The Congress - Review

Director: Ari Folman Writer: Ari Folman Studio: Drafthouse Films Cast: Robin Wright, Danny Huston, Harvey Keitel, Jon Hamm, Paul Giamatti, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Sami Gayle Release Date (UK): 15 August, 2014 Certificate: 15 Runtime: 123 min

Ari Folman’s bold and ambitious but flawed vision of the future as seen in “The Congress” is a vision of two halves. The first half sees Robin Wright, star of such films as “The Princess Bride” and “Forrest Gump,” playing Robin Wright, star of such films as “The Princess Bride” and “Forrest Gump.” Only here, in an alternative present, she’s a little more washed up than in our reality: introduced as her agent, played by Harvey Keitel, chastises her poor career choices and difficult attitude, she’s out of work with no one willing to offer her a role. Jeff Green (Danny Huston), the slithering bigwig of the mischievously named Miramount Studios, gives her an offer: in exchange for a hefty sum, her body will be scanned, and her image, her voice, her emotions, and her very being will be uploaded into a computer system, to be used to star in any film they choose. The catch is that while the computer-generated Robin Wright stars in everything from sci-fi blockbusters to Oscar contenders, the real Robin Wright is not allowed to act in anything again for the rest of her life.

The second half sends us 20 years into the future, where an older Wright takes a drug and enters a strange cartoon world, a 2D-animated, psychedelic, pop culture dreamscape where people are not so much people as fantasy avatars. Take a stroll through this hand-drawn gallery of famous faces and you will see such surreal sights as the jackal-headed Egyptian god Anubis walking the streets alongside Elvis Presley and Queen Elizabeth I, a Tom Cruise caricature who’s nothing but a pair of sunglasses and a toothy grin, and Ron Jeremy motorboating Marilyn Monroe. This world, it transpires, is an illusory escape from the bleakness of reality, where many are starving and living in horrible poverty. The people of the future are given a choice: await death or hallucinate something better. Understandably, most choose the hallucination -- and who can blame them when Michael Jackson is serving up lobsters?

I’m not certain that these two halves fit together very well: the film begins as a scathing take-down of the Hollywood system and the soulless direction it’s supposedly headed, then once the animation kicks in, it suddenly shifts gears to a commentary on such topics as the inequality gap, dictatorships, celebrities as products, and the American healthcare system. Combined, they make for a film whose themes are rich but jumbled and whose structure is uneven. Individually, however, they’re fascinating. The second half, in particular, is enthrallingly berserk, an absorbing, kaleidoscopic head trip that’s crudely drawn yet has a fluid, luscious beauty. The first half is also absorbing, a sharp, subtly sci-fi inflected big-studio satire well performed by Wright, Huston, and Keitel, who together make up the three pillars of Hollywood: the actor, the studio, and the agent in between. For a follow-up to “Waltz with Bashir,” Folman’s animated documentary about his experiences as an Israeli infantry soldier, “The Congress” is certainly unexpected, though like it, it shows him as an innovative director with a vision that’s unique, uncompromising, and well worth a watch.

Rating: 7/10

Lucy - Review

Director: Luc Besson Writer: Luc Besson Studios: Universal Pictures, Canal+, Cine+, EuropaCorp, TF1 Films Production Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Morgan Freeman, Amr Waked, Choi Min-sik Release Date (UK): 22 August, 2014 Certificate: 15 Runtime: 89 min

“Lucy” is an action movie with real style, verve and high-concept silliness. It works more than it doesn’t, though I wish it didn’t fall victim to so many genre trappings. Its concept sees Scarlett Johansson gaining superhuman abilities as she gradually unlocks the full potential of her brain capacity. This concept is based in bogus science -- that disproved theory that humans only use 10% of their brains -- but for the purposes of the plot, we’ll just have to swallow it. At least Morgan Freeman’s wise, all-knowing exposition is there to make it go down smoothly.

The film is written and directed by French action maestro Luc Besson, who gives it a propulsive flow and the kind of knowingly goofy vibe you’d expect from the guy who made “The Fifth Element.” Johansson is Lucy, a young American woman living and studying in Taiwan who is tricked into being a drug mule and ends up with a strange, blue synthetic drug sewn into her abdomen. The drug, called CPH4, has the ability to increase the user’s brain activity to superhuman levels -- it’s similar to the pills Bradley Cooper popped in “Limitless,” though it’s much more powerful, and it really lives up to that title. Whilst in captivity, she’s kicked in the stomach, resulting in the CPH4 leaking into her system. Soon enough, her intelligence is rapidly increasing, her senses are bursting through the evolutionary roof, and she’s gaining psychic powers which allow her to control the elements around her.

Throughout the film, the level of brain capacity Lucy has activated flashes onto the screen -- 20%, 30%, 40%, etc. -- as she becomes more and more powerful and nears what we can only assume is a state of omnipresent godliness. Johansson is tasked with playing a sympathetically frightened everywoman, a badass action heroine, and a supreme, almighty being -- she nails all three, and remains in complete command throughout. And as Lucy gets closer and closer to 100%, and her pains, fears and desires whither away, Johansson still manages to elicit flickers of humanity through her steely coolness. She and Besson make for an entertaining team-up, and her Lucy is a welcome addition to the list of tough woman warriors in Besson movies, alongside Anne Parillaud’s Nikita, Natalie Portman’s Mathilda, and Milla Jovovich’s Leeloo.

Besson, of course, can’t resist the urge to fill the film with mindless, high-velocity gunfights and car chases, which, some nifty effects aside, are a little routine considering the potential of the premise. Still, the majority of the film is appealingly absurd, and in the end it comes to a finale that’s daringly, refreshingly outlandish. And despite Besson’s philosophical musings and pseudo-scientific hypotheses, the film isn’t really trying to be anything more than a trippy thrill-ride -- in that sense, it’s a solid success. Johansson’s been on a roll recently, with “Her” one of the best movies of last year and “Under the Skin” one of the best of this year. “Lucy” isn’t on quite the same par as either of those movies, but like them, it shows that despite her status as a smoldering Hollywood sex symbol, she picks her projects with a bold adventurousness.

Rating: 7/10

Guardians of the Galaxy - Review

Director: James Gunn Writers: James Gunn, Nicole Perlman Studios: Marvel Studios, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Cast: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Lee Pace, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Djimon Hounsou, John C. Reilly, Glenn Close, Benicio del Toro Release Date (UK): August 1, 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 122 min

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is an exhilarating blast of pure sci-fi pulp, stuffed full of thrilling outer space mayhem, driven by a commitment to unabashed nuttiness, and topped off with a kick-ass retro mix-tape soundtrack guaranteed to put a big, stupid grin on Quentin Tarantino’s face. It’s been widely proclaimed that this was a big risk for Marvel Studios, and from the outset it’s easy to see why: among its main characters are a walking, talking tree and a gun-toting, anthropomorphic raccoon, its setting is a bunch of weird whatchamacallit, thingamabob alien planets somewhere, and it’s based on a nerd property hitherto known only to the most hardcore of basement dwellers. Hardly an easy sell for the average Jane or Joe Movie-Goer. Then again, halfway through watching director James Gunn’s action-crammed comic-book space opera, I did begin to wonder, how is a film this stupendously entertaining in any way a risk?

I mean, it’s weird: certainly the weirdest film in Marvel Studios' 6-year, 10-film history. And it’s the most “out there” project they’ve ever embarked upon: it does, after all, take place in the far reaches of the galaxy and it stars a bunch of funky looking extraterrestrials. But it’s *fun*. Like, really, really fun, with an infectious sense of excitement, humour and adventure akin to the original “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” trilogies. Our hero, Chris Pratt’s Peter Quill/Star Lord, is even introduced in his adult form as a sort of intergalactic Indiana Jones, shown thieving a mysterious spherical artifact from a ruined temple on a desolate alien terrain -- though it should be said, his roguish swagger and sarcastic tongue come straight from Han Solo. In the opening scene set in 1988, we watch as his younger self is plucked from Earth by a pirate spacecraft. 26 years later, he wanders the galaxy as a self-proclaimed legendary outlaw, stealing goods while his Walkman blares a mix-tape of ‘70s and ‘80s pop tunes.

He’s a misfit, and unashamedly so. And he’s just a flat-out fun character, with quips galore and Pratt nailing both the wise-ass routine and the action-man heroics. And yet, frequently the show is stolen from under his rocket-powered boots by his fellow Guardians, who are brought together in a high-security prison following a very public tussle. They’re your typical ragtag team of misfits, though to call this bunch typical would be to do them a great disservice. There’s Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista), a vengeance-seeking, muscle-bound maniac oblivious to his own social ineptness. His species take everything literally -- fling a halfhearted metaphorical quip at him and risk getting your spine ripped out. There’s slick, green-skinned assassin Gamora (Zoe Saldana), who betrays the bloodthirsty radical Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) when his thirst for power becomes too much. There’s Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), a genetically engineered, wise-cracking raccoon with an undying love of explosions and gun violence. And then there’s Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), a humanoid tree whose vocabulary consists solely of three words: “I,” “am,” and “Groot,” and in that exact order. Anyone not especially into the film’s comic book shenanigans is bound to have their hearts won over by this walking, talking houseplant: he’s equal points adorably sweet and unstoppably deadly -- he’ll slaughter an army of badguys then turn around and flash you the goofiest, most lovable grin you’ve ever seen.

They join forces to defeat Ronan, who seeks the mysterious artifact stolen by Quill. See, that artifact, it turns out, contains an all-powerful orb called an Infinity Stone, which Ronan plans to use in a quest for vengeance against an entire populace. As an embodiment of heartless, power-hungry malevolence, Ronan works well; as a fully rounded character, he’s a little lacking, and Pace doesn’t quite have the gravitas to pull of such an underwritten character. Karen Gillan fares better as Nebula, the blue, mechanical equivalent to Gamora’s green assassin. Not just Ronan’s right-hand robot mercenary, she’s also Gamora’s jealous sister, and Gillan plays her with both sadistic glee and a deadly grace.

But it’s the Guardians who really shine here: they’re such an enjoyable collection of clashing personalities, and watching them butt heads and grow as a team is a real joy. Groot and Drax in particular are a joy: Bautista, a former pro wrestler with little acting experience, makes for a great comic relief, completely oblivious to his frequent insensitive remarks and social misunderstandings; and as he did as The Iron Giant, Diesel proves himself to have a knack for saying so much while saying so little. Gunn, meanwhile, infuses the film with style, energy and a nutty gusto, and handles the hectic outer space spectacle like a pro. The highlight, I would say, is the prison escape sequence, a stand-out set-piece full of thrills, laughs and gorgeous visual effects in a film absolutely bursting at the seams with all three of those. For sheer, unadulterated fun, the film gives “The Avengers” a run for its billion-dollar box office sum. “The Guardians of the Galaxy will return,” is displayed across the screen before the end credits roll. I for one await their return with eager anticipation.

Rating: 9/10

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - Review

Director: Matt Reeves Writers: Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver Studios: 20th Century Fox, Chermin Entertainment Cast: Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Keri Russell, Toby Kebbell, Kodi Smit-McPhee Release Date (UK): 18 July, 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 131 min 

If “Transformers 4” is a big, dumb gorilla flinging its feces at the audience, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is a hyper-intelligent chimp treating the audience with the respect they deserve. The superior being, it’s what all summer blockbusters aspire to be, or at least should be aspiring to be: a rollercoaster ride not just in action but also in drama and emotion, all three of which director Matt Reeves knocks out of the stadium. Recognising that spectacle without heart or purpose is empty and meaningless, he gives “Dawn” a real emotional weight and a robust narrative pushed along by its characters and their clashing ideals. The result is an all too rare breed: an emotionally charged summer blockbuster whose dazzling spectacle has meaning and purpose, and consequently, real, juicy meat on its computer-generated bones.

On top of all that, the eighth film in the 46-year sci-fi franchise is quite simply a rock-solid piece of old-fashioned storytelling. At the conclusion of the previous “Apes” movie, Rupert Wyatt’s surprisingly terrific prequel/reboot “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” genetically engineered super-chimp Caesar led an ape rebellion against mankind as a deadly man-made virus began its spread across the globe. Now that virus has wiped out most of human civilisation, and Caesar and his apes live in peace away from the few remaining humans. That is, until a chance meeting between human and ape ends violently, sparking a conflict between Caesar’s colony and the humans who survive in a ruined San Francisco.

For the film’s opening 10-15 minutes, we’re with the apes. We watch them as they hunt for food in the woods, look out for each other’s safety, teach their young how to read and write, and bond with their families. This bold, gripping and surprisingly touching opening is like its own little silent film, with the apes communicating not through speech but through sign language, as well as the occasional huffs and grunts. Providing us with an intimate look at their daily activities, it allows us to understand the apes’ way of life and form a strong emotional connection to them. In particular, we form a connection to Caesar and his family: his son Blue Eyes, basically your average stroppy teenager but hairier, we see is still young and learning, and his wife Cornelia we witness giving birth to her and Caesar’s new son. Through their affection and strong sense of family and community, we see that the apes are just like us, if not better -- though common sense tells us these are complex creatures, and this peaceful bliss cannot last forever.

In “Rise,” Caesar shared the lead role with James Franco’s human scientist Dr. Will Rodman; in “Dawn,” he shares it, albeit to a lesser extent, with Jason Clarke’s Malcolm, a human survivor living in San Fran with his new wife Ellie (Keri Russell) and step-son Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee). With the human community in need of power, and the only power available requiring the cooperation of the apes, Malcolm bravely enters the ape community to ask for their cooperation. As he and his family stay in the woods and live among the apes, the apes’ initial distrust begins to fade, as ape and human bond like family unseparated by fear, hatred and species. However, Malcolm and his family are joined by one rather nasty human whose hatred of the ape community prevails and soon causes trouble. Here, Reeves shows that the ape vs. human conflict is not simply a battle between good and evil, with the apes good and the humans evil, but one between differing ideals on both sides -- and it’s this complexity which makes it so compelling to watch. In any community, be it ape or human, there’s good, evil and everything in between, something Caesar realises all too late.

Caesar is once again performed by mo-cap whiz Andy Serkis, whose every expression and emotion bursts through the digital effects like they were merely make-up. These effects are so convincing one often feels like one is watching a living, breathing creature -- this is thanks, of course, not just to Serkis’ commanding performance, but also to the painstaking work of the animators at Weta; the sheer level of detail that goes into creating these photorealistic apes is incredible and the results are truly breathtaking. Motion-captured alongside Serkis is Toby Kebbell as Koba, a bonobo chimp whose man-inflicted scars have left him with nothing but burning contempt for the human race. Koba is a frightening beast, his brutish aggression matched with a cunning mind and a thirst for vengeance against mankind.

It’s he whose deception really kicks off the battle between the apes and the humans: unhappy with Caesar’s increasing tolerance and trust of the humans, he takes matters into his own stinking paws. And thus begins an explosively spectacular climax in which we absolutely care about the characters and feel the stakes of the action. Emotionally, we’re fully involved because crucially, the drama at the centre of it all is absolutely working. As a result, this action-packed finale is seriously intense and utterly exhilarating, which ought to be something of a relief for anyone who sat through “Transformers 4.”

If there’s a criticism to be made against the film, it’s that the plot follows a mostly predictable path; most viewers could probably map out the individual story beats in advance with little difficulty. But Reeve’s patient telling of this story is so gripping and involving that knowing what’s inevitably coming doesn’t weaken its impact or raw emotional power. Blockbuster movie-makers would do good to look at how Reeves has made this movie: here’s a blockbuster that’s smart, emotionally resonant and balances spectacle with story in a way that’s both thrilling and utterly compelling. In a year of great blockbusters, with “Godzilla,” “Edge of Tomorrow,” “X-Men: Days of Future Past” and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” all proving more than worth the price of admission, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is one to really get you pounding your chest in excitement.

Rating: 9/10

Transformers: Age of Extinction - Review

Director: Michael Bay Writer: Ehren Kruger Studios: Paramount Pictures, di Bonaventura Pictures, Hasbro, China Movie Channel, Jiaflix Enterprises Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Nicola Peltz, Kelsey Grammer, Jack Reynor, Sophia Myles Release Date (UK): 4 July, 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 165 min

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if audience members emerge from “Transformers: Age of Extinction” like Kyle Reese emerging from the electric time-travel ball at the beginning of “The Terminator,” all sweaty and exhausted and writhing in pain, and asking startled passers by what year it is. This is entertainment in the same sense that getting a prostitute to stomp on your testicles with the heel of her stiletto is a sex act: technically it is, but surely there are other methods of physical pleasure out there that result in far less ball-aching agony.

Lasting a baffling 165 minutes, “Age of Extinction” is the longest of Michael Bay’s “Transformers” films and it absolutely feels like it. Rumours that the franchise had finally hired an editor have been greatly exaggerated: there’s at the very least a whole collective hour that very cleary should not be in here. Rumours that the franchise was getting a fresh new reboot are also of the greatly exaggerated variety: though there is indeed an all-new cast led by Marky Mark Wahlberg, Mr. Bay is just up to his old tricks again: that is to say, the plot is complete gibberish, the storytelling is almost entirely incomprehensible, the pace is akin to that of a glacier, and the product placement is insane, so much so that the film basically amounts to the world’s longest Bud Light commercial. Oh, and if you’re able to tell the good robots apart from the bad robots, you should probably look into joining the X-Men: your radioactive super-sight might come in handy.

What’s new? Well, there’s the Dinobots, which have been widely showcased in all the trailers and TV spots. But if you go into “Transformers 4” all pumped up for some Dinobot action, I’ve got some bad news for you: you’re gonna have to wait over 2 hours and 10 minutes for a single Dinobot to turn up. No, I’m not fucking kidding. Then there’s Stanley Tucci, who does good as a smarmy bad’un trying to build his own Transformers for inevitably incoherent reasons -- as is always the case with Tucci, his performance is the most entertaining thing in the film. As for Wahlberg, he’s given little to do outside of cracking witless one-liners, smoldering in front of sunsets, chugging back those Bud Lights, and worrying about the safety of his daughter. Which he probably should be, ‘cos surprise surprise, Bay’s still filming his female characters like glamour models at a worryingly leery photo shoot. Nicola Peltz, playing Wahlberg’s 17-year-old daughter, is treated as nothing but barely concealed cleavage bouncing up and down atop a hot pair of sunlit legs. Her introduction is literally an upskirt shot as she exits a car. Again, I’m not fucking kidding.

Then again, Bay shoots *everything* like glamour models at a worryingly leery photo shoot. His pornographic visual sensibility extends not just to tussling Transformers but to every object on-screen. I’m sure if you were to turn the camera on him during any given scene, you’d see him grinding up against a couch or a lamppost. This guy shouldn’t be directing movies; he should be directing porn, ‘cos everything to him is a money shot. And while yes, some of those shots sure do look pretty, giving a damn about any of it is an impossibility -- when everything is a money shot, nothing is at stake (well, except maybe your sanity).

And that’s all this is: just 165 pulverising minutes of relentless, showboating shots of exploding, nonsensical junk. About halfway through, you’ll look at your watch and discover to your horror that there’s another 90 minutes to go and your jaw will drop and your heart will sink and you’ll finally realise, if you haven’t realised it already, that Michael Bay fucking hates you -- cos “Transformers 4” is almost three hours long and he knows you’ll sit through every damn minute and you’ll go see “Transformers 5” when it comes out in two years. He’s even said as such: “I don’t care, let them hate: they’re still going to see the movie!” he was quoted as saying in a recent MTV interview. And we will: like a battered wife, we keep going back. But I say this: let’s not go back. Let’s stand up against this vacuous franchise and refuse to buy a ticket for “Transformers 5.” Let’s march on the streets and shout, “No, Michael Bay! Not this time!” Let’s say enough is enough, and that we will not stand for anym-- ooh, Optimus Prime riding *two* Dinobots at the same time?! “Transformers 5” *might* be fun...

Rating: 3/10

Edge of Tomorrow - Review

Director: Doug Liman Writers: Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures Cast: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson Release Date (UK): May 30, 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 113min

“Edge of Tomorrow” might just be the greatest video game movie ever made. Only, it’s not actually based on a video game, thank God -- in actual fact, it’s based on a novel, 2004’s “All You Need is Kill,” penned by Japanese writer Hiroshi Sakurazaka. What I mean is, it’s a film which takes on the structure of a video game, thanks to a premise which has Tom Cruise respawning over and over again like a video game character against the war-torn backdrop of an alien invasion. Cruise plays William Cage, a cowardly army major and PR specialist who to his horror is thrust into the battlefield when Earth is invaded by militarised extraterrestrial beasties. Killed by the enemy, he awakens the previous day, finding himself stuck in a time-loop where he must fight the exact same battle day after day until the battle is won.

The moment Cage wakes up is essentially the film’s checkpoint: each time he dies, he respawns before the battle begins, given another chance to win the war and effectively beat the game. And each time he goes into battle, he’s given a chance to improve, to work out a new and more effective strategy: he memorises every detail and plans out every step, much like a player would on an especially tough level. There’s even a tutorial stage, as Cruise is trained by Emily Blunt’s iron-tough Special Forces Sergeant Rita Vrataski in a room full of spinning metal claws. It’s all very video gamey. Of course, that’s a term oft considered an insult in this medium: you call a film video gamey, chances are you ain’t giving it five stars. And yet in the case of “Edge of Tomorrow,” a film which operates under the rules of a video game, it’s a full endorsement. And unlike every movie based on a video game I’ve seen in the past, I felt like I was involved in the action and the drama rather than watching someone else play a game while waiting to be handed the controls. For Doug Liman’s film manages to do what no movie based on a video game has ever done before: it’s engaging, it's involving and it's (*gasp*) fun.

Of course, with the idea being that the film repeats itself over and over again, it runs the risk of becoming monotonous -- but thanks to brisk editing, genuinely funny levity and the always developing relationship between Cruise and Blunt, the action never grows tiresome (in fact, it remains hugely enjoyable right through to the high-stakes Louvre-crashing finale). And Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth’s script successfully taps into Cage’s mentality: it understands that reliving the same day and over and over again and dying at the end of it would exhaust, frustrate and dishearten, especially when you have to watch a person you’ve grown to care for, i.e. Blunt’s character, die time and time again. Blunt, by the way, is terrific, holding her own against Cruise’s movie star mojo; with this, ”The Adjustment Bureau,” “Looper” and the upcoming “Into the Woods,” she’s establishing herself as the next big star of sci-fi/fantasy cinema.

I wasn’t a fan of Cruise’s previous sci-fi vehicle, 2013’s “Oblivion.” I felt it was too derivative of other, better sci-fi movies and struggled to find an identity of its own. “Edge of Tomorrow” is also derivative, taking its central time-loop concept from “Groundhog Day” and “Source Code.” But it takes that concept, makes it its own, has fun with it and allows us to have fun with it too. In a year of strong popcorn movies, “Edge of Tomorrow” is one of the best, offering pretty much everything you could ask of a summer blockbuster: heart, thrills, laughs, spectacle, an engaging story and Tom Cruise battling alien scum. My only disappointment: it’s a video game movie co-starring Bill Paxton and yet at no point does he utter his immortal line from “Aliens:” “Game over, man! Game over!”

Rating: 8/10

X-Men: Days of Future Past - Review

Director: Bryan Singer Writer: Simon Kinberg Studios: 20th Century Fox, Marvel Entertainment, Bad Hat Harry Productions, The Donners’ Company Cast: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Peter Dinklage, Ellen Page, Nicholas Hoult Release Date (UK): May 22, 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 131 min

14 years after effectively jump-starting the ongoing superhero boom, and 11 years after giving the “X-Men” franchise its best entry with the pitch-perfect “X2,” director Bryan Singer returns to his world of super-powered mutants with “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” and in doing so, breathes new, ambitious life into the franchise’s lungs. As if the series’ scope wasn’t wide enough, Singer widens it even further, presenting us with a dark and bleak vision of the future: a nightmare world where surviving mutant rebels are exterminated like vermin by terrifying robot hunters called Sentinels -- not only does this lend the film an epic scale, it also gives it a really neat sci-fi edge, with unstoppable killer cyborgs and a grimly scary dystopia straight out of James Cameron’s “Terminator” movies. But this dystopia is not the film’s main setting, because also like in “The Terminator,” there’s a time travel plot, as Hugh Jackman’s older Wolverine, now sporting silver streaks which jut out from his temples like the claws from his knuckles, is sent back to his younger body of 1973: united with the characters from “X-Men: First Class,” Wolverine leads a mission to change the course of history and put an end to the genocidal war on mutants before it even begins.

The groovily fashioned ‘70s setting essentially makes “Days of Future Past” a continuation of Matthew Vaughn’s stylish, ‘60s-set prequel “X-Men: First Class,” continuing the stories of the young mind-reader Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), metal manipulator Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) and shapeshifter Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence). Worries that Wolverine was once again hogging the spotlight (exacerbated by the fact that in the comic book source material it’s Ellen Page’s Kitty Pryde who goes back in time, not ol’ metal claws) are proven to be of the knee-jerk variety: the film is absolutely an ensemble piece, with Xavier, Erik and Mystique (once again all played to utter perfection by McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence) as the main players, and Wolverine, along with Nicholas Hoult’s blue furred Beast, sort of tagging along for the ride. Oh, and not forgetting Evan Peters’ super-speedy teen Quicksilver, whose jail-break set-piece, where he effortlessly springs Magneto from a maximum-security prison, is a dazzling and funny highlight -- I guess first appearances aren’t everything.

As he did in his first two “X-Men” movies, Singer does a terrific job in balancing out the spectacular, energetic action with resonant character development: McAvoy’s arc is particularly moving, as a troubled Xavier must learn to give up the use of his legs and regain his telepathic powers, both for his own good and the good of mutantkind. All the while Singer gracefully keeps the film from feeling crushed under the sheer weight of its ambitious scale and overload of mutant characters: despite the epic scale, Singer keeps the spectacle firmly grounded in the emotions of his protagonists. The end result is both a hugely enjoyable summer blockbuster and a thoroughly satisfying franchise entry, impressively topping the excellent “First Class,” if not quite knocking “X2” off its almighty perch. Of course, attempting to work out all the ins and outs of the intricate time travel plot will surely turn your brain to scrambled eggs, but one thing’s for sure: it rather brilliantly renders the franchise’s more rubbish entries, i.e. “X-Men: The Last Stand” and “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” entirely null and void. For that we can be eternally grateful.

Rating: 8/10

Divergent - Review

Director: Neil Burger Writers: Evan Daugherty, Vanessa Taylor Studios: Summit Entertainment, Lionsgate, Red Wagon Entertainment Cast: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Ashley Judd, Jai Courtney, Kate Winslet Release Date (UK): 4 April 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 139 min

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: in a future dystopia ruled by a twisted totalitarian government, one resilient teenage girl finds herself plunged into life-threatening danger; with the odds stacked against her, she soon becomes a symbol of resistance and bravely rises up against society’s cruel oppressors. For a film which so fervently promotes individualism over conformism, and for a film called flippin' “Divergent,” it's ironic how slavishly — and hypocritically — Neil Burger's teen-oriented sci-fi blockbuster complies with proven Hollywood formula. The latest in a long line of big-screen YA adaptations, “Divergent” is, let's be honest, filling the gap between the previous and upcoming “Hunger Games” movies, which would be fine if Burger had given the film a voice all for itself — as he hasn't, it comes across as little more than a cheapo clone of the Suzanne Collins-adapted movie series.

The premise is solid enough, derivative though it may be: in a world where society is divided into five distinct “factions,” Shailene Woodley’s 16-year-old heroine Beatrice Prior discovers that she’s a Divergent, fitting into no specific category and thus a threat to the powers that be. Trouble is, the execution is so blandly generic that differentiating it from the rest of the YA crowd proves a difficult task; stick this next to “The Host,” “Twilight,” “The Mortal Instruments” or any other film of that ilk and you’ll go cross-eyed. The gifted Woodley tries her darndest, adding a little personality to the largely lifeless mix, but it’s a losing battle; this is “The Hunger Games” lite and at no point is it as exciting, gripping or interesting as that series has proven to be. Do yourself a favour: “Catching Fire” recently came out on DVD and Blu-ray; watch that instead and see how it’s really done.

Rating: 4/10

RoboCop - Review

Director: José Padilha Writer: Joshua Zetumer Studios: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Columbia Pictures, Strike Entertainment Cast: Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, Samuel L. Jackson, Abbie Cornish, Jackie Earle Haley Release Date (UK): 7 February 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 118 min

It would be far too easy for me to loudly declare that José Padilha’s shiny new “RoboCop” update is nowhere near as good as the original “RoboCop” from 1987 and then be done with it; to condemn it for lacking the smarts, the charm, the razor-sharp wit and the juicy satire of the Paul Verhoeven classic and then simply walk away. It would also be too easy to complain about the film’s much-derided PG-13 rating, which stands in bold opposition to the original’s hard-R certification; while Verhoeven’s gutter-tongued, ultraviolent sci-fi was splattered in guts and gore, Padilha’s remake takes a far more family-friendly approach; I counted a single puddle of blood and the one use of the F word — or, to be more precise, the MF word — is bleeped out.

It doesn’t take a neuro-engineer’s degree to see why hardcore fans of the Verhoeven version are pissed off — this is their favourite late-’80s blast-em-up, neutered and lobotomised for the young teen demographic. But to me, tearing down this reinvented “RoboCop” for being too tame and studio-manufactured seems a little too dismissive and knee-jerky. Because if you wipe your memory of the original film and meet this on its own terms — difficult, admittedly, considering the amount of cribbed lines and design choices (Jackie Earle Haley actually says, “I wouldn't buy that for a dollar,” I'm not kidding) — and this “RoboCop” reboot is, believe it or not, perfectly serviceable popcorn sci-fi. Now, that's certainly not what the original “RoboCop” was — it was far more daring and profound, and still is — but take this for what it is and you have a solid enough hi-tech blockbuster boasting a few scoopfuls of brain matter, plenty of style and surprising heart, if precious little blood splatter.

Besides, Padilha does manage to set his film apart from Verhoeven’s, to a certain degree. The bare bones of the plot are basically the same: in 2028 Detroit, straight-arrow police detective Alex Murphy, now played by Joel Kinnaman of the US “The Killing,” is critically injured by violent crooks. Facing death’s door, he’s taken in by robotics mega-corporation OmniCorp and reborn as the cyborg RoboCop, the future of law enforcement. What’s different is how RoboCop develops throughout the course of the story. In Verhoeven’s version, RoboCop starts off as a machine thoughtlessly following its prime directives before slowly but surely regaining its humanity. In the Padilha version it’s a little more complicated: RoboCop starts off as Murphy, his memories and personality fully intact, is stripped of his emotions when he becomes unstable and then, to the bewilderment of his creators, begins to override his programming.

What this means is that Padilha’s film lacks the (brilliant) streamlined simplicity of Verhoeven’s film — lengthy scenes featuring a distraught Murphy coming to terms with his situation and undergoing combat training could do with some trimming — but does have more focus on Murphy as a person, albeit a horribly mangled person stuck inside a robo-suit. More time is also dedicated to Murphy’s family, who in Verhoeven’s film appeared only in brief flashbacks. Here, mother and son Clara (Abbie Cornish) and David (John Paul Ruttan) are often at the front and centre of the plot: though visited by Murphy soon after his transformation, Clara and David become increasingly concerned when OmniCorp refuse them access to him. Perhaps their boosted presence overstuffs the plot, but they do lend proceedings a certain dramatic heft and aid in our emotional connection to Murphy and indeed the film.

Of course, there's a ton of CGI action on display, which Padilha handles efficiently and which should satisfy the teenage crowd. And as any fan should know, no “RoboCop” remake would be complete without some biting satire, and Padilha’s film gives it a good chomp: there are clear stabs at American businesses, politics and the media, although they’re less a fatal plunge into the dark heart of America than a slap on the wrist. An opening scene featuring an armed military drone shooting a kid dead on the streets of Tehran fits neatly into the US’s ongoing drone controversy. And like in the original, there’s a clear anti-corruption stance: Michael Keaton gets to be deliciously slimy as Raymond Sellars, the crooked head of OmniCorp, and Gary Oldman is on fine form as the genius scientist who finds himself compromised by the soulless, PR-driven world of big business. Samuel L. Jackson, meanwhile, plays a ranting, uber-patriotic, one-sided media mogul who is in no way inspired by any ranting, uber-patriotic, one-sided media moguls associated with any real American news networks like, oh I dunno, Fox News. Ahem.

But what ultimately makes Padilha’s version a success, albeit a mild one, is not the political satire, nor the CGI action. It’s that in amongst its flashy visuals and overblown set-pieces it doesn’t lose sight of it and its predecessor’s central concern: that being the all-important question, is RoboCop a machine or is he a man? Padilha understands what made Peter Weller’s man-in-a-can really tick back in ’87, his internal conflict between his programming and his humanity, and has kept that largely intact. That’s not to say that Kinnaman’s RoboCop is as compelling as Weller’s — Kinnaman tries but struggles to set himself apart from Weller’s iconic performance — but it’s those slices of humanity that help keep this from being just another brainless, hollow remake. Padilha's “RoboCop” isn’t the original film, nor did it stand a chance of being it. But it's a relief that it's directed by someone who seems to have an understanding of what made the Verhoeven film work so well. And you have to face it: this is better than it had any right to be.

Rating: 6/10

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Review

Director: Francis Lawrence Writers: Simon Beaufoy, Michael deBruyn Studios: Lionsgate, Color Force Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland Release Date (UK): 21 November 2013 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 146 min

Like “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” before it, the first adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ dystopian “Hunger Games” book series had a heavy burden on its shoulders: the burden of having to set up its fantasy world and lay out its many rules. There was the wealthy and sickeningly opulent city of The Capitol, the twelve impoverished Districts whose citizens live in squalor down below, and the barbaric, Battle Royale-esque Hunger Games the Capitol uses to entertain itself and keep the dozen Districts in their place. Thankfully, also like “A New Hope,” Gary Ross’ YA sci-fi thriller managed to be a very good and very engaging movie as it carefully assembled its universe, flaunting exhilarating thrills, a gripping adventure and a courageous teen warrior in Jennifer Lawrence’s Katniss Everdeen.

But now that all that pesky brick-laying is out of the way, and now we know where we are in the future world of Panem, it’s time to delve deeper into the characters’ journey, introduce some twists and turns and really tell a full-blooded story free from the necessary world-building. As such, you can consider follow-up “Catching Fire” the “Empire Strikes Back” (or “The Capitol Strikes Back”) of the “Hunger Games” saga: a superior, more confident sequel to an already terrific movie which cranks up the emotional stakes and journeys further into the dark side.

Indeed, one of the reasons “Catching Fire” tops its predecessor is that its depiction of its totalitarian society is considerably darker and more brutal than last time round. In the first “Hunger Games,” the powers that be at the Capitol enforced their dominance by randomly selecting children from each district and dumping them inside an arena where they fought to the death until only one stood victorious. Now, fearing revolution, they’re plucking potential rebels from crowds and murdering them on-stage for all to see; in one of the film’s more harrowing scenes, a disobedient citizen is chained up in the street and has his bare back repeatedly lashed with a whip. Donald Sutherland’s cruel and conniving President Snow is not messing around: this is boldly brutish stuff for a tween-oriented popcorn flick, and it makes the Capitol all that more horrifyingly loathsome.

Sutherland’s increased screen-time also gives the Capitol’s oppressive evil more of a presence this time round; not just a faceless entity, it now has a prominent figure in President Snow, a sort of bearded, snowy-haired Emperor Palpatine, if you will. No longer lurking in the background, he’s front and centre, and he is bone-chilling. And there’s not just him: there’s also Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Plutarch Heavensbee (so immersive is the film that we don’t bat an eyelid when his name is first stated), the deviously charismatic new game maker. His conversations with President Snow in which they scheme their oppressive deeds are deliciously dark and carry surprising insight into how fascistic governments control their citizens through careful, calculated manipulation. All this from a tentpole blockbuster.

Yet in spite of their wickedest of efforts, the smell of revolution still hangs heavy in the air, thanks to the flaming symbol of hope that is Katniss Everdeen, the much-loved “girl on fire.” Last time we saw Katniss, she’d just survived and essentially defeated the 74th Hunger Games with fellow District 12 tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), and President Snow isn’t vey happy with her: he’s adamant that she be killed and that her symbol of hope be stamped out, and fast. Katniss meanwhile has been undergoing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder following the bloodbath in the arena, making her the second blockbuster hero this year to suffer from PTSD, after Tony Stark in “Iron Man 3.” Which begs the question: are movie heroes becoming more human and vulnerable, or is PTSD just the next big movie trend?

Katniss’ nightmares look set to continue as President Snow announces that for the 75th Hunger Games, victors from previous years will be competing against each other; in other words, Katniss and Peeta are to be plunged back into the arena once again and do battle with experienced killers. Here, the film runs the risk of repeating what has come before, but director Francis Lawrence (“I Am Legend”) keeps up the suspense and has a few exciting tricks up his sleeve — there’s one particularly alluring moment where a mysterious cloud of smoke descends silently through the dark of the woods like a killer in the night, revealed to be poisonous mist when Katniss curiously reaches out her hand and her skin begins to bubble and boil.

And of course it’s all guided along gloriously by Jennifer Lawrence, as is the rest of the movie and as was the first movie. Arguably the most gifted young actress working today (actually, after “Winter’s Bone,” “Silver Linings Playbook” and now this, that might be inarguable), Lawrence burns bright, her Katniss probably the best screen heroine since Ellen Ripley did battle with the Xenomorph in Ridley Scott’s “Alien.” Not just brave, intelligent and resourceful, she’s also identifiably human and endearingly reluctant in her feats of heroism; she never asked nor wanted to be a rebel fighter, but when the time comes to fight she’s a born survivor. All the while Lawrence brings to Katniss a strong, rock-solid screen presence, the kind Kristen Stewart — for all her moping and lip-chewing — could only dream of (sorry, Bella!).

I think I know why “The Hunger Games” clicks with me so much: partly it's because unlike “The Mortal Instruments” and “The Host” it’s absolutely 100% convincing in its world-building, partly it's because it has an abiding affection for and a firm belief in its central characters, but mostly I think it’s because Katniss is such a compelling character, and as wonderfully played by Lawrence, she’s a hero you can really root for. Before seeing the film, I’d heard that Collins’ book, unread by me, was disliked by many fans and that its transition to the screen would prove problematic. If that really is the case, then this might just be that rare occasion where a film adaptation outdoes its source material: this is a powerful piece of storytelling, delivering a multitude of shocks and thrills as it darkly depicts the monstrousness of totalitarianism, all while operating under the guise of popcorn escapism. Roll on “Mockingjay,” which, as is tradition, has been split into two separately released parts — like a squealing fanboy, I’m eagerly awaiting both.

Rating: 9/10

Ender's Game - Review

Director: Gavin Hood Writer: Gavin Hood Studios: Summit Entertainment, Lionsgate, Chartoff Productions, Taleswapper, OddLot Entertainment, K/O Paper Products, Digital Domain Cast: Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley, Viola Davis, Hailee Steinfeld, Abigail Breslin Release Date (UK): October 25 2013 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 114 min

“Ender’s Game,” based on the ‘80s bestseller by Orson Scott Card, is a YA adaptation that’s ballsy enough to tackle dark, complex themes such as the moralities of war, the values of pacifism and the dehumanisation of simulated violence, all the while providing the expected sci-fi spectacle and dazzling special effects. Think of it as “Starship Troopers" for kids: written and directed by Gavin Hood (who previously directed “Tsotsi” and “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” but let’s focus on “Tsotsi”), it imagines a future world under threat of invasion from a bug-like alien race known as the Formics. Asa Butterfield, a talented British up-and-comer, plays Ender Wiggin, a preteen brainbox chosen for a military program in which the world’s smartest children are trained in preparation for war with the Formics.

Blasted into space, Ender is sent to Battle School, where he is tasked with taking part in a competitive, zero-gravity game with his fellow recruits (it’s basically Quidditch with laser guns) and running hi-tech simulations in which he must scheme to defeat the alien menace. All the while, he’s watched over by Harrison Ford’s grizzled Colonel Graff, who sees hope in Ender and has a few tricks up his sleeve to test his extraordinary tactical skills. Along the way, we’re treated with pleasing visual effects, a terrific leading performance from Butterfield and the remarkable sight of Sir Ben Kingsley with full-on face tats.

“Ender’s Game” is never as exciting or suspenseful as it could be, but it is interesting and surprisingly thoughtful, certainly more so than is expected of this sort of teen-oriented, special effects blockbuster. In a year in which we got “The Mortal Instruments” and “The Host,” this is refreshingly mature and intelligent, boasting big ideas and following most of them through. If Lionsgate and Summit Entertainment are looking to kickstart their next big franchise, this is a solid start, though as I’m unfamiliar with Card’s book series, I’m curious as to where the story will go from here.

Rating: 7/10

Thor: The Dark World - Review

Director: Alan Taylor Writers: Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely Studios: Marvel Studios, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Idris Elba, Christopher Ecclestone Release Date (UK): 30 October 2013 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 112 min

I think it’s fair to say that phase two of Marvel’s cinematic universe of superheroes got off to a pretty triumphant start with “Iron Man 3:” spectacular, funny and exhilarating, it bettered its two predecessors, deservedly bagged over a billion dollars worldwide and in terms of pure, popcorn entertainment value, damn near gave “The Avengers” a run for its money (and given that film’s box office takings, that’s a lotta dough). Now phase two continues with “Thor: The Dark World,” the second solo outing for Chris Hemsworth’s hunky, hammer-flinging god of thunder, and while it’s not the runaway success that was Mr. Tony Stark’s third solo adventure, it contains enough fantasy action, winning humour and big, meaty surprises to help keep Marvel geeks thoroughly happy (or should that be thor-oughly happy? No, no it shouldn’t).

What’s immediately clear is that Marvel have upped the scale for this second trip through the now-repaired Bifröst portal: the opulent realm of Asgard has been greatly expanded upon, with actual civilians wandering about and the grand kingdom looking much fuller and more grandiose than last time round; we get to see more of the oft-mentioned Nine Realms, with an early visit to Vanaheim as Thor battles marauders and later a trip to the deserted (and seemingly unpronounceable) Svartalfheim, where the Dark Elves and their Kursed warriors roam; meanwhile, down on Earth, we’re treated not with the first film’s small, dusty town of Nowhere, New Mexico, but with the city of London, chock-full of recognisable monuments all ripe for destruction.

There’s more action too, which “Game of Thrones” helmer Alan Taylor handles efficiently and thankfully without “Thor” director Kenneth Branagh’s overuse of Dutch tilts, which proved nauseating in 3D. The special effects set pieces are noticeably bigger: a full-on aerial assault on Asgard by the Dark Elves is an early example, massive in scale, ridiculously overblown and allowing for Idris Elba’s gatekeeper Heimdall to kick some serious elf butt.

Even the story’s more epic, focusing not on close-knit, Shakespearian family drama but on an imminent, universe-wide apocalypse. In an exposition-heavy prologue, we are introduced to Christopher Eccleston’s vengeful Dark Elf ruler Malekith, who seeks the Aether, a weapon with the ability to turn matter into dark matter and the power to plunge our universe into infinite darkness. Unfortunately for Thor’s Earthling squeeze Jane Foster (Natalie Portman, given a bigger role here), the Aether has attached itself to her body, and Malekith and his army have come to take it back. Eccleston, unrecognisable under heavy elf make-up, gives it his all, but unfortunately his villain rings a little hollow; in spite of his deep, commanding voice, his unsightly facial features and proclamations that he is a creature of pure evil, he’s a largely unintimidating villain, too one-dimensional, posing no physical threat and wielding murky motivations.

He’s a far cry from Tom Hiddleston’s grinning, deviously wicked Loki, who here has been condemned to an eternity of imprisonment in the dungeons of Asgard for his crimes on Earth — namely trying to take over our puny planet in the climax of “The Avengers.” When Thor needs help to escape a ruined Asgard, he calls on Loki, who is more than willing to oblige. As in Branagh’s first movie, it’s the love-hate dynamic between Thor and Loki that proves this sequel’s most valuable asset, here shaken up as the two brothers work side-by-side rather than battling toe-to-toe. It’s funny: Marvel spend so much time trying to make this bigger and more epic than the first film and what it all comes down to is the same exact thing — the troubled relationship between Thor and his little adoptive brother Loki. And as always, Hiddleston’s stealing the show.

Of course, everything comes to a head in a grand, action-packed climax in which poor Greenwich gets bashed to bits and in which Thor, rather hilariously, takes a ride on the London Underground. Full of invisible, intergalactic wormholes and featuring a giant invading spaceship, it’s a spectacular, apocalyptic and surprisingly funny finale that’s just about exciting enough to make you forget about some of the film’s weaker elements — i.e. plot contrivances, the empty villain and a throwaway “end of the world” plot. Still, in its better moments, “Thor: The Dark World” is fantastic fun sure to satisfy its fanbase, and I’ll happily admit that during a certain cameo from a certain someone (I won’t say who) I *might* have squeed a little — when you see it, you’ll know. As always, stay through the end credits for a couple of neat stingers, including (spoiler alert!) a cool little tease for James Gunn’s upcoming Marvel outing “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Squee!

Rating: 7/10

Gravity - Review

Director: Alfonso Cuarón Writers: Alfonso Cuarón, Jonás Cuarón Studios: Warner Bros. Pictures, Esperanto Filmoj, Heyday Films Cast: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney Release Date (UK): 7 November 2013 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 91 min

Right, first thing’s first, let’s get the inevitable space-based puns out of the way: “Gravity,” a new thriller about a pair of astronauts trapped in space after a routine shuttle mission goes disastrously awry, is out of this world. A stellar expedition, it will pull you in, it will take your breath away, it will have you moonwalking out of the auditorium with astronomical glee and yes, it will send you hurtling, starry-eyed, over the moon.

Phew. Now that I’ve got that out of my system, let me tell you, dear reader, about this extraordinary new movie from “Children of Men” and “Prisoner of Azkaban” director Alfonso Cuarón. “Gravity” is, in a word, amazing: truly and utterly amazing in its ability to wow an audience, to grip them with a simple but uniquely terrifying story and to stun them into complete silence. Set in outer space for almost the entirety of its runtime and utterly convincing in its zero-gravity physics, it’s a staggering feat not just in visual effects but also in blockbuster movie-making. I spent much of it with my jaw at my ankles and the rest with my brain exploding out of my ears. Those puns weren’t lying: “Gravity” is a blast and a half — and then some.

The viscerality of this thing is incredible: here we are, stranded in the black, unending vastness of space with Sandra Bullock’s inexperienced mission specialist Dr. Ryan Stone and George Clooney’s long-serving astronaut Matt Kowalski. With crystal clarity, we can hear every word they speak and every gasp for breath they take inside the helmets of their NASA space suits, heightened by the eerie absence of external noise: scientifically accurate, “Gravity” stays true to the reality that in space, there is no sound (and where, as the poster for “Alien” famously remarked, no one can hear you scream). Doing most of the gasping is Bullock, a rookie on her first outer space mission who is guided along by Clooney’s calm and collected veteran when things take a terrifying turn for the worst: debris strikes and destroys their shuttle, leaving them adrift over 370 miles above the Earth’s surface.

Tethered together by a cord which, in one bravura sequence of many, ends up snapping in two, and communicating through their in-helmet headsets, Bullock and Clooney must fight for survival in this boundless, zero-gravity environment if they are to ever get back down to Earth. Both share a warm dynamic — officially the coolest man in space, Clooney calms Bullock's panicking Dr. Stone with humour and casual conversation, keeping her mind distracted and at ease — but really, this is Bullock’s story: we are by her side for damn near the film’s whole length, her increasing confidence gives the film its heart and the inspired rebirth parables (as sparked by the beautiful, striking sight of a floating Bullock curling up into the foetal position) revolve around her. It is to Bullock’s credit that even with little character information we are absolutely with her every step of the way — she’s an endearing screen presence and her frightened, heartfelt performance is one of the best of the year.

However, quite frankly, “Gravity” absolutely belongs to Cuarón. Known for his love of ambitious single shots — the unblinking 7-minute battlefield set-piece in his dystopian masterpiece “Children of Men” still wows seven years later — the visionary Mexican filmmaker takes himself to the limit here, and pushes himself beyond. With sublime elegance, his camera hurtles between debris, whirls around the floating destruction and seamlessly moves in and out of Bullock’s helmet with not one visible cut in sequences that must last, ooh, I actually lost track. To say that the film is a technical marvel would be putting it lightly — over 48 hours since it ended, I’m still doing this:

Other technical triumphs come from Steven Price’s unnerving score, the astonishing visual effects and Emmanuel Lubezki’s luscious, spellbinding cinematography — as Clooney’s character remarks, you can’t beat that view. The film is presented in 3D, which is perhaps unnecessary, but like in “Avatar” and “Life of Pi,” it does add an extra oomph of immersion — I’ll admit that, like a child, I flinched when debris was flung towards the camera lens. Regardless of the format, “Gravity" is an incredible, unmissable experience which may single-handedly rejuvenate your faith in the power of cinema: its power to amaze, to dazzle and to conjure an overwhelming sense of pure, childlike wonder. Go see “Gravity:” see it on the big screen, see it in IMAX, see it in 3D or see it in 2D — just go see it and bask in its breathtaking, eye-popping awesomeness. Trust me on this: you won’t regret the trip.

Rating: 10/10

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 - Review

Directors: Cody Cameron, Kris Pearn Studios: Sony Pictures Animation, Columbia Pictures Cast: Bill Hader, Anna Faris, James Caan, Andy Samberg, Neil Patrick Harris, Benjamin Bratt, Terry Crews, Will Forte, Kristen Schaal Release Date (UK): 25 October 2013 Certificate: U Runtime: 95 min

Sony Pictures Animation sequelise their delightfully creative 2009 computer-animated sci-fi comedy hit about a young, spirited inventor who creates a machine that makes food pour from the sky. The talented voice cast, including Bill Hader and Anna Faris, return as the leftover edibles from Flint’s machine spring to life and take over the evacuated island of Swallow Falls. Alerted by Will Forte’s world-famous tech genius Chester V, Flint and his ragtag group of friends travel to Swallow Falls to stop the monstrous “foodimals” before they make their way to the mainland and take over the world — but are the foodimals really as ferocious as they seem, and is the devious-looking Chester telling the whole truth?

Replacing original directing duo Phil Lord and Chris Miller, Cody Cameron and Kris Pearn have a ton of pun-tastic fun in cooking up the hordes of living foodstuffs: shrimpanzees swing between the trees and jellyfish sandwiches swim in the sea while our cartoon heroes do battle with enormous, snarling cheese fighters (hamburger tarantulas with French fries for legs and sesame seeds for eyes). Returning supporting characters, specifically the machismo Officer Earl (Terry Crews) and Flint’s fishing enthusiast dad (James Caan), remain a delight, while Forte’s new villain — think of him as a maniacal, floppy-limbed Steve Jobs — is wickedly funny. Perhaps a follow-up was unnecessary (it's certainly not as good as Lord and Miller's first film, lacking its breezy simplicity and clear focus), but like its lively predecessor, “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2” boasts a bouncy energy and a cheery spirit that help make it a scrumptious, if not entirely filling treat for all the family.

Rating: 6/10

Riddick - Review

Director: David Twohy Writer: David Twohy Studios: Universal Pictures, Entertainment One Cast: Vin Diesel, Jordi Molla, Matt Nable, Katee Sackhoff Release Date (UK): 6 September 2013 Certificate: 15 Runtime: 118 min

Growling, muscle-bound slaphead Vin Diesel takes a well-deserved break from battling tanks with supercars in the “Fast and Furious” movies to instead battle hordes of CGI space monsters in the belated third instalment in the sci-fi action/horror series that first launched him to fame. Stripped down from the sprawling space opera pretensions of bizarre previous entry “The Chronicles of Riddick,” the simpler titled “Riddick” returns to the basic survival-horror premise of franchise kick-starter “Pitch Black,” as Diesel’s nocturnally sighted Furyan anti-hero is once again stranded on a desolate planet crawling with ferocious alien beasties.

Fanged jackal-dogs, venomous swamp scorpions and winged, pterodactyl-like creatures lurk in the dark, but the most dangerous predator prowling about this space rock is Riddick himself — as a team of intergalactic mercs are sorry to discover when they come to hunt down the wanted ex-con and he viciously hunts back. Harking back to the lean, mean, no-nonsense spirit of the gripping first instalment was a smart move — this is certainly more of a sequel to “Pitch Black” than “Chronicles” was — but loyal franchise helmer David Twohy takes it too far: in staying true not just to the simplicity but also the plot and setting of that 2000 cult hit, “Riddick” holds precious few surprises, with nothing on display we didn’t already see done better 13 years ago.

Diesel’s got the title character down pat, his guttural growls and unflinching demeanour making him both a formidable foe and an intriguing protagonist, and Twohy does good with a relatively modest $38 million budget — the film looks great, some dodgy creature effects aside. But for a follow-up to “Pitch Black,” this is too much of the same with little added or improved upon, and whatever goodwill the film builds up is soured by a far too flippant and repellently comical threat of corrective rape against Katee Sackhoff’s lesbian character Dahl.

Rating: 5/10

Upstream Color - Review

Director: Shane Carruth Writer: Shane Carruth Studio: ERBP Cast: Amy Seimetz, Shane Carruth Release Date (UK): 30 August 2013 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 96 min

Multi-talented indie auteur and all-round filmmaking whiz kid Shane Carruth follows up his confounding, shoestring-budgeted debut feature “Primer” with another fascinating, head-spinning sci-fi guaranteed to turn viewers’ brains to scrambled eggs with its bonkers, high-concept premise and impossible-to-follow narrative. Yet for all its mind-melting similarities to Carruth’s cult time travel drama, which deservedly bagged the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival in 2004, the long-awaited “Upstream Color” is a horse of a different colour: while “Primer” was cold and distant, and intentionally so, as it whizzed its way through its nigh-incomprehensible technical jargon and complex plotting, “Upstream Color” makes for a much more intimate and emotionally engaging viewing experience, even if its uncommonly abstract storytelling proves alienating at times.

Like “Primer,” Carruth’s second feature is an enigmatic and original sci-fi which invites us to solve a puzzle. The story concerns a young, successful graphics production designer called Kris, played by Amy Seimetz, who is one night drugged and kidnapped by a thief (Thiago Martins). Reduced to a catatonic state by a parasitic, identity-absorbing grub, she is coerced into handing over thousands of dollars from her savings account before awakening several days later with no memory of the past week. Months later, she meets Jeff (Carruth), a handsome stranger on a train who, like her, is a lost soul with a troubled past and with whom she shares a growing connection — a connection which may not just be emotional but also mental, with Kris and Jeff discovering soon after starting a relationship together that they share past experiences and forgotten memories.

Close-up, Terrence Malick-inspired images of nature, such as the snouts of pigs trotting about a farm and microscopic views of multiplying cells, will remind many of 2010’s “The Tree of Life,” while the skin-crawling sight of a giant worm visibly slithering its way underneath Kris’ skin call to mind the early body horror of David Cronenberg. But this is Carruth through and through, and the singular, uncompromising vision of a filmmaker unchallenged by tampering studio heads. Self indulgent it certainly is, Carruth’s aggressively exposition-free storytelling resulting in bouts of head-scratching confusion, but it’s fascinating both to watch and contemplate afterwards.

The film’s technical merits are nothing short of sublime: the rhythmic editing, the electrifying score, the impeccable sound design and the crisp, absorbing cinematography mesmerisingly operate together in perfect harmony, which only makes sense when one realises that they were all handled, impressively, by Carruth himself. Figuring out the inner workings of the plot is borderline impossible on first viewing, so repeat viewings are a must if one is attempting to solve the film’s puzzle. And this really shouldn’t be an issue, for to go along with the bewilderment, there’s a great deal of truth and beauty in “Upstream Color” well worth revisiting. My advice, for what it’s worth, is to let this sensuous, visceral experience wash over you rather than getting too caught up in the minor details of the frankly baffling plot. Even then, you might still end up scratching your head to the bone.

Rating: 8/10

R.I.P.D. - Review

Director: Robert Schwentke Writers: Phil Hay, Matt Manfredi Studios: Universal Pictures, Original Film, Relativity Media, Dark Horse Entertainment Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Jeff Bridges, Kevin Bacon, Mary-Louise Parker, Stephanie Szostak Rating: TBC Release Date (UK): 20 September 2013 Runtime: 96 min

“R.I.P.D.” is a supernatural action-comedy in which Van Wilder and Rooster Cogburn run around town busting ghosts, but it’s much more stupid and much less fun than that concept sounds. Ryan Reynolds is Nick Walker, a Boston cop who’s killed during a drug bust and is sucked up Rapture-style to a heavenly light in the sky. There, he’s informed that he is to become a part of the Rest in Peace Department, a police force of the afterlife which recruits recently deceased men of the law to help capture and, if necessary, obliterate fugitive spirits known as Deados.

Nick is partnered with R.I.P.D. veteran Roy Pulsipher, a former U.S. Marshall from the Old West played with a rootin' tootin' southern drawl by Jeff Bridges. Together, they hunt down runaway ghouls hiding on Earth and soon uncover an evil plot to bring about the apocalypse: the legendary Staff of Jericho, a mystic device which has the power to bring the dead down to the world of the living, is being reassembled by a gang of Deados, and it's up to Nick and Roy to stop them. Essentially, this is “Men in Black” without the laughs, the heart or the golden Smith-Jones combo: instead we have Reynolds doing his usual wise-ass shtick while Bridges knowingly regurgitates his Oscar-nominated performance from “True Grit,” except in “True Grit” it was funnier.

Kevin Bacon plays the chief villain, Nick’s treacherous former partner who is coincidentally leading the search for the Staff, and phones it in just as much as he does in those bloody EE adverts. A running gag about Nick and Roy’s altered physical appearance on Earth — to avoid detection, Nick is perceived by the living as an elderly Chinese man while Roy is perceived as a smokin’ hot blonde bombshell — is stretched woefully thin by the halfway point, while another concerning Roy's corpse being skull-fucked by a pack of wolves is just plain embarrassing. R.I.P.D.? More like D.I.R.E..

Rating: 3/10