CinemaCocoa Reviews

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Does not work as a film, only as a hub of the MCU's narrative

[6/10 · 13 April 2017]

Captain America 3 is more like Avengers 2.5, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe becomes truly a running narrative because of it…

Steve Rogers, leading the Avengers, continues to cause chaos across the world in a noble cause to stop terrorism, but powers that be have had enough. Spearheaded by Tony Stark, a new initiative is set up to keep heroes in check so no more innocent lives are lost in the crossfire. But this causes further strife between the two men as Rogers tracks down his brainwashed friend Bucky Barnes, who is still being used as the assassin Winter Soldier by shadowy forces…

After Captain America: The Winter Soldier whipped up audiences and critics alike into a state of euphoria, Civil War has a lot to live up to. So is it surprising that the sequel falls a little short? Winter Soldier was a welcome change of pace and a change of tone, bringing the character into the modern world with a sense of urgency and political clout. Civil War by comparison is one part thriller and another part playset romp where all fifteen action figures are hurled about. When everything is said and done, and the dust settles, Civil War felt alarmingly vacuous.

We have seen Marvel heroes fighting each other before, we've seen it a lot. Ever since Thor's hammer struck Cap's shield in Avengers Assemble, the franchise has indulged in the clashing and harmony of super powers. Civil War isn't driven by a theme or even a tone, in fact the only theme is quite literally "heroes get to fight each other", and there's a certain vagueness around motivations and morals of characters. Did Stark really just hire a high school student to go to war?? Did Falcon really know how to find Scott Lang? Did Hawkeye just… come out of retirement? Why? Did Bucky really just fall back into the amnesia assassin story again?

But having a theme about fighting isn't always bad. Hell no! The airport fight that the trailer teases, is so much fun. It had me laughing aloud in giddy, childish enthusiasm. Here we have ten superheroes from across the last two phases of the MCU punching each others lights out, but the star of the scene is Marvel's own interpretation of Spider-man. When the fight starts with Spidey asking Stark: "So what do I do now Mr Stark?" you know things are going to get ridiculously fun. If it weren't for this particular battle, Civil War would have been a colossal downer both in tone and execution.

As great as Spider-man is in this fight, and as interesting as newcomer Black Panther is, both men feel shoehorned into the film. Peter Parker's introduction (as good as it is) virtually stalls the movie! It genuinely feels tacked on, perhaps due to Sony eventually giving up the rights to the character during Civil War's initial production phase, likely pushing Black Panther's screen time to accommodate the web slinger. The battle sequence that opens the film between Avengers and Crossbones (alias of a bit part player in Winter Soldier, who no one will remember, nor need to remember) has some of the worst shaky cam in recent memory. Not sure how critics are ignoring this. While a highway chase later on, which is a foot race, looks laughably fake.

Ultimately, if you are keeping up with the Marvel movie narrative you will take more from this movie. Personally, I am putting my foot down to say that this continuous narrative device is getting tiresome. Civil War does not work as a singular film, it works as a hub connecting multiple movies from the past as well as numerous future projects together, but that isn't what I am looking for in a film.

It is a fun movie (the dialogue is just as snappy as always) and it proves that the Russo Brothers can direct something as massive as the upcoming Marvel's Infinity War two parter with confidence. But it didn't feel like there was enough at stake, especially when everything is said and done; the ending felt really anticlimactic. It is a poor follow on from the concise Winter Soldier, but is perhaps the best Avengers film since 2012's Assemble.

Doctor Strange (2016)

It's fun and entertainment is only skin deep.

[5/10 · 13 April 2017]

One wonders why Marvel, of all franchises, is in a rush?

Super surgeon Doctor Stephen Strange has his towering ego dashed to the ground when he is in a terrible car accident that ruins both of his hands. Seeking any medical aid to restore his fame and fortune, Strange is directed to the mystical Ancient One, and from there his life is never the same again.

Oh Marvel… You really have audiences around your little finger now, don't you? You can make anything and people will come in droves. I am starting to wonder if the Marvel bubble won't so much burst as it will shrivel up in a slow, sad demise, if this latest installment is anything to go by.

I had very high hopes for Doctor Strange. Marvel movies are starting to get formulaic, it is possibly the most famous criticism now, and what could be more of a gear change and shake up than removing all the techno-babble, shrinking suits and super serums and have magic instead. Mystical, spiritual energies, other dimensions; a melting pot of possibilities and quite likely the glue to a much bigger Cinematic Universe that can finally leap from our own world. With a strong actor playing a character who is the antithesis of all those things, how can it go wrong?

They found a way.

Director Scott Derrickson is more synonymous with horror films: The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Sinister and Deliver Us from Evil making for three of the five films he has directed. The film starting off with a near-silent scene in a mystical library, only to have a man beheaded by our film's stock villain Kaecilius (who is sure to join the ranks of forgotten Marvel villains) you might think that this is going to be a Marvel film with a different tone. Progress further still and we have some surprisingly drawn out and sober hospital surgery scenes, the first act climaxing with the doctor's accident.

But then things take a turn for the Thor: Dark World. While Benedict Cumberbatch fits the role, as do the other actors (including Tilda Swinton, her character's Celtic origins literally explained in the script) the script is wooden and utterly forgettable. So much exposition and meaningless explanations was quite possibly the worst angle to approach this new dimension of the MCU. Even the humour seems forced at times.

Surely the action is good? Sometimes. Remember the fight scenes in Batman Begins? The ones that are all elbows and mid-sections, without giving the audience a clue to what is happening? Yeah. Imagine that, only with energy weapons that dazzle lights everywhere. And the action is taking place on a Transformer. A Transformer the size of Manhattan.

Don't get me wrong, the kaleidoscopic warping effects that dazzled in the trailer is great. For the first ten minutes. Inception pulled off rotating corridors and endless stairwells in two ways that Doctor Strange does not: by conserving the 'wow' moments, not splurging them all over the place constantly, and by using practical effects. Am I just getting old, or are people blind to shoddy CGI now? Both this and Civil War have had glaring problems with CGI. What takes me out of an experience? A bendy Benedict Computerbatch bouncing around harmlessly in rotating corridors and over floating platforms that do not exist.

I felt really put out by Doctor Strange. Marvel's track record for "origin stories" is really high, but this feels more like the wayward and overconfident sequel. Elements are good, Cumberbatch is good; the first act is solid setup and gives old Sherlock a lot to work with. The costumes and set designs are decent. I can see these elements being used better in future Marvel films. The final reality-bending trick was cool too, despite being desensitized to it all by that point, and the gratefully small amount of tethering to the MCU was welcome too. Some nice little nods (like seeing the Avenger tower in the city skyline) that make it feel connected without needless cameos.

But the pacing is a frightful mess. I didn't feel like the characters went through sensible transitions of development; the plot just took leaps when it needed to and the characters just accept things when they need to.

It's fun and entertainment is only skin deep, and the future quality of Marvel Studios productions can be called into question.

Trainspotting (1996)

One of the most influential films for the British film industry.

[9/10 · 13 April 2017]

One of the most influential films in recent memory for the British film industry, skyrocketing the careers of Ewan McGregor and Danny Boyle.

Set in contemporary 1996 Scotland, Trainspotting follows a small group of youths trapped in the grip of heroin abuse. One of them, Mark Renton, looks to better himself but finds the task monumentally difficult, not only because of the addiction but also because of the losers he decided to call friends.

Trainspotting made colossal waves in the mid-1990s. Director Danny Boyle (now famous for Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours) would become a household name in the United Kingdom as one of the great contemporary British directors with this stylish, low-budget black comedy based off of Irvine Welsh's novel of the same name. Watching it now, over twenty years later, not only do I feel old but Trainspotting is a time capsule; a resoundingly 90s movie! This is mostly due to Danny Boyle's music choices, which would become a trademark of his movies (with exceptions like sci-fi flick Sunshine) and here is a tremendous example of his skill at picking and choosing his soundtrack. Perhaps the other nostalgic element, and most famous, is Ewan McGregor's voice-over "Chose Life"; single- handedly challenging society while also making great observational comedy. Of course, Trainspotting is also a deeply uncomfortable experience. Much of its fame is controversy; the shiny, bright and well off society of 1990s Britain being shown with drug-addled youths, lost generations and death. All from the perspective of these unhinged people "living life", a cold contradiction that they and those around them suffer yet they seem casually unfazed by it all. Jovial even! Indeed, the film goes to some dark places, and all within the first half! Within twenty minutes we have Ewan McGregor on a drug-fueled diarrhea trip, impossibly climbing into a toilet head first to reclaim lost suppositories. What!?!

It feels at times like a British answer to Quentin Tarantino. Irvine Welsh's writing coming through the screenplay with wit and banter, at times long ranting monologues (one of my favourites coming from Renton while in the middle of a Scottish moor) the film is as quotable and memorable as it is brutal and nihilistic. Then there is Robert Carlyle as Begbie, the only one who isn't a drug addict and he is more terrifying than any of them!

Trainspotting is a hard film to like, but an easy film to respect. An absolute must for anyone studying film (its screenplay was nominated for an Academy Award) and film history; it inspired many budding British filmmakers. Personally I can see the demented love, fun and confidence that the cast and crew poured into the film, and while I cannot relate at all, its rebellious and almost perceptive nature makes it rewarding regardless of the dark pit that it resides.

T2 Trainspotting (2017)

Lacking a voice of its own, T2 is a nostalgic love letter only

[6/10 · 13 April 2017]

More of a nostalgic love letter to an industry shaking movie of the 90s than anything powerful in its own right.

Mark Renton, clean of drugs for twenty years, returns to Scotland in a bid to reconnect with his old friends and unsurprisingly finds them all as awkward and deprived as they had always been.

While Irvine Welsh's book Trainspotting had sequels (no, I've not read any of them) it comes as something of a surprise that a sequel to 1996's ground-breaking British adaptation would arrive now. Certainly, it is one thing one cannot shake when watching Danny Boyle and the returning cast's new endeavour; is it all too late? The bid to recapture lightning in a bottle is something Hollywood at large is desperate for these days: Star Wars, Jurassic Park, the wayward Ghostbusters and Terminator franchises, all determined to relive the creative spontaneity of the late eighties and nineties. One would have thought Boyle and co. having created such a controversial movie back then wouldn't succumb to the same ethos. Sadly, at its worst, the perplexingly titled "T2 – Trainspotting" (can I please just call it Trainspotting 2?) is nothing more than a wandering, convenient, self-indulgent nostalgia trip, containing little to nothing of the tone or theme the original relished so darkly within. The realisation of this occurs when Renton (Ewan McGregor) just starts on a revised monologue on "Chose Life", completely left-field, unprovoked, middle of the film, not internalised and including an explanation on why he did the monologue in the first film. No! No, you are ruining the magic! The overall story doesn't feel as tight as before. It wanders and characters commit to things, do things and say things that should surely have consequences (and certainly would have in the original's intense realism) but apparently coast through it all without concern.

With a soundtrack not living up to the original's (or even Boyle's own reputation) you are probably thinking: "Wow, Cinema Cocoa did not like this movie!" right about now. It is more a disappointment. I would have liked more on these characters and their struggles with modern life; to see a perspective of Scotland and Britain in the new millennium. I think I counted one or two fractions of scenes that addressed this, but in no way was it a overarching theme. It is still a well made movie. Totally reliant on working knowledge of the original film, regardless of its flashbacks to old footage, but the actors are having a blast here. Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller probably steal the show, while Ewen Bremner is also having the time of his life as Spud. In fact… the only one who seems to be coasting a little is McGregor, but playing the literal straight man isn't the most exciting material. In fact perhaps the most grounded and compelling moments come from Bremner and Carlyle unexpectedly! It did get a lot of laughs and does have some memorable moments scattered throughout (especially a scene involving the year 1690, that's all I will say!)

But… one cannot shake the notion that in twenty years time, Trainspotting 2 will not be considered a milestone in cinema history, certainly not for British film history. Compared to its predecessor, this film plays it remarkably safe! Whether this is due to desensitisation or not it is hard to tell, but it feels like all of 1996's controversy has been sucked out, changing what was once a drug-fueled riot into an nostalgia-powered, almost morose, revenge movie.

Big fans of Trainspotting will appreciate seeing these characters return and the memories it lavishly and deliberately pulls up, but if you have no knowledge of the history then you will probably find it a funny film but little more. Personally, I wanted it to be more impactful; I wanted it to be socially challenging and gut-wrenching like the original, as much as I enjoyed seeing the energy these actors still have!

Jason Bourne (I) (2016)

The super spy Bourne has never looked so amateurish.

[5/10 · 13 April 2017]

The perplexingly titled Jason Bourne arrives nine years after the last entry of the series, and honestly, doesn't deliver anything new.

When Nicki, an ex-Treadstone operative, uncovers new secrets about the closed operation and the existence of a new one, she calls on Jason Bourne to look into it. The super agent has all but vanished into obscurity, but Nicki has him at a disadvantage… the secrets pertain to Jason's father's involvement in Treadstone.

I am a huge fan of the original Bourne trilogy (2002 – 2007) and I consider it one of the most well defined and consistently excellent trilogies ever made. So when The Bourne Legacy was made and turned out to be a cash-grab by Universal Studios, I had reservations about a return for director Paul Greengrass and actor Matt Damon this year…

But I had hoped my intuition was wrong.

This film has a fair bit going for it too. Tommy Lee Jones (another favourite of mine) joins the cast, as well as rising starlet Alicia Vikander and familiar French face Vincent Cassel. Yet one quickly realises while watching, this film has very little fresh about it. It feels like Bourne has less at stake here than in the previous films, and even the CIA's interest in him seems less convincing than before. Bourne's past, before training at Treadstone, is a legitimate question; even Ultimatum didn't cover the why behind Bourne's initiation, it only answered the main overbearing questions: what and how and even who. But even the why isn't explained in any great detail here, the film feels compressed and muddled, almost refusing to focus on Bourne's new question and preferring to follow a young tech mogul revealing a new app that the CIA want to use to monitor the public. I honestly don't know; there are two stories at play and neither gel together. One is Tommy Lee Jones' Director of the CIA and his attempts at corrupting this new app into a tool for use of spying on the nation, the other is Bourne looking for answers about his father and the history of Treadstone.

It all feels tangled when the two meet.

Personally, the one thing Jason Bourne lacks is an especially skilled Jason Bourne. Supremacy and especially Ultimatum championed Bourne's increasing skillset and understanding to thwart capture. Here… it is a steady action movie / revenge plot. Vincent Cassel's hit-man wants revenge on Bourne, but that story gets lost in the screenplay squeeze.

It is sad to say, but nothing stood out for me. There was no definitive moment of "wow", like Bourne's skills of espionage, or a colossal chase. There are two, but they just don't feel particularly original. I can safely say that the consistency with the trilogy exists otherwise; it is Paul Greengrass doing his thing, John Powell was still involved with the score. So it isn't a terrible film; it does entertain for two hours!

In light of being a fourth part from an excellent, well rounded trilogy, this entry simply wasn't unique enough to stand with the others. It ultimately feels unnecessary. Not quite the cash-grab Legacy was, but certainly lacking.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

Went in with cynicism, came away unsurprised

[5/10 · 13 April 2017]

So The Hunger Games follows the lead of Harry Potter and – its own spiritual nemesis – Twilght, and splits its final chapter in half. The result… is not surprising.

After the events of the trilogy's second act, Catching Fire, Katniss wakes up surrounded by new allies with dubious motives. She desperately wants to rescue Peeta, who has been taken by the tyrannical Capitol, but her allies want her to become a symbol of strength and hope for the downtrodden Districts.

Compared to the first two films, this one feels like the most grim, realistic interpretation of the themes involved. Mockingjay Part 1 is a bleak, visually monotone and narratively reserved; there are lots and lots of visuals depicting death and destruction, we see heroine Katniss standing in a field of burnt bodies and skulls, we have executions and brainwashing to drill into our heads that The Capitol are vicious. Wow. I never would have thought I would say that, the incompetent villains are actually evil here, we actually get a real sense of uncompromising tyranny that could rule over millions of lives. The threat is finally real, and there's a sense that Katniss really must choose, that her fate is now entwined with the fate of all the Districts.

But this whole cutting the chapter in half nonsense continues to not work. My prevailing memory of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 are those of stale, dull, elongated moments (mostly camping in the forest), and Mockingjay Part 1 is no different. Scenes are stretched, padded and unnecessarily quiet and dull. When watched in a vacuum this only makes the persistent thought of "this isn't going to conclude" all the more apparent. Most of the film is about Katniss trying to get over tension and shock to become the poster girl for a rebellion. There little to no combat or action, because this is only the first and partly second act of a complete film.

I boycotted this film's release on principle: the first two films had uneventful segments, and if they boost that uneventfulness into one entire movie, I will be both bored and unsatisfied. While the film didn't quite bore me as much as I thought it might, it was as unsatisfying as I expected.

Perhaps the best part of this film is the twisted dynamic between Katniss and Peeta. While it does not have the same power as Catching Fire's celebrity gossip themes, it is this film's greatest asset. Although I do have a soft spot for stories that literally corrupt heroes.

The Capitol finally have fangs, and the film benefits tremendously from the late Philip Seymour Hoffman and newcomer Juiliane Moore, Jennfier Lawrence too maintains her multi-layered Katniss very well and there's a good sense of continuity with Catching Fire. But I refuse, I refuse to believe this is better as two parts. A screenwriter worth his or her salt could compress this into a single film, perhaps the longest film in the series but at least that's not the ridiculous cash grab that is two incomplete films.

Each Lord of the Rings book was a single film!

I went into Mockingjay Part 1 with cynicism, and unfortunately it didn't change my overall opinion enough. Sure, I fully admit I am too old for this series (if I were thirteen I'd be all over it, and completely smitten by Ms Lawrence) and if I were a fan I'd be chewing my own arm off to see the conclusion. But in terms of singular films, which this must be rated as, it is nothing spectacular.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Fixes a lot of faults, but still lacking in proper bite.

[6/10 · 13 April 2017]

This sequel makes up for a lot of its predecessor's glaring faults, yet somehow continues to paint its theme in the same unbelievable and contrived fashion. Having survived the Hunger Games, a gladiatorial arena fashioned by a tyrannical society called The Capitol, heroes Katniss and Peeta must deal with their limelight fame from those they despise, and the relationship they pretended to have to escape death. The Capitol's president however doesn't approve how every survivor can give the repressed people hope, and creates a new Hunger Games where only seasoned survivors compete to the death.

I didn't like 2012's Hunger Games. I went into this sequel with trepidation, but I have to admit the first hour or so got me very interested! We have the Capitol actually flexing its muscles and giving our heroes and lower classes a hard time, they are actually competent villains for once. There are real consequences to the aftermath of the first Games, troopers raid towns, people are executed, even our heroine is shaken and brittle from the experience! The idea of Katniss and Peeta being thrown into a last- man-standing death match (for real this time) with seasoned veterans who hate them, all commanded by newcomer (and slimier than ever) Phillip Seymour Hoffman. I was pretty excited!

But then the Hunger Games event began… and everything fell apart. Our combatants are unique, but about two thirds of them die off screen, and the real problem of fighting to the last man is dropped immediately. The Capitol again have no teeth, no guts and their Hunger Games as a concept continues to be completely redundant. I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. The Capitol are still incompetent villains at the end of the day, and it infuriates me! I like the idea that they are weak due to their overconfidence and complacency, but it has never been shown that the Hunger Games even works as a deterrent, it only seems to be a massive invitation for uprising and war. It makes no sense!

There's also a twist at the end, I cannot say what it is, but it only compounds this complete inability by The Capitol, and actually undermines most of the threat that you initially felt earlier. I cannot comprehend watching this again… it would be even less convincing.

(it also still irritates me that most of the actual killing in the Hunger Games happens off screen, although it is true this film has a little more brutality)

This film does have a very good beginning, I like The Capitol's citizens, I like the heavy subtext of television control and celebrity worship that dominates the first hour. Jennifer Lawrence is still great as Katniss, the action is actually directed better here (less shaky- cam and rapid cuts) and for two hours and thirty, it didn't feel long. But god does it still wound me with its lackluster execution and its unbelievably not-threatening tyrants, and it all fell apart at the end.

The Hunger Games (2012)

The Hunger Games left me starved of intrigue and commitment

[4/10 · 13 April 2017]

I'm afraid to say it, but The Hunger Games left me starved of intrigue and commitment. Jumping on the Lord of the Rings > Harry Potter > Twilight bandwagon, the film is based off a series of popular books (that I hadn't heard of until the film arrived) and follows a young girl sent into an arena of death against other children for the entertainment of a tyrannical, self-obsessed higher society.

Sounds pretty grim right? Unfortunately The Hunger Games feels terribly insecure, lacking self confidence in what it can and cannot show to a 12A / PG-13 audience, and decides to meander around and waste excessive amounts of time. This is not the worst crime however, since it was expected, the worst flaw with the film is its lack of confidence in explaining itself. The plot literally makes stuff up continuously, like a child improvising a story: "Oh, oh, now we have fireballs that appear out of nowhere! Now they make these huge monsters appear with magic! Now they get help from the outside cos they're the main characters!" What the heck is any of this?? I didn't understand how it was happening as none of it was explained, great plot-holes loomed constantly, and with a run time of two hours and twenty, you'd think they would get around to some exposition!

The film also has some of the stupidest villains I've seen in a long time. We are talking 1980s cartoon villains. Not so much how they look, I dug that (even though The Fifth Element's designs by Jean-Paul Gaultier did it so much better) but how their entire society was hinged on a massive flaw i.e. The Hunger Games. Gladiatorial combat is no new concept, but it is particularly stupid when the dominant masters train up the helpless, angry majority. A majority prone to riots. Not just that, but thinking giving these poor people "hope" is a good idea? Hm, let's see: hope + training + wilderness survival (thanks to being shunned and native to the wilderness) + hero worship via Hunger Games = bad, stupid, retarded idea. Not to mention our heroes in this story trump them at their own game in such a ridiculously easy fashion, means they are completely useless as antagonists!

Anyway, I've gone on about the flaws… since there are a lot… The pros, well, I do like the concept (despite it being terribly implemented here) and the "Capitol" high society characters had some funny lines from time to time, and leading star Jennifer Lawrence was convincing as a young but strong female role model.

I'm sorry, but The Hunger Games strikes me as a "for the fans" production, I was disorientated by the insane camera work in the fight scenes (it made Transformers and Batman Begins feel like cruise holidays) and disconnected by the shallow explanations.

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Even after two decades, this classic remains strong!

[10/10 · 13 April 2017]

What a gorgeous and unique Disney movie this is.

When an inventor is imprisoned within a cursed castle, his daughter Belle goes to rescue him. But upon doing so she is trapped herself, and slowly learns of the castle's mysteries and its prince; a man under a monstrous spell.

1991's Beauty and the Beast walked away with two Academy Awards (for Original Score and Best Original Song) as well as the Golden Globes for the same awards but also for Best Picture (Musical or Comedy) and for me, as much as I love 1992's Aladdin, I would say Beauty and the Beast marks the end of the classic Disney era. What do I mean by that? Everything afterwards had a distinctly angular animation style, as well as an assortment of pop culture references or contemporary humour. This film however is heavily entrenched in the fairy tale, storybook formula that Disney-of-old relished in.

The film's greatest ingredients have got to be its three primary characters: the Beast, Belle and Gaston. They have such great layering and complexity for Disney characters. Belle may be "the girl wanting more from life" but we learn early on in the film that she is no fool; she sees straight through the narcissistic showboating Gaston instantly. She even bravely rescues her father from a monster, opposes Gaston at every turn and defends those she cares about from adversity. The Beast is a fantastic mix of incredible rage, sadness and childish stubbornness and reluctance. He is a great comedic foil with his assortment of servants-turned-household objects, a scary monster with a lovable buffoon inside. While Gaston… he has comedic yet surprisingly human motivations for his actions; he isn't powered by magic or gadgets, he's just a thick-skulled jock. The perfect villain for such an intelligent girl and her sensitive love interest.

The film is lovingly animated. The castle is both grand and full of foreboding, the servants are lively and charmingly designed. Who doesn't love Lumiere? In fact there's a lot of evidence of inspiration from Disney's third cinematic event in 1940, Fantasia. What with the living mops cleaning the castle to the fantastical dining song with Lumiere where plates and dinnerware fly around creating patterns and abstract motions. The film even includes one of Disney's first CGI interventions (technically The Great Mouse Detective's clock sequence was first) the ambitiously grand ballroom scene. It is all very colourful and exciting.

The songs, even for me and my lack of enthusiasm for musicals, are all enjoyable and very memorable! Even the villain's song, which often in Disney is a point of contention, is very entertaining. I can absolutely see why the Academy and others awarded the film so highly. Belle and The Beast's relationship is great too. With Belle's incarceration answering the question as to "why she doesn't run away", the two are forced to mingle and interact, making for great comedic and dramatic chemistry as the story continues.

There is one point that sticks out amongst this chemistry and excitable pacing, upon the beginning of the final act, the tone radically shifts as the plot is forced to escalate suddenly. It isn't bad, and it gives us a great climax, but it is a tremendous gearshift in pacing for a film that's only eighty- four minutes long.

Beauty and the Beast is a gorgeous film and I hate myself a little for abandoning it for over two decades. But it remains true to itself, in that I had fond memories for all those years and it has withstood the test of time.

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

Intended spin-off is more of a cash-grab.

[5/10 · 13 April 2017]

An almighty cash-in, or for once a clever spin-off from the Bourne trilogy? I'm afraid mostly the former. Now I was suckered into the trailer for Legacy, and even the tagline: "There was never just one" I couldn't argue against, after all, Matt Damon's Jason Bourne was part of a super soldier program. Plus this film takes place during the events of The Bourne Ultimatum, the third (and most exciting) in the trilogy. But unfortunately what we get is a pretty big case of "missed opportunity".

Aaron Cross is another man with no past, but unlike Jason he was not part of the Treadstone program but a sister program were participants are trained and enhanced with pills. When Jason Bourne's actions trigger the Treadstone program's assets and agents to be erased, the same must be done for the other programs and Aaron finds himself hunted down. His only ally is a scientist, Rachel Weisz, who is also marked.

The film takes an age to get started. We are subjected to an onslaught of crazy editing and ambiguous character development as the film tries to establish Ultimatum's storyline, Aaron's storyline, the multiple programs, and how these relate at all. When things go wrong, the film has the unsettling sense that something more interesting is happening elsewhere (read: Ultimatum). Most of the dialogue dissolves into "What's going on??" "I don't know anything!" for nearly half the film, poor Edward Norton is given little to do except tell brainless executives over-and-over what's happening.

The action is crammed into the last thirty minutes (yes, I checked the time…) and it is greatly underwhelming. In fact, the whole film is underwhelming. It is terrible because Jeremy Renner plays an interesting variation on the Bourne character and there is potential in some scenes, but the story around him is such a rehash that I couldn't find myself caring.

Not enough synchronicity with the previous films, if establish characters had been used more I may have accepted Legacy as more than just an unnecessary addition. I love the Bourne trilogy, and perhaps Legacy would benefit as part of a film marathon… but I somehow doubt it.

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

A tremendous movie. The best of Bourne.

[10/10 · 13 April 2017]

The super spy is Bourne.

With nothing else to live for, Jason Bourne seeks the final answers to the fractured memories and ghost recollections about what was done to him.

The Bourne Ultimatum is a rare third act for a film series; it isn't overblown, it doesn't contrive or skew to "enhance" the story outside of its themes for a bigger showdown. This is an effective conclusion that not only ties up the loose ends that our hero has been suffering, but also maintains a fantastic consistency with its previous films.

Something very few third parts ever manage.

Bourne Supremacy director Paul Greengrass returns to direct Matt Damon, and by 2007 the two men are well versed in what works and what doesn't. Especially for the Bourne films, and they deliver a roller-coaster urban thrill ride of action. Bouncing off the foundations of Bourne Supremacy, Ultimatum strikes it rich with its two leading ladies Julia Stiles and Joan Allen. Allen playing Pamela Landy, the only surviving official who has first hand knowledge of Bourne's skills and the only one prepared to help the situation, does an excellent job filling the sympathetic gap left by Brian Cox and making a layered character who answers much of the franchise's questions. In the antagonist role, asides from the half-dozen different super agents sent after Bourne, is David Strathairn, who doesn't rise too much farther than Chris Cooper did in Identity, but is a good fit in the role as a merciless official hunting down Bourne.

The role of a total schmuck who Bourne continuously runs rings around with spectacular fashion and incredible ease, more like. The film is as enjoyable and rewarding as it is thrilling and suspenseful!

We see Bourne in full super spy mode in this film, he is in control and cold as ice. There are pivotal scenes that show how Bourne has tried reconciliation, he's tried to let go of what he's done in the past but he cannot shake the memories that are resurfacing. What we get is a conclusion with Bourne on the warpath. An action movie through-and-through. The film opens with a fantastic scenario in London; where Bourne via phone is navigating someone else through a crowd to not be seen by officials. That should be really hard to film, but Greengrass nails it; you know exactly what's happening, the spaces involved and line of sight. It is followed by the chase in Morocco, a chase and fight sequence that was so incredible that it influenced the Bond franchise for a decade at least, as well as other movies in the genre. Granted there's more shaky-cam in the fight sequence again, but the steadier cinematography for the initial rooftop chase and incredible tension before that makes me go easier on it.

It is a tremendous movie and ties both the moodier Identity and the white-knuckled Supremacy together and actually builds on and improves them, delivering a hugely satisfying conclusion for Bourne in the process.

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

The glue of the trilogy, but it is a shaky-cam mess

[6/10 · 13 April 2017]

Paul Greengrass takes over the series as director, and very much feels like he cut his teeth with this one.

Despite being freely off the grid and with the head of the insidious Treadstone project killed, Bourne believes the worst is over. But when a Russian assassin takes away the only thing left in Bourne's life, he thinks Treadstone is after him once again. But the plot is even thicker than he can know…

Even perhaps a decade later, my opinion of The Bourne Supremacy has not changed in the slightest. I love this trilogy, I even have the steelbook edition, but Supremacy really doesn't sit well with me and not just by comparison of its far superior (no pun intended) siblings.

I love me some consistency, and the trilogy delivers that in spades. John Powell returns with an electrifying twist on his original score for Bourne Identity, and even Moby's Extreme Ways returns for the end credits, Matt Damon and Brian Cox reprise their roles very well. In fact I would say the latter steals the show, delivering a frail, cowardly yet sadly sympathetic antagonist, and his scenes with newcomer Joan Allen are probably the most effective for me. The film still has that edgy atmosphere whenever Bourne is stalking around Europe, America and Russia in this globe-trotting sequel, the tension is still real.

Yet… the editing is atrocious!

I really mean it. 2004 must have been when shaky-cam became a thing because Supremacy's action sequences are really, really bad. Not even restricted to the action sequences, even regular tracking shots and panning shots are wobbling all over the place. I appreciate some of it, to invoke kinetic action and uncontrolled rage (representing Bourne's own survival instincts) but you have to dial it back. All I tend to take away from this film is 1. the film's main action set piece, a car chase around Moscow, is heavily shaky-cam, and 2. this is suffers from second installment syndrome.

To watch Supremacy alone is pointless. At one hour thirty-seven minutes it flies by, none of the returning characters are given time to re-establish themselves, new characters are barely touched on. Without the first film's great pacing and establishing and the third films incredible payoff, Supremacy is just… noise.

There are moments of cleverness that I enjoy; the chase Bourne makes from Police that involves running across two train tracks, off a bridge, onto a boat only to double-back back onto the bridge again from underneath? That was impressive. That and how Bourne takes control of the situation from underneath the organisation hunting him. It is a fantastic "you got owned" scene that does so much to empower our hero and validate every other characters' fear of him.

Of course, I said earlier I love this trilogy. Supremacy is redeemed by its successor, and Supremacy is the glue that the series relies upon, take it out and it falls apart. But as a singular experience I really don't think highly of it in cinematography terms.

The Bourne Identity (2002)

The Bourne Identity is a superb and solid action thriller that took everyone by surprise

[9/10 · 13 April 2017]

I imagine a lot of people forget the more humble, stealthy experience that is the beginning of the Bourne story.

When a man is found afloat in the ocean he finds he has no memory of who he is. When a shadowy covert operation begins to send assassins after him and watch his every move, terrible truths are revealed as he is on the run.

Having enjoyed films like The Fugitive, The Bourne Identity was a natural progression for me, it is probably a massively underrated film especially since its own series got so bombastic. Identity is such a moody, quiet and real experience. Damon plays a very subtle character in Jason Bourne; a man who has no identity to define himself with, but has hard truths to find answers for. The film is not exposition heavy, even when it frequently bounces from our hero to the men hunting him, it maintains a strong sense of tension and mystery without ruining it with blatancy or over explaining everything. Something action movies do far too often. Directed by Doug Liman (not Paul Greengrass, who would continue the series) and scored by John Powell, the film is drenched in a great atmosphere of tension and puzzle solving.

The characters too are compellingly human, everyone is performing extremely well here, Brian Cox, Chris Cooper and Franka Potente, Clive Owen is even briefly in this well cast film. No one feels out of place, unnecessary or poorly written.

The action sequences are great too. From what I remember of Greengrass' follow-up Supremacy there was a lot of shaky cam, and I was surprised at the lack of shaky cam in this movie. Sequences are very well shot, giving kinetic weight yet not loosing the audience in the process (and this was after Gladiator, when everyone wanted to do shaky-cam!) There's an awesome car chase too involving Bourne escaping in an old Mini Cooper, very memorable stuff.

All in all The Bourne Identity is a superb and solid action thriller that took everyone by surprise, propelling one of the biggest action/espionage franchises since Bond forward.

Beauty and the Beast (I) (2017)

People do take comfort in the familiar

[5/10 · 13 April 2017]

Maybe if this was released in 1991 it would have been a smash hit. Oh wait, it was.

A selfish prince is cursed into the form of a beast, and his castle's servants turned into animate objects, but when a girl enters the castle looking for her lost father, there is hope to lift the curse.

Disney's insistence to churn out these live-action remakes of their most popular animated features is proving extremely divisive, but they really do bring in the money.

People do take comfort in the familiar…

I feel bad for children who might experience this interpretation of the story first, and it gives evidence of exactly what's wrong with remaking things. Especially when the original is a priceless gem with little to no flaws. Disney, and director Bill Condon, clearly knew "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Indeed, Condon has literally remade Beauty and the Beast, only not as well. Congratulations? 2017's film benefits, like a leech, on the memories of the original movie. To like this movie is to reaffirm love for the original: Oh, this song! I love this song. I refuse to recognise they have replaced a talented Broadway singer for an auto-tuned Emma Watson. Oh, I love this opening song in the village. Oh, because it is shot-for-shot exactly the same as the original?

Sure, okay, die hard fans will lap this up. You can let it wash over you and make you all nostalgic for a faultless Academy Award winning Disney film that still exists. There are improvements. Such as Kevin Kline as Belle's father Maurice, Josh Gad (as a decidedly subtle homosexual LeFou, calm down people) and the introduction of the film are good choices. But these are only good because they buck the film's dogged insistence on following the original's personality exactly. The ending too is surprisingly darker (yet without changing anything). But for everything good, there's plenty wrong. Primarily is one new addition to the plot. The Enchantress that cursed the prince, asides from giving him the magic mirror to show him the outside world to torment him also gives him a magic book. A book that allows the one holding the book to teleport anywhere in the world. This becomes a expositionary device, which I was okay with. But later when Belle is forced to flee the castle to rescue her father (as the original plot demands) in such as hurry as to not change from her ballroom dress, she rides off on her horse. Desperate and maybe too late! … You have a book that can literally take you there instantaneously.

There are many other issues, but none as apparent and seemingly narrow-minded as that. It usually boils down to pacing and screenplay structure, which simply aren't as tight as the original, dragging scenes out with padding. A couple of extra songs that reek of "we haven't had a song in a while". Or surreal moments with Belle or Beast's internalisations about one another (in the original) now being sung aloud when in blatant earshot of each other? What?

No, the sets aren't bad and are lavishly detailed, the servants designs are intricate and creative, the idea that the castle is crumpling as the rose wilts is great. But everything feels so passionless and empty, following the stage directions of an existing classic to the letter. A film that takes a cherished and award worthy experience and thinks it can do better, without doing anything new with it and simply running with people's nostalgia.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

A one hundred and twenty minute adrenaline shot

[10/10 · 13 April 2017]

A one hundred and twenty minute adrenaline shot; absolute carnage in the desert and all shot with awesome grungy, violent and most importantly, physical, action.

Immortan Joe, a tyrant of a blasted and wasted desert after Earth suffers a nuclear apocalypse, controls all supply of water for his downtrodden citizens. He also holds sway over his Five Wives, imprisoned in his citadel. But when one of his subordinates attempts to rescue these women, he is led on a gasoline fueled chase across the open desert, while amongst all of this, a traumatised loner named Max gets pulled into the fray.

Back in 1983, Australian director George Miller redefined the action genre with his sequel "The Road Warrior" to the 1979 Mad Max, a film with so much vehicular chaos and destruction it was praised for its physical stunt work and world building. Now in 2015 we get Miller returning for a reboot/re-envisioning of the same story. But fear not, this is Miller's baby, and it is in good hands. Fury Road is exactly the film it should be. Like 2012's Dredd, it is a one trick pony but the ace up its sleeve is undeniably astounding. Capturing the pre-computer generated age of the 80s and 90s, the film is a visceral and eye-popping spectacle of carnage of the highest caliber, made even more so by the current over-saturation of action films.

Tom Hardy takes on the titular role as Max, a man haunted by the death of his family (shown exclusively through jarring, nightmarish flashbacks) beside him is Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa, the warrior woman with a bionic arm who defies a tyrant to free his slave wives. Immortan Joe is played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, who played the part of the villain Toecutter in Miller's 1979 Mad Max. All of the acting, asides perhaps the anger-fueled Immortan, is downplayed but not forgotten here. The film shows rather than tells with Hardy barely speaking at all outside of an opening narration, Theron's Furiosa very well steals the show as the character with the most to lose. A worthy note should be given to Nicolas Hoult (X-Men Days of Future Past) who disappears into the role of one of Immortan Joe's pasty pale War Boys. People argue that there's a lack of "characterisation" here, when in fact there is plenty to progress the story and make you understand their motives. What this film lacks is unnecessary quips, one-liners and exposition dumps, all which can bog a film down.

But the action takes centre stage here, and the budget delivered towards the vehicle, costume and character design and construction. Near everything is practical effects, you cannot watch it and not appreciate how everything looks, my eyes were on stalks just taking everything in.

I actually can't think of anything "wrong" with it. It is a grisly film, a visceral film with such an astounding visual style that has been long forgotten about.

There's a truck in this film covered in massive drums, amps, and on top a blindfolded dude suspended in bungee chords with a double- necked guitar that shoots flames! How… how can you NOT like that??

Spectre (I) (2015)

Lower your expectations and you will enjoy it for its action and its quick wit

[6/10 · 13 April 2017]

After the colossal success of Skyfall director Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig return to bring Bond's origin story to completion. It… is a bumpy ride.

Bond is on the ropes once again at the MI6, M has him grounded after he causes chaos in Mexico City while hunting down a man the previous M had secretly instructed him to find. This leads Bond down a path to further discover his past, and a conspiracy that links all his previous missions. Meanwhile, MI6 faces a merger with MI5 to become a new intelligence agency without need of double-oh agents…

If Skyfall was The Dark Knight, Spectre is The Dark Knight Rises. With its previous instalment being such a huge success as well as being incredibly unique in the now twenty-four entries of the franchise, Spectre is completely up against it. Unfortunately what appears to be a more traditional Bond film from the outset, is exactly that. Spectre (or correctly spelt: S.P.E.C.T.R.E) relies on a lot of mystery and a lot of setup in its task of tying up the underlying plot of the last three films. But avid fans have already called it out; much as with the "twist" of JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness, Spectre's title isn't the only problem undermining the film's attempts at mystique. It feels like an conspicuous attempt to remake the series.

The film is surprisingly slow and sporadically paced (a bit like Sam Smith's whining, warbling theme The Writing's on the Wall, which has not improved with time) especially for a Bond film. We leap from location to location at the drop of an editor's hat. Most of the story is expositional and setup for a payoff most people already know is coming. The dissolving of MI6 is positively dull, Ralph Fiennes as M working with an unimaginative script, a battle of wits with Andrew Scott (Moriarty from BBC's Sherlock… totally not playing a villain…) Action scenes are haphazard and quite baffling. Compared to Skyfall's train-top earthmover stunt, or the fight in Shanghai, Spectre has you more likely scratching your head asking Bond what exactly he hopes to achieve. A lot of stock is put into Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy) as Spectre's silent lead muscleman (who has apparently watched too much Game of Thrones) but apart from an excellent punch up in a train, his scenes feel more like the completion of a checklist than anything relevant.

It isn't all bad though. It earns respect for thematically tying the last decade worth of Bond films together, heck it even references the often reviled Quantum of Solace more than once! The film is in line with a more traditional Bond experience: a globe-trotting plot; a larger than life villain henchman who hounds Bond at every turn; a romantic train journey; isolated super villain hideouts; a comedic edge to proceedings. Indeed, if one thing saves the film it is actually the comedy. Bond and Q have a great chemistry still. Christoph Waltz as the villain of course is good, although he is playing the character he has always played. If Daniel Craig's Bond films are the first films you are watching, this works as a decent segway into more from the franchise, even if it is a clear sign that the future will be either more derivative or remakes.

It has none of its predecessor's smarts or uniqueness, and while it is perhaps the most fun of Daniel Craig's films it is laboriously slow at getting to the point. Skyfall was a peak that Bond perhaps will never attain again, and bringing back a reluctant director and lead actor to capture that lightning once again was likely a mistake. While the predecessor was a celebration, this is more of an homage.

Lower your expectations and you will enjoy it for its action and its quick wit, its more classic Bond call backs and Daniel Craig still delivers Bond's more severe personality well. But I found it a slog to get through, with too much setup for a reveal that was completely expected.

2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)

This is the cheesy, twisted wreckage of carbon fiber

[2/10 · 13 April 2017]

This is the cheesy, twisted wreckage of carbon fiber, bad acting, bikinis and awful acting that I imagine a lot of people think the first film is like.

Brian O'Conner, GAP store mannequin Paul Walker, is now a former cop on the verge of arrest, but to avoid consequences he teams up with an old college friend, Tyrese Gibson, to help the police stop a drug dealer. This… somehow involves car racing.

So, unlike the first film, the childishly named 2 Fast 2 Furious (whoever came up with that deserves a punch to the stomach) removes any sense of worth and just goes straight for the ham and cheese. Tyrese Gibson's "acting" is totally overboard, he has to be high on something during filming, he's acting like a human Jar Jar Binks. Next to him is Paul Walker, the least interesting element of the first film.

The plot is… I don't even know. It bounces around between police business to shoved in car chases. At least The Fast and the Furious had a sense of community; a family unit that has racing at its heart, here, we get Walker and Gibson strutting into parties going "Aw man, check this out, bro!" at all the cars/car parts/girls in bikinis. Several times, and virtually shot-by-shot repeats! Utterly vapid screenplay. Plus, the sets and interior design work are horrendous! I know its set in Miami, but most of it is so gaudy with bright colours I swear I'm looking at some VIP section of McDonalds.

But as we all know, surely the car action is the reason for being here? Well the film starts much like the first, only now we have the cardboard standee Walker pretending he's king of the hill, which is embarrassing. The girl drives the pink car, the boy drives the blue car, etc, making it feel like a game of Mario Kart (not to mention the CGI tinkered stunts). Later in the movie we have Tyrese doing his best to eat the scenery during car chases (and nobody here seems to realise that their racing opponents cannot hear their street trash talk during the race…) which definitely ruins any sense of excitement. The soundtrack is nowhere near as effective either.

My brain was turned off so completely that I lost interest in what was happening. There was a freaky moment where the villain puts a rat in a bucket on a fat guy's stomach and proceeds to blowtorch the bucket though, that got my attention. Yeah, that was a thing.

You want a good analogy of this film? This is the film equivalent of that moment when you are walking along the pavement, when suddenly a car flies past you and its driver shouts at you something like: "FFFWwweeeerhghgh Aggfhh!!" It is fast, you have no idea what possessed the person to do it, and it's instantly forgettable.

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)

No rats in buckets, no CGI, just an entertaining flick featuring excellent car racing

[8/10 · 13 April 2017]

Branching away from any original cast members of the first two films, thankfully, Tokyo Drift provides a refreshingly new look to the franchise.

Tokyo Drift is possibly my favourite of the series, or at least its up there with the first film; it only has a few problems that can be swept under the "It's Fast and the Furious, what do you expect" carpet. The story follows American "teenager" Sean Boswell (Lucas Black) whose reckless driving lands him prison time, but to avoid this he moves in with his father in Tokyo. He attempts to move on a dangerous rival's girl, and must become a competitor in the street racing's drifting scene.

I say "teenager" as that's what IMDb says, and he does go to school in the movie… but honestly, he's the oldest teen I've ever seen. Along with every other "teen" in this movie! While I talk negatives, the majority of the film is set in Tokyo yet 95% of the dialogue is English and Sean has a knack of meeting every foreigner in the city. I don't mind this so much, but I fully expect all of the Japanese characters to speak Japanese, especially when Sean isn't present!

But, unlike 2 Fast 2 Furious (choke) this film actually cares for its characters and their personalities (as Sean says early on: "It's not about the ride, it's about the rider") from Sean's fish-out-of- water acceptance, to his mentor Han's closet of skeletons. The villain isn't ridiculous either, his uncle is part of the Yakuza and he has a serious "king of a little hill" problem. Again unlike 2 Fast 2 Furious (gag) the cars have never looked better, sleek and refined and the drifting action is spectacular, especially when synchronized. Plus, no CGI, just skilled professional drivers, making the film worth seeing solely for the racing.

There's no stupid Tyrese Gibson mugging at the camera, no rats in buckets, no CGI, just an entertaining (albeit poorly localized) flick featuring excellent car racing and professional stunts.

Fast & Furious (2009)

It is back to the beginning, back to familiar faces and a surprisingly serious tone for the series.

[7/10 · 13 April 2017]

It is back to the beginning, back to familiar faces and a surprisingly serious tone for the series. But we still get a stupid naming committee. Yeah, Fast and Furious isn't at all confusing when looking back at the series, is it the first, second, third film? Who knows! What's wrong calling it The Fast and the Furious 4?

To make things more unnecessarily complicated, Fast and Furious is a prequel/sequel, taking place after the first film but before the third film (so it should technically be No.1.5) due to Sung Kang's character Han returning to the series. Whether it acknowledges the second film or not is ambiguous.

When running from the law begins to get to him, Dominic (Vin Diesel) is looking for revenge after a drug dealer kills his partner Letty. At the same time, the FBI is looking for the same man, spearheading the operation is a reinstated Brian O'Conner. Naturally, the way they must infiltrate this heroin ring is through the dealer's love for performance car racing. I'm happy to see the return of the moodier tone; this feels like a direct sequel to the first film rather than a spin-off or a parody. A lot of the film is set at night with deep shadows. They even made Paul Walker's Brian O'Conner bearable! His character is rejected from the others since the first film and he starts out as more of an anti-hero lawman. I was quite surprised at the apparent restraint at glorifying the cars themselves; the camera seems to linger less over them as the film ploughes through its exposition and story. Of course that could just be me desensitized to it … I have watched four of these films now! It still has the usual trappings, don't worry.

It is ultimately a solid story and a decent sequel to the first film, if you liked The Fast and the Furious you shouldn't have any problem with this. This does make the series more traditional (persistent narrative) which is a shame; the reason I enjoy Tokyo Drift so much was that it offered a new direction for the franchise, an anthology franchise about driving, following different characters each time. But that's not the way to make money, but as it stands, this is good too.

Fast Five (2011)

Fast Five, more like Ocean's Eleven?

[5/10 · 13 April 2017]

Fast Five, more like… Ocean's Eleven?

Well that was disappointing, and when a Fast and Furious film disappoints, that's pretty bad.

Brian O'Conner is on the side of the thieves now as the film picks up where the last left off with him, Mia and others rescuing Dominic from prison. Now they all have the law's worst, most ruthless officer hunting them down… The Rock, I mean… Dwayne Johnson… I mean the The Rock… never mind. To finally get away from the law and live free, the team must assemble all of their allies from previous films into a group to rob from the richest Brazilian drug cartel leader.

The potential for ridiculous amounts of car racing and chasing could never be higher; the franchise's deliberate step to make things before Tokyo Drift and having all noteworthy characters involved in a heist has to pay off. Well, that does mean we get Tyrese Gibson again…….. But on top of that, it really doesn't work.

The Fast and the Furious has now officially stepped over the line from being relatively easy going, entertaining racer films, to becoming a never-ending series of "serious business". The series has literally forgotten about the cars and instead feels we like the characters enough now to base the entire focus on them (to the point of having Brian and Mia about to have a child…)

That isn't an overstatement either, asides an opening act train heist, the film takes an hour, an hour, to get into what the series is good at. Street racing. But we don't even see the race, we just get a cheeky cut away since Brian and Dom are obviously going to win it. The assembled team spend most of their time sitting around chatting and being their individual selves from other films (Avengers Assemble, this ain't) and nothing gets done. Most of the film appears to gear towards the two big, burly bald men (Diesel and Johnson) fighting each other… which… I don't care for, where is the… y'know, car racing?

The finale is fun to watch as well as ridiculous, and the Ocean's Eleven reference earlier is not unfounded (seems like any film can get away with twists like that nowadays) but it takes so long to get there it doesn't feel particularly tense. This is the first film in the series to go over the two hour runtime, and it did not need it!

It isn't precisely a bad film, but it has lost its identity as a niche piece of entertainment and instead settles into generic action movie zone. Sad really, but when you try to stretch "street racing" into multiple films, it'll happen.

And no, it isn't as bad as the second one.

Furious 6 (2013)

We've fallen a long way from simply boosting cars

[5/10 · 13 April 2017]

CIA agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) returns and asks aid of Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew in taking down a ex-military mercenary who plans to steal a microchip capable of ruining an entire country.

Following on from the previous installment Fast Five, director Justin Lin hasn't let up his intention to give this series some sort of conviction. Most of the characters return (the film even begins with a montage of all the previous films) yet for all of its efforts to make a malleable universe, we are still dealing with the most uninteresting, good-looking people. For example, Tyrese Gibson just eats stuff and laughs, while my favourite character Han still just talks about "going to Tokyo", it is actually getting insulting now; these films only exist as prequels to the third film so they can include him yet his only characteristic is "I want to go to Tokyo".

Even Michelle Rodriguez returns (due to fan outcry) yet the writers couldn't think of any better excuse to bring her back than the tired "selective amnesia" fall back; she doesn't remember the love of her life, but she can still drive and tune a car. Don't even talk to me about the villain… I have no idea what his motivations really were, and he was never threatening when up against Diesel and Johnson…

The film does do some things right compared to the deplorable Fast Five. Some things. The chase sequences here are better, specifically the chase through London and a race between Dom and Letty. But for every good race there's a over-the-top, nonsensical scenario. The crew face off against a tank. Yes, a tank. Why? Because the villain needs the microchip that is (for no good reason) stored inside the tank, inside an armoured transport. Or the final encounter that involves a carrier plane… and the longest runway in the world!

The film isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't good either. I have no idea why it is praised as highly as it is, but it can only be for the action sequences, fight sequences alone, which are at times impressively far-fetched. The dialogue is terrible too; all of Dwayne Johnson's lines are metaphorical nonsense: "To catch a wolf, you need wolves. Let's go hunting!"

The series is a nonsense now.

Furious 7 (2015)

When did this series forget it is about cars?

[4/10 · 13 April 2017]

I want to make it clear, first and foremost, anyone dying is a tragic thing, Paul Walker was far too young and his career was only just beginning. I don't want my opinion of this film to be considered disrespectful.

Furious 7 is so, so far from what the franchise used to be that I found myself ceasing to care. When did this series forget it is about cars?

Set after the events of Fast and Furious 6, Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his friends, excuse me "family", become targets for Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) who is out for revenge after they killed his brother. Toretto's team is recruited by a shadowy covert operation to hunt Shaw down, but to do so they need a device called The God Eye, a computer hacking tool that can simultaneously access all of the cameras in the world.

This film has excessive action sequences, often running for twenty minutes or more at a time, explosions, attack helicopters, predator drones, hundreds of half naked women everywhere, flashy cars for no reason at all, bad jokes, product placement, over-long running time and most of all lazy writing. Sounds familiar right? Yet unlike many Michael Bay films this gets a free pass from critics?? This is appalling.

At first I had high hopes; the opening features Dom attempting to remind his Amnesia-saddled girlfriend Letty of her past by taking her to Race Wars (a key moment in the first film) as well as his visit to Tokyo and speaking to the forgotten lead actor Lucas Black from the third film Tokyo Drift. An early bout between Statham and Dwayne Johnson's returning Agent Hobbs was also excellent.

But it lost me after the sky-diving cars (yes, sky-diving cars, if you haven't seen the trailer) when our heroes, for the most redundant reason ever, must go to Abu Dhabi. After a manic mountainside battle they somehow go to Dubai in the flashiest super cars which even Toretto wouldn't drive. A Bugatti Veyron, seriously? Where did they get one of those? From the local Dubai Veyron rental service?? Going to Dubai is because a chip required for the God Eye device had been installed in a super car… literally no reason why. This makes the sixth movies' idea of putting a valuable microchip inside a tank inside an armoured motorcade seem believable!

But why all of this nonsense? Why do we need a God Eye device? Because Jason Statham's character is so skilled that he can virtually teleport around the world completely untraceable. Or as I like to call it: lazy writing.

The film is a constant, constant battlefield after the first twenty minutes. Not only do we have Statham appearing randomly throughout, but we also have Djimon Hounsou as a… a… bad man? The character development is astounding. We have his stock Asian martial artist, as well as a random burly woman in a dress for Michelle Rodriguez to fight once.

This film is just immature nonsense; a weird mash of Mission Impossible, Michael Bay films and The Expendables.

The action sequences when appreciated in isolation are impressive, that scene in Abu Dhabi is awesome and certainly something I've never seen before… But I need story substance and narrative cohesion to care; the Fast films used to have some semblance of structure to them, now its just a barrage of noise.

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

It is a neat, nitrous oxide powered glamour film

[8/10 · 13 April 2017]

The surprisingly humble beginnings (by comparison) of what is now a six film series, The Fast and the Furious was a hit for bringing a new lease of life to the racing film.

An undercover cop, Brian O'Conner, must discover who is to blame for goods trucks being hi-jacked and stolen by drivers in high performance street cars. He puts himself into the urban culture of street racing where he meets Dominic Toretto and his team. Brian falls for Dominic's sister, Mia, in the process and threatens his investigation and his life.

The film is quite a brainless piece of entertainment, its story is predictable, it follows an undercover cop who starts to sympathize with his targets, and the characters are written spontaneously to fit the demands of the plot. You gotta love the opening dialogue: "I like the tuna here," "Nobody likes the tuna here!" Plus, Paul Walker really is a bland actor.

But, that isn't why we watch the film. The Fast and the Furious does have some great car racing scenes and director Rob Cohen can shoot the cars and make them look great. What is most appealing is the physicality of the stunts and the racing; there's no CGI tomfoolery here, and there is a simplicity about the film that makes it worth watching. You don't need to suspend your disbelief, the plot doesn't shovel many excuses for racing into your face.

It is a neat, nitrous oxide powered glamour film. It doesn't say much, and it will probably age badly over time (and get a remake) but it is a must for every petrol-head and car racing fan out there.

RoboCop (1987)

Stands up, even under today's scrutiny!

[9/10 · 13 July 2014]

Probably regarded as Paul Verhoeven's first big directorial debut, Robocop is one of the iconic 1980s film characters, up there with Batman and the Terminator. Even today, the 1987 film still stands up to any scrutiny.

Alex Murphy (played by Peter Weller, a man with killer cheekbones) husband and father, is a cop relocated to Detroit's struggling police department in a time of high crime and corporate greed. Clarence Boddicker, a crime boss who works with impunity, and a company CEO look to place military grade robots in cities to replace the degraded police force and take control. However when on assignment, Murphy is maliciously gunned down and killed by Boddicker's men, only for a rival corporation to revive him as an autonomous servant of justice. But is there anything left of Murphy's humanity left?

It is easy to forget, twenty-seven years down the line, how bloody and violent Robocop really is, and it doesn't hold back. Murphy's horrific murder occurs in the film's first act and mentally scarred a generation for good reason! But I don't want you to get the wrong impression, I love the film's dedication to using ridiculous amounts of blood squibs and physical stunts. This is what the late 80s were best at, the action in this film is simple but wonderfully executed. The Robocop himself is cumbersome, he walks and moves with deliberately jerky motions, but when the action starts, he is an unstoppable force.

I could get side-tracked and go on about the action, ED-209 and all, but what's nice about the film is its more subtle story telling with its characters. Very little is told about Murphy before his death, just enough to get us to understand quite how much has been lost. It is a story of the corporate desire to replace human beings with computers, only here it is literal. Murphy is dead, his body is completely mechanised, his family left, there's nothing for him to hold on to yet his humanity lingers and tries to recover within the bonds of corporate designs.

Possibly Paul Verhoeven's best work, it is a simple concept now but it still strikes a cord even in today's world. It has the director's signature satire and humour throughout, and not-so-subtle messages of greed and corporate take overs (got to love those TV adverts, one for a board game called "Nukem", were you dictate nuclear war on other nations)

If you haven't seen Robocop, what are you doing with your life? Sure some of the composite special effects with the monstrous ED-209 have dated, but it is a solid action movie (and let's not forget in this day and age, an original movie) and it demands your attention.

RoboCop 2 (1990)

A decent sequel, but lacks character development

[6/10 · 13 July 2014]

From the director of Empire Strikes Back, the sequel to the 1987 classic is clearly designed to be a little more mainstream, quite it isn't a bad film, it certainly lacks the original's satire and a lot of the human element.

RoboCop 2 sees the OCP corporation looking to refine the RoboCop Law Enforcement Unit with a new design, but cannot recreate the perfect blend of man and machine such as Alex Murphy. At the same time, they are unsympathetic to Alex's returning humanity, and demand he forget about his family. In Detroit, a drug baron is selling a new drug to the masses and causes unrest in the city's politics.

RoboCop 2 is one of those sequels, a sequel fresh out of new ideas and makes do with what it has. You could say that this entire film branches only off the memorable ED-209 test sequence in the original film; so much time here is spent on the promise of a new and improved machine... despite the fact RoboCop himself isn't flawed asides from his human feelings (from the corporation's point of view, anyway). Yet the solution to this is taking the mind of a criminal and putting it into a robot? Uhhhhhm...

It definitely has its flaws. This film should have focused on Alex Murphy's returning humanity and his need for family. It starts out with these intentions at heart, but suddenly boom, his wife's out of the story and never mentioned again. He doesn't even rail against the corporation's demands, he just accepts it and moves on? A huge emotional core of his character was ignored, and therefore his character is at a narrative stand still.

Effects wise, it is very impressive. The title may be RoboCop 2 by default, but in fact the new replacement robot in the film is called by name "RoboCop 2" (it is a little perplexing to hear repeated so often) and the action sequences in the final act are very well made with good stop-motion animation. As if calling the film's name and number was weird enough... the attempts to replicate Paul Verhoeven's satire and humour dies a lousy death. There's something about Verhoeven films that cannot be easily replicated, and this is a good example. The satire here is just... odd and unorthodox, often raising an eyebrow rather than a laugh. Why was there a shrine to Elvis in the villain's lair that included a skeleton of Elvis??

It isn't bad, but it is missing all of the opportunities laid out by the first film. While there are memorable moments (RoboCop being dismantled, the criminal kid Hob using his right as a minor to avoid arrest, etc) they don't amount to enough for a full feature, and the end fight sequence becomes a little tiresome.