ced_yuen

Nowadays, it seems that prequel-reboots of old franchises are all the rage. James Bond, Star Trek and X-Men have all been successfully revived, ready to entertain another generation. Next up is the 'Planet Of The Apes' series, which went stale despite Tim Burton's 'reimagining' in 2001.

Surprisingly, 'Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes' feels nothing like its predecessors. There is no Charlton Heston-type character, no human heroics. There are outlandish sci-fi elements involved, but this is mainly a story about an animal growing up in a human world.

Scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) develops a virus to cure Alzheimer's disease. The project is terminated after a test chimpanzee shows side effects. Will takes home the chimpanzee's baby and names him Caesar. Growing up, Caesar displays extraordinary intelligence, and begins to question his place in the world.

Caesar's development serves as the film's primary story arc. As he goes from playful childhood to aggressive adulthood, he never stops being the film's driving force. It is touching to see him play, chilling to see him rebel - at every turn Caesar has the audience's full emotional investment.

'Rise' is a monster movie in the vein of Frankenstein, but it is also a modern-day Icarus tale, an examination of human arrogance and naïveté. Unexpectedly philosophical and emotional, it feels nothing like any of the earlier films. While there are certainly similarities in terms of plot and theme, this entry represents a significant departure from the franchise.

The biggest change is the use of CGI instead of prosthetics. Not only does this present a visual contrast between 'Rise' and its predecessors - it enables the creation of characters not possible through practical effects. This is the closest that the industry has come to photo-realistic, yet computer-generated, imagery. The use of CGI make-up over motion- captured performances – à la 'Avatar' – is once again a winning combination.

While 'Avatar' bombarded viewers with its imagery, the CGI in 'Rise' is limited to the apes. The approach of blending the real and the rendered is much more subtle, and ultimately it is far easier to immerse oneself into the story.

The wizards at WETA have done a truly stunning job creating the apes. Their facial movements are subtle and nuanced. The apes each look different, and have unique personalities. They feel natural, genuinely coming across as living characters that think, feel and express.

Caesar is particularly well realised – it is only a matter of time before Andy Serkis' performance-capture antics receive more prestigious recognition. It is testament to the skills of WETA and Serkis that a character made from CGI can be so utterly captivating.

Other aspects of the film prove to be just as remarkable. The cinematography is effective. Long takes show the ape action in a clear and coherent manner - short bursts of shaky-cam convey chaos through the eyes of the primates.

Rising director Rupert Wyatt demonstrates impeccable pacing and an ability to handle tension. The human characters are rather one-dimensional - a minor fault in an otherwise flawless operation - but that is of little consequence in a story that focuses on animals.

The formula for franchise-rejuvenation has become very much standardised. Tell an origins story; throw in enough references to keep existing fans happy - leave it open enough to allow for future entries.

'Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes' does all of this, and yet it is much more than a prequel- reboot. It has more heart and intelligence than any film released this summer. Combined with the remarkable special effects, it is easily one of the best films of 2011.

Marvel Studios' master plan is going well. Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and Thor have each made the jump from page to screen, their adventures paving the way for 'The Avengers'. All that remains is Captain America, the last to be adapted before the characters can be assembled next summer.

It is World War II, and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is deemed too small and too weak to join the Army. He keeps trying, and eventually he finds himself in an experiment to create super soldiers. Meanwhile, Nazi scientist Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) steps out of Hitler's shadow with his own plans for world domination.

Captain America was conceived as an unapologetically American symbol, designed to boost wartime morale. After the war, the character faded into obscurity, aside from a poorly planned revival labelled 'Captain America: Commie Smasher'. To most people he seems like a relic, a dated caricature of overzealous patriotism. Turning him into a proper character, relevant to today's audience, was always going to be an immense challenge, especially when America's popularity seems to be in constant debate.

Thankfully, the film takes inspiration from the more sensible Captain America stories, the ones that focus on the man rather than the mask. Like any superhero origins story, this is indeed a 'zero to hero' tale, but the film is far more interested in the 'zero', leaving it to the inevitable sequel to focus on the capes and the colours.

As it was with Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins', the protagonist spends most of the film not in costume. Viewers are given time to get to know the weakling Steve Rogers as he goes up against bigger, stronger men and proves his dedication to the values of courage and selflessness. This approach ensures that he always seems like the "brave little guy", regardless of how he later looks.

By taking its time with the character development, the film demonstrates that it is more about ideals than it is about America, which makes the character more universally appealing. The title of 'Captain America' is more of a formality than an accurate description. In fact, a solid segment of the film is devoted to ridiculing and dismissing the character's flag-waving origins.

Chris Evans does a great job as Steve Rogers. His performance is consistently understated; despite the increased muscles and colourful clothes, it is always 'skinny Steve' that the audience sees. A special mention goes to the special effects team, who have done remarkably well in making the physically beefed-up actor look convincingly small and weak.

Hugo Weaving is just as watchable in his role. The Red Skull is the most interesting villain in the Marvel films so far. His obsession with the creation of 'the superior man' makes him a creepy echo of Hitler. Weaving's performance is a mix of German Agent Smith and Bond villain, which works very well.

'Captain America: The First Avenger' is a very solid piece of entertainment. There is a good balance of drama and cheese, of action and humour. The 1940s setting is convincing and there is an old school, Indiana Jones vibe to it. It succeeds as another adaptation of comic- book property, fitting in perfectly with its companions. After this, and the post-credits tease, 'The Avengers' cannot come soon enough.

'Cars 2' is preceded by 'Hawaiian Vacation', a short film set in the Toy Story universe. Despite the fact that 'Toy Story 3' was supposed to be the end of the franchise, Pixar seems reluctant to let go. It is not hard to see why - despite being only 6 minutes long, this appetiser manages to pack more Pixar magic than the main feature.

That is not to say that 'Cars 2' is a bad film. There are clever ideas, and moments of charm and wit, but the film does not spend enough time on them. As a result, the film fails to reach the lofty standards associated with Pixar.

At one point during its development, the film must have centred on a new story, with new characters. As the film opens, British secret agent Finn McMissile (Michael Caine, as a DB5) investigates a conspiracy involving alternative fuel, scaling an oil-drilling platform with magnetic tyres and grappling hooks.

The mood is one of intentional melodrama, simultaneously revering and ridiculing the adventures of 007. The sequence inevitably culminates in a car chase, and it is more thrilling and visually appealing than anything that EON has produced in recent years.

Things should have stayed that way, because 'Cars 2' is at its strongest when it has nothing to do with its predecessor. Alas, Finn McMissile becomes a secondary character, while the narrative returns to Radiator Springs. Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) accepts a challenge to participate in the World Grand Prix. Accompanying him is his best(est) buddy Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), whose bumbling misadventures become the overpowering flavour of the remaining 90 minutes.

It is here that the film blows a tyre. As a supporting character, Mater was fun and endearing. The hillbilly schtick came in small doses and served as effective comic relief. Placing him in the spotlight and trying to make him a hero, however, highlights the character's lack of depth. Jokes based on Mater's stupidity mostly consist of slapstick humour, which wears thin very quickly. What makes this worse is the decision to merge his storyline with that of Finn McMissile.

It is one thing to make a 'Cars' spin-off based on Mater, but quite another to combine a simple, child-oriented narrative with a more serious, sinister plot that, at one point, actually involves car-torture and car-assassination. The result is dissatisfactory, creating a jarring blend of the right things in the wrong proportions.

There is barely any solid racing, which unravels the foundations from the last film. There is not enough spy drama, which raises questions about the point of introducing the espionage element at all. On the other hand, there are many attempts to be funny, the success of which depends on the age of the viewer.

Ultimately, 'Cars 2' is a wasted opportunity. The Bond-inspired opening hinted at great things that were merely sprinkled throughout the film. It is a solid example of animation, but it does not feel like it is really part of the Pixar collection. Over the years Pixar has built up a reputation for films accessible to adults and children alike, and this is not one of them.

Children will no doubt have too much fun to notice the lack of sophistication, but adults used to the universal appeal of Pixar's standard fare will find this disappointing. 'Cars 2' is a fun film, but it is no 'Toy Story 3'.

"Transformers, robots in disguise! Autobots wage their battle to destroy the evil forces of the Decepticons". Simple lyrics, from the theme-tune of the 1980s cartoon, outline what 'Transformers' is all about: the simplicity of good versus evil, combined with the novelty of shape-shifting robots.

The key problem with the sequel, 'Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen', was its attempt at 'humour', which took attention away from the robots' story. The film became defined by bad decisions. Offensive stereotypes, irritating characters, robot testicles – there wasn't much room left for good and evil.

Hope, however, is not lost. With 'Transformers 3', director Michael Bay demonstrates that, to an extent, he is able to learn. 'Dark Of The Moon' is far from perfect, but it does redeem many past mistakes.

This instalment begins in the 1960s, when a Cybertronian spaceship crash-lands on the Moon. The US government quickly launches their space program to cover things up. Fast- forward to today, and it transpires that the vessel contains *Important Things*, which the Autobots must recover before the Decepticons do so. As usual, humans are caught up in the ensuing destruction.

Much effort has gone into making the robots' war relevant to humans. The destruction at the end of the first 'Transformers' had little impact on its sequel. Now, there are consequences. Autobots must follow military rules and procedures. Cities have sensors to detect Decepticon presence.

Transformers now occupy the background of little-known historical events such as the moon landing and Chernobyl – a simple but inspired move. Finally, the Cybertronians seem more like a civilisation than a handful of characters. It feels as though the fate of man is tied to the alien war, giving the film a sense of threat sorely lacking in earlier outings. The Decepticons are now far nastier. The scenes of collateral damage in the first 'Transformers' had a slapstick quality, but this time the approach is brutal. People die on- screen - the camera follows as people plummet off skyscrapers.

The action is much more coherent. The fights, previously a series of tumbling metallic blurs, have been replaced by specific choreography. Bumblebee, for example, seems to have picked up Taekwondo. The clarity of the action allows for some truly stunning set pieces.

The improvements, which could have made this the strongest entry in the trilogy, are undermined by a few persisting issues. The racial stereotypes remain. There is a very strange Chinese character called Wang; an English-sounding Autobot calls people "old chap"; a Scottish-sounding one threatens to "bottle" an enemy. These are not offensive so much as they are painfully unfunny.

The unnecessary, overpowering minor characters remain. Sam's (Shia LaBoeuf) parents return, sucking life out of every scene they occupy. Sam's boss, played with crazed zeal by John Malkovich, is nonetheless pointless. Supermodel Rosie Huntington-Whiteley performs acceptably as Megan Fox's replacement token eye-candy, but the fact remains that the romance side-story is a waste of time - time that could be better used.

Despite a steady introduction, the middle is rushed to accommodate an overly long and busy third act. Bay, no doubt, felt indebted to his military contacts - there are far too many shots of soldiers getting into position. The action can be spectacular, but the truly impressive scenes are diluted with an overabundance of activity.

Overall, 'Transformers: Dark Of The Moon' is a success. It is inexcusable for the same issues to keep reappearing, but these are outweighed by numerous improvements that this entry brings. Those who didn't like the first film will have no reason to see this follow-up. For those who did, this is the sequel that 'Revenge Of The Fallen' should have been.

'X-Men' has been saved. It never quite reached the painful lows of the 'Batman' franchise under the misdirection of Joel Schumacher, but after the last two distinctly average outings, the franchise faced an uncertain future. Not anymore: X-Men has been restored to its former glory. 'X-Men: First Class' is to X-Men what 'Casino Royale' was to James Bond - rejuvenation.

The film occupies the perfect spot between fan service and accessibility. There are things that long-time X-Men fans will recognise and appreciate, and for them these geek snippets will enhance the overall experience. However, these references are never laboured. Blink and you'll miss them. Newcomers never feel as though they are outsiders - this is the perfect jumping-on point.

Forget 2009's 'Wolverine' – this should have been called 'X-Men Origins', because that's exactly what it is. It is about a young Charles Xavier and his fascination with human evolution. It is about young Erik Lehnsherr and his desire to avenge the death of his family in the Holocaust. This is the story of how they become Professor X and Magneto.

It's not about super powers. There are a lot of them, but that's not the point of the film. The focus is primarily on the characters. They're not superheroes and supervillians just yet, they're just people, trying to deal with mutations – which is far more interesting than explosions and fights.

The mutants have differing attitudes towards their 'gifts'. Some are proud while others are ashamed. There is a sense that these mutations really affect the lives of some characters. Mystique, seen in previous films as a sassy and confident shape-shifter, is revealed to be sensitive and highly insecure. The mutants are much less one-dimensional and, as a result, more real.

The depth of these characters is complimented by the outstanding acting. Michael Fassbender is sublime. There have been comments about his Bond-like performance and while this is true, it is a gross oversimplification of his character. He perfectly straddles the line between good and evil, between rage and serenity. His performance has such depth that it is easier to empathise with him than to condemn him for his crimes.

Look past his bitterness and violence, and it is possible to see a confused, tortured soul simultaneously seeking peace and vengeance. Fassbender's Magneto is an interesting character, so impressively portrayed that it actually makes Ian McKellen seem dull by comparison.

James McAvoy does a great job as a naïve, arrogant version of Charles Xavier. His character is not as interesting as Fassbender's, but that has more to do with Matthew Vaughn's decision to focus on Magneto's development. Nonetheless, McAvoy and Fassbender have great chemistry, resulting in a double-act reminiscent of 'Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid'.

Their performances are strong enough to cover up the weaker acting, most notably from January Jones, who is wooden and vacant. She relies greatly on her revealing costumes, but they fail to distract from the fact that she blinks more than she acts.

With a well-written story and impressive lead acting, 'First Class' is an excellent film in its own right. However, it is praiseworthy that Matthew Vaughn has managed to make a film of this quality that also ties in with the pre-existing films. The X-Men franchise could end here, with this instalment as a perfect background for Bryan Singer's 'future' efforts.

Alternatively it could carry on, and, judging by the strength of this one, nobody would complain. Very rarely does a follow-up challenge its predecessors in terms of quality or intrigue, but 'First Class' is such a film. In fact, it may be the best 'X-Men' yet.

'Pirates Of The Caribbean' started off as a single, surprisingly good, film. With the addition of two poor sequels, it became an embarrassing franchise. Part 4 has a new story, mostly new characters, and barely a reference to parts 2 and 3. Clearly, it tries to distance itself from past mistakes – only it doesn't get very far.

'On Stranger Tides' sees Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) looking for the Fountain of Youth. Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) has the same idea - as do the English, the Spanish, and new villain Blackbeard (Ian McShane). Oh, and Penelope Cruz. There is no real reason for all the sudden interest in this mystical fountain - it is merely an excuse to kick-start the Caribbean Wacky Races.

On paper, this film should have worked. It features the legendary Blackbeard. There are mermaids and zombies. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are nowhere to be seen, leaving more room for Depp and Rush to antagonise each other. Despite all of this, the experience is surprisingly boring.

One of the film's biggest problems is that it mistakes action for entertainment. Swords are unsheathed every few minutes, which leads to a gratuitous amount of swashbuckling. All of it is chaotic - none of it is memorable. There is never a sense of purpose or consequence, so there is never any tension. Boredom should never be an appropriate response to a sword-fight and yet, in Pirates 4, it is inevitable.

Slapstick humour is given the same more-is-better approach as the action and becomes just as much of a farce. In one scene, for example, several characters all try to capture a glass vial and it ends up as a painfully unfunny game of Pirates Hot Potato. After eight years, relying on this sort of gag is nothing short of desperate.

Do not expect Jack Sparrow to save this film. Johnny Depp does an impressive job, as always, but strangely there is not enough his of character. The film is more about Barbossa than it is about Jack. Barbossa has always been a deeper, more interesting character, but it is nonetheless disappointing that the star of the film becomes an accessory.

Then there are the newcomers. Ian McShane is great to watch as Blackbeard. He has great presence, and is menacing enough without resorting to saying "arrrrrr". Unfortunately, his character is severely underdeveloped. He is given no back-story and it is never explained how he possesses supernatural powers. He also doesn't have much to do, which undermines his reputation as "the pirates that all pirates fear".

Penelope Cruz plays Blackbeard's daughter in an entirely pointless role. Her cleavage, the main focus of several shots, has more presence than her character. As Jack Sparrow's old flame she has the potential to make him a deeper character, but nothing comes of this apart from a few laboured innuendos.

The mermaids are refreshingly creepy and their 10-minute segment is genuinely entertaining. Blackbeard's ship is very impressive; it is run by voodoo and can be remote-controlled by a sword. So it's not all bad, but when these are the film's highlights, something is seriously wrong.

It is difficult to say if the film is any worse than parts 2 and 3, but it is certainly no better. 'On Stranger Tides' is not as fun or as epic as it tries to be, and fails to salvage this soulless wreck of a franchise. Sadly, that won't stop Disney from trying to make another sequel. Please, don't encourage them.

Once upon a time, there was a little girl called Hanna (Saoirse Ronan), who was raised in a forest by her father Erik (Eric Bana). As an ex-CIA agent, Erik taught Hanna everything she needed: hunting, armed and unarmed combat, and all the languages in the world. One day, Hanna was sent out of the forest to assassinate Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett), the woman who murdered her mother.

Joe Wright's latest feature is modern-day fairy-tale that is part revenge-flick, part coming- of-age drama. Like his last effort, 'The Soloist', 'Hanna' has some very good ideas that are let down by bad decisions and occasionally over-powering direction.

The film certainly has a very strong beginning. The concept of a killer child may be screwed- up, but this is offset by the curiosity it arouses. Why has Erik raised Hanna in this manner? Who is this woman they want to kill, and why did she become their enemy?

The storytelling is tight, intentionally drip-fed, which keeps the focus on the moment and makes the assassination plan more dramatic. Well, for the first 45 minutes. After that, Hanna sees the wider world for the first time and becomes distracted – which is both good and bad.

On one hand, it allows some insight into the effects of Hanna's blinkered upbringing. Having grown up killing her own breakfast and making her own fire, she is not prepared for her journey through the modern world. Seeing her flick light switches on and off in awe is one of several touching moments, which add a human side to what could have become another soulless gun movie.

However, Wright doesn't know when to pull back on the sentimentality. The film hits its low point when Hanna hitches a ride with a stuck-up English hippy family, which is meant to contrast the lonely, limited nature of Hanna's upbringing. Ironically, this family is even more dysfunctional than Hanna and Erik, and only succeeds in making Hanna's journey more irrelevant.

Her meticulous plan somehow becomes self-indulgent faux-art, featuring slow-motion Flamenco dancing. The film goes so off-course that it is questionable whether there was a plan in the first place. Is the story intentionally drip-fed, or is there just not very much to tell? For a child raised specifically to kill, Hanna doesn't end up doing very much.

That's not to say that there isn't any action. There are a handful of set pieces, and they are a delight to behold. From a fight in a subway to a chase through a labyrinthine cargo yard, the action is wonderfully shot and expertly edited. Long, tracking shots allow for a high level of clarity and immersion. Even this, however, is sometimes ruined with over-energetic camera-work, turning the film into a music video.

Saoirse Ronan is a good action star, throwing herself into her fight scenes with zeal, but her real strength is her acting. On one hand she seems so genuinely lethal that it's a little scary. At the same time, she has a delicate, innocent aura that makes it hard not to feel sorry for her. This is a layered performance that transcends the generic labelling of 'good' or 'evil'.

'Hanna' is not flawed, but sabotaged. Ronan is superb, and the action is fantastic, but even this is not enough to put the film back on course after Joe Wright steered it in the wrong direction. It started off as a good film, but ended up as a handful of good ideas, poorly strung together.

The final pieces of Marvel's master plan are falling into place. Developing their key characters one film at a time and sowing the seeds of hype with post-credit teases, Marvel have prepared for 'The Avengers' with military precision. Next up is Thor – lesser known, but no less entertaining.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is a prince of the mystical realm of Asgard. He is vain and impetuous, and his actions cause King Odin (Anthony Hopkins) to banish him to Earth to learn the meaning of humility. His jealous brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), next in line to the throne, starts causing trouble in Asgard, and Thor must find a way back before it is too late.

This was always going to be the tricky one. The protagonist is a god, and his story split between Earth and a supernatural realm. 'Thor' avoids the 'Clash Of The Titans' approach of making everything out of light and clouds, instead taking the graphic novels at face value, recreating the source material in all its straight-faced silliness.

There are impractically tall gleaming golden towers, portals to different realms and a bridge made out of rainbows – Asgard may not be realistic but it is beautifully realised. Add to this the warriors of different powers, all clad in armour and capes - and you have more than enough camp epic-ness to rival 'The Lord Of The Rings'.

Despite all its pomp, 'Thor' doesn't really feel like a traditional superhero film. There is no discovery process, no trial and error montage. Most of the time Thor doesn't even have powers. The point of his character is that he is the opposite of the traditional superhero. Thor begins with god-status, but he must learn what it is to be a man.

'Thor' is a Shakespearean tale at heart, with themes of power struggle, sibling rivalry and lessons in morality – making Kenneth Branagh an appropriate choice for director. He tells a very human story about gods, striking a balance between the film's two settings: epic melodrama for the lords of Asgard and endearing naivety for the mortals of Earth.

Thor's adjustment to life on Earth presents huge potential for comedy. Infrequent slapstick is used to great effect, but the main highlight is the fish-out-of-water humour, which is hilarious. Handled with restraint, the comedy is never embarrassing. It is perfect way to frame Thor's development, which is where the film shines.

Chris Hemsworth makes a fantastic Thor. He starts off with a confident swagger, a booming voice, and a cocky smile that shows he's in control. As the movie progresses and he finds humility, he tones it down appropriately. Hemsworth's performance is natural and convincing, genuinely coming across as an arrogant god learning a lesson.

The film's strength in character is let down by the action. There's not enough of it, Thor's hammer is underused, and the set pieces are less epic than you would expect from a god of thunder. There are instances of jaw-dropping spectacle, but the rest is forgettable, poorly shot and poorly edited.

The editing doesn't just dampen a couple of scenes. Too much has been taken out of the film, which makes the development seem somewhat rushed. Some relationships feel a little forced, like the budding romance between Thor and Natalie Portman's character. It feels like when you skip a chapter on a DVD – not disastrous but not complete.

Overall, 'Thor' is everything a comic book movie should be. It is balanced between its fidelity to source material and its accessibility to newcomers, between over-the-top seriousness and light-hearted fun. This is a good film, although an extended cut would make it great.

At the end of 2008's 'The Hurt Locker', an ex-soldier struggles to choose which type of cereal to buy. Accustomed to life-or-death situations, he is incapable of such a trivial decision. It's a brief scene, but it perfectly captures the difficulty of adapting to civilian life after the horrors of active duty. This is precisely the kind of vibe that 'The Veteran' aims for, but misses entirely.

Robert Miller (Toby Kebbell) has just returned from Afghanistan. Unable to get a job and still haunted by his experiences of war, he feels like an outsider. He suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which makes it even more difficult for him to adjust.

On its own, this would have been enough, but there's more: Miller starts monitoring suspected terrorists for the government, and uncovers some kind of conspiracy. Meanwhile, a local gang starts terrorising his council estate, so he has to deal with that as well. So now there's espionage conspiracy and social commentary.

Miller's psychological problems present an interesting examination into the effects of war, but there isn't enough of it. Any credibility that builds up is shattered every time the story wanders elsewhere. Just as viewers get a glimpse into Robert Miller's psyche, the film jumps away into 'Spooks' mode – shot after shot of people in cars, watching or following or driving past each other, seemingly without reason or consequence.

Then there is the council estate storyline. The handful of scenes featuring hoodies and poor grammar fail to mask a lazy attempt at trying to make the film gritty and realistic. Of course there are places and situations just like the council estate portrayed, but there is nowhere near enough development to make viewers actually care about these people and their 'hood. Without actually stopping to examine the social issues implied, the inclusion of these scenes is an exercise in time-wasting.

The problem with 'The Veteran' is that it lacks focus. Indecisively jumping all over the place between different genres and irrelevant plot lines, the film has a scatter-gun approach that doesn't hit any of its targets. The narrative just ends up feeling disjointed, which allows very little emotional investment. It is hard to understand what is going, but even harder to care about it.

The action is another thing that's indecisive. There is initially very little action, and when there is some violence, it comes in short bursts. It is effective, and clearly meant to contrast the gun-pornography in American films. Then the film changes gear and gives Miller a machine gun. With no clear sense of identity, the film is as confusing as it is frustrating.

There are hints of things that could have made this a good film had the filmmakers not tried so hard to be clever. The surveillance sections occasionally present an effective bit of tension. Toby Kebbell does a good job essentially driving the film by himself, playing Miller with a constant restlessness that makes him seem genuinely uneasy.

None of this, however, will save this film from the bargain bin at your local petrol station. What starts off as a believable, gritty portrayal of a man's plight rapidly descends into incoherent tedium. 'The Veteran' spins too many plates, and ultimately ends up dropping them.

Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a train, with no idea how he got there. A total stranger (Michelle Monaghan) treats him like an acquaintance. His reflection in the window shows him another person's face. The train explodes. Colter finds himself strapped upside-down inside a strange machine.

'Source Code' is only Duncan Jones' second feature and already he has been compared to Christopher Nolan. It's not hard to see why - Jones seems partial to playing with your mind, and he does it well. Minutes in, viewers are as confused as Colter is and just as desperate to find out what is going on. It's not long before things are explained, but that just messes with the mind even more.

As it turns out, what Colter experienced was a Source Code, a virtual re-play of a real-life event, where subjects experience the last eight minutes of someone else's life. He must experience the same event again and again to find out who bombed the train, before the bomber strikes again in real time.

There is a bit of exposition about how Source Code works, but it is pure tech-nonsense, delivered so hurriedly it's over before you can say "plot device". Like with the dream machine in 'Inception', it is not how the tech works that matters but the kind of story that it allows. 'Source Code' is primarily a thriller, mixed with sci-fi, drama and whodunnit mystery in the right proportions. The genres never clash, and it is down to Jones' talent that it all feels masterfully coordinated.

It's not very hard to spot the ideas that inspired 'Source Code'. The film's influences are so obvious that they might as well be in the credits. Virtual realities - 'The Matrix'. Time on loop - 'Groundhog Day'. Time-travel crime-prevention - '12 Monkeys', 'Déjà Vu' and 'Minority Report'. Despite including all these elements, 'Source Code' doesn't feel unoriginal.

Tired of stories where time-travellers are not allowed to do anything for fear of changing the future? No problem, it's only a program, so actions have no consequences. Bored of omnipotent action-men? That's alright, Colter has no idea what he's doing. As Jones and writer Ben Ripley break down the barriers of conventional genres, old ideas are recycled in new ways. The result is a story so fresh that you don't mind if it's not entirely original. 'Source Code' is more clever than cliché, and greater than the sum of its parts.

Gyllenhaal steals the show in his most impressive performance to date. Colter is, at different times, an amnesiac, a frustrated soldier, a helpless civilian, a determined action hero, and an amateur detective. Most importantly, he is a normal man, not above flaws or feelings. Gyllenhaal shows remarkable range, playing all of this with subtlety and making Colter very believable.

However, Jeffrey Wright's approach to his role (as the brains behind Source Code) undermines the tone of the film every time he appears. Limping through his scenes and mumbling with a distracting speech affectation, his melodramatic mad doctor schtick would have been more appropriate for a Hammer Horror production. Still, this is a minor flaw and doesn't come anywhere close to derailing the film.

'Source Code' is an engaging and highly enjoyable film, with a great concept and even greater execution. Along with last year's 'Inception', it seems that Hollywood is beginning see the value of intelligent blockbusters. At this point, it is still too early to tell if Duncan Jones is indeed the next Christopher Nolan, but he certainly shows promise. Keep an eye out - he's going to be big.

Zack Snyder has become a name associated with spectacular action, and his attachment to the next 'Superman' project has caused geeks everywhere to salivate. However, some have questioned his talent because of his tendency to rework other people's creations. It may be unfair to say that he has piggybacked his way to success on the works of Frank Miller ('300') and Alan Moore ('Watchmen'), but Snyder hasn't exactly tried to disprove this. Until now.

In 'Sucker Punch', a girl nicknamed Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is institutionalised by her evil stepfather, and signed up for lobotomy. She has five days before the doctor arrives, and plots an escape with the help of other inmates (Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung). Conveniently, she creates fantasies, and fantasies within fantasies, that run parallel to each stage of her prison break.

None of this has much to do with the title, which serves more as a theme than anything else. "Sucker punch" is a fighting term used to describe an unexpected blow, a surprise attack. The idea is that the movie will be a surprise for the audience who, according to the tagline, "will be unprepared". If that tagline refers to the sensory treat on offer, it's spot on.

Baby Doll's fantasies transport her to snowy Feudal Japan, post-apocalyptic WWI trenches and fiery Medieval castles. There are giant Samurai demons, dragons, robots, orks and Steampunk German soldier zombies. The women, dressed in sexy outfits (naturally), kick ass using all sorts of swords, guns, aircrafts and even a Manga-inspired flying mech-suit. All of this is wonderfully choreographed and presented with a gorgeous overabundance of slow-motion.

Previously limited by his fidelity to source material, Snyder was able to splash his crazy imagination all over the blank canvas offered by 'Sucker Punch'. The result is nothing short of a neatly-presented eye-candy buffet. Putting aside the crazy content of the fantasy sequences, it is worth noting how refreshing it is to have action directed with panache and clarity of vision, without the plague of quick-cut editing and shaky-cam. 'Sucker Punch' reaffirms Snyder's reputation as a talented and visionary action director.

Unfortunately, it also confirms suspicions about his narrative weakness. Wanting to prove himself by including the concept of a world within a world (à la 'Inception'), Snyder bit off more than he could chew, struggling to coordinate the different layers of fantasy. It is clumsy, embarrassing, and lacks nuance. Worst of all, skipping from one fantasy to another, the characters cannot develop and viewers never get attached.

The story is a mess - it is obvious that Snyder thought of really cool scenes first, and then tried to fill the gaps. That would be completely fine if Snyder was honest about making a mindless popcorn movie, because then viewers would know what to expect. However, he insists that 'Sucker Punch' "empowers women", which makes the movie sound less shallow than it actually is. His assertion ignores the high heels, miniskirts and push-up bras, not to mention the fact that the inmates are all incredibly attractive and impeccably made-up.

For any hot-blooded male, 'Sucker Punch' is certainly very entertaining, but do not expect the values of honour and brotherhood of '300', or the social commentary of 'Watchmen'. It is less a film than a fetishistic blend of video-games and soft-porn - a compilation of a teenage male's wildest, geekiest daydreams. For those who go in expecting otherwise, therein lies the sucker punch.

Over the years, Pixar has pretty much dominated the field of CG animated films. Sure, there have been plenty of competitors, such as Dreamworks ('Shrek') and Blue Sky ('Ice Age') but nobody has really been able to knock Pixar off its pixelated throne. Enter ILM, a company known primarily for its strength in special effects. If 'Rango' is anything to go by, Pixar may finally have a serious adversary.

'Rango' is an adventure-comedy about a lonely pet chameleon (Johnny Depp) with aspirations of adventure and heroism. Rango gets his chance when he is left in the Mojave desert and accidentally becomes the sheriff of Dirt, and Old West town inhabited by desert animals.

The single most remarkable thing about this film is how great it looks. From the texture of the characters' skin to the cracks in the run-down buildings that make up Dirt, the level of detail that ILM have created is breathtaking. The colours are so clear and the animations so sharp that the film is sure to become a TV-showroom favourite when it is eventually released in high-definition.

Gore Verbinski's previous experience directing live action certainly helps, as does consultation from 'True Grit' director of photography Roger Deakins. Everything is expertly framed, and would not look out of place in a "proper" Western. Despite being an animated film, 'Rango' has beautiful cinematography.

It's not all about the looks though. 'Rango' is very well written, especially when it comes to its humour, which flows seamlessly from deliciously witty dialogue to Buster Keaton style physical gags. The humour is at its best when the film goes into parody mode, making fun of the seriousness in the Western genre with a plethora of references that is part homage, part pisstake.

Surprisingly, 'Rango' is a Western first, and a kid's film second. The story is a tried and tested Western trope, and works well in the film despite the fact that everybody is an animal. It is the classic "stranger comes to town" formula, where the stranger must prove himself to people and eventually become their hero. Sure, it is a comedy, but Rango's story is told with such earnestness that one can't help but take him seriously.

The best animated films are the ones that cater to the adults as as well as a younger audience, and this is very much the case with 'Rango'. Beneath the surface of primary colours and animated animals lies a surprising amount of maturity. Themes of heroism and bravery are old news, but existentialism and surrealism in an animation has to be pretty rare. Rango spends the entire film struggling with his lack of identity and his search for meaning in life may bore younger viewers, or go over their heads entirely.

With 'Rango', ILM have created one of the most grown-up animated films to date. Its interesting blend of seriousness and humour also makes it one of the most unique. 'Rango' is a great family film, just don't expect it to be quite like 'Finding Nemo'.

Since 'Unknown' was announced, the internet has been abuzz with talk of it being another 'Taken', a film responsible for re-branding Liam Neeson as an action-man of sorts. And why not? 'Taken' received a lot of positivity for its high-octane, no-bullshit action and gained Neeson a whole new following, begging for more.

Comparisons are inevitable, considering the way that 'Unknown' has been marketed. Trailers show Neeson once again in a predicament, rampaging his way through another European city. The marketing team might as well have made posters for Taken 2 given the (intentional) lack of originality. The problem is, 'Unknown' is not that film. With the exception of a few surface similarities, the two films are entirely different.

During a visit to Berlin, Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) has a traffic accident that puts him in a coma. When he returns to normal life, nobody believes he is who he is. His wife (January Jones) doesn't recognise him, and to make things worse, another man has taken his place, doing his work and living his life. With the help of an illegal immigrant (Diane Kruger), he sets out to reclaim his identity.

'Unknown' has much more in common with the mystery thrillers of the '60s than it does with the action-heavy 'Taken'. Characters stumble from one incident to another and the emphasis is on the mood rather than on the adrenaline. The occasional bit of violence and the one car chase do not drive the story, but add to it. While Neeson played a lethal predator in 'Taken', as Martin Harris he is a normal man, disturbed and puzzled by his predicament as anyone would be. As a result, his character feels much more vulnerable, which allows a much more realistic sense of threat.

The first half of the film capitalises on this. As Harris' world is turned upside-down, it is uncertain whether he is brain-damaged from his accident, or if there really is a conspiracy against him. Does hearing footsteps behind you mean that you're being followed? When those footsteps quicken, does it mean that you're being chased, or is it just somebody trying to catch a train? Director Jaume Collet-Serra creates a real sense of persecution and does a great job of blurring the line between paranoia and reality.

The rest of the film is less remarkable. The writing gets a little too imaginative for the serious tone established, and stretches plausibility almost to breaking point. The questions asked in the first half of the film are answered with too much exposition, and loose ends are tied up too hastily. What started off with a huge amount of potential ends up as a by-the-numbers mix of thriller clichés. These things don't derail the movie, but it certainly is a pity.

Liam Neeson is as watchable as always, and despite playing tough guys in 'Taken' and 'The A- Team' he plays the victim here without any problems. Diane Kruger, forever playing supporting characters, gets more to do here, which is a good thing. January Jones and Frank Langella, however, are wasted in limited roles with little screen time.

'Unknown' certainly has problems, but they don't make the film any less enjoyable. Its interesting premise and its mostly-capable execution keep it just above the average popcorn fodder. There are plot-holes you need to ignore, and you probably won't remember much of it afterwards, but it will entertain you while it lasts.

There are plenty of lower-budget independent films that have gone on to be more critically acclaimed and more financially profitable than big-budget Hollywood pictures. What is rare, however, is an indie film that masquerades as one of these pictures. A self-labelled "all- star indie action blockbuster" and "inspired by history",'Ironclad' is such a film, trying to redefine the boundaries of British cinema.

Whether by intention or by coincidence, 'Ironclad' picks up a few years after the end of Ridley Scott's 'Robin Hood'. It is England, 1215. King John (Paul Giamatti) has been forced to sign the Magna Carta, which limits his power and ensures the freedom of men.

With the help of a Danish army, the King rampages across the country to regain absolute power. Baron Albany (Brian Cox) and a band of rebels take Rochester Castle in an attempt to stop the tyrant king. A siege takes place, and the rebels must hold the castle until reinforcements arrive.

The film certainly ticks many of the boxes of an action blockbuster. There's a clear "big bad guy vs. underdog good guy" vibe, plenty of action, and some veterans among the B-list cast. The $25 million budget, although pocket change in Hollywood, shows how badly this indie film wants to be big. A big film, however, is not necessarily a good film.

'Ironclad' is at its strongest when it comes to the physical side of things. It does not shy away from gory violence. Heads, hands and feet go flying, blood splatters all over the the camera's lens, and there's a particularly nasty bit involving a man and a catapult. The weapons feel like instruments of destruction rather than Medieval-chic accessories, and often succeed in making viewers wince.

The fight choreography is particularly impressive - characters look like soldiers trying to tear each others' hearts out, as opposed to actors trying to high-five each other's swords. The action sacrifices style and appearance for physicality and brutality, which results in a refreshing level of authenticity.

The 13th century England recreated looks good enough to fool anyone but a history buff. Giamatti and Cox play their roles with conviction and succeed in getting the story moving. Giamatti is particularly watchable, playing King John as an unhinged sadist.

The narrative is where 'Ironclad' falters. Fully aware that the film is essentially about a group of soldiers in a building, the writers have tried to spice things up. One of the rebels (James Purefoy) happens to be a Templar Knight. He regrets killing people for God, so he goes on a diet of silence and chastity, the latter of which is tested (of course) by the lady of the castle (Kate Mara). These are ill-advised attempts at emotional content and only serve to distract from what should have been a simpler, more polished affair.

Regrettably, the filmmakers decided to emulate that most repulsive staple of modern action blockbusters - the shaky-cam. Specifically namechecking 'Transformers 2' and the 'Bourne' sequels as influences (not a good sign), they decided to shake the picture to create "a very real sense of action".

What is achieved instead is a very real sense of frustration every time the action is made unnecessarily incoherent. Once again, the "Michael Bay Effect" has ruined a film that would have otherwise looked excellent, and wasted the work of an obviously talented action choreographer.

Despite its flaws, fans of mud'n'blood, hack'n'slash mini-epics will find plenty to like in 'Ironclad'. It is comparable to 'Robin Hood' despite costing $130 million less to make. Director Jonathan English wanted to create an action blockbuster. In terms of scale and ambition, he has succeeded. But blockbusters aren't perfect, and neither is this.

In the trailers, shots of a tsunami and a smoking London tube station tell us to expect disasters. From all over the world, people track down Matt Damon, who used to be a psychic but really doesn't want to communicate with dead people. 'Hereafter' seemingly mixes up the best of M. Night Shyamalan and Roland Emmerich.

Unfortunately, the trailers are a total misrepresentation of the film itself. Clint Eastwood's examination of death and the afterlife is a slower, more contemplative piece that is neither epic nor particularly supernatural.

'Hereafter' is split into three stories. French TV journalist Marie (Cécile de France) has a near- death experience and becomes fascinated with researching the afterlife. American ex-psychic George (Damon) struggles to shut out his ability to communicate with the dead, taking on manual labour and night-time cookery classes in an attempt to live a normal life. English schoolboy Marcus (twins Frankie and George McLaren) fails to cope with losing a loved one, and tries to reestablish contact.

The point of the 3-story approach is that death is a universal theme. 'Hereafter' aims to address the concept of death, and our attitudes towards the afterlife, from different angles. It's a good idea, but it is let down by terrible scripting. Peter Morgan's script shows no direction, no cohesion and clearly no idea what he was trying to do.

Out of the three stories, only George's has any real strength. The origin of his mystic gift/curse, and his choice to abandon it, is interesting but underdeveloped. A sub-story, in which he unintentionally sees into the past of his cooking partner/love interest (Bryce Dallas Howard), is brushed off and never picked up again.

George's story, most of which can be seen in the trailers, only accounts for 1/3rd of the film. It's almost possible to see Matt Damon's frustration at having so little to work with. It is a shame, because a little more time and focus could have resulted in something special. The remaining 2/3rds of the film is spent drifting between irrelevance and tedium.

Marie's story begins strongly, but it takes a wrong turn and she ends up spending her time between euthanasia clinics and Google. Marcus's story is the worst by far, made even more unbearable by the acting. Frankie and George McLaren, who took turns playing Marcus, are quite possibly the worst child actors that the world has ever seen. There is no emotion, and the dialogue is read off the floor in a stiff monotone that would have been embarrassing even in nativity play.

The three story lines inevitably converge, but they take an age to do so. The narratives are so unrelated that it would have been better just to leave them entirely separate. Instead, they are mashed together at the end, almost as an afterthought. The inclusion of real-world disasters also feels contrived – the narrative does so little with these events (and in such a half-hearted manner) that they just stick out as somebody's failed attempt to be clever.

The film is not all bad and ugly. The opening tsunami (supposedly the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami), is the highlight of 'Hereafter' and an example of one of the handful of effective scenes. The visual effects are impressive and the destruction feels so realistically chaotic that perhaps Clint Eastwood should have directed '2012'.

'Hereafter' has some good ideas that do deserve examination and the direction is as sharp as any of Eastwood's recent efforts but ultimately, the project was doomed by the clueless writing. Much of Eastwood's recent successes were down to the simple, well-written scripts. Hopefully he will be more careful with his choices in the future. Or step back in front of the camera.

A pop-art animation shows a pair of hands, wrapped around an iPhone. On the screen, the thumbs tap out the opening credits. Occasionally, the hands reject incoming calls from Mom. They also accidentally type out things like "props!" and "OMG". It is a rather embarrassing attempt to seem down with the kids (or is that kidz?) but thankfully, it is also misleading. The film itself has an entirely different tone. 'Dare' is not another typical teen-rom-rom about puberty and trying to get laid.

Alexa (Emmy Rossum) is an innocent, hard-working drama student. After failing to impress a big theatre star (Alan Cumming), she is advised to experience new things in order to improve her acting. She decides to seduce her drama partner, Johnny (Zach Gilford), who acts tough to hide his sensitivity. Ben (Ashley Springer), Alexa's gay best friend, is jealous of their relationship and decides to have a go at Johnny too. Their relationships soon become an uncomfortable and confusing love-triangle.

The film is divided into three parts, each one following a different main character. The more focused characterisation allows for a more effective display of all the awkwardness and insecurity associated with adolescence. Each of the main characters is given their own screen-time to grow and develop, and as a result there is much more substance.

'Dare' is at its strongest when the audience gets to see the characters go about their own lives, without the hassle of narrative development. On their own, the three individual segments of the film could have easily been short, John Hughes-esque films about different teenagers and their approaches to the issues of growing up.

The character of Alexa goes from innocent, uptight bookworm to sexy party girl too quickly, but Rossum plays both 'versions' just fine. Springer does a good job portraying Ben's struggle to deal with his homosexuality, and it is touching to see him find confidence in himself. Gilford gives the most convincing and layered performance of all as Johnny. He channels Marlon Brando and James Dean in his sensitive tough-guy act and it is effective, especially when it becomes apparent that he has severe rejection issues.

The problem with this kind of narrative structure is that there's too much characterisation for the love-triangle storyline. There is too much attention on each individual personality and not enough on mixing those personalities together. The characters end up changing too quickly, and it is clear that this is merely for the sake of pushing the love story along.

The film's attempt to be a coming-of-age drama and a love story at the same time backfires. It is too much of a character piece for the love-triangle story not to seem forced. By the time the abrupt ending comes around, one can't help but feel cheated, or disappointed by the wasted potential.

As a character study 'Dare' certainly excels, but as a narrative it is never compelling enough to be remembered. This film is likely to resonate with anybody who has ever been a teenager, but just because it resonates does not guarantee that it will be memorable. For his first feature-length effort, Adam Salky has done a decent job. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with in the future.

Darren Aronofsky originally intended to make a single film about a love affair between a wrestler and a ballerina. That didn't work out as planned, and so 'The Wrestler' (2008) was made first, with 'Black Swan' following two years later. Despite being divided into separate stories, the films remain as companion pieces. The ring and the stage are entirely different worlds, but the films examine a common theme: the destruction of oneself for the sake of performance. Aronofsky tackles the idea with a more edgy approach this time round, but there is no doubt that the two films are opposite sides of the same coin.

Ballet dancer Nina (Natalie Portman) is determined to land the leading role in her company's production of Tchaikovsky's 'Swan Lake'. Her innocence, elegance and delicacy make her a perfect candidate for the White Swan, one half of the character. The same traits prevent her from playing the titular Black Swan, which is aggressive, seductive and dark. As Nina struggles to embody both halves of the character, she begins to lose her grip on reality. Things are made worse by an oppressive mother, an imposing director and a talented rival who threatens to snatch the role away.

Portman does a phenomenal job as Nina. She plays her emotions and her frailty with such conviction that her mental disintegration feels natural and credible. Her dedication to the role is obvious – shrinking down to unhealthy proportions and training tirelessly for a year transformed her into a proper ballerina. Even more impressively, she manages to act and keep up with the crazy choreography at the same time, doing both so flawlessly that an Oscar is inevitable.

The camera-work by Matthew Libatique perfectly communicates the frantic nature of the story. Mirrors are used creatively, and the liberal use of the close-up, especially during the dancing, creates a claustrophobic atmosphere that compliments the film's sinister nature. Clint Mansell's score is a brilliantly creepy reworking of Tchaikovsky's pieces. It is an effective composition, perfectly reflecting the film's mix of beauty and menace.

Somewhat disappointingly, the first half of 'Black Swan' is a little slow, with an over-emphasis on setting up the story. There is also perhaps slightly too great a focus on the dancing. However, the pace allows for the mood to build and build until a truly insane final act that delivers a satisfying payoff.

The works of Cronenberg, Polanski and Lynch - all of them masters of uncomfortable cinema - echo throughout. 'Black Swan' combines the body horror of 'The Fly', the paranoia of 'The Tenant', and the surrealism of 'Mulholland Drive' in a blend of menace so varied that it keeps the audience genuinely uneasy throughout. Yet Aronofsky does not rely on others to hold up his film. He has taken the tools crafted by others and created for himself a refreshingly demented film. In his own way, he combines beauty and perfection with madness and paranoia. Ballet is meant to be graceful, but the mood that Aronofsky creates is one of frenzy. There are scary films, and there are are beautiful films, and it is in the juxtaposition of the two that Aronofsky triumphs.

Over the years, Aronofsky has built himself a solid reputation for making films that are difficult to put in a box, and 'Black Swan' is no different. It doesn't know if it wants to be beautiful or ugly, so it is a mash-up of both. It aims to seduce and repulse at the same time, and it succeeds. Never has a film been so simultaneously elegant and vulgar. It is uncomfortable and occasionally nasty, and yet it is one of the most exhilarating in recent cinema.

In 2005, Jérôme Salle wrote and directed the César-nominated 'Anthony Zimmer', a Hitchcockian story about a tourist who meets a mysterious woman and finds himself in "a whirlwind of intrigue and danger". 'The Tourist' is a remake of that film, with the director of 'The Lives Of Others', the screenwriter of 'The Usual Suspects', and the cinematographer of 'The English Patient'. It is also the first ever pairing of mega-stars Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp. This has everything it takes to make one amazing film, yet it is one of 2010's biggest misfires.

This film desperately wants to be compared to the likes of 'North By Northwest' and 'The Man Who Knew Too Much'. Indeed, it ticks many of the boxes required for a classic 'wrong man' story. An innocent person accused, exotic backdrops, a series of strange and dangerous situations – check, check, check. However, there is a fine line between following in someone's footsteps and being stuck in their shadow.

Director von Donnersmarck tries to capture the style of the late '50s/early '60s thrillers, but fails to replicate their substance. Given the narrative strength of 'The Lives Of Others', one might expect a similar level of focus. Sadly, he doesn't know what kind of story he's trying to tell. There is not enough intrigue to be a thriller; not enough on wit to be a comedy. There is not enough story to be a drama, and what little story there is doesn't make much sense. Spanning several genres is not the problem – Stanley Donan mixed suspense with comedy and romance to great effect in 'Charade' – the director simply isn't as capable.

The next mis-step was the casting. Jolie and Depp perform just fine in isolation, but as a duo they don't work well. Their chemistry is barely noticeable, and the inevitable romance feels forced. Perhaps their combined mega-wattage is counter-productive - in their own films, Jolie and Depp are at ease taking centre stage, but thrust together and forced to share the spotlight, they seem uneasy. The focus switches clumsily between the two, trying to give each actor equal screen-time.

It is never clear who we're meant to follow, so there is never a clear protagonist. It doesn't help that the characters are inappropriate for the actors. Depp's character is meant to be a bland everyman, which doesn't work because Depp himself is too colourful. Forced to play it straight without his usual eccentricities, Depp seems bored. Jolie's character is her most one- dimensional to date. There is a vague attempt at fleshing out her back-story, but there is more attention on her wardrobe and her strut than on her motivation. As a result, Jolie seems like she's on holiday.

Visually, the film is like one big promotional video for Venice. It is just too presentable. Venice might be beautiful, but it has never looked this good. Everything is squeaky clean, every single person is impeccably dressed in expensive suits and dresses. After a ridiculous number of sweeping shots of the city, it is abundantly clear that this is Venice as Hollywood imagines it to be. Showing off glamour is fine, but when a film is so stylish that it distracts, something isn't right.

The Hitchcockian premise of 'Anthony Zimmer' was definitely ripe for the remaking process that Hollywood so loves. The recent 'Let Me In' demonstrates that the Hollywoodisation of foreign films doesn't always have to be an embarrassment. 'The Tourist' is not terrible, but it is far from great. It had the potential to be something special. What a pity, then, that it is so very ordinary.

'Tron: Legacy' is not a perfect film, and nobody will feel otherwise. Some elements of the story are cloudy. The lead actor is a bit wooden. CGI young-Jeff Bridges is a bit hit-and- miss. The famous Light Cycles are underused. The 3D was totally unnecessary. And the product placement for Ducati was unsubtle. However, that is all the negativity that the film deserves. 'Tron: Legacy' has flaws, but these are outweighed by the pure sensory pleasure on offer.

The Grid, in which 90% of the story takes place, looks gorgeous. It is a slick, dark world, simply yet effectively punctuated by lines of neon light. It is as alien as the world in 'Avatar', but much more striking. Whereas 'Avatar' bombarded viewers with layer upon layer of colour and clutter, Tron's minimalist, neon-chiaroscuro approach allows viewers to identify and admire the individual elements that make up The Grid. The film is shown in an incredibly neat manner, perhaps channelling director Joseph Kosinski's previous experience as an architect: everything is perfectly framed, every shot vying for a place as your computer's wallpaper.

Then there's the action, which is absolutely spectacular. The most impressive scenes take place in the Arena, a neon Colosseum where spectator programs scream for the death (or "de-resolution") of gladiators. Disc Battles are the cyber equivalent of playing ultimate frisbee with circular saw blades. Light Cycle battles are a cross between medieval jousting and Snake on your mobile phone. The action occasionally takes liberties with the laws of gravity, not as much as in 'Inception' but enough to keep things fun. The combination of the unique visual style with incredibly satisfying action results in a hypnotic 2-hour light show that sucks you right in and makes you forget about the real world.

Strange as it may seem, it is the sound that really ties the film together. 'Tron: Legacy' is without doubt the best-sounding film that I have ever seen. Light Cycles buzz and hum like lightsabers plugged into the mains. When programs are "derezzed" (deleted) they sound like shattered glass. Everything has its own aural identity - the wide range of bass-heavy, static effects perfectly convey the energy of The Grid.

Daft Punk's score is the jewel in this neon crown. Their Euro-disco heritage compliments the film perfectly, but they are restrained enough not to bop their way through everything. Fast- paced electro is balanced with slow orchestration. Sometimes the two are effectively combined to create an electric version of the percussive ambiance in 'The Dark Knight' and 'Inception'.

The acting is a mixed bag, neither making nor breaking the film. Garrett Hedlund is passable, struggling with emotion, but still better than Hayden Christensen in 'Star Wars'. Jeff Bridges does a good job with his two characters, simultaneously playing a tragic version of The Dude and a ruthless megalomaniac. In a marmite homage to David Bowie, Michael Sheen prances through his scenes, which will amuse some but irritate others. Olivia Wilde gives the best performance as Quorra, a warrior-princess style program with an interesting child-like innocence.

Reactions to the original 'Tron' was mixed. Some felt that it pushed the boundaries of cinematic spectacle, but some found it a hollow experience, accusing it of being all style, no substance. But the same thing happened with 'Fantasia' and '2001: A Space Odyssey'. It seems that films with an emphasis on visual style have a tendency to generate polarised reactions, the contrast of which is not necessarily a comment on a film's quality. 'Tron: Legacy' follows this trend.

Many will criticise the lack of narrative substance, but there is enough to keep the story of 'Tron: Legacy' moving. Its strength lies in its value as an audio-visual feast. It would be foolish to expect otherwise.

A retired CIA operative, hunted by his own people, reunites his old team for one last mission. It's certainly not an original story, mashing together ideas that we've seen before in the Bourne series, The Expendibles and The Losers. 'RED' (which stands for 'Retired, Extremely Dangerous') is the 4th film this year to be adapted from a graphic novel. It is also the 4th to feature men going on a mission, and the 5th with a plot involving the CIA. I couldn't help but feel skeptical. But then I noticed the cast list and realised that this is meant to be a comedy. At this point I saw the project in a different light. 'RED' is a film in which John McClane, God, Cyrus the Virus and The Queen join forces and kill people for laughs. Clearly this was going to be a film where story and sense came second to cast and chemistry.

From 'Die Hard' to 'Sin City', Bruce Willis' good-guy-having-a-bad-day routine has evolved little, but it does not need to be fixed. His performance in 'RED' is familiar, but he is never less than entertaining. This time he brings with him an air of self-parody. Throughout the film he maintains a carefree poker-face, as though he's done this so many times over the years that he can afford to be relaxed. There are valid attempts at making Willis seem more normal, and these can be quite amusing. The first 10 minutes, which show him adjusting to retirement and aimlessly wandering around the house in his dressing gown, are reminiscent of Carl Fredricksen's first appearance as an old man in 'Up'. Deeper characterisation, however, only serves to show how abnormal he really is, and it is a delight to see him in action.

With the exception of Willis, the cast is made up of actors who have no business waving guns around. Helen Mirren was an inspired choice, as if making up for the predictability of Willis' casting. Flower-arranging OAP on the outside and bad-ass hit-woman on the inside, Mirren is strangely suited to action. There is something about the juxtaposition of her gran-like demeanour with exaggerated violence that makes her very funny and extremely watchable.

John Malkovich is particularly entertaining in his performance as a mentally questionable conspiracy theorist who refuses to retire peacefully. After the numerous roles he has played with an undercurrent of insanity, it is hilarious to see him go full-on howling mad. It is not often that Malkovich gets to flex his comedy muscles, but he steals every scene in which he appears.

Morgan Freeman is unfortunately the weakest part of this alternative A-Team, not because of his performance but because he is under-utilised. He has little action time and even less characterisation. There is a glimpse at pervy-old-man behaviour (which could have been funny) and a mention of health problems (which could have been touching) but these are quickly forgotten. It is as though the writers were distracted, trying too hard to develop a secondary storyline involving Willis' romance with a pension office clerk. This subplot adds little and distracts from the main picture. It is a pity, because the wasted effort could have been more effectively put into making the story tighter, or on giving Morgan Freeman more screen time.

Overall, this is a good laugh, even if you won't remember it afterwards. Taking things less seriously and trying less hard to be cool means that 'RED' is more fun than 'The Expendibles', and less embarrassing too. Stallone can mumble all he wants about "shooting real action" - I'd rather see the Queen fire machine guns.

Let's get one thing clear: 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World' will not be a universally-loved classic. It will not be well-received by the majority of the cinema-going public. The reason for this is that it is a niche movie. It is a celebration of all things geek, and is far too quirky for an audience that expects its summer flicks to be conventional. That it has not done particularly well at the box office is an indication of the power of the advertisements, which have successfully alienated the mainstream. With that out the way, let's get talking about marmite.

After the success of 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz', Edgar Wright found his foot in the Hollywood door. When he made it big, it was easy to assume that he would follow the same formula that's worked so far: more Simon Pegg and Nick Frost; more blood-and-Cornetto Brit-com genre-mockery. Not in a million years would anyone have guessed what his next big project was: an adaptation of an unknown Canadian comic book, inspired by Manga and videogames, about twenty-something year-old geeks struggling with love and life. It was certainly an odd choice, but a damn good one. One thing is certain: Wright has successfully avoided director typecast syndrome.

'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World' is a love letter to late-20/early-30-year-olds, the generation who grew up with video game arcades, Nintendo and MTV. This is a movie built on retro appeal. Throughout the film, the audience is treated/subjected to a myriad of lovingly- crafted pop-culture references. This is a world where absurdity is something to be proud of, where anything is possible. It is a story about a 20-something year old loser who falls in love with a girl, but has to defeat her 7 evil exes in order to be with her. It sounds like the premise of a video game, and it is no coincidence that the film is structured like one. To call it a 'geek movie' would be an unfair oversimplification.

The film perfectly merges 'reality' with the worlds of videogames and comic books. The visual style is unique: while Zack Snyder's '300' and 'Watchmen' were visually spot-on *translations* of their source comics, 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World' is literally a moving comic book, complete with split frames and spelled-out onomatopoeias. This is geek comedy vs. Street Fighter vs. Adam West-era Batman, a combination that works surprisingly well. Action sequences haven't felt so fresh since 'Kill Bill', Quentin Tarantino's own pop-culture cocktail.

It would be very easy to dismiss this film as gimmicky, but the film doesn't rely on the visual style to hold it up. This is a funny movie, with an endless stream of sharp dialogue delivered by a great cast. Keiran Culkin almost steals the show as Scott's gay roommate. Mary Elizabeth Winstead gives a layered performance as Scott's love interest, nicely balancing a tough, mysterious side with a sad vulnerability. Michael Cera plays Michael Cera again, but he has expanded his repertoire slightly, convincingly adding depression, anger and optimism to his default awkward insecurity. The editing is particularly impressive, with the occasional sleight of hand demonstrating just how far Wright has come since 'Spaced'.

Weak points? Not many. The film struggles to maintain its momentum, getting a bit repetitive towards the end, but it ends before it outstays its welcome. The music might be a bit hit- and-miss for some. The film's biggest 'flaw' is that it is so very geek-centric. Pop-culture references and quirks are fun and a great source of humour, but only for those who get it. Non-geeks will most likely find this film one-dimensional and repetitive. Still, blaming the film for catering to geeks is like blaming Picasso for catering to Cubists. Bottom line: this is a well-written and stylishly-presented film. Literally POW!-packed and full of win, 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World' stands to be the most unique film of the decade.

The annual batch of blockbusters is upon us. What do we have this year? 'Iron Man 2', 'Toy Story 3', 'Shrek 4', 'Twilight 3', and so on. What do you think we'll get next year?

I'm not against franchises, I've even seen 'Iron Man 2' three times. I understand that it makes sense for Hollywood, because repeating a successful formula has a better effort-profit ratio. The problem is that every time a follow-up film is successful, originality dies a little. What was the last original film you saw, that wasn't a sequel, or a remake, or adaptation of a book, comic or TV show; something that tries to make it on its own merits without relying on gimmicks like "THREE DEE"?

Once in a while someone dares to make something different. Some get on with it, some don't - but those who do get a kick out of it. It happens, but it is rare. Enter 'Inception', a sci-fi- espionage-thriller that has been bouncing around in Christopher Nolan's mind since around 1999.

The premise is simple enough - Leonardo DiCaprio steals people's secrets by going into their dreams. One day, he has to insert information instead of stealing it. How does he access into people's dreams? He has a machine. It's not something we're meant to dwell on, just a plot device that conveniently allows our protagonists to do impossible things (a bit like "the Force" in 'Star Wars').

The narrative is where Nolan aims to mess with your mind. Several plots occur at the same time, but they occur at different speeds, and what happens in one has a direct impact on the next. There is no slow introduction to make the audience feel at home, no set-up sequence to establish characters. You are thrown right in and expected to make sense of things as you go. There is little time to find your footing because there is so much to take in. And just when you make sense of things, Nolan begins playing with physics. The trailers already showed glimpses of the visual treats on offer - water tilting 45 degrees in a stationary glass, a city rising up and folding in on itself. 'Inception' takes the worlds created in 'The Matrix' and dials it up to 11. The narrative complexity is such that those who go in expecting 'Batman 3' will be lost and disappointed.

Don't let the absence of superheroes fool you. 'Inception' packs every bit as much blockbuster boom as the average James Bond flick. Moving up from his $5m budget for 'Memento' in 2000, Nolan was given $200m to play with. A stunt-heavy production thrashed the actors around for weeks. Visual spectacle and narrative complexity rarely go hand-in-hand. How complex is the plot in 'Spider-Man'? How visually spectacular was 'Pulp Fiction'? It is usually a case of one or the other. In 'Inception', the audience is treated to both.

This is Nolan's most ambitious project yet, but his narrative audacity comes at a price. The downside to juggling so much is that it is often difficult to grasp everything that is going on. It risks alienating a percentage of the audience. Many elements are worthy of praise - Hans Zimmer's score is powerful but manages to avoid being the theme tune it was in 'Pirates Of The Caribbean'. Good cinematography. The acting is convincing. The casting is spot-on. Unfortunately, audiences might be far too busy to notice these things, at least on the first viewing. Those who prefer simple stories should avoid this. Everyone else - concentrate and you're in for a merry ride.

Entertainment has changed a lot since the 1980s. Updating a cultural icon is a gamble, because what people loved back then is not necessarily the same sort of thing that people love now. Show your friends some classic episodes of The A-Team and they will most likely find it dated and boring. Therein lies the dilemma: modernise it too much and it disappoints the fans. Make it a strictly fan-service affair and newcomers don't like it. The solution: make a film that would fit with today's standards, with enough links to key elements of the original material. Did they get the balance right? Yes, sort of.

On paper, The A-Team (2010) is a pretty good adaptation, with plenty of similarities to the TV series. There is enough here to satisfy any reasonable fan of the original: the four guys; the cigar; the Mohawk; the explosions; silly stunts; that van. The main characters are re-interpretations, but they remain mostly intact. Liam Neeson's Hannibal is still cool and calculating, but now he's all gruff instead of laid-back. Bradley Cooper's Face is still a cocky womaniser, but now he's smarmy instead of charming. Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson's B.A. (a decent acting debut) still hates planes and pities fools, but the bling is gone. Sharlto Copley, building on his success from District 9, steals the scene by playing Murdock with more nuts and less cheese. The famous theme tune and catchphrases are still there, but effectively underused. It's still knowingly silly, still all about bullets-spraying mayhem, and still about having fun. The fan in me was smiling all the way.

Only a small percentage of the audience will expect a step-by-step reproduction, and the filmmakers get that. This is not a slavish trace of the original blueprint. A-Team newcomers (such as my girlfriend/movie guinea-pig) will find a standard action flick that's perfectly accessible. As the movie is meant to be a prequel-update (in the vein of Casino Royale and Star Trek), no prior knowledge of the source material is required. There is enough exposition to show who the characters are. Attempts are made to flesh out certain back stories that the original series never even bothered with. The visual style has been adjusted for inflation with the sort of budget, CGI and cinematography that modern audiences have come to expect. The colour and campiness is gone, replaced with a gritty realism. The dated, people-flying- through-windows kind of fighting has been replaced by flashy martial arts. In fact, director Joe Carnahan makes such a point of making The A-Team his own that there aren't any traces of the 1980s.

Updating The A-Team does have its drawbacks, and this is where Carnahan fails to keep things balanced. By making these guys realistic, it takes away the childish spirit that came with the original. The occasional bit of bad CGI tests your ability to suspend disbelief. Upping the number of characters, Carnahan confuses 'complex' with 'convoluted', resulting in a weaker finale than what could have been. The 'Michael Bay Effect' – the shaky camera, too- close-up shots and rapid-cut editing – is kept to a minimum, but when it does appear, it grates.

The A-Team was always about risks, but improvising weapons from junk found in a skip wasn't anywhere as risky as adapting the series for the big screen. Some things worked, some things didn't. A-Team fans will find plenty to like as long as they don't expect a carbon copy of the original. For everyone else, the end product is a pretty standard action film, no more, no less – just A-Team flavoured.

"Who is Salt?" ask the posters. "You think everyone's who they say they are?" ask the trailers. The point being that this is a character of ambiguity. But at one point, even the filmmakers themselves didn't know. The project originally placed Tom Cruise in the eponymous role, but he backed out to do action-romantic-comedy 'Knight And Day'. Cue a series of rewrites: Angelina Jolie was signed up, male became female, and Edwin became Evelyn. So – who is Salt?

Evelyn Salt is a CIA agent accused of being a Russian spy. She must straighten things out, and ensure the safety of her husband, by breaking faces and blowing things up. She is a girl in a boy's game. Her character is a full-on invasion of territory dominated by Bond, Bourne and Bauer. The film assimilates the best parts of each franchise, and adds its own twist. It has espionage cool, brutality and a disregard for protocol, yet it doesn't feel tired because this time it's done with a woman.

The action woman routine is not new, but it's never been presented seriously. 'Tomb Raider' had explosions, but then Lara Croft (portrayed by Jolie in the film franchise) is a disproportionately-bosomed video game character. TV series 'Alias' tried to replicate Bond's gun and gadgets formula, but Sydney Bristow was reduced to Action Barbie with a colourful collection of wigs. Evelyn Salt, however, is first and foremost a spy. No puns, no flashy tools, no bullshit.

Jolie has already demonstrated her worth over the years, both as an action girl and as a 'proper', character-delving actress. Replacing Tom Cruise with her is a pretty safe bet, and she doesn't disappoint. In a film that makes a point of masking the true intentions of its central character, the glue that holds everything together is the level of uncertainty that the film can maintain. Jolie seamlessly switches between vicious and vulnerable, resulting in a convincing prey-predator performance that keeps you guessing.

Action fans will find plenty to enjoy. The whole affair is energetic, with barely a slow moment in the tight 99-minute runtime. This is no-fluff storytelling at its best. Every scene has a purpose. The auxiliary characters are intentionally underdeveloped narrative devices, mere accessories to Jolie's face-breaking rampage. The action itself is neatly done, brutal like Bourne and Daniel Craig-era Bond but with the Michael Bay Effect toned way down. The camera-work is still hand-held and shaky at times, but director Phillip Noyce is sensible enough to let the action, not the editing, do the talking. The result: action scenes that are, most of the time, both kinetic *and* coherent.

'Salt' is not about the all-out silly fun of 'The A-Team', or the doom and gloom of 'The Departed'. Most of the time, it does a pretty good job of balancing serious storytelling with fun. Where it goes wrong is the over-ambition of certain stunts, with one or two moments really pushing the boundaries. It doesn't go anywhere near as far as the car vs. helicopter/truck vs. fighter jet scenes in 'Die Hard 4', but these silly moments can distract. Still, these are minor flaws in an otherwise enjoyable experience. Regardless of how much the film tries to keep a straight face, credibility has never been the point of action films.

Who is Salt? She is 007's substitute in the face of MGM's current financial troubles. Bond 23 will not be making an appearance any time soon, and in the meanwhile, audiences have a new franchise. 'Salt' is a capable, and very welcome, alternative.