Film Review | Iron Man 3 (2013)

Iron Man 3 sits in a unique, perhaps unenviable, position in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first Marvel franchise to release a third installment (whilst Captain America and Thor gear up for their first sequels and Hulk waits for yet another reboot with Ruffalo in the role), Iron Man 3 is not only a sequel to the previous two Iron Man films but also to last year's critical and commercial favourite Avengers Assemble. It's also the first film in "Phase 2" of Marvel Studios' establishment of their Cinematic Universe, "Phase 1" having been wrapped up through the previously mentioned assembling of The Avengers. Robert Downey Jr.'s fourth outing as Tony Stark therefore had a huge amount of expectations to meet from several different angles.

There's plenty here to like, thanks in part to the elements already firmly established through the original film and its sequel, as well as Avengers Assemble. Downey Jr. is once again strong as Tony Stark providing a pleasing centre for everything else to orbit around. Gwyneth Paltrow returning as Pepper Potts also does well, although her relationship with Tony doesn't go anywhere new and the character doesn't get much of interest to do until towards the very end of the film. Don Cheadle is another welcome familiar face as Rhodey, although his role here never goes beyond a combination of plot device and foil-cum-sidekick to Downey Jr.'s Stark.

New additions to the cast also vary in their success. Guy Pearce crafts potentially the most successful villain of the series in Aldrich Killian, with Ben Kingsley also doing well as mysterious Osama Bin Laden-a-like The Mandarin, delivering a mid-story twist about which the less you know before watching the better. Less successful is Rebecca Hall as Dr. Maya Hansen, who is given precisely nothing interesting to do after the first ten minutes of the film; and Stephanie Szostak and James Badge Dale as two of Killian's subordinates, delivering well in the action stakes but whose villainous motivation is decidedly unclear.

Shane Black takes over directorial duties of the franchise from Jon Favreau, as well as co-writing the screenplay with Drew Pearce, and on the whole does well. This is a notably darker and more stripped down Iron Man movie to what we've seen before. We see Tony at his most vulnerable since he was imprisoned in a cave in the first installment, which provides some fresh moments of humanity for Downey Jr. to explore within the character but also makes this at times the least humorous entry into the franchise yet. Despite being roughly the same length as the previous two Iron Man films (and a good fifteen minutes shorter than Avengers Assemble) Black does feel as though he's padding things out at times here during the film's second act, especially after the film's pacy opening. The way in which Black moves the character of Tony Stark on in the film's final moments also feels a little too underdeveloped, almost like an afterthought, to resonate as much as it should.

In the end, Iron Man 3 is a mixture of successful and less successful elements, evening out into an enjoyable but flawed action film. For a third entry into the series it holds up perfectly well, certainly better than many threequels in other film series, but also feels as though it doesn't really move the franchise as a whole on to bigger and better things like it could have. Yes, there are some things that are done better here than they have been done previously, but there's also too much that feels like it's just been allowed to trundle along as it always has. Maybe it's because it's the first Marvel film to follow Joss Whedon's multi-superhero spectacular, but Iron Man 3 feels good - occasionally very good - but never great.

7/10

Film Review | The Taking Of Pelham 123 (2009)

It was with sadness that I heard of Tony Scott's death in August last year. Whilst he was never likely to be remembered as a director who created some of the great artistic works in cinematic history, Scott was undeniably a man with passion for and understanding of cinema who directed some of the more memorable entries into the action and thriller genres during his career. The Taking Of Pelham 123 would end up being Scott's penultimate film, and whilst it certainly has some redeeming features, unfortunately it's nowhere near the quality of the director's most successful work.

Scott's film is likely to start on the backfoot with some in the audience before it has even begun, being as it is a remake of the well-respected 1974 film of the same name (and with which I must admit I am not at all familiar), making changes to update the story to a technology-filled post-9/11 New York City. Whilst comparison with 1974 stars Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw may be the route by which some will judge Denzel Washington and John Travolta here, it really isn't necessary. Washington can do this kind of thing in his sleep, and whilst his turn here is perfectly satisfactory, he's never remotely stretched and constantly on auto-pilot. Travolta's performance, however, consists of him shouting and using the word "motherfucker" a lot, occasionally calling John Turturro (another great talent going through the motions) a "greaseball", and at one point using the term "bunghole". At no point will you ever buy into Travolta's character as anything but a fifty-something nutter desperately trying (and failing) to fit into youth gang culture, let alone who he is eventually revealed to be.

Scott manages to build some decent tension through a ticking clock framing device in the opening hour or so, but unfortunately this is squandered through a half-hearted final act which never delivers the fast-paced action needed. By this point Brian Helgeland's script has overcomplicated matters by adding in unnecessary 21st Century adornments to the story and seriously muddling Ryder's (Travolta) motives, leaving those who still care with a frustratingly anticlimactic conclusion.

The Taking Of Pelham 123 ends up as a hotch-potch of elements ranging from above average to quite poor. It's entertaining enough for what it is and never awful, but it also falls short in too many areas to ever become anything memorable. In the end, it's a film which helps to remind you of the great many superior offerings in the action thriller subgenre that are on offer, some of which can be readily found in Scott's own back catalogue.

5/10

Film Review | Machete (2010)

Once upon a time, Machete was a film that existed only as a "fake" trailer presented between Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror and Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof in the pair's double feature homage Grindhouse. Featured alongside trailers for other fictitious features such as Werewolf Women Of The SS (Rob Zombie's tribute to Nazi exploitation flicks) and Thanksgiving (Eli Roth's brutal holiday-centric slasher parody), Machete ended up as the first of these ideas to be fleshed out into a real film. Working backwards from an idea that was intentionally thin on plot and excessive when it came to violence and action, Rodriguez's "Mexploitation" pastiche could - and by rights should - have ended up as a total mess. In the hands of another director, it almost certainly would have. But whilst it lacks the refinement and sheer quality of the director's best work, Machete is hugely enjoyable.

Danny Trejo as the titular hero both looks and acts the part perfectly, coming across like a Hispanic John McClane with the vocal range of Schwarzenegger's Terminator and the allure of James Bond. The rest of the cast is as game as is necessary, with big names such as Steven Seagal and Robert De Niro giving it their hammy all.

The story is somewhat overstretched for the one hour and forty five minutes Machete runs for, and at times Rodriguez threatens to make things more complicated than they need to be for a film of this nature. There are also social and political messages running underneath much of what is presented, which thankfully only threatens to take over the fun on two or three occasions. Most importantly, Rodriguez remembers throughout what Machete needs as its focus: balls to the wall action. And by heck, the director shows he knows how to put together a decent extreme action sequence. The film's opening scene is pure exploitation gold, and the fire-powered finale can't help but bring a gleeful grin to your face.

Whilst Machete is never likely to be considered a Rodriguez classic, falling short of achieving the pulpy heights of Sin City or the exquisite level of homage seen in Planet Terror, it's a consistently entertaining, no-nonsense action film packed with plenty of guns, fights, explosions and - perhaps least expectedly - talent. Admit it: a film featuring Cheech Marin as a twin shotgun toting priest has got to be worth a look.

7/10

Film Review | Paul (2011)

Looking through Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's individual filmographies, both men have made some pretty average fare in their careers when going solo. It's when Pegg and Frost work together that cinematic brilliance such as Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz happens. Paul signifies the end of this rule of thumb: whilst it's nowhere near awful, it's also far too often remarkably ordinary.

Pegg and Frost share credits as both writers and stars, playing two British sci-fi and fantasy geeks (not a huge stretch for either of them); whilst there are glimpses of the infectious chemistry seen between the two on screen before, here it never fully ignites, feeling like a somewhat shallow imitation of what the duo have previously offered. Seth Rogen is an actor I can take or leave, and his performance as the voice of the titular alien fugitive does nothing to sway me any further either way. It works, but Rogen is never outstanding and at times feels as though he's simply going through the motions. Kristen Wiig is fine in support, and Jason Bateman's antagonistic secret service agent generally works well too, although a character shift in the final act feels like a stretch too far. Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio's junior agents are less successful, but by no means terrible providing a few minor chuckles throughout.

Script-wise, Paul paints much broader strokes than Pegg and Frost's previous more highly regarded films, which may widen its appeal but also makes it feel much less sharply crafted. The writing is at its best when paying tribute to science-fiction films gone by with enough references to keep even the most ardent film buffs happy - a voice cameo by a certain alliteratively-named director is a particular highlight - but elsewhere lazily falls back onto the blunt and heavy-handed. Easy targets such as the Christian right and intolerant rednecks feel beneath the British twosome considering their more finely honed previous comedic works.

Ultimately, there's enough to enjoy within Paul to make it worth a watch. The story is episodic and at times unfocused, but managed to hold my interest throughout. If you expect Paul to do to sci-fi what Shaun Of The Dead did to the zombie and horror genres, or what Hot Fuzz did to action and buddy cop movies, then you'll undoubtedly come out disappointed. But go into Paul looking for a lighthearted sci-fi comedy that will entertain without taxing your grey matter too much and you could do a lot worse.

6/10

Film Review | Batman (1966)

With Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy fresh in the minds of many, it's easy to dismiss or even forget that the Caped Crusader's inaugural big screen appearance was a much more lighthearted and comedic affair. 1966's Batman, a feature length adaptation of the TV series which started in the same year, is in many ways a world away from the most recent incarnation of Gotham City and its flying-mammal-themed hero. But there are things that the '60s version of Batman brings to the table that Bale's troubled vigilante never could or would.

It's clear from the very start what kind of superhero film Batman is, with Batman (Adam West) and Robin (Burt Ward) launched straight into a rescue mission which sees them flying the Batcopter, climbing down the Bat-Ladder (complete with "Bat-Ladder" nameplate hanging from the bottom) and utilising Bat-Shark-Repellent to dislodge a shark from Batman's leg. A dark and brooding Gotham this certainly is not. This is unashamedly camp and tongue-in-cheek with intentionally dodgy props (there's more rubber in the shark than in Christian Bale's Batsuit) and a pantomime plot. Batman's approach to the character and his world certainly won't be to everyone's taste, but it lays its cards clearly on the table from the very start, so at least any misery guts out there can switch off within the first ten minutes and do something depressing instead.

West's Batman may not channel the trauma of his parents' death when he was a nipper, but he fills his  spandex Batsuit amply and entertainingly. It's as alter ego Bruce Wayne that West's talent truly shines through, bringing the suave playboy side of Wayne to life better than any big screen Batman since. It's not hard to see from his performance here why West was offered the role of James Bond following Connery's departure (West only turned it down because he felt that Bond should be played by a Brit, movie trivia fans). Burt Ward's support is exactly what it needs to be: memorably full of youthful eagerness, but always allowing West to take centre stage.

Batman offers four of the hero's greatest foes, and four more sublimely extrovert performances. However, with a quartet of supervillains it's inevitable that at least one will feel pushed to the sidelines; sadly here it is Cesar Romero's Joker, who is never given much to do beyond take orders from Burgess Meredith's Penguin. That said, Batman manages multiple villains much better than many more recent offerings into the superhero subgenre.

One or two other key problems mean that Batman never threatens to become a true classic. The plot is regularly meandering and disparate, feeling like a collection of ideas from the TV series connected by a story stretched to fit an overlong running time. A late moralistic message about world harmony feels unnecessarily tacked on, and whilst it's never distracting enough to do any major damage, it does mean that the end of the film feels a little anticlimactic. But these are minor issues. Go into Batman looking for pure, straightforward entertainment and you'll find yourself grinning throughout, with several genuine laugh-out-loud moments that will reside pleasingly in your memory long after the film's end.

7/10

Film Review | In Time (2011)

Think of an English idiom either concerned with, or involving the word, time. The chances are pretty high that, whatever expression you're currently thinking of, it's included somewhere within In Time. The chances are equally high that you've just gone through the same process as those who actually wrote the script.

The universe that In Time takes place in is undoubtedly the most creative element of the whole thing. Hardly a surprise: writer, producer and director Andrew Niccol's previous credits include Gattaca (writer and director) and The Truman Show (writer and producer).Whilst In Time's world never reaches the imaginative highs of either of those films it certainly holds together in a compelling and believable fashion. Niccol also doesn't waste time with exposition, instead throwing the audience into the film's construct  with a confidence that genuinely galvanises your interest. It's a shame that this barely lasts halfway into the film's first act.

The problem is that Niccol never does anything interesting or deep enough with the set-up he creates. An appealing premise is squandered through characters lacking motive or intrigue performed by a cast that ranges from weak (Justin Timberlake) to going through the motions (Cillian Murphy, who admittedly does the best he can with a poorly written character). The story never grabs hold, instead just bumbling along becoming more and more unfocused until it reaches its lacklustre conclusion. The message that Niccol seems to be peddling here about class mobility and the poor being controlled by the wealthy feels ham-fisted and generates remarkably little excitement.

All of which leaves In Time as nothing more than a wasted opportunity. It's a real shame that Niccol fails to come up with a story or focus to match the ingenuity of the world in which his film is set, as with some decent characterisation and a well-written plot, this could have been a memorable entry into the action-sci-fi subgenre. As it stands, In Time is a forgettable disappointment.

4/10

Film Review | Knight And Day (2010)

Maybe Knight And Day isn't the kind of film that was made for close scrutiny. Maybe it's the kind of film that should be allowed to just rattle along at a fair pace and provide middle-of-the-road action with little brain activity required. But when a film contains such insultingly lazy writing and direction as this, making some major errors that even the most pedestrian of shoot-em-'up popcorn flicks manage to avoid, it deserves everything that's about to be thrown at it.

Tonally, the film is a mess. Director James Mangold seems entirely unable to decide what style of universe he wants his film to inhabit. One minute we're presented with tense realism as Cameron Diaz's June finds herself frantically evading shady CIA operatives with questionable motives; the next she's having meta statements about killing people with big guns spouted at her by Tom Cruise - last seen this manic atop Oprah Winfrey's sofa - as rogue CIA agent Roy Miller. Mangold doesn't do any better in reigning in the tone of his characters: Diaz is a ditz who can't be trusted with a machine gun in one scene, then shooting at bad guys whilst straddling Cruise on a motorbike a few sequences later. Cruise's Roy meanwhile runs the gamut of mental stability to the point of driving the audience a bit loopy themselves.

Things go from bad to worse when the focus is shifted to the script. Writer Patrick O'Neill is either a very weak writer, a very lazy writer, or both. If you're reading, Mr. O'Neill, here's a tip: if you can't think of a way to move from one scene to the next, don't just choose to drug one of your characters, switch to their point of view, then have the screen fade to black then fade in again somewhere else. It's indolent and amateurish. The worst thing is, this doesn't just happen once, but becomes a regular occurrence happening at several points in the film. Plot holes are left gaping, at times even seeming to be intentionally pointed out as if that makes them okay. This is more than just lazy writing; it's downright insulting to the audience.

With such major flaws as this, Knight And Day becomes impossible to enjoy on more than the most scant and rudimentary levels. Even the title is a half-baked idea (I'll leave it to you to discover which half). Serious talent such as Paul Dano has no business being wasted providing minor support in dross such as this. Much better lightweight action fare of this ilk has been made before and since, meaning that there's really no justification to recommend Knight And Day for any reason. Just watch something else: chances are it'll be more worthwhile than this.

3/10

Film Review | A Good Day To Die Hard (2013)

There aren't many film franchises that go beyond three installments without the quality deteriorating significantly. After the first two sequels, things usually go downhill pretty quickly if they haven't already. Good fifth installments are even rarer. In fact, as I write this, I can't actually think of any film series that has managed a worthwhile fifth film. Sadly, A Good Day To Die Hard won't make answering that question any easier.

The Die Hard franchise is regularly held up as one of the strongest and most influential in the action genre, with the first film widely regarded as one of the most important action films ever made. Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Die Hard With A Vengeance both have their detractors, but are generally considered worthwhile continuations from the original. Die Hard 4.0 divided opinion further. By far the most throwaway of the series at that point, some enjoyed the high-octane thrills it provided whilst others derided the film for tarnishing the respectable Die Hard name. Which brings us to A Good Day To Die Hard, a film which not only feels like the greatest departure from what the Die Hard films have always been about, but which is also just really quite bad.

Bruce Willis as John McClane for the first time in the franchise actually comes across as bored in the role, and no wonder. Aside from a few semi-decent action set pieces scattered throughout, Willis is given very little of interest to do, and certainly nothing that feels particularly like McClane. The script gives Willis very little of the sharp-tongued humour seen in previous Die Hards, instead having him yell "I'm on vacation!" at regular intervals. Not only does this not make sense - McClane is in Russia to track down and bring home his son Jack (Jai Courtney), which at no point is ever put across as a "vacation" - but it's also a pitifully poor substitute for McClane's usual quick wit and smashmouth utterances of "yippee ki-yay motherfucker!" (mumbled halfheartedly at one point by Willis, and cut short again as it was in Die Hard 4.0 to help secure the film's 12A certificate).

Not that McClane has a great deal to crack wise about. A Good Day To Die Hard is a stiff and humourless affair from the start, taking itself way too seriously and missing almost every opportunity to lighten the mood. The relationship between John and son Jack is for a large part of the film genuinely hostile. The insults traded between them come across not as banter, but as acrimonious and really quite uncomfortable, akin to seeing a couple arguing in a supermarket. When father and son do inevitably end up on the same page, the previous sourness coupled with the lack of chemistry between Willis and Courtney means the relationship never rings true.

This is by far the shortest of all the Die Hard films by around half an hour, but it's certainly the most tiresome to get through. The plot is unnecessarily complex from the start, tying itself in more and more knots as things progress to the point of becoming nonsensical, contradicting earlier happenings through badly thought out twists. This is also the first time a Die Hard film has lacked a clearly defined central antagonist; what could potentially be seen as a bold decision actually turns out to be poorly considered meddling with the Die Hard formula that just goes further in making the whole thing feel carelessly and disparately constructed.

A Good Day To Die Hard therefore gives you very little to like about it. There are some good action sequences, but even these feel CGI-heavy and don't really offer anything that hasn't been seen before. There are also two or three moments which feel as though they're trying desperately to link what we're watching to the franchise's legacy, but these are too few and far between to impact on the film as a whole. In the end, A Good Day To Die Hard suggests that the time has come for Bruce to hang up the dirty white vest for good. That said, talk of rounding the Die Hard series off with a final entry in a second trilogy has already surfaced. Should that end up being the case, the best that can be hoped for is that number six will be a considerable improvement on number five, allowing John McClane to go out with some dignity and not as a shadow of how he started.

3/10

Film Review | Wreck-It Ralph (2013)

Walt Disney Animation Studios has had a chequered recent history. With the "Renaissance" of the 1990s well behind them, and 2009's The Princess And The Frog marking the end of their traditionally animated big screen output for the foreseeable future at least, the studio has focused solely on refining their computer-animated movies. After lacklustre beginnings at the turn of the century, more recent offerings such as 2008's Bolt and Tangled in 2010 - whilst never reaching the heights of computer-animated master craftsmen Pixar - have felt decidedly more successful in both scripting and animation. And whilst Wreck-It Ralph also falls short of Pixar's incredibly high benchmark, it's the closest Disney (or arguably any other studio) have come to reaching it.

Previous non-Pixar CGI films have fallen short in at least one area: sometimes the animation isn't up to scratch, although this is becoming less and less of an issue as technology continues to progress; much more often it's the writing or direction that simply don't cut it. Thankfully, Wreck-It Ralph doesn't fall significantly short in any of these areas. The world that Ralph and his fellow video game characters inhabit is crafted beautifully through Disney's finest computer animation yet. It's also one of the most original ideas from the studio in a long time, with echoes of Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. in the way Ralph's universe is realized and presented to us. The realm of the arcade has a warmth and tangibility that many computer-animated efforts fail to achieve.

The script is for the most part shot through with both humour and heart, although the dialogue doesn't zing with wit quite as often as you'd like; a few juvenile jokes clearly aimed squarely at the kids in the audience will more likely induce tutting and eye-rolling from mums and dads. The story has a pleasing complexity to it, developing from a deceptively simplistic opening concept to bring together several threads pleasingly during the film's climax. Ralph is impossible not to warm to immediately with John C. Reilly's understated vocal performance fitting the big friendly juggernaut's personality superbly. His character arc, despite dealing with well-worn moral lessons, has satisfying notes of subtlety throughout. Sarah Silverman's Vanellope initially threatens to grate and at times feels a little too one-note, but once she finds her groove with the character the results are pleasing. The supporting turns from Jack McBrayer as Fix-It Felix Jr. and Jane Lynch as Sergeant Calhoun are strong with both developing characters of depth and humour as well as sharing marvellous chemistry in the film's best subplot.

Wreck-It Ralph's main flaw is that it sets itself up with more than it's able to deliver, even in the two hour running time the film has. After introducing us to a host of characters and settings, the bulk of the film's plot takes place within the realm of video game "Sugar Rush". Whilst this works in terms of the story being told, as well as allowing for regular moments of sharp sweet-based observational humour, it would have been nice to explore more of the places where the film only affords us a relatively brief time. The references to retro video games also feel underutilized beyond the film's first act, where they are genuinely charming. After seeing many a familiar face from classics of arcade and console, it's a shame that these aren't worked into the plot more throughout the film's entire running time.

Wreck-It Ralph ends up as the finest output of Walt Disney Animation Studios yet, surpassing more recent Pixar efforts but not quite matching their finest. With other rival animation studios seeming increasingly happy to churn out middle-of-the-road movies and lazily squeeze every last penny out of their franchises, Disney deserve high praise for creating a film of such ingenuity and quality. The gap between their Pixar and non-Pixar efforts is shrinking; if Disney's films continue to improve in quality the way they have been over the past five years, the studio could very soon have the market cornered and once again rightfully claim themselves as absolute top dog in animation.

8/10

Film Review | Taken (2008)

One my favourite ironic pieces of film trivia (and if you don't have favourite ironic pieces of film trivia, then you clearly lead a much fuller life than I do) is that, in 1994, Liam Neeson turned down the chance to succeed Timothy Dalton as James Bond. The producers were obviously keen on a celtic Bond (or should that be "Double O'Seven"...?) as fellow Irishman Pierce Brosnan eventually took over the role from Dalton. But the ironic part is the reason Neeson gave for declining the role: he wasn't interested in starring in action films. I wonder whether if Neeson had known then that, less than twenty years later, his filmography would include such Hollywood action fare as Unknown,  Battleship and, perhaps most famously of all, Taken, he would have so readily walked away from being Bond.

Neeson has arguably done his acting career back to front. In his thirties and forties he made his name in dramatic roles often steeped in history; now that he's just turned sixty, he's more well known for playing one-dimensional action men in roles he once shunned. The action hero is stereotypically a young man for obvious reasons of agility, looks, and not having to stop every twenty minutes to go to the toilet. That said, Neeson does fairly well in Taken, with only a few scenes in which you feel he looks to old to be doing the things he's doing, or that the bad guys look like they'd actually be able to run rings around our hero.

The baddies themselves are generally taken from the seemingly endless stock reserved for middle-of-the-road action films; neither impressive enough nor awful enough to be truly memorable. Writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen seemingly fall back on stereotypes with wanton abandon when it comes to their antagonists. Basically, if you're not American, you're evil, and that's all we need to know. In fact, this lack of depth can be seen across the cast: watch Famke Janssen's Lenore stubbornly contradict and undercut everything Neeson's Bryan says in the opening act simply because she's his ex-wife, and teenage daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) being painfully naïve about pretty much everything in order for her to get into a situation where estranged father Bryan has to rescue her whilst rebuilding their fractured relationship.

And yet, despite its faults and woeful first act, once things focused on the action and Neeson beating people up, I actually found myself enjoying Taken for what it is. There's imagination in the methods Bryan uses to track down his daughter, and whilst he's no Jason Bourne there's more going on upstairs that in many meatheads of movies past. Occasionally the film overstretches itself in what it attempts, but in terms of offering relatively hard-hitting action with little-to-no brain activity required, you could do worse than Taken. Considering the gritty direction the Bond franchise has been following since Daniel Craig donned the tux, if nothing else it makes you wonder what style of 007 Neeson might have brought to the screen.

5/10

Film Review | Django Unchained (2013)

Promoting Django Unchained in an interview with Playboy Magazine at the end of last year, Quentin Tarantino was quoted as saying that "directors don't get better as they get older. Usually the worst films in their filmography are those last four at the end. I'm all about my filmography, and one bad film fucks up three good ones". Ironically, if there is any contemporary director whose output disproves this theory, it's Tarantino himself. And if Django Unchained ended up being his last hurrah, then what a spectacular way it would be to sew up Tarantino's beloved filmography.

Django Unchained in many ways feels like the spiritual and natural successor to Tarantino's most recent previous work, Inglourious Basterds, with the two films in conjunction feeling as though they hail a renaissance in the director's career. Tarantino is no longer the young upstart on the scene, the indie filmmaker who reshaped 1990s cinema with the one-two combo of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. That's not to say that his films no longer have the impact they once did. Quite the contrary in fact: Inglourious Basterds was so bold in its execution, so finely mastered by the man behind the camera, that it couldn't help but redefine war films for the modern era. Django Unchained does the same for the western genre, arguably with even greater success.

This is hands down Tarantino's finest story yet. From the opening scenes to the final moments, Tarantino the writer knows exactly where he's taking Django as well as every other character involved; Tarantino the director assuredly takes you along with them every step. This is intoxicating cinema, both brutal and beautiful - Django Unchained shows that the jawdropping cinematography of Inglourious Basterds was no one-off. Tarantino may beg, steal and borrow from his encyclopaedic passion for cinema when crafting his tales, but nobody can deny that he is one of the most artistically proficient filmmakers making movies today.

Tarantino's skill for drawing out the very best work from his actors is as robust as ever here. Jamie Foxx as Django is intense and immeasurably cool, developing the character over the film's effortless 165 minutes without putting a foot wrong. Alongside him is Christoph Waltz's dentist-turned-bounty-hunter Dr. King Schultz. It's almost unfair to compare Waltz's performance here to his enigmatic turn as Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds, so I simply won't. Waltz is once again superb, immediately creating a captivating curiosity of a character who you can't help but warm to. Waltz regularly makes Schultz a genuinely funny character too, relieving some of Django Unchained's inherent heaviness with a perfectly timed quip or a charming demonstration of the Schultz's gift of the gab. The chemistry between Foxx and Waltz is palpable and rich, two fine actors on top of their game brilliantly glancing off one another wonderfully throughout.

If the film's first half belongs to Waltz and Foxx, then its second is firmly in the joint possession of Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson. DiCaprio's incomparably vile plantation owner Calvin Candie is a villain for the ages, with the actor imbuing his creation with a heady mix of Southern hospitality and monstrous cruelty. Matching DiCaprio in detestabilty is Jackson as Stephen, Candie's aging Uncle Tom of a house slave. His is a performance as captivating as it is ire-inducing, the actor's finest since his last major role in a Tarantino film as Ordell Robbie in 1997's Jackie Brown.

Django Unchained comes together brilliantly as Tarantino's most mature work yet. The director strides assuredly and masterfully into his third decade of filmmaking with fresh ideas and increasingly impressive cinematic style and craft, whilst at the same time making clear that same burning desire and unbridled passion for every element of every moment of his films seen since his earliest work. During the same interview referenced earlier, Tarantino suggested that he may stop directing after his tenth film. If he follows through with this plan, it means we've got three more films to see from him yet. And if Django Unchained is anything to go by, we've potentially got some of the finest cinema ever created to look forward to.

10/10

Film Review | Inglourious Basterds (2009)

If the 1990s defined Quentin Tarantino as one of the finest directing talents of modern cinema, then the first decade of the 21st Century showed that he is also one of the most unpredictable. The director's '90s trifecta - Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown - all feel decidedly complete, whilst at the same time  exhibiting shared themes and an unmistakable style to the point that all three films arguably take place in the same universe. In contrast, Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 by definition are two halves of one long and bloody epic story that inhabit their own world, whilst Death Proof is an esoteric love letter to a film-making and cinema-going style of yesteryear which shared more than just a double billing with Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror. Inglourious Basterds is arguably therefore Tarantino's first and only stand-alone film of the 2000s when measured against his 20th Century output. In many ways it signifies a new direction for Tarantino, with a quasi-historical context and a multilingual script. But this is also undeniably a Tarantino film, and moreover one which redefines the director as a breathtakingly skilled auteur.

From its opening prologue-like sequence, Inglourious Basterds is a film which commands your attention. Cinematically this is Tarantino's most mature work, with expertly crafted sequences that segue through historical drama, spaghetti western, romantic melodrama and exploitation with a refinement surpassing even the director's most acclaimed works. Every shot is a work of art, but two sequences within the film stand out as possibly the best ever seen from Tarantino. The first is the opening chapter, exuding quality and making an immediate statement through the subtitled French dialogue and beautiful yet sinister wartime countryside setting: this is at once the director not only away from his usual backdrops, but also out of his comfort zone, and yet making a masterpiece of every moment.

The opening scenes also introduce one of Tarantino's, and indeed cinema's, greatest ever character creations in Colonel Hans Landa, played to perfection by Christoph Waltz. The actor's performance is sublime to the point of being almost indescribable, creating an immensely complex and yet starkly straightforward personality it is impossible not to simultaneously despise and be awestruck by. Every moment Waltz is on screen is pure cinematic pleasure, with his introduction as "The Jew Hunter" of the SS in the film's opening one of the finest moments Tarantino, or in fact any director, has committed to celluloid.

As perfect as the film's prologue is, Tarantino's crowning achievement within Inglourious Basterds is undeniably the scene set in "La Louisiane", a basement bar at which a liaison between German double agent Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), undercover Brit Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender) and two of the Basterds takes place. The entire scene is laced with tension, and is so finely crafted as to be a microcosmic movie contained within the main film's narrative.

Whilst this may feel like one of Tarantino's more uneven works tonally - consider how far the film changes from its quietly controlled, dramatic opening to its hyperreal, ultraviolence-fuelled finale - that's not to say that the film falters in between the moments highlighted. Tarantino commands the film's multi-plotted narrative as a virtuoso conductor does a concerto through his perfectly-assembled orchestra of superb acting talents, many of whom are bold choices being unknown to English-speaking audiences plucked as they are from European cinema. So high is the quality of the casting and performances throughout that even Eli Roth's subpar turn as Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz is forgivable.

Inglourious Basterds is a tour de force from Tarantino: a rip-roaring war epic which straddles genres, delivering entertainment, emotion and extreme violence whilst showing off the director's supreme talent behind the camera in the same way as his early work that first caught popular attention. This may be harder for audiences to take to their hearts in the same way as they did, say, Pulp Fiction, but Inglourious Basterds more than deserves to go down as a true Tarantino classic.

10/10

Film Review | The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy has never been something that truly held my interest. Having seen all three I can say they're entertaining enough as a collection of films, reaching their high point during Spider-Man 2 before taking something of a nosedive in terms of quality with Spider-Man 3. But compared to other superheroes, Spidey just never resonated in the same way as others such as Batman or Superman. I was genuinely intrigued therefore when Marvel made the decision that, instead of developing a fourth installment of Raimi's franchise, they would reboot the franchise returning to the superhero's origins with an all new cast and director. A bold move considering Raimi's first film was less than ten years old at the time.

The film takes the story of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) right back to its beginnings. Having lived with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) since he was a young boy after his parents were killed in a plane crash, a teenage Peter attempts to track down Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) who previously worked closely with his father. Whilst at Connors' research lab, Peter is bitten by a radioactive spider which leads to him developing superhuman abilities.

Comparisons between this film and Raimi's efforts are inevitable, if not mandatory, so let's get them out of the way. In terms of casting, The Amazing Spider-Man feels superior, which is impressive considering the strength of many of the actors involved in Spider-Man and its sequels. Garfield brings a grittier quality to Peter Parker than we've seen on screen before, using the teenager's issues over his parents' absence and then death to develop the character into a compelling screen presence. Opposite Garfield is Emma Stone as love interest Gwen Stacy, a relationship that feels more satisfying than that seen between Peter and Mary-Jane in Raimi's films. Stone does well to give Gwen some pleasing depth, never allowing the character to be a one-dimensional object of Spidey's affections, aided further by the script's wise avoidance of ever making her a hackneyed damsel in distress.

Elsewhere the casting is fine, but never outstanding. Ifans as Curt Connors does well, but never truly shines, and feels a little miscast when in his mutated form as the film's main antagonist The Lizard. Denis Leary does better as Gwen's father police captain George Stacy, although is never given quite opportunity to develop the character in a genuinely satisfying way. The film's strongest casting choices are those of Peter's Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Sheen is reliably strong as Ben, bringing welcome echoes of his defining role as President Bartlet from television series The West Wing to make Peter's uncle a caring yet formidable presence; it's almost a shame that Spidey's origin story dictates that Sheen's character be absent for a significant part of the story. Field as Aunt May is superb, bringing gravity and heart to a role which gives Garfield's Peter some necessary emotional anchorage.

Despite the relative success in The Amazing Spider-Man's casting, the film's script and story never come across with the same level of accomplishment. The plot never resonates with any genuine threat or mystery, and takes a while to get going - the seemingly eternal blight of superhero origin stories that few manage to avoid - making the two-and-a-quarter hour running time feel overlong and somewhat self-indulgent on the part of director Mark Webb. For a superhero film the action feels restrained; the final battle between Spider-Man and The Lizard is unimpressive, and aside from a tense rescue sequence on a bridge, Spidey's heroic exploits are quite forgettable. There are also a few notably sloppy scripting choices, with plot threads and characters introduced but never resolved, instead frustratingly forgotten about.

Perhaps The Amazing Spider-Man's biggest flaw, however, is that it just never feels different enough to what we've seen before. True, the darker aesthetic that Webb has gone for is often markedly different to the vibrant cartoon colours of Raimi's vision, but this never feels separate enough from what has gone before. It's perhaps a problem that was always going to be unavoidable when rebooting the franchise so soon after its original incarnation. There's a lot here that wouldn't fit into Raimi's trilogy, but also a considerable amount that quite comfortably would. With Marvel establishing their own Cinematic Universe over the past five years, the studio was perhaps left with something of a quandary in rebooting the Spider-Man franchise. What we're left with is a new beginning for Spider-Man that's in many ways pleasing and enjoyable, but ultimately underwhelming and that feels like it was created out of necessity rather than artistic desire. It's perhaps a cheap shot, but The Amazing Spider-Man never lives up to the adjective used within its title.

6/10

Film Review | Death Proof (2007)

Quentin Tarantino's films have always had at least one foot in homage territory, paying tribute to the cinema that the self-confessed movie geek director loves and was raised on. Jackie Brown is, stylistically at least, a fairly straight homage to 1970s blaxploitation films; Kill Bill across both of its volumes demonstrates Tarantino's passion for old school kung fu flicks and spaghetti westerns. Death Proof was, and still is, arguably the director's most overt tribute to a specific subset of cinema, being as it was originally released (in a significantly shorter cut) alongside Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror as a "double feature" entitled Grindhouse. Both Rodriguez's and Tarantino's films echoed the raw exploitation films screened in grindhouse cinemas in their style and genre, with both directors going the extra mile to make their films look authentically aged and roughly cut. But Death Proof is not only an homage to grindhouse movies, but also an homage to Tarantino as auteur. A chance for the director to enjoy all of his favourite cinematic tropes and give a nod to his own legacy: a meta-Tarantino film if you will.

The film follows Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), an aging stunt driver who stalks young women before executing them using his "death proof" stunt car. However, Mike gets more than he bargains for when he targets a group of ladies working on a film, including stuntwoman Zoe Bell (playing herself).

Death Proof feels distinctly like a film of two halves, with the first hour focusing upon Stuntman Mike's pursuit of three women in Texas - Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito), Shanna (Jordan Ladd) and "Jungle" Julia (Sydney Poitier) - and the second set fourteen months later in Tennessee, with Mike stalking the girls from the film industry: Abernathy (Rosario Dawson), Kim (Tracie Thoms) and Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), later joined by Zoe Bell visiting the other three from her native New Zealand. Stylistically, both halves feel different with the added aging effect, intentionally jarring cuts and missing scenes used a lot more in the first half of the film. Whilst a little distracting at first, these soon become part of the film's charm, and I found myself missing this added element when Tarantino chooses to tone it down a lot for the second hour.

This is arguably Tarantino's most self-indulgent film, with the references - some subtle, some glaring - to his own past films to be found throughout. Tarantino aficionados will relish spotting as many of the director's hallmarks as they can throughout the film's running time. Some of these work brilliantly, such as the ingenious references to in-car conversation scenes from both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in the opening sequence; others, such as Abernathy's choice of mobile phone ringtone, feel a little too blunt to be considered genuinely clever.

The biggest difference between the two halves of the film is one of quality: the first hour of Death Proof is superior to the second in terms of writing and performances. The first hour features Tarantino's supercool dialogue most reminiscent of that heard in Jackie Brown - not endlessly quotable but consistently captivating and with an expert balance between the menacing and the retro. The cinematography is vibrant in its throwback nature and gives the film a unique quality. Kurt Russell is the perfect choice for Stuntman Mike, introduced as an alluring yet threatening presence and put across superbly by the veteran actor. The young actresses here put in strong performances, with Ferlito and Poitier deserving specific mention for particularly memorable turns.

In comparison, the film's second half feels less successful. Russell's character, whilst still central, has much less dialogue here, reducing the impact the actor is able to have. The second female collective are much less compelling than the first, with the dialogue less inspired and the performances less convincing. Bell in particular feels out of her depth, her lack of acting experience coming through at several points. The car chase sequences in the finale are incredibly impressive with a hard-edged authenticity and palpable danger very rarely seen in modern cinema, but overall it feels as though Tarantino poured a lot more artistic flair into the first hour of the film than the second.

Death Proof therefore evens out as an average of its outstanding first half and enjoyable, but underwhelming, second half. This is Tarantino indulging his own cinematic whims without aiming to produce a film that's also an event. It may be the director's most uneven work, but even without firing on all cylinders Tarantino manages to create something truly individual, memorable and wildly entertaining.

8/10

Film Review | Men In Black 3 (2012)

I'm a big fan of Men In Black, and whilst it's not a patch on the original, I've never hated Men In Black 2 quite as much as most others seemed to. It was a sequel with some very good ideas (and a few incredibly bad ones - I'm looking at you here Frank The Pug), but nothing to tie them together leaving the whole thing lacking focus, direction or care. Essentially there was no real reason for Men In Black 2 to be made other than to make money off the success of the first film, and it really showed through the finished product. Ten years on, and everyone involved in the franchise had nothing to lose in making Men In Black 3. They weren't capitalising on the success of a recent franchise, nor were they committed to complete a trilogy story arc. Men In Black 3 had a new freedom to be whatever film it wanted to be within an established universe. Just as the lack of care was evident throughout Men In Black 2, so the intention, craft and heart involved in making Men In Black 3 is equally as clear.

Men In Black 3 sees alien criminal Boris The Animal (Jermaine Clement) escape from a prison on the Moon to exact revenge on the man who put him there, Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones). Boris' plan involves travelling back through time to murder K before he can imprison him, which leads to K's partner J (Will Smith) following him through time to 1969 in order to stop Boris and prevent the catastrophic effects K's death in the past will have on the present.

From the start, the film knows how to play to its strengths, not least the cast. There is of course the welcome return of the pairing of Smith and Jones, falling back into their slick and entertaining double act as soon as they appear on screen. However, the opportunity for banter between the two is reduced significantly from the first two films with Jones' reduced screen time, an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect of the nature of the plot. Thankfully it also leads to the strongest piece of new casting in the film, namely Josh Brolin as the younger version of K that J teams up with in 1969. Brolin's performance is a hybrid of a classic stereotypical agency stiff and an impressively accurate Tommy Lee Jones impersonation, resulting in a strong and charismatic turn from the actor. The partnership of Smith and Brolin never reaches the heights of Smith and Jones, but the two have palpable chemistry and prove an enjoyable pairing throughout.

There is strength in the cast elsewhere, with Clement putting in an impressive performance under a huge amount of prosthetics and CGI as villain Boris; he never quite reaches the exquisite creepiness of Vincent D'Onofrio's Edgar from the first film, but Boris poses a palpable threat whilst being more than suitably repulsive. Emma Watson is fine as Agent O, replacing Rip Torn's Agent Z from the first two films as Head of MIB, but is given frustratingly little to do. Michael Stuhlbarg as alien Griffin also does well, bringing an ethereal quality to the character whilst never becoming annoying.

There are some sound action sequences throughout, although all but the finale feel a little brief and unspectacular leaving you wanting something more. However, it's clear from the start that Men In Black 3 isn't interested in rehashing the action-based ideas from the first two films; this is a film primarily concerned with emotion. The true payoff doesn't come until very late on in proceedings, but when it does it's easily one of the most touching moments to come out of a sci-fi film in recent years.

Whilst it never manages to reach the heights of the original, Men In Black 3 is consistently superior to the first sequel to the point that comparison isn't even worthwhile. It's a film that stands as an enjoyable and well-made blockbuster on its own, whilst at the same time doing things with the franchise that very few people ever expected it to, not least adding a welcome and heartwarming new dimension to the well-established duo of Agents J and K.

7/10

Film Review | Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows (2011)

In 2009's Sherlock Holmes, Guy Ritchie delivered a flawed but enjoyable new take on one of British literature's most loved characters. Whilst the film was far from perfect, it felt like a solid platform upon which to launch future installments in a new franchise where the faults could be remedied and the successful elements - not least the central performance from Robert Downey Jr. - could be capitalised upon. Unfortunately, Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows almost comprehensively fails to do that.

The film catches up with Holmes (Downey Jr.) investigating links between a series of crimes across Europe and Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) following the tip he received from Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) at the end of the first film. Watson (Jude Law) meanwhile is preparing to marry his fiancée Mary (Kelly Reilly), but soon becomes embroiled in Holmes and Moriarty's game of cat and mouse.

Downey Jr. as Holmes again delivers the strongest performance here, slipping comfortably back into the mannerisms and personality he successfully established in Sherlock Holmes. It's unfortunate that Holmes this time is regularly written as self-parodical of the character Downey Jr. created, adopting a series of ridiculous and entirely unconvincing disguises throughout the film and transforming the character from manic genius to harebrained clown. Law too falls back into the character of Watson comfortably, but suffers from sharing less screen time with Holmes than in the first film and feeling like a half-hearted straight man to Holmes' fool when he does.

Elsewhere, the casting is a mixed bag. The biggest improvement from the first film is the reduction of McAdams' role as Irene Adler to not much more than a cameo. Noomi Rapace replaces McAdams as the film's main female character, and is much stronger than her predecessor at the points when she is given something to do. Jared Harris as Moriarty does well enough, but feels somewhat forgettable considering he is playing Holmes' archenemy. Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's older brother, is sure to raise a smile in his first scene despite the fact that he is essentially playing the character as himself; the appeal is short-lived however as it's clear the plot has nothing of worth for Fry's character to do, epitomised in a scene between Mycroft and Mary which Fry inexplicably delivers naked. Pointless and unfunny.

The action scenes that irked in the first film are more overblown here to the point of overindulgence. Each sequence essentially comes across as an excuse for Ritchie to include bigger and more powerful guns than were seen in the last point of action. The excessive use of slow motion, particularly in one scene towards the end of the second act, is also distracting and just serves to make the film come across as lacking in craft or depth.

Whilst the story here is arguably stronger than that seen in the first film, the cinematic execution of A Game Of Shadows makes it considerably less enjoyable than Sherlock Holmes. Despite setting up several elements with which he could run and make a sequel superior to the original, Ritchie instead squanders most of the potential held and creates a film which is sometimes no better than the first, but more often inferior. The biggest failing of A Game Of Shadows, however, is that it manages to take a literary character known for his ingenious intellect and churn out a film which regularly feels really quite brainless.

4/10

Film Review | Sherlock Holmes (2009)

The first ten years of the 21st Century will almost certainly be seen in cinema as the decade of the reboot. I've written at length about the importance of hitting the reset button for both the Batman and James Bond franchises, but Arthur Conan Doyle's consulting detective was a less obvious and, perhaps, less urgent candidate for rebooting. Add in the fact that the man behind the reboot is Guy Ritchie, a director known for British gangster flicks rather than adaptations of Victorian literature, and all of a sudden 2009's Sherlock Holmes becomes a more intriguing and unpredictable creature.

Ritchie's film sees the titular detective (Robert Downey Jr.) and his friend and partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) assist the police in arresting Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) for a series of murders. However, when Blackwood appears to have risen from the grave after being hanged for his crimes, Holmes and Watson's  investigations take a more sinister and supernatural turn.

It's clear from the very start that Ritchie's vision for his version of Conan Doyle's detective is quite far removed from the deerstalker wearing gent of past incarnations. Downey Jr. makes his Holmes an alluring and unconventional take on the character; whilst it never feels as though he quite fits the role as perfectly as he does Tony Stark in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, his performance in the role is compelling and strong throughout. Law also does well as Watson, again going against the stereotypical depiction of the character and instead playing things much closer to Conan Doyle's source material, focusing on Watson's status as a war veteran to generate the character's temperament and physicality. Whilst his turn is pleasing, Law is most entertaining when sharing the screen with Downey Jr., which thankfully for him takes in the vast majority of his scenes.

Elsewhere the casting is less successful. Rachel McAdams as Holmes' shady love interest Irene Adler never convinces, having neither the chemistry with Downey Jr. nor the presence on screen to make her character entertaining, mysterious or, at some points, necessary. Mark Strong is fine, but never receives enough screen time to make Lord Blackwood anything more than a scowling villain. Eddie Marsan also does well as Inspector Lestrade, but again the character just receives too little development to give the actor a chance to genuinely impress.

The film's plot, not taken directly from any of Conan Doyle's stories but instead inspired by elements from several of his works, engages well enough throughout, but suffers from a final act that can't quite live up to the mystery generated before it and a climax that underwhelms. The action elements throughout the film also jar too much with the detective story into which they have been placed. An underground bareknuckle fight Holmes takes part in early on in the film works well, revealing elements of the detective's character cleverly and enjoyably. Other sequences that see Holmes and Watson brawling with various baddies through Victorian London are uninspired, adding nothing to the story and feeling as though they are only there because director Ritchie doesn't know how else to link his film together.

Sherlock Holmes ends up, at least in part, as a wasted opportunity. There are several elements here that reboot the character and universe of Holmes incredibly well, led by a robust and compelling performance from Downey Jr. But there are also too many areas in which the film falls short or misfires to judge it as a true success. What we're left with is a good film that entertains well enough, but also feels as though it doesn't do enough with the ideas it has and the rich literary source material from which it takes inspiration.  But there's enough here to launch the franchise, with future installments having the potential to remedy the less successful elements and create something genuinely pleasing.

6/10

Film Review | Skyfall (2012)

The four year gap between the release of Bonds 22 and 23 - namely Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall - was anything but a quiet bit of downtime for the franchise. At one point, it looked like a very real possibility that the latest installment in the long-running spy series might never see completion, with fears surfacing that the MGM lion may have roared his last after the company filed for bankruptcy in 2010. Thankfully, the financial issues were eventually resolved and Bond was once again on track to return for the 50th anniversary of his time on the big screen. With many being (or convincing themselves they had been) disappointed by Quantum Of Solace, hopes were high for Skyfall to bring Craig's tenure as Bond back to the perfection seen in his inaugural outing, 2006's Casino Royale. And after his patriotic appearance alongside Queen Elizabeth II herself during the opening ceremony of London 2012, many hoped that the latest entry into the long-running franchise would continue the nostalgia, paying tribute to 007's half century on film. On pretty much all of these counts, Skyfall does not disappoint.

Taking place some time after the events of Quantum Of Solace, the film catches up with James Bond (Craig) using a botched mission - after which he was presumed dead - to spend time away from his duties at MI6. However, after learning of an attack against the agency itself, with M (Judi Dench) seemingly a specific target, Bond chooses to return to London to help track down those responsible.

Surely the most pleasing aspect about Skyfall is the amount of ambitious goals the film not only sets itself, but achieves with such success. The film is a roaring tribute to the previous fifty years and twenty-two films the double-0 agent has behind him; this never becomes a "greatest hits" compilation however, with none of the nods to Bond's heritage feeling awkward or ill-fitting. Every moment is knowingly and lovingly crafted, woven into the film's plot and universe seamlessly and purposefully.

The film is also packed with superb performances, with Javier Bardem's Raoul Silva likely to become a firm fixture on any list of Bond's ultimate adversaries. The character is brilliantly realised through the sharp script's most stark and unsettling moments, as well as Bardem's comprehensively excellent turn. Bérénice Marlohe also does well as the alluring Sévérine, undoubtedly the most classically archetypal Bond girl Craig has encountered in the role yet. Naomie Harris' Eve, Ralph Fiennes' Mallory and Ben Whishaw, taking on the role of Q for the first time since the reboot of the franchise, also offer plenty to enjoy.

It almost goes without saying that Daniel Craig is pitch perfect as Bond, but not to mention this would be to do a disservice to what Craig has brought to the role in his three films to date. The fact that Craig is now considered by many as the defining actor in the role ahead of much-loved and praised cinematic icons such as Roger Moore and even the originator of the role on screen, Sean Connery, speaks volumes about the way in which Craig has genuinely taken ownership of Bond.

But perhaps the defining performance of Skyfall comes from Judi Dench. The Dame's unique honour as the only cast member to be carried over from the original timeline of Bond films always felt like one of the best decisions made when rebooting the timeline, and Dench shows just how seriously talented she is here, being given the greatest scope to truly flesh out the character since she took on the role some sixteen years ago as GoldenEye's "evil queen of numbers".

Director Sam Mendes barely puts a foot out of place, making sure that Skyfall's plot moves at a satisfying pace throughout, whilst producing some breathtaking cinematography. Bond's tracking of an assassin through the upper floors of an empty Shanghai skyscraper is one of the most beautifully and masterfully shot pieces of cinema you will see this year. Things threaten to become a little too outlandish for the rebooted Bond universe for a beat or so in Skyfall's final act, but the film soon recovers thanks to some of the most exciting and emotional scenes witnessed in a Bond film for some time, if ever.

Skyfall therefore is a near-comprehensive triumph. Superior to Quantum Of Solace, but marginally off the perfection seen in Casino Royale, this is almost certainly the most likely Craig outing so far to please fans of the classic Bond films of the '60s and '70s. It pays homage to the franchise's origins, as well as its most beloved attributes, whilst managing to remain contemporary, refined, and a superb film in its own right. Skyfall asks and answers the question of whether Bond has a place in the modern world in the same breath, leaving you in genuine anticipation for Bond 24 even before the credits begin to roll.

9/10

Film Review | Quantum Of Solace (2008)

For film studio Eon Productions, following the consummate success and heaped praise of Casino Royale's reboot of the Bond franchise was a task simultaneously simple and complex. Eon had many of the elements needed already in place, including a Bond in Daniel Craig who, despite initial resistance, had received both critical acclaim and universal acceptance. However, with a polished and revitalised franchise starting on the highest of highs, maintaining that level of success in Quantum Of Solace was still to be a tall order.

Quantum Of Solace picks up literally moments after the end of Casino Royale, with MI6 agent James Bond (Craig) racing through the streets of Italy with Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), a member of criminal organisation Quantum, captive in the boot of his car. Still dealing with the death of Vesper Lynd, the love he lost during the events of Casino Royale, Bond is soon on the trail of another key member of Quantum, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), whom the secret agent suspects is involved in corrupt international deals.

Since the film's release in 2008, it seems to have become fashionable to bash Quantum Of Solace as a weak and inherently "bad" entry into the Bond franchise. This could not be further from the truth. Whilst I concede that film has its flaws, there is certainly a lot here to like.

Craig's return to the role of 007 is confident and assured, bringing an even greater intensity to the role than that seen during his first outing. If Casino Royale allowed Craig to take hold of the character, Quantum Of Solace sees him making Bond his own. The returning supporting characters of M (Judi Dench), Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) and Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) all bring reliable quality through their casting, littering Quantum with enjoyable performances. Olga Kurylenko as Camille Montes is excellent, although her character feels as though she dips in and out of the plot a little too haphazardly at times. Amalric as Dominic Greene again puts in a strong performance, although his Bond villain admittedly lacks the subtle theatricality or unsettling nature of Casino Royale baddie Le Chiffre.

The plot is an area which many seem to have a problem with, but to me it's probably one of Quantum's biggest strengths. It's cerebral and complex, but not much more intricate than that seen in the preceding installment of the franchise. The goings-on within the criminal world here may lack the flair of a high stakes poker game, but the story does have some superb highlights, including Bond crashing a Quantum conference call in an unexpectedly dramatic locale.

The main thing that lets Quantum Of Solace down is its shortfall in one area implicit to the Bond franchise: a sense of humour. By and large this is a humourless affair with Craig brooding and scowling through much of the run-time; this gives the action sequences a pleasing feel of grittiness and intensity, but can leave other parts of the film feeling somewhat dour. Where the jocular 007 spirit does make a rare appearance, it's incredibly refreshing, but also serves to highlight how straight-faced the vast majority of the film is.

Quantum Of Solace never manages to reach the heights of Casino Royale, a film it is destined to be  compared to for ever more. But neither does it deserve the harsh criticism that it seems to receive more and more, especially following the release of succeeding Bond film Skyfall. Quantum Of Solace is in its own right an excellent action espionage film, and whilst it might not be the comprehensive success that Daniel Craig's first time donning the tuxedo is recognised as being, it is undoubtedly a worthwhile and well-made entry into the Bond franchise.

8/10

Film Review | The Mask (1994)

Jim Carrey has been something of a "marmite" actor throughout his career, and in The Mask he delivers possibly his most love-it-or-hate-it performance of all. Whether you're a fan of Carrey's green-faced whirlwind or not, it's undeniable that this film - along with two more 1994 releases, namely Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Dumb & Dumber - launched Carrey as a major star.

The Mask tells the story of Stanley Ipkiss (Carrey), a milquetoast bank employee growing tired of his luckless and boring existence. His life changes completely when he happens upon an ancient and enchanted mask which transforms him into an extrovert lothario with a toothy, lime-hued visage.

The Mask is from the outset a film of two distinct levels of success. The opening act introduces us to Stanley, his workaday life and timid attitude, as well as his best friend Charlie (Richard Jeni). It's fine, but nothing special. Cameron Diaz - in her feature debut no less - is fine as love interest Tina Carlyle, and Peter Greene as the villain of the piece Dorian Tyrell is again, well, fine. The whole thing does what it needs to, but without ever feeling special. In hindsight it's clear to see that Stanley Ipkiss, above Lloyd Christmas and Ace Ventura, is the breakout role that would cement Carrey as more than just a maniacal force of comedy but as genuine leading man material. But even so, The Mask begins in an overall underwhelming way.

At around the twenty minute mark, however, Stanley puts on the mask and the whole film immediately shifts into another gear entirely. The Mask as a character is so outlandish and blatant that, as has already been acknowledged, he is likely to divide audience opinion. To my mind, he is one of the finest physical comedy creations in cinema. The character pays homage to everything from classic Tex Avery cartoons to the Marx Brothers and Jerry Lewis, with references to a huge amount of classic cinema including Gone With The Wind and The Cincinnati Kid. From the moment The Mask character enters the film, every moment he's on screen is pure gold. Carrey's performance is flawless and comically note-perfect as Stanley's emerald-countenanced alter-ego.

The film essentially ends up becoming the average of these two planes. When the focus is on Stanley's everyday life, things become somewhat less interesting; aside from one or two more entertaining scenes, including one where Stanley consults mask expert Dr. Neuman (Ben Stein, in a pleasing cameo), the film at times feel like it's almost filling in between the appearances of The Mask. But when Carrey dons the green make-up and is allowed to let loose, this is superb. What we end up with therefore fluctuates between the good and the outstanding, but overall is entertaining, thoroughly enjoyable and regularly showcases Carrey at his comedic best.

8/10