Star Wars: Rogue One

Rogue One follows the events leading up to A New Hope, in which a desperate Rebel Alliance attempts to steal the plans for the Empire’s ultimate weapon, the Death Star. Felicity Jones stars as Jyn Erso, a galactic delinquent with a familial tie to the Empire and a habit for disregarding orders. As the film progresses, she reluctantly amasses a band of heroes including disillusioned Imperial pilot Bodhi Rook, Alliance Captain Cassian Andor and his sardonic droid partner, K-2SO, plus monk/warrior duo Chirrut and Baze. Ben Mendelsohn plays the increasingly infuriated Director Krennic, whose connection to the Erso family provides the starting point for the story. Forest Whitaker also appears as frazzled extremist Saw Gerrera.

It's character relationships helps Rogue One forge its own identity within the larger series and sell the apparent futility and hopelessness of an ailing resistance. While there is solid content beneath, it felt rather difficult to get to: a somewhat thrown together first half meant that initial character interplay was rushed, which makes seeing them as anything more than another set of archetypal action figures a little difficult. Of the bunch, Jones, Ahmed, Yen and Luna provide the most rounded personalities. Those with the least to prove (Ahmed and Jones, arguably) still give everything. 

There were rumours of re-shoots intended to lighten the tone or bring the spirit of the film back in line with the other episodes. The Force Awakens may be a more structurally coherent film, but this is a very different beast; a war movie more than a fantasy. The spectacle of Stormtroopers getting thrown about in huge explosions is followed by a grimace and a burst of dirt and shrapnel rather than a punchline. Humour is present of course, thanks mostly to K-2SO’s delivery, but it’s less a continuing gag and more a reprieve. The grit and the grime is tangible. Rogue One is most definitely a Star Wars prequel not only in the chronological sense, but also with regards to its risk-taking, its attempt to re-invent the series, and an insistence on blurring the line between physical and digital filmmaking.

Independence Day: Resurgence

“That is definitely bigger than the last one” states Jeff Goldblum glumly, as a ginormous alien craft sweeps over the lunar surface, wiping out a large human moon base. In one line, the purpose of Independence Day: Resurgence is revealed: less a joyful return to a fondly remembered sci-fi than it is Roland Emmerich’s attempt to score another blockbuster, after his sorely misjudged gay rights drama, Stonewall, burnt up on re-entry.

Twenty years after humanity banded together to avoid annihilation in 1996, the flying saucers are back. Only this time, David Levinson (Goldblum) and co. have advanced alien tech on their side. Ex-President Whitmore, played by Bill Pullman, is plagued with visions of the returning aliens. Whitmore’s daughter, Maika Monroe replacing Mae Whitman, has resigned flying duties, but her fiancée, Jake played by Liam Hemsworth, remains in space operating moon tugs alongside wise-cracking co-pilot Charlie, Travis Tope.

Before long, the aliens (responding to a distress call from a long-dormant craft on Earth) show up again with a ship large enough to cover the entire Atlantic, crushing our reconstructed landmarks in a sequence that reprises the ‘WOAH!’ factor of the original incredibly well. People can say what they want about modern day CGI, but when it’s picking up the entire city of Dubai and dropping it on London, it’s hard not to be swept up in the spectacle.

The problems, however, arise soon after. In the first film, mass calamity was a wake-up call to humanity that we needed to put aside our differences and fight as one, inspiring the next generation as we went. There’s little of that here: the destruction is over as quickly as it’s begun, and barely a tear is shed. When the heads of state are wiped out and a new President played by William Fichtner is ushered into presidency, his speech to mankind is a hollow shell of Bill Pullman’s original ear-scorcher, whilst a small group of kids who survived the initial attack are too busy being shepherded about on a school bus to be inspired.

There’s no other way of putting it: there are way too many characters in this film. Asides from the members of the original cast that stuck around, we’ve got Charlotte Gainsbourg (looking like she got thoroughly lost on the way to another set but was too polite to leave) as a clipboard-saddled scientist, Jessie T. Usher as Dylan Hiller (son of Will Smith’s character, who passed between films) and Deobia Oparei as a Central African warlord who delivers what turns out to be the be-all, end-all of alien invasion countermeasures. The film spends so long introducing and arranging this overflowing bucket of action figures that the middle act and finale pass by in a flash.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a proper 21st century franchise nostalgia trip without a sledgehammering of call-backs and references to the original, but even they feel half-hearted at best and misjudged at worst. This is not to say Independence Day: Resurgence is completely devoid of new ideas: there’s a bonkers revelation that makes the prospect of a third installment intriguing rather than off-putting, but it’s too little, too late. 

Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them

This new yarn from J.K. Rowling is akin to retreating from 2016’s horrid winter into an old blanket. It’s warm and cosy with familiarity, but the loose threads are becoming more obvious, and the cold still seeps in through little holes. Eddie Redmayne stars as magizoologist Newt Scamander with a case full of, you guessed it, fantastic beasts. The contents of the case are let loose on 1920s New York, where Scamander is befriended by wide-eyed ‘nomaj’ Jacob Kowalski, played by Dan Fogler, and hounded by plucky ex-Auror Tina Goldstein, played by Katherine Waterstone. As the trio scurry around in an attempt to return the creatures safely to the suitcase, another kind of sorcery stalks the streets. A dark force is causing calamity, and the Magical Congress of the United States sends the mysterious Percival Graves, the frightening looking Colin Farrell, to investigate. A second Salem movement is also on the rise, and, within its ranks, a reclusive teenager, played by Perks of Being a Wallflower breakout Ezra Miller, secretly rebels against his oppressive mother.

The film eases you into the flow with a good helping of earnest adventure before the underlying plot strands begin to convalesce. Much like the later Potter films, Beasts strikes a good balance between child-like immersion in the sparkling spectacle of a magical world, whilst still drawing out the darkness inherent in that universe. The production design alternates between gloomy, effervescent and gothic, and it’s very hard not to be won over by the overall aesthetic of the film.

When any franchise enters a new era, there’s always a great deal made of ‘bridging the gap’. With Newton Howard providing the musical connection, the character who guides us through is not Redmayne, but Miller, playing the sunken-faced and scary-haired Credence Barebone. Carrying more than a little Draco Malfoy in his glare and posture, he works wonders with a subplot that is occasionally misjudged in its intensity. The Potter universe is no stranger to darker themes (each film after Prisoner of Azkaban thrived increasingly on this), but the shadows here exist outside the wizarding world, in a place that feels all too real. The entire arc of Farrell’s character is revealed the instant we see his haircut, but he’s clearly having good fun. He certainly draws a far more rounded character than his nemesis, Newt; a Tumblr fanfic creation brought to life. Any investment we have in our heroes is channelled through Dan Fogler. His performance carries nuance, genuine emotion, and charm that doesn’t require a single wand wave.

Arrival

Someone a few rows below me clears their throat, and suddenly I realise that for the past 40 minutes, no-one in the cinema has made a sound. This moment came as Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner and Forest Whitaker slowly advance into the belly of an alien spaceship; the culmination of Arrival’s first act. In Denis Villeneuve’s most adventurous film yet, twelve spaceships hover metres above the ground in countries across the world. Army Colonel Weber, played by Whitaker, enlists linguistics expert Louise Banks, played by Adams, and theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly, played by Renner, to attempt rudimentary communication with their visitors, to discover their ultimate intention.

Eements of the plot are comparable to other sci-fi favourites like Interstellar and alien invasion fare such as Independence Day and The Day the Earth Stood Still, but the experience of seeing this for the first time was utterly unique. For one thing, it’s the first time I’ve ever physically sensed a movie dividing the audience. While that innocent cough I mentioned above seemed to shake many from some kind of trance, it seemed a rallying call for an equal number of others to fidget or rummage around for another piece of popcorn. This divide was clear as the credits rolled, and personified by my colleagues in the office: I found it gripping up to a point, another loved it, and the other found it interminably dull.

Its construction is also a change from the norm: that looming spaceship isn’t necessarily there to frighten or devastate, but to enthrall, its featureless black shell an empty space in the skyline onto which we project our fears and questions. To relay these anxieties is Banks, giving us a similar bugs-eye view as Cooper from Interstellar, packed with an emotionally-charged parent-child dynamic to boot. However, whilst McConaughey’s character was constantly awash with philosophical wonder and scientific know-how, Adams' is the closest we’ve come to seeing a believably ‘normal’ person being sucked into the maelstrom of military action, political uncertainty and media hysteria that constitutes first contact.

This is not her first time making a close encounter (see Man of Steel), but without the shackles of a franchise, her character is allowed a level of depth more deserving of Adams’ talent. Here, she employs a look of great pain, awe and misplacement through her gaze alone. It takes an awful lot to make varying levels of confusion and fear interesting for two hours, but Adams makes it unbelievably gripping. Renner is playing the comic relief to a certain extent, but it’s more Hurt Locker than Hawkeye (smart without falling into snarky). Both leads actually look like they could do Banks and Donnelly’s jobs for real. Despite the slight, unavoidable shimmer of Hollywood make-up, they’re not glamorized, particularly as they spend a great deal of time enveloped in clumsy orange hazmat suits.

Visually, it’s a different tale. Bradford Young’s photography is polished to a mirror shine, doing more with blacks and whites than most cinematographers do with an entire rainbow, and Jóhann Jóhannsson’s score doesn’t come packed with the overwrought aggressiveness that’s so vehemently present in his other work. In fact, this score is quite the opposite: it slinks elegantly across the background before suddenly catching you out. At the apex of a simply flawless panning shot – in which Villeneuve and Young finally reveal the ominous black shell hanging over the Montana plains – Jóhannsson kicks the strings into motion, and an eerie wail sends a visible shiver through the audience.

Some dodgy CG hair aside, the visual wizardry is minimalist and beautiful, employed only when necessary and to incredible effect. Perhaps betraying that the film isn’t really about them, the aliens are nothing radical to look at. Their method of communication is remarkable, for sure, but it’s a cerebral wonder as much as a physical one, and the only special effect in attendance at the extraordinary finale is reserved purely for your brain.

As well as securing Villeneuve, Young and Adams as magisterial talents once and for all, Arrival is a critical, timely parable about communication and empathy. It’s the natural progression of sci-fi cinema, where contemporary and timeless themes collide with state-of-the-art filmmaking technology. Now if they could have only excluded the love story subplot - the film would have been perfect!

Bad Moms

Sometimes you have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than watch a horribly put together 'female comedy'. We're better than this girls...

Bad Moms begins with a particularly good mum in Amy Mitchell, played by the always beautiful Mila Kunis. She balances a 60 hour work week of being an overachieving full-time employee whilst also being a full-time mum. Although seemingly appearing to be the 'supermum', she never really gets the job done and sees herself as always coming up just short. After a day of nothing but bad outcomes and misfortune, Amy has enough of trying to live up to the image of being a mum with everything going right for herself and her family. She decides to live for herself and be wild and free but the other local mums refuse to let such blasphemy happen. One mum in particular, Gwendolyn James, played by Christina Applegate, has her eyes on Amy acting out and is set on tearing her back down.

While the film had plenty of moments of comedy, as you would expect in a 'comedy' film, the whole thing fell flat. The story was absolutely laughable, and not in the positive way. The climactic emotional moment made me feel absolutely nothing because the film spent no time making the characters likable or even tolerable. The love interest of the movie is forced and could have been excluded entirely without any real hindrance to the film. Almost every plot point was unrealistic and forgetful. Bad Moms is the very definition of a conventional comedy in that way, with the story being virtually predictable from the get go. It's upsetting that a film like this, promoted as being a film for women by women, provides a few chuckles and nothing else. Why can't we have the developed and complex characters portrayed in the male steered traditional comedy or action films. Hell, The Accountant did a better job representing women in the 21st century - and it featured a damsel in distress being rescued by a man! A few of the characters are complete caricatures and stereotypes which are clearly derived from a cookie cutter idea of the different types of women and the plot follows the beat by beat story arc of 'redemption of the down-on-her-luck protagonist' to a very tee. Mila, pick better roles please.

To the critical mind, this film falls way short of being anything special. To the targeted demographic that the film focuses on, this film will be a sure fire box office hit to them. So unless you fall within the latter, this film wont contribute anything to your day.

The Accountant

Christian Wolff, played by Ben Affleck, is a wickedly smart mathematician who is an accountant by day and, if the event calls for it, a bad-ass book cooker/killing machine by night. The Accountant is ultimately an incredible character study on a man who suffers from autism and is taught, rather harshly, to control his condition rather than let it hinder his ability to live life 'normally'. It weaves pertinent moments in Christian’s life that shaped the man he became with the present day as he investigates a company and its missing money. 

Anna Kendrick‘s portrayal of Dana Cummings, the woman who initially notices discrepancies in this company - headed by John Lithgow - is convincing and her chemistry with Affleck was surprisingly more believable than I had imagined it would be. However, the real standouts was Affleck. He managed to encompass everything about his character, the bad and the good, allowing audiences to invest in the story. There were scenes in which we saw moments of self harm that were tense and at times difficult to watch but  seemed to be perfectly within the films scope of violence and brought the focus back to the subplot of mental illness. The Accountant’s emphasis on it's main character, Christian Wolff, is explored brilliantly. A major critique of the film was that the various plot points were difficult to follow. Whilst I agree that one or two moments could have been explained in more detail to conceive a more rounded story, the film as a whole was captivating and well paced. 

The film thankfully does not try to glamorize mental illness. Instead it portrays autism and individuals who live with such disabilities in an honest and unforgiving light. There was no obviously disrespectful portrayal, intended to shock the audience rather than add depth to the characters. Gavin O’Connor, the director, manages to showcase the action sequences in a riveting way, with not as many fast cuts or camera tricks reminiscent of realist directors. This approach is more appropriate, in my opinion, when depicting topics and characters that are unfortunately still taboo in our society. The power of the film was left instead to the tense buildup sequences before an action shot. 

A powerful film that would suit audiences who don't typically enjoy the action genre, The Accountant was full of surprises - the most impressive of which was Affleck's believability and likeability. 

The Infiltrator

Directed by Brad Furman with a screenplay written by his Mother, Ellen Brown Furman, Bryan Cranston's latest appearance on the big screen is a classic American crime film. The Infiltrator is based on an autobiography written by Robert Mazur, a U.S. customs agent, who in the 1980s helped bust Pablo Escobar by going undercover as a corrupt businessman. I will make no attempts to hide the fact that my knowledge of Escobar and the drug world is limited but I have started watching Narcos so I figure it's only a matter of time until I know everything, right? The film took just under 1 year and a half from the first day of filming to its premiere in Florida. When you see the film, if you ever do, it's astonishing how much the production crew were able to achieve considering how elaborate some shots and sequences were.

The film looks like another Wolf of Wall Street on the surface but is clearly very different. Rather than focusing on the drugs and on Escobar like in Narcos, The Infiltrator follows an undercover operation that was designed to discover the route of the drug money flowing through southern Florida. This film was based on a true story and has occasional video footage and image stills of the real events intercut with the film. And in true Hollywood style, the credits are rolled after a quick round up of the fates that met those involved along with side by side images of the actor and the real person they were playing. As a result of the operation, CEO's and upper management in several banks that were knowingly laundering drug money were convicted. In fact, throughout the film it's easier to sympathise with the drug lords than it is with the international bankers. In part, this was due to the focus placed on Roberto Alcaino's family in the second half of the film. I had to remind myself that these men were responsible for deaths in several countries and endangered their families lives on their own accord. The plot definitely puts an emphasis on the individuals and their families and how they are affected but deliberately limits the drug use on screen almost to help viewers forget the real issue.

Cranston is joined by Diane Kruger for the second half of the film as she plays his fiancé. The two have a lovely, plutonic relationship on screen. Even when the two embrace after witnessing the death of a business partner, there is never an assumption that the two are anything other than colleagues and friends. I respected the decision to portray the characters in this way and to avoid an unnecessary adultery subplot. Besides Kruger and Cranston the cast of The Infiltrator aren't the most recognisable in Hollywood. However the ensemble cast, especially when all together in the climactic wedding scene, were wonderful and truly compelling in their roles. Special mention goes to Benjamin Bratt who definitely deserves more roles, more recognition and more beard! Damn, his beard looked good. I do hear he's involved in the upcoming Doctor Strange so fingers crossed his facial hair is here to stay!

If you are interested in the Medellin cartel or the individuals involved in Escobar's downfall, I recommend this film. Equally, if you're a fan of well paced and tense crime dramas then The Infiltrator should be next up on your to watch list.

Sausage Party

I feel like I've been saying forever that we need more adult animation in movies - and I don't mean the very popular 'adult' videos that can be found online.

Sausage Party, written by Seth Rogen and his merry band of blockbuster screenplay writing machines, is a delicious feast of hilarious stupidity packed into a store bought bun. And by that, puns aside, I mean that the film was funny, surprisingly clever and exactly what I was expecting. The animation was smart and the facial expressions were well executed. I always appreciate any departure from the digital standard set by Disney and Pixar. It was incredibly easy to lose yourself in the film and sympathise with food items. So here's the basic rundown of the plot: perishable goods in every supermarket are under the illusion that being purchased and taken home with humans is the 'great beyond' and a place that food aspires to go. But as Frank the sausage, Brenda the bun and a few of their friends are eventually picked up in the market, the discover the unfortunate truth and their inevitable fate in the human stomach from the mouth of a PTSD suffering mustard. From this point on, scenes of Frank's journey to discover the truth are cut together with scenes of other groceries being prepared in the kitchen. Shit gets weird but it's great.

The cast was as you would expect in a Seth Rogen backed film. Filled to the brim with the A-list, B-list and the I-Forgot-You-Exist of Hollywood. However, without a doubt, the best (voice) performance was supplied by Rogen. The abundance of dirty jokes perfectly executed in his infamous grasp made for a truly entertaining character. It's painfully clear throughout how invested Rogen is in the film. Every joke, scene and plot point screams his name and it has resulted in a really funny film. However, I would argue that this film should have been an 18 not a 15 like it is here in the UK. Some of the content was definitely not for the ears of impressionable school kids. Especially the celebratory orgy after they overpower the 'gods' in the supermarket. Spoilers ahead.

The final scene of this film, after the afore mentioned orgy, is unlike anything we've seen on screen since Enchanted in 2007. The gang are told by Firewater, an ancient drink who seems to know everything, that they are in fact cartoons and even shows Frank an image of Seth Rogen in the fire. Together they then travel through a portal to cut the 'puppet' strings they believe they are controlled by. This was, frankly (pun intended), an amazing way of ending a film like Sausage Party. Let's just add some more surrealism in to the mix and hope for the best! Sometimes the most successful way of building a fictional universe is by testing the limits and trying something that is even stranger than its predecessor. 

With Rogen already discussing the possibility for a sequel, I don't think this will be the last we see of Frank, Brenda and the gang. With an Enchanted type film hinted at before the closing credits, I'm excited to see what the team come up with. Rogen has really come into his own in the last 5 years, proving that although his style of acting and choice of films are all from the same weed smelling cloth, he can still draw an audience and make them laugh. It's also worth noting that this was a film I saw myself at 11am on a Tuesday and I still enjoyed it. 

Ex Machina

The only things I knew about Ex Machina going in to it in 2014 was that it was a British made science fiction film, written and directed by Alex Garland (writer of 28 Days Later and Dredd) and that the plot revolved around the idea of an artificial intelligence. I was sold on it instantly.

Ex Machina is the story of Ava, an artificial intelligence created by wealthy business man and technological genius Nathan, told through the eyes of Caleb. Caleb is a computer programmer in Nathan's company who wins a competition to go and visit Nathan in his home/research laboratory for a week, and ends up with the opportunity to perform a variant of the Turing Test on Ava in order to determine if she qualifies as a true AI.

As with all great sci-fi, Ex Machina uses it's central concept in order to tell a very human story while continuously expanding on the central idea. Unlike a lot of more recent films, which throw a bunch of future technologies at the wall to see what sticks, Ex Machina instead focuses on just the one idea and allows that to be the centre of the story, with very little else showing up. It's great to see a science fiction film so confident in its central premise, especially from a first time director. Comparisons to Blade Runner or other films related to artificial intelligence would be unfair - despite sharing a concept, the story being told is radically different, and the comparison is dismissive of the ingenuity and originality on display here.

Ex Machina wastes no time setting up the premise of the film, which is always refreshing - Caleb is whisked away to the research facility in the first minute of run time, giving us as an audience the same sense of uncertainty and haste that Caleb himself would be feeling, instantly helping us to connect to a character we really know very little about, at least at first. Domnhall Gleeson is perfect as Caleb, really helping to sell a character that could have ended up distant or emotionally stunted in the wrong hands, and it's clear why he is frequently cited as a rising star and one to watch. Oscar Isaac is just as great as Nathan, playing the typical tortured genius as brash, abrasive and occasionally downright rude, and completely owns one of the best scenes - "Dance with her".

But it is Alicia Vikander, who plays Ava, that really shines here. Initially, I forgot to talk about how good she is in this film because I forgot that Ava was played by an actress, instead completely buying into the character as an artificial intelligence, a creation of the film. There is a sense of naivety and vulnerability in the performance that means Ava is at once the most human character on screen, while at the same time maintaining a level of intelligence that makes her seem almost other worldly, frequently plunging into the uncanny valley and back out. The design of Ava is great, with human looking feet, hands and face connected by a clear exoskeleton with wires and cables running throughout. She is completely captivating to watch thanks to a combination of the design, great CGI and solid, believable acting. 

Ex Machina ends up being one of the best pure science fiction films I've seen in a long time, with a great cast in a well written and original story that, despite using a fairly tried and tested sci-fi concept, never feels stale or predictable. It's smart without being pretentious, and concise enough that it doesn't outstay it's welcome, and is a film that I would recommend to anyone with an interest in science fiction.

Suicide Squad

I read every bad review about this film before walking into the cinema and I was still disappointed.

My expectations could not have been lower and yet, Suicide Squad still failed to make a mark. Written and directed by David Ayer, the latest DC instalment lacked purpose, depth and excitement. In fact, I would go as far as saying that every bullet missed the target on this one. I found myself bored throughout many of the action scenes, silent during moments of 'humour' and unimpressed with forced relationships.

Ayer was, in many ways, restricted by studio execs and brand managers who insisted upon a certain product - even if it was a lesser one! One particular problem with the creation of this film seemed to be the deadlines. Ayer was given a release date and had to write, shoot and edit before that time. Sounds like any other film, yes, but Ayer wanted time to develop the film and was not given the chance to. In fact, two different versions of the film were screened for test audiences and Ayer's more developed version was not favoured by the studio. One of the other shackles attached to Ayer and Suicide Squad was the demand for a PG13/15 rating. With a film centred on bad guys with an attitude, it was frustrating that the rating was so low. Perhaps an R/18 rating would have been better suited to allow Ayer to explore his characters in more seedy depth. Many of the aspects of what make these characters great are only brushed upon because too much violence, language or sexually explicit scenes would hike the age rating. Although Deadpool was problematic for several reasons, it was an enjoyable ADULT film that still dominated the market despite excluding the young up and coming comic fans.

Whilst Deadshot and Harley Quinn had potential in the film there simply wasn't enough to carry the rest of the cast. Cara Delevingne, for example, should never have been cast as Dr Moon/Enchantress. She should never have made the move into acting in the first place. Hiding the fact she cannot do accents behind an ancient language and subtitles was one thing, but Ayer could not hide her basic inability to act. The audience are supposed to be in awe of this character in both of her physical states but whenever she was on screen it was cringe worthy watching her sway her hips or flail into the arms of her soldier boyfriend. Speaking of the soldier, Captain Flag, Joel Kinnaman was a pleasant replacement for early drop out Tom Hardy. He was an underdeveloped character but did his best in the screen time allotted to him. Being an underdeveloped character in Suicide Squad is like being a hipster in a trendy cafe. They are fucking everywhere. The audience is force fed snapshot origin stories at the very beginning of the film and are occasionally given additional flashbacks as the story progresses. But other than that, the characters are dropped into the DC universe, as the fans currently know it, and left to fend for themselves. Even the Joker, a character we all know and love, was new and improved but without any context. At the end of Suicide Squad, the only characters I would be happy having origin stories would be Deadshot and Harley Quinn but that is more to do with the performances than the writing.

Ultimately a film with great potential to slingshot DC back into my good books, after the fall of Batman - thanks Affleck, was a disappointment from the ground up. I thoroughly blame the restrictions on Ayer and the time scale in which the film needed to be made. Perhaps after the afore mentioned success of bad-guy-good-guy Deadpool, it felt as if Suicide Squad was rushed in order to jump on the band wagon. If we'd had individual origin stories for the main troupe beforehand then perhaps the time in this film could have been better utilised. I cannot help but wonder how much better the film would have been had the first 20 minutes of rambling character description been replaced with more content. I'm sure the film will still top box offices around the world but whether it, with the amount of negativity from critics and fans, will make back it's initial investment is still up in the air. 

Jason Bourne

Jason is back and so is Damon! 

The saga continues as Jason Bourne returns to our cinemas bigger than ever. Directed by Paul Greengrass (best name ever) who has directed three of the five Bourne films, the 2016 instalment is set 10 years after the events of Bourne Ultimatum. The jump in time was perhaps an attempt to pretend that Bourne Legacy with Jeremy Renner never happened - which I think many fans of the franchise would agree is the perfect way of reviving the film. The film follows Jason as he pieces together who he was/is and how he became an Operation Treadstone assassin. Once discovering the CIA killed his father, Bourne seeks revenge and begins to hunt down the CIA director, Robert Dewey. Meanwhile, as an additional subplot, the CIA are attempting to monitor the public through a new form of social media. 

The return of Matt Damon as Bourne, and in his first film since the critically acclaimed The Martian, is certainly one way to ensure a blockbuster hit this Summer. Although Matt looks a lot older than he did when he first appeared as Bourne, who can forget fresh faced Damon?, he carried himself well and certainly proved that stunts are not off the table for him yet! He was joined by several cast members from previous films including Tommy Lee Jones and Julia Stiles along with a slew of new faces. One of the breakout stars of 2015, Alicia Vikander, does exceptionally well as Heather Lee - head of the CIA Cyber Ops Division. Although at times it's hard to believe the character would make the decisions she does, Vikander portrays her well. Staying stern and emotionless throughout as she attempts to ascertain Bourne without killing him.  

**SPOILERS** The action sequences, of which there were many, were amazing. Fast paced and full of destruction - that's the kind of scenes I want to see in a Bourne film! Particularly the final car chase scene which sees Bourne tracking down the CIA's Asset with the purpose of killing him in revenge for killing his father. The Asset, driving a swat vehicle, rams through traffic in a straight line which sees cars being crushed and blown out of the way. It was an incredible moment to watch. I think that a huge part of this film's success will be how straight forward it is. Yes, we jump back and forth several times throughout in terms of who the 'bad guy' is but when you consider the film as a whole - it was a true action blockbuster. Unlike many modern action films, Bourne didn't attempt to genre blend. There were no cheesy jokes or forced moments of comic relief. It was hard, gripping and intense. Our hero was not a true hero. He's a trained killer, and part time street fighter, who will use his skill base to get what he wants. There is no heart of gold in Bourne. He's focused on revenge and will continue to fight back against the corporation that made him. I was so happy to finally see an action film that didn't try to force likeability or empathy. The writers got straight to the point from the outset and it made for a fast paced but fantastically structured film. 

For fans of the previous films - you will not be disappointed. I would recommend that those new to Bourne watch the first three films (don't bother with Bourne Legacy) before watching the new one. Although flashbacks (new, not in previous films) are slotted in throughout Jason Bourne to help new audiences grasp the plot, having prior knowledge of the films and of Jason's past will help enhance the experience and enjoyment of this film. It's not often I find myself wishing for the next instalment before the end credits role, but there is something about this character and these films that always leave me wanting more. 

Finding Dory

There are plenty more fish in the sea yet Disney seems hell-bent on reviving Dory.

The UK premiere for Finding Dory and the return of that adorable forgetful fish was last month at Edinburgh's International Film Festival. Despite working the festival, I never found time to sneak into the screening. So here I am, a month later, diving into the deep blue to join Marlin, Nemo and Dory yet again.

Different premise. Same old tropes. Dory is aching to find her long lost family and ventures out to be reunited with them. Suddenly, she's captured and taken to an aquarium in California. This time it is Marlin and Nemo's turn to rescue their blue friend and as you'd expect - hilarity ensues. Yes, the film was very obvious and the true moments of comedy genius were teased in the trailer but it'd be a shame to overlook this film because of its simplicity. The animation in Finding Dory is crisp and clean yet flows as though we are actually in the water. The new troupe of characters are developed and, whilst not always crucial to the plot's progression, enjoyable to watch.
The film had a lot of publicity in the lead up to its release not just because of it's A-List cast. Many speculated that a couple appearing in the trailer with a child were a same sex couple and that this was the first appearance of such a relationship within a disney animated film. Frankly, the scene came and went in the film without me noticing despite having known to look out for it. Unfortunately, this didn't seem like first appearance of a same sex couple. It just came across as two women being in close proximity. Hopefully Disney are moving in this direction and we'll see an appropriately presented LGBT character in the near future - but please, no stereotypes!

Like any other Pixar animation, this film will have you tearing up from the get go. Even the pre-film short, Piper, had me happy crying! There is something so heartbreaking about a young fish losing her parents and being unable to ask for help due to her forgetful nature. As you can imagine, the message of this film is subtly hidden in Dory's search for her family. I picked up that Stanton (Andrew Stanton, co-writer and director) had desired for audiences to recognise part of themselves in the young fish and that what he wants us to take away is the power of resilience and positive thinking. And although both of these points were explored in the first film, they resonate a lot deeper in Finding Dory.

Overall, the film was delightful and uplifting despite some dark moments. Whether you watch this at home alone or with a group of people at a screening, the humour will have you chuckling and the sad scenes will have you holding back some sympathetic tears. I feel like Finding Dory will be the benchmark moving forward for Disney in terms of sequels and is a great example of story progression done the right way. Having said that, I'm kind of done. I don't want to be brought to the brink of tears again by a school of damn fish!

Zoolander 2

Another old(er) film! This month I've felt like catching up on blockbusters I may have missed in 2015/early 2016. As they say, it may be an oldy but it's a goody! 

15 years after the smash hit Zoolander graced our cinema screens with it's satirical portrayal of models and the fashion world, the title character is back. Zoolander 2 follows a worn out Derek Zoolander after the death of Matilda, the collapse of his centre for illiterate children and the loss of custody of his son, Derek Jr. Interpol are investigating the confusing assassinations of several of the worlds biggest celebrities, who in their final captured moments point to Zoolander as a clue. Hansel and Zoolander are reunited by mutual pal Billy Zane - not the first celebrity cameo and not the last either - and are recruited by Valentina, an Interpol agent, to help investigate the suspicious murders. From this point on, the film becomes increasingly more ridiculous. A theme amongst the films I have reviewed this month!

With Zoolander, I feel that the attention is focused on the celebrity cameos above all else. And, to be honest, it appears this film was made, not to make another stellar Zoolander film but, in a bid to let celebrities act a little silly for a change. It is bizarre seeing respected actors like Benedict Cumberbatch as characters like All. But, I suppose that is part of the allure. The entire film felt like an odd fancy dress party, hosted by Ben Stiller, where the dress code was 'insane'. The weirdest part of it all was seeing Susan Boyle. Why was she even on a list of suggested names for this film? Because it's weird. Nothing about the film flowed like the original and the excessive and unnecessary cameos overshadowed every other aspect of the film. The cameos are, however, the perfect camouflage for a film that genuinely lacks substance. Perhaps studio executives, producers and directors alike, should reconsider flooding their film with famous faces when attempting to revive a franchise. 

Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson and Will Ferrell were reunited and it really did feel so good while it lasted. The three clearly work well together and do make for some seriously funny moments. I simply wish the film was better written to include more of the original films charm. The whole plot was a twisted, Zoolander take on The DaVinci Code. With secret groups of fashion icons conspiring to kill the descendant of lesser known Steve from the Adam and Eve tale as several 'rock stars', I am using this term loosely as Justin Bieber is involved, aim to protect the chosen one (Zoolanders son - woops spoilers).

Yet again, a film I'm happy to have skipped in the theatres to view at home for free. It's truly a sad moment when you realise films like this are funded over special and profound indie projects. 

Pixels

Released in the summer of 2015, Pixels was welcomed by a wave of negative reviews. Despite grossing close to $250 million in the box office, critics made it very clear that Adam Sandler's gamer flick was one you could afford to miss. The 2015 film is based on a French short, by the same name, from 2010 by Patrick Jean. And it seems a lot of the original wonder of the short is lost in the longer, Hollywood edition. Pixels reboot was directed by Chris Columbus, of Harry Potter and Mrs Doubtfire fame, and is packed with a star studded cast that would be expected in a film produced by and starring Adam Sandler. 

I feel like this film raises questions deeper than intended - if any moral or message was ever deliberately planned at all! In particular, this film has made me consider Sandler's position in Hollywood and his ability to draw in the masses with sub-par films. Why is it, an actor/comedian is continuously making bank with films that would drown had any other lead been attached? I'm a self confessed fan of some of his earlier work, 50 First Dates, The Wedding Singer and The Longest Yard will continue to be some of my lazy Sunday viewing faves. But since 2011, Sandler's work has taken a steep dive into boring and repetitive territory. With the exception of the first Hotel Transylvania film which was surprising and a great addition to Sony Pictures repertoire. 

So, how did the film hold up? Well, the core concept is great. Who hasn't thought about alien invaders being actual... Alien Invaders?! But beyond that, the film was average. Whilst being incredibly funny at parts, the entire film fell victim to Sandler's old habits. Several forced jokes and scenarios could have been left of the cutting room floor without hindering the plot. But I would be lying if I said I didn't chuckle consistently throughout. For a film with little substance it was unsurprisingly easy to watch. The 'action' scenes were tame and lack lustre as blood and fear are hard to translate into pixels. But this film is certainly not aimed at the film goers of the 21st century who are left bored without excessive violence so the pixel replacements are fitting. The utter ridiculousness of it all is Pixels saving grace. A foolish president, tech savy aliens and a technical engineer hero apparently is a recipe for pleasant home viewing. But with films like this in the past I have always stated that, although enjoyable on a very basic level, I'm so happy I did not pay money to watch this in the cinema.

Alice Through the Looking Glass

Overshadowed by Domestic Abuse claims, Alice Through the Looking Glass is bombing, both nationally and internationally. And at this juncture, there is very little Johnny Depp will be able to do to win back fans and draw in an audience for the second installment of this wacky tale. But accusations aside, how does the film stand on its own? Well, the answer is: It stands on two very shaky legs. The first leg being Depp, and his tired interpretation of yet another character that looks and acts like a vast majority of Depp's other roles. The second leg is new director James Bobin. Replacing Tim Burton, Bobin is essentially trying to revive a film that many were happy to see die.

Alice Through The Looking Glass comes six years after its predecessor and follows Alice as she re-enters Underland after leaving three years before. She's met by a large portion of the film's characters and they inform her of the Madhatters extreme behaviour and his belief that his family may still be alive. As with his increase in madness the Hatter's health deteriorates, so Alice sets out to convince Time himself to rework history and save the Hatter's family. This obviously leads to a convoluted journey where Alice tries to right the wrongs in Underland. The tale is more of a clustered mess than Burtons despite both screenplays having been written by the same writer, Linda Woolverton. Woolverton's other works include the animated Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and Mulan along with live action hits like Maleficent.

Beyond the film's core story lines of Hatter and his family; the warring siblings; and Alice's race against time, there were some interesting plot points scattered throughout the film. One of these was seen in Alice's return to the real world shortly before the films climax. Institutionalized with 'female hysteria', Alice is restrained by a male doctor who says he can cure her of her illness. As most people know, Hysteria was originally associated with women and their wild emotional capacity. Thought for years to be the answer to many women who suffered from legitimate mental disorders like postpartum depression. 

Hysteria, as a result, is often used in examples of the changing position of women in society. Once considered so emotionally capable that they must be ill, women are now running companies and families simultaneously. The reason why this interests me is because of the film's overall approach to gender norms and the role of the strong independent woman. It seems entirely fitting that someone of Alice's disposition, in such a time period, would have been considered hysterical. Yet, when young Alice is in Underland she is saving not only men but women too.

The film was as visually stunning as the first, with the usual overuse of CGI in scenes that don't always need digital enhancement, but overall Alice's new adventure fell flat. One of my big pet peeves is when a film uses time travel to, basically, start again - I'm looking at you X-Men. And whilst Underland ended up in sweeter circumstances than the beginning of the film, it felt like the last two hours might as well have not happened. Honestly, what's the point? If your film lacks substance and needs to be carried by few interjected feminist trope in order to pass as noteworthy, then you're not doing it right. I think that Depp's personal issues have ended up being a great excuse for a film that would have flopped regardless.

Eye in the Sky

Gavin Hood, director of Enders Game and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, brings us Eye in the Sky. A film about the application of drones during combat and the ethical fallout of such weaponry. Filmed in South Africa, Eye in the Sky focuses on the local people who are effected by terrorism, and the counterstrikes from Western intelligence agencies. The film premiered at the 2015 Toronto Film Festival and had it's international release in April of 2016. 

This is a suspenseful drama reminiscent of many other war films from the last decade, but Hood sets his aside by taking a step back. Unlike other films of this hard to define genre, Eye in the Sky seems to capture, like the all seeing eye, the action across several continents whilst closely focusing on our mission in Kenya simultaneously. Helen Mirren stars as our woman in charge, Col. Katherine Powell, overseeing operation EGRET. Her mission turns from capture to kill and Alan Rickman, Gen. Frank Benson, agrees. But as they wait for final approval, many characters, including Aaron Paul's Steve Watts, begin to question the change and the potential fall out from an unprovoked attack that will cause civilian casualties. 

The film's editing by Megan Gill is of particular note. Most of the film's well executed tense moments are built by Gill's style. This allowed the film to fully dive into it's 'Thriller' sub genre and keep audiences engaged throughout. Her talents were of course magnified by Haris Zambarloukos' camera work. Creating dimension and contrast through his focus on cold, dark interiors with the bright sun and exteriors.

Rickman's second last feature and it was certainly an excellent performance. His partnership with Mirren on screen was a delight and seemingly the perfect match. The two embodied their characters wholeheartedly which shows clear commitment to the film, their director and their craft. Aaron Paul's appearance in this film was surprising. I haven't given him much thought since the season finale of Breaking Bad in 2013. However, once I was over the initial shock of seeing him again, I was pleasantly overwhelmed by his emotional performance. It seemed like Paul was at the brink of tears throughout his entire time on screen, but it wasn't out of place. I had clearly forgotten how emotive his face is and how brilliant he can be on screen in the right role. 

Overall, I felt like this film was reasonably paced and an appropriate length - any longer and it would have been exhausting. Eye in the Sky undoubtedly raises a lot of questions about the processes and chain of command behind any and all strikes. And whether or not decisions can or should be made by government officials any lower than the Prime Minister and the President themselves. Personally, with a utilitarian view on life, my decision in this scenario would have been made much quicker. But that wouldn't have made an interesting film now would it?

Captain America: Civil War

As I have mentioned in my previous post, I've been working my way towards a deadline this week. That deadline was at 13:40 today as I entered the cinema to watch Captain America: Civil War. I've been catching up on the Captain's last two films to make sure I had all of my Steve Rogers facts straight. With a solid base of knowledge from these films and The Avengers films, I became increasingly more excited about Civil War's release. Other than this knowledge and the new film's trailer - I had no other information about Civil War or its contents. I avoided pre-release spoilers and only watched the film's first trailer.

So as it turns out, Captain America: Civil War is about a new law that changes the way superheroes are viewed, treated and accepted in society. As a result, a rift between The Avengers and their extended friends is made. With Captain America at the head of one side and Tony Stark/Iron Man at the head of the other, the disagreement is heated and becomes personal. The Captain believes that superheroes should be able to continue their work without restraint but Stark agrees with the government in that there was an oversight and that The Avengers should be held more accountable for their actions. Released internationally on the 27th of April, the film was released here in the UK today - April 29th. So I cannot comment on the film's success on opening weekend or it's initial feedback from critics and general audiences. Although, I'm pretty sure fan's will enjoy this one and wont be disappointed.

I've said before that I enjoy the crossover within the Marvel Universe. I feel that the constant appearance of other Marvel characters adds cohesion and helps reinforce the idea that they are all in the same Universe. So I thoroughly enjoyed the inclusion of Black Widow, Falcon, Iron Man, Hawkeye and Ant-Man among many others. The most notable guest in this film was the first appearance of Marvel's Spiderman. I've been waiting patiently to see how Spiderman would be represented in this new Universe and how they (the big bosses down at Disney) would handle his crossover. It's weird to me that they've just 'bought' Spiderman, but hey! it's Disney - they can do whatever they want! However, Spiderman in this film, played by Tom Holland, provided a huge portion of this film's comedy gold moments. His time on screen was limited to one of the major fight scenes between the divided Avenger team. He's an adorable character who has lots of questions. Regularly interrupting the flow of action to praise his opposition. 

This film will clearly go down in the Marvel Universe as very important in the progression of many storylines. In fact, before the next Avengers film is released, many will have to go back and view this film if they haven't already. With the Sokovia Accords and the current status of Captain America and Iron Man's relationship this film has pushed several character storylines forward immensely. The film ends with hints towards a Spiderman film and perhaps a Black Panther one too. I look forward to the former but the latter doesn't interest me. In fact, when the Black Panther first appeared on screen (to fight Bucky whom he believed killed his father during the Sokovia Accords signing), I thought it was Cat Woman. Yes, I realise Cat Woman is DC not Marvel but there was a lot going on on screen and I think I was overwhelmed with love for Bucky who was trying so hard to disappear. 

Anyway, the film was great. The story was interesting and although it didn't have the same shocking twists that the other Captain America film's have had, the plot was still interesting and kept audiences fully engaged throughout. Surely by Monday morning we'll hear that this film has broken opening weekend records and is on it's way to breaking the bank!

Captain America: The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier

So in preparation for the Captain America: Civil War release on the 29th and my subsequent viewing of the film on that day - I thought it was about time that I gave the Captain a shot. Technically there have been seven Captain America films to date but I'm only focusing on the latest franchise starring Chris Evans. Evans made his debut as Steve Rogers in 2011 and has since appeared in two The Avengers films, two other Captain America films, Thor and Ant-Man as the same character. The Marvel Comics character (Timely Comics at the time) was conceived and published for the first time in 1941 and was unsurprisingly the most popular comic character during the wartime period. 

Other than The Avengers films, I haven't seen anything or read anything about Captain America. So as I started to watch The First Avenger, I was truly experiencing the story for the first time. Therefore, I cannot judge or comment on how the film's character reflects or compares to its comic counterpart. But, there is no better place to start than the beginning! In The First Avenger we learn who Steve is as a person and how he came to be the Captain. We see his pre-Captain lifestyle and his drastic shift into the public eye after his transition. But this determined soldier could not be held back from fighting the good fight alongside his old friend and some new friends too.

What I love about origin stories is the introduction to these characters. I love the concept that the serum Rogers was injected with amplifies all of his existing traits - something that I'm sure will come into play in the new film. We were also introduced to 'Bucky' - Steve's best friend. As I've jumped on the Captain America band waggon a little late, and have seen the trailers for the new film, I KNOW that Bucky is/was/or soon will be very important. Although, I don't quite know how he could have survived his final scene... The heavy CGI used at the beginning of the film to make Chris Evans appear as a shell of his future self was a little extreme and not the least bit subtle. It was quite distracting during this important first quarter of the film where most of the character development takes place. However, the CGI blends more as the film continues and is significantly less annoying by the closing credits. As for the films love story subplot, the relationship between Rogers and Peggy Carter was sweet. There were references to this relationship during The Avengers films so I unfortunately knew what was in store for the sweet couple before their courtship even began. And secretly, I found myself rooting for the pair regardless! Overall, I felt like The First Avenger was a great introduction to another side of the Marvel universe that I had not yet explored. And considering his character doesn't get explored much in The Avengers - other than learning that he doesn't like bad language - it was interesting to see Captain America's full potential.

The second instalment of the franchise was entitled The Winter Soldier and was released in 2014 after the release of the first The Avengers film in 2012. Because of this there is a lot of character crossover - which I personally think keeps the universe feeling cohesive because characters are interwoven with each other's independent films. This film sees Rogers in the 21st Century joined by Falcon and Black Widow. They are working to uncover a mysterious conspiracy within S.H.E.I.L.D whilst fighting an equally as elusive assassin known as The Winter Soldier. 

Rogers is back and his costume is significantly less corny than it was in the 1940s! (Although he does don his original get up during the final fight scenes) And Peggy is back too! But obviously, she's aged. A lot. So my hopes for the two to triumph together were crushed but an early scene in the film showing the two discussing life and the lessons they've learned was sweet. There love may never be but she's definitely been a huge impact on Roger's development. It's very clear even just one film in, that Steve's character is unlike his Marvel companions. He's pure and honest and an unfaltering loyalty. It's as if he has the mind of an innocent child in a body that grew up too fast - and actually, that's exactly what happened to him.

I felt like this film had a lot more humour than the first. As though the writers were finally comfortable with an established set of characters and felt like they were able to experiment more with the different aspects of their personalities. A lot of the humour is dark and satirical which isn't unusual in modern day actions and superhero films. It appeals to the target market the most. Dark humour has always been a speciality of characters played by Samuel L Jackson and Fury is no exception. After doing a bit of research, Jackson signed a nine film contract so hopefully this wont be the end of seeing Fury on screen!

But now. For the most important OMG moment of the film. BUCKY'S BACK - kind of. The mysterious Winter Soldier is unmasked at the end of a lengthy fight sequence with Captain America. And it's Bucky. Sebastian Stan is back starring as Steve Rogers bestie but this time he's moody, forgetful and quite the dark soul. With a mechanical arm replacing the limb he lost in his accident in the 40s, Bucky is clearly unstable and working for the bad guys. But when Rogers tentatively calls for his friend after he's unmasked, Bucky is Bucky no more. He has no memory of Bucky but as the film continues, small bits and pieces slowly come back to him. Now, I knew Bucky would be back because of the trailers for Civil War but I did not suspect that he was the assassin. I had assumed his return would be solely contained within the new film. But, this way the character has an opportunity for further development and a steadier introduction back into the franchise. 

Having viewed both The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier now, I feel adequately prepared for my viewing of Civil War on Friday. From what the trailers have shown, this new film will be another Avengers fest and will include a further look at Bucky and his friendship with Rogers. I've deliberately avoided spoilers too, so I can be as surprised with any twists and turns as I was about Bucky being the Winter Soldier! 

Sisters

The female comedy dream team is back! Poehler and Fey star in Sisters. A film based on two, you guessed it, sisters as they make the most of their childhood home before their parents sell it. The film opened the same weekend as Star Wars and, obviously didn't match the success of Disney's latest venture into space but, earned a cool $105 million. The film was met by mixed reviews from both critics and general audiences, bringing into question whether or not the chemistry the actresses share is enough to make a good film. I'm actually surprised that Tina and Amy decided to make another film with the two of them as the leads considering how awful their last film, Baby Mama, was. I was massively underwhelmed by Baby Mama and had come to terms with the two appearing together as minor characters or on SNL in the future. But, like I said, they are back and giving it another go!

Before I delve into my analysis of the film's story and my opinion on that, let's discuss one of the benefits of a film like this. When popular comedians/actresses unite for their own film there are bound to be some hilarious and surprising casting decisions. Maya Rudolph joins the cast as a childhood enemy, James Brolin plays the sisters father and in a very surprising decision the film also features John Cena (cue horns). I also always enjoy Brian d'Arcy James in pretty much every role he's ever played so it was nice seeing a glimpse of him. Dianne Wiest plays the girls mother and does so with grace. I find Wiest fits perfectly into maternal roles and I've always enjoyed watching her performances. The casting for any film like this has the scope to be a little more playful. What really comes across in this film is the chemistry amongst the cast. Good on screen chemistry can make up for a multitude of mistakes but the story has to carry itself a little too otherwise the whole film falls flat.

We quickly learn that Fey's character, Kate Ellis, is a bit of a mess. Unable to hold down a job, unable to respond like an adult to unwanted news and unable to Mother her child properly. Poehler plays, Maura Ellis, a nurse who seemingly has her shit together and is the polar opposite of her sibling. This seems to be in reverse compared to their previous film in which Poehler was the mess and Fey was the put together one. Once Kate realises her parents are selling the house - by seeing the not so subtle 'sale' sign in the front yard, her plans of moving to Orlando with her daughter, Hayley, in the hopes of a fresh start are ruined. And surprisingly, Maura doesn't take the news well either having initially thought that the sale was just an idea her parents were considering. After reminiscing whilst reading their childhood diaries, the girls decide to throw a house party so that Maura can finally have 'her night' in the house and so that Kate can relive better days. From here, you can pretty much imagine how the rest of the film unfolds. 

Personally, I think this duo is better off hosting award shows and appearing on SNL. Although the movie was funny and much better than I had expected it to be. Had they skipped Baby Mama and dove straight into this film, I think I would have a lot more faith in the duo's ability to carry a film. There were little twists throughout that were not entirely predictable and the film had a good pace. In fact, although I didn't laugh out loud, the film is probably one of the funniest I have seen in the last five years. It was easy viewing and I don't regret the time I spend watching it. Films like this will never win any awards outside of the MTV network productions but every now and again, you have to embrace trends and embrace what is popular in film. And for the last few years the popular thing is party films. Whether you love them or hate them, they are here to stay.

Zootropolis

Zootropolis or Zootopia as it's known in the states, is Walt Disney Animation Studios newest venture. Premiering in the UK at GFF in February before a general release later in March, the film is already tipped to be as big as Frozen with the critical success of Inside Out. Currently the highest grossing film of 2016, Zootropolis has been praised by the critics and has been well received by the masses. Many audiences noted that the film's topical themes of prejudice and stereotypes are painfully relevant in today's society.

The film centres on a world where animals walk, talk and have jobs like humans. Judy Hopps, a rabbit police officer, is trying to make a name for herself outside of parking duties. With the help of Nick, a fox with a criminal past, Judy begins the search for Otterton. Twists and turns are abundant throughout and include unlikely friendships, a dirty judicial system and a mystical flower causing some unwanted side effects. From there the film is a hilarious, anthropomorphic crime tale which culminates in a happy ending true to Disney's tried and tested format.

The voice actors in Zootropolis were certainly some of the film's best features. Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, Octavia Spencer, Shakira and Kirsten Bell are some of the established names who have tackled a furry creature on behalf of Disney. Normally when a cast list is this well established, the film is trying to draw in as large an audience as possible using the celebrities as bait. However, now having seen the film, I believe the actors truly enjoyed the script and wanted to be a part of it.

The script was incredibly well written. Not only did the entire film have an underlying social commentary but it managed to have real moments of comedy genius. In particular, the scene in the DMV with Flash the Sloth had our entire audience in stitches. The film didn't follow typical the typical disney format and managed to maintain the strength and integrity of it's lead female character, Judy. Zootropolis had subplots throughout which made the film and the world in which it was set seem more realistic and well rounded instead of having everything revolving around the main characters for the full hour and a half.

Disney films whether they are animated or not, can often be predictable. With such an array of characters to play with and with a criminal scheme with twists and turns, Zootropolis was far from predictable. I don't think this film was as good or as thought provoking as Inside Out, however, the film has already outsold Deadpool and Batman VS Superman so there might still be time for Zootropolis to snowball into the phenomenon that Frozen has become.

Thelma & Louise

This year I'm working at Glasgow Film Festival. One of the perks that comes with this job is attending and covering special events and screenings. Old favourites screened in new venues with themed events and plenty of surprises. So far I've seen Con Air in a warehouse with the skeleton of a plane and laser quest free to explore next door. I've watched Aidan Moffat and Paul Fegan present Where You're Meant To Be in the Barrowlands followed by a special performance from Moffat and co. And tonight I'm in Glasgow's Grand Ole Opry enjoying Duke Loopin' and his lasso, some line dancing and a screening of Thelma & Louise. 

Directed by Ridley Scott and starring a young Brad Pitt, it's quite surprising that I hadn't yet seen the classic before tonight. I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan and didn't even realise this was one of his. It boasts a cast as strong as it's feminist values and is, on paper, the ideal girls night film. Covering issues such as rape, female empowerment (or lack there of) and female friendship - I thought this film would be harder to swallow. But Scott and, writer, Callie Khouri worked together to create a film that had me laughing throughout.

Thelma and Louise are two best friends who set out on a two day break from their boring lives and Thelma's controlling husband. Whilst stopped for a drink, Thelma is threatened and nearly forced into sex by a man she'd been talking to all night. Louise steps in to save her friend but as the man continues to taunt she shoots him in the chest. The two, suddenly fugitives, head to Mexico to escape the law and their past. Eventually cornered by police the two decide to 'keep going' and drive off the cliff into the Grand Canyon. Quotes that come from this movie have been said in front of me a million times so it's nice to finally recognise the source. I was also impressed by the sheer power of the characters. Even when all hope seems to be lost, Thelma and Louise stand tall together. In particular, I enjoyed the scene in which the two finally get revenge on the sexist and sleazy truck driver that they encounter through the entire film.

The venue and atmosphere was a huge influence on my experience. The audience, mostly of women, hooped and hollered at each appearance of Brad Pitt, every sassy line and every hilarious incident. The Grand Ole Opry was the perfect setting and size for an intimate and friendly screening. The room was lined wall to wall with laughs and smiles during the pre-film entertainment. Duke Loopin', who I gather is a whip and lasso expert, wowed the crowd with an array of tricks before the audience was invited up to do some line dancing. GFT and GFF pulled out all the stops and truly made the night special for fans of the film and for people like me who were viewing Thelma & Louise for the very first time.

Every now and again, if you're given the opportunity to do so, go and see a screening of a classic. The big screen and live audience atmosphere cannot be beat.

Bridge of Spies

Based on the 1960 U-2 incident during the cold war, Bridge of Spies is the story of James B. Donovan and his journey negotiating the release of Francis Gary Powers and Frederic Pryor from the Soviet Union after defending a KGB spy in his trial. He uses KGB Spy prisoner Rudolf Abel as a trade and as a source of bizarre friendship during the film. Written by the Coen brothers and Matt Charman and directed by Steven Spielberg, this film has the basic components for an Oscar winning film. Tom Hanks leads the relatively small core cast and isn't joined on screen by many other Hollywood a-listers. Although having said that, many smaller names such as Jesse Plemons were a welcome surprise to the films cast list even though his screen time was minimal.

The film's story, as I mentioned is based on true events, was gripping. The film flowed nicely from our introduction to Abel, to the court case, to Donovan's time in Germany. I felt the film was paced well and kept audience attention throughout. The setting for most of the film, Berlin, was a creative way of depicting additional international tensions alongside the main storyline revolving the US and the Soviet Union. One of the things that I found to be interesting was the way Abel was treated in the first third of the film. Although perceived to be the enemy, the way Spielberg focused on the nations opinion of Abel and Donovan as influenced by the media, is an insight into society today. We are so quick to judge when we're told the verdict by our 'trusted' media. For example, the drama surrounding the Making a Murderer series on Netflix. Many assume they know right from wrong, guilty from innocence because they've seen one, 10 part docu-series that has publicly acknowledged it's biased content. A nice touch was when the film circled back on itself. The final sequence mimics an earlier one where we first see the public opinion of Donovan and his work. But this time, he's given a polite smile of gratitude before gazing out the window to be reminded of his time in Germany.

Tom Hanks, whom I most recently saw in a Carly Rae Jepson music video, was great. I cannot fault his performance. He certainly stood strong and proud, as I suppose we would wish of any lawyer defending human rights. I think what struck me about his performance was that the role wasn't noteworthy. In fact, the story could be considered lack lustre too. Hanks brings attention to the film because of his existing reputation as an actor and performed well in a role that could have been overlooked had it been differently cast. I think as Hanks grows older, we will continue to see him tackle similar roles. Lawyers, fathers, officials of some capacity. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

I enjoyed this film and it's interpretation of the real events. Do I think it was Oscar nomination worthy? Perhaps not. The film was well constructed, acted and its themes were compelling. But what I felt the film lacked was punch. It didn't leave me speechless or, better yet, wanting to talk about it until my throat hurt. Having just seen the Revenant, this felt like it had a more subtle impact. Perhaps my opinion comes down to timing. Had I seen it before DiCaprio's film, I might have felt differently.