Film Review- The Nice Guys

 Shane Black's "The Nice Guys" is one of the most pleasant experiences I've had in a cinema so far this year. Starring Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe, the film follows two private-detectives who are thrust together by chance and circumstance as they try to uncover the mystery of a missing teen, all the while unravelling a much larger conspiracy along the way. The advertising for this film was spot on with the trailer utterly convincing me that I had to go and see this movie, without it giving too much away in terms of plot that it spoiled my overall enjoyment of the story in the theatres, and this is reflected in the film's strong opening weekend at the box-office. 

The best part of The Nice Guys has to be how strongly written it is on the part of Shane Black. Black is a talented director, but almost no-one writes sharp and witty dialogue the way that he does in Hollywood today. The way he sets up scenarios comes across as utterly natural and thus the conversations that characters have spawning from these situations also appears authentic. One sequence in particular that stands out as an example of how great Black's writing can be is the protest scene. This was my favourite scene in the whole movie wherein the two investigators turn up to question a protest group who are campaigning against the pollution in the Earth's atmosphere. From the group's constant insistence that they couldn't discuss the case with the detectives as they "were dead", to Crowe's quick witted questioning of why the group's gas masks didn't save them from the dirty air, this scene perfectly showcases Shane Black's abilities as a writer of comedy, and this is only a three minute slice of the film. I've yet to see a Shane Black movie I really disliked, and this outing definitely continues that trend. If you have a dry and dark sense of humour, I would highly recommend The Nice Guys due to Black's stellar writing.

The chemistry between the two leads is also very impressive. Gosling and Crowe play off of each other very well, and what is great about these characters is that, while they have their differences, the two are not polar opposites. Gosling's Holland March is a man with little shame. He is a single father with shaky morals who has become jaded with his job, viewing it as solely a way to bring in money after his wife's unfortunate passing. On the other hand, Crowe's Jackson Healy is a man who cares about his work, having found it gives him a sense of purpose. While not yet an officially listened PI, Healy is the straight-man of the double act, most of the time proving himself more competent than his more experienced counterpart. In saying this, it is the internal struggle that both men share that brings them together, as both March and Healy are both trying to rebuild their lives after the loss of their wives has left them damaged and aimless men. The relationship between the two men feels more organic than would be expected from this type of comedy, and the performances from both Gosling and Crowe make it clear that this is a very real friendship we are seeing develop on-screen. Serious props also have to be given to young actress Angourie Rice, who excels in the role of March's daughter Holly. Playing a character who is mature beyond her years, Rice delivers each scathing insult and hilarious one-liner given to her with a perfect deadpan expression and tone, and her acting is never over-the-top as is the inherent problem with most other ambitious child actors. Rice doesn't just deliver a good comedic performance "for a child star", Rice delivers a good comedic performance "period". All-in-all, the future looks bright for this impressive young actress.

I only have a few minor gripes to make about the film. There were a few occasions were the jokes fell flat, which can be expected from any comedy. Yet what the Nice Guys does wrong is that it revisits these failed laughs, highlighting its weaker moments rather than reminding the audience of its highs. Also there is a slight imbalance in the film's plotting. Sometimes there is far too much going on and on some occasions there seems to be nothing really happening. Steadier pacing would have benefitted the story greatly and would have helped to hold the audiences attention 100 per-cent of the time from beginning to end. However, these are small problems as this really is a largely enjoyable film.

The Nice Guys continues a strong year in for all-new original properties. It is an intelligent film that balances great physical comedy with hilarious dry wit. The cast shines in parts which they were born to play, and all-in-all it was a very enjoyable time at the movies. The audience in the screening I went to were buckled in their seats from beginning to end, and I would bet that I've yet to witness a crowd who enjoyed their movie-going experienced as much as the men and women I shared the theatre with for The Nice Guys. While this won't be the most impactful or emotionally hard-hitting movie you will see this summer, it is an enjoyable throwback to the buddy-cop movies of old and a very clever and funny film that could easily spawn a franchise. 

Score: 8.5/10

Top 5- Actors that can Save Faltering Franchises

Very few movie franchises are perfect. I would even go as far to say that I would struggle to name a film series that doesn't have at least one dud amongst its collection. Some go off track very quickly (such as The Matrix) while others experience a more gradual drop in their quality as the years go by (the Shrek series probably being the best example of this). In some cases, there are some franchises that were never that good to begin with (cough cough Twilight). In other words, sometimes it's best to take once beloved franchises out the back and put them out of their misery... But fear not humble citizen, for the world isn't all doom and gloom. Sometimes all it takes is one good casting decision to save a popular series. So, without further ado, here is my Top 5 list featuring actors who could save failing film franchises and how they could do so.

5) John Goodman- X-Men

The X-Men franchise is one of the most consistent and respected series' that the superhero genre has to offer, however there is no denying that interest in the mutants has started to fade away in recent years. While the franchise was rejuvenated with the release of "First Class", ever since then the quality of the storytelling has started to slip, with the newest instalment in the saga especially failing to live up to expectations. Many factors have contributed to this dip in form, but the biggest problem for me has been Brian Singer and company's failure to field a compelling villain in the last few years. What the X-Men franchise needs is a fresh, human villain who can test the team in ways they haven't been challenged up until this point. My pick for this role would be John Goodman. Goodman would star as The Supreme Pontiff, the leader of the anti-mutant religious fanatics The Church of Humanity. Goodman is one of the greatest character actors alive today, and also one of the most nuanced. The Supreme Pontiff is effectively a cult leader, a character that will be required to be both charismatic and terrifying. Goodman could do this in his sleep. In the comics, The Church of Humanity nailed mutants to crosses and burned them outside Xavier's Mansion. If we could bring this grotesque imagery to the big-screen we could have ourselves the most brutal and gritty X-Men film we have ever seen. Nightcrawler of course would be central to this arc, with the story being his anguish at having to choose between his faith and his friends. My idea would involve The Pontiff taking advantage of Nightcrawler's vulnerability and convincing him to aid The Church in their crusade of terror against his own kind. Goodman is the only actor who can handle a role this dark, as well as being the most qualified for the part. The X-Men need a good villain to make them relevant again, and I firmly believe that John Goodman is the man who can make their problems disappear. 

4) Tom Hardy- Alien

The first two entries into the Alien series produced one of the greatest horrors and one of the greatest action movies of all-time respectively, however since then every instalment has either been disappointing at best and woefully bad at worst. Yet it is a franchise that still has potential, and the news that Ridley Scott and Sigourney Weaver will both be returning for the next instalment in the series may be enough to turn the space saga's fortunes around. In saying this, the key to making a strong Alien movie lies in its supporting cast, and that is where Tom Hardy comes in. Hardy could star as Ridley's second-in-command, and the light-hearted charm he showed in films like Inception would be welcome in a franchise not best known for its levity. At his best Tom Hardy can light up a screen, and I think he'd be the perfect balance to Weaver's stoic Ripley in a similar way to what Bill Paxton was in James Cameron's Aliens. Hardy would not be there to outshine Ripley, but to majorly complement one of the most iconic characters in film history. Supporting roles are the lifeblood of classic movies, and Tom Hardy has earned himself a reputation as a man who shines in supporting parts. His Oscar nomination for his performance in The Revenant speaks for itself. Throw in the fact that Hardy is one of the best box-office draws of recent years as well as being a legitimate action star and you've got yourself a match made in movie heaven.

3) Helen Mirren- Terminator

Just hear me out. I swear I'm not crazy. While I know that Dame Helen Mirren is no spring chicken at this point, I can't help but feel she is in a unique position for an actress her age where she could still carry a franchise. My vision would be that she would play a much older Sarah Connor who serves as the leader of the Resistance in the timeline started by the events of the terribly bad Terminator Genisys. The story is simple: Sarah Connor, after years of hopelessly fighting the machines, goes on a suicide mission with some of her most trusted companions to try and take down Skynet once and for all, all the while seeking redemption for the wrong-decisions and sins of her past. Mirren has more than enough charisma to pull off this role, and we can see from her performances in both Red and Eye in the Sky she there is a certain grit and toughness that she can bring to the table when required, as well as being a lady of great poise and sophistication. She is still fit enough to pull off some action work, and the subtle way she emotes is better than most that have ever come before her. The only way to make the Terminator series feel fresh again is to tell a story we haven't yet seen, and I believe the tale of an older Sarah Connor would play out beautifully on the big screen. Just keep Arnold far away.

2) Sean Connery- James Bond

If any film franchise could convince Sean Connery to come out of retirement, it's James Bond. Connery is the most iconic 007 of all time and his inclusion in the next instalment of the saga would create serious intrigue, especially after the lacklustre offering that was 2015's Spectre. The screen legend's role in the story would be speculated right up until the film's release and would be a major selling point in the film's advertising. Will the Scot going to become a mentor of sorts to the new Bond? Is he going to feature in some kind of flashback/flash-forward sequence as a past/future 007? Limited use of Connery in the trailers would only add fuel to this fire, and more and more fan-theories would be made about how Connery would feature in this new flick. In the end, I think that fans would be extremely shocked by the outcome, as I'd have Connery play the villain of the story. The script writes itself: Bond (most likely Tom Hiddleston) is sent after an ex-secret service agent gone rouge (Connery), who's plan is effectively to cause as much damage to major secret-service agencies around the world as he can through acts of terrorism and violence. The story is simple, but therein lies its effectiveness. This is Bond effectively confronting himself, facing off against a man who he could very well become if his life was to ever spin off-track. Connery, for his part, would play a man who has given everything for his country but has been left with very little in return, creating a sympathetic albeit irredeemable antagonist. All-in-all, Connery's character would serve as the toughest mission that the gentlemen-spy has ever faced, as well as creating a very personal and introspective conflict for this film to feed off of. Villains are best when they force our hero to stare into a mirror and see themselves, and that's exactly the effect the legendary Scot would bring to the freshman year outing of our new James Bond.

1) Dwayne Johnston- Transformers

Transformers is perhaps one of the most poisonous franchises in movie history. 2007's initial offering was decent, but the Michael Bay series only went downhill from there. Not even the inclusion of the usually stellar Mark Wahlberg could prevent the latest instalment from becoming one of the worst films I have ever seen. Ever. There is only one man who can save Transformers from extinction: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnston. After all, if there is anyone on this planet who knows how to save a dying property, it is "The Great One". GI Joe, Journey to the Centre of the Earth and Fast and Furious are only examples of a few franchises that have benefitted and thrived from Johnston's involvement. Hell, Journey to the Centre of the Earth 2 earned almost 100 million dollars more than the original. Why is that? I'll tell you why, because the filmmakers took Brendan "Famous in the 90's" Fraser's name off the posters and replaced it with "The Brahma Bull's". Dwayne Johnston is the definitive action star of this decade, and his universal likability is more than enough of a draw on its own to get buts in seats. "But Transformers is beyond saving" I hear you cry? This is untrue. Transformer's is at its best when it focuses more on the action and less on its mythology. You're never going to make Transformers an Oscar winner, let's call a spade a spade. But what you can do is make it a fun summer blockbuster that is inoffensive and action-heavy.

 My plan would be as follows: 1) Fire Michael Bay and bring in an up-and-coming commodity to direct. 2) Bring back franchise veterans Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson, focusing more on the military side of things. 3) Ditch any and all love stories involving uncharismatic teens. 4) Put Dwayne Johnston front and centre. 

What the Transformers franchise should be in a fun time at the theatres, not a mind-numbing movie with a nonsensical story. Dwayne Johnston has proven countless times that he has the ability to not only improve a series but take it in all-new directions, and this is precisely what Transformers needs to do if it is to survive. 

Film Review- Money Monster

The success of actors-turned-directors has varied in Hollywood over the years. Some take to it like a duck to water (with Clint Eastwood, Angelina Jolie and Sir Kenneth Branagh being some of the more high profile names that come to mind) while others (such as Eddie Murphy and William Shatner) have failed to flourish when sat on the director's chair.

After seeing Money Monster earlier this week, I can confirm that Jodie Foster is well on her way to being one of the good ones.

The film revolves around self-proclaimed financial guru and television host Lee Gates (George Clooney). He fronts the show "Money Monster" and his eccentric personality is funnelled by his longtime director, Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts). However, after Lee gives some bad advice on the stock of a major corporation that causes everyman Kyle Budwell (Jack O'Connell) to lose his family's savings over night, Kyle decides to invade the show and hold Lee at gunpoint, forcing him to find out why the stocks crashed and to uncover a major conspiracy in the process.

Like I said, I really enjoyed the way Jodie Foster has directed this movie. From a filmmaking perspective, Money Monster meshes really well. It is colourful, amplifying the circus-like environment of the show's set while also giving the production a grander feel. The dynamism Foster choses to shoot her scenes with is also impressive as she switches from high/wide shots to close ups with subtle ease, helping the audience to understand the stakes of situation and add depth to her shots, all the while without breaking the viewer's connection with these characters. The TV show setting is also put use, with the perspective of the show's cameras (manned mainly by the film's unsung hero, Lenny the Cameraman) being implemented well and without being overused or coming across as gimmicky. From a visual-filmaking perspective, Money Monster ticks all the boxes.

Yet, the film's plot almost lets this down a bit. The story itself is good and it does try to tackle some important themes, such as the relationship between wealth and power, whether it's right for the poor to blame the rich when life doesn't go their way, and what happens when a man is forced to confront his dilutions about himself head on. Yet it just doesn't hit these points home hard enough. It would be like a musician playing all the right notes but just slightly out of time. The story also does veer off track from time-to-time, with subplots involving Caitriona Balfe (star of Outlander) and Giancarlo Esposito (Gus from Breaking Bad) feeling more like an excuse to take a toilet break, and nowhere near as exciting as the main story. I can't help but feel the film would have been even better than it was if it had stuck to the confines of the studio environment a bit more rather than paying attention to what was going on outside it.

However, minor plot grievances didn't prevent me from enjoying this film and that is mainly due to the stellar acting that was on display. Roberts, Esposito, Balfe and most members of the supporting cast (shout-out to the two high European guys with Yoda voices) give stellar performances, yet it is Clooney and O'Connell who steal the show. O'Connell perfectly portrays both sides of his character: a man pushed to his breaking point and a decent person who wants to make a difference. His character's motivations, while arguably initially selfish, end up being pretty noble and self-sacrificial and the English born actor portrays his characters journey from a gun-raving lunatic to a man with a purpose with such beautiful ease. Only the veteran Clooney can top O'Connell's performance. Clooney is so seasoned at this point that the subtle things he does can go under appreciated. His performance here on the surface may appear to be of a self-obsessed man who has become engrossed in his own fame, but in reality this is far cry from the entertaining role he played in Hail Ceasar. Clooney has thoroughly thought out the character of Lee Gates and he squeezes every bit of comedy and tragedy he can out of it in his performance. He portrays Gates as pathetic, a cringeworthy man who lies to himself daily about his inner-happiness. Take the scoreboard scene in the middle of the film's second act as an example of what the former ER star can do when he lets go dramatically. George Clooney is one of Hollywoods best dramatic leading men, and he reminds us why here with a powerhouse performance which many will take for granted. 

Overall, Money Monster is a good film that raises the stock (pardon the pun) of all the people involved in the making of it. It announces Jodie Foster's arrival as a director to be reckoned with after years in the wilderness, it continues what could turn out to be a banner year in the career of the George Clooney after yet another standout performance, and it also features note-worthy performances from all of its supporting cast. The story is best when it focuses what's happening inside the studio and not outside it, with the chemistry between the two leads being the film's main spark. Other sub-plots do fall flat at times, but the filmmaking elements are so strong that Money Monster can be forgiven for the minor failings it makes in its story.

Score: 8.2/10

Film Review- X-Men: Apocalypse

The X-Men franchise was once responsible for revolutionising superhero movies. Not only did the first entry in the saga (which was released almost 16 years ago) really prove the point that this genre of movies could make serious money but it also set the precedent for how to make a good superhero ensemble a whole decade before The Avengers, while also making a star out of Australian national treasure and Oscar winner, Hugh Jackman. Despite a dip in its quality come the third and fourth entries in the franchise (my distain for the Hollywood equivalent of used toilet paper that is X-Men Origins: Wolverine being well documented) the series was rejuvenated in 2011 with X-Men: First Class and it has went from strength to strength since then.

Until now, as X-Men: Apocalypse doesn't really hold up to what's come before.

For all that there was a lot about this movie I did enjoy, there was a lot of glaringly obvious problems, the biggest of these (literally and figuratively) being the movie's title villain, Apocalypse. He is the most generic, seemingly all-powerful, tyrannical big-bad you could possibly imagine. This is no knock on actor Oscar Isaac who brings all he can to the part, but the character is just badly written. He is just a boring, blueish, generic super-villain. That's it. You may as well have called him Ronan and had Chris Pratt defeat him by way of dance-off. The series to this point has made use a plethora of really complex and compelling antagonists (Magneto, General Stryker, Sabertooth etc) all of whom make Apocalypse look very one-note by comparison. Sometimes movies are only as good as their bad guy (see Heath Ledger's Joker) and this film is a testament to that philosophy. The other major issue I had with the film was the use of CGI, which the filmmakers relied on far too heavily. Most of the film's final act centred around general scenes of mass destruction and I couldn't help but feel that I'd seen this before. Like the title character, the CGI felt very generic. On top of this the effects themselves were underwhelming at best, with the best example of its lacklustre quality coming halfway through the run-time when Cyclops accidentally cut a tree in half. Without going into this too much, it looked about as fake as Donald Trump's hair and completely sums up my argument in a nutshell.

These major grievances aside, there were also some minor gripes I had with the film which I'm going to list quickly. There were far too many characters who didn't get as much screen-time as they deserved, namely Storm, Beast and Nightcrawler. There were far too many unnecessary characters included that did nothing to advance the plot. As great an actress as she is, this was J-Law's flattest outing as Mystique. Also, why did Apocalypse not die when all the rubble fell on him at the start of the movie? Did they have to give away one of the film's best moments in the trailer? Was it the intention of the filmmakers to make the fate of Magneto's family so painfully obvious? And why in the bluest of blue hells did so many characters cry a single tear in this movie? The single tear acting, while mostly on point, was drastically overdone. To sum up, there were parts of this film that I absolutely loathed.

On the flip-side, there were elements of this film I thought worked extremely well. The new additions to the cast were fantastic, and the benefits of hitting the reset button in Days of Future Past are very clear to see here. Sophie Turner shines as Jean Grey, giving new life to a character who was grossly mishandled the last time she was used on the big-screen. Turner has proven her acting chops on Game of Thrones, and her strong performance here is a reflection of how much she has grown as an actress since 2010. Tye Sheridan, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Alexandra Shipp also did a fantastic job in bringing some of our most popular mutants back to the big screen, while franchise veteran James McIlvoy arguably gives his best performance to date as Professor X. The film's character driven moments are excellent and it's just a shame that we couldn't have seen more of these moments in the messy third act. Other highlights include the throwbacks to the original X-Men film (see Xavier and Magneto's dialogue in the final scene) and also an intense (albeit unsurprising) cameo from a certain man from a land down under. The film's post-credit scene also gives me faith that they are going in new and brave directions with the future of the franchise.

Maybe I'm being too harsh on this movie due to my love of this franchise, but I can't deny there were flashes of brilliance in X-Men: Apocalypse. There were snippets of great character development. There were glimpses of deeper underlying themes. There were golden moments of pure, gritty action. Yet when I think back on this movie I feel nothing but frustration. The film's obvious flaws hang over it like a black cloud in my mind. The over-reliance on sensationalised action and CGI created a disconnect between the film and the viewer, the inclusion of too many characters meant some did not get their fair share of time to shine, and the translation of the X-Men's greatest threat as he made the jump from the comics to the big-screen was underwhelming at best. While it's not as bad as some films in the franchise's past (cough cough wink wink Origins) it is by nowhere near its best. A number of different factors could be blamed for this, though I think the studio had more than a hand in the way this film turned out, perhaps forcing Bryan Singer to go in this over-the-top direction in an attempt to compete with the releases of Batman v Superman and Civil War respectively at the box-office. This was a mistake. X-Men shouldn't try to play by anyones rules but it's own. X-2 is perhaps the best film the superhero genre has ever seen, and it takes place predominately in smaller scale settings. It proved that blockbusters could be entertaining, make money AND be quality films. I wish I could give this film a better grade because, like I said, there were parts I really enjoyed. In saying this, ultimately the overall experience left me frustrated and the overarching plot was somewhat forgettable. 

Let's hope Hugh Jackman's last outing as Wolverine is better than this effort, as that man deserves a great send-off for the massive contribution he's made to the franchise.

Score: 6.8/10

Film Review- Our Kind of Traitor

Our Kind of Traitor is a spy thriller directed by Susanna White and starring Ewan McGregor, Naomie Harris, Damien Lewis and Stellan Starsgård. Based on the John le Carré novel of the same name, the movie follows Perry Makepeace and his wife Gail as they become embroiled into the world of Russian mobsters and money launderers after a chance encounter with the charismatic Eastern-European Mafioso named Dima. Now, they must assist MI6 agent Hector in helping Dima take down this crime syndicate before they can spread their influence to the UK. Limited advertising has meant this film has went under many peoples radar, however I would argue that this is a movie worth seeing if you are a fan of the spy genre. 

First of all I was a big fan of the way this movie was shot and directed. White (whose only previously feature was the second Nanny McPhee movie) makes a lot of brave decisions with the way she shoots scenes and it makes for some really gorgeous cinematography. The opening slow-motion shot of a dancer mid-jump is absolutely stunning, while the visual of a young girl lying dead in the snow with blood slowly pouring from her head makes for some chilling and effective imagery. There are flickers of excellent visual-storytelling at play here, and White does all she can to not only make this movie thrilling, but also well-above par from a visual standpoint. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (who won the in 2008 for Slumdog Millionare) also deserves immense credit for how good this film looks. 

The film's other key strength for me was the standout performances from both Ewan McGregor and Stellan Starsgård, as well as the outstanding chemistry between the two actors. McGregor is great in the main role, delivering a good subtle performance as a man who has lost his way and is trying to find some purpose in his life. His characters evolution is perhaps the stories most satisfying arc, as we see Perry become more self-confident and sure of himself as the film progresses. For his part, Starsgård displays both comedic and dramatic chops in OKOT. Fiercely protective of his family, Starsgård's character is a friendly and entertaining while at the same time being a ruthless killer. It's exactly the type of role that the Swedish actor excels in, specifically evidenced by the parts he has taken in his native land. In my opinion, Starsgård is the shining light of this production, bringing the necessary levity and grit where and when each is required. 

But the problem is as much as I really enjoyed this movie, I cannot ignore the issues it has. The biggest problem is that too many plot threads and story-arcs do not get the payoff they deserve in the third-act. We do not see any of our antagonists (set up so well in the film's first half) get their comeuppance, we don't see Lewis' Hector get any satisfying form of revenge, and we don't see a final moment of romantic reunion between Perry and Gail (although the chemistry between the  two wasn't as strong as it should have been). The ending is weak and underwhelming, and the film's final third is void of any character development for most of its talented cast. From a personal standpoint I wasn't a fan of Damien Lewis in this film, finding his portrayal of Hector to be a tad grating. The story also does contain some noticeable plot holes, most glaringly MI6's reluctance to sanction the investigation, despite an abundance of mounting evidence.

I really wish I could score Our Kind of Traitor higher, because in all honesty I really did enjoy this movie. It was shot by a director clearly determined to prove her worth, and features a very game cast with Stellan Starsgård absolutely stealing the show in a great performance. However, the film does lose its way in the final act, and there are a number of plot points that don't get the necessary pay-off they deserve. It almost feels as though production was rushed in its final stages. Regardless, it is an enjoyable thriller that I would recommend seeing.

Score: 6.8/10

Film Review- Bad Neighbours 2

Good comedy sequels are a rare beast. Zoolander 2 fell flat at the box-office, The Hangover follow-ups were not nearly as good as the original, and Dumb and Dumber Too felt the ire of critics worldwide. The problem with sequels in general is that they fail to bring anything new to the table, and the comedy genre suffers more in these types of situations because a lot of the time the plots are so specific that it is difficult not to fall in to the trap of relying heavily on old material. In other words, for the most part, they aren't necessary.

Bad Neighbours 2, directed by Nicholas Stoller, should fall into this category. Set a few years after the original, homeowners Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne), who are in the middle of selling their house, must call in their old rival from the original, Teddy Saunders (Zac Efron) to help them get rid of a sorority that has moved into the house next door. The movie does recycle the premise of the last film and does then rely on the tropes that have come before. This is an issue that does affect the film's overall quality, that is undeniable, but we don't need to go into that in much more detail.

The real story with Bad Neighbours 2 is that, when taken for what it is, is actually a really decent movie. The physical comedy in this film is great, particularly in a chase scene halfway through the film. The dialogue is fantastic at times, especially in the scenes where Mac and Kelly are interacting with the buyers of their home. Yet it's the cast that really give this film a boost. Seth Rogen knows how to do Seth Rogen, and while his constant references to smoking pot may grow tired, he also does deliver some of the film's best laugh-out-loud due to his signature sarcasm and undeniable screen presence. Rose Byrne (dodgy Australian accent aside) also brings a lot to the table with her on-point line delivery, while Zac Efron proves his comedic chops once again in a role that fits the former High School Musical star like a glove. In saying all this the film's real star is Hit Girl herself, 19 year old Chloë Grace Moretz. Moretz is the film's emotional centre, playing an antagonist that you can root for as well as against. The Kick Ass star is so energetic that it's infectious, and I can honestly say that this film may not have been as good as it ended up being if they hadn't cast Moretz in this role. A part that could have been vanilla ended up being the film's best character, and this is a testament to the young star's ability as an actress.

Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a fine film. While it does steal a lot from its predecessor, there are more than enough fresh new gags and one-liners that will leave you walking out of this film satisfied. It does have its weak moments (particularly the opening scene) but if you take this movie for what it is then I have no doubt that you will get enjoyment out of it. The best praise I can give this film is that it is one of the best comedy sequels in recent memory, as well as being a great summer comedy that you will have a fun time watching. At the very least, it's another landmark in the blossoming career of Chloë Grace Moretz.

Score: 7.0/10

Film Review- The Jungle Book

2014's "Maleficent" 2015's "Cinderella" kicked off what I'm calling Disney's "Reboot Era". There is a list almost as long as my arm of live-action remakes that the company have pencilled in for a facelift in the next couple of years which includes Beauty and the Beast, Winnie the Pooh, Pete's Dragon and also classic Disney villain Cruella De Vil. This year it was the turn of the Jungle Book. 

I'm just going to say this straight off the bat; nine times out of ten I go into reboots with a negative predisposition. From my point of view I'd much rather see an original concept or adaptation brought to life on the big screen for the first time, however nowadays studios want to invest their money in bankable franchises that will make a profit. And therein lies the problem: most reboots are little more than cash-grabs by the bigwigs. On the flip side, even when this isn't the case and a reboot is good, you will still find for the most part that it will be unable to escape the shadow cast over it by its predecessors. In many ways reboots and remakes are fighting a losing battle before they even make it on to our screens because they will always be heavily scrutinised and compared to the original (look no further than the negative reaction thrown at the lacklustre "Ghostbusters" trailer as an example of this in action).

Jon Favreau's Jungle Book is the exception to the rule in that I think it will be remembered as being superior to the original.

Just to make things clear, this doesn't mean that I absolutely love this movie. To be completely honest, the 1967 version is one of my least favourite Disney Animated Classics purely due to its disjointed story, underwhelming animation and the fact it only has 1 or 2 really good songs to its name (The Elephants Marching Song is one of the most boring drones I've ever had the displeasure of listening to in my life). And while I will get into what Favreau does well with his version, it still did contain flaws. One or two of these stemmed from the original, with the plot seeming to veer off into some pretty pointless places at times throughout the film. Also, because it is a remake, the stakes feel lessened as you know how the story is going to end. This of course subconsciously stops us with engaging with the idea that any of these characters are in real danger and subsequently weakens the emotional connection the viewer will have with the final product. However the biggest problem I had with this movie was one specific character and how that character was handled. What in God's name did they do with King Louis? He looked more like bloody Donkey Kong. The only positive thing I can say about the character is that Christopher Walken's voice work is stellar, but everything else is just one big mess. He sings, which is out of place. He is disproportionate to his size in the original, which also feels out of place. He is a gang boss, which is simply ludicrous. If I was to rewatch this movie, I swear to the high heavens I would simply skip the parts that feature this primate. Very seldom does the personification of one character almost ruin a film for me, but it was certainly the case here.

Now that's all out the way, let's get into the positives. First off, the CGI is unbelievably good. It very much reminded me of Life of Pi in that everything looked so hyper-realistic, which is insane considering this was all filmed in Los Angeles with no actual animals involved in the shoot. Everything from the jungle setting to the mist in Kaa's lair to the silky short hairs on Bagheera's shiny pelt are so well-crafted, and the technical prowess that had to go into putting this on the big screen has to be commended. If nothing else, this is a visual masterpiece on par with what we saw in Avatar in my opinion. The film's next great strength was its cast. Youngster Neel Sethi makes an outstanding film debut as the Mowgli. Many seasoned stars are found out when it comes to acting with CGI, but Sethi more than rises to the occasion, at times carrying the film all on his own. Props have to go to director Jon Favreau for managing to get such a dynamic performance out of this inexperienced star. Bill Murray is the standout of the voice cast, bringing his A-game to the iconic role of Baloo. His voice drips with a lazy sarcasm which suits the bear perfectly, and his comedic timing is just as good as it was in the 80s. Idris Elba is also impressive as the villainous Shere Khan. The London native is absolutely terrifying as the big cat, with his strong baritone voice perfectly illustrating both the strength and the savagery of the tiger. All this aside, the last thing that really put this film over its 1967 predecessor for me was the subtle changes it made to the plot (monkeys aside). I won't delve into them too deeply, but the film does manage to shock viewers at times and add extra gravitas with the slight edits it makes to the original story. Going back to what I said earlier, the problem with reboots is that they seldom add something new to a story. This is certainly not the case here, as Favreau's version of this tale might be one of the best yet.

Ultimately this film will be remembered for its stunning visuals. While it is true that I usually prefer practical effects to CGI, the work done on this film shows how good the medium can be when it's done right. It does have its issues but if Disney is to make all of its reboots with the same care and passion that went in to this production, then we could be in for treat. 

Score: 8.0/10