Reviews

I went to see this film not sure of what to expect, other than the basic "Robinson Crusoe" concept of a man stranded on a long journey in space. I knew the critics had panned it but the visuals looked great in the trailer……

Passengers turned out to be a simple but beautiful movie carried effortlessly by the two leads. This is not an action adventure movie, rather a study of humanity and how people react when given extreme choices. I thought the acting was first class – Jennifer Lawrence surely has to get an Oscar Nomination for this – the ship was luxurious and well-appointed, and was of an intriguing design.

I can see why it has been criticised – there is a surprising lack of fail-safe and emergency procedures in the event of calamity; I didn't understand why any Passenger couldn't be returned to suspended animation once awakened; and even I spotted that Arcturus couldn't be reached in 30 years if the Avalon is travelling at half the speed of light.

These plot-holes do not detract from the effectiveness and enjoyment of the film, though. Its 116 minutes slipped by effortlessly and I felt that my admission had been well spent.

Highly recommended – 9/10

This is the other "standalone" movie released for the Christmas holiday hanging on the back of a successful franchise (the other being Rogue One of the Star Wars universe). David Yates directs JK Rowling's spin-off about the writing of a textbook used at Hogwarts, the "Fantastic Beasts" book of the movie title. This is a slight misnomer as very little writing or research took place of any description. The male lead, Eddie Redmayne's visiting wizard, Newt Scamander, promises to dedicate a copy of his book to the female lead, Katherine Waterstone's auror, Tina Goldstein. That seems to be about it as far as the textbook is concerned.

Scamander is passing through New York en route to Arizona to release a Fantastic Beast via his suitcase, which acts as a gateway to an unspecified place, into the wild, but is arrested as an Unregistered Wizard and becomes (a) engaged in retrieving other Fantastic Beasts that have escaped from his suitcase after it has become inadvertently switched with a similar case carried by a muggle baker, and (b) embroiled in the increasingly tense situation between muggles (or No-Maj's as they are known in the US) and the wizarding community.

Not a bad-sounding plot but as a non-Potter fan myself I found myself scratching my head at many of the developments in the movie. It would really pay to have read and understood the book before seeing the film……… …………to imprison an extremely large and threatening lizard-type creature……. Quick! Put an insect in a teapot! ??? Err – OK.

….…….to catch an extremely large and threatening rhinoceros-type creature which is on heat and has a fancy for a nervous-looking hippopotamus………. Perform a bizarre dance and make it roll on its back so you can put it in a suitcase! ??? If you say so……… The only character I really liked in this movie was the superb Dan Fogler as the muggle baker, Kowalski. His expression of bemusement was much the same as mine for at least three-quarters of this movie. I also liked the burgeoning romance between Kowalski and Goldstein's sister, Queenie, which turned out well in the end. The CGI was used a lot, but by definition of a wizarding movie, I suppose it must be.

In short, a decent afternoon's entertainment which would have been helped by a little more explanation of the Fantastic Beasts themselves, but I doubt I'll see it again.

Gareth Edwards here presents a worthy addition to the Star Wars canon, telling the tale of how the original Death Star plans were stolen and transmitted to the Rebel Alliance. The film fits seamlessly into the timeline, but is of a wholly different nature to the previously released seven movies.

This film is darker and grittier, and does not shy away from the bitterness and loss of war. There is some good acting here and a fair amount of psychology between many of the actors. The CGI is used moderately and not unnecessarily. There was a good feeling of "reality" on many of the planetary scenes. Some characters from Star Wars IV are present but are not used out of proportion to their involvement.

Humour comes mostly from K-2SO, a re-programmed Imperial droid. The two leads, Felicity Jones as Jyn Erso, the daughter of the Death Star's designer, and Diego Luna as Cassian Andor, a rebel captain, are intense and fit the mood of the film very well. There is good support from actors on both sides of the conflict.

There are no Jedi in this movie, but there is a priest who uses the Force in combat, and Darth Vader shows a trick or two, especially near the end, so the film suffers in that respect, but more than makes up for it in the quality of the set design and effects, the absorbing and interesting story, the chemistry between characters on both sides, the clever splicing in of rebel captains from A New Hope in their fighters, and the obvious love and care with which this film has been crafted.

See this movie, you won't regret it.

Roland Emmerich presents the sequel to his 1996 B-movie blockbuster with pretty much more of the same. By now everyone should be more or less aware of what Emmerich movies offer…. Puerile dialogue, irritating characters and jaw-dropping special effects. Well there are plenty of those in this movie in which plucky and enterprising humans once again defy super-intelligent malevolent aliens bent on destroying us.

For the second time, the invaders manage to make a complete cow-pat of a relatively straightforward job of rubbing-out-technologically-backward aborigines and I found myself scratching my head wondering how they made such a botch of it. At least in the first movie the mother-ship had the sense to stand off in orbit while the City Destroyers did their job pulverizing Earth in preparation for an invasion of ground forces.

Not this time, oh no. The mother ship clamps itself to Earth to begin its drilling while the Harvester Queen in person zooms around Earth on a wild goose-chase being led astray by school buses and decoys a four-year-old could see through. Invasions don't get much more stupid than this.

The third film will have the nonsense go Galactic after our invitation to lead the fight against the bad guys by the good guys. With Dr Okun and the Levinsons in charge the aliens don't stand a chance.

On the plus side there was no Will Smith or any stupid speeches and you have to give Emmerich his due, the visuals were spectacular and worth the admission, but I probably won't bother buying the DVD.

6/10.

Here Jon Favreau retells Kipling's timeless tales of the lost boy raised by wolves in the Indian jungle. Shot entirely on greenscreen, the visuals are sumptuous and believable – you could easily forget the whole thing is computer generated.

Neel Sethi is convincing as Mowgli and carries the film with ease which is a tribute for someone so young. The voice-overs are entertaining and in character with their owners. Idris Alba drips menace as Shere Khan, Ben Kingsley reassuring as Mowgli's protector Bagheera, Bill Murray entertaining as cheerful Baloo, and Chris Walken hysterical as (my favourite character) King Louie. I also loved Scarlett Johansson's rendition of Kaa the Python. Making the Python female did not diminish its presence or sense of threat.

Appreciations: I liked Baloo's obsession with honey and his use of Mowgli to get it, I loved Chris Walken's delivery as Louie – Captain Koons lives again! Lol. Also there was a nod to Apocalypse Now when Mowgli is first presented to Louie which I liked. Idris Alba was superb as Shere Khan who was intimidating and formidable, and I loved the bond between Raksha and Mowgli.

Disappointments: I was annoyed that the elephants had no speaking part. They were one of the triumphs of Disney's 1967 animation and it wouldn't have hurt to have them say something at least – anything. I was confused at the ending. Where was the girl that signified the end of Mowgli's childhood and his departure to join the world of humans? Does he stay in the forest? I guess so. Also I was annoyed only two of the eight songs from the 1967 film survived in this version. "Trust in me" at least was sung during the end credits – would it have hurt to have included this in the film also just for the sake of a couple of minutes? Johansson has a good voice and she sang the song very well.

A superb film but could have been better with a few tweaks. 8/10.

Po the lovable Panda continues his journey of enlightenment by mastering Chi in order to combat an ancient re-incarnated spirit. The movie is pleasant and engaging without ever having the level of threat the villains in the first two movies generated.

The visuals are sumptuous and gorgeous and worth the admission alone. Po is amusing as ever, teetering between childish enthusiasm and moral obligation. We are introduced to Po's biological family (to the jealous disapproval of his adoptive father), who are all beautifully drawn and voiced

The problem is the villain, who, while being the most visually impressive bad guy so far, is in fact the least threatening. I hope this is the last KFP, I'm afraid the franchise will outstay its welcome if a fourth is attempted.

This is a good movie, but not quite as good as the first two.

This is Disney's first venture into live action sci-fi since the risible Black Hole of 1979. Having made such a complete cow-pat of that movie, and having paid multi-billions for the Star Wars rights, it is understandable that Disney's execs wanted to play it safe this time, and play it safe they did. They hired a director with form for breathing new life into a tired old franchise and used the most successful and charismatic of the previous six movies as a frame on which to hang the same plot for the latest.

Stop me if you have heard any of this before……

A droid containing information vital to the Resistance is hunted by the bad guys. Droid lands on desert planet and befriends a local scratching a living in the dust. Stormtroopers destroy village. Heroic female character is captured by the bad guys and is rescued by the good guys. Bad guys have a massive weapon that can destroy entire planets just like that. Bad guys destroy defenceless planet. Massive weapon has shields that are protected by an off-world shield generator which is destroyed by rebels. Massive weapon is destroyed by small scale fighters navigating down a tight trench under heavy fire.

PS: Storm troopers STILL cannot hit a barn door from five yards.

For crying out loud.

OK – having said all that, there are several good points, the main one being the absence of Jar-Jar Binks or any such irritating CGI character. CGI was used more sparingly than the prequels, and practical effects are well-made and effective. The cinematography was astonishing, there were some quite beautiful scenes. I particularly liked the tie-fighters back-lit by a setting sun, and the shots of Greenham Common, (two miles from my home), with the old Cruise missile bunkers doubling as the Resistance HQ. (I even recognized some of the gorse bushes, lol).

Good to see Mark Hamill again as well, although he looked half-dead. One hopes Episode VIII will have a little more originality than this one.

A good evening's entertainment, but I doubt I'll see it again.

Here is another entry to the Bond franchise, again by Sam Mendes who brings stunning cinematography and editing to Daniel Craig's fourth outing as 007. This film carries on from Skyfall with a message from the grave by the former M to engage in some unofficial work in Mexico City which lands Bond in trouble with his superiors and does not help the new M's cause in fending off absorption of his department into another, more surveillance-minded department.

Bond's adventures uncover the sinister organisation behind his previous three adversaries - Spectre - revived again with the superb Christophe Waltz as the underused Blofeld, who turns out to have a surprising former relationship with Bond.

The film closes with Blofeld under arrest, (so one anticipates the next movie will begin with his break-out from jail), and the double-oh programme restored to its rightful role at the heart of Britain's covert operations - I love happy endings.

On the way there is some superb photography, particularly the swooping opening shot in Mexico City with almost seamless editing; Mrs Sciarra's apartment in Rome; Rome itself, and Austria. There is the usual array of gadgets and gizmos, beautiful girls, loud explosions, gunfire and lots of irresponsible mayhem. Dave Bautista is impressive as a thoroughly unpleasant bad guy, short on words but long on cool menace and physicality. The train fight was particularly enjoyable, echoes of From Russia With Love here. Ben Whishaw was hilarious as Q, he is just perfect. Spectre also has a sense of humour with regular chuckles from the cinema audience.

It would be a bit picky to be overly critical but I did think that we could have seen a bit more of Blofeld, even though I understand that limiting his appearances heightens his menace. I though Ralph Fiennes still seems a little lacking in passion as M - Judi Dench was barely in this but still contained more emotion than all of Fiennes' screen time. Monica Bellucci was also underused, I was looking forwards to much more from her - maybe she will return in the next film.

These are minor criticisms - Spectre is two hours of rewarding and enjoyable madness which sits very well in the Bond franchise. Long may it continue.

Here is a curious and original idea for a movie concerning the inner workings of the mind. Five core emotions govern the thoughts and actions of each of us throughout our lives. Everyone is subject to the control of the emotions to a lesser or greater degree, depending on which emotion dominates the individual's psyche

For children,generally, the hopelessly optimistic Happiness, or Joy, holds sway. Adults tended to be dominated by the more negative emotions.

The film is about the feelings felt by an 11-year old girl uprooted from her childhood home to San Francisco because of her father's job; how she feels, how she reacts, what happens inside her head. It is a brave idea but is not appreciated by younger viewers, apart from the pretty pictures and colourful characters. I enjoyed it, but felt that the adults should have more than just the five basic emotions. Perhaps Pride, Greed, and Jealousy should have been present, each tempered by their opposite, Humility, Temperance, and Generosity. Maybe this would clutter the control room a little too much, though.

The emotions were perfectly voiced and the animation was impressive, as always from Pixar. It's a good idea for a movie, but it isn't for laughs. The only humour was in the end credits. The preceding short, Lava, was dull.

Hollywood is becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of time-travel benefitting the movie industry. This latest re-writing of a franchise sees the admittedly welcome return of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the role that defined him, but the decidedly unwelcome scrapping of Judgment Day and all its consequences.

One wonders if the real point to this time loop is simply to abandon the gloomy and depressing future illustrated by Terminator Salvation in favour of Arnie going on the rampage through California (again). Let's face it this is the entertainment industry and it is much easier on the eye and much more profitable to have the enormous screen presence of Schwarzenegger effortlessly carrying two hours of completely absurd and hugely enjoyable mayhem.

So yes I can forgive the plot holes and the fractured time-lines and the complete re-writing of the entire point of all four of the previous movies in order to change Skynet's threat from nuclear annihilation to Lawnmower Man.

Don't get me wrong – this is a slick, well-crafted movie that ticks all the boxes required for two hours of enjoyable nonsense and I felt my money was well spent. Schwarzenegger towered over the film as he always does; Emilia Clarke was bang-on as Sarah Connor. I would have liked to have seen more of JK Simmons' character, and I am not quite sure that Jai Courtney was right as Kyle Reese, but they are minor grumbles. The regret I have is Judgment Day has gone now and Skynet has a different face and is a different threat. There are questions to be answered by the sixth movie and doubtless more raised. I wonder how long it will be until Skynet begins sending T-800s and T-1000s back to the Middle Ages and earlier in order to wipe out Sarah Connor's ancestors? Hmm – let the screenwriters wrestle with that concept….

Don't miss this film, it's worth a watch, but doesn't match the first two films. From now on I suppose none of them will.

Shrek's Puss in Boots, the Penguins of Madagascar, and the Minions of Despicable Me were all inevitably going to get the full feature length treatment. All three have proved to be a little disappointing, but Minions is the least disappointing of the three.

It is the danger of sidekicks that they are perceived to be bigger than their parent movies. The Minions with their gabbly language and cheerful ineptitude, their ignorance of any sort of consequences of their actions and their irrepressible joie-de-vivre are hugely engaging and entertaining creatures. Do they have the capacity to carry a 90 minute movie – well yes, but only just.

When I saw this there was only small child in the cinema (on a schoolday?) and she laughed loudly throughout the prologue but not once thereafter. There you have it in a nutshell! Perhaps she ought to write a review for IMDb. I found it amusing and interesting with its superb score and references to 60s culture. I thought the human voice overs were OK, with Jennifer Saunders and Sandra Bullock standing out, but the plot seemed a bit stretched in places, especially in London.

The final link in the Minions' story when they made their last connection and found their ideal master was excellent and tied everything up neatly but I got the feeling that a lot of chances for Minion mayhem were missed. I did, however, laugh at the torture chamber scene – only the Minions could treat a medieval torture chamber like an adventure playground – brilliant.

So yes, not the triumph it could have been but neither the disaster it could have been. 7/10.

After a 30 year gap, George Miller at last returns to his road-warrior franchise set in a dystopian future, this time starring Tom Hardy in the title role. However, the film is misnamed – his partner in mayhem, Imperator Furiosa, superbly played by Charlize Theron, provides all the motivation and purpose for the (thin) plot and story. Max, unwillingly at first, is just along for the ride. The ride in question though, is a thrill-a-minute chase across arid desert and rocky canyons infested with all kinds of post-apocalyptic low-lifes intent on stopping or capturing Furiosa's fortified articulated lorry – the War-rig.

Furiosa is a driver for the local warlord, a horrendous character named Immortan Joe who seems to have fathered an entire race of warriors and uses them, along with his control of the water supply, to enforce his will on the ragged and desperate population. Joe has five favourite concubines he uses as breeding stock and Furiosa's mission is for her to return to her childhood home and save Joe's women at the same time. Naturally, Joe is reluctant to part with his harem and so pursues his erstwhile employee which provides a frame on which to hang two hours of hugely enjoyable chaos which often makes little sense but never fails to entertain and amuse.

Miller must have enjoyed the advent of CGI, it enables this film to be what the first three films never could be, although, to be fair, the CGI is used sparingly and heavy reliance is placed on daring and dangerous stunts. If there was an Oscar for stuntmen this film would be right up there! The cinematography is stupendous and set and costume design are sumptuous and convincing.

This film may only attract technical awards by the Academy, but believe me it's an evening's entertainment not to be missed.

The only real criticism I have is that the character of Max is not developed in any real way, save for the flashbacks he gets at critical and often inconvenient moments. Max has very little dialogue and very little emotional input to the film. Hardy does very well with what he was given but I hope that the next film has him open Max up a bit more in some ways.

Welcome back Max! 9 out of 10.

Here is the Wachowskis' introduction to a new reality, the 'Verse, in which they clearly hope to hang many more stories than this visually impressive "pilot" episode.

A simple plot is dressed up with stunning CGI set pieces that keep the pace bounding along at a most enjoyable rate. I have to say that the special effects are really quite astonishing, even in this age of superlative computer generated marvels. An awful lot has clearly been spent on the visuals and it pays off big-time. If you like a simple boom-bang-boom movie with a lot of things blowing up and even more highly improbable death-defying absurdity, then JA is definitely for you. For Heaven's sake see it on the big screen while you can, you won't be disappointed.

On the negative side, the script is forgettable and the acting is wooden. Mila Kunis and Eddie Redmayne are better actors than this, I can only assume the Wachowskis were so excited about their creation they forgot to direct the title character to show any sort of surprise or incredulity at the truth about the starry galaxy she has always dreamed of. Even worse was Redmayne's delivery, which bordered on the ridiculous.

The plot was fairly simple, and has been told many times before – a common person is destined for greatness but encounters powerful enemies, intent on denying that person's birthright. The enemies in this case are a power-mad family of monsters who keep themselves youthfully immortal by bathing in the vilest potion imaginable. Jupiter discovers she is a family member but after defeating the chief villain and claiming her inheritance rejects it all by going back to her day job. (A trifle unbelievable).

I generally liked the 'Verse but would have liked to know more about it. The Abraxas family were bound by legalities, and there was a police force and a complex bureaucracy, which all hinted at an Executive, a stock market, and a law enforcement agency/army/navy – the tripod on which all civilization stands. Very intriguing.

I hope there is a sequel, but I would like it to be a little darker and a little juicier plot-wise.

Well done to the Wachowskis – a superb effort but could have been better.

Caleb, (Domhnall Gleeson), is a youthful, mild-mannered programmer for a large internet search engine, Bluebook. He wins a company-wide prize to spend a week at the secluded home of the reclusive CEO of Bluebook, the laddish, slightly older Nathan, (Oscar Isaac), who likes his alcohol.

On arrival, Caleb discovers his prize is to apply a Turing Test over seven days to Nathan's invention, an AI named Ava, (Alicia Vikander). He soon finds his stay loaded with doubt and desire as he is manipulated both by Nathan and the machine, and ends up under-estimating both of them.

Director Alex Garland has fashioned a thought-provoking and disturbing film that examines some of the largest and oldest questions asked by humanity; what is it to be human? What is intelligence? Can people be gods? The conversations in which these and other concepts are explored were wordy but never dull or patronising. There was always enough of an edge to Nathan's character to make me wonder if he was playing a drunken lout just to trip Caleb up. Caleb found himself walking an increasingly unsteady tightrope as Ava drip-fed him information and revelations which led to the film's unpleasant and, I'm sad to say, slightly anti-climactic conclusion.

I thought the acting was good and the script absorbing. The pace may not have been fast but was fine for the film to get its points across. I liked the contrast between the claustrophobic, minimalist house and the natural splendour that surrounded it. The lighting and cinematography were very good.

This is a well-made and thoughtful film that made me wonder why at least a little morality wasn't programmed into Ava. Nathan's wordless servant Kyoko was self-aware, and Ava was the next step along, with her need for self-preservation, but she is not the final step. That will come when AIs feel responsible for their actions, but that is another story.

Nine years after the first Sin City comes this violent sequel that not quite equals the original. The male characters carry on as tough-talking bully-boys and the female characters carry on as kick-ass bitches. There isn't a great deal more to say than that about the three stories that make up this film, really. The stories are well-padded with gratuitous mayhem of all descriptions delivered in stunning 3D. The cinematography and style of the film is the same as before, mostly black and white shot through with splashes of vivid primary colour.

Some old characters return - Mickey Rourke was fantastic as Marv and held the whole film together; Jessica Alba tragic again as Nancy; disappointing that Clive Owen was not Dwight, although Josh Brolin was a capable replacement; but Bruce Willis as the ghost of Hartigan seemed a bit pointless. Powers Boothe was excellent as the sadistic Rourke, and there were some nice cameos from Ray Liotta, Lady Gaga, Christopher Lloyd and an unrecognisable Stacy Keach.

Eva Green was stunning as Ava Lord and lit up the screen with her style and presence. When her story ended the film faded somewhat, I thought the end of her story should have been left till last.

Will there be a second sequel? I hope so, but don't leave the gap so long next time!

Here is Rowan Joffe's adaptation of S J Watson's novel about a woman, Christine Lucas, suffering from acute amnesia whose memory is "reset" when she awakes each morning. This is quite a slow-paced movie, with revelations and developments unveiled at regular intervals. The twist, when it came, was surprising and rewarding. The violence suffered by the female lead was unpleasant and shocking.

It was refreshing to see a film without any deaths or guns or all the rest of it, and the acting by the three lead characters was superb – lesser actors would not have been able to save this film. I know this is supposed to be a thriller, and so credulity in the plot has to be stretched to a certain extent, but one or two of the plot-holes were, I felt, just a little too large.

An interesting film, worth watching once, but I probably won't bother with the DVD….

Writer/director Luc Besson serves up another entertaining ninety minutes of science fiction, this time based on the (erroneous) concept of the human brain using only a fraction of its capacity. (The brain does in fact use all its grey and white matter, just not all at once). Anyway, that's the dumb science part of it, and the idea does result in a thrill ride across the world as Scarlett Johansson's unwitting victim, the titular Lucy, becomes an emotionless death machine and the nemesis of those who engaged her in their nefarious activities.

Lucy's emotional and mental transformation was as a result of the ingestion of some of the drug she was coerced into transporting. (A nice touch to use Julian Rhind-Tutt as the first surgeon – he played a surgeon in the UK TV series "Green Wing.") Her mission as an avenging angel was satisfying (no-one likes bullies) as was her willingness to share her knowledge with the specialist she identified – Professor Norman, impeccably played as ever by the excellent Morgan Freeman. There was good support from Min-sik Choi as the Taiwanese mob leader and Amr Waked as the French police captain Lucy adopted as an ally.

The film was heading to its logical conclusion when the science suddenly became a little more intriguing as the film postulated a redefinition of the laws governing all of existence, and not many Hollywood films do that nowadays!

The ending has been done before (in Lawnmower Man), but not before the sum total of all knowledge was donated to Professor Norman by the transforming Lucy. This leaves the possibility for a sequel nicely poised. Will Lucy become a benevolent guardian, a curse on humanity, or a mere observer?

I enjoyed this film. The mobsters were intimidating and convincing, the police were not made fools of, the leads were engaging and believable, the CGI not excessive. Stunts and action scenes were handled with skill. I enjoyed the cool and efficient airport arrests of the other drug mules – beautifully handled.

There were some flaws, the one that jarred with me the most was the timing of moving so many drug suspects across Europe. I am not sure German, French and Italian law enforcement agencies co-operate quite so efficiently, but that would detract from the film's message. A good evening's entertainment and not the disaster many might have you believe – 9/10.

Here is another successful Marvel adaptation for the big screen and the birth of another potentially long-running (and profitable) franchise. Chris Pratt stars as Peter Quill, or Star Lord as he prefers to be known as, an adventurer who lives by his wits and finds himself the quarry of menacing forces intent on retrieving a dangerous artifact he has stolen.

He falls in with four unlikely comrades each with their own purpose, who at first are enemies but form an alliance that grows stronger throughout the movie, culminating with their friendship. This friendship overcomes all adversity and saves the day, and restores security to a peaceful world.

It's not much of a plot but who cares? The film is supremely entertaining, with eye-popping CGI, a cheeky script, interesting and likable characters, warmth, humour, and a refreshing intent to not take itself at all seriously. The non-human characters, Rocket in particular, generate a surprising amount of sympathy and connect very well with the audience. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, and Dave Bautista all carry the movie very well with a lightness of touch and an emotional depth many comic book adaptations lack.

The politics behind the plot I felt was a little too complicated but necessary I suppose to hang future episodes on and to provide a framework for the five adventurers to continue their dubious path on both sides of the law. A sequel is planned for 2017 which I am already looking forwards to.

See this film! Two hours will flash by in what seems like minutes, it will be a fun evening and money well spent.

Adam McKay directs this disappointing sequel co-written by himself and the lead, Will Ferrell. Years have passed since the events of the first movie and all the main characters are here again. Ron Burgundy has now married his erstwhile opponent from the first movie, Veronica Corningstone, but he dumps her when her career advances and his is stalled.

He disgraces himself at his next job and, unaccountably, is offered the chance to revive his career as the anchorman for a new 24-hour news channel. Naturally, he re-unites his team from the first movie and proceeds to exceed all expectations as he brings ratings success to the new format.

This is a promising framework for what could and should have been a clever and ruthless satire on modern news reporting, and while there were a couple of messages of the triumph of banality over integrity for the sake of ratings, not enough is made of it. Instead, the movie is buried by inane slapstick, witless jokes and too many rehashes of the same jokes from the first movie, as if the writers just ran out of ideas half-way through.

Much as I admire Will Ferrell as a skilled and energetic comedian, and all his in-character team are excellent actors with more than enough talent to provide first class support, I felt the movie was overlong, humourless, and crass to the point of offensive. Large tracts of it could have been cut without loss of impact to the story and meant I would not have wasted so much of my evening.

All the funniest parts of this movie were in the trailers – see those instead and save yourself the time and expense of seeing it in full. I would also strongly advise Ferrell and McKay to not attempt an Anchorman3.

Alfonso Cuaron directs his first movie since Children of Men in 2006 with this breathtaking survival drama set in orbit about the Earth. The hostility and beauty of space is brought to the screen in a quite spectacular manner, with stunning views of our beautiful planet dominating the screen. Its serenity really needs to be seen on a cinema screen to be fully appreciated, although I was surprised the Moon didn't feature at all, even at long range.

Only two actors appear in this film. George Clooney is the veteran Kowalski and Sandra Bullock is the rookie Stone. Clooney is, well, George Clooney as we all know him, acting as though it were all a walk in the park. He might have been on the set of Ocean's Thirteen. This gave centre stage to Sandra Bullock, whose film this was. She has been in a spate of disappointing films these last few years (apart from Crash), so it was great to see her carry this film with no little conviction through some scenes of panic, exhaustion, hopelessness, determination, and whatever emotion is required to confront such an awesome sequence of disasters. I think her performance is worth at least a Nomination for Best Actress.

I loved the long takes and the silences. I thought the 3D was impressive but not overpowering.

I have learned that the interiors of the ISS and the Soyuz modules have been verified by astronauts and after a diet of iPod-style ship interiors from Star Trek I was surprised at the clunky nature of the technology on display. (You certainly wouldn't get me up there in one of those things!)

If I could find a fault (being picky) I was surprised at the length of time Stone kept breathing excessive CO2 at a certain point, I don't think the film would have suffered if she had had a little more O2 in the tank at that point. I also didn't understand the purpose behind the dog howling. This must have been a transmission from Earth, I am not sure how it fit in with the film.

Anyway, a triumph in cinematography and panicky suspense – don't miss it. 9/10.

Here is a prequel to a hugely popular and enjoyable 2001 hit for Pixar that succeeds in developing the original's already highly likable characters. Don Scanlan has put together a satire on the American college system that contains very few surprises but manages to grasp the attention for 110 minutes with ease. Billy Crystal and John Goodman return to voice their old characters with relish, providing warmth and humour aplenty. Steve Buscemi's Randall is also there, sowing the seeds for his future bitterness.

The movie tells the tale of Mike and Sully's early relationship from initial animosity to close friendship. There are a few twists and turns along the way, spanners thrown in the works by Frat House rivals and Helen Mirren's sinister Dean, but our heroes overcome all obstacles mainly due to Mike's unquenchable optimism and determination to succeed in his childhood ambition to become a scarer.

Mike's main problem is that he just isn't scary. It was sad to see him come to this realisation despite his dedication and hard work, while Sully the natural born scarer struggles because of his reluctance to work at all. The main message of the film, therefore, I would say, is a simple "Be Yourself" message – accept what you are and celebrate your strengths rather than your weaknesses. Pixar is triumphant at creating lovable characters that get the message across and this film is no exception.

The film concludes beautifully, with Mike and Sully, and their unlikely friends in Oozma Kappa fraternity all ending up where they want to be. The CGI is gorgeous and the college is lovingly created with bright, sumptuous colours and a host of entertaining and likable support characters.

Go and see this film – you won't be disappointed.

9/10.

Here is Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud's second offering of the Steve Carell-voiced bogeyman, Mr Gru, and his anarchic, sweetcorn-shaped servants, the Minions.

Once again, the co-directors have put together a humorous and well-crafted 100 minutes of CGI entertainment that went down well with those children of all ages who watched it. Gru has moved away from the Dark Side and is now a responsible step-father of the three orphans he took under his wing in the first movie. He has also abandoned crime and villainy in favour of a failing attempt to make jams and jellies.

Unfortunately he cannot escape his past, and he finds himself embroiled in a fairly simple plot to recover a stolen item. I shouldn't give away too many spoilers but really there isn't a great deal to give away - U-rated films are never strong on plot and script! Lol.

What does stand out is Gru's determination to stay on the straight and narrow, and even more than that are the antics of the Minions, who have amazing chemistry and effortlessly lift up the movie.

If I have any criticisms it is that the film could have made more of its opportunities for the Minions to create mayhem, too much screen time was in the Mall and Dr Nefario was underused. Minor criticisms though.

If you have kids they will love this, and you will love it as well anyway! A very agreeable 100 minutes of entertainment.

8/10