Reviews

Stanley Kubrick's Lolita will for many (over 50 years on from its original release) seem safe and quite possibly routine. This though is simply not the case. At the time it was seen to be racy and in poor taste, so much so that the MPAA demanded that Kubrick made cuts to the film, otherwise they would deny him releasing it to the public. However, even with these restrictions in place Lolita works astoundingly well and even on many more levels if you try to view it with the mind-set of the general public in the 60s. Then it's all too obvious that Lolita is a daring project, beautiful to look at and yet remains a wonder that it ever saw the light of day at all.

Humbert Humbert (James Mason) having recently entered America has moved into a house in Ramsdale residence of Mrs Haze. Originally only moving in so that he can become a college Professor - Humbert becomes undeniably infatuated by Mrs Haze's daughter; Lolita, oozing sexual confidence and spark. Who can blame him? Well other than the fact that he is in his fifties and she in this adaptation fourteen. So of course it is this area of the film that has sparked up controversy ever since 1962. The line "I'm going to take your Queen" possibly causing the most outrage – played over a game of chess.

Though, the controversy of Lolita unlike 1971's A Clockwork Orange is hard to believe. In this day and age its relatively tame when compared to 1999's American Beauty a film that shares certain similarities with Lolita to say the least. Lolita for one has no nudity unless you count an underage girl clad in a revealing bikini and I for one don't. Any sexual references are low key and any moment proceeding intercourse is cut short. So you really have to play it out in your mind more than anything else. Though for me this is beneficiary to the picture, characterising Lolita's innocence, deep insecurity and tendency to shy away at the more intimate moments.

Sue Lyon in her first role is positively enlightening. This is for sure a hard role to "get right". You have to know how to play the different characteristics of Lolita for a start and portray her vibrancy with the needed enthusiasm. But, Lyon handles it well, so well in fact that you'd swear she'd been in show business for a lifetime or at least a good handful of roles. James Mason on the other hand as Humbert Humbert is treading thin ice; yet, he manages to do the trick. The fact that we actually sympathise with a character this conniving and want to watch him on screen is a testament to Mason's staying power as an actor of rare talent, rarely seen nowadays, if at all.

Peter Sellers as Claire Quilty is a different matter entirely and yes, I mean that as a compliment. Sellers just goes for it! Wacky, brilliant, witty and insane all these adjectives actually apply. But even the use of mere words cannot describe how funny he is in each situation, that's because Sellers understands what makes humour work. Edging the line between camp and utter silliness, Sellers is definitely a key factor as to why I adore Lolita so so very much.

A picture like Lolita makes me look at films in an entirely different light. That wasn't a pun. Yet I must talk about the lighting. This is a film that is dazzling to view, and if you think that because its Black and White it cannot look this good, then I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken. Every shade of black and white is honestly a marvel and reminds me that splendid cinematography is about lighting, composition and framing, not different hues of a wide range of colours.

Lolita is the sort of film Hollywood does not make anymore; witty, campy, fun, interesting, daring and never self-serious. This is a film without the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, before the advent of CGI, where characters took centre stage, not action or flashy special effects. Watching Kubrick's Lolita is like watching a by- gone age of cinema where story and characters were key to a film's success, not flashes of colour and the rising sound of a fireball.

A+

Nicolas Winding Refn has never been a filmmaker looking for the easy way out. If that was the case I doubt he would ever have committed his body of work to film in the first place. Refn is a Director whom pushes the boundaries at every available opportunity he gets, no matter if he alienates his target audience in the process. This is a person so determined to achieving a singular goal that it's almost frightening. With Drive, Only God Forgives and now The Neon Demon he has pushed the envelope of cinema.

Jesse is a reserved yet stunning 16 year old with big aspirations to make it in the LA fashion industry. Although we never know much about her life other than this facet it is more than enough, because that's the point. We are not told vivid or entirely intimate character details, at least not till the end. Like the characters and industry it represents The Neon Demon may at first glance appear superficial, but lurking underneath the surface is its dark blood red humour coursing through its veins and the twisted two faced personalities behind it. Being a newcomer to this entire way of life Jesse is guided by Ruby (Jena Malone) and models Sarah (Abbey Lee) and Gigi (Bella Heathcote) and as Jesse becomes a darker shade of her original self they use her to their advantage.

There's no point now denying that Nicolas Winding Refn is perhaps my favourite Director working today, because in essence he understands what makes cinema such an attractive medium and art form to utilise. Not just in his usage of colours to create an atmospheric mood and stunning visual palette, but in the way he presents his themes however brash they may be, you have to admire his skill and craft behind the camera and the undeniable talent in front of it.

Elle Fanning who showed promise in her limited screen time in Trumbo earlier this year, provides an even greater on screen presence as Jesse. The smallest subtleties of character progression are felt and are only accentuated when the shocking climax is revealed. There's posing to be sure and a hell of a load of it at that (this is about glamour after all), yet this is the bold uncompromising statement of Refn and a scathing reflection of the fashion industry as a whole.

If this sounds like your standard art film about the dangers of the glitz and glamour of the fashion industry take note. The Neon Demon is assuredly not for the faint of heart. With helpings aplenty of cannibalism, forced sexual encounters oh and necrophilia, in case you were wondering. The Neon Demon for all its superficial dressing is very much the work of an auteur and a take it or leave it film maker at that. If any criticism is directed towards the film none should shine on Refn. Uncompromising? Yes. Dramatic? Check. Flamboyant? For sure. I wouldn't have it any other way.

A

Star Wars, Star Wars what have you become? You've always been there for me through the good (Revenge of the Sith), the bad (The Phantom Menace) the unintentional laughter (Attack of the Clones) and the highs (The Empire Strikes Back). But along the way something went wrong you're not the same franchise you used to be. Whilst never entirely reliable you were something I could rest easy with particularly when a certain George Lucas was not at the creative helm. But this is different, Lucas is out of the picture forever and now you present me with this garbage from the trash compactor? Why? Why now? Star Wars should be at new heights and The Force Awakens showed us what love, care and fan service (albeit too much) could do for a franchise that was thought to have had its day. Enter Gareth Edwards, that's no Director, that's a hack!

Rogue One is exactly how you would reasonably expect any Star Wars film to begin (minus the title crawl and John William's music) in Space! Jyn Erso is a rebel on a mission to grasp hold of the Death Star plans and bring the Empire crumbling down. Helpless and frail. It ends how we expect it to end, begins how we would assume it to begin. As for the middle, the plot beats can be neatly charted on a graph for sheer convenience, how kind of Edwards. It's certain that this is not your father's Star Wars, because well that would require a reasonable amount of thinking and thought processes to have taken place.

I will take this moment to bring up where this film excels. Don't worry this won't take me long. The music although it pales in comparison to John William's weakest scores is still admirable, although I do tend to think great things of Michael Giacchino and sadly this does not bolster his reputation so much as hinder it. The cinematography is gorgeous, not to the extent that the originals or Episode VII were, but better than the prequels all the same. Is that high praise? I doubt it. Mads Mikkelsen although given severely little to do is intriguing enough that we want to care about him, yet due to the scripts numerous shortcomings we never in fact do. Or feel any emotion for the main characters themselves, an irksome trend with Edwards's films to be sure. Remember 2014's Godzilla? Same treatment is given to the best characters here, they are put on a backseat whilst the endless CGI drivel is chucked at the screen hoping and praying that something does indeed stick with the audience to the very end. Here's a spoiler it doesn't.

That's the main gripe I have with Rogue One; not its story or its cringe inducing acting (minus the voice of James Earl Jones, thank the gods) but its characters. The group that Ersa becomes a part of is so ill defined that I thought George Lucas must have scrambled in, hijacked the script and completed rewrites. They don't even fit into specific character archetypes because quite simply they have ceased to be characters the moment they step on screen, utter some of the worst one liners in recent memory and stumble out of the frame, promptly leave the scene and try not to look too embarrassed or ashamed with themselves. At this point it's practically a panto. All glitz and glamour, forced heart and humour with no blood coursing through its veins, just dried up oil and a script that I would be surprised if they spent more than a good day on. Yeah, it's that much of a shambles. Because this is what Star Wars is under the watchful eye of the corporate giant that is Disney; manufactured by robots with fake emotion sprinkled throughout, the resemblance of some plot and a plethora of characters all of whom are the comic relief and serve one purpose. To sell more toys! This is what happens when you put the by-products of a film before the actual production itself. A mess, a disaster and something that even Yoda couldn't fix with his wide assortment of powers.

I'm not expecting for anyone to heed my advice and leave Rogue One to play out its life cycle in the cinema whilst you sit back at home and watch the originals in pristine high definition picture and quality. That would be the wisest thing to do, but believe me we both know that's never going to happen. So here's what to do, watch it as soon as possible so you can be spared further pain and then watch all the others minus I, II, III. (Delete where applicable). I'm saving you a world of pain. Who wants to try a Jedi Mind trick on Disney? Maybe we can stop them from causing this disaster that they so clearly want to make. Episode VIII is a mere zap away from becoming a reality and maybe this is the point of the sequel trilogy; to be our shining beacon of hope that will redeem the standalone projects when they inevitably fail and if we are lucky flop too. As for me I'm not holding my breath. You shouldn't either.

D+

For Doctor Strange being the fourteenth outing in the Marvel Cinematic Universe you would be forgiven for wondering whether by now things had become rote, stale and all too predictable as the allotted characters slot into place. It is with great enthusiasm and joy then that I can report that this entry is bar Guardians of the Galaxy, Marvel's riskiest outing to date.

Stephen Strange is an egotistical, cocky, suave son-of-a-bitch and yeah as it turns out he is also a doctor; one that only helps those that have a 100% chance of being fixed up or cured. One day though he has a terrible accident leaving his hands broken and therefore any hope of him continuing his work is soon put to rest. Upon learning of a secret temple that may be able to fix him he travels and is taught the wise old ways of an ancient being. Soon Dr Strange will be the only hope that this world has to be saved from the oncoming doom that threatens it.

First things first let's get the bad out of the way and then onto the great. Rachel McAdams is fine as Christine Palmer (I had to look up her name beforehand, never a good sign) but is sadly underwritten. She has no depth, we know as much as she had a relationship with Strange, conflicted as it may have been. But we don't actually know her as a person, given this much time, eight years in fact it's sad that Black Widow remains the only female character in the Marvel Universe that has been served well. A minor quibble to be sure but the product placement in the first act at least is irritating and shoved blatantly in your face. To the point of embarrassment with Adidas and Coke being the main culprits if you require solid proof.

The acting talent here though is supreme, from Cumberbatch to Mikkelson. Cumberbatch of course imbues personality and a roughness of edge to his character without borrowing too heavily from Robert Downey Jr's performance as Iron Man. You only care more about him as the film approaches its truly dazzling climax that is a wonder to behold. Mikkelson's character may not be the easiest to sympathise or come to terms with but he's always intriguing to watch (Casino Royale was proof ten years ago) so it's a shame it's taken this long again for him to come into the fold as a central villain, that get this, actually poses a threat to our heroes.

The action dazzles; a mix of Star Trek's action pounding thrills and humour in the strangest of places with a dash of the visual wonder of 2001: A Space Odyssey for good measure. It must be said that it is not often if at all that I compare a Blockbuster to Kubrick's masterwork. Marvel once again defies expectations and for once a film in their universe does not climax with a gigantic blue lazer beaming up into the sky. Yes the consequences of the battle may be earth shattering but the film is too steeped in its lore and characters for it to be formulaic in its approach in the slightest. It borrows off of Inception without feeling like a rip off and mixes up the Marvel formula just enough to ensure that a feeling of seeing this all too often and before, not once, not even for a fleeting second seeps into the picture. DC could learn a trick or two from Marvel and perhaps may need to if they are to ensure their survival.

Scott Derrickson is to be sure a strange (see what I did there) choice for this project, not least because the majority of films with him at the helm have been horrors and none taken to all that kindly by critics. Based on his work on Doctor Strange however, should be a primer for things to come; intelligence, craftsmanship and action handled with rare skill and offering up sympathy for its characters.

Doctor Strange is best viewed off of impulse with knowing very little about the title character. Its central romance may be underwhelming but rest assured that this is the only element of the entirety of the film that disappoints. The action thrilling, the stakes personal, real and potent, the characters interesting and a film lover's wet dream come to life in terms of the visuals anyhow. If you pass up the chance to see Marvel's latest on the big screen then maybe it's time that you had your mind expanded too…

A

Another short film of the Lumiere Brothers. Another simplistic work that proved ground-breaking for cinema. The premise here is simple and the plot missing in action. This is of course the point, simple vignettes produced that tell a story without any real consequence but a showcase of real life. To a modern audience this may prove to be mundane everyday real life, as eating is an act of which we do without as much as a thought. But those that appreciate the art and beauty of cinema can see this for what it really is, rather interesting in the way that the audience of the 1900s at least perceived that with which they saw at the time.

The title speaks for itself and thus to produce a review of this short film that lasts little over a minute is a challenging task to be sure. But what transfixed audiences was not the performances or the central act such as that of a baby eating food, but that which cannot be rehearsed and this represents real life in its truest and simplest of forms. The foliage in the background, the trees and their leaves swaying in the wind shocked audiences as this cannot be rehearsed or scheduled it just happens to be much like real life. It is something that modern audiences take for granted and would bear little thought for at all. And why it should for it is simply window dressing, but for the time simply put this was indeed spectacular. Looking back on this time over one hundred years past it's easy to see how and why audiences remained captivated by this work, that was it must be said pure brilliance and genius, I myself felt removed from the real world and was shocked to realise it

It's hard to know where to begin with Batman V Superman. A film so desperate to set up DC comic's cinematic future that it forgoes any attempt at being coherent, having a solid script and gaining narrative momentum.

After the destruction of half of Metropolis in Man of Steel, Batman is understandably furious. Superman is seemingly on free rein doing as he pleases. This leads to what the title implies a gladiator match between DC's beloved heroes.

If that synopsis sounds befuddling it's because the film is a narrative disaster. So confusing at times that the storytelling borders on incoherent. Scenes jump from location to location subplot to subplot without establishing the necessary ingredients for a story such as this that demands depth. Character motivations are at best bizarre and many situations are never fleshed out. It makes sense why Batman faces off against Superman, but Superman's reason feels contrived. There are still interesting moments that inspire wonder such as how the public regards Superman as a God and yet many still fear his powers. But moments such as these are all too brief and the story cuts away from them just as they start to develop.

There are far too many characters thrown into the mix, but Affleck as Batman manages to make an impression – he is darker and more tormented than ever before. The scenes with Bruce Wayne/Batman are the best parts of the film, but when the character is all too often pushed to the side it hurts the production. In regards to Jesse Eisenberg's villainous Lex Luthor you have to wonder what was going through his head. Its agonizing to watch his scenes unfold of which there are a great many.

The fight itself which would seem to be the main event of the film almost feels like an afterthought. Arriving nearly two hours into the film it looks visually stunning but barely lasts three minutes. It's all too little too late.

Will Batman V Superman be a financial success? Undoubtedly. But if DC wants to stay ahead of the competition and come out on top, they would be wise to focus on the characters and what makes them tick rather than noisy and choppily edited CGI spectacle.

D+

"How do you say no to God?" This is the question that Spotlight at its heart battles with. The answer though is nowhere to be found. There is not a simple explanation and this is the way that Director Tom McCarthy and writer Josh Singer treat the material, with thought, care and complexity.

2001. Pre 9/11. The internet is about to explode. Newspapers are seen as the lesser of the two mediums and the Boston Globe is on the brink of uncovering the truth about Catholic Priests who have been molesting and raping children for years. Everyone else turns a blind eye to the truth, including the church that silences anyone who tries to speak out against them. The Boston Globe assigns a special investigative team 'Spotlight' to help bring justice to the hundreds of victims who don't just originate from Boston, but the entire world.

It would have been all too easy to lose sight of the characters in Spotlight and that was my biggest fear. However, we never lose sight of them for a moment. The main players are Walter Robinson (Keaton), Mike Rezendes (Ruffalo) and Sacha Pfeiffer (McAdams). I did not need any more convincing from Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams, that they are actors at the top of their game; especially Ruffalo who surprised me further, even after his excellent characterisation in Foxcatcher. He truly is the star of the show, subtly brilliant without drawing attention. Actors like him deserve to be commended.

Where does Spotlight excel the most though? That would be the writing, separating itself from the majority of Biopics and Dramas on the market that are sloppy, predictable and quite frankly a mess. The scripting is dynamic and killer lines sprinkled throughout help convey the drama to audiences, like myself who would never have believed that such horrific events really did happen. We are reminded (but not bludgeoned over the head repeatedly) by the facts. McCarthy handles the film gracefully. Admittedly a shock, when his last project was The Cobbler.

But Spotlight is absorbing cinema, that shocks to the core, never succumbing to the usual clichés, is dramatic and riveting without ever patronising its audience. When was the last time a Director achieved this with this much trust? Many other Directors would make a film that felt dramatically contrived, even though these events really did happen. The power of a great Director is to make the material excel and go beyond what could have potentially been dramatically inert and lifeless. Spotlight is always moving forward in interesting and meaningful ways. The performances and writing only account for a small percentage of the film's brilliance.

At first glance Spotlight is a film shot simply without an all- encompassing cinematic feel; upon further inspection though it's a beautifully dark and sinister film. With shots that linger on the performances, always cutting away at the right moment and frames that echo the superb brilliance of the famous opening shot from The Godfather. The slow reveal.

I honestly could go on and on about Spotlight because it really is a great film. It's also a rare film that changes the way you perceive the world and the people around you, without feeling exploitative. A statement that is applicable to very few of the films I have seen. Biopics do not get as captivating, thought provoking, emotional and gripping as Spotlight. Why would you miss this? It demands your attention and needs to be seen. It's a true story about real people and real problems we are still facing today, relevant now more than ever. It never feels phony, fake or begging for awards nominations (which it so rightfully deserves). It builds upon everything that comes before its 128 minute runtime and offers up a conclusion that is heart stopping. Not to mention tremendous support from Ruffalo, McAdams and Keaton who bring further emotional weight to the film. All of which contribute to Spotlight standing as one of the greatest films of the decade, if not all time.

A+

"It's all silly. It's all very silly" as John Du Pont in Foxcatcher would say. Which of course is the point of it all. It is a parody and Mortdecai is certainly an acquired taste. It's all too dependent though on whether you find this film to be in good or poor taste. Where do I stand on Mortdecai? Somewhere in the middle of good and bad.

What's the meat of Mortdecai though? Sadly, nothing substantial. Mortdecai is played by a befuddling Johnny Depp; whom I can't work out whether his performance in the film is a work of pure genius or utter idiocy. He's as confused as his character and that's not because he jumps into the role. It rather took me out of the moment.

Mortdecai is commissioned by Detective Martland, Ewan McGregor on finest form as ever, to retrieve a stolen painting. One that is rumoured to have a code on it which will lead the person who acquires it to a horde of Nazi gold. There are laughs to be had with Mortdecai though and to spend a couple of hours with it is not a waste of time. But others will undoubtedly find the film patience testing at best. For every laugh to be had with or at Mortdecai's expense, five others fail to hit the mark. One out of six isn't a good ratio. Still Gwyneth Paltrow who plays Johanna is a delight to watch as she pushes Mortdecai away, no matter how many times he tries to have his way with her. She is after all a lady!

There's no shortage of hilarious supporting characters and bit players. Like sex addict Jock (Paul Bettany), cock tease Georgina (a stunningly pretty Olivia Munn) and Jeff Goldblum whom automatically makes whichever film he is starring in better by 12.5%! Yay!

Despite various laughs scattered throughout, Mortdecai just doesn't in the end hold its own, neither as a spy nor parody film. I almost fell in love with Mortdecai but just like Johanna after all the advances; I had had enough and managed to push him away. If you're not as forgiving as me, then I wouldn't touch this one with a twenty, no, forty, nope, sixty foot pole.

C

There's an ongoing argument in Hollywood that's a lose-lose situation for anyone who tries to tackle it. If the film in question is directed by a woman and you find yourself talking to a feminist, then good luck to you if you detested the film. The argument? You didn't like a film directed by a woman? That means you're a sexist pig! It doesn't. American Psycho a spectacular film that deals with the psychology of a killer that struggles to come to terms with the nature of his true self was directed by a woman. Another of importance; The Virgin Suicides a depressing exploration of the lengths that others will go to, to end their unfulfilling lives, you guessed it, was directed by woman. At this point you're asking what do American Psycho and The Virgin Suicides have to do with Hot Pursuit? The answer is nothing, apart from the fact that they were directed by women. Women, who could tell a story, make you care about despicable characters and enthral you from beginning to end. Does Anne Fletcher accomplish these statements in Hot Pursuit? Absolutely not.

If Hot Pursuit was directed by a man, I would probably dislike it even more than I actually do. But I doubt that that's physically possible because the movie's utter trash anyway. Why would I hate it even more if it was directed by a man? Because Hot Pursuit is sexist, vulgar and trying too hard be sexy all the time. Like the girl you knew at school who was a virgin and pretended to be promiscuous; American Beauty style.

I can't sum up the plot. There's nothing there. Just like there's nothing at the heart of Hot Pursuit. Just Reese Witherspoon looking embarrassed and Sophia Vergara screaming her bloody head off. There is the smallest amount of a plot hidden among the out of place sexism and vulgarity. It's there somewhere. Witherspoon has to protect Vergara from rogue agents. Happy now? Is that enough? Can I end the review, watch This is Spinal Tap and turn it up to 11?

D-

It's been a long time since Adam Sandler was part of a great movie or merely a good one for that matter; 2002 to be precise with Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch Drunk Love. Under the thumb of an excellent Director, who is also a dab hand at character centric thought provoking pieces, you would believe that this sees the resurrection of the once fabulous Adam Sandler. You would be wrong. It's only a cut above Grown Ups and that's because this time the jokes involving bodily functions are absent, thankfully. Still it could, should and would have been much greater if Director Tom McCarthy had put the tiniest bit of his heart and soul into the film.

Adam Sandler plays Max Simkin, which would be alright if he didn't play himself as he does in every movie he is in these days. So I think it's easier if I just keep referring to him as Adam Sandler. I don't want to make matters tired, confusing and a waste of everyone's time. Oh wait, I made a mistake, I just described all of the qualities that The Cobbler possesses. In all honesty it's not painful to sit through The Cobbler, just disappointing from a dramatic standpoint and the talent the film assembles, only to have it crushed and weighted down by a pretentious story and lack of any significant meaning.

So let's jump to the story. Sandler is a cobbler and one day discovers a revolutionary device for himself. Any shoe that a customer hands to him, when he wears it, it will change his appearance, he will become the customer. He will literally be a master of all disguises. Sandleritis will spread far and wide and infect everyone that it comes into contact with. Sadly, this is not the angle that the film adopts. But it would be much more entertaining than the one it does, because realistically speaking the story is extremely hurtful and I'm not easily offended. Sandler adopts many guises, each more cringe worthy than the last; in order to solve his family problems, sort out gangster violence and bed the woman of his dreams. All whilst maintaining the appearance of someone other than himself. Is it rape if the woman you are having consensual sexual intercourse with, does not know what you actually look like? It's a baffling point and The Cobbler gets a good kick out of debating it with itself at length. Because any audience member who's still watching the film up to this point, doesn't care what it's got to say.

C-

With all factors of the film considered The Danish Girl should be a sheer delight. On paper it's a perfect film; Tom Hooper as Director, Eddie Redmayne at the forefront of the picture and Alicia Vikander in a splendid supporting role. But in reality The Danish Girl is formulaic, unfulfilling and forgettable.

Einar Wegener played with delicacy by Eddie Redmayne is a confused individual. Unable to come to terms with his sexuality, he craves to wear women's clothes. He's not even comfortable in his own skin and is about to proceed with an operation that will change his life.

There are so many biopics nowadays that one has to discard the filth and meander some. The Danish Girl has both of these tragic qualities. Yet, if it had a solid script it would be a great film. There are far too many familiar lines that destroy any hope of sympathy for the flawed characters. Lines like; "We were playing a game" "Let's give them something special" and "I finally feel like my true self". Okay, I made the last one up, but you get the point.

From solely a production standpoint The Danish Girl is flawless. Beautiful shots of the surrounding landscape of Denmark, sell the time period and setting of the story. The music is suitably emotional and the performances are of the highest order. But that script, the way it kills any momentum and renders all drama meaningless and uneventful. The writing remains the most important part of a biopic. I need to believe that these events really did happen. But when the script feels this contrived and fails to generate the required emotion that the writer wants me to feel, then I'm afraid I can't believe in it at all.

The Danish Girl literally screams Oscar bait and melodramatic drivel. If you liked the film, then I'm happy for you. By all rights I should have fell in love with it. The film deals with a man who struggled to come to terms with his sexuality. I myself can relate to the character, having spent many years identifying myself. But in this day and age films that are merely passable and relatively harmless do not cut it anymore and The Danish Girl remains as conflicted as its central character.

C

Let's be honest 2015 was a bad year for action films. If you're a film critic give yourself a well-deserved pat on the back. You deserve it. The action genre is already waning when it comes to inventiveness and The Transporter Refuelled is brain dead on arrival.

If you can find any substance amongst the ongoing drastic levels of violence then you're doing better than most and me. The smallest thread of a plot is this, Frank Martin an ex-special ops mercenary is referred to as The Transporter. Ed Skrein does his best, but he can't even live up to Jason Statham's level of standards. He delivers packages to people; on time and with no questions asked. When one day he gets an unusual request to transport a couple of blonde bombshells. Naturally, he refuses. But when his father's life is on the line he doesn't have a choice.

Not too long ago I completed a review on George Miller's action masterpiece Mad Max: Fury Road. I stated what was wrong with the modern action film and what Fury Road did right. Everything in The Transporter Refuelled is plain wrong and defines why action cinema is losing its appeal with well-versed film buffs.

The characters are a disposable mess. I need someone to connect with on an emotional level during the set pieces. If the film makers fail for me to do so, then they are shooting themselves in the foot. I end up becoming distracted and the action becomes a mess of "sound and fury signifying nothing" which describes The Transporter Refuelled's worth, nothing. This review doesn't need to be any longer, neither does the film, even though it runs at a measly ninety six minutes. But after viewers have spent this brief time with The Transporter Refuelled they will be begging for it to end or for someone to execute them Transporter style instead.

D+

When is a thriller not thrilling? When it's directed by Rob Cohen, written by Barbara Curry and starring Jennifer Lopez. Or when said film is called The Boy Next Door. Either criteria is a good fit.

The dilemma? Jennifer Lopez plays an English literature teacher. If you're laughing now rest assured that this is entirely normal. I had to take time to compose myself and trite conveniences such as these which pop up all over the place in The Boy Next Door make the entire film laughably bad. She falls for the boy next door, which you all will have guessed as much. If you can put two and two together like any person can, then you will see every plot twist coming. What you won't be able to see coming though is ear scraping dialogue and clichés filled to the brim. The film is overflowing with them. As anticipated she starts an affair with the boy next door. Everything's perfect. That is until he starts stalking her, sending creepy photos and dribbling at her mere presence.

I hate to admit it, but I've got to hand it to Hollywood. Only they can release films as bad as this and still make more than their budget back opening weekend. Films that take risks and are made with intellect and intelligence are shunned to the side and dismissed. I could make a list of every film ever made, compare it to this one and have the worst films of all time come out with glowing reviews. In fact The Boy Next Door makes films like White House Down and The Gunman, which are so called thrillers look like the next Casino Royale. I could spend the entirety of this review contrasting this film to others, just to drive the point home that this movie flat out sucks. But frankly it would be a waste of mine and your precious time, so I won't.

As for me I'll just get back to what I love most; reviewing movies and dreck like this, so you don't have to. I don't need to tell you to steer clear though, you'll have guessed as much just from reading the synopsis. How do I know? Because you're intelligent and if you're like me you require films that challenge you physically and mentally. The Boy Next Door treats audiences as if they are a brain dead baby that's just come out of the womb. The only way you could enjoy this crime against cinema is if you had a lobotomy. I will be the first to say that I don't think that's a viable solution to the problem at hand.

F

From the Director of the original Taken comes what is essentially Taken 2.0, re-skinned, rehashed and re-marketed for a different audience to puke back up. But this is Penn's show, a self-obsessed project. Highlighting what a great human being he is. Look at all the humanitarian work he does! Protect the environment! Guns are bad! The last statement though, isn't entirely true. Penn uses guns many a time, so its message is somewhat conflicted. Like the overall point of the film. What are the filmmakers really trying to say about the current economic climate? The answer though is simple and its, well nothing.

Penn's character, a bland individual that doesn't deserve the honour of being named, is an ex-sniper or gunman if you like. He's out of the business. For good. That is until his demons of the past force him to confront his fears and health problems. Because what would an action film be without an aged actor, mediocre director and the threat of heart problems in the long run?

The Gunman is solid proof that Hollywood has run out of new ideas. Instead the film plays out like a poor man's Bourne Identity, not stylish enough to offer thrills, nor thoughtful enough to make a meaningful statement about the economy. Instead it ponders along boring everyone in its wake. Maybe I would like The Gunman more if it didn't insult my intelligence at every turn, didn't bore me from tears and didn't make me long for the days of Liam Neeson as an action hero. That's how bad this film is. Take note because with a poor script, inflated runtime, zero characterisation and a dull po faced story, The Gunman is not worth your time or money.

D

Steven Spielberg is one of Hollywood's most prolific Directors. He does not have the best track record and yet he creates far more great films than poor ones. It will come as little of a shock then that Bridge of Spies is a great film, with Spielberg on fine form, showcasing tremendous showmanship, craft and talent. Bridge of Spies bears the distinction of being his best film since Saving Private Ryan, so applause in this case is necessary.

Based on a true story, Bridge of Spies is set in the fifties in America, during the time of the Cold War. James B Donovan works as a lawyer, but soon the CIA involves him with a suspected Soviet Spy by the name of Rudolf Abel. They ask Donovan to help Abel out in court. What they really mean is to make the proceedings look civilised and yet they all know that Abel does not have a hope in hell. That is until Donovan is willing to truly help him.

What Bridge of Spies has really got going for it is an element of intrigue as well as a dash of surprise and suspense. How often is it that we get a film set in the fifties with the amount of drama, wit and excitement that Director Steven Spielberg and writers Joel and Ethan Coen can stir up in us? It's rare for a match between material, writers and director that is quite literally made in heaven. With Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance at the helm, Bridge of Spies is exceedingly well acted and I am not a loyal devotee of Hanks, but here oh my goodness how he shines like never before! His character has heart, warmth and humour. The most important aspects in making us love a character. He is not once misjudged. Thank the marvellous writing from the Coen Brothers for that one!

Still considering the talent involved when you have the Coens on board, in all honesty I wanted Bridge of Spies to be a greater film than it actually amounts to. But don't get me wrong this is terrific film making. Yet there's something lacking. What is it? A sense of flowing momentum and precision. Which is all to do with the script. At first glance there's no problem to be had here. Yet upon further scrutiny it does not hold up. My main issue? We are shown scenes that do not need to be seen. They detract from the thrust of the story. We almost forget about Donovan and that's a crime itself. Luckily it's only for ten minutes at a time, but I must admit that these departures from the essence and heart of the story do hurt the film. It's also too long for its own good and I strongly suspect that Spielberg inflated the runtime so that the Academy would pay more attention to the film during awards season. The gamble does not pay off.

But let's not get negative here. Bridge of Spies is no question or doubt in my mind an excellent film. Not perfect alas. But brilliant all the same. If anything its further proof that Steven Spielberg is the best at what he does in the business. Particularly if the subject matter is a) A Biopic b) centred around a well-drawn individual and c) about courage in the hardest to find places. Spielberg don't ever stop making movies while I'm around.

B+

For many years it appeared that George Miller had retired the Mad Max franchise which had fallen into disrepair. Well leaving the series for thirty years is bound to make it all the more difficult to return. With Fury Road, the fourth and now greatest film in the franchise, Miller is firing on all cylinders and the film is cinematic spectacle of the highest order.

"My name is Max; my world is fire and blood". The opening line delivered with gusto and grittiness by Tom Hardy tells us all we need to know. A) The character's name B) This is a world we are familiar with and C) It has collapsed as a society. But enough about the ins and outs of the film, what does Mad Max: Fury Road offer in way of plot? I can sadly imagine many unengaged viewers mumbling something to the sum of "nothing" yet that's not at all true.

Remember that 80s action film? The one you loved when you were an adolescent and as an adult still do. It had a plot. A simple one, which is all that is required. Not garbage a la Resident Evil or gibberish and confused drivel with its own agendas like recent deluge White House Down. The film that was succinct, straight to the point and did not wait for any man; Die Hard, Predator and The Terminator. Chances are if you're an action fan you have seen all three or at the very least heard of them. Fury Road abides by the same principle. It's not dumbed down and it's also not a bloated mess, running at a streamlined 120 minutes. It's not three hours long because it doesn't need to be.

Mad Max: Fury Road is the story of Max, Furiosa and the tyrannical leader of the oppressed people, Immortan Joe. The crux of it all; Max is enslaved, little more than a blood donor to the sick dying war boys of Joe's Citadel. Max breaks free and begrudgingly teams up with Furiosa who is stealing Immortan Joe's five prized wives, in search of the fabled "Green Place" to find rest, water and food. On this journey they attempt to outrun Joe and endure the heat of the ravaged Australian wasteland. But what makes Mad Max: Fury Road stand out from the crowd? What stops it from being the next embarrassment to cinema like Hit-man: Agent 47 or the Robocop remake? Is it at all worthy of a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, Empire's highest grade and my recommendation? In short yes. But let me explain. What's wrong with action films nowadays?

1. No character development. When was the last time you cared about the fate of a character? Good or evil? The emotions they harbour, the chills they give you, the love you inhabit for them. Fury Road ensures that every character counts. The five wives have their own traits and definable personalities, Furiosa is the strongest female character that Hollywood has given birth to and despite so called evidence to the contrary, Max is never overshadowed and all the characters work in harmony with one another, building upon and breaking relationships throughout the natural progression of the story.

2. Too much CGI. The best example; Superhero films, they look so fake that you wonder, is this what passes for realism? Miller throws CGI out of the window and pours gasoline over it for good measure. 99% of Fury Road utilises the limits of what practical effects can do. The other 1%? Colour grading and the melding of several key shots together. What you witness on screen is all real. From the rusting metal trucks down to the very dust that settles as they whizz past in and out of frame.

3. Sub-par acting. Or as I refer to it – The Sam Worthington Effect. Whereby the action overshadows the performances. Not that they were terribly great to begin with anyway. It's not the case here. Charlize Theron excels as Furiosa, Tom Hardy grumbles with gravitas as Max and Hugh Keays-Byrne (Toecutter from Mad Max '79) is as riveting as he is horrifying as Immortan Joe. There is no way that Miller allows this trio to get lost in the mix and he handles the performances with due precision.

4. Frenetic Editing. The killer of any hope of an excellent action film is all in the editing. Too many; Tak3n, The Expendables and Transformers, live or die by the hands of the edit. Fury Road doesn't just live, it breathes new life into the action genre. We can tell in any given shot, space of time or singular moment what is going on, when and why. Each frame is sped up or slowed down ensuring we never lose focus and the film throttles along at a considerable pace.

But wait there's more! The music is loud and hefty in the thrilling action set pieces and quiet in the subtle character driven scenes of which there are a great many. The cinematography on the other hand deserves its own review. It's a cinephile's wet dream with John Seale capturing the expansiveness of the seemingly never ending desert and the tragic note of hope that Furiosa so desperately clings to.

Hold on. Somethings not right. I haven't mentioned the action. Think of the most heart thumping scene you have experienced from a single film; times that by twelve, subtract awful editing and add enemies on nitro powered trucks, bikes, polecats and throw in a guitarist operating a flamethrower for good measure. That should give you an idea of what awaits you and how much adrenaline will be coursing through your veins after witnessing George Miller's action masterpiece that's the cinematic jewel of 2015 and one of the greatest action films of all time. The review ends here. There's only one thing left to say. See the movie.

A+

It's practically impossible to review Danny Boyle's Steve Jobs without bringing up The Social Network. They are not exactly identical subjects. Yet they bear certain inescapable similarities. Both about an egotistical loner, outside of regular society and so devoted to creating the next big thing that they do not care whom they hurt in the process. Steve Jobs is not the better film of the two and yet it's not far behind either.

Steve Jobs is the co-founder of Apple. To say he is demanding of his staff would be a severe understatement. He expects everything from them and if they fail to live up to his colossal expectations he threatens them with public humiliation at the very least. The film is divided into three well defined acts. The first starts in 1984, the launch of the failed Apple Macintosh. The second in 1988, the NeXT computer and finally the iMac in 1998 this acts as somewhat of a rebirth for the talented Steve Jobs.

Danny Boyle centres these three acts primarily upon the conflicts that Jobs has with his family; namely his former girlfriend Chrisann Brennan and Lisa his daughter that he does not acknowledge as his own child for some time. These confrontations give Steve Jobs a dramatic centre and heart. It helps us identify with the character even when he makes things exceedingly difficult for the people that work around him.

However, this sudden shift in timelines does add a disorientating effect that the film could do without. The time jump from 1984 to 1988 is largely inconsequential and works well. It allows us time to see the growth of the characters and their maturity likewise increases. Or in the case of Jobs his arrogance and egotistical side takes over and is more readily apparent than before. But the time gap from 1988 to 1998 does indeed hurt the film from a dramatic standpoint. Any drama built up from the strongly constructed first two acts bears little meaning or resemblance to speak of in the third. It still has drama and by any means is not a bad way to end the film. It just renders everything that came before almost meaningless, almost.

Whenever the film gets bogged down in these details it springs gracefully back up and snaps into shape. You cannot deny the sheer power of the film. This emanates through every line of Aaron Sorkin's memorable dialogue. The script is many things and is surely smart, swift and engaging until the very end. It is not as witty as The Social Network but it matches it for intellect and ingenuity. Because of the break ups in acts it never maintains the flow and focus of David Fincher's masterpiece, but it is still writing at its most uniformly excellent. If every script in Hollywood was up to the level of quality that Sorkin's is then each film that came out would be a must see for every audience member across the world. Despite its shortcomings, Danny Boyle's latest is just that; a film that demands to be seen by anyone who can appreciate spectacular writing and directing on any level.

Boyle's directing is stunning and does not take center stage like before. He lets the real stars of the show shine brightest like writer Aaron Sorkin and the actors that soar at every opportunity that they are given to do so. Michael Fassbender as Steve Jobs is a masterstroke. No matter how many times he is threatening or forceful to his members of loyal staff we still care about his troubles, worries and doubts. There is a sadness that is aching deep inside him; we only see this more vulnerable side of his personality in the time that he spends alone with his daughter Lisa.

But the real breakthrough here is Seth Rogen. Not exactly the kind of person I thought capable of delivering a thought provoking character performance steeped in nuance, but there you have it. If it was not for Michael Fassbender on top form he would steal the show. As Steve Wozniak creator of the Apple II he is the most sympathetic character of the bunch. Yet he never demands it. He just embraces the role with grace and comes out victorious. Rogen, I plead you to stop making stoner comedies. They are beneath you, please only make films where you can shine with the material that is given to you!

Steve Jobs is a highly entertaining, intellectual and thoughtful piece of cinema. It combines Danny Boyle, Aaron Sorkin and Michael Fassbender in a near masterpiece of modern cinema for any adult audience member. It demands to be seen, not just once, but twice. Hollywood is all too lacking when it comes to films crafted with this complexity, ingenuity and script smarts.

The Hunger Games Franchise started out promising and continued to be thrilling, intellectual and poignant for a time; until it reached the first half of its dramatic conclusion. Then it tried to grasp ideas that were far beyond its reach for what is primarily a thriller aimed at teenagers. The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 1 was a film comprised solely of hefty narrative exposition, scenes with a depressed to tears Katniss and filler. Luckily Mockingjay Part 2 is not the aggravating affair that Part 1 was. Yes, it still cannot hold a candle to The Hunger Games or Catching Fire. But it is a solid end for the franchise and is far more memorable and engaging than Part 1 ever was.

Mockingjay Part 2 picks up right after the events of Part 1. Katniss is recovering from her wounds that were caused by a brainwashed Peeta recently rescued from the Capitol. Meanwhile President Coin suggests an assault on the Capitol with Katniss acting as the Mockingjay at the forefront of the action.

Let's be clear. Mockingjay should never have been split into two films. There is not enough story and weight to fill over four hours' worth of screen time. But with this instalment scenes are not dragged out infinitely and Mockingjay Part 2 has a natural flow to the events and proceedings. It is better paced for sure, with the right amount of political intrigue so that it never becomes over bearing or bland. There is not a noticeable lack of action and unlike Part 1 at times it is genuinely thrilling. I was far more entertained than I thought was possible with Mockingjay Part 2; particularly after the fact that Part 1 had let me down so much.

The characters with this film have matured and as a result Katniss is a stronger protagonist and natural leader. Jennifer Lawrence has far more material to work with here and never stumbles like she did in Part 1. Although the blame for which rested solely on the screenplay's shoulders. The only trouble is that supporting characters are lost within the mix and this time the scenes devoted to character development are abrupt and almost always cut short when they should have been given more room to breathe. Finnick, Haymitch and Gale deserved more screen time considering they are the most interesting characters outside of Katniss.

A problem carried over from the book is the all too sudden ending. Without spoiling anything, the final confrontation between Katniss and President Snow falls rather flat. It's never as nail-biting as the directors and writers want you to believe it is. Undeniably a let- down then, when the film makers have been building up to this moment since the original film. But blame it on the writers they should have crafted their own ending; one that had power and respected its ever so faithful audience and fan base.

The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2 is not, as all the promotional material would want you to believe, the must see film of the winter. But it is a solid enough addition to the saga that remains flawed nonetheless. However, if you are aching to see this film and maintain any love for this series, it is on its own terms worth watching if just to see how the events play out and the endless internal and external power shifts change the dynamic between the complex characters and the overall arch of the story.

It must be difficult for the Director, writers, producers, stars and composers to mine unexplored areas for the franchise. Fifty three years since its inception and twenty four films down the line, Spectre proves that James Bond is still the most reliable spy franchise in cinematic history.

Whilst taking a "holiday" Bond hunts down a terrorist that former M (Judi Dench) wants him to dispatch, she left a message in her will. Soon it becomes clear that there is a bigger force involved. SPECTRE is causing global destruction once again and 007 will come face to face with his nemesis; Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Spectre starts with a stunning pre-credits sequence in Mexico during the day of the dead festival. It is this set piece that gets the ball rolling. The first shot of the film is unbroken reaching four minutes; we hold our breath and watch as Sam Mendes shatters our expectations for the second time in a row.

If there has always been one element that the series has struggled with, let's face it, it is the women. Some are far too weak, dim witted or just plain irritating to bring anything worthwhile to the table. That's not the case here. One does serve as eye candy at the start of the film, but she is seen so briefly that it does not matter. Monica Bellucci's appearance though is stirring, even if she is given less screen time than she deserves. The real standout here though is Léa Seydoux (the star of the French film Blue Is the Warmest Colour) simultaneously fragile, strong minded and ferocious. She has just the right temperament which makes for an excellent Bond girl.

Daniel Craig has finally settled into the role with a cock sure and suave performance, the highlight of his current tenure as Bond. Q gives 007 a few worthy gadgets. An exploding watch and a new Aston Martin DB10 that was commissioned specifically for its use in Spectre, complete with fire powered engine exhausts and the famed ejector seat.

Christoph Waltz receives about as much screen time as Dr No in the first film; which is another way of saying that he barely appears. Yet his menacing presence is felt and accelerates the film whenever things begin to wind down. Mr Hinx (a brutal Dave Bautista) is a man of very few words. He draws similarities to Oddjob and is in all honesty a beast of a man. He dispatches his enemies with Game of Thrones – esque executions.

The music by Thomas Newman serves the film better this time and is a delight to listen to, even without the accompaniment of the film. There are fresh call-backs to the series that earn praise and do not abuse Bond's substance and style; a fight on a helicopter (For Your Eyes Only), a blistering battle in a speeding train (From Russia with Love) and a chase in the Austrian Alps (On Her Majesty's Secret Service). There is even a neat tie in with the previous Craig entries that makes sense in the long run.

Spectre is the greatest Bond film since Casino Royale; high praise, indeed. Mendes delivers on all fronts and as Bond fanatics and film buffs we are granted the Bond film that we deserve. Spectre also serves as a glorious call back to the golden days of 007; when the plot barely mattered, the action was thrilling and a film could be fun. As Bond's nemesis says "Welcome James, it's been a long time".

Whoever gave Marc Forster the gig for Quantum of Solace deserves to be shot. This is not a Bond film, it's not even a competent action picture at that. Quantum of Solace sees Bond go up against Dominic Greene. This evil, dastardly, mean, treacherous man wants to control the water supply of Bolivia!

Well he can't be that bad can he? No he is not. He is certainly below Bond though and is pathetically puny. 007 barely pushes himself against Greene because he is just a slippery little snake and hardly worth his time. So there is no decent villain for Bond. So what does Quantum of Solace offer; well let me sum it up as quickly as possible, only fitting seeing as the film is the shortest James Bond picture to date and its questionable at best if any thought at all was given to the film.

James Bond does not even bed the Bond girl by the name of Camille. Has Bond lost his touch? Look I know as well as anyone what the idea was behind this choice. To highlight how fragile and broken Bond has become since the cold killing machine he was in Casino Royale. Hey kids, this is what we refer to as symbolism! Blatant, obvious and insulting symbolism. He is heartbroken by the death of Vesper. But this is not what I want to see in a Bond film, it is dreary and sucks all the fun out of the film.

In an obvious move to make the Bond franchise more like the Jason Bourne films, the action is edited completely differently. Well that's good. No it is not. Instead of utilizing wide shots like Paul Greengrass did in The Bourne Ultimatum. Marc Forster sticks with close ups for the non-stop hurl inducing action for Quantum of Solace. We have no bearing on what is happening and what is taking place. Well why should I care anymore? Bond has become Jason Bourne. He no longer beds the leading lady and cannot even bring himself to shoot down Dominic Greene. The editing of the action scenes is also so choppy it is incomprehensible, just like the plot of the film.

Quantum of Solace forgoes the tradition of James Bond. It is devoid of a worthy villain, a sexy promiscuous woman, entertaining action, gadgets, wit, humour, levity, fun, heart and a soul. I think that is it. Marc Forster leave the Bond franchise and take with you your artistic pretensions and two dimensional characters. In James Bond the villain is supposed to be an evil megalomaniac, not the Director!

It is with great hesitation that I state my almost unabashed love for Die Another Day. It was the first Bond film I ever saw and remains as magical an experience watching it at the age of nineteen as it did when I viewed it at the mere age of seven.

James Bond is not the agent he used to be, age apparently has taken its toll. That and the inconvenience of being locked up in prison in North Korea for eighteen months. Bond has been betrayed by an insider; his search leads him to a wealthy international celebrity Gustav Graves to see what his Icarus space program is.

Perhaps it is best to start off with Die Another Day's flaws and get them out of the way as swiftly as possible. Halle Berry never suits the role of a Bond girl well. Granted she is far more believable than Denis Richards, but that's not exactly a Grande feat anyway is it? The trouble with Jinx is the way the character is written into the story. She homages the famous shot of Honey Ryder coming out of the sea and yet does not come close to giving the great performance that Ursula Andress does in Dr No. Berry just does not say her lines right and ends up overcooking them until they lose their power much like she continues to do in the X-Men franchise.

This is more of a slight niggle than anything substantial, but Die Another Day does favour CGI far more than practical stunts and effects work; prime examples of this crop into the second half of the film. The laser fight sequence and the tsunami surfing Bond take things one step too far.

Alas, let me stop giving fuel to the fire and focus on everything that Die Another Day does right. Pierce Brosnan is truly phenomenal and I am running out of adjectives to describe his performances in these films. Nobody does it better than Brosnan that much will always be certain.

The set pieces are endlessly inventive from the hover board sequence in North Korea to a sword fight gone wildly out of control against the irritable Gustav Graves. It must be said that the first hour of Die Another Day is more in keeping with the traditional style of the franchise. I wonder whether this was an intentional choice by Director Lee Tamahori. As the second half is Bond with the instruction manual torn to shreds. Invisible cars! Multiple lasers! Enhanced plastic surgery! For many this is where the film loses itself amid the chaos of CGI effects. For me it is where Die Another Day breaks free from tradition and has a new found spring in its step. Who cares whether the plot does not make the slightest bit of sense? This is Bond at his most thrilling, unhinged and gloriously gadget based. As Q states with Bond's new car "Aston Martin call it the Vanquish, we call it the Vanish". Even Bond expresses his praise "Oh very good". Much of the last hour takes place in Iceland with an Ice Palace being the main attraction here.

Gustav Graves makes for a dazzling villain (not sparkling, that attribute belongs to the diamond studded Zao). Being as cocksure as he is, it is cathartic when Bond takes his revenge upon the villainous schemer. Miranda Frost is a tricky Bond girl to get a measure of. But she sure is one of the highlights of Die Another Day and in all honesty that means a lot.

Die Another Day is not for everyone. It's ultimately too reliant on CGI work that does not mesh together well with the rest of the film. But it is packed with memorable scenes, fast and thrilling action and enough gadgets to make sure that it dodges the last few hurdles and sprints across the finish line. Even if it is an exhausting film, it sure is unconventional and discards the rule book when it comes to Bond. In the end Die Another Day is more than worth the risks it takes with the franchise.

If you want a feel for how conflicted The World Is Not Enough is then just take a look at the cast, writing and acting. It is not the most consistent Bond film and yet if you are willing for a daft, fun and fast ride it delivers on these fronts, just don't expect it to be believable by any accounts.

Bond is tasked with protecting Elektra King whose father died in a tragic accident; his heritage and legacy transfers to Elektra who becomes in charge of a powerful oil company. Meanwhile, Elektra's former kidnapper the deadly Renard makes another appearance and Bond must stop him from hatching his nuclear plot.

Possibly containing the longest and most spectacularly entertaining opening; The World Is Not Enough undoubtedly knows how to wow its audience. We don't catch our breath until this sequence is over, fifteen minutes in. The action is swift and the stunt team gives their best shot for Pierce Brosnan's third outing as Bond. I would pick The World Is Not Enough as a showcase for Brosnan's remarkable talent. This guy knows how to play Bond; in fact he was born to play the role! With off the scale charm and sophistication Brosnan owns every moment, sly quip, gadget, kill and girl that he claims for himself.

It's admittedly disappointing when of all the people to play a Bond girl Denise Richards steps in after an hour to ruin all the fun. You'll laugh when I say this. She is a nuclear physicist. I'm not lying! There is some compensation in the fact that she is dazzlingly pretty, but all the good looks in the world cannot undo dreadful acting. Just try not to laugh when she says "Are you here for a reason or are you just hoping for a glimmer?" Who even says that? Well Denise Richards does in The World Is Not Enough.

Still to counteract Denise Richards as Christmas Jones we have Sophie Marceau. She somehow manages to bring a sense of realism to this stupendously unrealistic film. As Elektra King her performance is nuanced and granted enough depth to make her feel like a three dimensional character. Add Robert Carlyle to the cast as the dastardly evil Renard. Who considers Bond a mere mortal to himself and we have a terrific cast, minus Denise Richards of course. Renard even gets a kick out of taunting Bond about Elektra "how does it feel to know that I broke her in for you?" It's ultra-satisfying when Bond manages to outwit him in the end.

The World Is Not Enough is a conflicted film that would rank as one of Bond's best outings if not for the presence of Denise Richards. Still as Bond films go The World Is Not Enough is one of the most preposterous, witty and knuckle clenching of them all. You cannot deny that Brosnan is Bond, James Bond.

Tomorrow Never Dies rarely strays far from formula but what a delicious film this is! A megalomaniac villain, an internet age and a Bond girl in the form of a Chinese Secret Service Agent!

Elliott Carver is a crazed media mogul. Craving power so much that he is willingly to make the UK and China go to war just so that he ends up with exclusive coverage for his newspaper Tomorrow before anyone is even aware of this disastrous event taking place. Of course Bond must stop Carver before he starts World War III.

Tomorrow Never Dies is a weaker film than Goldeneye. Its plot is far-fetched yet entertaining because of how silly the film is. Yet I could not help but lap up every second. Tomorrow Never Dies may have its flaws, but it is an enticing proposal. Even if the Bond girl spouts dialogue that would turn heads due to confusement in a Hit-man movie. Yet Tomorrow Never Dies' problems stop here.

Pierce Brosnan is firmly set in the role of James Bond by his second instalment as the title character. I cannot remember it being this easy for Sean Connery and Roger Moore, do you? Embracing the role with enthusiasm and the appropriate amount of swagger, Pierce Brosnan is what elevates Tomorrow Never Dies from merely being a competent action film to the thrilling extravaganza that it is.

Tomorrow Never Dies has no time to slow down. It has only two speeds, fast and faster. Yet the film is not tiresome and the action sequences rank among 007's greatest. The secondary Bond girl is a better fit for the film. Paris Carver is wife to Elliott and Bond's former lover. She asks questions that we all wonder and it's interesting to see a previous lover come back into the fold and give her views. "Did I get too close for comfort?" "Yes" Bond replies. We begin to realise from this point onwards that she actually meant something to Bond and that is all too rare.

Jonathan Pryce may ham up the evil side of Elliott Carver by quite a large amount, but his performance is "delicious" all the same. It brings back fond memories of the early days of Bond, when you could not wait for the villain to go up against Bond in the climax. The same principle applies here maybe even more so because of the eagerness that Pryce brings to the role. It is like all he ever wanted to be is a Bond villain. His wish is granted.

Finally, we have someone worthy as a replacement for John Barry; David Arnold. He manages to offer a blend of themes old and new, bringing an up to date feel for the well known and loved Bond theme.

Tomorrow Never Dies is an amalgamation of everything I love and crave for from a Bond film. A sharp and witty Pierce Brosnan, a brisk runtime, a slew of nifty gadgets, a delightful soundtrack and gloriously over the top villains. One thing remains certain, 007 Never Dies.

Six years. That's the time it took for Bond to find a way back onto the big screen. After 1989, Bond had hit a dead end. Fast forward to 1995 and Pierce Brosnan was the new face of 007 with enough charm to give Sean Connery a run for his money.

After a less than successful mission was accomplished by 007 in 1986 on a Soviet base; Bond is tasked with retrieving the Goldeneye weapon, which when activated causes an electromagnetic pulse destroying all electrical equipment in its nearby vicinity. Bond must destroy it before it sets England back to the Stone Age. Although when 007 comes face to face with the ghosts of his past, this becomes a far more personal mission than previously thought.

Martin Campbell is one of a couple of Directors to actually bring substance and style to the series. Not just for Goldeneye but Casino Royale as well. Bond has personal enemies to confront this time. One of the best. Sean Bean as the long thought dead 006 agent Alec Trevelyan. He attacks Bond on not just a physical but psychological level. It makes their encounters all the more gut wrenching and palpable. There is even Russian General Ourumov a relic of the Cold War days. He manages to outdo all of the usual clichés and that's because his character is more than a Russian accent. He will carry out his ways by any means necessary, with or without the help of his own people.

There is a tech savvy Bond girl Natasha Simonova who chastises 007 with ease "Well don't just stand there get us out of here". She is also much smarter than she lets on and actually plays a part in the action that takes place on a regular basis. The femme fatale Xenia Onatopp is frighteningly fearsome and frisky. Bond finally meets a woman that is almost a match for him and her method of dispatch could not be any more gruesome than it already is; leading Bond to quip "She always did enjoy a good squeeze". All of which culminates in one of the best climaxes in a Bond film; atop a huge satellite dish holding onto for dear life, whilst fighting against the twisted 006.

Goldeneye effectively went back to basics for Bond. The approach needless to say paid off. Martin Campbell delivers an astonishing Bond entry that this witty, smart, sexy and tense practically non- stop. When it comes to Bond nobody does it better than Campbell.