Reviews

You can take two tacts when looking at Aardman and Nick Park's latest claymation cinematic foray, firstly you can either point out how charming, quirky and essentially British it is, or secondly you can focus on how in comparison to the likes of Pixar's Coco and Laika's Kubo and the Two Strings it's never ever going to operate on any kind of emotional or poignant level that the very best animated films can these days.

However one thing I will say is I did laugh (or more accurately I chuckled) quite a bit throughout the film but that is mainly because of the large football based plot point that had a link to Manchester in the U.K (that's where I live) throughout the film so a viewer may be in enjoyment trouble if that is not your area, this is a film that is certainly operating with very basic storytelling devices (something is took from our heroes, they have to get it back through a challenge that can only be achieved through teamwork) so nothing new here then.

I enjoyed the film but I'm not sure I'd watch it again and I just don't think it's a broad enough film to break it out of its humble film corner and when we're seeing Laika reaching ridiculously high levels of poignant storytelling with Kubo & ParaNorman in the stop motion film area Early Man can in a sense of film irony look slightly prehistoric.

Well the cinematic adaptation of Stephen King's It was interesting to say the least, to describe it as a film of horror skits wouldn't be unfair and that is meant to be both a compliment to those successful film moments but also a word of warning that the film succeeds or fails by the effectiveness of them and I tend to go with the former.

I perceive the best way to view this film and get the most out of it is to not go in expecting a horror film masterclass and instead go into this film in a more entertain in the moment kind of cinematic experience.

My criticisms of the film include the fact that you could easily pinpoint a couple of pointless scenes where you could knock at least ten minutes off to make the film leaner, also given the films author unfortunately those King-isms as I refer to them do occasionally make their presence very much felt in film form, also I get it film, you're set in the eighties you don't have to endlessly tell me in every scene of the film with a poster here a song there and so on, Stranger Things may want a word with you for this reason which to an extent is ironic given that Stranger Things in essence is a heavily influenced Stephen King project.

Significant film positives include the performance of the young cast where a lot of the films goodwill can be attributed and also in Bill Skarsgards performance as Pennywise that well...will not improve anybody's already delicate fear of clowns, at its best it's a wonderfully detailed and stylized horror segment piece that does what the best horror films do, make you feel the characters fear, we can all have our own personal things that give us the chills but the best of horror films go beyond this to make you fear something through someone else.

It's an example of skilfully made horror segments/skits tied clunkily together with a main narrative deemed necessary to propel the film forward, is it an brilliant horror film? No it's not but it's a pretty damn entertaining one.

OK I'm just going to lay it out on the table...I thought given all the talent and circumstances involved although Kingsman: The Golden Circle was sporadically fun it was also rather laboured and I'm annoyed that I've come away from it going 'ahh that had so much more potential', it's unquestionably way too long, it takes a lifetime to get going and although all the acting talent are most certainly game I felt the material wasn't substantial or engaging enough.

It's well documented that director Matthew Vaughn has always been wary of sequels, he directed both the hugely critically and financially successful Kick-Ass and X-Men: First Class yet declined to return for their respected sequels, is there something in this where maybe he thought he would just be repeating the same idea only with less enthusiasm? You know what quite possibly as he finally decided to make a sequel and I think many of his concerns are in play here.

Now don't get me wrong when I did laugh I laughed heavily, what's more concerning is that a big portion of these laughs came from Elton John's involvement, the idea of The Statesman in principle is a great further idea in the Kingsman world but were they an absolute necessity to the plot in this film? Think of the two biggest players on that side in Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges and think 'did I get my money's worth?' the answer for me is emphatically no and I just won't have the argument they are building to their larger involvement in another sequel, sorry that just doesn't satisfy me for the reason they were an active ingredient in this film.

Here's the thing...the best explanation/comparison I can give is to compare both Guardians of the Galaxy and Kingsman: The Secret Service, the impact of both films were pretty similar, both were surprise box office and critical hits with much of the praise going to the performance of the actors and generally the characters interactions therefore funny scriptwork, whereas yes Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 doesn't particularly move a lot along storywise it did continue to entertain throughout and this is where Kingsman: The Golden Circle falls flat as although yes this is a very serviceable sequel as is generally competently made it doesn't feel like it particularly moves anything along but the main problem is it can't quite keep up the hit rate of entertaining interactions in the process, there's a quite stunning final fight scene with some good satirical political humour in play so there are great positives to shout about but maybe it's just me but I've come out more frustrated with wasted potential for this entry and I really wanted to love it as well but there we go

The question is exactly what do we expect from these Disney live action remakes of classic animated films? Only you as a viewer or original fan can fully answer that question.

I will however at least from my point of view attempt to gain a perspective given that we've been presented with three straight remakes, Cinderella, The Jungle Book and in this instance Beauty and the Beast.

With each of these instances there's arguments to be had in relation to whether the original is an absolute classic, whether the film has enough material to flesh out an extended live action feature or even whether just on principal remaking Beauty and the Beast, a film that's universally adored by critics and audiences alike whether this's even a project that should be attempted.

Lets focus on a couple of these aspects, I'll admit that I had intermittingly seen parts of the 1991 animated feature and was very familiar with the songs but had never watched the film from beginning to end until literally two weeks before seeing this years live action adaptation so on one hand I don't have the baggage of twenty years or more of preconceptions for what the film should do in its live action guise, however seeing both the film versions within the space of two weeks does come with the advantage (or maybe baggage) of being able to see things in a more mirrored perspective which with this film in particular was a fascinating thing to behold.

On the point I've just made I'm going to go down the road of them recreating those scene moments with an accuracy which to many a fan I'm sure was pure delight to simply see an exact mirrored scene only with a live action cast, the opening Belle musical sequence is the quintessential example of this with every aspect pretty much identically replicated to a precision that I've not quite seen on this large scale, yes we saw similar things like it in their Cinderella adaptation a couple years ago but that film was so short with plenty of potential to improve and to mould into something that isn't exactly a clone of it's animated counterpart, however I would say that it didn't completely work for Cinderella and also in respect to The Jungle Book Jon Favreau it would appear did want to go beyond what the Disney animated feature did and made it certainly a more cinematic experience type of film that although yes had nods to said animated film but did have ambitions beyond those Disney constraints.

To carry on that point I will simply go onto what I deem to be the films greatest strength and unsurprisingly it is the musical sequences of which the film lives and breaths off of, the question then becomes what exactly are we enjoying about these sequences because haven't we already seen and heard them? Yes and no is my unsurprising conclusion to this question, to focus on two songs in particular 'Gaston' and 'Be Our Guest' these are impeccably entertaining songs in their own right so why did these work even better in this format? I suppose it's down to the physical theatrical performance involved in recreating them, specifically Gaston as so much of the song is for a comedic effect that is only amplified with the performance song and dance piece that it is, in respect to Be Our Guest the visual treat that the animated film created again here is amplified to a splendiferous visual treat that only a creative more physical form can lend to the sequence.

What also must be said is that when talking about this more theatrical performance and the positives it brings it's also hugely reliant upon the individual actors involved and with Gaston in particular Josh Gad, Luke Evans and that whole ensemble are what gives that sequence the strength it has, also the vocal performances of the Be Our Guest voice cast is impeccable, equally when we're talking about the opening Belle sequence the same rule is applied, yes the song is adequately performed by Emma Watson, but it's hard when clearly we've heard this song performed by a more than superior singer and given that the opening is most certainly a scene for scene recreation of the animated feature the startling contrast of such qualities are much more keenly and therefore negatively noted by the viewer.

I'm clearly going into many specifics that a normal reviewer would not do but I'm trying to find out exactly what it is about these remakes that we clearly flock to see as an audience, as this is part of a more broader film debate given in other areas of the film world we've experienced films like Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, films that overly rely on the audiences nostalgia for the past film products in order to positively survive, yes that's an extremely harsh statement to make but given that Beauty and the Beast regularly just recreates exact scenes from the past film the point I'm trying to explore is exactly at what point does a remake or nostalgia kill or make a film that is in front of you.

In respect to this years Beauty and the Beast adaptation, my overall reaction was one of differing feelings, there were the joys of those particular musical moments being recreated, but equally I was unsure what exactly the film generally was bringing to the table as a project, the film does add some scenes to the fray for further context for main characters and there was two extra songs, however I particularly thought that although they did the film no harm I didn't think 'oh isn't it really good they've included that' So overall an inconclusive reaction from me and I'm going to continue to have this debate with myself but I do believe that a more capable group of film reviewers/writers might be able to more articulate an argument.

So I came out of seeing Logan this week with a great deal of frustration...not from the film itself but for what had preceded it in the X-Men films made prior to it, I thought what I had witnessed was very good indeed but really it bears no physical relation to what we've seen from previous X-Men films.

I only own one X-Men film (First Class) and I think that exemplifies my on off relationship with what Fox seem to have consistently got wrong with the films, no one can dispute the casting in either of the film timelines with Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence amongst others being seemingly perfect actors for their respected characters.

Yes we must praise the more emotionally driven storyline of Logan and the performances of not just Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart but of young Dafne Keen, but in equal measure you've still got to notice the flaws on show, I was not particularly impressed by the bad guys played by Richard E. Grant and Boyd Holbrook and there was a particular moment involving a character which is a hugely emotional moment that is then interrupted with the intent to further heighten your emotion for the scene you've just witnessed yet I was hugely frustrated by it, now this may be a story thread from the comics (I don't know) but either way I actually thought it detracted from a possibly hugely emotional story development that did have me on the edge of my seat and close to tears.

It sounds like I'm hating on it doesn't it but I feel we mustn't suppress the flaws the film still has including the fact that it is too long, that I am adamant of, however the stuff that is good is close to exceptional with a generally great script that is not only emotional but funny as well with the obvious Professor X and Logan conversing the absolute highlight, the great performances from said actors with Stewart for me being award worthy.

There are comparisons to be had with this film in the likes of the obvious Children of Men and the less obvious Creed, yes that's right the Rocky reboot that came out last year, I can already hear the superhero fans howling out it anger but there's something to be said for a long standing franchise character having an emotional one last hurrah having experienced all that they have in their respected film worlds, the 15 rated film that it is here in the U.K is really the age range the X-Men films all should have been in to begin with considering all the stories of persecution and so on, so to see the violence as it should be is all the more hard hitting and affecting.

Yes it is a different type of comic book/superhero film that is an extremely welcome one, I just feel we shouldn't have had to go through so many mediocre X-Men film experiences to get to this one ten films in that has such meaning and emotion.

Yes I know, the title of my review and the fact that I've given this film an eight rating seems to be sending contradictory thoughts on how good I thought this film was, but I can explain my reasoning and thoughts on this rating process.

I'm going to be brutally honest with my opinions on this, if I'm judging this purely on film credentials/qualities I've got some significant issues, primarily the pacing, it really does lag between sections of the film and this is going to sound bizarre so hear me out...but is the films predictable story structure of young love too comfortable? Or is that the intention of the film given in essence it's a love letter to classic Hollywood films of the studio era where audiences pretty much knew what they were going to get going in...I'll leave that one up for debate I suppose.

On a completely different note I must comment upon Ryan Gosling's singing, it's not particularly bad it's just kind of underwhelming given all that is surrounding it.

The most significant question I have to ask in regards to this film however is at what point does nostalgia for films past equal critical acclaim? Is the film self congratulatory? I kind of thought so in certain moments, there's a particular piece of dialogue that is so glaringly so I did an unintentional eye roll. The reason why I think this is a relevant question is that in recent years we've experienced films that go beyond a nod and a wink to films past and just outright try to recreate and remake extremely popular films of previous years that have been given from my point of view too good critical receptions as simply repackaging these qualities to give to a new modern age audience is not a sign of greatness, surely it's a sign of lack of creativity. The only thing I will say in this films defence to this point is that the films director/writer Damien Chazelle I truly do believe has made this film with immense love for the genre of film that has been and earnestly wanted to bring it to the new audience with none of the cynicism I clearly have, however where it in my opinion falls down is the predictable and flat storytelling in between the outstanding song and dance numbers that the films soul lives off, which is actually a shock as his previous film Whiplash is one of my favourite films in the last few years that I constantly tell people to watch as it has brilliant storytelling at the heart of it.

It really sounds like I didn't enjoy this film doesn't it, however let's go on to the positives, when it's on song it is truly exceptional as an event piece of cinema and certainly worth the price of admission alone, three segments in particular are of testament to this, the Gosling/Stone bench choreographed number, the Emma Stone final audition song (reminded be heavily of Anne Hatheway in Les Miserables) and the 'what if?' reversal of time jazz club finale that was an astonishing spectacle to behold.

I'd be amazed if the score doesn't sweep every awards gong going as it was truly magnificent, the songs were generally infectiously fun but what wins you over more then anything for me was the dance numbers and not because they were a nostalgic nod to Hollywood's yesteryear but because they were wonderfully entertaining and skilfully put together in their own right with two superb performances from Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling at the centre of them putting their heart and soul into something that would have been an enormous challenge, in fact the story between the song and dance numbers almost does a disservice to these moments because the dance numbers themselves tell a much better story through that medium, Emma Stone is sublime and she most certainly can sing and her joyfully exuberance performance is the base for the joyful feel of the film.

This is event cinema, it has to be seen at the cinema there is no doubt about that as it's the sort of film that won't be seen very often on our screens, I can certainly see why is has garnered the industries critical acclaim and respect, however my own personal take on the film is that not of utter adulation but one of just great respect as a film of flawed brilliance.

For a film studio like Warner Bros who until The Lego Movie was released two years ago was pretty much defunct in the animated movie making business, it would appear making a pretty good go at their animated output.

Now yes The Lego Movie was a huge critical and financial success and deservedly so and although Storks is certainly not anywhere near that level of quality I still came out from watching it thinking it was a pretty decent effort and shows promise for their future projects.

Storks without a doubt does rely upon a couple of predictable arcs and tropes familiar to the regular film watcher, parts of its kookiness so to speak reminded me of Shrek and the whole angle of 'we've got to get this baby back to its parents' story arc has been played out so many times beyond my initial Ice Age comparison as did the seemingly so different characters having to come together for a common goal, pretty standard kids animation fair.

So what is it that makes it stand above other animations of its kind that have been released this year? Well I'll begin with Andy Samberg who as one of the lead characters manages to impose himself comedically on the film, many films have prominent comedians in central roles but rarely give them ample opportunity to have a voice on proceedings, The Secret Life of Pets is a prime example of this as why hire Louis C.K to be one of your leads if he's given almost no comedic voice (no pun intended), it's always a difficult decision no doubt but Samberg manages to attain some of that awkward confident charm that has made him so entertaining on Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Kelsey Grammar is on some decently entertaining form as Samberg's boss with many of his exchanges with Samberg being some of the funniest moments (from my point of view) in the film, there's also entertaining material from comedy duo Key and Peele who feature as a pair of wolves and again this feels like they've had input into the script, so actually overall I think the voice cast was pretty bang on the money.

Yes there are quite a few positives but some times you do have to work hard to get them, what I mean by that is that some of the humour is so bizarre and offbeat that there could be something you find hilarious but easily doesn't connect with a single other audience member and that is a problem, so therefore there certainly is a scattergun approach to the films humour, also there are periods in the film where it does feel like it is going through the motions in order to get to the next part of the story without having to rush to it.

I do on a side note have to pay comment to a fight scene between our two leads and a bunch of penguins that has to be done in silence as to not wake a baby, its was truly brilliantly done, even to the point that I felt guilty actually laughing out loud during this silent battle so I muffled my laughs, now that is some effective stuff.

So Storks is very much a notch above the likes of say The Secret Life of Pets and certainly The Angry Birds Movie but no way near anything like the quality of say Finding Dory, Zootropolis or Kubo and the Two Strings.

Storks it certainly good natured family fun that if you're in right mood could surprise you with some of it's offbeat humour.

Now it is certainly unsurprising that Sausage Party, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg's latest film collaboration originally struggled to get financial backing as it is one hell of a weird watch.

What is most interesting about it is not particularly the shock value humour that the film plentifully employs (too much one could say) but the underlying commentary on social aspects in U.S. society including themes of the political & racial persuasion & most prominently the role religion or non-religion plays in society.

Now who in their right mind would of thought that I would be coming out with a comment like that in reference to this film?...not me for sure.

It must be said that given that this is a film that is supposed to be a comedy I actually thought it was lacking in out & out comedic moments, in fact the commentary/message that the film seems to channel actually overpowers or even takes over what I would consider to be the films lack of humour.

Like I said previously in reference to the shock value level employed by the film, too much of said humour is left to that device and given that the film is constantly employing it it only then lessens the effect of it, don't get me wrong I did laugh at quite a few of those moments but there is a point where it did start to wear thin with me.

The film itself is kind of a curiosity purely from its place in the cinematic landscape, I mean how many adult animated comedy films can you think of?...You could literally count them on one hand.

It's interesting me mentioning the above given that a film or even TV series that goes by the name of South Park is surely the godfather of adult shock humour and surely of great inspiration for this film yet what their cinematic exploits featured was not just a message but some ingenious musical routines and most importantly humour that never seems to let up on the viewer.

However the film does have to gain credit in doing something that I never thought possible as given that I'm a South Park veteran viewer it really does take something extraordinary to shock me and the apparent mutilation of food in a variety of ways really did have me grimacing with some regularity and they certainly didn't hold back on the 'adult' nature of the animated comedy.

It's certainly an interesting film project but it doesn't quite fulfill its purpose/potential given the ideas the film has to offer.

Shark films....yeah in recent years we have been subjected to shark films with all the subtlety of...well a Sharknado! Lets face it it's been nigh on impossible to make a shark film without it fairly or unfairly being compared to Jaws in some shape or form and let's face it not many people have tried for that same reason, it's almost an unwinnable film pursuit.

However what must be said for this entry into what can be called the survival/thriller genre, the man or should it be in this case the woman against nature battle comes across rather well and with quite a few positives to boot.

So our general set up is a young woman played by Blake Lively has traveled to a secluded beach in Mexico that was of significant importance to her and her mother, who we find out has recently died, so it would appear that in part this could be read as a tribute to visit a place of such importance to their relationship but also can be read (after seeing interactions with her father via a video call) as her possibly running away or avoiding her problems at home, she then obviously begins surfing at this rather isolated beach where she not only comes into interaction with two fellow surfers but also unfortunately the attentions of a rather territorial great white shark and so begins a battle for survival.

Positives begin with the performance of Blake Lively who gives an extremely committed performance, but really what is best achieved in this film is finally creating that feeling once again of the fear of the water where even the slightest toe in the sea makes you almost wince at what is to come, therefore the tension building is skillfully done between major events and there is an ultimate sense of dread, also when those events hit they hit hard in full force with one particular surfer attack really making you feel the force of nature, also the effects when you see the shark are so well created that you hardly bat an eyelid and could be forgiven in thinking that some of what is on screen is real footage.

There are a couple of negatives I must bring to the fore though, I really thought at the beginning of the film the video call I mentioned earlier in the films synopsis was not very well presented and was pretty clunky, it seemed very much an attempt to say 'hey look at us being all modern with our representation of how the younger generation connects' so a pretty underwhelming use of that medium, there were also a couple of moments where I did find myself going 'oh come on' to particular events in the film but not so much that it became a major concern. I also have to point out that yes I know this is a film where Blake Lively is not going to be wearing a lot of clothes but I still think there were shots or slow motion shots where we were pretty much just ogling her at times, those instances tended to be in the first act of the film it must be said where we are seeing her surf etc and it's the case that a camera would stay on her from a particular angle for longer than what I would deem to be necessary, I'm very sure that's just me on that point so don't worry about that.

The finale sequence could also be accused of being something more out of Deep Blue Sea rather that the Jaws mould, look I just did it I brought in a Jaws comparison it was inevitable, but on that finale sequence hey is was certainly inventive I'll give the creators that.

So to sum up I feel it's a pretty damn enjoyable yet purposely uncomfortable/wince educing cinematic experience if with a couple of minor flaws to boot, oh also on a sidenote I immensely enjoyed the performance of Steven Seagull, he stole pretty much every scene he was in.

It's with great pleasure and relief that I'm pleased to report I very much enjoyed Finding Dory.

Pixar in recent years have gone back to their hugely successful films seeing sequels to the likes of Cars and Monsters Inc, but unlike those sequels the end product of Finding Dory is a property certainly worth revisiting and was a huge relief to me, yes it can't live up to Finding Nemo, but then again how many animated films can? But what it can do is stand on its own two feet and still be a very entertaining animated feature that really when you look at this years animated films is pretty much head and shoulders above what has been this year, although I'm sure in the coming month or so Kubo and the Two Strings may up the ante in the quality animation stakes.

So what does the film get right? Firstly I'm glad they didn't try to go bigger with the story/plot, they didn't try to travail the ocean yet again because we would of just been retreading old ground (or should that be old ocean?) instead they use that kind of plot just on a smaller and possibly more intimate way.

The plot focuses on Dory trying to find her parents who of course she has forgotten the location of, in doing so we end up at a sea life rescue centre/park where of we meet an array of new characters who each have very positive effects on the film.

The voice work is just another level when it comes to Pixar and this film is no different with Ellen DeGeneres on blistering form as the amnesiac Dory and Pixar have done it again when it comes to casting children in their films because in the flashback scenes where we see Dory as a child they cast seven-year-old Sloane Murray the daughter of this films producer Lindsey Collins and an astonishing unforgettable baby Dory will never be gone from your memory, just superb work.

Also like I said earlier the supporting character all have entertaining moments, my particular favourites were a Beluga Whale played by Ty Burrell, a couple of sea lions played by Idris Elba and Dominic West therefore making it a mini Wire reunion, but special mention has to go to Sigourney Weaver who plays...well herself as the park/aquarium intercom announcer, it was funny every single time.

It kind of doesn't even need saying but the quality of the animation is outstanding and breathtaking at times, a little mention on this does need to go to the short film Piper that played before the main feature which featured animation that if you were to blink you may struggle to determine whether it was animation or actual footage, phenomenal.

Yes it can't compare to Finding Nemo for absolute 10/10 high end quality but its an unfortunate comparison it does have to live with.

But overall it was funny, it was heartwarming and briefly it was gut-wrenching, it never overstays its welcome and you are entertained from beginning to end, I mean what more can you want from a film?

It's definitely Pixar finding sequel form just at the right moment in time with upcoming project sequels to the likes of Toy Story and The Incredibles to come in the next three years.

It is Pixar doing the business.

Now I perceive The BFG to have many problems as a film...yet it has still somehow managed to charm the hell out of me.

So what's the reason? Maybe it's in part thanks to Spielberg's ability to emotionally manipulate an audience and the apparent charm that comes with it or maybe it was the great audience reaction in the film screening I saw that has influenced my take on it.

Do I think it's a brilliant family film? No I don't, yet do I believe it will have the required effect on the target audience? Yes I do, contradictory some may say, part of that feeling comes directly from my cinema experience amongst a large family audience with the child age range primarily of what I'd say to be 6-9 year old's, with countless child gasps and murmurs of 'Is that the dream tree?' and 'It's the BFG!' I've been in many a family/kids film audience where the child audience has been restless yet this film seemed to manage to encapsulate the sort of wonder that many kids animated films fail to do.

So what's positively good about it? I have to begin with set design because if anything has been proved with this film and Spielberg's last film Bridge of Spies, the people he employs are surely the best set designers in the business with him wonderfully recreating London streets where the orphanage is situated in The BFG.

The performance of the young Ruby Barnhill as the principle lead of Sophie the young girl who is taken from her orphanage by The BFG and took to the land of giants is nothing but exceptional, she offers enough intrigue and warmth that makes her thoroughly engaging throughout the film, Mark Rylance in a motion capture performance as The Big Friendly Giant is also entertaining with him charming his way through the film with his wonderful pronunciations of original novelist Roald Dahl's interesting dialogue.

Not everything works though and it's fair to say sometimes Rylance's accent comes across a bit too twee for my liking, also even though the other giants are meant to be a decent part of the story they feel rather more like decorate dressing around our main two characters, my main two criticisms are bound to contradict each other with not enough humour for my liking and given the fact that giants are coming into children's bedrooms and eating them the film does a bit of a sanitisation job of the actual darker intentions of what made the book and Dahl's works in general so unique and wonderful.

I certainly feel it will connect with the target demographic although I'd say definitely more here in the United Kingdom than say the U.S. and like I said I was surprised how much it did charm me.

Isn't it interesting that when the Bourne series debuted with the first installment Identity back in 2002 it pretty much showed Bond up for the pure ridiculous product it had become at the time and ushered in a new era of spy/conspiracy action thrillers, yet it would now appear that although the newest entry in the franchise Jason Bourne isn't at all a bad film it just seems....well OK.

If any film could be accused of playing it safe or playing it by the book Jason Bourne would fit the bill.

In terms of the storyline we follow the re-emergence of Matt Damon as Jason Bourne who has been in hiding, or more accurately was staying off the authorities radar in a plot that generally focuses on a conspiracy that involved the death of his father and of course this sets off a chain of events that involves high speed chase sequences being pursued by the authorities and some brutal fight/action scenes.

So why my general apprehension towards the film? Director Paul Greengrass knows the notes that hit home and to many fans he probably plays them beautifully in line with what we'd expect, but isn't that the problem? The reason why Bourne was so successful in the first place was because it went against the grain of what was being made at the time and offered up a new and fresh take on not only conspiracy thrillers but gave the audience great intellectual credit and was also merged with some pulsating fighting/action sequences.

To the infrequent cinemagoer the film is probably a very entertaining popcorn flick and will certainly do the job the makers generally set out to do but for me someone who is endlessly at the cinema it is going to have a harder time convincing of its qualities.

Matt Damon is as watchable as ever but he's been in much better films recently, Alicia Vikander is probably one of the more interesting aspects of the film as the Head of a Cyber Ops Division in the CIA and her performance is certainly a more positive point, Tommy Lee Jones pretty much gruffs it in as the director of the CIA and Vincent Cassel positively surprises as an assassin/nemesis for Bourne to battle.

It's a hard one this as Greengrass knows slick filmmaking and this film is as slick as anything, yet it feels way too predictable and familiar for my own personal liking but as I keep repeating the qualities of all those involved make this an above average film, it's just not a film I myself can get excited about.

Key and Peele's first foray into the world of feature films is everything you'd expect from two such talented comedians and individuals.

The style and type of humour that we are so accustomed to from them is not compromised by chasing a possible bigger audience, this is without doubt a 15 rated film.

So the film in question focuses upon characters called Rell and Clarence, played by Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele respectively, two rather middle class individuals at different stages in their respective lives, Clarence is married but possibly facing a midlife crisis whereas Rell has just been dumped by his girlfriend and nothing it would seem could make him get out of this slump, but then literally the cutest kitten turns up at his door and he instantly finds a connection and calls him Keanu.

What then proceeds is a series of bizarre events revolving around the theft of the new arrival Keanu by a local gang of drug dealers whom Rell and Clarence then have to channel their inner gangster to infiltrate their organization in order to get Keanu back safe and sound.

Yes it is as bizarre as it sounds but it is only the better for it, it does have all the familiarity of a classic Key and Peele sketch only stretched out to a feature length idea, so therefore there is a little bit of flabbiness when it come to the tightness of the storytelling and to a probably more obvious degree the feeling of a lot of different funny sketches thrown together, it certainly is too long, ten minutes at least could of been knocked off the running time and the film would only have been better for it making it leaner and slicker as a whole.

But the more pertinent question however is simply 'is it funny' and the answer is most certainly 'hell yes' I probably haven't laughed this consistently throughout a comedy this year, this is obviously mainly in part down to the brilliant chemistry that Key and Peele have as an on screen presence that is different from the vast majority of comedians currently presiding in the U.S. entertainment industry, they certainly give a different comedic perspective on social situations, even if it comes with a high level of bizarre also attached.

The support is pretty good as well, principally the white weed dealing neighbour of Rell played by The Last Man on Earth himself, Will Forte, there's also a nice piece of casting for the gang leader of The Blips with Method Man putting in a very funny turn which adds nods to his appearances in The Wire, even the fellow members of the gang get funny moments with one particular memorable moment being a George Michael singalong.

The action and violence is quite brutal at times but that is an angle that gives it an edge and so I suppose it comes down to how sensitive you are to the suggestion of violence on some level being funny in how you take the tone it presents you with, I personally went with it so to say and went with that dark humour.

So as I said some editing could have been made to make the film a bit slicker and effective on the plotting so therefore running time but overall I thought it was consistently funny, some may say it's a one joke film and although I could see that point of view I would debate it and I would reply...well it is a funny joke and it didn't tire for me, I found it to be a consistently funny and entertaining film.

Now I will state from the start that Kevin Hart as a comedian has never appealed to me and so therefore that also translates into his films having never been intrigued enough to go see one of his (some of the critical receptions bare this out) but this is obviously where that trend ends for me.

In this 'mismatched' buddy action comedy both Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson seem to have stumbled upon some fabulous comedic chemistry that I most certainly didn't see coming.

Having stated my indifference earlier to Kevin Hart I am at the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to Dwayne Johnson, a man, an actor who probably shouldn't be as successful as he is...yet I can't resist his charms, there is just something inherently likable about the man as an on screen presence and as an actor in general and that is no different here.

Quick plot synopsis now, flashback to high school, Hart is Mr. Popular, Johnson is the school joke, flash-forward twenty years to the present day where after a social media inspired meetup if would appear maybe that now the two have switched places in life (quite a common story arc) and what may also be certainly more concerning for Hart is the fact that Johnson may appear to be a spy on the run, so ensues a parade of nifty chase sequences some rather inspired and choreographed escape fighting scenes interspersed of course with Hart chipping in with comedic observations of their currently absurd predicament. There is in particular a scene where Johnson has replaced the role of a therapist who is about to give marriage counsel to Hart and his wife and it is extremely funny.

This should not of entertained me as much as it did and trust me I am as surprised as anyone that it got many laughs out of me, it certainly does remind me in parts to 21 Jump Street, what I mean by that is it being a nice comedic surprise of a film that has the laughs but actually does in part also have a heart in place, or as the brilliant marketing department said on the films tagline and posters 'It takes a little Hart and a big Johnson' just superb.

I was a little concerned after the films opening which I mentioned earlier is a flashback to high school where we see the rather unsubtle face of Johnson transposed onto the head and body of a rather overweight kid but the film got out of that just pure weird territory quicker than expected, yes not every joke hits the mark but the success to failure rate is amply way on the positive side of things and the pace and action is brisk enough that it never overstays its welcome which is very surprising given the near two hour feature length running time.

But I suppose the main question that does have to be asked though is 'who is the Black Badger' maybe I'm the Black Badger, as Thomas Kretschmann brilliantly puts it.

So it's not particularly going to change the comedic landscape out there but it more than succeeds in keeping you very entertained throughout mainly thanks to the great comedic chemistry that Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson bring to the party.

Now I'm going to start this review off by saying I'm a massive fan of the 1996 Independence Day film, a film that although is by no means a masterpiece but is certainly a film of tremendous fun, big on spectacle & had a very enjoyable & entertaining cast of characters, so I was worried when I heard that it was finally getting a sequel after all these years & unfortunately those worries were justified upon seeing Independence Day: Resurgence.

The main problem for me was a lack of personality from our leads, Liam Hemsworth, Jessie T. Usher & Maika Monroe make up the principle new leads & unfortunately they just don't pack the punch of the original casts contrasting personalities & unusual yet effective chemistry, this is further exemplified when the likes of Jeff Goldblum, Brent Spiner & Bill Pullman (yes who thought I'd be craving more Bill Pullman!) are on screen, their appearances on screen are nothing but a joy, Brent Spiner being a particular joyful surprise, although as I said it kind of makes you long for these supporting characters more than the new young leads. That's not to say every returning character is valued in the film with Vivica A. Fox and Judd Hirsch having either no screen time or wasteful screen time placed at their door, there are also superfluous characters I could have done without including characters played by Nicolas Wright, Travis Tope and an overly British scientist played by Charlotte Gainsbourg.

To be fair to the film it isn't a bad film, but it also isn't a very good one either, it doesn't lessen the current cinematic landscape but equally it doesn't improve the cinematic landscape either.

It's simply this, the original film offered us a cinematic experience like no other at the time of its release, truly spectacular effects & a star in Will Smith whose charisma alone could of carried the film, the problem is these days those effects are no longer as impressive with us becoming more nonchalant to citywide destruction & with less charismatic leads in the acting department the film was always going to falter in delivering the goods.

There were interesting aspects to the film though including how humanity has made use of the alien technology from the first film, there was also a situation where Hemsworth & Usher are inside an alien mothership that has its own ecosystem that was great idea, although we spend little time in this environment to make it worthy.

Then we have a character at the end describing a possible situation for a future film and it made me go 'that's the film I want to see' although if it's going to be made by the same makers it makes you think twice whether you'd want it.

I was certainly more entertained watching this than I was watching Warcraft, but maybe that was in part thanks to nostalgia, so to sum up as I've said numerous times now it offers nothing particularly new to the sci-fi genre nor the cinema landscape generally, but is keeps things rolling along at a reasonable pace to keep you generally interested throughout even if its not going to leave a huge lasting impression upon its audience after they've left the cinema.

The Secret Life of Pets should come under the banner of 'a good concept yet not fully developed'.

There's no doubt it certainly recycles the old story arcs of the Toy Story films, firstly the premise of what pets do when you're not there (so it just replaces toys for animals) additionally it features a main character taken aback by a new arrival, the main character then tries to get rid of said new arrival & then they both get stranded & have to find their way back home...sound familiar? Additionally there is a moment in the storyline where a character recalls his relationship with a former owner akin to what Jessie does in Toy Story 2 therefore the similarities continue in pushing those buttons, now the problem of doing this of course is that you are setting yourself an impossible task to match up to & when they clearly didn't have the same quality of care involved in it in my opinion it isn't going to win over an adult audience who has seen it done so much better, but then again does it have to? The Secret Life of Pets is certainly very passable as a purely kids film and there is enough frantic animation, cute characters and humor kids of a certain age will no doubt connect with.

Now in terms of the voice talent involved Louis C.K plays our main lead animal Max & although he does a capable job he certainly gets overshadowed by a couple of support performances, namely Jenny Slate who plays Gidget & for me was very entertaining and without doubt the standout character on show, Albert Brooks who plays Tiberius a pet hawk also does some good work & Kevin Hart gets a showcase opportunity as the rather psychotic rabbit Snowball, beyond those performances though I felt the voice-work was a much of a muchness.

As I've said some of the storytelling is recycled, but also some of it is clearly chaotic in terms of that the film seems to be briefly focused one minute and then gets distracted with some other antics the next, now that can be fine as long as those antics are entertainingly worthy of diverting from the original storyline but it treads a very fine line in doing this.

The animation itself is vibrantly colorful and engaging to look at, but then again these days with a decent budget (as this film does have to the tune of $75million) that is not too difficult to achieve.

There are some nice comic observations on our relationships with our pets and I certainly laughed numerous times throughout but more in the vain of smirks and sniggers rather than belly laughs.

I do think that there was a lot of potential with this premise of a film and certainly feel that it has been a opportunity missed to be a truly great animated film, but as I've said previously it is certainly not a a bad film and it is extremely passable as an entertaining kids film but I do struggle to make a convincing case beyond that general consensus.

On a side note I really didn't need that unfunny Minions short film prior to the main feature, it utterly reeks of pure commercialism & audience grabbing bait on Illuminations part in order to garner more of an audience for the main film.

Now I've not done this for a while sooooo.....Hello to Jason Isaacs.

The title says it all, the film is built upon this extremely bizarre meeting of two such prominent yet diverse (or so it would seem) individuals.

I suppose the question has to be raised of whether this is a one scene film & the answer is...pretty much, but it's a worthwhile journey to get to it.

Michael Shannon as Elvis Presley & Kevin Spacey as former U.S. President Richard Nixon give truly entertaining performances, Shannon in particular is superb & well...Spacey is an interesting one isn't he because we have seen a Presidential Spacey on our screens for a little while now & one of my apprehensions before seeing the film was that all I was going to be able to think about was his House of Cards persona & expect him to suddenly turn to the camera & go 'yes this really happened'.

So the 'yes this really happened' scenes are how the film gets away with some of its big flaws, one flaw involves the films attempt to give a backstory to a character (played by Alex Pettyfer) who is Elvis's main assistant & I was like 'I really don't care'.

Let's face it we've paid the ticket price to witness 'that' meeting & when it finally comes around via a number of bizarre Elvis encounters including one with the bureau of narcotics we are not left disappointed, the character interplay between Shannon & Spacey is superb because Shannon gives off that air of spontaneity/unexpectedness that is required & Spacey gives responses in a way only a man surprised by what he was witnessing could do, it has without doubt many very funny moments, but also in there was actually a very touching moment I thought worked well just before Elvis steps in to meet the President where he talks about a piece of personal family history, it's no doubt out of the blue but I did think it worked rather well.

That's not to say that the filmed isn't flawed though, in fact we spend so much time trying to fill screen time before the films 'big' event that a good proportion of it feels inconsequential & pure filler.

So yes the film does rely on the titular meeting to tent pole the film but the fact that when this event comes around it entertains from the moment Elvis steps into that Oval Office to moment he steps out makes the film most certainly a worthwhile watch.

So overall the film is by no means groundbreaking & the surrounding story is extremely throwaway but the film is sporadically fun and rolls along with a great amount of charm mainly thanks to Michael Shannon & Kevin Spacey's performances in taking two iconic public figures & making you forget these actors were playing these men therefore resulting in some truly charismatic acting & a very entertaining watch indeed.

Well the latest entry from Studio Ghibli was an interesting watch, it's not quite as emotionally taxing as say From Up on Poppy Hill or The Wind Rises are & it's not going into the ridiculously wonderful & whimsical vibrant worlds of say Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke, it is a film of small personal drama that at the heart of it is a story of a young girl troubled with loneliness & a feeling that the world around her is not accepting her...that can be oh so relatable, just from the simple feeling of opening up only to get hurt in the process therefore further isolating herself, sound familiar? The one thing you do get from the film is something that is very prominent in many Ghibli films and that is the convincing portrayal of the main character having to 'find themselves' to discover who they are, which is always a great message to put out there.

For me personally it's not up there with the Studio's best with some of the tones a bit too twee for my liking and hey I'm not afraid of a bit of Ghibli whimsy but they've done it so much better in the likes of From Up on Poppy Hill (which I feel is greatly underrated) and The Wind Rises that embrace the personal drama, humor and whimsy in equal and affecting use, considering also some of the films themes this may explain away why there wasn't as much humor in the film.

It has to be said Ghibli always make interesting films & even with this being not one of their best it still has plenty to offer & I could still see it connect with a young adolescent girl audience.

I hope that this (given the rumors) is not their last film for a while as their films make the animation landscape such a more vibrant place to view interesting films.