Reviews

A film that often had me enthralled, aghast but occasionally with my head in my hands. The film takes place on the juxtaposition between science and sentimentality and it is the latter which is at the heart of the film. The two often worked well hand-in-hand but disappointingly veered towards silliness in its conclusion.

I had issues with the pacing of the film, particularly the opening act which dragged a little too long. Matt Damon's appearance was a waste of time and opened up a loophole that one could drive a bus through. The script was clunky at times, explaining what a worm hole is as the ship approaches it is one such example of this. It certainly was able to create an emotional attachment with the characters and overall, I would say the good in this film outweighs the bad.

JJ Abrams' reboot of the Star Trek film franchise attempted to bring everyone on board, providing something for long-standing fans and newbies like me alike. He continues to do this successfully in Into Darkness.

Much like the TV series, the film has discussions on important philosophical ideas such as the Prime Directive and the concept of pacifism and non-intervention. The narrative of the film in particular hinges on terrorism and the Federation's response to it. However, unlike the small-screen series it conducts these discussions while entire cities explode and characters jump of out of spaceships in outer space.

Into Darkness moves along at a rattling pace and the fight and chase scenes through the streets of Earth have a sense of weight to them. Benedict Cumberbatch has excellent screen presence as the cold and menacing villain Khan and Zachary Quinto is fantastic as Spock. Occasionally the plot strays into questionable territory but no matter, the action is at warp drive.

It's a bit of a myth that film critics and the average cinema-goer disagree almost every time on how good a film is. The scores on aggregate sites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic demonstrates that there is a clear correlation between the ratings of film critics and those of the sites users in general. However Hail, Caesar! is one of the few films to have bucked the trend. While the Rotten Tomatoes' critics score hovers in the mid 80% range, the site's users have rated it below 50%. Here on IMDb, the average rating is a pretty average 6.4/10. I suspect with its in-jokes that it is a film which speaks to the avid cinephile, but leaves most feeling cold and a little bored.

Set in 1950s Hollywood, film studio executive and fixer Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) has the job of keeping the Hollywood stars out of controversy. However, once the news that Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) has disappeared, Mannix has to deal with his Communist kidnappers while ensuring that the tabloids don't get wind of what's going on. He also has to maintain good relations with unhappy director - played excellently by Ralph Fiennes - who becomes increasingly frustrated working with a talentless actor.

The latter character - an actor who cannot act - is played expertly and with nuisance by Alden Ehrenreich. The rest of the film never really comes together, with one getting the impression that the movie consists of a string of sketches rather than a coherent arc. There are a few laughs, the round-table discussion about the nature of the Trinity between Mannix, a priest and a rabbi a highlight. However, the handful of chuckles are not enough to overcome this dull affair.

Following on from the events of the first film, Snow organises a new Hunger Games featuring previous winners of the competition as his regime attempts to reassert control over Panem.

Despite the overlong run-time, we watch with great interest as Katniss transforms to become the reluctant symbol against the authoritarian establishment based in the Capitol. Katniss presents a headache to President Snow as she is someone who, rather than winning the games, has transcended them by beating the premise of the format. Thus, Snow believes that she needs to be dealt with. In a great inversion of more conservative gender roles, Katniss is the one that is busy undermining the regime while Peeta just mopes around. Moreover, I have yet to discover the purpose of the character of Gale. The love-triangle gets left to one side in this one and all the better for it.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is great as his character's arc takes an interesting trajectory- though its clear that he did not want anything to do with the costumes worn by everyone else- and Stanley Tucci is wonderful as the creepy, psychotic host of the whole 'show'. There is a hint of Heath Ledger's Joker in that role which must be a satire of the false, leering world of reality show television.

The final act was somewhat rushed and I had to read a plot summary of it to work out what I just saw. Despite that, I really enjoyed this and it sets up Mockingjay very well.

Films are at their best when they uncover a profound truth of humanity. Last year, Inside Out demonstrated this with the role of sadness as an emotion in the human psyche. The Martian is about the role of human resourcefulness in surviving hostile conditions when others have lost hope. And here is Room, an absolutely wonderful film about a mother's love for her child and shielding them from the true horror even when in the most awful of predicaments.

It has to be said from the outset that it is not just a Fritzl film. It is not simply an exploitation film though that this clearly there in the background. That is not to say that the first half of the film is easy to watch. However, we are shielded from the worst of it much like how Jack is by his mother. For Ma, Room is a living hell but for Jack, "Room" is his whole world that goes in "every direction, all the way to the end".

As the trailer shows, the entire running time is not dedicated to the confines of the room but how the two- particularly Jack- cope in the real world. We see this strange new place often directly through the eyes of the young child and being able to hear his internal monologue was just so cute yet incredibly emotional.

The direction from Lenny Abrahamson is simply outstanding and the two central performances from Larson and Tremblay were perfect. As disturbing as it is at times, what a life-affirming film Room is.

Adam McKay is certainly no stranger to satire with the Anchorman films and Saturday Night Live to his name. Interestingly, he also considers The Other Guys as a satirical work and though I loved that film, I can't say that I saw it that way. This time he tries his hand at satirising the financial crash of 2007-08 in a film based on the non-fiction book of the same name by Michael Lewis. In the most entertaining way, the film depicts the greed and stupidity of banks which led to the suffering of millions of people by preying on their dream of owning their own home.

The film is unique in a number of ways. Firstly, there are no heroes in this. The protagonists in the film are bankers themselves and by betting against the economy, their financial gain leads to many millions suffering. However, the film alludes that they are not just doing this for personal gain but to punish the banks for their hubris and so at least we can cheer them on for that. Its a strange film in that we know exactly how it ends yet it's enthralling nonetheless.

At times it was shot in a mockumentary style- a one-camera setup similarly seen in the The Office- and this technique works as it reminds you that the events that occur on-screen actually happened. The film does not pull many punches when it comes to using financial language and while I struggled at times to keep up with what is meant by a CDO, you can understand the overall arc of the story. Where it struggles to work for me is the Family Guy-esque cut scenes like Margot Robbie in a bathtub explaining complicated financial terms. Particularly as there are so few female characters, scenes like that are especially not funny. The other was the breaking of the fourth wall by characters speaking to camera. The film was thoroughly engrossing but gimmicks like that ruined the moment at times.

Despite this, it is an entertaining and informative take on one of the most stupidest moments in human history.

Following on from directing the superhero sequel Iron Man 3, The Nice Guys provides a typical buddy-cop comedy with two mismatched misfits – the nihilistic world-weary enforcer Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe) and the ditzy rookie private investigator Holland March (Ryan Gosling). Set in the smoke-filled world of the 1970s Los Angeles porn industry, The Nice Guys provides a comic take on the sleazy world.

Jackson initially targets, then teams up with Holland and the comedy is derived from the chalk-and-cheese characters working together on a case involving the suspicious death of porn star Misty Mountains and the disappearance of the daughter of a Department of Justice official. Alongside them for a lot of the film is the daughter of Holland March which provides some comic back-and-forths but mostly awkwardness in having a minor involved in adult industry setting.

The Nice Guys is at its best when it takes advantage of the comic chemistry between Crowe and Gosling, a scene involving the fumbling gun while trying to keep the cubicle door open- unfortunately spoiled in the trailer- is a particular highlight. Throughout, Gosling's hitherto undiscovered talent of physical comedy is on display here.

That said, the plot was incoherent and I didn't buy into the story at all, however the film was salvaged by the several belly laughs provided throughout.

An ensemble of mutants spanning generations are involved in this likable but clichéd comic fare. Here, the mutants have to fight the first mutant of them all, En Sabah Nur, an ancient Egyptian supervillian played an inexpressive Oscar Isaac who's lost under the layers of CGI.

En Sabah Nur- also known as the titular Apocalypse- awakes from his millennia long slumber in his pyramid where he was entombed to find that non-mutants rule the Earth and have the vanity of to call their political entities "superpowers". The movie builds to an inevitable crash-bang-wallop conclusion; and with the other recently released superhero movies focusing on the collateral damage from their squabbles, the increasing levels of destruction in the finale feels incredibly lightweight. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender add an element of gravitas to the acting but the cast are hampered by the script which involved clichéd lines and self-referential jokes which fall flat. And with a running time well over two hours, it is a baggy and bloated affair.

With the three spring comic-book blockbusters now released, Apocalypse slots in somewhere between Civil War and Batman vs Superman in the pecking order. It's an acceptable film, but if you are an X-Men fan looking for character development and some substance beyond the surface level spectacle, this is not it.

Director Gavin Hood's previous film, the underrated Ender's Game, focused upon the increasingly virtual, high-tech surveillance and disengaged nature of modern warfare. These elements of Ender's Game are clearly visible in the director's latest thriller offering, Eye in the Sky. The story here involves disparate groups of military and political personnel scattered around the world, all watching the live stream of a terrorist compound in Nairobi and debating whether or not to fire a drone into a heavily-populated ethnically Somali suburb of the Kenyan capital.

The operation is shown to be a joint British and American backed mission and the debate revolves around the collateral damage a drone strike would cause. The collateral damage is given a human face through a young girl who has set up a bread stall near the compound. Eye in the Sky's original title was "Kill Chain" and the reasoning becomes evident as the rest of the film involves people referring up the chain of command to avoid making a decision. The running time consists mainly of people talking to each other on phones and via video screens, however Hood manages to make these scenes some of the tensest, most cinematic, Skype calls you will ever see.

Eye in the Sky highlights the "hawk" and "dove" nature of the politicians of the two countries involved, one memorable scene being the US Secretary of State angry that his game of table tennis is interrupted because the British are dithering. However, the film's demonstration of realpolitik was weaker and has been presented far more successfully in Armando Iannucci's In the Loop, a film based on the run-up to the Iraq War. The film also lacked any strong, coherent argument against the drone strike apart from the contrived little girl selling bread nearby; not touching at all on the long-term consequences of dropping a bomb on a Somali suburb. The film reduces the complicated morality of drone warfare to a simplistic choice: it's either this little girl or a terrorist attack in a busy shopping mall. There's no concern however for civilians nearby who aren't cute children, or that the potential civilian casualties from this attack could be used by Al Shabab to garner more support amongst the population.

Alan Rickman is fantastically dry in his last on-screen role as a British Lieutenant General and Aaron Paul is also very impressive, despite spending the majority of the film in a Portacabin with his finger hovering over the trigger. But while Eye in the Sky may be one of the year's most gripping thrillers, the film's morality is more dubious rather than ambiguous.

Should The Avengers be nationalised? This is the controversial idea running through the film, tearing the superheroes apart and into a "civil war". It is interesting to note that the two blockbuster comic-book movies which were released just weeks apart- Civil War and Batman vs Superman- each have a similar thread. They are both about collateral damage and a guilty conscience splitting those who would normally be on the same side. The key difference is that Captain America: Civil War is a far more engaging and enjoyable affair.

After a disastrous campaign in Lagos, the majority of the world's states have had enough of the Avengers' vigilante actions. By signing the UN-drafted Vienna accords, the group will surrender their independence by coming under government oversight and control. However some of them, led by Steve Rogers, will simply not have it. In an ironic turn of events, it is the privately-funded Tony Stark who is flying the flag of nationalisation while being opposed by the government creation of Captain America.

This leads to a hugely enjoyable set-piece at an airfield which pits superheroes against other, akin to an all-star game that actually matters, and answering thousands of playground arguments of "who would win in a fight between x and y?". Despite the serious political theme and the battle of ideas between The Avengers the film has a wittiness to it, helped by funny turns from Ant-Man and Tom Holland's debut as Spiderman.

Civil War is not perfect- it is slightly overlong- but the clashes between the characters meant something and unlike Dawn of Justice you understand why they have turned on each other like this. In short, it's the cinematic superhero showdown you always wanted.

Director Jeff Nichols' flair for creating great films on a smallish budget continues with this intriguing and visually arresting sci-fi chase movie about a boy who is not like us. Midnight Special is genuinely one of those films where it's best enjoyed if you know as little about it as possible, but the key question running through the film is: what makes the boy Aldon so special and why are the FBI and a Texas cult so interested in him?

Midnight Special is multi-dimensional; touching on the themes of faith, family, and a Spielbergian style of science fiction not dissimilar to Close Encounters. Nichols tantalisingly drip-feeds you clues throughout the film in a compelling manner while David Wingo's excellent score adds a sense of eeriness to each of the scenes. The film's final act is the deal-breaker, for me it worked but you're either going to go with the flow or be put off by its sheer strangeness.

Also here are great performances from Michael Shannon and in particular Adam Driver- demonstrating an impressive range as he's just as excellent as an NSA agent in this as he was as Kylo Ren. While the dialogue is not particularly punchy or memorable and the faith theme is left behind towards the end, its still likely to be one of the better constructed stories on film this year. Midnight Special leaves you with a thousand questions, but still feeling satisfied.

The abysmal box office returns for the truly woeful Allegiant- the third installment of the Divergent series- has led many to hark that the era of the dystopian YA adaptations has come to an end. There has undoubtedly been a saturation of the genre in recent years but led by a strong protagonist in Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss Everdeen, The Hunger Games franchise has consistently been a cut above the rest. Crucially, Mockingjay - Part 2 does not let the series down in a terrifically tense final installment.

There have been many grumblings about the final book being split into two but I thought Part 1 had just enough going on to not give the appearance that it was treading water. Part 2 picks up straight after the conclusion of the previous film with the rebellion attempting to cure the brainwashed Peeta from his vicious urge to kill Katniss, the de facto face of the rebellion. Meanwhile, masterminded by Alma Coin (Julianne Moore), the rebels attempt to overthrow the tyrannical President Snow and recapture the Capitol.

Part 2 pulls no punches as it retains its dark tone and strongly political plot, refusing to talk down to its young target audience by utilising concepts such as imperialism, the loss of innocence and the fog of war. The former in particular is highlighted when the rebels discover the luxurious life Capitol citizens have been enjoying for decades; with a set-up like this why on Earth would they ever think the current system needs changing? The middle act of the film involves our rebels navigating their way through the streets of the Capitol, evading booby-trapped pods that aim to kill in increasingly imaginative ways. However it was the nihilism of the final act and tense, enthralling final showdown with President Snow which is what made Part 2 so brilliant.

It's sad to see the end of this trailblazing franchise with its close-to-the-bone allegories of reality TV and war. But as it leaves the big screen for the last time, it does so on a triumphant note.

Following their escape from the mysterious labyrinth in the first Maze Runner, we meet up with our Gladers in a facility run by WCKD- geddit(!)- who may or may not want to harvest the blood of our young adult protagonists. While the enclosed space of the Glade in the first film drew plenty of similarities to Lost- the Scorch Trials has a feel similar to The Walking Dead with the zombie-like Cranks attempting to spread the Flare virus to those still unaffected. The scenery is far more expansive than its predecessor with some excellent post-apocalyptic landscapes. In particular, buildings are seen leaning on other buildings- providing the setting for an imaginative action scene with the zombies.

However, the vast majority of the run time consists of the group running away from things- Cranks, lightning strikes, noises- and this begins to tire after a while. There is very little in terms of plot development in the middle third of the film. You could skip the middle 40 minutes and it would still make as much sense. What was also disappointing is that many of the questions from the first Maze Runner remained unanswered. Clocking in at over two hours, it had plenty of time to do this.

Scorch Trials is salvaged somewhat with an anarchic finale which was just about enough to retain interest for the franchise's concluding film. Giancarlo Esposito is also excellent in the first performance I have seen from him since Breaking Bad. However, while the first Maze Runner gave the franchise a solid foundation, Scorch Trials has unfortunately dropped the ball.

I found the first Kick-Ass to be an odd but fun film that deserved its cult classic status so I was really looking forward to its sequel. Alas, what a disappointment this is. From the moment we first hear the name of the villain, it became apparent that the film was simply trying too hard. Director Jeff Wadlow included all the violence and profanity from the first film but forgot to add any of the fun, resulting in a flat affair.

The key problem was how dull it all was, in particular involving the arc of Mindy attempting to adapt to life in a new school; it all seemed too contrived. And I can't believe I'm saying this but the film misses Nicolas Cage. Jim Carrey has been cast to replace him in that big-name role but bizarrely he's barely in the film. There were just too many characters to keep track of and care about.

While the first Kick Ass was a great antidote to superhero movies, this is nothing more than a terrible parody.

In the trail of the success of the Hunger Games franchise, here is another screenplay adaptation of a young adult novel set in a dystopian future. Here, our protagonist Thomas finds himself in a pre-industrial community called The Glade with no memory of a time prior to finding himself there. The Glade's population consists of teenage boys just like him who have no idea of their identity or why they have been put there. Escape appears impossible though as the field is surrounded by mazes where huge creepy-crawlies lurk.

The esoteric tone of the film- characters not understanding how or why there are there- as well as the obstacles which prevent them from escaping borrow hugely from Lost. Character arcs follow similar trajectories too with some desperate to leave and others less so. Themes similar as Lost's The Dharma Initiative- a mysterious organisation that loves to stick its logo on things- are utilised heavily as well.

The film retains viewers' interest throughout as you wait for The Glade to give up some of its secrets. Will Poulter in particular is great playing a character that the closest thing this film has to a villain. It certainly does not have the political depth of the Hunger Games which made that series stand out though this is only the first film. That said, it does an amenable job holding your interest and at least giving its sequel a chance.

The moment we've long been waiting for, two the biggest names in the DC Universe on-screen together for the first time in cinema history. Alas, it was not worth the wait. We are left with a meandering mess that is so haphazard, it felt like some dastardly projectionist had slyly cut scenes out and left them on the projection-booth floor.

We begin with Bruce Wayne as he watches his own building collapse following the battle at the conclusion of Man of Steel. This is then followed by scenes in the Indian Ocean and then in Africa, the latter being the first of many occasions where Lois Lane requires saving by her caped hero in increasingly contrived and implausible situations. The first hour in particular is the film's weakest, taking an absolute age to go from point A to B from a narrative aspect. The superfluous flash-forwards and dream sequences also add to the confusion, leading to a situation where you're never quite sure if a scene is "real" or happening in the mind of a character. The focus is all over the place, and frankly the overwhelming emotion that the film left me with for the most part was was boredom.

It is each of the heroes' distrust of the others unchecked power which drives them into opposing paths. However, their character arcs are never fully explored, leading to a clash that just feels contrived. Also adding to the woe is Jesse Eisenberg's version of Lex Luthor. It is almost as if director Zack Snyder told him to play the character like he played Mark Zuckerberg in "Social Network", but turned up to the absolute max. Lex Luthor is a power-hungry, meticulous, billionaire businessman but Eisenberg portrays him as a maniacal character more akin to Heath Ledger's Joker. There were also incredibly few jokes in a film that played it completely straight.

The film is neither saved by its conclusion: a chest-thumping, headache-inducing, seemingly never-ending punch-up. On the plus side, Ben Affleck was excellent in his portrayal of a more world-weary Batman and Jeremy Irons was impressive despite being under-used. Fans may enjoy the sheer scale of the spectacle, but all I left with the cinema with was crushing disappointment and a missed opportunity.

Initially starting life out as a script titled "The Cellar", this inherited the title of Cloverfield after JJ Abrams' Bad Robot Productions became involved in the project. Even with the title though, the best way to approach this movie though is as a companion piece to the 2008 film rather than a traditional sequel or an of spin off.

The directorial debut of Dan Trachtenberg finds Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) waking-up in an underground bunker after a car accident. With her Howard (John Goodman), who she believes is her captor but he insists is Michelle's saviour as he brought her underground to protect her from the catastrophic event which has laid waste to humanity above. Also with her is Emmett (John Gallagher Jr), who believes in Howard's story of desolation. It is essentially a three-man cast and all are on top-form; in particular John Goodman, who uses his large frame in a claustrophobic setting to create menace rather than crossing the line into over-acting. The scenes are tense throughout as relationship between Michelle and Howard alternates from trust and distrust.

There are elements of Duncan Jones' "Moon" in this, in that we don't know whether we can trust the machine or person who has the most information. There also comparisons to JJ Abrams' TV series "Lost", particularly the first season finale where we were left to wonder what was inside the bunker, but this time in reverse.

The film's denouement is a slight letdown and feels oddly out of place in the context of the piece. It felt like the ending to a different film than to the one just seen. No matter, the real drama is in the interactions between the three characters in the bunker and it is this which makes it an enjoyable spectacle.

Shailene Woodley deserves better in this listless sequel to Divergent, a dystopian future where the population is split into factions depending on one's character.

Woodley plays Tris, a Divergent who does not fit into any of these overly-broad categories, is hunted by Kate Winslet's Jeanine following the events of the first film. The settings are more varied as we visit the settings of the other factions, from the rural life of Amity to the futuristic lair of Erudite. However, the direction verges from muddled to ludicrous as characters' actions become increasingly baffling as the film progresses. In particular, there is one elongated scene set in a train carriage that stands-out in it's silliness; it involves a lot of fists and little sense.

Insurgent picks up somewhat towards the end, leaving enough intrigue for the the follow-up. And though dissolving skyscrapers in the simulations look brilliant, they are not enough to save this film.

Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin are on top-form in this storied biography of the Apple co-founder. The film is interestingly split into three acts- a brave and ultimately successful device from Boyle- while Michael Fassbender is flawless as the titular character, resulting in a thoroughly entertaining fare.

The film doesn't pull many punches on Jobs, and his denial of paternity is the spine that runs through the film. It plays out behind the scenes of three product launches – the original Apple Macintosh in 1984, the NeXT Computer four years later and the final act of the iMac launch in 1998. Steve Jobs shares many themes with Sorkin's The Social Network as both are stories of technological geeks who find success and become lost in their creation.

The dialogue is witty and memorable as Jobs paints himself to be the composer. When estranged Apple co-founder Wozniak asks him to define what he actually does as he can't write code or put together circuit-boards, Fassbender delivers a thought-provoking line: "The musicians play their instruments, I play the orchestra." Though Kate Winslet's accent starts globe-trotting at times and the amount of walking-and-talking in scenes can start to get under the skin a little, the film is eminently enjoyable. Though it has failed in the box office, I hope Steve Jobs finds its audience in time.

An adaptation of a bestseller by Veronica Ruth, Divergent is a dystopian YA novel where the population is split into factions based on their attributes. The five factions are: Abnegation, the pious; Erudite, the smart ones; Amity, the peace lovers; Candor, the honest, and Dauntless, the brave ones who are in essence the city's police.

Our heroine is Tris, who joins Dauntless after the being brought up by her parents in Abnegation. This is after tests are conducted (think Hogwarts Sorting Hat) to determine which faction candidates would be best suited to, and hers are revealed to be- as you can work out from the title- Divergent i.e. having attributes from multiple factions. The factions have been set up to retain order in the city and thus, "Divergents" undermine the system and must be eliminated. I can't fully get on-board with this idea though as I find it puzzling that the vast majority of the population can have just one attribute. What's stopping one from being- God forbid- smart *and* peace-loving? Dauntless also spend a lot of the time jumping around and being a parody of parkour enthusiasts.

The social commentary is weak in comparison to the Hunger Games and it borrows narrative elements from the superior Ender's Game. However it leaves just enough intrigue to make me want to return for the next in the series.

If your idea of a great comedy movie is a seemingly limitless supply of gags about various human fluids then this is absolutely the one for you. For the rest of us, let's be thankful that it's just 83 minutes long.

In his latest character, Sacha Baron Cohen plays Nobby Butcher, an alcoholic football hooligan separated from his brother- the now MI6 spy Sebastian. Circumstances mean that they reunite and thus hilarity ensues between the two chalk-and-cheese characters, first in the town of Grimsby- which is depicted as a depraved hellhole- and then South Africa. I am not Baron Cohen's biggest fan though I enjoyed the character of General Admiral Aladdin in The Dictator which had a strong element of satire running through it; poking fun of Arab dictators as well as the hypocrisy of the West. However, this character did not work quite as well as the accent was a more than a little off-the-mark and the jokes were 'kicking downwards' towards those less fortunate in society for the most part. The working-class 'scum' had absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever as Ricky Tomlinson and Johnny Vegas were wasted as beer-swilling extras.

I did laugh a handful of times but with the amount of gross-out gags in this, it tried its very best to make me hate it. It also has a scene involving elephants that I really wish I could unsee. I think I need a bath in Dettol.

Possibly one of my favourite science-fiction films. It is a film which is visually stunning and credit must go to Ridley Scott for the creation of such a world. The Martian must also be commended for its scientific rigour for the most part and directly grapples with the genuine problems of a human mission to Mars.

The film is also helped by easily finding Matt Damon's character to be likable and remain amazed at his ingenuity stranded on the red planet. The film utilises humour brilliantly as relief from the vicariousness of the stricken astronaut and it possibly has a higher number of funny lines than many comedies.

At its heart it is simply a survival-and-rescue mission, but one which is beautifully told.

This is an efficient sci-fi film about an interplanetary war between Earth and bug-like aliens called the Formics. The film focuses on Earth's fascistic methods in rearing child soldiers for the impending war.

I applaud the film for its bravery and its nihilistic final act- which it tries to pull back on slightly at the end. Asa Butterfield is fantastic as Ender and Harrison Ford plays the gruff, ruthless military leader role well. Meanwhile, Ben Kingsley continues his worldwide tour of accents.

While some scenes and occasional bits of dialogue descend into Disney Channel movie territory, it is an interesting film on how in an attempt to save the human race, we lose our humanity in the process.

Based on a book of the same name by Michael Punke, this is the tale of frontiersman Hugh Glass and his battle against the harsh climate of the Montana and South Dakota in order to exact revenge.

A revenant in European folklore is a corpse rising from the dead and terrifying the living and Leonardo DiCaprio's performance is outstanding as his journey has him straddling the border between alive and dead. The acting here is largely physical and as he jumps in the icy water, is buried alive and eats raw meat, his suffering is incredibly vicarious to the view. It is a film of both survival and revenge; in essence they are both interrelated as it is his desire to avenge his son's death which is keeping him alive.

The cinematography from Emmanuel Lubezki is just stunning as the entire film is shot in natural light and most of it in that "golden hour" shortly before sunset. The landscape is visceral and you can almost feel the chill of the Midwestern air through the cinema screen. And though the grizzly bear scene may well be artificial compared to the rest of the film it was certainly no less intense.

But in a strange way, the problem with The Revenant may well be its photography. The film is in love with the scenery so much that it becomes an art installation at times and the overlong run-time can possibly be blamed on this. I also had issues deciphering Tom Hardy's American accented dialogue on occasion and this is a problem in a film where relatively few lines are said. There is also an awkward spirituality aspect to the film which appeared to be crow-barred in simply because the film is set in Native Indian territory.

It is a terrific cinematic experience visually and this will probably get Leonardo DiCaprio his Best Actor Oscar. However, it is certainly not the best film of the year. To misquote Thomas Hobbes, The Revenant is nasty, brutish and long.