene which allows three of the Middle-Earth series' supporting characters to kick some serious ass one more time, but for the most part this section of the film deals with character conflicts. And it is truly compelling stuff, with the actors bringing all that they have to the table. There is a real sense of intimate urgency to the 'smaller' scenes in this film which proves propulsive. 

Armitage and Freeman are terrific, the former dealing with a destructive dilemma (tackled with surprisingly powerful intensity in more than one scene) and the latter trying to do the best for his friend. Their scenes together are wonderfully well-executed, particularly one early scene where Thorin's attitude changes when faced with Bilbo's humble intentions. As the wizard Gandalf, Ian McKellen is as great as ever. This is one of the defining roles of his career (along with Magneto from the X-Men series), and in what is his final portrayal of this character, McKellen reminds us why he was such a perfect choice. Whether friendly or intimidating, lovable or fierce, he nails every note. Lee Pace and Luke Evans both see more screen time and more important roles here as King Thranduil and Bard respectively, and they both seize the bigger opportunity to make an impression. Evans forges a really likable and relatable character out of Bard, fighting to protect his people and particularly his family, while Lee Pace is spot-on in his coldly fierce portrayal of Thranduil. Orlando Bloom yet again slips effortlessly back into the role of Elven archer Legolas, getting plenty of bad-ass moments while also bringing more weight to the role (although some of those bad-ass moments do tip towards the ridiculous). By the end of this film, you can see more shades to the character than one might have expected from simply watching him in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Graham McTavish, Ken Stott and Aidan Turner also get some strong moments as the dwarves Dwalin, Balin and Kili respectively. Evangeline Lilly brings impassioned emotion to her role as Elven warrior Tauriel, even though she unfortunately falls victim to the 'damsel in distress' syndrome later in the film. There are also wonderful appearances from some beloved supporting characters which I won't spoil, although if you've seen the recent trailers, you might have some idea who I'm talking about. Finally, there is a fantastic appearance from a certain actor who brings their usual energetic gusto to proceedings. I am slightly annoyed that I knew who it was before I saw the film, but the audience's reaction to their appearance pretty much made up for it.

After the film's first hour, the titular battle erupts, and it is tremendous. By turns epic and intimate, heroic and brawling, this is big-screen spectacle of a very high order. Jackson proved with the Battle of Helm's Deep from The Two Towers and the Battle of Minas Tirith and Pelennor Fields from The Return of the King that he knows how to corral truly jaw-dropping battle royales, and while the Battle of the Five Armies isn't quite on the same level, it is still a marvel to behold. It's clear that CGI plays a huge part in crafting this battle, but I have to agree with those who say that it's not as intrusive as in scenes from the previous Hobbit films. With an incredible level of detail and invention on display, the action rarely flags or grows tiresome. The hand-to-hand combat is also brilliantly done, particularly in the one-on-one duels which conclude the clash. Another factor in the action avoiding tiresomeness is the careful interspersion of character moments, which remind us why we should stay invested in the onscreen carnage.

As with any Middle-Earth film, The Battle of the Five Armies is visually stunning. This is not only due to the brilliant visual effects work by Weta Digital but also to the wondrous cinematography by Andrew Lesnie, who use the majestic New Zealand landscapes to typically gorgeous effect. Howard Shore once again provides the perfect musical accompaniment with a score which hits every note whether rousing or emotional, huge or small (special mention also to the lovely song titled The Last Goodbye which plays over the ending credits, sung by none other than Pippin Took himself, Billy Boyd). There are great uses of sound, too (I love how they alter the voice of a major character to reflect what his character is going through). The costumes, props and set designs are once again fantastic; part of the reason why the battle avoids becoming stale, in my opinion, are the different locations where the battle is taking place.

I can't write this review without mentioning the direction of Peter Jackson, who has been at the helm of the Middle-Earth series from beginning to end. Now has he made the right decision every step of the way? No. While the visual effects in the Hobbit trilogy are brilliant, one does wish that Jackson had put an emphasis on striking a balance between practical and visual effects as in The Lord of the Rings. But in spite of the flaws on display, Jackson's strength for capturing conflict of a grand scope remains undiminished and he, along with co-writers Phillipa Boyens, Fran Walsh and Guillermo del Toro, do great work of adding fantastic character moments of often surprising subtlety.         

Now there are issues with the film. At 144 minutes, this stands as the shortest Middle-Earth film. While this helps in making this the most fast-paced of the Hobbit trilogy, there are moments where the film seems rushed. This is particularly true of the very end of the titular battle and scenes wrapping up what happens to certain characters (some character appear and disappear just as quickly). I say this as someone who is a fan of the ending/s to Return of the King (an aspect which many people have criticised due to its length), so that may play into why I find the sense of rushing a problem particularly towards the end of the film. Still, this is something the Extended Edition could improve. Secondly, a supporting character from The Desolation of Smaug is promoted to a major source of comic relief here. I liked the character in The Desolation of Smaug as someone who gave the audience understanding of the particular environment he inhabited, but despite some funny moments, the character seems mainly out-of-place here. That might have been the point, but even if it was, it doesn't work in the way the filmmakers likely intended and the character is an odd point for so much focus. While some of the Dwarf characters do get their moment/s to shine, the majority of the Dwarf characters are kept in the background once again. This isn't as big a problem for me as it might be for others (13 characters are a lot to develop especially with everything else going on in this trilogy), but it's still worth noting. It's particularly disappointing that James Nesbitt's character Bofur, who had some strong scenes in the first film An Unexpected Journey, seems to have been slowly but steadily downgraded with very little to do here. Finally, while it's to be expected of a battle this scale (the same thing could be said of the Battle of Hogwarts in the final Harry Potter film), I couldn't help but wonder where some characters were in the middle of the fighting. This isn't a major problem, but more something which niggled me upon the second viewing.

While I enjoyed An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug, they often felt bloated (especially Smaug, which I felt had so much unnecessary filler). The Battle of the Five Armies escapes that problem, and comes the closest out of the three films to achieving the grandeur of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy. There are grand moments of heroism and intimately poignant moments between friends which recall The Lord of the Rings, and the concluding frame links in nicely with The Fellowship of the Ring. By the end of this film, we have an epic six-film chronicle of Middle-Earth, and while there are undoubtedly problems, it's still a series which I will cherish. The Battle of the Five Armies not only earns my affection for being a part of the Middle-Earth cycle, but for also improving on the faults of its predecessors and making me excited to watch all films back-to-back. Where I'll find the time, I don't know, but that is a story for another time...

Verdict

After two enjoyable but less-than-stellar outings, Middle-Earth gets some of its footing back with The Battle of the Five Armies. The virtuoso spectacle is present right from the off, most of the actors shine in their roles, the technical credits are top-notch as per usual and Jackson helms proceedings with confident grandeur. There are definite problems which are hard to ignore, but by the final frame and its linking into The Fellowship of the Ring, this is still a worthy entry into the Middle-Earth saga.

Rating: 4.25 out of 5.

       

     

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.