Reviews

Paddington 2 sees us return to the whimsical fantasy London of the first film and finds Paddington firmly part of the Brown family, and the wider community, and looking for a birthday present for his Aunt Lucy, who is currently residing in the home for Retired Bears in Peru. Our ursine hero decides upon an expensive old book for his aunt, without realising that nefarious fallen actor Phoenix Buchanan is also interested in the book for essay innocent reasons.

Cue a burglary, a bicycle chase and case of mistaken identity that sees our furry innocent sent to prison where he is put in charge of the laundry and immediately falls foul of the prison's resident hard man, Brandon Gleeson playing Nuckles. Naturally the Brown family refuse to believe Paddington's guilt and start a furious campaign to uncover the thief, who is busy solving his own puzzle and following clues from his stolen book in order to uncover a fabulous hidden treasure.

This is all very silly, but delivered with such verve and such skill that it is nothing other than utterly charming. It is helped by another terrific script from Paul King and that is packed with sight gags and brief character moments that seem throwaway, but all come into play later on in the film. From Mr. Brown's midlife crisis, to Mrs Brown's swimming challenge, to Phoenix Buchanan's conversations with costumed dummies signifying his greatest roles, every thread is neatly tied up at the end.

At its heart though is Paddington himself. A CGI character so well realised that he utterly blends into the film, at no point do you think that's a special effect. Helped by a winning voice work from Ben Whishaw and peerless, flawless animation, Paddington is brought to vivid, wonderful life. In this reviewer's opinion, Paddington could be the most accomplished CGI character yet seen on screen, easily the equal of other celebrated characters such as Cesar or Gollum. He blends into every scene, interacts with the live cast perfectly, and seamlessly delivers the various slapstick gags.

Of the rest of the ensemble cast, Hugh Grant just about steals the show, deploying his natural charm and charisma in the service of a rather dislikeable villain, and one with seemingly a number of mental problems. It is a role requiring some complex acting and Grant is more than up to the challenge. His is a humble performance of a huge narcissist and played with an admirable lack of vanity – for example all the glamour shots dotted around Phoenix's house are actual Grant headshots from back in the day. Rumpled, frustrated, smug and convinced of his own ability, it is a great character and lovingly brought to life. Also a hilarious, and utterly ridiculous, post-credits sequence is a Grant highlight and should not be missed.

Hugh Bonneville does a great Hugh Bonneville impression as Mr. Brown, but it is of the actor's usually high standard. Julie Walters brings a lot of character to Mrs. Bird, even though the character has very little to do in this film. Brendan Gleason excels as the terrifying Nuckles , growling out lines and barking orders, but unable to withstand Paddington's primary weapon: the hard stare. The rest of the cast, a veritable who's who of British comedy actors, are all superb in their small roles, underlining the sense of community, warmth, and love surrounding a small bear in a big city.

If there is a small gripe it is the fact that the film's plot necessitates the sidelining of the Brown family and many of the local community faces all played by well known British comic actors) which is a bit of a shame, but this is a minor gripe. Grant's character is less boo-hiss than Nicole Kidman's in the first film, but this is ultimately to the film's benefit.

Paddington 2 is a life-affirming slice of cinematic joy. This is not a kids film with a few jokes thrown in to keep the adults interested, but sweet, thrilling, funny film for everyone. This author (childless, watching with two friends, also childless) was in a matinée show full of kids of all ages but by the end, where there is a moment of drama that should raise a sob from the hardest of hearts, the cinema was utterly silent. Everyone, from grandparents to the tiniest tots, was completely absorbed in the drama on screen. King, his cast and his crew make it look so effortless to pull off this kind of film, to this polished a standard, with this little fuss; it isn't .

The original Paddington was a genuine five star family classic, instantly taking its place alongside Mary Poppins and the Jungle Book. Paddington 2, while slightly weaker in some areas, but stronger in others, can sit proudly alongside the original. It is also, fantastically, not an exact re-tread of the original, but instead tells a different story with the same characters and just as well. It also cleverly, and carefully, tells the story as a child may imagine it – from the bringing to life of a pop-up picture book, to the innocent vision of how a prison works - it is an entrancing, beguiling and absurdly colourful view of the world, untainted by adult cynicism. It is a visual return to innocence.

This alone should be applauded, but the rate of jokes, the standard of writing, the flawless animation and the sheer heart of the film raise this head and shoulders above most other children's films. Not just the best family film I've seen this year, it could be one of the best films I've seen this year.

Perfect family entertainment.

Spiderman:Homecoming is the first film with Peter Parker as a fully- fledged member of the MCU.

Peter Parker, plucked from obscurity in Queens to assist 'Team Stark' in the Civil War, finds himself sidelined. Told to stand up for the little guy, our erstwhile superhero finds himself directing lost old ladies and beating up muggers, all the while feeling that he could do more. Overconfident as a superhero, he is the polar opposite at high school where he is the champion of the quiz team and shyly attracted to Liz. After Spiderman foils a bank robbery which is performed with some slightly outlandish weaponry, our hero begins to track the source of the weapons, which leads back to Adrian Toomes, a contractor who is bitter for being kicked off the lucrative Chitari cleanup contracts and lost a lot of money. Toomes now uses an elaborate flying suit and chitari technology to steal alien artefacts to continue his profitable weapon sales operation.

Tom Holland as Peter Parker is quite excellent in the role. For the first time in any Spiderman film, we have a teenage Spiderman and the film does very well in making us feel that this guy is just a kid, and a somewhat weedy one at that. Looking small and uncomfortable whenever he is at school (yet curiously buff when stripping in and out of his outfit), he is frequently shown in long shot or against massive backdrops to highlight just how out of his depth he is in this world of superheroes. Charming, enthusiastic, hubristic, and flawed, Holland's Spiderman is a triumph of character and actor combining to produce a winning cinematic creation. In a Marvel film so often there is little sense of peril, but here we become genuinely concerned for Peter. We fear for his safety several times. It's great.

As a foil to Spiderman we have the ever-wonderful Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes, aka Vulture. A disaffected American worker, he's the embodiment of the American Dream laid low by big corporations stealing the contracts for themselves. At one point Keaton growls that "the guys who created this mess now get paid to clean it up". It's hard not to sympathise with him, and Keaton's superb performance really sells this villain as a believable creation. So long a weak point in Marvel movies, Toombs is one of the best villains the franchise has created; threatening, charming, understandable, sympathetic, psychotic, and motivated.

The rest of the cast are fine, though the constant reappearances of Tony Stark starts to grate. I found myself yearning for a charismatic older actor playing the Uncle Ben/father figure role. Stark is a dick, and it is hard to see him giving life-lessons to a kid when he basically created the whole situation in the first place.

You'll be pleased to know that the action sequences are all very good indeed, a sequence on the Washington Monument being a standout (and in 3D this really delivers). Whenever Spiderman is taking on multiple opponents with a flurry of web shots, punches, kicks, flips, wall hangs and sarcastic commentary from the snarky kid in red and blue it is brilliantly entertaining.

There are problems, however. Firstly there film feels quite flat. Moments that are clearly meant to be humorous don't deliver. Likewise some of the action sequences seem a bit rote, like something you'd see in Agents of SHIELD rather than a mega-budget movie. There is also un- necessary sub-scenes and nods that didn't quite fit with the characters, or the story, or the tone of the film.

The other major problem with the film is the existence of Kick-Ass. Michael Vaughan's film clearly owes a great debt to Spiderman, but watching Homecoming it is hard to shake the feeling of deja vu, especially when you see Spiderman walking around the neighbourhood using his powers on low- level muggers. Both films create believable teenagers, give them superpowers, have them get bored and listless, then have them get out of their depth before eventually triumphing.

Unfortunately, due to the unimaginative direction mentioned above, Kick-Ass is a superior film. The slight dips that Homecoming suffers from (the nerdy best friend irritating, the love interest bland, the humour flat, some of the action cheap, and plot twists are visible a mile away) Kick-Ass doesn't.

However I fully understand that this is the film that Spiderman fans have been waiting for, and it is as slick and enjoyable a film as Marvel has ever made. It is the first time Spiderman is seen as he should be: as a kid. The film is very good, the best Marvel of the year, but this reviewer enjoyed Wonder Woman more; it was also energetic, propulsive, colourful, lively and tear- jerkingly heroic. Homecoming doesn't quite engage the same emotions in this reviewer.

Going into a cinema with no real idea what you are going to see is a rare experience. Nowadays films seem intent of giving away everything in the trailer, or the hype is so detailed that the film sounds rubbish and you're not going to see it anyway.

The first Guardians of the Galaxy film was a similar experience. Here was a wacky sounding premise from Marvel: a sci-fi space opera with no known characters, no links to the established Marvel Cinematic Universe and contained a character who was a talking tree with limited vocabulary.

There was no real need to worry, the first Guardians was a highly imaginative, colourful, lively, fresh and funny movie with a robust rolling plot, instantly lovable characters, quotable dialog and, get this, it was fun. Seriously fun.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 is, guess what, the first sequel that introduced us to Peter 'Starlord' Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket Racoon and Groot and it has a lot to live up to. No matter that all the cast returned, along with writer/director James Gunn, there was always the worry that the first film was a fluke, a one-off never to be repeated. The oft-mentioned threat of rolling this free-spirited franchise into the wider MCU also raised eyebrows (and concerns).

Therefore I am happy to say that Guardians 2 (as literally no-one is calling it) is a worthy sequel to the original film. It is a slick, funny, colourful intergalactic romp that is resolutely like nothing else in the MCU and is just as good as the original . Though not hugely different from the first, who cares when a film is this much fun.

The story of Vol 2 (any better?) sees our heroes battling a interdimensional space beast on behalf of Elizabeth Debecki's race of beautiful gold beings called The Sovereign. One swift double- cross later and a mighty space battle ensues causing our characters to crash on a remote planet when they are finally tracked down by Kurt Russell's Ego. An ancient god-like living planet who just happens to be Quill's long lost father.

One of the signature joys of a Guardians film are the snap scenes, scenes that don't really advance the plot, but provide character moments that are sometimes sweet, sometimes caustic, but nearly always very funny. Other snap scenes are simply extremely stupid - at one point Yondo and Rocket perform multiple hyperspace jumps which wreak havoc on their physiology. A joke so silly that visiting it twice is only natural.

Performances are all excellent, with an particular nod to Kurt Russell as Ego, whose performance is subtle and well delivered, even when he is reduced to CGI for the inevitable climax, and Elizabeth Debecki who, despite being drowned in unflattering gold paint, delivers a performance of frustrated rage and despair hidden under a shell of calm control. See her performance in "the-scene-where-the- carpet-runs- out" for an example.

Visually the film never quite delivers some of the gob-smacking spectacles of the first - there is nothing that quite compares to "Nowhere" in the first film for example. However it is still a lush, colourful look at space that is always attractive to look at.

There are other problems, the last 10-15 minutes descends into the CGI slug-fest that mars so many of these films and swiftly becomes tiresome. Also the whole film differs from the first by not visiting any of the characters and locations we visited in the first film, there's none of the Novacorp that set up much fun in the first film. The film is, in my opinion, weaker for not having our ragamuffin heroes dropped into and frustrating an icily organised and civilised society, and the Sovereign don't quite cut it.

However these are minor quibbles. This is a film packed to the rafters with character, comedy bickering, whip-crack dialogue, stupid visual jokes, clever character moments, joyous action and a desperately cute baby tree.

Perhaps the real problem with GotGv2 (nope, there is no shorthand that's going to work) is that is no longer a surprise, it is no longer that exciting new thing. The flaws of the first film, a weak villain, unclear plotting and over the top CGI climax, are still present here. If anything the plot is a little worse than the original. To beat this James Gunn turns everything up to eleven and, you know what, it works.

It's a fantastic film, one of the year's best, and it comes highly recommended. But be warned if you have not seen the first film, you may be a little lost.

Their Finest is a war-time drama about Welsh journalist Catrin Cole, winningly played by Gemma Arterton, who gets seconded to the Ministry of Information film department to write the 'slop', or women's dialogue for the much-derided 'informationals' that made up part of a trip to the cinema in 1940. Once there she deals with standard establishment bigotry from likes of Richard E Grant and Jeremy Irons but shows her talent enough to be recommended by Sam Caflin's Tom Buckley to help out on a possible feature film about two sisters who stole their father's boat and rescued soldiers from Dunkirk. Once this film within a film starts, we meet Bill Nighy as Ambrose Hilliard, a grandiose actor past his prime actor who thinks he's thirty years old and still awesome. The film makers then have to deal with propaganda demands from the ministry of war (add in a genuine American airman, who naturally cannot act), a constantly shifting script, complicated actors as well as the stresses and strains of life during the war years, and the challenges of finding and holding on to love during the particular challenges of the Blitz.

On the whole I found this film entertaining, but a little uneven. It was frequently quite funny, then sad, then hopeful, then bittersweet, then funny again, which makes it very hard to pigeonhole into a single genre. It is slightly romantic, it is gently comedic, but it is also hard edged and, in places, quite brutal. It is also unable to wholly avoid cliché, which is a bit of a shame.

However, the performances are, uniformly, fantastic. Gemma Arterton combines sweetness and steel in a measured, nuanced performance that is utterly winning. Catrin comes across at times a naive, even downtrodden, but also strong and bloody-minded. She's a complex, fully rounded character and Arterton delivers her with skill. Likewise Sam Caflin is superb as the acerbic, sexist even cruel co- screenwriter Tom Buckley. The man is a hard-to-pin down character who is frequently utterly horrible, but Caflin's performance enables us to find a damaged, even likable man within the outwardly hideous character without the script needing to telegraph his innate decency. It's an extremely tricky role, and Caflin pulls it off admirably. Bill Nighy too could have simply cruised through his role, seeing as it effectively just requires him to be the Bill Nighy role he's performed for years now, but the actor brings more to well crafted character, allowing him to be more than just the light relief. In a film of subtleties, Nighy's ever so gentle romance with Helen McCrory, and his understated 'bromance' with Eddie Marsden's agent (both supporting roles expertly performed) is amongst the most subtle.

The script, by Gaby Chiappe, delivers these fine actors with plenty of well-wrought lines and subtle characterisation, though I do wonder if it would have been better served with a bit more time, despite this being quite a long film. We do sometimes lurch from horror to banality, though it never loses sight of the deprivations of wartime. Sometimes the incongruity of the daily routine is brutally disrupted by the destructive, deadly bombing of the German Blitz. Other times the day-to-day ho-hum routine of sheltering, working and even loving whilst at any moment a bomb could explode and end your life, is beautifully drawn. It just occasionally feels a bit rushed, or a bit 'paint by numbers'. One wonders with a bit more running time if these various elements could have been blended together a bit more evenly. However this is nitpicking. Ione Scherfig, the director, has delivered a fine film, balancing the horrors of wartime, the struggles of women to be accepted in a man's world where most of the men are elsewhere, and a fine examination of the craft of 1940's film-making.

By the end of the film, when despite of all the problems that have beset the production and our heroes, we see cinema audiences reacting to the fruits of their labours, you have to possess a hard heart not to feel lifted. Its a fine film about women shaking off the shackles of the pre-war bigotry, rising to the challenge of the world , and succeeding.

As Bill Nighy's Ambrose Hilliard says at one point "we only get these opportunities because young men are fighting, and dying, elsewhere." This is a film about opportunities and when to seize them. It is not a comedy, not a laugh riot, and it is being misrepresented by the advertising. It is, however, a well made , very well acted, wartime drama. And, if you are in the mood for this kind of film, you would do well to look it out.

Right, the good. This is a handsome production with terrific costume and set design.

Now the bad. This is a pointless, toothless, bloodless piece of TV that misses the whole point on what makes Dracula one of the greatest of all literary monsters.

1) Dracula seems to be more interested in his handsome black servant than any of the bosomy women who apparently find him irresistible.

2) Dracula seems to be solely interested getting the UK to use less oil - so he's an eco-vampire? Can you have a green vampire? 3) He's all about revenge, apparently. Revenge when you are immortal is simply, turn up at your nemesis' deathbed and seduce his daughter - you win. It's not inventing a wireless electric power source.

4) He's appears to be slightly interested in Mina Murray, who's sadly the blandest, most wooden thing since someone painted a wall magnolia. Unfortunately she's probably the most fleshed-out character in the whole piece... Jonathan Harker looks permanently perplexed, yet appears to be being set up as the brains of the organisation...

5) It's so dark any blood looks like chocolate sauce. However this darkness is never used to create a sense of dread or foreboding, or provide cover for a shock reveal, it's merely there for you to find out if the brightness control on your TV works...

5a) Oh, and there's not enough blood - this is Dracula FFS! 6) It's about as sexy as a stone. I've never seen any man be that disinterested in an enormous heaving bosom.

It's impressive as Rhys-Myers managed to make the boorish, overweight, ulcerated, forty-year old Henry VIII into a chippendale-esque 20-something lothario that humped everything with a pulse, but has made the incredibly sexy, dangerous, desirable, immortal count into, and I can hardly being myself to say this, an industrialist. Think Donald Trump without the ability to see his own reflection...

Could have been worse, he could have been a banker or a lawyer, but I guess that's witticism too far.

Basically this is a pointless bit of TV. In addition to above flaws, it is guilty of delivering an under-developed over-arching plot, no sense of villain or hero we should be rooting for, virtually no in-episode plot worth mentioning so everything is a bit dull, and no sense of compulsion for use viewers to wait for the next episode.

Flat, poor and bloodless. Hopefully not immortal.

George Valentin is the silent movie star. He and his dog, Jack, are the stars of many a hit film. They are loved by their public and boy, do they know it. But George's life is about to be turned upside down by the advent of a new technology - sound. George's pride and arrogance make him blind to the fact that the audience want to hear their stars as well as see them, and so begins his slow slide into obscurity.

The story to the Artist is a well worn one, and one that was a staple of many of the melodramas of the period it recreates. It is a good enough story, well told and well acted even if it drags a little towards the end, but it is not where the true joy of "The Artist" lies.

The Artist is wonderful for a huge number of reasons. Firstly the performances from everyone involved are superb, delivering their (silent) lines with the perfect collection of facial expressions and body language. You may not be able to keep up with what they are saying, but you understand what their characters are feeling. Those of you who may be worried about enjoying a silent film, don't be. The film draws you in and involves you with the characters and their story. You don't miss a thing.

Though the entire cast are spectacular, especially Jean Dejardin and Berenice Bejo as George and Pepe, I felt a special love for Penelope Ann Miller as George's wife Doris, James Cromwell as Clifton, and a fantastically curmudgeonly Malcolm McDowell as an unimpressed extra. Auggie the Dog though, as George's most loyal friend, is spectacular. He delivers a genuine performance as opposed to just seeming to be a collection of cute tricks. What could have been cutesy or mawkish comes across as genuinely believable.

On the technical front the film is unusual and innovative. The film makers commit to a historically accurate 4:3 ratio image, to title cards and simple graphics to highlight their story, but this also allows them to play around with the conventions. The locked off, fixed cameras of the silent era is often mixed in with more modern dolly shots; there are hints of colourisation, occasional graphic touches appear that were beyond film makers of the late 1920s. All these little touches highlight a point, emphasise a character or underline an emotion.

All of this technical detail is enhanced by the wonderful score which swells, drops, meanders, dances, mopes and soars along with the audience's emotions. Because of the lack of dialogue and sound effects, "The Artist" highlights the power of music and moving pictures to deliver emotion to the audience.

The re-creation of early Hollywood and Burbank is detailed but not glorious. Unlike beautiful re-creations such as LA Confidential however, the Hollywood of "The Artist" feels a busy, lively and warm place. There is a sense of community throughout the film: people may forget who you were, but they don't forget that you are a person.

This is key to the film's charm. It isn't mean-spirited. It reminded me of "It's a Wonderful Life", a film that never fails to make you smile.

But most importantly of all, it reminds you of the power of moving pictures. One wonderful sequence is a long static shot of two floors and an interconnecting staircase on which our leads stand, conversing. Around them, above them, below them, past them, rush busy people. All this movement all around the frame just serves to underline the immobility of our romantic leads - so involved are they in each other, the world is literally passing them by. It is wonderfully romantic, warm and delicate scene, but achieved without the use of sound, speech or even our leads in focus.

It isn't perfect, some on-screen prompts come across as clumsy and the shallow plot sags just a bit in the final third, but the charm and wit of the piece easily surmounts this minor quibbles. It is hard not to dislike a film that delivers its fair quotient of zingers via the medium of text.

The film is warm, romantic, witty, smart and utterly charming. It deserves to win many an award.

From its slow, languid, unfussy titles through to its half focused final shot Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is an exercise in classy film making. It possesses perfect period feel and the best cast of the year all delivering a masterclass in film acting.

This is a slow burning story, played out predominantly in stuffy, over bright rooms laced with smoke and questionable decor. It is a game played across countries, by arrogant men with questionable morals and poor manners, deciding the fate of men and women in order to get what they all want: Treasure.

With MI6 still reeling from the exposure of the Cambridge spies, shut out from the American Intelligence sources and desperate for a win in the game. Control (John Hurt), convinced of a Soviet spy in the intelligence service, is losing respect of his younger division heads. When an operation in Bucharest, known only to the highest echelons of the Service, is disrupted by the Russians, Control's enemies seize their opportunity and force the old man and his confidante, George Smiley (Gary Oldman) out. Now an outsider, Smiley is the perfect person to investigate on behalf of a suspicious bureaucrat (Simon McBurney) who begins to think that there may be something in Control's paranoid theories after all.

As so the plot goes, twisting and turning, the pieces slowly coming together in the mind of Gary Oldman's Smiley. A quiet man, not into grandstanding like his contemporaries, instead he quietly and methodically collects information, building up the story. How do we know this? It's written on Oldman's face. Smiley is not a showy role, it demands subtlety from its actor. Oldman is not the first choice, given his scenery chewing roles in Fifth Element or Leon, but he is simply magnificent. In every twitch of his mouth, or long stare into the middle distance, a little something more is revealed about Smiley. What he thinks, what he needs, what he wants. It's all written there on his tired, unsmiling face.

This is not a spy story for the Bourne generation, it's closer to a genre thought long dead - the true cold war thriller like The Conversation, though I kept being reminded of The Odessa Steps or Day of the Jackal. Its pacing is perfect throughout, similar to The Wire in it's slow unraveling of a story told through a lot of disparate characters and from a lot of different viewpoints.

That's not to say there isn't drama or tension here, it's just a very different sort of drama. The most tense moment involves the theft of some papers from a cupboard. It doesn't sound like much, but it is a gripping sequence, full of fear and paranoia.

We've mentioned Oldman, who must be in for an Oscar nomination, but the rest of the cast are all superb, with Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy especially impressive.

Huge kudos to the production department for their recreation of early 70's London and all the grimness that entails. From Smiley's glasses (actually sourced by Oldman himself) to the awful Christmas party held by the Circus staff which, as a flashback, anchors much of the plot the detailing is perfect, especially when shot through the roving long lenses of director Tomas Alfredson.

For all the sumptuous detail, consummate acting and magnificent pacing, something had to give, and unfortunately the final reveal of the mole is not the sickening gut punch it should have been. "It was him, of course it was him." It's a problem with this being a film, there isn't enough time to give all of the characters equal attention, keep that ambiguity going to the end.

But this is a very minor quibble in two plus hours of sumptuous high quality mature entertainment. Perhaps my face resembled that of Smiley's at the end, as the montage of the winners and losers flows by, as he's finished putting the case to bed, as the betrayed come to terms with their situation. Smiley's plain features show the faintest ghost of satisfaction, of a man pleased with his work, and of a game well played.

Super 8 is JJ Abrams' ode to those great kids films that we remember from the 80s. You know, films like Back to the Future, E.T., Stand By Me, Explorers, Gremlins, Poltergeist and the like. These were good solid adventure films well written, beautifully directed and told from a kid's perspective.

The houses were always huge, the kids had all sorts of cool gadgets (this was the UK in the 80s after all), there was always acres of space a short BMX ride away (hey, those cool kids had BMXs dagnabbit). These kids had so much freedom to get into adventures. As kids growing up in rainy Gloucester we were jealous. Okay so, as we've grown up we've picked up on the unhappy childhoods many of this kids actually had (E.T.'s Elliot was fatherless, Stand By Me's Geordie was rejected by his father after his brother's death) and the surprisingly emotive subplots that hid beneath the kid-friendly adventures.

Super 8 has been unashamedly been trading on this nostalgia, in particular mentioning E.T. and Stand By Me. It even has the maestro of much of that early 80's magic, Steven Spielberg, as executive producer. Abrams has also got great pedigree with the creation of fun, smart entertainment - Alias, Cloverfield and the re-boot of Star Trek (I know, and Lost which was great for 3.5 seasons ... then fell apart).

So, does Super 8 deliver on all it's promise? Well ... kinda.

I think my biggest problem with Super 8 is that it feels like two completely different films stuck together, and not that successfully either.

The weaker element of the story is the monster movie, which is a bit of a surprise considering the director's previous work. Abrams does craft some decent jump moments and is a member of the "less is more" school of monster film-making, which is always more enjoyable than the gory munch brigade. But the monster is merely a cipher, having no real back-story and demanding no real investment from the audience, it's just there as a hook. There is one scene at the end, where some hidden depth in the creature is revealed (literally). This one scene ties the two parts of the story together and is largely successful, as well as unexpected, it's just that everything that has gone before is just so ... clumsy.

There's a nasty air force leader, a collection of mysterious objects, some magnetism, but it all just happens; there's no build up, or tension, or mystery outside of "what's that?" Spielberg, at his best, would have woven a sense of wonder into the strange goings on, and would have also kept his focus closely on the kids - Abrams wanders, giving most of the investigative role to our hero's estranged father, which takes away one of the great joys of the kids' flick - Kids trying to persuade Adult Authority that they're telling the truth. Remember that scene in The Goonies? Or E.T. with Elliot's mom? There's nothing like that in Super 8, and it suffers because of it.

However the other side of the tale, the story of recuperation after a trauma and the story of friendship and having an adventure, is thankfully much stronger. In fact, I found myself wishing that Abrams had explored this side of things more and avoided much of the bombast that jars the film. It's actually terrific fun watching the kids run around and create their terrible zombie movie, deal with older siblings, younger siblings and parental relationships that make no sense to you when you're a kid. It's also touching to witness that first crush, and the rivalries that can afflict a group of boys when girls start becoming interesting. These moments should be the cornerstones of the story, the heartbeats that bring it alive and make it dramatic, but instead Super 8 chooses the bombast and spectacle of its monster story for its movie moments. And that's a shame.

Super 8 works better when its smaller, quieter story is in command, and it also allows its collection of excellent child actors the chance to stretch themselves a bit. Joel Courtney, as lead character Joe, holds the film together, selling emotion as well as the outlandish actions sequences equally well, though he does only get one real emotional scene. Elle Fanning as Alice is excellent in every scene and should follow younger sister Dakota along that tricky path form child star to adult actor. Of the other children in the group, only Riley Griffiths as Charles, the director is developed which is a shame. I would have liked to know more about the dynamic within the group. It should also be said that both Ron Eldard (an actor possessed of the saddest face I've ever seen) and Kyle Chandler as Alice and Joe's respective fathers, tied together through tragedy and hating every minute, are both superb.

Super 8 thinks it's E.T, with the monster movie front and centre and essential to the piece, but in fact it is the quieter, friends film that is better and should have been given more screen time. The massive train crash (spectacular, but way, way over the top - how fast was that train going?) and the hugely destructive finale all sit uncomfortably with many of the quieter scenes. Large chunks of the monster story don't seem to make sense, though there are some great ideas here, and what's not to love about having the man trying to set the alien free being played by the same actor who accidentally released the first Gremlin? Basically there was a really tremendously great movie hiding inside Super 8, but for various reasons it's missing. Which is a real shame. However comparing it to the standard of the current crop of blockbuster films this year, it's very nearly a masterpiece.

After the dullness of Spiderman 3, and the shipwreck that was Pirates 3, it was with much trepidation that I went to watch Ocean's Thirteen. The first (Clooney) film was frothy fun, the second an indulgent, over-stuffed turkey. Thankfully Soderbergh and THAT cast have returned to Vegas, pared back the tiresome romance aspects that so bogged down the second one (no Roberts, no Zeta-Jones), and upped the joke quantity and quality. Yes the plot is over-complicated and un-believable. Yes it is frequently preposterous, but you just don't care. There are quality jokes throughout this joppy jape, and are perfectly delivered by the cast - all of whom are at the top of their game. It is telling that Pacino - so often blasting his co-stars clean off the screen - is almost sidelined here. He's good, but a bit flat. Ditto for Barkin, who just can't do ditsy and sexy and professional and bitchy all at once, which is a shame because her scenes with Damon (also excellent) are great fun. Add in the terrific double act of Casey Affleck and Scott Caan (with a whole Mexican sub-plot to themselves that is hilarious), and the film is already on the up. More quality characterisation from Eddie Izzard, a nice expansion on Terry Benedict from Andy Garcia, and Carl Reiner delivering his usual class. But the dependable double act of Clooney and Pitt help keep the film whizzing on. Delivering quality lines and preposterous exposition with perfect deadpan faces and sublime timing (one word - Oprah!) it makes you wish they would make more movies together. Soderburgh shoots with his typical style and colourful eye and the film moves a decent clip. The best threequel of the year and second best 'Ocean' movie. Fun.

Saw a spanking digital print of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End last night and I came away puzzled, confused and disappointed. The entire franchise, which was heading for the rocks with middle sequel Dead Man's Chest, has finally sunk to the bottom with this third installment.

Firstly, the plot. Well, I'm not entirely sure there was one amongst the crosses, double crosses and triple crosses that pretty much every character inflicts on every other character. Add in occult mystics, a goddess of the sea, a love struck villain (aha motivation! - oh no, it's another double cross), pirate councils, nine pieces of eight (huh?), hundreds of crabs, four lead ships, three separate crews, a wedding, several battles/swordfights and you can't complain that Pirates 3 doesn't offer lot for your entry fee. It's just a shame that it doesn't make any actual sense.

The trouble is that every now and again, almost hidden beneath tons of turgid exposition dialogue, bizarre hallucination sequences, and loud, confusing action, lie some real gems of comedy - mostly involving Depp and Kevin McNally. Keith Richards is also excellent, though his scenes are much less fun than they should have been. Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa is still a fun character and the two pirates Mackenzie Crook and Lee Arenberg have much more to do than in the second movie and are a good watch. In virtually every scene is Knightley, who does a good job of developing Elizabeth Swann and actually acts a couple of times, but basically spends her time looking extremely pretty.

However Chow Yun Fat, Orlando Bloom and Tom Hollander are bland, dull characters who are paper thin. Biggest crime of the two sequels is the treatment of Jack Davenport's character Norrington, who could have been interesting to watch develop, but was abandoned in favour of Hollander's.

Ultimately the characters, the plot, the script and the fun are all overwhelmed by the (admittedly fantastic) CGI. Though Depp pretty much saves every scene he's in, he can't save the full three hours. Pirates 3 has its moments, and at times is really great fun, but it is too long, too confusing, and too dull to be really worth the price of admission - though I suppose a feeling of being robbed could add to the pirate experience.

Shame.

This is a staggering volte-face for the original action film series. When "Goldeneye" was released over a decade ago, I had high hopes that the Bond series was back on top again. Hopes that sadly dwindled as the Brosnan films carried on until we had the truly terrible "Die Another Day".

"Goldeneye" was Eon's response to "True Lies", and was directed by Martin Campbell - director of "Casino Royale", which is the Bond franchise's response to the hugely successful "Bourne" movies with Matt Damon.

"Casino Royale" is a sort of 'Bond Begins', a re-imagining of a classic character and, much like Chris Nolan's successful Batman film, "Casino Royale" goes back to the source material: Ian Fleming's novels. In doing so, Eon, Campbell and the cast have done something that we haven't seen in the 20 other films in the Bond canon: Put Ian Fleming's character on the screen.

Daniel Craig is the most authentic Bond yet: he is tough, bloody-minded, rebellious, charming, ruthless and (and this is the really important bit) he's a stone cold killer. Craig has a rugged face and bright, blue eyes which, when combined with the right lighting, can either make a woman swoon or a target faint. He is also an utter bastard, using and discarding people left and right, abusing his skills to further his mission and, in two brutal sequences, killing people without any remorse or mercy. Combine this with the fact that he makes mistakes, he gets careless and nearly pays for it, and he is so headstrong and determined that you fear he will get himself in over his head before he realises it, and you have the most characterful Bond we've ever seen. There is much not to like about him, but you have to keep remembering that he's one of the good guys: he's a killer, but he's our killer.

If Craig brings a ruthlessness and brutality to his role, he needs a worthy adversary - and he gets one in Mads Mikkaelsen's Le Chiffre. Without a doubt the most interesting bad guy in Bond history, he's a banker. He doesn't want to take over the world, he isn't miraculously more proficient at fighting than any of his trained henchmen. He is also, for a large part of the film, profoundly scared. This makes him interesting and, for the audience, unpredictable.

And then there are the girls - Solange is very much your typical Bond girl who falls for our hero's charms, but Vesper is a different proposition: A spunky accountant who can match our hero for quips and bon mots, holds his (financial) leash during the critical card game and, ultimately, shows us the horror us normal folk would feel if we ever actually met 007.

But this, one of the most brilliant resurrections ever seen on film, is not just about quality characters and good acting. There is top notch action that is superbly crafted, some sparkling dialogue, and a couple of plot twists that you will not be expecting. The free-running chase could be one of the very best action sequences not just in Bond films, but in the history of cinema.

This is a superb film, so why doesn't it get a ten? Well occasionally, just occasionally, Campbell overeggs his pudding. In a film that has a luxurious running time anyway a couple of sequences could have done with being removed and a couple of others tightened up (in one case I felt he missed a chance to jolt the audience and make a good joke at the same time) all of which would not have harmed the story, plot or character development one bit. Also there is the occasional clunker of a line which seems to have slipped through the net.

All in though this is a cracker. A full throttle re-awakening for Her Majesty's most famous secret agent. One of the most satisfying films of the year, and the best 'sequel' since "Batman Begins". This is like a very fine martini (shaken, not stirred of course) smooth, dry, satisfying and strictly for adults. Brilliant.

Firstly, I'm not a Superman fan. Give me Batman any day, Spiderman at a pinch, or the angst of the Xmen series, but Superman was always a step too far. That being said, the original Superman is one of THE films of the 70s. Superbly crafted, brilliantly acted and wonderously put together it combined romance, action, derring do, hissing villains.

Hearing glowing reviews, I happily coughed up my six quid to watch Bryan Singer's take on the man of steel and ... boy was I disappointed. Singer excelled with Xmen, especially the second one, he also made the deft Apt Pupil and the superb Usual Suspects. He's very good at character, and this shows in Superman Returns. The character moments are the very best parts of the film - well, from Routh anyway.

Bosworth is more Lois Lame than Lois Lane. Bring back Margot Kidder's sassy newshack. Heck get Jennifer Jason Lee from the Hudsucker Proxy to show Bosworth how it is done. She was terrible, and a real drag on the film. I just didn't care about her, and the kid - while cute - didn't really do much and I didn't give a stuff about him either. James Marsden, good as Cyclops, was also wasted - there was nothing for him to do and he added absolutely zero to the plot or story overall.

So with the entire Lane household consigned to the "I don't care" bin, what about the rest of the film? Spacey should have been a brilliant Lex Luthor, and indeed in many sequences he is excellent, but he doesn't have that many sequences. Woefully underused, along with Parker Posey, who is turning in a neat line of comical bad girls recently. However neither are particularly well developed, and Lex's continent growing scheme too out-there to really register as a threat to humanity.

So the plot's rubbish, the good actors under-used, the bad actors glaringly obvious, is there anything to like about this film? Yes, Routh. The new boy is excellent as Superman, as perfect a fit to the character as Reeve ever was. Where he is believable as Superman, he is excellent as Clark Kent - the film really becomes fun whenever Kent is on screen.

Outside of Routh, the film is turgid and po-faced. It has no sense of adventure, and no real sense of fun. It is trying to do Batman Begins' trick of making a serious, adult take on a comic book character, but Superman isn't that kind of character. You can't do a moody film about a bloke in blue lycra. It would have been better if they had concentrated on following the Spiderman precedent - ticking all the boxes the comic fans want to see.

I just wish Singer had stayed with the X-men, file this one under big disappointment. "Best entertainment since LOTR"? Puh-lease

I'm not a horror movie fan. I don't particularly enjoy them, usually find them far-fetched, overly nasty, and basically an excuse to do lots of expensive special effects. I was bored on a Tuesday afternoon when a friend phoned up and suggested we went to see "The Descent".

My friend, a lovable if shallow type, sold it to me as "a thriller with fit women underground by the bloke who did Dog Soldiers". I'd seen Dog Soldiers, and really enjoyed it. I also didn't find it excessively gory and is was bloody (sorry) funny. Combine that with a few girls in tight tops and covered in mud and yeah - sounds like a good way to see off a dull evening. Boy, was I wrong.

The dictionary definition of trauma is:"An emotional wound or shock that creates substantial, lasting damage to the psychological development of a person, often leading to neurosis." I am writing this nearly a year after seeing the film and I'm still thinking about it. When I left the cinema I felt deeply scarred; as battered and bruised emotionally as the characters in the film were visually. My friend and I were both, by our own admission, traumatized.

All this from a FILM? Yes - The Descent is utterly, utterly terrifying. That is a word that should not be used lightly, but frequently is. Terror is when your breath comes in small gasps, your heart is racing, and your mind is pleading for the tension to ease. The Descent will put you in this place and then, without any mercy, keep you there for at least an hour.

What is even more astonishing is the speed and skill with which this film draws its audience in and puts you in such a state of fear. This movie should be held up in class to show how a genuinely talented director and writer can setup characters and situations with such little fuss but such effect.

Marshall's 'chicks with picks' are a likable bunch, but we don't really get to know them. There is a rudimentary 'meet and greet' the day before they go to the cave, but it doesn't reveal their true characters. Instead, as we follow them through the cave, their flaws and strengths are revealed piece by piece, and each time they have a direct effect on their situation.

And what a situation. Filmed entirely on cleverly constructed studio sets, with minimal lighting (much of it 'dynamic' from flares and helmet lights as opposed to static studio lighting) and realistic camera positions, the film puts us in amongst the girls; we squirm through narrow passageways, gaze around rugged chambers and crawl through fetid pools. If I'm honest, the creatures (who appear at about the halfway point), were not really necessary. The feelings of claustrophobia and insecurity are already at high levels. All the creatures do is tip it over the edge.

The creatures are nicely worked out, with a logical development back story and sensible origins. Yes they are fantasy, yes they are hardly believable, but it works in this kind of a film. They are also sufficiently nasty to give real impetus to the panic and terror that afflicts our heroines.

After the initial assault of the crawlers it would be correct to say that we are in familiar 'stalk and slash' territory, but that isn't being fair to the film. The tension, locations, characterizations and acting all combine with savage action and gruesome effects to produce a truly shocking effect. This is a film that will have you despairing, not for what is happening on screen, but for what is happening to the characters on screen. This is a long way from the 'horror porn' of "Hostel" or "The Hills have Eyes" where the point of the film is the suffering of the characters. Marshall's characters suffer, and suffer horribly in some cases, but it isn't suffering for suffering's sake. They make an understandable error and pay for it, or they get caught out by a creature, or they put up a good fight and eventually succumb to force of numbers. Marshall doesn't shrink from showing us the gore and viscera (though as a non-horror I think it would have been better to have shown a little restraint in places - sometimes it is better to not see something), but it is an expected result of an action.

Finally there is that ending. An ending that is sadly removed from the US release. A genuine WTF that leaves the audience reeling. It is a masterpiece ending that does not betray everything that has gone before as many films are wont to do. it is a staggering, breathless, bold, dark, twisted ending that slaps you in the face. It will probably be copied mercilessly by lesser films in the future, and more's the pity, because this truly one of the great movie endings. I hope the US will get the option to see it on DVD.

Oh enough - see it will you. Even if you don't like horror movies. This is a superior thriller that doesn't waver from its purpose to scare the sh** out of you. Very good films come along too rarely, and when they do their stories, characters and standout moments remain with you for long afterward. Last year only one other film had the same level of emotional impact that "The Descent" did, and its name was 'Million Dollar Baby" (different set of emotions though, I'll grant you). It doesn't get 10 as there are flaws including one character moment that just didn't ring true for me, and the odd clunky line. However this is that very rare thing - a horror movie that is frightening rather than repelling, that is intelligent rather than patronizing, and the end result is genuinely terrifying.

For some people the words 'French' and 'Action Movie' will do nothing but produce guffaws. Pay no attention; they know nothing about the lengthy history of superb French Action Films. The French actually produce some good movies from time to time. They are not all pretentious 'Arthouse' flicks which involve lots of shagging and boring dialogue.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet gave us Delicatessen and 'The City of Lost Children' - he then made 'Alien:Resurrection' but we forgave him when he delivered 'Amelie'. Then there is Luc Besson who gave us 'Subway', 'Nikita' as a warm up then the fabulous 'Leon' ('The Professional' in the US) and the superb 'Fifth Element'. If you check the production companies involved on those last two you will find that they are entirely French, only US distributors were involved. Besson has sort-of disappeared from movie making for a while, concentrating on producing and writing cheapo European action films like 'The Transporter' and 'Taxi' 1&2 (not the lame US remakes).

The reason for this lengthy preamble is to point out that not all French films are dull, and illustrate the fact that actually the French have a lot to teach a jaded Hollywood in how to make action movies. Which brings me to 'The Nest'.

I watched John Carpenter's fantastic 'Assault on Precinct 13' when I was probably 15 and bored one evening. I didn't know anything about Carpenter, the film had no recognizable stars and I had no idea what was going to happen. Needless to say the film is excellent. It was the first time in my cinema going life that I felt not just wonder when watching a film, but also claustrophobia, oppression and genuine fear. 'The Nest' is a total remake of 'Assault'. It doesn't hang about (though its setup is maybe a little longer and a smidge wider-ranging than Assault's), introducing three groups of characters so quickly that you genuinely have no idea what they are up to.

Sami Naceri, the star of the hugely daft Taxi films, is best known as a comic actor, yet plays successfully against type here (why isn't he a star on the same level as Jean Reno by now?)Pascal Greggory has the looks and presence of a hit-man, but is actually a security guard, Nadia Fares looks like a catwalk model, but utterly convinces as the military enforcer. The lesser characters (which isn't really fair as this is a purely ensemble piece of work) all inhabit their characters completely, their complex relationships spark off believable dialogue that never once slips into cliché. It is this commitment to reality that underlines 'The Nest' and makes it so successful.

Almost the entire film takes place in a single warehouse, which is similar to 'Assault' except that Carpenter's film had a number of locations within the police house. The Nest has three areas - a Boiler room, a security desk that has a clear view over the entire warehouse, and the warehouse itself. Although this lessens the claustrophobia somewhat, it is hugely successful in putting all of our characters in peril at once. Another twist is that in 'Assault' the characters can retreat through to another room of the building. Early on in 'The Nest' it becomes clear that their only area of retreat has already been compromised by the enemy.

The warehouse almost becomes a character itself, as the film becomes more and more desperate, the lights are removed and the shadows glower and threaten. Only bullet holes let in any more light, leaving shafts of light to taunt the stars with the hope they may get out of this alive.

This realism (which isn't entirely there in the plot TBH), extends to wounds. A character is shot in the thigh early on in the film and spends the rest of the film limping painfully about. Other characters are injured throughout the events and stay injured, they don't suddenly find the ability to fire guns after being shot in the shoulder. This is gritty film-making and helps make 'The Nest' so successful. It feels real, you don't know what characters are going to make it or not. This leads to genuine tension. We may have seen the story before (wounded character stays behind to protect his friends; scared character finds the inner strength to confront the enemies head on), but its presentation here feels exciting and, if not exactly fresh, new.

Another major lesson that Hollywood should learn from this film is the way it looks. There are some magic shots in here - a standout is an exact remake of Charlie Sheen's airlift from the Jungle in Platoon (!) - which not only looks great, and is genuinely unusual, but also adds greatly to our understanding of the character involved.

'The Nest' is not original, it is also not high art. It is an extremely solid action picture that is unusually exciting and tense. The director, Florent-Emilio Siri, conjures up desperation, hopelessness and genuine evil from his group of talented character actors as well as successfully re-creating Carpenter's feeling of an unstoppable army out to get them. The idea that the villains are insectile and swarming around outside highlighted by the low-light headgear they all wear is interesting and well illustrated. Siri got the gig directing Bruce Willis in 'Hostage', which is interesting as I would genuinely rate 'The Nest' alongside Willis' 'Die Hard' as examples of how to do an action movie well. It really is that good.