Reviews

When The Amazing Spider-Man was announced there was a mixture of uproar and confusion among audiences. After all, Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire's trilogy had only ended in 2007 and Spider-Man 3 became the highest grossing movie of that franchise so why start from scratch again, why not continue? Everyone had an opinion on whether it should be rebooted or not but one thing was guarantee; whether it was Spider-Man 4 or The Amazing Spider-Man people were going to see it because Spider-Man is one of the most popular superheroes in the world. I will only make one comparison between The Amazing Spider-Man and the trilogy of the last decade and it is this: Things that are better in The Amazing Spider-Man than in Sam Raimi's trilogy: EVERYTHING.

Andrew Garfield takes on the role of teenager Peter Parker who after being bitten by a spider… blah blah blah. Everyone knows the story, so what is different here? This time Peter Parker is looking to try and find out who he is, why his parents disappeared when Peter was just a child, what work his father was working on that was kept so secret. All the time, trying to come to terms with his new abilities and manage a love life with the beautiful Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), avoid being captured by the head of New York Police who just so happens to be Gwen Stacy's father (Denis Leary) and eventually saving New York from a huge giant Lizard, or Dr Curt Connors, if you would prefer, (Rhys Ifans). So really, he's got it easy.

Andrew Garfield in the lead role is superb. A genuine fan of Spider-Man since he was a kid and it shows in the charisma and life he brings to the troubled teenager on screen; he carries a great emotional range and the one liners and witty remarks are delivered perfectly. The chemistry with his co-star Emma Stone is there for all to see and she puts in a performance to rival that of Garfield's. The lead duo are supported excellently by Rhys Ifans, a man born to play villains. But my favourite performance of The Amazing Spider-Man is from Michael Sheen as Uncle Ben, really really fantastic! The Amazing Spider-Man is visually wonderful and I really would not have expected anything less from director Marc Webb. A lot of trust was put in Webb with this being only his second ever film and his first on a big budget but he proved with (500) Days of Summer that he has a great talent for capturing great performances, stunning visuals and examining relationships.

Despite this being a clear superhero comic book movie film, the superhero antics seem to take a back seat and we are allowed to delve deeper into the characters. Peter Parker is clearly a conflicted guy who has grown up having a troubled life which isn't about to get any easier and the relationships he forms with his Uncle and Aunt are really well written, his relationship with Gwen Stacy (a vital part of Spider-Man history in the comic books) is dealt with wonderfully and with a huge deal of respect. You get a real sense that all of these characters are believable in their motivations, their friendships, their triumphs and short comings.

The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't quite match up to The Avengers and probably won't beat The Dark Knight Rises either but what we have here is proof that they were right to reboot the Spider-Man

Rock of Ages is the big screen adaptation of hugely successful stage musical of the same name featuring some of the biggest rock songs of the 1980s. Bringing musicals to the big screen isn't anything new with Mamma Mia, Sweeney Todd: Demon Barber of Fleet Street and, later on this year, even Les Miserables all featuring in cinemas.

Rock of Ages is the story of a small town girl and a city boy who meet on the Sunset Strip whilst pursuing their dreams in Hollywood. Their love faces challenges with accusations of betrayal, self doubts and the threatened closure of famous rock club the Bourbon all playing a part in their relationship.

Tom Cruise is Stacee Jaxx; lead singer of huge rock band Arsenal and a stereotypical 'sex, drugs and rock and roll' rock star who has gone off the rails. Although, whilst the marketing of Rock of Ages will tell you this is a Tom Cruise film if you do go see it just for him then you will be disappointed. The main roles fall to professional dancer Julianne Hough and pretty boy Mexican actor Diego Boneta who are both actually really good to watch with a clear chemistry on screen and the two put in very enjoyable performances. Alec Baldwin, Bryan Cranston and Mary J. Blige all put in sustainable supporting performances whilst Catherine Zeta Jones puts in a performance that makes you question how you never found her annoying at all before this. Paul Giamatti is always reliable and does enough here as Stacee Jaxx's agent. Russell Brand is awful; his accent constantly changing throughout the film, the delivery of his lines drier than the desert and his all round persona just stinking of desperation to be adored; whoever cast Brand in this film and keeps casting him in other films should really take a good hard look at themselves and ask them why they are doing this.

But it is the musical numbers that draw in fans of musicals and there are plenty of big songs featured in Rock of Ages: Journey's Don't Stop Believin, Foreigner's Jukebox Hero, Poison's Every Rose Has It's Thorn as well as We Built This City by Starship. And the musical numbers are executed very well, fantastic vocals, loud music that create a very real atmosphere and an enjoyable two or three minutes when the songs are on.

Unfortunately though, everything else that isn't being sung is incredibly dull. A lot of the comedy is misplaced and falls flat and for a light hearted musical the laughs are a pretty important part to enjoyment. The characters are very two dimensional and the dialogue is poorly written and feels very forced at times. It's a musical so you can look past how quickly people fall in love and form a relationship because that's what musicals are all about; a sense of utopia. But poor dialogue, poor characters, poor story lines and an all round poor structure take away from the solid performances and good musical numbers because it's just not enjoyable as a film.

Lots of video games and books that are turned into films are very criticised heavily leading to calls for books and video games to be left on their own platforms and I think the same needs to be said here. Big musicals do well because they include the audience, they make the audience feel like they are a part of the whole performance (something for which Rock of Ages, the stage musical, takes very seriously and is very well known for) and doing this is not possible with films, you do not get the full musical experience watching on a screen.

This is something that should have been left on the stage and, despite Tom Cruise's involvement and a great soundtrack, all round fails as a film.

Hanna is an American-European action thriller revolving around a 16-year-old who was raised by her father to be the perfect assassin after she is dispatched on a mission across Europe, tracked by a ruthless intelligence agent and her operatives.

Saoirse Ronan plays the sixteen year old girl at the centre of the movie and back in 2011 she was nominated for a number of awards, quite rightly, for her portrayal of the assassin. Right from the opening hunting scene you get a real sense of Ronan's acting abilities and you know instantly that this is going to be a great performance from her. Hanna's father, Erik Heller is played by Eric Bana and although he puts on a pretty convincing accent for his part in the film there is something very off putting about his on screen persona; this could be attributed to his character's past but I think unfortunately it comes down to Bana himself (who I am not a fan of anyway after seeing him in The Hulk and being almost bored to tears watching The Time Traveler's Wife). Cate Blanchett plays the villain pretty convincingly, she does seem like someone who you could really hate. And there's a lovely moment where Jason Flemyng decides to pop up and inject a bit of humour into the film that is largely unexpected.

Hanna is quite a step away from what director Joe Wright is known for; he previously directed Pride & Prejudice and Atonement. His direction, however, is one of the most interesting aspects of the film. Every shot is clearly well thought through and the film just looks like a wonderful piece of artwork, the visuals are very very good. There is a sequence early on where Hanna, after thinking she has completed her mission, breaks out from where she is being held and her escape is so visually stimulating its incredible, the camera work, the effects: everything is detailed perfectly and it is a very fun sequence to watch. The film also has an underlying theme of fantasy and fairy tale (one of Hanna's only forms of escapism comes in the form of a Grimm fairy tale book) and you really get a sense for that whilst watching. It's not 'in your face' so much but when you notice it it really adds another layer to the film itself.

I would have liked to have seen more fight scenes and more action because at some times it did become quite dull and things seemed to take longer than perhaps they should have (Hanna's friendship with the British girl she meets almost seems irrelevant) but when the action did take place and fights happened they were choreographed excellently. Eric Bana takes on four men in an underground car park type place and it is shot and fought really well. As for being a thriller it is good to see the seeds planted for the revelations at the end quite early on but I do think more back story would have been helpful to let the audience connect with the characters better.

Overall a very good film, the directing and the acting helps to overcome the sparse action sequences.

The Five-Year Engagement sees Jason Segel continuing to try and cement his place as one of Hollywood's greatest comedy actors following The Muppets and Jeff Who Lives At Home with the help of writing partner Nicholas Stoller. Segel's latest offering comes in the form of a romantic comedy when exactly a year after meeting Tom (Segel) proposes to his girlfriend Violet (Emily Blunt) but unexpected events keep on getting in their way as they attempt to tie the knot with one another.

With most films of this genre you get the same thing over and over again: boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy and girl split up, boy and girl get back together and live happily ever after. In The Five-Year Engagement what you get is an in depth look at the ins and outs of a stable relationship as it journeys through the ups and downs of life. I think that this is a great idea and shows that relationships don't always run smoothly as plenty of other films would have you believe. I also believe that The Five-Year Engagement separates itself from other comedies aimed at an adult audience by being cleverer and, although we do get to see Jason Segel's rear end on more than one occasion, a lot of the comedy is very well written and obviously well put together.

There is clear chemistry between the two leads of the film, Jason Segel and Emily Blunt which is obviously helped by their off screen friendship and the fact that the two of them have worked together previously. Segel puts in a great performance but I don't think that we ever get to see the best of him like we have seen in The Muppets and television sitcom How I Met Your Mother. He is a very fine comedic actor though and brings out some good laughs here; I'm not a fan of Emily Blunt too much and at times her comedy efforts seemed a little forced. Also, her accent seems overly British even though it's authentic, how weird is that? The Five-Year Engagement starts off very well with some hilarious moments and really sets you up for what should be a laugh a minute film from start to finish. A lot of this is the emphasis put on the characters of Tom's colleague and friend Alex (Chris Pratt) and Violet's sister Suzie (Alison Brie). Whilst their relationship offers very little to the film as a whole their individual contribution to scenes are very well delivered. Chris Pratt is wonderfully funny in almost every scene in which he features and a particular scene featuring Pratt's Alex delivering a presentation of Tom's former girlfriends is my favourite part of the film and a brilliantly written and acted scene. Unfortunately, their characters seem to fizzle out and so does the film itself.

There is a reason that most romantic comedies are only an hour and a half long; the plot cannot sustain a two hour movie without lagging. The Five-Year Engagement does try and stretch over two hours and you would think that with five years of a relationship to tell then it would easily manage this without getting too boring. You would be wrong. It gets to a point where you think it could be coming to an end only to realise there is still about half an hour left and after a while the laughs become a sparse item. Don't get me wrong, The Five-Year Engagement at times is hilarious and it is definitely a great romantic comedy with real stock in the lead characters but it tails off towards the end. It is still, though, definitely worth watching!

The western is the original genre of cinema. The first ever narrative film was The Great Train Robbery and was the western which began Hollywood's long running obsession with cowboys and outlaws. However, with the uprising of science fiction and the superhero genre now becoming the leading money spinners in cinema modern westerns don't usually do that well in the mainstream. 3:10 to Yuma, released in 2007, managed to make a small profit but didn't pull up many trees, yet I think that this is a fantastic film that proves the western can still entertain.

3:10 to Yuma is the story of Dan Evans (Christian Bale), a war veteran who lost his leg and now struggles to keep his family on his ranch through drought and debt problems. When the infamous outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) finally gets captured and needs escorting to the 3:10 train to Yuma prison, Dan volunteers to take him for a price. Along the way Dan wins the respect of his son and finds a mutual respect and reluctant friendship with Ben Wade.

Directed by James Mangold, not a very famous director by any means, 3:10 to Yuma manages to capture the essence of the western very well; the visual direction of the film is very good. When people think of westerns they usually think of gunfight after gunfight but what you have here is a slow paced film but with a story and characters like these there is no danger of it ever becoming boring. Both Christian Bale and Russell Crowe put in fantastic performances and the character of Ben Wade is possibly one of the greatest antagonists I have ever seen; I think that his personality is a great one and rather than just being a badder than bad villain it becomes clear that he actually does have morals and he does have his own rules that he lives by, despite the fact that he runs one of the roughest gangs in the west. The conflict that arises between Evans and Wade is very interesting and watching the respect that these two men have for one another grow throughout their film and they confess secrets to one another is actually quite touching.

The supporting cast of Peter Fonda, Alan Tudyk and Gretchen Mol all do a good job with what they are given but Ben Foster who plays Ben Wade's right hand man Charlie Prince is absolutely fantastic and brings a real sinister side to his character. Rising star Logan Lerman puts in a shift as Evans' son and fan of Ben Wade and it is clear to see that he has real potential as an actor.

Throughout 3:10 to Yuma there isn't that much action with the real emphasis based on the interactions between Dan Evans and Ben Wade as I mentioned earlier but when there is action it is very good. There is a scene at the mines where Evans' group rescue Ben Wade from torture that goes down very well and the final shootout is brilliant. People are dropping like flies during the final gunfight when Evans races to get Wade onto the train and the ending is pretty much as perfect as it could be.

3:10 to Yuma is by no means the best film ever but since the first time I saw the western it has been on my list of favourite films.

Snow White and the Huntsman is the second incarnation of the classic fairy tale to hit the big screen this year after Mirror Mirror earlier in 2012. In this fantasy action adventure take on the world renown classic the Huntsman ordered to kill Snow White ends up becoming a friend, protector and mentor in her quest to vanquish the evil Queen.

The film opens with a narration and a series of flashbacks in order to provide the audience with some of the back story. It feels as though the film makers tried to just feed us information that we didn't really need and it sets a very slow pace for what is to follow. The narration also wasn't filled with any kind of emotion and played quite tediously through the speakers. What follows is a lot of the Queen and Snow White doing pretty much nothing at all which forces the first act of the film to trudge along slowly.

Charlize Theron plays the evil Queen and a lot of the attention in the run up to release was focused on her and her portrayal of the character, however I was left pretty disappointed by her performance; it wasn't exactly bad but it wasn't anything to shout about either. There were points of the film where we hadn't seen the Queen for so long that I had genuinely forgotten she was a part of the film and as an actor that is not something you want the audience to forget. Kristen Stewart becomes the famous princess and does a sturdy job, again though there is something lacking from her performance, she doesn't exactly ooze charisma on the screen and I'm not sure she does enough to justify the title role in a film expected to be as huge as this.

This take on the fairy tale bases as much emphasis on Snow White as it does the Huntsman and when the Huntsman arrives it is as if the movie shifts up a gear; played by Chris Hemsworth the Huntsman injects some much needed pace and emotion into the film. It seems as though the Huntsman is the only character the writers decided to take their time on, giving him a very emotive back story and motives, something which other characters (particularly the evil Queen) are lacking. You get a real connection with the Huntsman because of Hemsworth's performance as he continues to make a name for himself following up three great movies: Thor, Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers.

The majority of scenes without the Huntsman aren't really worth watching but one in particular is worthy of any fantasy film ever. The first time we meet the adult William is when he ambushes a royal carriage and the fight scene that follows is fantastic; the fight scenes throughout the entire movie are actually a joy to behold. William is played by Englishman Sam Claflin who is relatively new to the acting world but previously appeared in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Based on this performance though, is Claflin doesn't get more high profile acting work then a terrible injustice has been done in the acting world.

Snow White and the Huntsman is a real treat for the eyes. Everything about it just looks fantastic: the landscape, the costumes, the special effects. It all just looks so perfect and Rupert Sanders, the director, creates this incredible fantasy world so well. You never want to take your eyes off the screen.

In my opinion, this is a much better film than the earlier Snow White retelling Mirror Mirror. Whilst some of the characters aren't as well developed as others the visuals and the Huntsman and William themselves are worth watching this film for alone. As the film goes along it gets stronger and stronger and climaxes very well. It's definitely worth a watch.

Monsters is a sci-fi adventure film that takes place six years after Earth suffered an alien invasion thanks to a deep space probe crash landing in Mexico. A cynical journalist, Andrew Kaulder, agrees to escort the daughter of his boss, Samantha Wynden, through an infected zone in Mexico to the safety of the US border.

Monsters is a British film 'written', shot and directed by Gareth Edwards and stars Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able in the principal roles. The performances put in by these two is vital as they are the only real characters in the film. Monsters takes the two characters on a journey and their relationship grows throughout the hour and a half that the movie lasts and to make their relationship believable and in order to hold the audience's attention the chemistry needs to be perfect. Fortunately, at the time of filming McNairy and Able were in a relationship (they are now married) and their chemistry really comes across when watching the film. Their back and forth dialogue and blossoming love story is a treat to watch and their performances are second to none, absolutely flawless in every way.

Monsters is gripping from start to finish.

The story that the film tells is a gripping one. Whilst being a sci-fi and the alien invasion being a huge plot point the aliens actually have a very insignificant role in the film. This was largely down to the minuscule budget but I think the lack of focus on the aliens really adds to the suspense and the fear created within the atmosphere of the film. Monsters is very much a character story and the lack of huge special effects really places the emphasis on the actors' performances which make us, the audience, feel closer to the characters and places us as more intimate to their relationship.

A lot of what makes Monsters as good as it is is in the back story and behind the scenes of the film. As mentioned earlier, the two main actors were and are a couple so their chemistry was real. What's more, the film was shot on such a small budget that there were only five members of the crew; all the extras in the movie were just people who happened to be at the location at the time as the whole film was shot on location with no permission asked in advance. It was largely ad-libbed and improvised with McNairy and Able being told the main points they had to mention in the scene but nothing else. The drama was filmed with store bought cameras and Edwards added all the special effects later on using software on his laptop.

Monsters is an absolute huge achievement for everyone involved and the hard work gone into making the film really comes across when watching. My attention was help throughout the film, Monsters was a tense, heart pumping film that gets the pulse racing as the drama unravels in a very natural way. We are made to feel as though we are part of that world and there is no higher praise for a director than that.

I think that, without a doubt, Monsters is a must see for fans of drama, romance, adventure and sci-fi. Whatever you like, give it a try.

Rendition is a thriller, released in 2007 to mixed reviews. It centres on a CIA analyst who begins to question his assignment after witnessing an unorthodox interrogation at a secret detention facility outside the US. The film is based on the true story of Khalid El-Masri who was mistaken for Khalid Al-Masri.

It features a cast of many big names: Jake Gyllenhaal, Reese Witherspoon, Peter Sarsgaard (who spends most of the film looking incredibly similar to Ewan McGregor), Meryl Streep and J.K. Simmons and is directed by Gavin Hood who is also responsible for ruining a fan favourite Marvel character's origins in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The performances of the above are not that bad and that is the highest compliment I can pay them, however the performance of Omar Metwally who plays the man mistaken for a terrorist is absolutely fantastic; he completely steals the show.

Jake Gyllenhaal's character is very two dimensional. I like Gyllenhaal as an actor and when he turns it on he really does turn it on, but here in Rendition something is lacking. His character is poor and nothing can really bring him to life. Witherspoon's character is just irritating from start to finish while Sarsgaard's character seems useless. The heavyweights Simmons and Streep aren't used nearly enough. The character development and characters in general need to be better written and are not well rounded or even that likable.

Some of the torture scenes in which Anwar El-Ibrahimi is treated horrifically by the American government are when this film comes into its own. They are very well filmed and recreated and clearly a lot of research went into making those scenes authentic and they do, at times, become very hard to watch because we, as the audience, know that the victim is innocent.

My biggest problem with Rendition though is its genre. Thriller. Here's a little piece of advice; you can't call a film a thriller when it isn't even thrilling in the slightest! A thriller, in my opinion, needs to have a mystery, it needs to have shocks and keep the audience on the edge of their seats. Rendition fails to do this majorly. There are parts of the film where it seems as though the director is trying to build up sympathy or the characters or try and give a subtle shock to the audience but it only plants the seeds for a plot twist and the seeds never really come to fruition.

When I sat down to watch the film I had read what it was about and was anticipating something very entertaining as I was impressed with the storyline and the cast but as the film grew on (from what was a very boring first half into a mediocre second) I soon came to realise that I was not watching the film I had hoped. Rendition was a let down; an anti-war film that never really takes off.

Having read around the film I know that it has its fans but I just can't imagine myself wanting to watch it again.

It's been nine years since we last saw Jim and the gang on the big screen, and to fill the pie shaped gap in their lives die hard fans of the series were forced to endure the awful awful sequels that were being made, although by the time Book of Love was made I'm not sure anyone was bothering to watch anymore. But now, in 2012 fans have what they want: a new sequel, the rightful continuation of the original trilogy however there is a problem; with new comedy hits like The Hangover and 21 Jump Street is there still room in the comedy genre for Jim, Finch, Kevin, Oz and Stifler?

The basic premise of the film is pretty much said in the title. American Reunion is the story of the class of 99 from East Great Falls having a high school reunion back in their home towns and as it seems, this is the first time that the gang have got together properly since leaving school. But back in East Great Falls relationship are put to the test as romantic interests, both old and new, force a few characters to think about their adult lives.

The main cast are all back for this: Jason Biggs, Alyson Hannigan, Chris Klein, Thomas Ian Nicholas, Sean William Scott, Eddie Kay Thomas and even John Cho, Chris Owen and Shannon Elizabeth return for the final slice of pie. Because of this the film takes a while to get going as the audience have to be re-introduced to the characters and their modern lives. Fortunately, the opening scene featuring Jim and Michelle's relationship is pretty funny and does well to set up the tone of the film.

Fans of the original trilogy are bound to enjoy this new addition; there are plenty of old jokes referenced throughout the duration of American Reunion and there are, of course, plenty of new jokes and antics from Stifler that are sure to get the audience laughing. A few of the jokes do fall flat on their feet but most of the comedy elements shine and are divided well throughout the film.

As well as the great comedy turns there are also some touching and really nice moments between the couples and this balance of light heartedness and relationship themes really helps the characters come alive and it's wonderful to see how these people's lives have changed while we haven't been watching. This is the first film featuring the original characters not to be written by Adam Herz (instead being written by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg) but the new writers manage to capture the old essence of the characters really well.

American Reunion probably wouldn't look that great as a stand alone film, but as a sequel to the already hilarious trilogy it works brilliantly, providing plenty of nostalgia and familiarity for audiences everywhere. Whilst it is likely that American Reunion may get another sequel providing it does well at the box office I feel like this should be the end. The end of the film seems like a natural conclusion for the gang and I don't think there is much else that we can follow the characters doing. This would be a perfect way to go out.

Well what is there to say about this film. I think the rating on here of 7.3 shows just how under rated this film actually is. In all fairness I think that this film has everything you could want. It has a good mix of action in amongst the very strong story that carries this film. The acting is excellent, i have been a fan of Colin Farrell for years now and I think that this is definitely his best performance to date. Also Ed Norton, sometimes criticised by fans, was flawless in his role. The two lead actors supported magnificently by the cast of supporting actors whose performances really add to the greatness of this film. Dare I say it, but I think it could possibly be the best acted film ever made! This film is type of film that just has to be seen. It's a story driven plot, not one of those action movies with just a tiny storyline to carry it through. This film shows that, even with all the comic-book movies that have been made this year, it doesn't take a large special effects team to make a good film. From beginning to end this film will keep you hooked. WOW!