JoshuaHarryMurphy

Pitch Perfect 2 surprised me. I was surprised how lacklustre I found this film was in comparison to its predecessor, and I was surprised just how disappointed I was that this was the case. Pitch Perfect hit me like a tonne of bricks, and despite my outspoken initial apprehension I was quickly charmed by the all-girl capella group The Bellas and was rooting for them on every step of their journey. I was left with egg on my face – my apprehension couldn't have been less warranted. The performances were funny, believable and the song renditions were catchy. It was so much fun.

Fast forwarded three years and the Bellas are in deep trouble after a disastrous performance to President Obama. Their only chance of reinstating the Bellas' legitimacy and reputation is to win the World championships. A simple enough premise, yet one which feels far too similar its precursor. Unfortunately, rival capella group The Treblemakers have a drastically reduced role in this film, with their role antagonist role replaced by German group Das Sound Machine who simply aren't as engaging. The group's leaders are written to be such cold individuals there's little time for laughing in their company. This is part of the problem. The self-aware tone of the first film is lost here, Das Sound Machine are written and played so orthodoxly it begs to return to the far less earnest tone of the first film. Sadly, the only two consistently funny characters are two capella commentators played by John Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks.

There's nothing wrong with the choices of song renditions in the film. The wide range of recognisable hits are genuinely performed as energetically as in its predecessor but when performed by characters who repeatedly struggle to land their jokes their company because tiresome.

Mad Max: Fury Road is the fourth film of Miller's Mad Max franchise and the first film of the franchise in 30 years. Fury Road stars Tom Hardy as "Mad" Max Rockatansky, replacing Mel Gibson in the title role. Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, and Hugh Keays-Byrne also star.

Stunning, explosive, non-stop post-apocalyptic action for 120 minutes is an accurate yet perhaps slightly misleading description of the film, as with Fury Road, writer / director / producer George Miller has achieved far more than mere action proficiency. So rare with contemporary action films, the relationship between practical effects and CGI is balanced faultlessly, the like of which I haven't seen since Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings. There's an equilibrium between the two and at times they both appear to blur the lines between one another – on multiple occasions I assumed that certain sequences simply had to be CGI, yet I now learn many sequences were just incredible pieces of stunt work and loving production design. The greatest testament to this balance is that all of the these conclusions have been drawn much later after watching the film, as during my viewing of it my mind could function little except from being simply blown away by the incredible spectacle Miller managed to create.

Paraphrasing Hitchcock in 2014, Miller light-heartedly suggested that he wanted Fury Road to be understood in Japan – without the use of subtitles. Now, writing as a teenager in rainy North-East Hampshire, I can offer little to demonstrate if Miller has been successful in his aims, yet I find little to suggest he failed. Compelling performances are universal, it doesn't matter if the language is spoken in English, Arabic, Cantonese or Portuguese, a good performance can transcend any language barrier, and Miller certainly has that in his ensemble cast. It seems impossible for Tom Hardy give a disappointing performance recently, but the true star of the film is Charlize Theron who gives a wonderful performance as the character Imperator Furiosa, combining raw physical strength and brutality with a core of emotional sensitivity.

Beyond performances, I feel like the film will be universally understandable simply because of the themes which are explored so delicately and overtly. The themes of survival and family are universal and are the driving force beyond a narrative which doesn't stop for a second's breath. The film pays homage to some of the classic American Westerns of the past, yet the comparisons I've seen comparing it to Road Runner seem just as astute to me. For me, it's somewhere in-between.

The Woman in Black: Angel of Death a 2014 British horror film directed by Tom Harper and written by Jon Croker from a story by Susan Hill. It is the sequel to the 2012 film The Woman in Black which starred Daniel Radcliffe. Whilst its reliance on jump scares left the film open to criticism, James Watkin's The Woman in Black had a Gothic atmosphere was exceedingly unnerving and haunted me long after seeing the film. In stark comparison, I found that I immediately forget about the sub-standard sequel Angel of Death just days after seeing it: never a good sign.

The film itself isn't rotten by any definition of the word. In spite of Angel of Death not retaining the primary star vehicle of its predecessor in Daniel Radcliffe, the film has two talented leads in Phoebe Fox and Jeremy Irvine, both of whom provide performances which manage to inject some feeling of humanity and apathy into an atmosphere and milieu which I feel is the film's biggest drawback. Aptly named Angel of Death, the film is more morbidly depressing than frightening. Whilst the atmosphere in its predecessor managed to combine a Gothic style whilst retaining a 19th century authenticity, the atmosphere in Angel of Death is melancholic to say the least. Not that this is particularly problematic on its own, but it's the lack of scares in combination with the tone which really troublesome.

Returning to Eel Marsh House was a brave move by Tom Harper, a risk which I felt ultimately backfired. Almost identical jump scares from the first film were recreated, this time to infinitely less success, but did certainly succeed in reminding me just how much The Woman in Black surpassed my expectations and genuinely left me unnerved. Without any effective scares, Angel of Death becomes a chore: a stupor- inducing slog through an almost unbearably depressing atmosphere with little reward. The ending is pants too.

Joss Whedon's The Avengers, released in 2012, was the epitome of why the Marvel Cinematic Universe was gathering so much success: fantastic action set pieces, robust performances from a star-filled ensemble and a light-hearted tone all of which were balanced by Whedon's palpable love for the comic book source material. Move forward to the present, and it seems there's little to halt the MCU'S success. Captain America: The Winter Solider represented a radical shift in tone from its predecessor and had fans and critics alike plastering it with praise. The real triumph of the MCU thus far however is James Gunn's gloriously fresh Guardians of the Galaxy. As such, it's saddening and astonishing just how much of Age of Ultron I found divisive.

Starting with the criticisms: I felt that Ultron as a villain was handled fairly inconsistently. His radical aim for mankind's annihilation inclined me to see his as a threat, yet his insistence on repeatedly spouting flat, mostly unfunny one liners painted him as much less frightening. This was a problem not merely restricted to Ultron: I found much of the humour in the film fell completely flat, i.e. Captain America and Tony Starks cringe-inducing 'mind your language' banter. I also found that certain specific sequences ruptured the pacing and organic feel of the film. For instance, the scene in which Thor goes into a lake and communicates with his home planet evidently is set up for Thor: Ragnarok, yet it adds little but simply more excess in a film which is already felt bloated.

I felt where this film excelled best is in its balance of character. Combining all the heroes from its predecessor, with numerous new heroes and cameos along the way, Whedon manages to maintain a balance between their different skills and imperfections. Hawkeye, often previously as the most expendable of the group, is given a surprising amount of screen time, and any questions previously raised regarding his suitability alongside Thor and the Hulk has been completely nullified. I found the on majority the new additions to The Avengers were very successful, in particular both Black Widow and Quicksilver, who not only were far more captivating than Ultron himself but also provided the seams of conflict which raged throughout the team and will undoubtedly be the dominant theme throughout the subsequent Captain America: Civil War.

Labelled as a film regarding the growing disparity between economic classes, Michael Winterbottom's The Emperor's New Clothes is an effective documentary balancing political and economic investigation with Russell Brand's palpably galvanic and marmite personality.

The film combines interviews with Brand himself, along with politicians and bankers. Brand begins by summating that much of what will be explored in the documentary won't be instantaneously enlightening, a far stretch from the explosively impactful manner as last year's masterful Citizen Four. Despite this, where I do believe the film achieves success is in its exposing of issues and its raising of awareness towards certain issues. As aforementioned, much of Brand's insight is foreseeable to those of a certain age. However; the teenage and young adult audience, much of what is explored could be thought-provoking, and is presented in a straightforward and confronting style which appears purposeful yet remains focused throughout. This, taken in combination with Brand's personality, does make what initially appears challenging subjective matter abundantly more digestible.

What is problematic is that the film at times felt like a flaccid attempt of a brief Russell Brand biopic. For the majority of the film Brand's presence is handled adeptly, yet I find at times the focus on his unabashed comedic set pieces (pleading at the top of his voice to bystanders to give up corrupt bankers and his Michael Moore-ish attempt of breaking and entering a bank) turned the focus from suggested gargantuan corruptness into a love letter to Brand's eccentricity. For fans of Brand, it's nothing particularly abhorrent, but for those on the other side of the fence, this shift will do little to convince them to change their tune.

Ryan Gosling's debut film overtly displays its influences, but sadly doesn't work as a complete package. The film's shooting took place throughout 2013 and debuted at Cannes in 2014 to boos from audiences. The film stars Christina Hendricks, Matt Smith and Ben Mendelsohn to name a few.

The film evidently bathes in Lynch and Refn inspiration, as suggested through its blatant visual style and multi-faceted narrative structure. Sadly, these influences fail to manifest into anything substantial, which is unsatisfying for audiences, given the promise of nourishment through the films seemingly stimulating aesthetic style. Sitting watching the film, I closed my eyes briefly and listened to the soundtrack, before cupping my ears and merely focusing on the visual. In each instance, I found little to irritate me, but taking them in combination, I found myself struggling to not feel disengaged and wishing I was watching Mulholland Drive or Only God Forgives.

What makes the film frustrating is that Gosling clearly does have potential to compete on the same level as those like Lynch and Refn. There are brief moments in the film, sometimes a short sequence and sometimes merely an image, which are genuinely haunting and unforgettable, despite the incomprehensibility of much of what surrounds it. Feasibly in 20 years' time we'll come to re-evaluate Gosling's inaugural film after a fruitful oeuvre of successes, or perhaps this will be is most stimulating piece of work throughout his directorial career, either way, Lost River is a mixed bag, far less successful than where its influences derive from, but still worthwhile none the less.

The staple of some of the finest animations of recent years has been their capability to excite both the young and the old, the children and the parents. Films such as 'Up', 'Toy Story' and 'How To Train Your Dragon' have all achieved this feat, and to great box office and critical success. A Mouse Tale on the other hand, chooses to aim directly for the children's demographic, which of course isn't inherently a bad thing.

The story follows mice named Sebastian and Samantha, voiced by ex- Nickelodeon co-stars Drake Bell and Miranda Cosgrove, who attempt to find a magical crystal in order to save their kind from a rampage of rodents. Both the casting and vocal performances from these former siblings on Drake and Josh are nothing to write home about, but they do manage to energise what is an entirely predictable yet sufficient narrative through their exaggerated intonations and shrieking.

What's testing is that the vast remainder of the characters in A Mouse Tale are instantly forgettable, even characters who seem to be in grave danger just aren't that appealing and their fate appears merely trivial. The animation style is very forgettable, with obvious constraints to a tight budget resulting in a style which is uninspired but efficient nonetheless. Whilst the charm and nostalgia some of the voice actors does offer a slight motive to watch the film, the film is on the whole utterly irreconcilable with anyone over the age of six.

Spring is a 2014 Supernatural horror romance science-fiction film directed by Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead. As the film begins, it swiftly takes shape as what seems to be a 'down on your luck' type drama about Evan (Lou Taylor Pucci), a man who leaves America for Italy after a family bereavement. Whilst in Italy, he meets a mysterious women, who is harbouring secrets more disturbing than Evan could ever predict.

The film's greatest strength lies in its examination of character and relationships. Throughout the first two acts of the film, the relationship between Evan and Louise (Nadia Hilker) is genuinely interesting, which is as much of a result of the two actor's solid performances as it is to their relationship itself being imperfect and therefore plausible. The film is also surprisingly funny, not taking itself too seriously but also maintaining of line which doesn't allow the film to descend into parody.

As the film continues however, the strong tonal shift towards supernatural horror quickly comes apparent. Whilst these radical shifts in tone aren't entirely unexpected and jarring: the tone of the first act of the film is unmistakably brooding, the film rarely manages to generate any feelings of horror. This decision was certainly a risk but nevertheless, what initially started as an engaging exploration into a character who is complex psychologically quickly becomes something very different.

It's commendable however that the filmmakers resist the urge to delve into the formulaic and tiresome routine which often ruins contemporary horror films (silence… JUMP SCARE) and attempt to establish horror through atmosphere and through gore which appears entirely appropriate for a film exploring sex and relationships (the gore in the film often take shape as the corruption and decaying of flesh, the decay of the body). However; the remainder of the film struggles to regain much of the momentum created during its opening and it's evident that despite missing its mark, for a horror film with very little horror, it's still a worthwhile watch.

In 'Ex Machina' ('ex-mach-in-na') Domhnall Gleeson plays Caleb, a computer coder who wins an excursion to his employer's lavish yet exceptionally isolated home accessible only by arranged helicopter. Evidently cautious, Caleb introduces himself to his host Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Immediately the two personalities clash – Caleb is an orphaned, single and reserved computer coder whilst Nathan is confident and assertive. Despite the evident clash, the noticeable uncomfortableness is shelved as Nathan begins to unravel his plans to Caleb, a plan that sees Caleb play a part in 'the Turing experiment' to determine whether Nathan's A.I Ava has a consciousness.

The film's narrative is hereby structured into 7 sections, each entitled after Caleb's daily encounter with Ava – 'Ava Session 1' – and so forth. As the days pass, Caleb and Nathan's relationship begins to collapse. Whilst Nathan openly participates in voyeurism and observes Ava and Caleb through strategically placed cameras in every room, a serious of chilling power-cut sequences is all that stops Nathan's omniscient eyes. The commanding red light which commands these sequences not only continues in establishing an exceedingly disconcerting tone, but these sequences also sanction Caleb and Ava's relationship to evolve unobserved.

In spite of the nature of the narrative structure accentuating a build up towards the conclusion of Caleb's trip, the film's pace never drags, partially down to the films outstanding visual style and cinematography from Rob Hardy. As Caleb progressively becomes more and more trapped, both physically and mentally, inside Nathan's research facility, we share in his panicked, claustrophobic psyche, all of which is held together by a fantastic performance from Domhnall Gleeson. This is made all the more imperative given Gleeson is performing opposite Isaac, who is fabulously creepy throughout, blending physical supremacy, a crude sense of humour and a taste for vodka into a staggeringly unnerving and unpredictable character. Noteworthy also is the performance of Alicia Vikander as Ava, whose performance would either make or break the film, given the pieces thematic explorations. Luckily for Garland, and the audience, her performance is marvellous - capable of creating empathy and an intimate relationship with the protagonist and the audience, not vastly dissimilar from Scarlett Johansson in Spike Jonze's 'Her'.

Alex Garland's debut directorial feature 'Ex Machina' is a genuine sci-fi cult classic in the making. Through maintaining a colossal sense of unease throughout, Garland manages to explore typical sci- fi themes (A.I, threat of new technology) in a manner which doesn't feel overbearing or predictable. Notably, both Gleeson and Isaac star in another little-known sci-fi film towards the end of the year. It'll be hard-pressed to outclass 'Ex Machina'.

Enemy is a Canadian psychological thriller film directed by Denis Villeneuve (Incendies, Prisoners). The film was loosely adapted by screenwriter Javier Gullón from José Saramago's 2002 novel The Double. The film stars Jake Gyllenhaal playing a college history professor Adam who seeks out his doppelgänger (also played by Gyllenhaal) after spotting him in a movie recommended by a work colleague. Mélanie Laurent, Isabella Rossellini, Sarah Gadon, Stephen R. Hart and Jane Moffat also appear in the film.

Enemy has already earned five Canadian Screen Awards; Best Director for Denis Villeneuve, as well as a Canadian Screen Award for Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role and Best Picture. Undoubtedly these decorations will continue, as Villeneuve has managed to craft an intense, rich and memorable film littered with profound symbolism. Despite the maintained enigmatic tone of the film, Villeneuve's assured and unrestricted approach to the script means that the experience of watching the film is rewarding rather than frustrating. Whilst numerous interpretations of the film have been suggested, the complexity of the narrative itself means that readings of the film are ultimately subjective. However; what is clear is that Villeneuve attempts to explore conflict on both a physical and subconscious level. The sequences which depict the two identical 'Adam's' together are extraordinarily tense, but just as engaging are the sequences which depict Adam alone or with his wife, as the true intricacy and dysfunction of his psyche become evident.

The premise of the film naturally cries of for a strong lead performance which, not for the first time in a Villeneuve film, Gyllenhaal provides. Entirely engrossing and interesting, Gyllenhaal manages to seamlessly integrate confusion, panic and horror into a performance of a character who is fully aware of what it means to have control. Furthermore, his performance of Adam's 'twin' is distinctive enough to clearly establish the two characters differences despite their identical appearance.

Enemy is a marvellous film, constructed with smart direction and excellent performances. The multifaceted themes which run throughout the narrative are challenging enough that any re-watch will be just as satisfying and engrossing as upon first viewing.

Locke is a British drama film written and directed by Steven Knight. The film primarily stars Tom Hardy, with Tom Holland, Olivia Colman, Andrew Scott, Ruth Wilson, Ben Daniels, and Alice Lowe all providing vocal contributions. The filmmaking itself is very audacious. The entirety of the narrative concerns construction foreman Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) in his car, who has decided to drive from Birmingham to London the day before a massive concrete pour to reach a hospital where a woman is giving birth to his child. Simultaneously Locke attempts to maintain stability whilst receiving calls from his wife, the hospital, his boss, his sons and his assistant.

Due to the restricted nature of the film, there's a demand for a strong performance from its lead, which Hardy provides effortlessly. His performance is excellent throughout, and he excels in portraying both blunt rage and subtle interior struggles. The positioning of audiences in the car alongside of him allows for an intimate exploration into one of the most interesting characters we've seen so far this year. The narrative itself is restricted – audiences will learn information at the same pace as Locke, which further cements the character as a relatable and fathomable.

The film's soundtrack subtly accompanies events, and it's brooding and suspenseful tone is expertly used to match the tension on screen. The film's greatest achievement however comes from the manner of construction. The replacement of other physical characters in the film with only their voices is a stroke of genius. It intentionally permits continuation of the intimate exploration of Locke's psyche but never hinders the genuineness of the relationships he has.

Locke is an outstanding piece of work that also has a long shelf life, as the intimate atmosphere which is constructed is as equally suited to a much smaller screen as it is to a darkened cinema. Steven Knight has succinctly displayed that more often than not less is more. Rarely has such an isolated and inaccessible character been so engaging and accessible.

A Haunted House 2 is an American 'comedy' 'horror' film directed by Michael Tiddes and starring Marlon Wayans. The film is the sequel to the 2013 film A Haunted House. Having exorcised the demons of his ex, Malcolm is beginning fresh with his new partner and her two children. After moving into their dream home, however, Malcolm (Marlon Wayans) is once again plagued by strange supernatural events.

From the opening sequence, right up until the closing credits, the film is a complete calamity. The film's screenplay is aimless, stupid and staggeringly unfunny – not a single gag throughout the entire film resonates with audiences. This, taken in combination with pointlessly constructed racist stereotypes and unbelievably dull horror clichés, means that sitting through the films short runtime of eighty six minutes becomes almost impossible.

Wayans's performance is excruciatingly painful to watch. Malcolm is an astoundingly unlikable lead protagonist – and in all the wrong ways. On no occasion do his bizarre actions and ear-splitting shrieking ever seem necessary, and his lack of any sort of morality or even awareness of the reality that surrounds him results audiences hastily attempting to distance themselves as much as possible from a character that presumably is meant to be engaging and amusing.

The film manages to surpass the stale mediocrity of its predecessor. It's a tortuous waste of time which could have been better spent doing almost anything else. The film's only asset is that it's almost instantly forgettable. As the credits roll, the sensation of a deep exhale of breath and thinking, "I never have to watch A Haunted House 2 again", is certainly something to savour. The film is an unmistakable catastrophe.

The Raid 2 is an Indonesian martial arts crime action film written and directed by Gareth Evans and is the sequel to the 2012 hit The Raid: Redemption. The film follows SWAT member Rama, the protagonist of the first film, as he is sent undercover to take down both corruption in his police force and the gangs of the criminal underworld. Iko Uwais reprises his role as Rama. The film also stars Arifin Putra, Julie Estelle, Alex Abbad, Tio Pakusadewo, Oka Antara, and Cecep A. Rahman.

Director Gareth Evans admirably attempts to expand the world of the original The Raid exponentially through the use of astute writing, meaning that the characters previously confined to the constricted space of a high-rise building are now able to display their extraordinary martial art skills in a variety of distinctive locations. Whilst almost every fight sequence in the film manages to almost reach perfection, the muddy fight within the film's opening act must be mentioned specifically as the combined ferocity and gracefulness of the actor's complicated choreography is performed flawlessly. At times their performances perhaps arguably even transcend the medium as a whole; with their gloriously accurate actions being more akin to dance styles like ballet than an action film. Impressively these fight sequences remain feeling fresh and innovative, even within the film's lengthy 150 minute running time.

The Raid 2 is a film which revels just as much in its subtlety as it does in its barefaced violence. Consistently the discreet and ever- present non-diegetic music contributes enormously to the brooding atmosphere that the director constructs, as does the precisely constructed and gorgeous mise-en-scene. Arguably the film's greatest achievement is this seamless mix of violence and subtlety, as at no point do these binary oppositions appear jarring or distracting.

The film manages to surpass the extraordinary feats of its predecessor, cementing itself as one of the best action film series this decade – a truly captivating piece of work.

The sequel to the 2012 film 21 Jump Street and based on the 1987 television series of the same name, 22 Jump Street is a 2014 American action comedy film produced by and starring Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum, scripted by Michael Bacall and Oren Uziel, from a story by Hill and Bacall, and directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. After successfully making their way through high school (twice), Officers Schmidt (Hill) and Jenko (Tatum) are sent to college to find the dealers and supplier of a new drug named "WHYPHY".

On majority the film's opening act introduces the gloriously self-aware and assured tone of the film, with consistent subtle references to the film's predecessor and the consistency of film sequels generally never living up to the original. Despite this, the initial opening sequence of the film (which has the spectacle but lacks the emotional engagement) does feel oddly jarring in comparison to the rest of the film. Whilst the fast-paced slapstick-filled action sequence certainly establishes initial exhilaration, the ridiculously dangerous set piece stretches the authenticity of a world which priorly felt completely genuine.

The performances are uniformly outstanding. Hill and Tatum have remarkable on screen chemistry and regularly showcase their ability to appear both hilarious as a pair or individually. The writing challenges Hill and Tatum to continually switch between physical comedy and substantial character-driven passages – a challenge which both actors manage superbly. All returning cast members from the original are also as well balanced as the two protagonists. Ice Cube's character in particular is much more fleshed out than within the original, and his vast range of facial expressions provide some of the funniest moments of the film.

The film appears distinctive and memorable through the director's matchless visual style and inventive cinematography. In particular, the chase sequence in which the two protagonists find themselves racing in a buggy shaped like American-Football Helmet is shot very uniquely and demonstrates that the directors are just as intent on creating a visually striking film as well as making it funny and digestible for its audience.

22 Jump Street jokes that a film sequel typically can never live up to the expectations of the original. Ironically this is not the case with the film, as the film's amazing balance between comedy and emotional investment is a breath of fresh air and as such the film manages to even surpass the momentous expectations of the original.

'Bad Neighbours' is a comedy film directed by Nicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall / Get Him to the Greek) and written by Andrew Cohen and Brendan O'Brien. The film stars Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne as a couple who struggle to come to terms with their new parental responsibilities as a cluster of frats (Zac Efron / Dave Franco / Christopher Mintz-Plasse) moves into the house next door.

Whilst the opening act of the film does register a few laughs, the one dimensional characters and narrative descension into horrifying 'Project X-ish' raving nonsense leads to a flat, laugh-less closing act. The director endeavours to grapple with issues surrounding mid-life crises and the loss of a social life following a baby, but labours to achieve this as characters rarely seem life-like and genuine. As such, it's an uphill battle to have confidence in these character's very existence, let alone engage with their difficulties. Whilst Rogen and Byrne do certainly have on screen chemistry together, rarely do their character's relationship and struggles seem anything other than fabricated and inconsequential.

Zac Efron's character shares the same malnourishment of substance. His character is so cookie-cutter and one-dimensional that any questions which are raised regarding the transformation from boy to man mostly fall flat, as every action he takes seems completely ridiculous and preposterous. Therefore the attempted sensitive ending for this character fails as this emotional connection simply fails to be established.

On majority, whilst the film does commendably attempt to manage these themes and transform the film into more than the superficial (Zac Efron's abs are represented as almost a driving force in the narrative), the director forlornly fails and this results in an instantly forgettable film. At least it's not too stupid.

'A Million Ways to Die in the West' is a western-comedy film helmed by Seth MacFarlane (directing, producing, writing and starring.) The film features an accomplished ensemble cast including Charlize Theron, Amanda Seyfried, Neil Patrick Harris, Giovanni Ribisi, Sarah Silverman, and Liam Neeson The film is MacFarlane's second attempt at directing a live- action film, following the release of Ted in 2012.

The film focuses on the cowardly sheep farmer Albert Stark (MacFarlane) who attempts to survive in the extraordinarily treacherous 1880s Wild West, whilst trying to win back the affection of his estranged girlfriend (Seyfried).

The film is intermittently funny – more often than not during sequences void of Albert's presence. Unlike Mark Walberg in Ted, MacFarlane's performance appears tiresome, and his sporadic instances of genuine humour are few and far between. This regrettably means that he generally struggles to maintain interest and generate empathy.

Counteracting this though are strong performances from the rest of the billing, but from Theron in particular, who breathes life and energy into every sequence she's in. The film's narrative in itself is so simplistic and predictable that these performances are really the fundamental factor which contributes to the majority of the enjoyment of the film.

The film's pacing comes off as nonchalant and mis-judged, as the film jumps from sequences of intense gross-out humour, to unnecessarily lengthy expositional sequences which essentially act as a narrative bridge to allow MacFarlane to attempt to create some substance behind the amalgamation of toilet humour.

Despite MacFarlane's evident knowledge of the western genre and its conventions, it appears that he struggled to pinpoint the exact purpose of this film. It seems as if 'A Million Way to Die in the West' is the mutual ground between the two films MacFarlane wanted to make: a simplistic and traditional heartfelt drama set in the west, and an over the top gross out slapstick-filled comedy with cowboys. Ultimately this indecision leaves the film feeling almost purposeless, with many minutes spent just waiting for the next inevitable punchline.

Set in 1941, a successful American playwright –Barton Fink- accepts a proposal to write movie scripts in Los Angeles, and finds himself with writer's block when required to do a B-movie wrestling script. The film's cast includes names such as John Goodman, John Turturro and Steve Buscemi, and is helmed by the Coen brothers (directed, written and produced.) Described by some as a surrealist homage to the films of Roman Polanski, the film offers a narrative rich in symbolism and enigma for audience's to interpret.

The film's begins with a euphoric scene in which we see Barton Fink (John Turturro) awkwardly accept his rigorous applause following the success of his play. He is quickly summoned by a film company to LA, where he is adored by eccentric executive Jack Lipnick (Michael Lerner). Lerner commands every sequence he is in, imposing not only his flesh onto Barton but his plans for his contracted writer to create an outstanding film about wrestling.

As Barton checks in to a hotel, he realises that he is suffering from writer's block and is struggling to get started on his screenplay. From what feels like a steady, accentuated beginning, the film's pacing suddenly increases as Barton's deadline looms. Whilst meeting the instantly-likable Charlie (John Goodman), and the not so likable W. P. Mayhew (John Mahoney), Barton travels on a trip of self-discovery and reflection, climaxing in an extraordinary final act.

Perhaps the film's greatest strength is that it manages to effortlessly blend moments of comedy, tension and violence into a mixture of haunting cinematic magic. The Coen's linger over shots for often uncomfortably short periods of time, planting images in audience's heads. The image of the wallpaper in Barton's room peeling resonates particularly strongly. Barton Fink marked the beginning of the Coen brother's introduction to mainstream cinema audiences, and the film's impressive performances, editing and perfectly handled pacing means that it may be one of their finest films to date.

In Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 spy thriller film "North by Northwest", Cary Grant plays Roger Thornhill – a quick-witted advertising executive who is thrust into the world of spies, deception and murder as he is mistaken for a man named George Kaplin and is framed for murder. On the run from the police, Thornhill meets beautiful blonde Eve Kendell (Eva Marie Saint), who aids in Thornhill's misadventures across America, concluding in a spectacularly constructed action set piece set atop Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota.

A change of tone and pace in comparison to his previous film, the dark psychological thriller "Vertigo", Hitchcock masterfully blends elements from the action, comedy and thriller genres here to create something seemingly familiar, but with enough bite to give its own sense of uniqueness and personality. An intrinsic factor for this film's grip on its audience undeniably from Ernest Lehman's charming and imaginative Academy Award nominated original screenplay, which effortlessly breathes life into characters through the use of unanticipated humour and genuine sincerity which allows the relationship between Grant and Saint's characters to bloom.

Both leading actors are stunning, and the supporting cast are as equally adept, with James Mason stealing the show with a subtle and classy performance as Phillip Vandamm, the film's antagonist. Coinciding with the cast is the instantly memorable soundtrack by Hitchcock's frequent collaborator Bernard Hermann, who crafts the audio so precisely and in such a measured manner that within many sequences the soundtrack seemingly transforms into an individual of its own, having direct interaction with the characters.

The most emphatic aspect of this film however; is its direction. Gloriously imagined by Hitchcock, every shot provides masses of magnificent imagery to indulge the audience, especially within 'the crop-duster sequence', which is perhaps one of the most challenging, inventive and yet wonderfully simplistic shots ever filmed.

Perhaps the greatest testament to this film is how its imagery, performances and soundtrack have been etched within millions of people for generations, and fifty four years after its release, its legacy is showing little sign of coming to a close. The film may not be Hitchcock's most recognised piece, but it's truly a masterpiece.

David Lynch's 2001 film Muholland Drive is a mystifying thrill ride that consistently challenges audiences with its ambitious non-linear narrative structure and superbly handled dialogue. In terms of the plot, the less said the better: a woman finds herself in the city of dreams to find that the key to a mystery lies somewhere on Mulholland Drive. What was originally intended to be a made for TV pilot, the film is left unexplained by the director also, with Lynch encouraging audiences to interpret the narrative in their own way and come to their own conclusions.

On a technical level the film is flawless. Lynch supremely handles passionate sex sequences along with horrifying and haunting set pieces with the skill to wholeheartedly justify his Academy Award nomination for Best Director. Furthermore, the abandonment of coherence within the narrative is glued together by the well-written screenplay, also Lynch's work, which allows audiences to always engage with what they're seeing, even if it doesn't make sense upon first viewing.

Perhaps this film's greatest triumph however is its ability to combine its technical brilliance with character that audiences feel genuinely attachment to. Undoubtedly this can be due to the performances from Justin Theroux, Laura Harring and a career-best showing from Naomi Watts, all of which add a sense of heart and realism to the twisted and uncertain world audiences are presented with.

Mulholland Drive is an indescribable, underrated and engaging stroke of genius from Lynch, being both incredibly engaging upon first viewing, but also being so damningly inconclusive that repeated viewings are joyfully inevitable.

Godzilla is a 2014 American science fiction monster film directed by Gareth Edwards. The film is the second attempt at a Hollywood reboot of the Godzilla film franchise, following the disastrous attempt by Roland Emmerich in 1998. The film stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Bryan Cranston, alongside Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins and David Strathairn.

Mostly identifiable from his successful low budget film 'Monsters', Edwards attempts to take some of the concentrated interior conflicts from the characters in this previous film, and apply them to this film, set to the backdrop of the destruction of America at the hands of the King of the Monsters. Whilst an initial lengthy and thorough exploration into the characters themselves does provide the basis for the following chaos and destruction to have some substance behind it, it results in an opening act which feels sluggish. Additionally, whether it is through his roaring screech or enormous shadow, Godzilla is consistently teased to the audience in an attempt to increase anticipation for his first appearance. The persistent and over-implementation of this technique however simply builds frustration rather than excitement.

Nevertheless, Godzilla's initial appearance is undoubtedly powerful. Never has his vast scaly body looked so beautiful, and never has his ear-piercing roar sounded so authentic and frightening. The CGI as a matter of fact is almost faultlessly immersive throughout the entirety of the film, as is the sound design and hypnotic soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat. Greatly to the director's credit, the film from this point does manage to maintain a feeling of panic and horror, and does manage to hit many of the emotional beats that felt lacking during the film's first half.

Fascinatingly, this is both the film's greatest asset yet also its biggest hindrance. The film excels so marvelously in its final acts that it leaves its opening feeling dry and even somewhat mechanical. All things considered, the film is clearly a mixed-bag, but a worthwhile watch nonetheless.

RoboCop is a 2014 American science fiction action film directed by José Padilha. It is a remake of the 1987 film of the same name and reboot of the RoboCop franchise. The film stars Joel Kinnaman in the title role, Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, and Samuel L. Jackson.

Whilst the original shrewdly grapples with premises like government corruption, identity and the venality of the media, the remake is disappointingly void of the ideas on majority. In a narrative inspired by, but not identical to the original, Alex Murphy - a loving husband, father and cop - is injured in the line of duty.

In response to the country's crime epidemic, the conglomerate OmniCorp seize on this as an opportunity to create a new method of crime prevention – an autonomous machine, RoboCop. Alex's transformation is graphic and horrifying, harking back to the extreme violence which was so intrinsic to the original. This however, is one of the few moments in the film which captures the intensity of the original and despite numerous odd f-bombs being peculiarly asserted throughout, the film is largely subdued and muted.

Performances are uniformly good, especially Gary Oldman who plays Dr. Dennett Norton, Omni Foundation Chief Scientist who creates RoboCop. The writing on the other hand is shapeless and baggy, clocking in with a run time of almost 120 minutes, the film vastly outruns the original with little or any justification for doing so.

On majority, the remake of RoboCop is largely an unnecessary, dumbed down rehash which is passably mind-numbing, but doesn't bring enough to the table to validate why the original needed to be remade.

'Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark' is a monster/disaster film directed by Emile Edwin Smith and released straight to DVD in early 2014. The film is the third instalment of the 'Mega Shark Trilogy', successor to 'Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus' and 'Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus'. The film stars Christopher Judge and Elisabeth Röhm, with Debbie Gibson reprising her role as Emma MacNeil from the first film.

Following a similar plot to its predecessors, our protagonists are confronted by a bloodthirsty megalodon intent on causing havoc off the coast of Australia, and are left side-lined as their own creation designed to destroy the shark – a robot called Mecha Shark – begins an autonomous unforeseen attack following a communication failure. Following an encouraging opening, the film quickly delves into the series' formula of unoriginal and repetitive set pieces attempting to subdue the creatures, whilst an implausible romance blooms. The narrative of films like 'Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark' demands the lowest of expectations from audiences, and whilst the film surpasses these nethermost expectations, it sadly offers little to even be classed in the 'so bad it's good' category.

Performances across the board are satisfactory, but there is a gargantuan non-existence of wit and tongue-in-cheek moments which begs the question why a film entitled 'Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark' is taking itself so earnestly. Undeniably the film offers brief moments of gratification – a shark destroying the head of an Egyptian sphinx can only be a good thing. On majority though the film feels stale and, considering the film's title, it would have been beneficial to give much more screen time to the clash between the Mega Shark and the Mecha Shark.

'Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark' is a formulaic and uninspired film which begs for, believe it not, more destruction and mayhem. Not totally without merit, the film isn't the lowest of the low of its genre, but is certainly does not amaze or thrill.

R.I.P.D. as a concept is unique: a betrayed cop (Reynolds) is forced to join the Rest In Peace Department to take revenge on his former partner (Kevin Bacon) who murdered him in cold blood. Only after serving in this department can he be allowed to die peacefully. That's just about as far as the praise can stretch however, as the execution is messy and gives the impression of a rushed and unfinished script.

Sometimes it's better for audience to simply be swept away by a film rather than instantly question and critique everything put in front of them, however for this to work, the audience need to be engaged or, at the very least, be given a succinct and consistent plot line to follow. Unfortunately we're given neither here.

The film begins by establishing the seemingly respectful Reynolds-Bacon relationship but quickly escalates to the brutal and poorly justified murder of Reynolds. This sudden jolt in tone is a consistent thorn within the script, with the audience having to adjust between uninspired action set pieces containing 'hulk-like' monsters, to heartfelt scenes as Reynolds attempts to reunite with his wife following his death and his entry into the R.I.P.D..

The film also can't seem to decide how seriously to take itself. The vast majority of the gags come from Bridges, who plays a bullish cowboy who is still serving as part of the R.I.P.D since the 19th century, who is paired up with Reynolds to atone for his death. The central joke between this pairing is that once given their new R.I.P.D. identification, they have a completely new physical appearance. Despite not being entirely original, the editing is decent enough to make it work. Rather oddly, the film carries on from these gags and almost becomes slapstick at times. The two members of R.I.P.D. seem to be complete void from any danger or threat, and their seeming invincibility sucks all life and interest from any action sequences. Even more peculiar is the films attempt to become a hard-hitting crime thriller, with numerous profanity delivered, all of which feels complete out of place in what already feels like an unbalanced piece of work.

Perhaps the most damning critique anyone can give of this film is just how stale the film feels. With such an interesting concept, it's almost a crime how disorientating the film is to watch. The film is clearly comparable to Ghostbusters and Men in Black, and certainly pushes the line between paying homage and simply ripping off. Whilst the performances were certainly blameless, the clunky dialogue and too rapid change of tone means R.I.P.D. is a disappointment to say the least.

Verdict: 2/5

James Wan's penultimate film before leaving his horror roots to direct Fast and Furious 7, The Conjuring (notably based from a true story) is a take on a typical ghost story that manages to be both unnervingly familiar and yet surprising and ultimately satisfying.

The plot surrounds two 'Ghostbusters' Ed and Lorraine Warren who are requested to investigate the Perron family's new home in which various supernatural activity has been taking place. The film echoes many aspects from similarly themed films; a dog that will not enter the house, noises from under beds, birds that slam into the exterior of the house (something that we saw only months ago in the vastly inferior 'Dark Skies'). This bird-suicide sequence feels oddly out of place, perhaps due to the unconvincing CGI that depletes the sense of genuine fear throughout the characters.

However; Wan's influence manages to combine the remaining aspects to keep the film from feeling anything but stale. Played completely straight, the film feels like a classic horror flick, which undoubtedly can be partly down to the excellent performances from the cast, especially from Patrick Wilson as Ed. The production design of the house is as effective as the performances inside of it, contributing to some of the most terrifying and intense moments of the film, including a figure immersed in darkness looming behind a door, and a game of 'hide- clap-and-seek'.

John R. Leonetti's cinematography is again excellent, especially within the prologue and climax of the film which enhance the film's beauty while revelling in its ugliness. Had it not been for the sequel to Insidious in the pipeline, James Wan would have left the horror genre with an immensely haunting piece of work.

Verdict: 4/5

I think firstly it's my duty to say that I haven't seen Sam Raimi's Spidey trilogy fully and completely. As a matter of fact the only film I have seen from that trilogy is about a third of the first one when it was broadcast on ITV2 some 8 or so years ago. As you can probably gather, if an 8 year old me had no interest in the series, then I do have doubts about its credentials. However; I'm not one to hold grudges against films, and I'm sure I'll revisit the series a few years down the line. What I'm trying to say to you is I popped my cherry (metaphorically I assure you, I'm a 16 year old male,) on the Spidey franchise with Marc Webb's 'The Amazing-Spider Man.' Overall, I found the film enjoyable and entertaining, but did have problems that kept it reaching the same high mark for superhero films that 'The Avengers', also out this year, has set.

Undoubtedly the best thing about this film is the performances from the two leads in the film, Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacey). It's fair to say that Garfield's performance is not close to surpassing his incredible role as Eduardo in 'The Social Network', but that is certainly not a criticism. His performance is well-rounded, believable, and his ability to play adolescent so perfectly is certainly one of the best in the business right now. Similarly, Emma Stone is again very believable and the pair has a certain dynamic, an on screen connection, which is incredibly satisfying for the audience to watch as the narrative progresses.

The films plot at times does seem to be somewhat formulaic, but the very nature of the Spidey franchise means that some conventions must be followed: i.e. fans would be outraged if the scene in which Peter Parker gains his special abilities via a spider bite isn't shown, or if Peter doesn't have a love interest throughout the film. Despite these conventions, it's ultimately the films plot that is its greatest downfall: it's littered with unanswered and unmentioned plot strings. For instance, (SPOILER) Peter's chase for his uncle's killer is completely left unanswered mid-way through the film, and a shot is shown of the NYPD officers (SPOILER) being covered in slime created by 'The Lizard' which turns people into 'Lizard People.' There is simply one shot of the officers being covered in this slime, and what follows isn't developed whatsoever. Damn, they even have the guts to show the officers transforming back into humans after (SPOILER) Spidery sprays an antidote across the city. Not only does the plot make the film not cohesive and often bewildering for the audience, it undoes the work by Garfield and Stone of making the film so believable for the audience.

The film is visually acceptable. The ending set piece is satisfactory visually, and the audience get just the right amount of POV web-swinging shots to leave them satisfied and not left with motion sickness. The effects on the villain of the film (The Lizard) are often quite plain and standard, but never become a big issue for the film. What does however; is the character himself. The villain, played by Rhys Ifans is simply not interesting and well developed as he should be to become genuine threat to Spider-Man. All we have to look at in comparison is 'The Joker' and 'Bane' in Christopher Nolan's 'Dark Knight' trilogy to see how lacking this villain really is. This comparison may be unjustified, but that's the nature of what superhero films are becoming nowadays - a well respected genre which is starting to release outstanding films on a yearly basis, and although 'The Amazing-Spider Man' does have many positives, Spidey doesn't quite live up to the standard of other superhero films over the past decade.

3/5.