X-Men: Apocalypse is in a really tricky situation. Not only does it have to top the fantastic X-Men: Days of Future Past , but it also has to compete with the outstanding Civil War and the star power of (the otherwise okay) Batman V Superman . Does it succeed? Err… Okay, honestly, I really enjoyed this film. For one, James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are still brilliant at their respective roles, Professor Xavier and Magneto. Xavier comes off as far more human than I think I’ve ever seen him, especially in a brilliant scene between him and Rose Byrne’s character, Moira, in which he does a terrible job of hiding the fact that he fancies her. It gives the character a much more realistic appearance when he’s given a flaw as ordinary as being nervous around girls. Meanwhile, Magneto, or Erik Lehnsherr, is easily the best written character in the entire film. He struggles throughout the film with the way humans treat him in some really harrowing ways, meaning even when he does do all ...

As I'm too lazy to write two separate reviews- uh, I mean, to add some variety to this blog, I felt like doing something a little different. Two of the biggest blockbusters of the year, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice and Captain America: Civil War , happen to be two films about superheroes that are normally on the same side disagreeing with each other and then subsequently beating each other up. So I thought, why not continue the trend and, instead of writing a piece on each, I'll write Batman v Superman v Civil War . That's a good title, not confusing in the slightest. Super Serious v Super Fun BvS and Civil War have what is essentially the exact same premise. You've got BvS , in which two superheroes fight each other (reluctantly), because they disagree politically and have been manipulated by an obsessive villain and then you have Civil War , in which two superheroes fight each other (reluctantly), because they disagree politically and have been manipul...

Monsters , director Gareth Edwards’ feature film debut, is one of those movies I'm glad I never saw the trailer for until after I'd actually watched it. The trailer, at least to me, gets the film very wrong. It sells it as this tense, action packed Hollywood thriller, filled with scary aliens and noble humans trying to save the planet. It’s clearly trying to pander to mainstream audiences by making the film seem like this, but in reality it's the complete opposite. Monsters isn't a consistently fast paced, shiny thriller. It's a very slow moving, gritty, but beautiful film. It has its tense moments, but those aren't what you'll spend the majority of time in. Most of the time you'll be revelling in the amazing atmosphere of the film. It’s sometimes exciting, sometimes sombre, sometimes disturbing, but always alive. Every part of Monsters feels totally real and there's a good reason for that. It's because most of it is. Almost all of the dialo...

Since Disney's animation renaissance, that started back in 2010 with Tangled , everything they've been putting out has been consistently very good, from the Oscar winning Big Hero 6 to the box office smashing Frozen . None of them, however, have been as good as Zootropolis . Obviously, Zootropolis delivers on the essentials. The animation is as beautiful as you'd expect from a studio like Disney in 2016 and the character and location design is some of the best I've ever seen. I thought that the city of San Fransokyo in Big Hero 6 was stunning, but Zootroplis is on another level. There's huge attention to detail throughout, with design choices as small as trains having different sized doors for different sized animals, or big as the city being split into multiple different environments. The level of creativity on display here is on par with some of Pixar's greatest work. Everything else is just as high quality as the animation. The script is incredibly fa...

The Force Awakens was supposed to be bad. It's the seventh film in a franchise, following on from three films that were not well received and is (technically) a Disney sequel. I have now gone to see it four times. Technical Brilliance As far as fundamental filmmaking is concerned, The Force Awakens surpasses any of the previous Star Wars films. It's by far the best written Star Wars film, not that the bar was set particularly high. Still, it's a surprisingly witty film. Aside from the odd line of obligatory exposition, dialogue is very snappy, fast paced and unexpectedly funny. I've probably laughed more in this film than I have in many so-called comedies. While it's not exactly Aaron Sorkin level, J.J. Abrams’ fantastic directing and the actors brilliant delivery, as well as the tight, fast paced editing do help to elevate it. Speaking of the editing, The Force Awakens is also much better paced than any of the other Star Wars films. It's constantly ...

Poor Return of the Jedi . Poor, poor R eturn of the Jedi . Having to follow up from Empire Strikes Back has to be possibly the cruelest thing you could do to a film. Unfortunately, thanks to Empire ’s fantastic cliffhanger, something had to be done about it and that something would always be expected to top Empire . Does ROTJ succeed in doing that? No. Does that make it a bad film? Not at all. Everything You've Come to Expect ROTJ is very much still a Star Wars film and therefore has all the benefits you'd expect from one. The outstanding practical effects, makeup, costume and set design, are obviously still present and are just as much of a joy to look at as before. We're introduced to even more aliens, including the rather polarising Ewoks (although I personally have no problem with them) as well as Jabba the Hutt, someone we sort of saw in A New Hope , but I'm not counting that scene as it was a later special edition release and doesn't feature any o...

On an entirely surface level, Hail, Caesar! is a really silly film. The sets are bright and colourful, the characters are bombastic and larger than life and the plot is completely insane and all over the place. If you take a closer look, however, it's much more intelligent than it initially comes off as. Yes, the sets are bright, but their attention to detail is so fantastically minute, you're totally convinced that this is the 50's. The fake film sets are also just as convincing and the films themselves could easily pass off as authentic, if it wasn't for the 21st Century actors populating them. They are obviously slightly exaggerated, for the sake of satire, which probably resonates more with those familiar with retro cinema than regular filmgoers. It's also shot brilliantly by cinematographer Roger Deakins (who was recently Oscar nominated for his work on Sicario ), who manages to make the film feel like something that's not only set in the 50's, bu...