Reviews

The elders say that two is company, anything more is just a crowd. Avengers shows a big fat middle finger to those learned folks of yore, and in the process easily sets the new benchmark for all epic action extravaganzas! With an ensemble star cast, a fast, witty script, thrilling action sequences, and masterful direction, it is the perfect superhero movie, one which will charm not only the nerdy fans, but also the uninitiated.

The Avengers project began over 10 years back, when Marvel first thought of bringing their superhero team on screen, but to give each hero a rightful back story they had to bring out the individual movies first. Each of them were characterized by action, humour and a certain degree of insaneness. The movies generated big bucks at the box office, but i always felt Marvel was holding back something- whether the grandness of plot, or the scale of action. This is what it was saving for, no holding back for the $220 million mother of all actioners, Avengers- 6 superheroes, one mental Norse God, a full scale alien invasion- this one has got it all.

The story picks up plot strands from the previous movies- Loki steals the Tesserect, a cube like artifact which is a source of great power, which he plans to use to open a portal through which his alien friends in skullcaps invade Earth. Post credit scenes in the older Marvel movies show that Nick Fury has been preparing for just one such rainy day- where the Earth will be "hilariously out gunned" and there will be the need for the individual superheroes to come together to fight as a team. To form an unbeatable squad, each superhero gets something to the table- Hulk brings the muscle, Captain America brings strategy, Ironman brings style and technology, Thor brings emotion along with Godlike fury, Hawkeye brings steely sincerity and Black Widow brings smoking-hot sexiness. But before they can take on Loki and his minions, they will have to get over their superhero sized egos and other intra heroic tensions so as to work together in a team. Much of the film's uproarious moments come due to the witty banter of the superheroes. The climactic showdown between the good guys and evil aliens might seem overdrawn and similar to the one in last year's Transformers- dark of the Moon, but is infinitely more enjoyable, each scene a joyous ode to the capabilities of this awesome fighting team, each sequence bettering the previous one.

The movie's biggest strength is its star cast- Robert Downey as Ironman, continues from where he left off in Ironman 2- "billionaire, playboy, genius, philanthropist"- he calls himself, as he lends sarcastic humour to an "oh so serious" group. Chris Evans as Captain America might wear a ridiculous stars and stripes costume but does what is required with utmost sincerity. Chris Hemsworth as Thor does a decent job in showing angst and turmoil, while Jeremy Renner and Scarlett Johansson as Hawkeye and Black Widow are serviceable as second rate heroes to the A-team.

However the scene stealers were Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/Hulk and Hiddleston's Loki. Ruffalo is probably the best Hulk to grace the silver screen, and while Edward Norton and Eric Bana played the role with intensity, Ruffalo plays him with a lot of self deprecating humour. Trust me, with or without pants, the Hulk will keep you in splits, but reserve your wolf whistles for the scene where the Hulk delivers the coup de grace to Loki. Loki's expression immediately after- priceless :) Speaking of whom, the star of the movie IS Loki- a superhero movie is as good or as bad as its villain (think Joker in the dark Knight or Doc Ock in Spiderman 2)- and in Avengers, Hiddleston plays Loki in a manner that man to man, he stands head and shoulders above the heroes. This Loki, like most super villains has a sinister, single point agenda- to rule the world, and in its quest he even manages to make a crowd of people kneel down to him, in of all places, Germany- not-so-long-ago home to one of the biggest megalomaniac in the history of the world. When Loki is captured and held in a glass cell, he gives a little bit of the Hannibal Lecter treatment to Scarlett.

You do a far better job if you love what you do, and director Joss Whedon is a certified geek, having written comics in addition to having directed two cult series. The biggest input that Joss Whedon brings, is to create an environment of impending doom without letting the audience get overworked with it- "hold on", he seems to say, "the solution is just round the corner"- it helps the movie not to take itself too seriously, unlike the DC Comic adaptations. Avengers is a celebrity jamboree of sorts, and yet Whedon manages to give each star his place, each character, his due Avengers weighs in at 146 minutes, but to his credit, Whedon keeps the pace snappy throughout, whenever things begin to sag, jokes, punchlines, and slam bam action sequences pop up to keep the party going strong.

To sum up, Avengers is a superlative effort. Mixing fantasy, science fiction, imagination, colourfully dressed he-men, this is the film Marvel fans have been waiting for ages- they took their time, but they delivered on all counts. This is a no holds barred, effects driven, mass appeal blockbuster par excellence, absurdly entertaining- these 146 minutes felt like an entire summer vacation in Asgard for geeks such as me, and will sure extend its magic to the non fans. There are so many characters, yet it never felt too many, production values are solid, the script engaging, with loads and loads of nonstop action. Geeking out has never been so much fun.

with whom I am most familiar, albeit through the 1970s live-action series and the 1990s animated one. The film is great fun from start to finish. It may not have the same level of characterisation as its predecessor "Iron Man" but I thought that the action scenes were more entertaining and the pacing was considerably better. The script is well written by Zak Penn and the star Edward Norton (uncredited in this capacity) and Louis Leterrier directs the film with style. It's a shame that the Hulk has gone on to become the Marvel Cinematic Universe's answer to the Wolf Man in that he got one film (the 2003 version notwithstanding) and then only showed up in crossover films rather than getting a sequel to himself. The film had great potential for a proper sequel but I don't really see it happening at this stage.

Norton is extremely good as Bruce Banner who, in this version of events, was exposed to gamma radiation deliberately in a failed attempt by the US military to revive its World War II super-soldier project, something which would later be explored on screen in much more detail in "Captain America: The First Avenger". I generally prefer superheroes with powers as opposed to non-powered ones and the thing that I always liked about the Hulk's storyline is that there is a great sense of inner conflict. The Hulk represents the primitive, bestial side of human nature and is, in that sense, a throwback to our distant ancestors while Banner represents the better angels of our nature. We all have to struggle with the more primitive parts of us at times, though not quite so literally. However, the line is blurred somewhat in the film as the Hulk is not as animalistic as in other versions. The script does not allow Norton the same opportunity as Robert Downey, Jr. to play a character who grows and develops over the course of the film. However, he gives a great, understated performance and I always felt that the Hulk was just beneath the surface, waiting to manifest himself. I'm rather disappointed that this was Norton's only outing in the role.

Betty Ross, played well by Liv Tyler, is not quite as strong a character as I would have liked but she is much better than Pepper Potts in "Iron Man". Betty is extremely intelligent, kind, brave, resourceful and loyal. It is obvious from the beginning why Bruce is attracted to her. Speaking of which, their romantic moments seemed a great deal more realistic and heartfelt than those between Tony and Pepper in "Iron Man" and I am including the very sweet scene in which she calms down the Hulk in that. Bruce and Betty seem much more evenly managed and suited to each other, frankly. Tim Roth is as creepy and effective as you would expect as the Russian-born British Royal Marines officer Emil Blonsky but I would have preferred a better actor than the decent but not great William Hurt as General Ross. Tim Blake Nelson is great as Samuel Sterns and Ty Burrell has a nice cameo role as Betty's new boyfriend Leonard Samson. In a refreshing move, the film avoids the obvious cliché of making the other man in the love triangle a complete ass. Leonard is a nice, decent guy.

The CGI in the film is very good if not quite state of the art by 2008 standards. It is at its most impressive during the hugely entertaining climactic battle between the Hulk and the mutated Blonsky. The Hulk looked better in the nighttime scenes than in the daytime ones. It was a good idea from a dramatic point of view that the Hulk's manifestations were relatively few and far between. I appreciated the somewhat light-hearted atmosphere of the film and the references to the 1970s TV series, most notably Lou Ferrigno's cameo as a security guard - he also provided the voice of the Hulk - and the clip of Bill Bixby, a lovely tribute to the late actor who is more associated with the role of David Banner (what's in a name?) than anyone else.

Overall, this is a very enjoyable films which film rollicks along at a great pace and does not take itself too seriously.

After Marvel Studios had great success in bringing Iron Man, a character perceived to be only popular in the comics, to the big screen, they began working on other solo hero projects with the overall aim to produce The Avengers; the first time a movie would be made using multiple characters from individual movies to share one universe

Thor is another one of Marvel's lesser-known characters outside the comic-books, compared to the likes of Spider-Man and Wolverine. Based loosely on the Norse legends, which are referenced in the movie as being inspired by the fictional Asgardian race, which is a nice bit of confusing 'chicken and the egg' theorem. Thor lives in Asgard with his father, Odin and brother, Loki, and acts as protectors of the nine realms across more insidious races such as the Frost Giants, but when the fragile truce between the Asgardians and Frost Giants of Jotunheim is threatened by Thor's strong-minded techniques, the Asgardian prince is banished to Midgard, better known to me and you as Earth.

I was unsure whether I would like the Norse mythology aspects to the story, but the film manages to make it seem convincing by portraying the Asgardians as otherworldly gods that inhabit another 'realm' as opposed to being spiritual. The mixture of magic and technology that is showcased in the frankly stunning CGI city of Asgard helps us identify with the characters and grounds them nicely into our world, explaining that the more primitive humans in the past had to explain their technology away as being Gods, which created our myths and legends.

The action scenes were very entertaining, and there was a healthy sense of humour to the proceedings too, which made the film very enjoyable. The 'fish out of water' scenes with Thor on Earth were handled well, but it was the sequences on Asgard that were the most visually and dramatically stunning. While I understand that the film needed to be set on Earth to both help the audience identify with the storyline, and secondly set up the forthcoming Avengers film, I do wish there had been more sequences in the fantastical Asgardian worlds. Perhaps a sequel would explore this area more, since it is something seldom shown in comic-book movies, which are so determined to set things in 'our universe'.

The cast is really strong, with great performances from Chris Hemsworth (Thor) who manages to start the film as brash and impatient, but evolves into a charming and thoughtful character. I also liked the calculating and sly Loki, played by Tom Middleston, who is so subtle in his performance that those watching the film unaware of the characters histories would not expect him to change allegiances throughout the movie. He also plays Loki much more complicated than I would have expected.

As a relatively novice to Thor (but not to comics), I really enjoyed this and found that it didn't require any prior knowledge from the comics, as it explained all of the characters well, and their relationship with each other. The robotic villain known as The Destroyer was actually quite threatening, despite looking too similar to Iron Man (something that is poked fun at in the dialogue, when The Destroyer first appears) and the Ice Giants didn't look quite as visually interesting as they could have been, so for any sequels, I would appreciate more varied designs for the enemies drawing on the fantastical elements of Thor's mythology once more.

Iron Man 2 is the sequel to the really rather good Iron Man and is a fun and easily enjoyed action film. Robert Downey Jr is again excellent as playboy technologist Tony Stark/Iron Man and his charisma and wisecracking keep the film rolling along nicely. The plot of Iron Man 2 doesn't really match that of Iron Man which was full of contemporary touches but the basic premise is that a Russian rival to Iron Man emerges and attacks Iron Man who must battle someone nearly as brilliant as he is.

That Russian rival is the fantastic Mickey Rourke who puts on a believable Russian accent and looks terrific as the downtrodden son of a genius who lived in poverty and obscurity while the Starks lived in glamour and luxury. The revenge that Rourke's character creates is not much of a plan as it basically involves him fighting and losing in a very public sphere but that is only the setup for the rest of the film where Rourke is given the resources to build a credible threat to Iron Man's prowess.

The first showdown between the main villain and main hero is a bit more flash than substance. Rourke's character with electrode whips is awesome but the Monaco GP is not well rendered. Mixing a real event that the audience will be very familiar with and the fantasy can work but it doesn't here. The cars fly about and explode at unrealistic angles and it is all just an excuse for fire. Later action sequences also make suspension of disbelief a little difficult especially when the heroes are cornered and don't just use their otherwise ubiquitous flying abilities to get out of a difficult spot.

The action is what is always difficult about sequels. More explosions doesn't necessarily equal better fun. What was terrific about the first Iron Man was the character of Tony Stark. Here he again is excellent but too much time is given to shiny effects. Fortunately there is more than enough of Stark the man to make this a good film. For reasons that become clear during the plot, Stark is living life as if it could end soon and his breakdown is harming his business. The very reliable Pepper Potts picks up the slack and makes actually a much better CEO than Stark does even when he's not having emotional trouble.

The father-son relationship stuff is interesting if not overly original. The key plot device contained within the design of a future world city is a little less creative than this reviewer at least came up with but it is still decent fare. The metaplot items are there for those who look hard enough including the Expo which seems a clear reference to Shanghai and Russian-American arms treaties that are currently going through Congress can be read into the Congressional hearing scenes though there's nothing quite as impressive as that cave in Afghanistan from Iron Man 1.

The supporting cast are decent. The new Rhodes played by Don Cheadle is a massive upgrade and his is a much better supporting role representing the tension between the collective good as represented by the military, and the good that an individual can do represented by Stark. The plot that surrounds War Machine is very believable. Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer is the comic relief and while he may be a bit fidgety at times, the banter that he is on the receiving end of for the most part is terrific particularly before Congress. Scarlett Johansson's Natasha Romanoff is not much more than a stereotypical sci fi martial artist but for those who are fans of hers she will have some appeal. Samuel L. Jackson gets slightly more lines than in the first film and he does what he can with limited screen time. Gwyneth Paltrow is again excellent - are her best performances the two Iron Man films? Pepper Potts is thrust into a more senior role in this film and Paltrow brings it off expertly, she has great timing with Robert Downey Jr and their scenes all work very well together.

The lighting and effects are good if not mesmerising. The overarching shots of the Stark Expo are beautiful. Not all the visual sequences work well and the Stark Cheerleaders are an unfortunately size zero group of models so it is a relief that they are not featured much. The post-credits scene is just about worth waiting for but only just unlike the first film which was definitely worth waiting for.

The film itself could be a 3 or a 4 star outing. It is not as good as the original but is still some nice lighthearted fun made much better by Downey Jr.

Set in 1942 at the height of World War 2, Chris Evans () stars as the puny yet courageous American Gi wannabe, Steve Rogers. But fortune shines on him as Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci -The Hunger Games) who is recruiting for a special top secret experiment, Project Rebirth, see's beyond Rogers physical failings to give him a shot as a candidate, much to the dismay of Col. Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones -) who doesn't see the same as the good Doctor does. Eventually being the chosen candidate, Rogers undergoes an experiment to change him from a puny regular Joe into a super human solider....Captain America is born.

Overall, Captain America: The First Avenger is a watchable bit of entertainment first & foremost, but does have it's failings. The Story starts out very well & introduces us into how this physically under sized man with a big heart becomes Captain America, in the opening 30 minutes. But it then drops from 5th gear into 1st gear, as Captain America is used as a propaganda tool for the war. Which is kinda the calm before the storm i guess. As the film then tries to get back into 5th gear with its action sequences, but doesn't fascinate as much as it did at the beginning imo, as it gradually pushes into 3rd & 4th gears.

Although we have to respect that the hero will ultimately win out, we could had been respected a bit more with the action sequences. The enemy "storm troopers" who look like something out of toting big futuristic weapons, yet have the armour of a gnat, as they fall over like rolling pins doesn't elude too much in the believability stakes. But i guess this is what we have to swallow with it being an action hero flick.

I was impressed with the way they CGI'd Chris Evans as a puny looking weakling, then un-CGI'd him, i've not seen much of the guy, but initially i thought the actor was a stand in & then Evans would appear later, colour me impressed. The rest of the CGI was well done too. The 1940's setting also looked good & a nice change from modern based adventures. Now, not being a comic book reader myself, but having enjoyed the recent Marvel film offerings, i did appreciate the subtle introductions/hints of the other Marvel comic characters, like Iron Man's father & Samuel L. Jacksons, Nick Fury(more astute fans may have noticed more than i). Which all lead into the latest Marvel comic blockbuster, Avengers Assemble, which the film made very enticing by it's ending.

The acting was pretty good on the whole, Evans was solid but lacks the screen presence of true Hollywood stars imo, Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, Toby Jones, Haley Atwell, Sebastian Stan & Dominic Cooper all added gravitas to the movie. Hugo Weaving was impressive, or over hammy depending on how you see it, as the villain Johann Schmidt aka The Red Skull.

In conclusion, Captain America is an enjoyable watch despite it's few failings, it's not the very best Marvel comic movie i've seen, but it certainly isn't the worst.

Iron Man is one of the best adaptations of comic book entertainment to the world of film. In my view only the Christian Bale Batman is as excellent a story and production as the tale of the Iron Man. Robert Downey Jnr is fantastically cast as Tony Stark, playboy industrialist and genius. As a weapons manufacturer and womaniser, Stark is set up as a character without morals and with only his own quest for pleasure able to match his inquisitive desire to build bigger and better weapons. It all goes wrong within moments of the opening credits though as on a trip to Afghanistan (and trust me it really does look like Afghanistan) his convoy is attacked and he is taken prisoner. From there, Stark builds the foundation of his Iron Man.

It is the first part of the film that is truly awesome. Downey Jnr's own decadent lifestyle plays so well into the character of Stark and the arrogance that accompanies a genius who knows his position is delicious. His winning way with people and the awe with which the squaddies look up to him in the moment before his convoy is hit are moments of cinematic greatness.

The part of the film where robots are fighting each other is less fun. I'm not a fan of the Transformers film and I didn't like the same robot action here. The process that turns Stark into the Iron Man both in the cave and then when perfecting the suit in California are what makes this film work so excellently.

There are plot holes just as there are in any blockbuster. The sentimentality of the reporting on a refugee crisis is cringeworthy. The deliberate attempt to de-Arabise the terrorist group is pointless as those who fail to see the difference still won't while those who do will not be convinced. Despite all that this is still a great film. Jeff Bridges is a great presence and his bald pate and beard make his character really stand out. Bridges carries a sophistication in his characterisation that makes him a believable Chief Executive weighing up every situation to his own best advantage. Even Gwyneth Paltrow puts in a decent turn helped by an excellent mop of hair. All in all a great start to the MCU

Following the events of 'Man of Steel', Superman has announced himself to the world, which has caused a divide in humanity: some see him as a saviour, whilst others see him as the ultimate threat to earth. Siding with those who see Superman as a threat, Gotham City-based vigilante Batman travels to Metropolis to combat Superman. However, a much graver threat looks to endanger humanity.

After many years of development, excitement, anticipation and scepticism, two of the biggest characters in all of fiction, come face to face together for the first time in a live-action movie. There's not just the pressure of the two icons first live-action met though, but also the pressure of establishing the 'DC extended universe', a new cinematic universe featuring DC comics' line up of characters, set to the rival the successful 'Marvel Cinematic Universe'. I'm pleased to say that it is successful on both fronts.

Despite all that needed to be achieved in the film with all the threads that it has: setting up new characters, character arcs, back story, plot and just overall world-building, the film is fairly well balanced and structured, with good character development, interesting and emotional themes and moves at a breezy pace, even though the runtime is 2 and a half hours, thanks to writer Chris Terrio's solid script. The dark tone continues from 'Man of Steel', but the film does have humour in it with great witty one-liners and comments, some of the best coming from Jeremy Irons' Alfred. The humour isn't over the top though and there's just the right amount there. The mature tone gives the film tension and weight, allowing you to invest in the characters and the situation.

Of the many scepticism of the film, casting has probably been the main one, in particular the choice of Ben Affleck for Bruce Wayne/Batman. Affleck however has been cast well in the role, bringing grit and gravitas. His interpretation is one that has not been seen on screen before. Affleck's Wayne is like a war veteran, who has been fighting for 20 years and has lost so much along the way and it has taken its total on him. He is more ruthless and hardened, losing his way and boarding on a villain at times. A lot is implied and a solo Batman film with Affleck will be something interesting to watch in the future.

Much anxiety surrounded the casting of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman as well, but again, they have chosen right. When she appears on screen, particularly when she is in action, you really believe she is Wonder Woman. She is a supporting player in this, so we don't see her as much as the title characters, but she has enough of a presence to be established and spark interest for her upcoming solo film out next year.

The third and final piece of controversial casting came in the form of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. Here Eisenberg gives a performance of the character, like with Affleck's Batman, that we have not seen on screen before. This didn't work for me, all i saw was an OCD version of Jessie Eisenberg and i understand that he is playing lex luthor Jr not Sr but i would've much preferred the lex luthor we all know and mostly love, just imagine watching Bryan Cranston sharing scenes with Ben Affleck and Henry Cavil. Jessie Eisenberg is a good actor but he wasn't right for the role.

Henry Cavill gives another great performance as Clark Kent/Superman. He once again portrays a more complicated and humanised Superman, one that's more interesting to watch than previous film versions and much more in line with the comics. His arc ties in nicely with Batman's, as they both experience something of an existential crisis.

There's not as much action as you might think with a film like this, which is not a criticism, but an observation. When there is action though, it's really exciting too watch and every scene is well choreographed, with some ambitious set pieces. It never feels like an attack on the senses, like a lot of its contemporaries and it feeds into the character arcs and the story, like all great action should.

Hans Zimmer returns to provide the music for the film, with the addition of Junkie XL, fresh off last years successful 'Mad Max: Fury Road'. It does what all great music should in a film, heightening the experience and often making the hairs raise on the back of the neck. However, it is great and at times epic, but it does not reach the heights of previous work, in particular, Hans Zimmer's.

The pressure was on, but Snyder and his team have delivered a film that we not only deserve, but one we need right now. It's dark, emotional, witty, ambitious, epic and the dawn of an exciting new franchise.

Deadpool, if you casually dip in and out of the comic genre, is a superhero. You may have heard the name somewhere on screen before, but probably forgotten. However, if you know your comics then you probably salivated at the prospect of seeing the 'merc with a mouth' going toe to toe with Wolverine in the X-man's 'origins' movie. Then you watched it and uttered words that no self-respecting spell checker should let me type.

Basically, the makers of Wolverine: Origins completely messed up (putting it mildly) and the fans were not amused. Yes, Ryan Reynolds was actually a pretty good choice for the gobby anti-hero, but then they pretty much cellotaped his mouth shut and completely reinvented his character in the worst way possible. It actually makes a nice change to see a studio admit they totally got it wrong and do something about it (even if the decision is largely governed by money!).

And that could have been that. However, luckily Mr Reynolds himself campaigned to bring a truer representation of the source material to the big screen. And, amazingly, it happened. And I'm so glad it did.

Deadpool, is a superhero movie. You probably guessed that – you have the man in a mask who you pretty much know is going to go out there and beat the baddies and save the girl, yadder, yadder, yadder... However, what Deadpool also is, is a comedy. That being said – it's NOT a spoof. It's a tongue-in-cheek little number which has better action scenes than most action films and better comedy than most comedy films.

I'm almost tempted to say that it's a film that anyone can enjoy. I can certainly see both men and women having a good time watching it. However, it definitely is a film for MEN and WOMEN. Whereas Marvel's current cinematic universe is kind of geared at kids (and us kids who never grew up) there is plenty in Deadpool that no parent will want to explain to their little darling. Again, don't let that fool you into thinking that it's all toilet humour – let's just call it 'adult' humour and leave it at that.

Basically, Deadpool is great. Ryan Reynolds is mouthy, but never annoying and totally owns the role (as it should be when he plays the titular character). The supporting cast all do their bit, but it's Deadpool himself all the way. Please let this be the start of a franchise. It's probably a little too much to expect to see him crossing studio picket lines and ending up in the Marvel universe where he – truly – belongs, but we can always hope. If nothing else, I'm well up for a 'Deadpool 2' outing.

Its finally here. After Disney's $4 Billion acquisition of Lucasfilm back in 2012, the announcement that there would be a sequel trilogy beginning with a 7th episode in the beloved franchise was met with intrigue and excitement by fans everywhere. I am a longtime fan of the saga(both the originals and prequels to a degree); and I have spent countless dollars on games(most recently Star Wars Battlefront) , books, and tuned in to the cartoon Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Star wars rebels from time to time.This review will be lengthy, but there is so much to say about Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Starting with the actors, Star Wars The Force Awakens has a star-studded cast. John Boyega, who I have followed since his role in the film Attack the Block, stars as Finn alongside actress Daisy Ridley who plays Rey. They are very likable as the main protagonists, with Finn wanting to leave his life behind as a stormtrooper and Rey being a self-reliant person from the planet Jakku. I also very much enjoyed Oscar Isaac's role as X-Wing pilot Poe Dameron; and I hope we see more of his character in the future Star Wars films. It was nice to see the return of characters like Chewbacca, Carrie Fisher's Princess Leia, and seeing Harrison Ford make his return as Han Solo garnered a round of applause from the audience and myself. Andy Serkis stars as Supreme Leader Snoke and does a nice job, while Gwendoline Christie portrays Captain Phasma. Domhnall Gleeson makes his character General Hux a memorably vocal antagonist. But perhaps most satisfying of all the characters is Adam Driver's Kylo Ren. My friends and I discussed Star Wars: The Force Awakens well before its release, and though our opinions differed, we all agreed that the movie absolutely needed a imposing and memorable villain. And Kylo Ren is just that. I enjoyed how much Star Wars: The Force Awakens explored Kylo's persona and duality; while at the same time giving explanation as to how he came to be just who he is.

The story in Star Wars: The Force Awakens adds new elements but has constant reminders that will delight Star Wars fans(as they did me) of why they are fans of the popular space opera in the first place. JJ Abrams incorporates humour into Star Wars: The Force Awakens, but it works very well. And there are numerous surprises , and some moments that hit your emotional side.

And even better, the action scenes in the movie are absolutely wonderful. The lightsaber battles are noticeably different here than previous films, and the familiar theme music that we all know and love will definitely be heard in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Taking over the directorial duties for a Star Wars film is no easy task, but JJ Abrams has done an impressive job creating this film.

I'd like to point out that the ONLY problem I had with Star Wars: The Force Awakens is that there were certain characters I would have like to have seen have more screen time. But even still, Star Wars: The Force Awakens delivers spectacle, and wonder thanks to the talented cast, the direction of JJ Abrams, and the likable combination of old/new elements to the I sincerely hope everyone enjoys Star Wars: The Force Awakens as much as I did. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a nice reminder that this is why we go to the movies. And truthfully, I am excited to see where the franchise goes next.

Well, here we are. Three-and-a-half years and four movies later, "The Hunger Games" franchise has finally reached its end. It's been quite the journey as we've followed the Girl on Fire through the 74th Hunger Games, the Quarter Quell, and down into the depths of District 13. Now, the fearless yet emotionally shattered Katniss Everdeen prepares to take on the Capitol in this breathtaking finale. While the ultimate question surrounding the decision to split "Mockingjay" into two films still lingers, there is no denying that "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2" is an emotionally satisfying and relentlessly dark conclusion to this explosive franchise.

While Part 1 of the film served to set up the revolution of the districts against the Capitol while interweaving some brilliant political propaganda, Part 2 focuses entirely on the fight against President Snow. We follow Katniss and her fellow soldiers - known collectively as Squad 451 - through the booby-trapped streets of the Capitol as our heroine sets out to fulfil her self-proclaimed mission of assassinating the ruthless dictator. Part 2 is not short of action in any sense of the word and the plot is gripping from start to finish. Additionally, the subtler and more emotional subplot detailing the rehabilitation of Peeta Mellark was brilliantly executed. That being said, the moment the movie starts, we are thrown right into the action. It's almost as if someone hit pause back in November 2014 and waited a full year to resume the film. There is no "ease in" to the story, so if you haven't seen Part 1, watch it first

As per the usual standard for this franchise, the acting is nothing short of incredible. Jennifer Lawrence continues to carry the weight of the entire series on her shoulders and her excellent portrayal of Katniss' emotions helps the viewers feel more connected to the plot. She continues to embody Katniss' emotional conflicts so superbly that there's no questioning that without Lawrence, the franchise would not be as good as it is. Of course, the supporting cast is as strong as ever, yet two actors really stand out in Part 2: Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark and Donald Sutherland as President Snow. Hutcherson does such a fantastic job of portraying Peeta's internal conflict following his torture in the Capitol, especially as he works on "figuring Katniss out." He masterfully relays Peeta's emotions as he strives to keep his disturbed mind balanced, and these scenes prove to be some of the most emotionally gut-wrenching scenes in the entire series. Sutherland, on the other hand, fully embraces Snow's character as he slowly slips into delirium over his obsession with killing Katniss (think Voldemort from "Harry Potter" but in the form of an evil Santa Claus). His portrayal of the dictator is so terrifyingly good that it continually sends shivers down the viewers' spines.

Over the years, the production value of the franchise has progressively improved; as such, Part 2's production is nothing short of perfection. The cinematography is truly breathtaking and helps capture the emotional punch of the film wonderfully. The visual effects are top-notch (for perhaps the first time across the entire franchise), as are the costumes and character designs. The editing was so masterfully done that the end result is a film that is intense, gripping, and dark in tone from start to finish. James Newton Howard's score for the film is simply amazing and is easily his best "Hunger Games" score. He expertly weaves in themes from the previous three films while simultaneously introducing new melodies that only elevate the tone and emotions of the film. While "The Hanging Tree" (Part 1's stand-out song) only returns in instrumental form, director Francis Lawrence was able to coax Jennifer Lawrence into singing yet another song from the franchise that Howard worked expertly into his "Hunger Games Suite" that plays over the credits and will genuinely surprise and please fans.

Now, to close out my review, it is finally time to answer the million- dollar question: Was a two-part adaptation for "Mockingjay" truly necessary? Last year, in my review for Part 1, I said that I was still unsure whether the split was necessary, yet Part 1 held the potential to prove it was a good move. However, after seeing Part 2, and considering the "Mockingjay" adaptation as a whole, the simple answer to this burning question is this: No, a two-part adaptation was not necessary. Part 1 could have (and should have) been easily streamlined into a 40-minute film and slapped onto Part 2 to create a singular, three-hour film. While that is rather long to sit in a theatre, it would achieve the same effect that "Mockingjay" was going for without all the unnecessary fluff that Part 1 and segments of Part 2 contain. Unlike "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", which was split because the story really demanded it, it is sadly evident that "Mockingjay" was split purely for greed. That being said, Francis Lawrence handled the adaptations so brilliantly that both parts of "Mockingjay" are fantastic in their own right and both should be held with high regard.

Ultimately, "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2" brings this dystopian film franchise to a brilliant conclusion. While 2013's "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" still holds the crown for being the best film in the series in terms of the adaptation and the pacing, "Mockingjay Part 2" is the most satisfying of the four films and it sends the franchise off with a proper farewell.

Happy Hunger Games, and may the odds be ever in your favour.

With all the negativity surrounding the production from the earliest stages, I went into FANTASTIC FOUR hoping for a triumph over the odds. And in a perverse way, I guess it is, but not in the manner I'd hoped. See, with all the intense negativity surrounding this production from even the early stages, if there was one thing I didn't imagine would be possible, it was that FANTASTIC FOUR could possibly disappoint me. And yet, somehow, it did.

I'll try to explain. The most disarming thing about this is that, for the first 40 minutes or so, this is a freaking GREAT movie. Like, me open- mouthed stunned, sitting in the cinema thinking, "Oh my God, they pulled it off. This ultimate underdog has managed to silence the haters." Yes, the characters are mostly a bit younger than they should be. But scrape past that, and in that opening sequence, this is a film that just *gets* the Fantastic Four and what makes their characters and the relationship, on a deeper level than the previous films managed. The actors are all top- notch, and inhabit their roles so well, bringing the humanity to each of the key figures and cementing who they are before the powers hit them. Miles Teller is just great in the film, and for the first time on the screen they managed to nail that Reed Richards is the most fascinating character of all the four, and that it's not his stretchy powers that make him special, it's his incredible mind. And science, and the power of intelligence and future-thinking, is presented as being right at the forefront here in a way that's kinda inspiring. It felt like superhero storytelling laced with an INTERSTELLAR-style awe with the might of human potential.

Even this much-dreaded interpretation of Doom is handled so well at first. There's no computer hacker/blogger Victor Domashev: he's Victor Von Doom, from Latveria. And Toby Kebbell is leagues ahead of Julian McMahon's smarmy yuppie, and totally nails the character's motivations. He's all fragile ego and simmering jealousy towards Reed, his contempt for Richards' supposed lesser intelligence hiding an insecurity that Richards may be smarter than him. And yet still he finds himself starting to admire Reed and become friends with him in spite of himself, it's all handled so well. Sue's complicated protective relationship with Johnny, Ben feeling out of his depth amongst these intellectual heavyweights but having Reed's back no matter what, it's all touched on here. Even the origin itself is handled well, a skillful display of steadily escalating tension, with the heroes' transformations handled in a quite jarringly horrific "body horror" fashion that gave things a fresh new angle and totally made sense. And in terms of character focused origin-telling that makes these characters feel fleshed out and relevant, I genuinely thought Fox were on course to giving us a BATMAN BEGINS for the Fantastic Four, that's how good it was.

And then it falls apart.

I'll try not to get too much into spoilers, but I'll say there's a clear dividing line between what was a great film and what just turns into a mess: it's a black screen, with a caption reading, "ONE YEAR LATER." And everything after that, it's like a different director working from a different script. Suddenly, all that carefully built up momentum is gone. And you realise that all the stuff that was so beautifully set up in the first half of the film never gets adequately paid off. Toby Kebbell's great work is largely undone and Doom turns into a damp squib. And perhaps more unforgivably, the Fantastic Four themselves lose all their chemistry. Suddenly it's like there's no chemistry between them, to the point where they might as well have filmed their scenes separately and been green- screened together. We don't actually get to experience them becoming a team, just get told they are. The Thing in particular gets a bum deal here. Jamie Bell is actually really strong as Ben Grimm, selling his pained humanity and making his friendship with Reed the heart of the film. But he is never given a chance to really connect with anyone else in the cast or feel integral to their unit. Seriously, I think I could count the amount of dialogue exchanges between Ben/Johnny and Ben/Sue COMBINED in one hand, and have fingers left over.

Really, the back half of the film just feels so rushed, and therefore inconsequential, to the point where by the end of the film I didn't even think it was the end. As the film entered its final minutes, I was thinking maybe we'd seen a lackluster mid-film set-piece, and hoping that the film would be able to claw back its momentum for the finale after a sluggish middle. Then it just ends, and I'm like, "HUH?" I genuinely think so many people stayed waiting for an after-credits sequence (there isn't one) because of this shared feeling of, "That CAN'T be it." This is a very slender hour-and-a-half filling.

So, that brings us back to the beginning, and disappointment. In a way, I'd have preferred for this to just be a steaming turd of a film. Then I could have just disengaged and laughed at how awful it was. Instead, there's so much good stuff here, and they come tantalisingly close to making a quality film. And the fact that they then spectacularly fumble the ball at the goal line makes the whole viewing experience that much more infuriating. The fact they did enough right to see the great movie they set the groundwork for but ended up not making. In the end, FANTASTIC FOUR is not a turkey, and given the hate this film has endured, that in itself is a sort of triumph. But ultimately, I'd classify FANTASTIC FOUR as a frustrating near-miss.

I had doubts about this film when it was released but despite all the negative feedback that it has received, I really liked it.

John Connor, for once, is portrayed as a strong albeit reluctant hero and leader instead of a whiny kid afraid of his future and Christian Bale portrays him very well, capturing the desperation and tortured emotions of a man who has to fulfil a destiny that he is starting to doubt. However, the main focus of this film is given to Marcus Wright, a mystery man portrayed by Sam Worthington who awakens in a post apocalyptic future and tries to figure out how he ended up there. The emotions that the character goes through as he discovers startling revelations about himself are all shown convincingly by Worthington, who brings a tough but also remorseful and vulnerable appeal to Marcus's plight.

The third important character in the movie is Kyle Reese, the paradoxical father of John Connor who at this point is only a teenager and portrayed by Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the recent Star Trek movie. Reese is shown to be a hero worshipper of the resistance, especially Connor and is compelled to join him, showing traits that would be associated with the character when played by Michael Biehn back in 1984.

The story of the film mostly revolves around Connor trying to find Reese but also about Marcus figuring out how he arrived in the wartorn future, and the story works pretty well. The camera style is mostly hand held, which adds a more natural and first hand look to the film and makes it feel more like the audience is in a warzone. Instead of the shiny Terminators from James Cameron's movies, the machines in Salvation are dark, sinister and have a more industrial look to them and there aren't any laser rifles, the only energy weapons in existence are employed by the huge Skynet machines so generally, bullets and missiles are still the favoured artillery of the resistance.

Salvation does have its flaws, but for the first Terminator movie to be set entirely in the future, it does a good job of continuing the franchise and making it distinct from the Schwarzenegger-dominated past. While 'Ar-Nulhd' made this franchise a household name, it is refreshing to see new blood taking it in a different direction and the one thing I didn't like about the earlier films was how there was always an epic fight at the beginning of the film before they turned into a long and drawn out chase before another fight at the end. Salvation isn't a chase movie, it's a war movie and it's not ashamed to be different from its predecessors.

It could have been better but it is still a good movie, ideal for sci-fi and action fans and on a personal note, it's also fun to guess which scene Christian Bale was doing when he exploded in the now infamous rant against the lighting technician.

The film picks up a number of years after the last feature as we see John Connor (Stahl), future leader and Saviour of the human race, in his mid twenties (I'd guess), living 'off the grid' since the events from the last film (if you haven't seen the previous two films I don't know what the heck you're doing here, but whatever...). Turns out 'judgment day' was not averted, as initially thought at the end of the 2nd film, but only postponed, as Skynet is around in some form, as indicated by the arrival of a Terminator robot, a model T-X played by Loken. It seems now the future is populated by really hot and sexy blonde robots with definite feminine characteristics...homina, homina...soon after we see another Terminator arrive, the muscled one we're more accustomed to, played by Arnold. Seems the T-X model, or Terminatrix Bot has been sent back to target Connor, but if it can't get to him, it's supposed to go after those who would be his lieutenants, including that of Kate Brewster (Danes), whose father, played by Andrews, just happens to be some military bigwig in charge of the program which will eventually become Skynet, the artificial intelligence that will eventually take over the world, exterminating the human threat. Make sense? Probably not...anyway, given this new threat, someone from within the resistance from the future decided to send back an Arnold robot to protect whomever needed protecting, but its task a difficult one given the sophistication of the T-X model, which is essentially an enhanced logic weapons systems cybernetic combat infiltration unit with nanotechnological transjectors inside a titanium battle chassis surrounded by a mimetic poly alloy...whew! So what does all that mean? Well, it can manipulate machines under computer control, tap into communications systems, and produce weaponry from within, including a wicked plasma cannon from its arm, among other things. Things aren't looking so good for John (or the human race, for that matter), but did I mention the Terminatrix is really hot?

Given the fact Terminator 2 made as much as it did at the box office, I'm not surprised someone decided to continue on with the franchise, despite the fact the story had been pretty much wrapped up at the end of the second film. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines does try to fit itself within the continuity of the previous two films, and, on the surface it succeeds, but once you start picking at the loose threads, there are inconsistencies (then again, when we're talking about time travel, who's to say what could and couldn't happen?). Now, I'm not going to go through and relate all the bits I thought out of place as I'm sure many have already done so, and done so a lot better than I could have, but I will say if you take this movie at face value (a straight up action film), you'll probably have a lot more fun. There was one bit that really bothered me, though, and that was when John, Kate, and the Arnold Bot were trying to contact Kate's father, who just happened to be secured away in some top-secret military installation. One minute they're driving towards the place and the next they're inside, talking to Kate's father...I suppose the Arnold Bot could have bypassed the security somehow, but it all seemed rather convenient, especially given the circumstances. I did like the whole bit about a widespread virus running through the Internet, where it came from, and its ultimate purpose. The characters in this film seemed to take a backseat to the action, as none are really developed as much as they were in the previous films. Perhaps the filmmakers were relying on the character development already out there from the earlier films, but given so few characters carried over, this didn't work out so well. One of the biggest weaknesses in the film, in my opinion, was that of Stahl's character of John Connor. There seemed to be an awful lot of inconsistencies indicating perhaps this wasn't the same John Connor as was in the previous movie. I'm not a big fan of Stahl (he reminds me too much of Giovanni Ribisi, whom I care even less for), but I thought he did pretty well in the film Sin City (2005). As far as Danes, well, she looked good, but her performance was limited by her role, as it was written. While the plot and the characters may have been half-baked, at least the action was balls out. My favourite bit involved a car chase sequence featuring a gigantic crane truck barreling through city streets, causing massive amounts of destruction. Another great bit was when the two Terminators were fighting each other within the military base, and the Arnold Bot uses a urinal as an offensive weapon. The first time I saw this film and the ending was presented I found myself saying "What the f***?", but, after watching it again last night it did seem to make sense in terms of the story presented. All in all I thought this a great action film, but in terms of a sequel to the Terminator series, it was so-so...I'd agree with Cameron that there really wasn't anything left to tell in the story, but if there's a chance to make money, you know Hollywood will capitalize.

The quintessential sequel, the quintessential sci-fi actioner & one of the greatest films ever made, James Cameron's follow-up story to his breakthrough classic is such a huge upgrade over its predecessor that it ends up decimating the 1984 original in all filmmaking departments with effortless ease, and remains one of the most influential, entertaining & breathtaking action extravaganzas to grace the silver screen.

A highly irresistible, pulse-pounding, high-octane, full-throttled & top- gear action spectacle that's filled with some of the most dangerous, daring & heart-stopping stunts ever captured on the film celluloid, Terminator 2: Judgment Day is the perfect definition of a worthy sequel that presents its renowned director at the peak of his gifted talents, is the finest work of his illustrious career, and its influence on its genre, visual effects & pop culture surpasses even the reach of its predecessor.

The story of Terminator 2: Judgment Day follows the aftermath of the events that transpired in The Terminator and continues the journey of Sarah Connor & her 10-year old son, John Connor; the future leader of human resistance in the war against the machines. After failing to eliminate Sarah during its first attempt, Skynet sends a much more advanced Terminator back in time to kill John when he's still a child while another saviour from the future arrives whose only mission is to protect John & ensure his survival at all costs.

Written, produced & directed by James Cameron, the improvements present in this sequel are evident from the film's opening moments with more enhanced visuals, larger-than-life action & one mind-blowing sequence after another. I've always admired Cameron because he's one of the very few filmmakers who understands what great action is all about, knows how to expand upon the original instead of rehashing the same events & has the talent to accomplish not just his own artistic ambitions but also the expectations of the mainstream audience without compromising with the quality.

Also, in my opinion, a sequel has no reason to exist unless it can improve upon the original and it's usually why I'm skeptical about most of them. Cameron seems to know this better than anyone for he has proved it not once but twice already; first with Aliens; the action-packed follow-up to Ridley Scott's Alien & then with this second chapter to the film that launched his career. And despite the major upgrades in action & other technical aspects, the story retains the high-quality content of the original, exhibits extensive character depth & is brilliantly paced from start to finish.

From a technical standpoint, Terminator 2 is a marvel of genre filmmaking in every sense of the word. Production Design team does a commendable job with its refined sets, locations are nicely selected for filming especially when it comes to action scenes, Cinematography makes expert use of its camera in keeping the action clearly visible with its cleverly chosen angles, makes the drama more immersive with its controlled movements, and with its precision use of colour hues & lighting provides a rich texture to the whole film that further enhances the whole experience.

Editing is easily one of its strongest aspects for every sequence paves the groundwork for the next scene in line, the flow of events is incredibly smooth & relaxed, and the pace is so methodically handled that its 136 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Even Brad Fiedel comes up with a more evolved, pulsating & fitting score that beautifully integrates into the film's narrative and has a firm grip on the viewers' emotions from start to finish. But where Terminator 2 sets an entirely new benchmark is in its visual effects, sound design & action choreography, all of which are simply groundbreaking.

Coming to the performances, Terminator 2 features a solid cast in Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Robert Patrick & Edward Furlong, with the reprising actors improving upon their performances of the last chapter while new ones instantly making a mark in their given roles. Schwarzenegger returns as the cyborg sent from the future but with a new mission & while T-800 isn't the same relentless assassin in this sequel, there isn't a moment when we aren't aware of what he's capable of. Schwarzenegger gets to explore new dimensions of his character this time and does a spectacular job at it for T-800 isn't just badass in this picture but also cool, charismatic & heroic.

Linda Hamilton reprises her role of Sarah Connor and builds upon her earlier rendition with a stronger performance as her character exhibits a more evolved & tougher persona, which Hamilton captures splendidly. Edward Furlong is introduced as John Connor & while he can be annoying on few occasions, it's a dream debut nonetheless. And finally we have Robert Patrick who plays T-1000; a highly advanced cyborg who's far superior to T-800 model & is virtually the most lethal, unstoppable, indestructible & invincible Terminator in existence. Cameron has written the part of this antagonist really well and Patrick's added inputs help greatly in making his character one of the greatest film villains of all time.

On an overall scale, Terminator 2: Judgment Day is blockbuster filmmaking at its finest for it sets a very high standard for its genre(s) that hasn't been equalled ever since, remains one of the most enjoyable, entertaining & jaw-dropping works of sci-fi action with an extremely high repeat value, is a perfect example of a sequel that surpasses the original in all aspects, and is a landmark achievement of genre filmmaking that has had a lasting impact on multimedia & pop culture. The best film of its year, one of the most memorable films of the 1990s & one of cinema's greatest triumphs, James Cameron's conclusion to his Terminator saga is an unprecedented, unrivalled & undisputed masterpiece that comes one hundred percent recommended

The modern classics of science fiction have been able to infuse crowd- pleasing action scenes with truly thought-provoking and clever concepts. From the chillingly violent social commentary of Paul Verhoeven's Robocop to the stylish and brainy conceits of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, few genres are able to balance the scales so well, yet depressingly so seldom. One such classic was unleashed in 1984 under the title The Terminator. It stars well-known action star Arnold Schwarzenegger and is directed by then-unknown James Cameron, and would soon become a world-wide sensation.

Sarah Connor is having a bad day. She's late for work, has tons of awful customers to contend with, and has just learned that two women have been murdered; women with the exact same name as her. If I told you that the murderer was a massive cyborg who was sent back through time to assassinate the eventual mother of humanity's last hero, you'd probably think I was describing something less than brilliant. You'd be wrong. The stunningly clever framework that Cameron provides (he also wrote the script) is only one of the many delightful aspects of The Terminator.

Sarah has a hero. Also sent from the future, Kyle Reese appears to thwart the Terminator's attempts and protect Sarah at all costs. Through a seemingly unending series of chases, Reese explains the truth to Sarah, and the two of them promptly set off to... avoid the homicidal robot at all costs. Throw in some unfortunate hooligans who unwisely mock the hulking beast, an oversexed roommate, a disco full of mid-'80s dancers and a barracks full of the most unlucky cops ever caught on film, and you have the ingredients for one dark and violent thrill ride.

As the Terminator, Schwarzenegger (Commando) shines. With very few lines of dialogue to worry about, Schwarzenegger can concentrate on that cold dark stare and a truly menacing presence. Though he's played a hero more times than I can count, Arnold delivers his most entertaining performance ever as the unstoppable beast. Linda Hamilton (Children of the Corn) is strong as Sarah, starting out rather ditzy and weak before displaying some real guts later on. As Reese, Michael Biehn (Aliens) hits the right "action-hero" buttons, and while he falters a bit in the movie's more tender moments, that's okay, because Biehn's a cool actor... and the "tender moments" last about three minutes in total.

With one of the more clever sci-fi screenplays of the last part of the 20th century, and some truly exciting action sequences, Terminatorevery bit as good as you might have heard. While many feel that the sequel is the better film, I'd contend that Terminator 2 was merely more expensive. If you're building yourself a digital sci-fi collection, this movie should definitely be on your Top Ten list.

As someone like many, who holds Steven Spielberg's 1993 masterpiece quite dearly to my heart, you can definitely say I walked into this new installment/hopeful franchise restarter with equal excitement and nervousness. There's always a need to be cautious when a series returns to the big screen for the first time in over 10 years, but at the same time I love dinosaurs so the fact that I'd get to see them again roaring on the big screen was the real excitement. So does this revisit to this franchise live up to the hype? For the most part, I think honestly yes.

I'll get this out of the way: Jurassic World is flawed. Like flawed as hell, there's absolutely no denying that. There are numerous sub- plots that could've easily thrown out of the movie and leave more room for the awesome dinosaurs, character development is mostly thrown out the window, when the humor misses oh it really misses with some flat dialogue to say the least, and there are plenty of story and script issues I had throughout. But, the most important thing I can tell you is that, I had a blast and smile on my face throughout which is what I wanted from this movie more than anything really.

With every script issue this movie suffers from, Collin Trevorrow makes up for it behind the camera. "Jurassic World" is shot beautifully with some really impressive cinematography work from John Schwartzman, and while the CGI will not go down as groundbreaking for the blockbuster genre like the 1993 film, there are some remarkable effects here. But, mostly particularly to me this movie definitely manages to capture the tone, feel and spirit of a Jurassic Park film. Yes, it doesn't come anywhere close to capturing that sense of wonder or creativity that made the first film the special treat that it is, but Trevorrow does manage to capture some of the special essence I had when beholding that special classic, while also crafting some impressive world building. There's lots of callbacks made and nostalgia felt throughout, but Trevorrow never uses this as a pointless plot point to move the story along. Most importantly though, Trevorrow definitely proves himself to be capable of handling the action scale. The dinosaur sequences are of course the primary reason why you'd go to one of these movies, and the film delivers them in exhilarating, exciting, and pulse pounding ways. There's enough solid tension throughout, and the finale 20 minutes might honestly be my favorite climax of the year. Some seriously awesome stuff that I will not give away (who actually hasn't seen this movie yet? I felt like I was the last one to).

Alright, let's talk about this pretty big cast. They're all pretty solid, especially given the weak character work they're given. Chris Pratt has been a rising star as of late, and for good reasons, because he proves here he wasn't a one trick pony with Guardians. He brings such a likability, charisma, and coolness to the character of Owen Grady that makes him such an engaging lead to watch. There's not really much depth given to this character, but Pratt knows how to be charming and bad-ass so he helps makes us become attach to him as a lead. Now, I've seen some complain about Jessica Chastain.... err I mean Bryce Dallas Howard here and I don't know why. Her character did annoy me a little at first with her uptight bitch persona (which we all know Bryce has proved to play those type of women so well), and again not much depth here, but she plays the character as well as anyone could (who else would run in those high heels like that?), and I did grow an attachment to her as a character. Maybe, it's because I thought she looked so stunning in this movie, but eh whatever. Her and Pratt, I thought made a believable team, but the romance angle could've been completely thrown out. Jake Johnson is actually quite amusing as the cliché tech guy, I really enjoyed his character, I just really wish there was a lot more of him. It was nice to see BD Wong again, and though their characters occasionally got on my nerves, with the whole emo teenager, I had no issues with Ty Simpkins and Nick Robinson performances themselves. To my surprise and sadness, one of weak link of the cast was Vincent D'Oonofrio as the main human antagonist. This is really no problem with D'Onofrio, he plays the role as well as anyone could, he knows how to play an asshole well, but this was not just a well written villain at all. Right when he appears on screen, you know exactly where this character is going, and his whole motivations of wanting to weaponize these dinosaurs for military purpose made literally no sense. It's a shame, with such a underrated talent like D'Onofrio coming off such a incredible villain performance in Daredevil, they really could've made this a not so clear cut antagonist with reasonable motivations, but no his character is simply a pointless prick to just be a prick.

All, in all, I'd be a fool if I told you "Jurassic World" was perfect masterpiece to behold. It's definitely not, there's tons of issues I can write about that I've already have, but I'd also be a fool if I told you I didn't find myself having a pretty damn great time throughout its brisk running time. For everything it does wrong, it does something else so right. It's big, loud, dumb, but still insanely fun summer blockbuster that Trevorrow manages to treat with plenty of charm and heart that definitely kind of help make me feel like a kid again.

What happens when you put a group of second-rate filmmakers together on an island, give them an enormous budget, and provide them with one of the most valuable film franchises of all time? You realise just how brilliant Steven Spielberg is.

"Jurassic Park III" is simply a pointless movie that never should have been made. The film simply reeks of a cheap sequel. The basic plot tells of a couple who tricks Dr. Alan Grant to take them into Jurassic Park after their son is lost on the island while parasailing. Predictably, all hell breaks loose as the dinosaurs continue to wreak havoc. Unfortunately, in all of this havoc there is not a single moment of decent dialogue, acting, directing, or special effects. The filmmakers seem to have interpreted the original "Jurassic Park" as a horror film, and treat this movie as such. Characters die in a timely and organised fashion, characters attempt to separate in order to be "more effective," and so forth. The original "Jurassic Park" was not a horror film, and this movie should not have been treated as such.

I doubt that many people had high expectations for "Jurassic Park III" as a good film. Most probably thought the movie would simply be an enjoyable escape for an hour and a half with great special effects and a few memorable scenes. Yet somehow, even with a budget of approximately ninety million dollars, the movie's special effects were terrible. In the opening scene, I heard a kid behind me who couldn't have been older than eight turn to his mom and say "Mommy, that looks so fake." If the special effects couldn't even make a child believe, how are they supposed to convince the rest of the public? Another huge weakness in this movie is the timing. One thing that made the original "Jurassic Park" great was the memorable scenes. I can instantly recall great scenes from the movie, such as the T-Rex chasing the Jeep at night, the young boy climbing the electric fence and getting electrocuted, and so forth. "Jurassic Park III" doesn't have any sense of timing, and as a result the film just feels like a bunch of scenes that bleed into each other without any rhyme or reason. A few moments in the movie could have actually been memorable scenes had they been timed correctly, but instead they are easily discarded and thought of as a joke. The lack of special effects and memorable scenes kills the possibility of "Jurassic Park III" even being an enjoyable excursion.

Yet through all the bad acting, poor writing, and mindless directing, the biggest weakness in the film is not as obvious. The filmmakers failed to realise what the original "Jurassic Park" was about. It was not simply a horror or action film in which the protagonists ran away from scary beasts. The film was an examination of man's role in nature and of how we view ourselves as the mighty rulers of the universe. While there were exciting chase scenes and great special effects, those were not the theme of the film. "Jurassic Park III" forgets all of this, and even occasionally mocks these themes in the original. If you took these themes away from the original film, all you would have had left would be a hollow horror film with great special effects. "Jurassic Park III" is simply a hollow horror film with mediocre special effects. "Jurassic Park" is a story about man; "Jurassic Park III" is a story about dinosaurs. That is the primary difference between the two films.

One would have thought that with the budget and the resources the filmmakers had, they could have produced a better movie than "Jurassic Park III." Instead, the movie is a reminder of "Jaws," another amazing Spielberg film that had sequels made by different directors that were subsequently mindless waste. While "Jurassic Park II" was not a great film by any means, it at least understood the original and tried to carry on it's themes. "Jurassic Park III" does none of that, and as a result is simply rubbish that should definitely be avoided.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park is directed by Steven Spielberg and adapted to screenplay by David Koepp from the novel written by Michael Crichton. It stars Jeff Goldblum, Julianne Moore, Pete Postlethwaite, Vince Vaughn, Richard Schiff, Peter Stormare, Vanessa Lee Chester, Arliss Howard and Harvey Jason. Music is scored by John Williams and cinematography by Janusz Kamiński.

Four years on from the horrors of Jurassic Park on Isla Nublar, it transpires that there is a second dinosaur site on Isla Sornar. Dr. Ian Malcolm (Goldblum) is forced to head off to face the horrors once again when he learns that his paleontologist girlfriend, Sara Harding (Moore), is already on the island as a forerunner to a team John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) is assembling to document the dinosaurs in their habitat. Once their, though, the problems soon arise, especially when a team from InGen arrive with other ideas about the dinosaurs on their minds...

Given the massive success of Jurassic Park in 1993, a sequel was inevitable. What transpires is pretty much more of the same, it's very safe film making by Spielberg. Coming off of the emotional exertions of his last film, Schindler's List, few can deny that the director was entitled to wind down with The Lost World project, there was after all nothing safe about Schindler's, but although Jurassic 2 is a hugely enjoyable family blockbuster, a jazzy bit of hi-tech fun, it lacks the requisite brains to make it an inspiring sequel.

Formula follows the same path, humans in peril on the island, with some added and new dinosaurs (double T-Rex a bonus), and then the "twist" in the narrative sees some monster peril come to San Diego, King Kong style, for the finale. There's inter fighting between the good dudes led by Malcolm and the bad guys led by the weasely Peter Ludlow (Howard) who is Hammond's conniving nephew and current head of InGen. Family issues also feature, of course since this is Spielberg after all, while the dangers of tampering with science message remains as strong as ever.

Cast are ably led by a witty Goldblum, who is a reassuring presence carried over from the first film, and the tech-credits are as expected, very high. Some scenes soar, such as a sequence shot from under a pane of glass that starts to crack under the weight of a character, others not so, such as having Malcolm's teenage daughter turn into Nadia Comăneci for one credulity stretching scene. But all told it's an honest blockbuster purely aimed at the target audience who helped to see it make over $600 million in profit. Safe often pays you see, and as sequels go it's one of the better ones in the 90s. It's exciting if intellectually stunted.

Most film fans will have one film that ignited their love of cinema. For many that movie experience will come at a young age and in a dark theatre where the large screen envelops you in a whole new world you never thought possible. For me, like many of my generation, that film was Jurassic Park. Of course I liked many movies before that point but it opened my eyes to the potential of the medium like no other film, before or since. Scorsese talks about the religious-like experience cinema can create in its audience and watching Spielberg's classic for the first time I can fully appreciate what he means. It instilled a sense of reverential awe in me and whilst I had witnessed fantastical places like Oz and Tatooine I had never truly been transported to a foreign world as I had with Jurassic Park.

It's a hard film for me to talk about rationally. It holds such a special place in my heart that I will never be able to find fault with the film, so instead I'm just going to gush about the movie's many positive attributes. Attributes like the groundbreaking special effects. The film is always assured of its place as one of the great technical achievements in cinema. CGI had been used in films for many years before but never quite to the point that you believed wholeheartedly in the events and creatures on screen. It is remarkable to think how far computer graphics have come since 1993 yet the film still looks utterly convincing, even more so than both of its inferior sequels. I can only put this down to the seamless blending of effects from the use of CGI, model work and animatronics. The film constantly tricks the audience into believing the dinosaurs were real by having creatures the cast could directly interact with. Because CGI has become so advanced now filmmakers rarely rely on the other types of effects work yet without them Jurassic Park's major moments would never have worked as well. Just imagine the T-Rex scene with the children trapped in the car, it is frighteningly believable because the creature is really there. Much of the critical attention is given to the computer wizardry but for me Stan Winston and his team are just as crucial to the film's success.

Whilst the story is little more than a reworking of Westworld it is still so taut and full of genuinely magical moments that any familiarity in its conceit is immaterial. I can think of no other film with quite so many memorable sequences. The movie is packed with them, big or small, from the reverberating cup of water to the first dinosaur reveal, it is a film that has created more indelible memories than most filmmakers achieve in their entire careers. The cast are, with the possible exception of Laura Dern, perfect for their respective roles. When you compare it to a lot of modern blockbusters the film is surprisingly small in scale. Sure, you've got giant prehistoric creatures stomping around but the film doesn't have a sprawling cast of characters and it has no end-of-the-world climax. Yet it is the narrow focus that makes it all the more effective. Each character is given time to develop and whilst they may fulfil defined roles in the story they do at least feel like real and believable people. Jurassic Park may be a theme park but the film is more than just a thrill ride as you feel emotionally invested in the characters and events on screen.

I've waffled on and not even mentioned the brilliant score by John Williams (a score so amazing it still sounds fantastic when slowed down by 1000%) or the film's perfect balance between comedy and scares. The film is a masterclass in blockbuster filmmaking and a bona fide classic.

The honour and code of the samurai has always been enticing to a Western civilisation that is far removed from such customs, which perhaps makes The Last Samurai such an enticing, enigmatic film. Edward Zwick crafts quite an epic adventure rich in mythology & thematic resonance that while traditionally Hollywood in its construction still manages to exist a cut above many such movies of its ilk, a touch of class surrounding how the story of Captain Nathan Algren is put together, based as it is on several real life legendary American figures who played key roles in the Satsuma Rebellion in Japan during the late 19th century. This isn't a direct re-telling of those events but serves as a leaping off point to construct a tale about a stranger in a strange land, of a man haunted by fighting an unjust war who rediscovers his honour & place in the world through a dying culture. Zwick's film is slick, sweeping, beautifully shot and frequently involving, backed up by a strong performance by Tom Cruise in one of those roles that remind you just what a good actor he can be.

In the role of Algren, Cruise begins a dejected man living out of a bottle, bereft of purpose & suffering post-Civil War nightmares of a man touted as a hero despite feeling the guilt of slaughtering Indians crushed under the might of a military machine; in that sense, The Last Samurai is very anti-war in its message, John Logan's story painting the Americans and specifically the Imperialist Japanese not in the greatest light. Cruise takes Algren on a traditional voyage of discovery, first pitted against the samurai code & eventually becoming consumed by it, consumed by the similarity of the way of the warrior between both cultures - and Ken Watanabe's dignified samurai 'rebel' Katsumoto learns from him, as well as the other way around, with Cruise remaining stoic & only getting flashes of a chance to display the usual Cruise charm, but that's OK - Algren isn't the kind of character to benefit from that, Cruise's natural magnetism is enough here. Wit is provided thankfully through, albeit briefly, Billy Connolly as a tough old Irish veteran & chiefly Timothy Spall as our portly 'narrator' of sorts, who serves to help mythologise Algren & the legend itself. Zwick is most concerned with that, you see, the idea of legends and how men become them, exploring that concept alongside digging into the cultural rituals and practises of a changing Japan.

Logan's story is placed at a time when the old ways of Japan were shifting, under the pressures of global politics & business; the Emperor here is a naive young man, sitting on an empty throne, looking to Watanabe for validation as his advisor's push to quash a rebellion fighting to preserve the old ways, preserve Japanese interests as America knocks on the door. That's why Cruise's role here is so interesting, his character learning of the samurai code & helping those around him remember their history, and Zwick explores well the concept of national identity alongside personal ideas of myth, legend & destiny. It all boils together in a careful script, never overblown, which neatly develops the relationships involved & helps you fully believe Algren's transformation into the eponymous 'last samurai'. Along the way, Zwick doesn't forget theatrics - staging plenty of well staged & intense fight scenes which utilise the strong Japanese production design, before building to a quite epic war climax with army pitted against army, with personal stakes cutting through it, backed up indeed by another superlative score by Hans Zimmer. It becomes more than just a historical swords & armour film, reaching deeper on several levels.

What could have been a slow paced, potentially ponderous movie is avoided well by Edward Zwick, who with The Last Samurai delivers one of the stronger historical adventure epics of recent years. Beautifully shot in many places, with some excellent cinematography & production standards, not to mention an impressive script well acted in particular by Tom Cruise & Ken Watanabe, Zwick creates a recognisably Hollywood picture but for once a movie that doesn't dumb down, doesn't pander and ultimately serves as an often involving, often damn well made story. Especially one to check out if you love the way of the samurai.

Flesh and metal collide in the part sequel, part reboot, post apocalyptic, no holds barred Mad Max: Fury Road. 70 year old director George Miller returns to the franchise he created, 30 years after the last outing. This time with Tom Hardy as Max Rockatansky and Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa, two rebels trying to survive in a desert landscape of lost humanity.

The plot is fairly simple, Furiosa abandons her duties and sets out to find her homeland, and take Immortal Joe's young brides with her. Joe of course sets out to stop her and Max is caught up in this battle. Charlize Theron is fantastic as Furiosa, with her artificial limb and war paint, determined to find her home and reunite with what's left of her family. Tom Hardy as Max is a man of few words, troubled by visions of past horrors. Both need to work together as they guide the fragile and beautiful brides of Joe to safety. The film has a core theme of feminist solidarity that balances well against the testosterone of Max, Immortal Joe and his War Boys. The performances from the two leads and their mutual respect is told mainly through actions rather than dialogue, exposition takes a back seat here.

Unlike previous films in the series, the budget this time around of $150 million finally matches the ambitions and imagination of the director. The sheer originality on display is impressive. Stunning photography, high contrast, warm colour palette and smooth camera work draw you into the wild west wasteland. The jaw dropping carnage of the action scenes are indescribable, Fast & Furious is a walk in the park compared to this. You must see it to believe it, but even then you still ask yourself, "Is this actually happening?" It has the right mix of CGI and real stunts that will make you think back to classics like James Cameron's Terminator 2. And it all looks awesome in 3D IMAX. The score by Tom Holkenborg (aka Junkie XL) is loud, heart pounding, epic and in sync with the bizarre but soon to be iconic flamethrower guitarist and tribal drummers who get their fair share of screen time.

I highly recommend this film if for some strange reason you've been sitting on the fence. It's feral, dark, gritty, anarchic, surreal, just pure mayhem. Mad Max: Fury Road isn't just any action film, it's one that sits side by side with your favourite Hollywood blockbusters, a new classic that demands repeat viewings for it's visual triumphs and sonic assaults. Now if you excuse me, i'm off to watch it again!

"This time it ain't just about being fast."

I saw this film the day it came out but i thought i would review the previous fast and furious films first. James Wan, who is well known for directing horror films (The Conjuring and Saw), took over the seventh film in this franchise replacing Justin Lin who had been sitting on the director's chair since the third instalment. What I found most interesting about this franchise is that it didn't seem like it was going anywhere after its solid debut in 2001 since the first couple of sequels focused on different characters and story lines. Even when they got the entire cast back together in 2009 for the fourth film I didn't feel like it was anything special. I'd always mildly enjoyed the films, but it wasn't until Fast Five that I was really engaged with the series. Justin Lin may have not impressed me before, but when that film came out he decided to have fun with the overblown action scenes and audiences embraced it completely. We had the team reuniting together being chased by tanks and planes and pulling off nearly mission impossible tasks. My greatest concern for this film was that Wan wouldn't follow that basic formula that had elevated the franchise in the first place. But in an early scene in the film those fears were soon gone when Wan practically gives the audience a wink by having Brian (Walker) telling his son that "cars don't fly" when he playfully throws a small toy car through the window. We were about to find out that that claim wasn't necessarily true because throughout this film we actually see several cars fly during the spectacular action scenes.

By the end of Furious Six the franchise was tied perfectly together by uniting the events that took place in Tokyo during the third film with the present. In the fifth and sixth instalments Toretto (Vin Diesel), Brian (Paul Walker), Tej (Ludacirs), and Roman (Tyrese Gibson) had finally found financial stability and cleaned their names to return home. The character of Agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) had helped reinvigorate the franchise and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) was brought back from the dead (well actually she never really died, but fans of the franchise know what I mean). Mia (Jordan Brewster) and Brian were enjoying their newfound family life, but as we found out in the end of the sixth film, Owen's brother Deckard (Jason Statham) was set on avenging him. Their seemingly peaceful life is interrupted as the team begins to be hunted down by this dangerous British criminal. Loretto is offered the opportunity to flip the papers on Deckard from being hunted to becoming the hunters when a secret government official known as Mr. Nobody (Kurt Russell) offers him a deal. A Somalian mercenary (Djimon Hounsou) has kidnapped a hacker known as Ramsey (Nathalie Emmanuel) who has developed a computer program known as God's Eye that basically allows you to find anyone across the globe in a matter of seconds. If Toretto's team can rescue Ramsey and retrieve God's Eye he will let them use it to track down Deckard and catch him off guard. And so the adventure across the globe begins with flying cars, helicopters and droids exploding across the mountains of the Middle East, the elegant buildings in Abu Dhabi, and the city of Los Angeles.

Gisele and Han were part of the reason why I enjoyed the previous films so much so I was worried that their absence in this film would hurt the movie, but the addition of Jason Statham as the main villain of the film elevated this to a higher level. There are great fight scenes between him and Dwayne Johnson and then with Vin Diesel that were incredibly entertaining. These are probably the best action stars of our generation and when the fighting choreography is filmed correctly you can't go wrong with these guys. There are also some fantastic action scenes involving fast car chases across a gorgeous mountain that ends in a Jurassic Park like cliffhanger. The action scenes are overblown, but that is what makes them so entertaining once you learn to accept the absurdity of it all and simply enjoy the ride. Over-the-top action scenes is what elevated this franchise in the first place and Furious 7 continues to play with that same premise taking advantage of Wan's knowledgeable work behind the camera and his use of different camera angles which makes the film look all the more entertaining.

The greatest success of Furious 7 is being able to blend the incredibly fun action scenes with the dramatic elements involving the chemistry between the characters. We've grown to love these characters and each new addition always seems to work. Furious 7 takes some common themes from films like Mission Impossible or Ocean's Eleven and applies them really well here. Tyrese Gibson plays a similar character to the one Matt Damon played in Ocean's where he wants to prove his leadership qualities to the rest of the crew. There are elements recycled from other action films, but thanks to the cast it works extremely well in this franchise. And then you have the emotional aspect of this film surrounding Paul Walker's untimely death. You can't help but feel emotionally engaged towards his character knowing that the actor has recently passed away. There are several scenes of his face where the CGI seems evident, but the voice work was perfectly executed. The CGI never distracted me however, and I'm glad they decided to continue with the production of the film. The last five minutes are emotionally engaging and without spoiling the film all I can say is that the crew did him justice with a beautiful tribute. Furious 7 continues to build on an already engrossing franchise and it might just be my second favourite after Fast Five.

If I had written a review for The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift back in 2006, you'd find out how much I disliked the film. That was my first and only viewing of the film. Here we are nine years later and I was already dreading having to re watch this. My friends always look at me funny when say that of the six films, Tokyo Drift is the worst for me, when it's one of their favourites. I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this on a second viewing nine years later. It's not perfect, but it sure was fun and overall entertaining to watch.

When 17-year-old high school student Sean Boswell (Lucas Black) crashes his car in yet another illegal racing activity, his mother sends him to live with his father in Tokyo, Japan. In Japan, he becomes friends with Twinkie (Bow Wow) who then introduces him to drift racing, where he challenges Drift King, Takashi (Brian Tee). Because Sean has no experience in drifting, Takashi easily beats him. Sean is then taken under the tutelage of Han (Sung Kang) who teaches him how to drift and even gives him a car.

One of the reasons why I had hated this so much when I first saw this was the lack of characters from the first two films. New cast, new setting. There was no Dominic Toretto or Brian O'Connor. It irritated me a lot. Not to mention The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift seems to have a much heavier emphasis on storytelling, rather than just aiming to dazzle you with it's stunt work and street races.

However after a second watch nine years later, I was surprised to have found myself being welcome to these changes. It may bear the franchise name and similarities, but it's different than the previous two films - and in a good way. It presents us a different side of street racing and has a pretty decent story. It's just as impressive with it's races and stunts, and much more grounded in reality compared to 2 Fast 2 Furious.

I'm proud to say that I have a new found love for The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. It's different enough compared to the previous two films to be able stand on it's two feet as a spin off. That was until this was tied into the overall main storyline. Also thanks to fast and furious 6 we can see where the Tokyo drift takes place in the fast and furious time line.

By now the Fast & Furious franchise was made in the eyes of Hollywood, following a massive box office haul for Fast Five, the picture that saw Justin Lin begin the transition from street racing car movie series to explosive action heist franchise, a transformation so many other series' would never be able to pull off five movies in. This one did and, remarkably, the films began to improve in quality - in that regard, Fast & Furious 6--arguably the most bonkers and joyously fun outing for the franchise to date--is the pinnacle of a series seemingly immune to the law of diminishing returns, where Vin Diesel, the late Paul Walker and their crew only seem to become more likable, more charming and more watchable as the franchise grows more confident, more explosive and more wonderfully insane by each film. This is the one where Lin, right from the off, lets everything off the chain - you'll be hard pushed to find anything made for the last few decades that's as gleefully, knowingly dumb, fun and exciting as Fast & Furious 6. For that, it's almost entirely a joy.

What was originally known as Fast Six (a better title, arguably) was pre- visualised and written by Lin and series' writer Chris Morgan almost in tandem with the previous picture, hence that movie's post-credits reveal that Michelle Rodriguez's Letty was alive and well, and indeed seemingly had taken a dark turn, after apparently being blown to smithereens two films ago. Her reappearance sparks Diesel's gruffalo Dominic Toretto and his crew--now all freshly minted millionaires after their Rio heist in the last film--to this time team up with The Rock's badass DEA agent Hobbs in tracking down & bringing to heel the terrorist who seemingly has her captive - Luke Evans in full smarm mode as callous Brit-baddie Owen Shaw. Much like Joaquín de Almeida's limp drug baron in Fast Five, he's the villainous weak link here; Lin never much bothers to make him all that menacing and up against beasts of men like Diesel & The Rock, you need a strong villain. No matter because the picture has its eyes elsewhere - yes admittedly the attempts at injecting drama as Diesel monosyllabically tries to protect his 'family', but at the same time the humour and charm is plentiful amongst an ensemble who are very at ease with one another, nobody showboating to gain the limelight but all getting their moments in the spotlight. But forget all that, there's stuff that needs exploding and boy does Lin have fun there - be it a thrilling chase through London in souped up formula one heist cars, a truly insane freeway chase involving a runaway tank and an even more bonkers climactic plane sequence with the longest runway in movie history (honestly, it must be ten miles long!) and a series of fights that culminate in Diesel, literally, executing a flying headbutt. My girlfriend, a huge fan of Diesel and the franchise, admitted she didn't know whether to laugh or cheer. The simple solution is you do both, and Lin actively encourages it.

While the end seems to resolve proceedings in a barbecue tinted bow, Fast & Furious 6 then unleashes a wonderful stinger of a post-credits sequence that not only resolve a bizarre continuity niggle (which has basically meant films four, five & six are effectively set before three weirdly) but tees up a thrilling and very recognisable menace for the next picture, which could possibly send a franchise already soaring with gleefully nonsensical and thoroughly enjoyable bravado into the stratosphere. The way it's heading, we are surely destined Fast & Furious 10 to see a geriatric Diesel & The Rock battling alien invaders orbiting the Earth. We can only hope.