The following is a spoiler-free review of a film that should attain as much mystery as possible before being watched for the first time.

Cinemas light up with digital tedium as the latest and supposed greatest flash brightly on super-sized displays. Frequently handing over precious paper and metal only to be given humdrum and overpriced confectionery in return, your ventures to the silver screen venues are unarguably routine – your subconscious silently yearns for a break in tedium. Christopher Nolan is the epitome of your subconscious: he longs for imagination in a world governed by convention.

His quest for ingenuity with a tired brand five years prior to now proved fruitful for movie executives usually reliant on steady and risk-free film-making; the powers that be granted Nolan freedom and funding to explore and create, to take that risk. The risk was definitely worth taking: the art of inception is possibly Nolan’s greatest achievement, a fantastic and bold concept excellently-realised.

As the cryptic sound of Edith Piaf plays serenely while the credits roll you realise Inception has achieved what the characters in the film are striving to do: an idea has been planted in your subconscious, an idea which leaves you compelled to believe the unbelievable. The kick back to harsh reality is discomforting: an idea incredible is left behind intangible and a phone in a pocket or an empty popcorn box act as brutally real personal totems. Thankfully Inception is a dream that can be returned to at your leisure, a comforting afterthought for those like me who were left smiling when returned.

Inception displays very much the capacity of a dream-world, or lack thereof. Exuding phenomenal visual effects bravura and a disregard for the limit of human capability, Inception encapsulates a state of mind where borders of possibility are non-existent. Phenomenal is a word attributable to both the visual design and the Oscar-worthy performances: Leonardo DiCaprio gets top billing but has his outstanding performance in the limelight stolen by the likes of Tom Hardy (Rock’n'Rolla), Ellen Page (Juno) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (500 Days of Summer).

Witness a cast mould supremely into a team of charismatic anti-heroes and find yourself awestruck by displays of versatility and a show-stopping, bone-chilling performance from Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose). When all is said and done and you’re left to ponder, you’ll realise the depth these performers reach – it’s near unrivalled acting prowess.

Inception is not just a what-if puzzle for you to solve, it’s far deeper than that. Unravel the layers woven together by Nolan and his crew and you can admire the undeniably golden exhibition of talent below the surface. This film is a hugely ambitious success but the real victory lies with Inception simply achieving its title.

Overall Impressions:

Je ne regrette rien – my mind was expertly manipulated by intricacy but in being so it was immersed in an alternate reality where the impossible is within touching distance. Watching this audacious feature is no trivial affair, one that shouldn’t be approached with a mind looking for the mindless.

Inception is a film asking you to question what is possible while witnessing the impossible  - don’t allow yourself to be incepted and you’ll miss out on a truly extraordinary experience.

Rating: ★★★★★ 

The director of A Single Man, Tom Ford is a gay fashion designer and so it follows that A Single Man is very gay and very fashionable.  An incredibly stylish production, the film follows suicidal university lecturer George (Colin Firth) as he lives out what he plans to be his final day.

George’s boyfriend died in a car crash eight months prior to the events of the film and has left George an empty shell of a man.  The emotional change in George can be seen throughout the film as memories of his relationship are sharply contrasted against his final day.  Employing some noticeable but not overbearing editing techniques, Ford adjusts the colour palette and pace of the film to reflect George’s changing moods.  This is quite a bold technique from a first time director but it works surprisingly well.

Firth's performance is astounding from start to finish.

Whilst Ford’s costume work, editing and direction makes  A Single Man a very interesting watch, with a tangible 60s atmosphere, it is the performances that really make the film.  Colin Firth is terrific as George, his understated performance portrays deep bereavement without a hint of melodrama.  In his best scenes he is playing off of either his student Kenny (Nicholas Hoult) or old friend Charley (Julianne Moore), both of whom are excellent in their respective roles but even when alone is his home, Firth manages to fill the screen with emotion through very little actual expression.

Some have labelled A Single Man “bereavement by Dior”, calling it a shallow work of style over substance.  While the film is incredibly, arguably excessively stylish, I also think there is a lot of real emotion underneath the stylish exterior.  I have seen A Single Man twice now and the first time I watched it I had no idea who Tom Ford was and did not notice the fashion advert style.  On the second viewing I did begin to notice that certain scenes were shot and framed a lot like advertisement campaigns for fragrances and designer brands, but I believe this criticism lies more in a thoughtless pre-judgment of Tom Ford than in a fault of the film itself.

A Single Man is one of those rare films that you feel better for having watched, much like its recent BAFTA competitor An Education; you are immersed in a vividly realised world and empathise with the characters in a way that very few films can manage.  A very special film.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

Predators has been a long time coming: Robert Rodriguez wrote the script for this way back in 1994 and it was only last year that 20th Century Fox gave the funding for it to be realised. This has led to the script for Predators not aging well: a 16 year wait is what stops Predators from fundamentally being more than just an approachable popcorn flick.

Back in 1994, this would have been a fantastic film: a predictable and heavily clichéd Predators can’t thrive as much as it could have back in the 90s. The clichés weren’t as archaic back then as they are now: nowadays you can’t help but draw parallels and condemn unoriginality. Predators is afflicted with incurable familiarity – those more willing to see past this affliction will have a blast while those like me looking for something new will sit waiting to be surprised.

Let me make it clear that familiarity isn’t Predators’ one and only fault. I can raise numerous issues with this film that don’t stem from its predictability. There are eight people unconsciously dropped into a mysterious and strange jungle and I don’t care for a single one of them. All of the individuals follow character-modelling protocol but none of the actors portraying these empty roles are convincing. Even Laurence Fishburne doesn’t really convince me he’s a crazy scavenger: he was the best of the worst. I was very aware that I was watching a film – very rarely did I feel absorbed. Rather than believing the characters’ back-stories for example, I found myself playing a little game, working out which character would die when and how.

I never distinctly felt for these characters and their situation.

The film did at times break free from the shackles of empty monotony and provide some surprisingly rewarding scenes that had me rooting for the humans, particularly the likes of the mysterious Yakuza character and the unusually muscular Adrien Brody.

When this happened though I was very quickly slapped back into reality by bad one-liners and continuous pauses for effect. The choreography showcased in Predators was something that I was actually impressed with but poorly animated explosions and flashes during gunfire as well as a noticeably jagged film score didn’t do the film any favours.

I found myself waiting too long for something good to happen: a little inventiveness would be apparent once every so often, making me feel like I was getting my money’s worth but these instances were too infrequent.

I can at least commend director Nimród Antal for not completely wrecking this film: he definitely has shown progress from Armored. In Predators, the characters felt acceptably connected to each other despite their hollow moulds – I was expecting there to be a constant lack of chemistry but at times the character interactions were creditable. Robert Rodriguez’s influence over proceedings was apparent from time to time, the occasional scene subtly showing his helping hand – I had hoped Rodriguez would take the whole project on himself but Antal did an acceptable job.

After watching Armored there was little to do but wear an intensely indignant expression & give my keyboard a bruising whilst venting furiously over the internet about it. After watching Predators I was given the luxury of being able to sport a smile, if a little forced; my keyboard can at least rest easy tonight.

Overall Impressions:

I take comfort in being able to pay money to watch a Nimród Antal film I had pre-determined was doomed to abject failure and have it finish without me cursing his name to the heavens. It makes me happy that Predators isn’t an awful film: at times it’s within touching distance of greatness, thanks namely to rare spells of thrilling action choreography and a Predatoro-a-Predatoro face-off. It’s just a shame there’s a long waiting time for these moments to occur.

Predators is a respectable stepping stone for the inevitable Predator franchise revival and while it in no way is a great film, it’s worth watching for that hint of nostalgia and a Friday night-in dosage of mindless action-suspense.

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

Michael Jai White’s in fine form, winkin’ and smilin’ at every mama lookin’ his way. The streets have been flooded with drugs and malt liquor by the whiteys and that ain’t right – Jai White may not be in with an Oscar shout but his no-nonsense, 70s black guy suaveness that he exudes as he nunchucks the bad guys & smooth-talks the ladies is fantastic beyond measure.

Black Dynamite lives up to its name: explosive comedy and solid-gold blaxploitation references create huge laughs and powerhouse plot-twists and action sequences fit this film so brilliantly you can’t see the seams where the film’s been stitched together. You may not notice the first time around just how well this film has been made – you’re watching a seamless, well-crafted tribute but you’ll find yourself too busy laughing yourself off the sofa to notice director Scott Sanders’ attention to detail.

Overall Impressions:

You expectin’ to watch a down-to-earth, modern-day comedy? Bitch, you crazy! Black Dynamite is ludicrous, ridiculous, incredulous and many other words ending with -ous and I’m so grateful for this – Scott Sanders’ understanding of 70s blaxploitation is outmatched only by Michael Jai White’s kung-fu kickassery. Forgive Black Dynamite for being so silly and let this quotable, enjoyable and raucously funny film become one of your personal favourites.

Can you dig it?

Rating: ★★★★½ 

[REC] didn’t say “here’s a new way of making horror films more horrifying” – it instead declared confidently “you know it exists, now let me show you a new way of using it”. This, mixed with the element of suspense in full created a very rewarding horror experience: you were really made you feel like you were the one holding the camera. [REC] for me gave the use of handicam horror more meaning.

The production team after [REC] was released and its future was being decided were now left with a choice: would they play it safe and ride the success, sticking with new conventions, or would they take another brave new direction with new ideas at the risk of failing miserably?

The team did the latter but thankfully are rewarded for their bold endeavour: [REC] 2 is excellent.

This is not what I signed up for!

The sequel picks up quite literally moments after the prequel ends: however, you’re not immediately led to believe you’ll be picking up where the end of [REC] left off. You don’t see Ángela Vidal in front of the camera anymore: instead, you’re shown four SWAT-like soldiers gearing up to enter the quarantined building. This introduction scene not only introduces the main new characters but also shows you the new camera style. That’s right: there’s a new style of camera work at play and it is bloody brilliant.

The four soldiers have a camera to “document everything”, but they also have cameras on their helmets: at several moments in the film, some more pivotal than others, the camera will switch from behind-the-camera to more personal first-person. This maximises the suspense and fear of what you expect and don’t expect to great effect.

The four soldiers are led through the quarantined building where [REC] took place by a mysterious medical officer who is hiding a huge secret: this secret becomes absolutely crucial to the story development and when you realise why, you’ll probably react with either anticipatory intrigue and excitement or slight disappointment.

I wouldn’t feel too bad about feeling the latter: I felt the latter before quickly switching to the former as the story unfolded and the reasoning behind director Jaume Balagueró’s bold and risky story development choice becomes increasingly clear.

Some new faces to keep things fresh within the suspense and chaos.

The [REC] trademarks are still apparent though: the vivid gore and jumpy moments are back, along with the long darkened corridors and bloody stairs – everything’s been left pretty much as it should be. [REC] 2 does grab some more fresh air when it can though: there’s more scenes outside of the building and in unexplored areas and this helps keep the originality going. New characters are also introduced along with a few familiar faces, and the switches in perspective and multiple narratives string together more than impressively.

Overall Impressions:

I’m trying desperately to not spoil the film for you because it’s an experience you should head into with as little knowledge of upcoming events as possible. When [REC] 2 finishes, you’ll realise why I’m keeping you in the dark – the twists and turns are in the many and the way the film plays out gives you a memorable shock that doesn’t involve someone jumping out at you.

Balagueró and his team took a big risk with [REC] 2 but their gamble has paid off: the connotations and subtext might irk some but I for one am grateful that the film goes the direction it does because [REC] 2 not only gives [REC] more purpose but it has given us the makings of a brilliant franchise.

You’re not simply watching a horror story unfold anymore – you’re now being enveloped into a mysterious, compelling and rich horror universe with a lot more to give. [REC] 2 is deeper than [REC], with more characters, more dark intent and surprisingly more reward.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

You’ll find a fairly rudimentary cast selection for Shrink: it being an independent film it has a carefully balanced-out list of actors that mixes experience with ambition. The likes of veterans Robin Williams and Robert Loggia appearing alongside Kevin Spacey will have undoubtedly helped out the less experienced actors around them with exerting confidence: every one of the lesser known actors really dig deep and produce compelling performances.

This image is quite a recurrent theme within Shrink.

Spacey as mentioned before is the puppeteer, playing a shrink to the stars: once this is established you believe Shrink is going to become a quirky black comedy where Hollywood stereotypes are accentuated for kicks. In actuality what you’re shown is a deep, rich and enveloping story that, like Crash does so well, weaves multiple stories around each other with an epicentre to tie them all together – in this case Dr. Henry Carter, the drug-taking shrink who is struggling to cope with his wife’s suicide.

Due to a fairly dark running theme flowing through Shrink, you’ll ask yourself if you’re allowed to laugh: yes, yes you are. Shrink plays quiet observer of Hollywood lifestyles and from this you get an array of character models which each actor in their own way capitalise on – mix a power-driven talent agent ego with a idiosyncratic, germophobic persona for example and you have yourself the making of a businessman archetype with a comic edge. That’s just one of the many character models you’re free to laugh at when the mood’s less tense.

There is that question then of whether Shrink would have made a better comedy than a drama: it’s understandable that that question remains and while some people may walk away from Shrink remembering the more starkly memorable comedy appetiser the dramatic main course is more than amiable – it goes down incredibly well. As the film progresses and the story develops the resolutions are made, the realisations are realised and the emotive moments are enforced to powerful effect. Henry Carter’s decline being observed by his troubled clients is raw and meaningful: as a comedy, Shrink would have felt more one-dimensional and lacking passion.

This is my favourite character - Dallas Roberts really does put a lot of effort into this role.

Well shot and well choreographed, this is really director Jonas Pate’s and writer Thomas Moffett’s achievement though: through gritty, witty dialogue and smooth camerawork and scene direction, these two really set the film into motion: Spacey may lead the way but it’s Pate and Moffett that have clearly harmonised the film’s proceedings.

Overall Impressions:

Shrink sits contently on the observation deck of the film industry, casually mocking its more expensive counterparts while it exudes boldly quiet intelligence and charisma and its because of this that Shrink rises up and above its definably small origins. It’s not intruding on la la land territory while it subtly mimics the stereotypes that reside there: what Shrink does instead is nudge you in the side, saying “these stereotypes do exist and they are amusing but there can be deeper meaning to them too”.

Sure, Shrink may be a little rough around the edges in its portrayal of Hollywood society but it has such a unique and wonderful charm that those edges (albeit a little unintentionally) give the film a rugged authenticity: the roughness makes the film’s deep story all the more starkly real. This film shows us that there is still originality and creativity to be found in a world where CGI reigns and movie executives push for the big money – you just have to be willing to take your eyes off the superficial to see it.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

It is important to note that Four Lions is a satire of terrorists rather than terrorism; it attacks the ignorant foot soldiers of the conflict rather than attempting bleeding humour out of the very humourless act of suicide bombing.  Dealing with some rather divisive subject matter, Morris’ writing and direction strikes a careful balance, addressing humour, politics and drama with wit and integrity rather than lazy stereotyping.

The film manages to capture the ambience of British suburbs very well, plebs dressed stupidly.

Having brought the mood down a little with all that talk of humourless suicide, it’s time to tell you that the film is in fact, funny as balls.  Combining macho group politics and hilarious misconceptions of jihad (“I’m the most Al-Qaida of all of us”) it’s insanely quotable and up there with Peep Show and The Thick Of It as the absolute best of British humour.  The lines are played absolutely dead-pan by the excellent cast and while they are hilarious in their own right, they also subtly convey the bombers confusion and manipulation.  The best example of Morris’ effortless multitasking of drama and comedy comes when his protagonist Omar uses the Lion King as an allegory to explain holy warfare to his son.  Both touching and ridiculous, the scene perfectly demonstrates how masterfully Morris weaves different element and genres into his tale.  While the jihadist and their warped ideologies are a comedy goldmine, Morris doesn’t just settle for laughs, creating genuinely sympathetic bombers who are more mislead than spiteful, Four Lions is a surprisingly human tale.

Morris also doesn’t settle for simply mocking extremist religious types, setting his crosshairs on the government and the media’s equally laughable actions; “It must be the target because I shot it” is a particularly memorable line.

It is because Morris expands his scope far beyond the simple but controversial premise of Four Lions that makes it so great.  The poster reads “Funny-FHM” “Funny-The Times” “Funny-The Telegraph” etc, and while this may fill theatre seats, it should read more like: “Funny-FHM” “Moving-The Times” and “Intelligent-The Telegraph” and finally “Best British Comedy 2010-Scrambled Pixel”.

Rating: ★★★★☆ 

Braveheart is a cinematic re-imagining of William Wallace’s history that, thanks in part to its Hollywood origins and scriptwriter Randall Wallace’s over-stereotyping of Scottish traditions and mannerisms, produces a heap of entertainment that makes its shortcomings more manageable.

Mel Gibson plays Wallace, a man made savage by the evil English and their merciless intent to control the whole of Britain. When Wallace’s life is ripped apart by the King of England’s army, he sets out to do something that no other Scottish person has tried to do: make Scotland its own country.

It's a trap!

However, his fellow Scots are less inclined to risk their lives for freedom and the English’s corruption and bargaining to maintain control over Scotland hinders Wallace’s efforts.

The underlying theme is clearly the pursuit for freedom but there are multiple themes outside of this that play strongly to both Wallace’s mentality and countering the film’s somewhat simple plot structure.

Those emotive triggers that an epic always has such as love, revenge, betrayal and compassion are thrown in but are implemented with enough purpose and necessity that the straightforward story arc is made far easier to accept.

All the film’s running themes seem to ultimately converge together on the battlefield – the battles that take place are the epicentre of the film’s strength. Sure, the lead characters all fit one cliché or another and the dialogue outside of the rousing speeches can be quite formulaic but it all works – everything about the battle scenes give the audience what they want.

Overall Impressions:

Battling ferociously through clichés, Scottish generalisations and a surprisingly simple-natured plot, Mel Gibson’s epic wins itself deserved accolade on sheer vivacity and brutish charm alone. Braveheart comfortably does what every film with ‘epic’ as a genre should do: be epic.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

The minimal violence can take away from the action somewhat.

Firstly it seems an important distinction to make that this is not the Robin Hood that you remember.  Ending with the words “And so the legend begins…” this is definitely a prequel to Robin’s Sherwood antics, choosing instead to focus upon a corrupt monarchy and an invading French army.  While this is not a bad thing, and provides Scott a fair amount of artistic freedom, it does result in a slightly underwhelming conclusion, with one of the main plot strands left disappointingly open for an inevitable sequel.  What a prequel does mean however, is less prancing around in the woods and more fighting the French and this is unsurprisingly where the film shines.  Well shot and well acted, Scott and Crowe (with hundreds of extras) make high-quality action scenes look effortless.  Shame about the 12a /PG-13 levels of gore.

Crowe does not simply play a gladiatorial role however; he is more than apt, along with a great ensemble cast, at delivering dialogue and drama.  Cate Blanchett plays Marion Loxley, a woman as sharp as her own cheek bones, and strikes an excellent balance between femininity and aggression.  Both of the main villains, played by Mark Strong and Oscar Isaac also do a good job; occupy dissimilar enough roles as to not overshadow each other’s performances.  It is nice to see an action epic that not only gets the fighting right, but ties it all together with an interesting and well acted plot.  These are Oscar winners playing under one of the best directors of current times and it shows.

Unfortunately, all is not well in Ridley Scott’s 11^th century Nottingham. The plot, while striking a fine balance between intelligence and coherence, often meanders too much between each development.  With great actors most of the possible tedium is avoided, but the slowdown is still noticeable and distracting.  Also, while all of the cast are great dramatically, their attempts at humour often fall flat or feel forced.  My main complaint about the film however, is a distinct lack of closure.  While Robin Hood clearly sets itself up for a sequel by the end, it does not make its prequel intentions clear from the outset.  Around 20 minutes before the end I started wondering how Scott was going to pull it all together and then, with a feeling that Lost fans are very familiar with, I realised he wouldn’t.

Robin Hood succeeds in bringing adult audiences back to a genre that has seen nothing but cliché drivel for years.  While wonky pacing lets it down and it lacks the political subtext that Ridley would have you believe it contains, you could do a lot worse than Robin Hood this weekend.

Rating: ★★★½☆ 

What makes Hot Tub Time Machine funny is that doesn’t dress itself up a modern day teen comedy – there may be a no-holds-barred approach to making you laugh with teen spirit is in full flow but because 75% of the people in the tub are well over the drinking age the childish idiocy of the whole affair is strangely genius.

It won’t have been an Archimedes moment that director Steve Pink had when the idea for the film came to him: I doubt Steve jumped out of a tub and ran around naked praising his film idea discovery. The idea even after its realisation isn’t exactly bulletproof – thankfully 80s golden boy John Cusack along with Craig Robinson, Rob Corddry and youngster Clark Duke are the more than suitable layers of gauze to patch up the holes in the plot-line.

The story is simple enough: Adam, Nick and Lou (Cusack, Robinson and Corddry) aren’t living the lives they want to. Lou is the most depressed – he almost kills himself. Adam and Nick decide that a drunken weekend at a ski lodge the three of them spent their childhoods at would be the ultimate tonic for the middle-aged blues. Adam brings his geek nephew Jacob (Duke) along for the ride and the four of them head to the lodge. When they get there they find the place is less than pleasant – walking Back to the Future reference Crispin Glover is the disgruntled bellboy with one arm which Lou can’t resist pointing out.

Hot Tub Time Machine doesn't really explain any of its absurdities. Not that it has to: no-one's expecting it to...

Whilst the four guys are planning the night ahead, the back door of their room bursts open – a hot tub on the decking of their room awaits them. The four guys decide to use it and so begins a lot of drinking, spinning camera shots and some random person in a bear costume joining them in the tub. The next morning they wake up in 1986 – it takes a few minutes, some spot-on references and brilliant moments of realisation to realise their hot tub does a bit more than shoot jets of water around.

Cue the abandonment of modern etiquette: in ’86 there are no rules and “everybody gets laid”. Adam realises he’s returned to the night where he dumped the one that got away – the “great white buffalo” you speak of in a hushed voice. Nick realises he has sex with a very hot girl but is in his mind married to someone who is nine years old. Jacob wasn’t born but meets his mother and realises he’s in a world without the internet whilst Lou takes advantage of knowing the future.

Four different reactions to travelling back in time in a hot tub, but four reactions that each bring a host of laughs. It’s literally comedy carnage – the jokes hit you at force and the crude nature of them only serves to heighten the fun. Sure, there are more inconsistencies in the storyline than even Michael Bay would be content with but who cares? You’re too busy waiting for Glover to get his arm chopped off.

Obviously with a film like this, any deep and immersive theories of time travel aren’t going to crop up: instead, there’s Chevy Chase as a mystical hot tub repairman, an expertly executed breaking of the fourth wall by Craig Robinson and an eventual disregard for the Butterfly Effect by all four of the guys. Things get sillier and sillier and the jokes get better and better – even the clichéd ending is in itself a joke thanks entirely to Lou.

Overall Impressions:

Hot Tub Time Machine is the type of film you rarely come across: a B-movie comedy. In nature and spirit it’s ridiculous, over-the-top and wildly jagged in plot but you honestly don’t care about any of its imperfections, however obvious they may be. You’re not watching it because you want to see an intelligent comedy: just like Snakes on a Plane, the allure of the film and its intentions are made clear from its title alone.

Hot Tub Time Machine is the ultimate casual film – an abomination for those seeking highbrow visual entertainment but supreme hilarity for those looking for a cheeky dose of pure, unadulterated comedy crack.

Rating: ★★★★☆ 

This shot perfectly summarizes the tone of the film.

Opening in the Bolivian jungle, we meet our ragtag group of stupidly named heroes: Clay, Roque, Jensen, Pooch and Cougar.  They are ordered by their corrupt CIA handler Max to guide an airstrike into a drug farm full of children.  Naturally, they charge in and save the children, making themselves enemies of the CIA.  The situation feels contrived but it does the job of creating an antagonist for our heroes.  Set to a rockabilly soundtrack and a slew of one liners however, it feels that the losers are saving the kids for the dumb thrill of it, rather than for any sense of morality.  This odd juxtaposition of emotion and presentation continues throughout the film, I wasn’t expecting The Shawshank Redemption but the muddled tone is extremely odd.

At the end of the day though, nobody is going to see The Losers for emotional resonance, they want big action and a few laughs, on this front The Losers mostly delivers.  Ticking along at a neat pace, you are never left waiting too long between action set pieces and at a tight 90 minutes, the film doesn’t outstay its welcome.  Although the action comes thick and fast it isn’t always that successful.  The film maintains a very PG-13 / 12a approach and the lack of blood takes away from the shootouts as does the over edited but poorly shot music video style of the action.  It never feels quite as visceral as something like Bourne, or even the equally silly Shoot ‘Em Up.  The dialogue does its bit to entertain, Chris Evans gets the lion’s share of the jokes but the rest of the cast are pretty flat.  Clay (Jeffery Dean Morgan) comes the closest to showing genuine emotion, and Aisha (Zoe Saldana) comes the closes to showing genuine breasts, but these are definitely caricatures rather than characters.

Overall The Losers is an admirable attempt at an action film.  It thinks’ it’s cleverer than it is, but as Saturday night entertainment it will do the job.  Not special but not bad.

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

Marvel’s answer to Bruce Wayne is back: his introduction on-screen is as explosive and impactual as Iron Man 2 will be on this summer’s box office. Iron Man’s world now knows that Tony Stark is the metal man and director Jon Favreau has himself the groundwork for the plot. It seems though that $570 million speaks louder than anything else and this means that you are subjected to two and a half hours of familiarity. You may be watching a different film with some new faces but look underneath the bangs and the buck and you’ll find Iron Man 1 staring back.

These two's ego battle serves as cause for lots of explosions and metallic fisticuffs.

Six months have passed since Tony outed himself as the greatest weapon in existence and he’s as egotistical, cocky and arrogant as he was in the first film. As Iron Man, he’s managed to secure world peace but the US government is demanding that he turn over his hi-tech suit because it could be a threat to US soil. Helping them is Tony Stark’s rival Justin Hammer who wants Stark Industries to fall so Hammer Industries can be number one. Complicating matters further for Tony Stark is not only his deteriorating health thanks to his electric heart but Ivan Vanko, a Russian scientist who has personal beef with the Stark family name and inherently is the villain.

Iron Man 2 starts off slow but it builds up a crescendo to an almight kaboom: for the first part of the film you sit there, giddy with anticipatory glee as you are witness to everything that made Iron Man 1 so great. After the half an hour mark though your excitement subsides a little as the effect the film should have had on you isn’t as amazing as you were expecting it to be. The special effects are top-dollar, the dialogue is necessarily comic-esque, the explosions are bigger and better, the music is emphatic and the acting is a palette of working archetypes… so why does this happen?

Simple: you’ve seen it before. There’s an abundance of great performances but they all fall victim to the familiarity. Robert Downey Jr. is electrifying yet again with his swagger and less than affable charm, Gwyneth Paltrow is given a bigger part and uses every extra second on-screen as best she can. Sam Rockwell is brilliant and clearly loves being the slimy antagonist, whilst Mickey Rourke does a great job at being… well, at being a pissed-off super-smart Russian. Scarlett Johansson is a little bit too glamorised but you can’t blame Favreau too much for that and the likes of Don Cheadle, Samuel L Jackson and Clark Gregg all find their foot quickly enough as the film progresses.

Sam Rockwell is the Best of Show as the "comic relief with an edge", as Rockwell himself put it.

The problem is though that all of these more than adequate performances are placed within a re-skinned film structure – it dampens the effect the film has on you. Should I condemn Iron Man 2 for one major fault within its successes?

No, but I can criticise it because the familiar nature of the film is a fault that makes the successes less rewarding – the epicentre of the fault being the lacklustre ending which is strikingly similar to the ending of the first Iron Man but with less impact.

Overall Impressions:

Iron Man 2 has Tony Stark’s arrogance: it saunters around showing off what made its father film so good but it lacks charisma and its own identity. ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ seems to be the name of the game here and unfortunately that strips the film of the one thing I wanted from it more than anything else: heart. Iron Man 2 is like Tony Stark not just in arrogance then – it too is mechanical below the surface and all the money and talent in the world can’t hide the lack of a real heart.

As expected, Iron Man 2 wanders frequently into a formulaic structure. Favreau is like a rich kid with the newest Version 2.0 toy in town – you can begrudgingly forgive Favreau for proudly displaying his pride and joy to us, the other kids of his street. We may already own the now downgraded version of his shiny new toy but that doesn’t stop us from running in unexplainable excitement to where he’s showing it off.

Iron Man 2 is Favreau’s brand new toy and therefore it’s also ours – it’s the latest accessory and even if it’s a less impressive upgrade of his last toy it’s still worth giving him your pocket money for a couple of hours with it.

Rating: ★★★☆☆ 

The Ghost often feels more like a detective than a novelist.

The Ghost Writer is a slow film, focusing as most “adult” thrillers do, on plot development and tension building instead of heart thumping action.  After 25 minutes of scene setting however, the film picks up a pace, offering an eloquent tale of both intrigue and entrapment.  Taking place largely on one secluded island Polanski does a brilliant job of bringing a chilling, almost gothic ambience to the place.  This tone, while crafted by Polanski’s masterful direction, is sustained by Brosnan’s outstanding role.  Charming but deceitful, he echoes Blair without ever imitating.  McGregor also delivers in his understated role.  As a writer pulled into the dark world of politics, his terror is infectious.  The ensemble cast are equally solid, with special mention going to Olivia Williams as Mrs Lang: sexy, bitchy and manipulative she provides a multifaceted character study in an otherwise political tale.

With solid direction and great performances, The Ghost Writer manages to combine politics, drama and bleak domestic comedy effortlessly.  Sometimes Polanski spends too long on individual sequences however, breaking the flow and atmosphere of the film to disastrous effect.  While these odd scenes only come once or twice in the film, they hurt the pacing a lot and feel out of place in this otherwise slick production.

The Ghost Writer is very nearly a brilliant film but at half an hour too long and with an ending that feels too easy after the winding plot, it has to settle for above average.  If you boycott this one out of principle, you won’t have missed a classic.

Rating: ★★★½☆ 

Dear John is an adaptation of a novel by Nicholas Sparks set in 2000 that tells the story of John (Channing Tatum), a soldier in the Army Special Forces who falls in love with college student Savannah (Amanda Seyfried) whilst he is on leave. Complicating their relationship is the 9/11 attack which means that John will have to decide between returning home indefinitely or continuing his duty to serve in the Army.

This scene is about as standard as you get in a romantic drama. It plays exactly the right chords for romantics...

The war backdrop is used as a story telling device that gives both John a purpose and the narrative a road to go down but unfortunately that’s as far as it goes. The pacing of Dear John is slow, too slow at times and even when John’s got a gun in his hand the romantic drama genre makes sure any action featured doesn’t become a sub-genre.

Both Tatum and Seyfried serve the purpose of being a young couple in love in a romance drama. There isn’t a huge amount of variation to their love story character archetypes but Tatum in particular shows some versatility in his acting (although his soldier character doesn’t give him a massive amount of space to play a new style of character). The best performance in the film I think goes to John’s coin-obsessed dad (Richard Jenkins) – his reclusive character and how that effects John gives the film some depth it needs to avoid falling into the love story cliché.

Overall Impressions:

Dear John isn’t a remarkable film but it doesn’t have to be. It does exactly what any acceptable love story should do: stick with the conventions but provide an edge that doesn’t make it generic. Dear John does this – the love story is prevalent throughout but the father-son relationship gives the film that significant edge.

It’s not a film I’m used to watching and whilst it wasn’t anywhere near as amazing as the box office suggests I didn’t not like watching it. That’s a good thing, right?

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

Don’t let the title fool you, there is little poetry and no deathbed resonance in Leaves Of Grass, but the film is also far from the “stoner comedy” that some pretentious critics have been painting it as.  If the film is aimed at stoners then they are stoners who stayed in school and don’t change channels when the news comes on, more Holmes and Watson than Harold and Kumar.  While Brady does commit his fair share of ridiculous weed-induced crimes, there is just as much academic debate on Bill’s end.  In short, people calling this a stoner comedy have obviously never seen Clerks 2.

Norton does a great job of conversing with himself.

If anything Leaves Of Grass is the opposite of your derivative comedy, spending more time developing multidimensional characters than making dick jokes, my main complaint with the film is that it doesn’t have enough laughs.  The characters are great and so are the performances (Norton and Sarandon shine) but for a comic drama, it’s weighed a bit too far towards drama, it even goes as far as to weave an engaging plot.  While the drought of jokes can be an issue, Leaves Of Grass is pacey and intelligent enough to never loose its audience.  It’s a fairly unique brand of film, approachable but cultured.

Coming away from Leaves Of Grass, you may not have laughed your guts out at the jokes or cried your eyes out at the drama, but there is a distinct feeling of time well spent.

Rating: ★★★½☆ 

Inside jail, he meets mild-mannered, shy inmate Phillip Morris. Their meeting begins the start of a love-at-first-sight relationship that takes twists and turns when Steven focuses on giving his new love everything he deserves… by breaking out of jail & posing as a lawyer. Steven inadvertently becomes one of the biggest conmen in history and his charming, dulcet narration tells the story of his trials & tribulations as he is torn between living a luxurious life and getting everything he wants or giving Phillip what he wants – a normal life.

I doubt Jim Carrey will win a Bafta or Oscar for his role here, but I've never seen an actor blend into such a stark role so convincingly before.

Carrey is effervescent as an incredibly charming trickster: think DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can, but ‘super-gay’. He leaves his strong Christian wife Debbie (Leslie Mann) after several years to lead his gay lifestyle and she still remains loyal and friendly. Steven Russell is very much the ‘anti-hero’ of the whole affair – his increasingly elaborate ways of avoiding the law conflict with his relationship with Phillip – Phillip is tricked into believing that Steven is completely innocent. How do you feel sorry for someone who has done nothing but hurt everyone around him?

Well, the plot helps with that. Steven seemingly does everything to give Phillip the best possible life but he has to lie to everyone to do so. The comedy is probably the big helping hand with sympathising with Steven – on behalf of Jim Carrey, Steven’s crazy antics, bizarre situations and incredulous moments serve as a medium for Steven to show how far he will go for love. Steven’s hidden genius is portrayed through Carrey’s indefinable wit, and when Steven gives you shock laughs? That’s Carrey at his best – he seems to have no limits.

Obviously, this being a rom-com you get your love story too. You may have to occasionally squint to see the rom beneath the mountainous com, but it’s there and when it’s strongest it gives the film sentimental value too. The film isn’t just a hollow comedy full of gags and gaffs: even Carrey shows compassion within the hilarity of it all.

Overall Impressions:

It’s an outrageous romp, spurred on by Jim Carrey’s hilarious antics. Given freedom to be as daring as he likes, Carrey runs wild with great aplomb. He goes as far as he likes and there is just reward: I Love You, Phillip Morris is probably Carrey’s funniest performance aside from The Mask. You are most certainly going to feel uncomfortable watching him though – there are several moments that would leave even the most liberal sitting in disbelief.

In no way does the film mock homosexuality: aside from the odd dig at it (“Golf? But you’re homosexual!”), it’s used as a comedic medium. Both McGregor and Carrey are incredibly convincing gays and their two very differing performances match up far better than you’d expect. I haven’t laughed as much at a film in years. The comedy (whether shocking or not) is on adrenaline: it’s quick & witty.

I implore you to watch this film: dispel any preconceptions you may have built up.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

Throughout the film, Charlyene meets with couples who have found their true love & those that haven’t and when she finds that making her documentary is getting in the way of her budding relationship with Michael she has to decide which is more important.
Friend & documentary director Nick Jasenovec is torn too: he has to film everything that Charlyene does but when she finds herself falling in love he finds himself getting in the way and is unsure as to whether he should keep filming her at the cost of ruining a possible relationship.

Paper Heart is a victim of its own idea – you can’t be sure if you should believe what’s happening. Michael Cera plays himself but he plays himself in the same awkward way he plays all his major roles. The director Nick Jasenovec within the film is the real director but Nick is played by an actor. Charlyene switches from adorable comedienne to frustrating sceptic: when interviewing people about their true love experiences their amazing stories have their amazement quelled slightly by Charlyene’s focus on how she won’t find love like the other people have.  You switch too much from caring for to laughing at to feeling annoyed with Charlyene’s socially awkward character.

Paper Heart is a victim of its own idea: you're not sure whether you should believe the relationship or not...

Nick Jasenovec knows the film’s strength comes from its cute charm & the love between socially inept main characters as well as the real life love stories but the end product is accentuated too much. The charm isn’t always false (things like Charlyene’s puppetesque illustrations of the true love stories add to the appeal) but the line between fact & fiction strips Paper Heart of a fair chunk of its natural charm: it can feel forced at times.

Overall Impressions:

Paper Heart is a charming little film but the blurry mix of fact & fiction may confuse and Charlyene’s falsely philosophical & anti-love character has the tendency to freeze the heartwarming nature of her antics. You can definitely see what the intention is here but I feel that Paper Heart would have worked best if it was one more than the other: it if was all fact the unintentional love would be believable, but if it was all fiction that mock-doc feel would be eliminated.

Some will fall for Paper Heart’s quirky charm but others will be left bemused & underwhelmed.

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

Ty Hackett’s parents have died. He has to take care of his brother and his parents left them with a house that’s set to be foreclosed. Ty doesn’t make enough money working as a security guard for an armored car transport service. He works with a bunch of guys and when they approach him with the opportunity to get the money he needs he at first says no – they want to steal $42 million from a pickup they will be running and they plan on staging an armed robbery so they can get away with the money. Ty eventually joins in but has an epiphany during the robbery & tries to stop the others from taking the money. Ty locks himself in one of the two armored vans with half the money, and head of the group Mike (Matt Dillon) decides that it’s all or nothing: he gets his group to work on opening the van before the cops arrive.

All five of them can do better. Much better.

It’s set up to be a massive race against time but the end result is a comatose state of excitement. When the robbers realise they can break into the van by loosening the hinges on the doors the next 40 minutes is them incessantly banging a piece of metal onto another piece of metal, with bits of piss-poor interactions spliced inbetween. Director Nimród Antal (Vacancy) tries to use the banging as an epicentre of the plot development but in reality all this achieves is infuriating its audience – seriously, if you’re easily annoyed the banging will drive you crazy.

Speaking of plot development, the way the plot pans out is too contrived and noticeably scripted, the characters are all idiots and the ending is predictable: after Ty’s realisation it’s just a case of waiting for the inevitable to happen. It’s not like that wait is better than the awful ending though: you’re subjected to a bunch of actors each trying to convince you they’re all the best thing in the film by sauntering around & pouring crappy one-liners & sub-par dialogue out of their mouths. I expected better from the likes of Jean Reno, Matt Dillon & Laurence Fishburne in particular.

The scriptwriters give Fishburne a shotgun his character’s supposed to be enamoured with – he holds the gun though with such disdain. Reno was just plain unlucky: he probably took the part expecting to get a significant role. Instead he is just a face for most of the film and he’s ushered off-screen after a certain point & you hardly see him again. Dillon is given a role that no actor could portray convincingly- the first part of the film sees his character Mike as a nice guy and a godfather to Ty. As soon as Mike asks Ty to help with the heist, the character flips and becomes a jackass which leads slowly to him turning into an arrogant, cocky and ruthless criminal. It’s both incredibly confusing and highly implausible: there’s absolutely no indication that Mike is a merciless criminal but by the end of the film he’s exactly that.

An appearance from Milo Ventimiglia (Peter from Heroes) as a good-willed cop unwillingly caught up in the heist may have saved this film from crashing and burning, but he gets shot before he has a chance to do anything to help.

Overall Impressions:

My thoughts exactly.

This film is a bigger failure than the attempted robbery within it. The fact that Jean Reno, Laurence Fishburne and Matt Dillon are in this makes it that much worse: they can do so much better than this. Armored is an absolute tragedy right from the start: you feel sickly watching it. There is no reward for perservering through the dire cinematography, horrendous acting, god-awful direction, poor dialogue and shoddy camerawork.

It’s absolutely calamitous – without joking, the best part of the film is when you realise the end is nigh. The whole argument of “the film has B-movie spirit” is pointless: if I wanted to watch a B-movie I would have. But no, I chose to watch a film expecting good acting, an upcoming director showing his potential and a possibly entertaining plot. I got none of those: I got a supposed A-movie using B-movie status as a scapegoat for its own ineptitude.

You’re best just watching the trailer – it’s too revealing & it makes the film look far better than it is. Actually, don’t: Armored isn’t worth a moment of your time, even if it is just watching the trailer.

Rating: ☆☆☆☆☆ 

Their hand-drawn days had seemed all but over six years ago – 2004 was the last fully hand-drawn animated film to come from Disney and that wasn’t exactly the best work they’d done – and with Pixar and Dreamworks proving that CGI animation is a powerful asset for animation a big question lingered: could Disney ever find more success with hand-drawn animation?

It came as some surprise when in 2009 Disney released their first fully hand-drawn animated film in over half a decade. They’ve since spoke of wanting to continue making hand-drawn animated films (the end of 2010 will bring a re-imagining of Rapunzel) and I think this sudden inspiration & revitalisation has to be down to The Princess & The Frog – it encapsulates everything that Disney does best.

The directors Ron Clements & John Musker probably knew full well that they would have to stick to the Disney formula of storytelling that has worked for so many years. Thankfully because of this day and age & a stronger feeling towards watching the same film with a different name, there was some wiggle room which they both took full advantage of to great effect.

The Princess and the Frog is loosely based on the Grimm Brothers’ story The Frog Prince: the film tells the story of Tiana, a girl living in New Orleans who is friends with a princess but doesn’t enjoy the same lifestyle that she does. Tiana doesn’t have the dream of being a princess that much: she’s more focused on doing right by her late father and fulfilling his dream of opening the best restaurant in New Orleans. Money’s a bit of an issue though and in a Of Mice & Men-style fashion Tiana does nothing but work to save up and realise her dream.

Louis is a great character - exactly the kind of character you want & expect from a Disney film.

However, when she is asked by her princess friend to use her cooking talents to make food for the princess’ ball, she finds herself in an awkward position. It seems that Prince Naveem of Maldonia, whose access to money was cut off by his rich parents until he stops acting immature, has come to visit New Orleans and find himself a princess to help him restore his money without any effort. Unfortunately for him however he bumps into voodoo doctor Facilier who convinces Naveem he can make his dreams come true by using voodoo. That isn’t the case, and Naveem gets turned into a frog. He meets Tiana, and asks for a kiss to turn him back into a prince, just like the Frog Prince fairytale says will happen. Tiana reluctantly obliges but the process goes wrong and Tiana becomes a frog too. They have to find a way to revert back to human form before the New Orleans bank sells Tiana’s perfect building that she wants to buy for her restaurant to a higher bidder.

There’s a lot more to the story but I don’t want to go into it further or you won’t experience anything new. What I’ve described is a fairly condensed view of only the first part of the story – that tells you that a lot happens in the film. I expected nothing less from Disney, who know how to make a film constantly have something happening. The story is fast-paced, energetic and whilst fairly cliché & stereotypical it’s also more encapsulating because it’s a Disney story that takes the working formula & twists it. It was refreshing to watch a hand-drawn Disney animation that approaches the core story arc from a different angle.

I didn’t expect myself to like this film but that came with the territory – I tend not to like films with too much familiarity and Disney have on more than one occasion barely got away with sticking with what works. That definitive charm of the good old-fashioned, hand-drawn animation style is what makes up for the familiar plot lines and The Princess & The Frog has a lot of that charm. What’s more, the New Orleans jazz within the film gives The Princess & The Frog some major flair to the story which makes that feeling of “I’ve seen this before” very much reduced – you can’t not love the New Orleans rhythm.

Facilier is thankfully a multidimensional villain - watch for the shadows. They make the evil far more entertaining. He's no Jafar but he has sinister written all over him...

I feel I should mention Randy Newman at this point since the soundtrack is probably the strongest thing in the film. The jazzy blues sound in particular gives the film great character and you’ll definitely find yourself humming some of the tunes. Songs like Down in New Orleans and Almost There are the most distinctive whilst others like Never Knew I Needed and Dig a Little Deeper provide the sentimental, hidden messages every Disney film can’t do without.

The setting of  New Orleans has an influence on the music style too – the songs are very catchy, there is a lot of jazz, there’s a touch of zydeco for the Bayou setting and an alligator clearly inspired by Louis Armstrong. The Princess & The Frog certainly has a soundtrack worth buying – especially if you love some jazz.

Overall Impressions:

There’s some stereotyping but it’s not like Disney have never done that before – it’s just more noticeable & less offensive this time. Nonetheless, there’s a charm to The Princess & The Frog that is aided by the jazzy vibe the New Orleans setting brings. The characters presented aren’t too formulaic thanks to the setting and the way the story pans out has enough humour & endearing character to keep even the most sceptical of viewers attentive. Don’t be off put by the princess part: this is not really a girly film – it’s far more focused on creating liveliness, rhythm and highly vibrant & entertaining animations than bringing you a cushy, feminine love story.

Disney have certainly proved that hand-drawn animated films aren’t a thing of the past: that Disney magic unilaterally loved is still well & truly alive and The Princess & The Frog does a lot to show this. Just don’t expect Disney to play by it’s own rule-book anymore – if The Princess & The Frog is anything to go by, Disney have found a way of keeping the magic they are best at making whilst keeping things fresh & exciting.

Rating: ★★★★☆ 

Before I go into the background of the film, let’s take a look at what it’s about. The tagline reads “In these hard economic times, what would you do for cash?” which kind of sums up the film but doesn’t tell the whole tale. Sam Phelan (Chris Hemsworth) and his wife Leslie (Victoria Profeta) come into over half a million dollars by accident – currently jailed robber Reese Kubic (Sean Bean) got rid of a suitcase full of the money whilst trying to escape the police and Sam was lucky enough to have the case hit his car.

Sam & Leslie decide the money is finder’s keepers (helped along in the decision-making process by their strong monetary problems), and go a little crazy spending a fair amount of it. Problem is, Reese has a brother (also Sean Bean) and Pyke Kubic’s clever, uncompromising and intimidating persona becomes a problem for Sam & Leslie when he comes looking for the money. Pyke doesn’t say ‘that’ll do’ – he wants every cent back and will make the financially-troubled couple do anything to get it back.

The plot has rough parts that need some straightening out – especially with regards to the slightly racial stereotypes that are used for comedic effect – and the chain of effects for the first part of the film lacks a lot of ‘umph’ that is needed for any action-thriller.

That being said, when Pyke finds Sam & Leslie that’s where the film flourishes – the plot flows into a mind game that befits the chain of events very well. Sean Bean in on particularly good form as a yoga-performing British hard man who will stop at nothing to get what he wants – he has some interesting character traits that make for good watching, and his British flair compliments his tough guy role strongly (shame his American one isn’t up to scratch). This was Chris Hemsworth ‘s first big film role so he had to show his acting credentials. That he does although it could be said that his domesticated-turned-hard case performance is a little wooden at times – don’t worry though because Bean playing the veteran to the rookie keeps him on form enough.

Sean Bean's character is fairly similar to his role in National Treasure, except in Ca$h he likes suits and yoga and he's a money hunter, not a treasure hunter...

The fact that Sean Bean (Goldeneye, Lord of the Rings) and Chris Hemsworth (Star Trek, Thor) are the two lead roles help boost the film in both quality & audience interest but the fact remains: Ca$h screams low-budget and this may serve as a distraction for anyone who goes to watch it.

Should my opinion on the film based on visual quality? Perhaps. The acting is tight & perfectly acceptable, the psychological aspect of the film based loosely on the Milburn experiment which has been emphasised by the filmmakers is justifiable and the quality of how the film is shot is admirable. But you won’t notice these things as much as you’ll notice that there lacks any Hollywood polish – the bare-bones nature of the film aside from the lumps of cash is more evident than any of the positives.

Overall Impressions:

I’m going to make the decision right now that the budgetised feel shouldn’t affect my opinion of Ca$h – it does a lot right and I am a big supporter of independent cinema. I guess what was holding me back was that it shouldn’t have been a low-budget feature: it’s a great idea that realised a lot of its potential. It’s ironic that if the film had more cash behind it it would have been a completely high quality experience.

Still, I’d say Ca$h certainly bettered my expectations. It stands as Chris Hemsworth’s first film and Sean Bean acts as the veteran actor who gives the film some bolstered strength. Both Hemsworth and Profeta hold their own though so credit where credit is due.

It’s a clever little film that will most likely wash away in a sea of independent films that unfortunately don’t get the attention they deserve. Whilst it’s not the best of the indie bunch I was comfortable watching it from start to finish – I’d recommend watching this before it fades away.

Rating: ★★★½☆