Ed_D17

I should have loved this film. One of the aspects I love most about Return of the King, my favourite of Jackson's adaptations and one of my favourite films of all time, is the sprawling, mass fantasy battle scenes and The Battle of Five Armies is pretty much one elongated battle scene. However, there's something that's not quite right.

It's not the lack of emotion, characterization or plot. Indeed, there are plenty of those, there is just something I just can't put my finger on that stops the film from being truly epic. Perhaps it is because, for me at least, this film will always live in King's shadow but, really, where I think the film falls down, is that the battles simply aren't done well enough. The context is not explained very well, the actual engagements not that exciting too much repetition and, most crucially, too much cutting away from one place to another. This cutting worked fine, well, even, in Two Towers between the crucible of Helm's Deep and the quiet conversation of the Entmoot, but, here, there are just too many places that the actions flits between. I appreciate this is a battle of five armies, and that there are plenty of characters, but, sadly, the action did seem to be all over the place. And the repetition I mentioned earlier: a huge portion of the film seemed to be entirely composed of either someone running to warn others, a main character leading the charge into battle, and several one-on-one battles. The latter may be entertaining, sure, but there is a line which is stepped over in this film.

The ending, too, seemed like it was rushed by the filmmakers, especially when we consider that we don't actually find out what happens to the Arkenstone in the end. Many people criticised Return of the King's dragged out ending, but that was full of emotion and was a fitting, yet sad, farewell. Here, where not only does Bilbo say farewell to Gandalf and the Dwarfs, but where we say an almost certain farewell to Middle Earth, the end is far too brief and unlikely to instil emotion. Though, it is, to be fair, nicely linked into Fellowship.

Ultimately though, the film has plenty of positives. Despite being full of battle sequences, Jackson fits in plenty of emotional scenes and develops many of the characters fantastically. In particular, Armitage's Thorin is different and darker, yet changes a great deal throughout the film - all in all, a fantastic performance. There's plenty of typical Jackson humour, some brilliant cameos and some great nods to the Lord of the Rings films and some elements of the film's production, which die-hard fans will no doubt pick up on with a smile. It's also important to realise that, whilst it's easy to criticise the long battle sequences, they are entertaining, and keep the pace of the film up throughout.

So, whilst it is easy to concentrate on the negatives and, in particular, the lack of a Grey Havens-esque adieu to Middle Earth, The Battle of Five Armies is still a great film and a fitting end to what has been a true achievement: a series of beautiful film adaptations that many will be sad to see end.

• Ed

"The first forty-five minutes are excellent…the next forty-five minutes are a little soporific... Then comes the train scene—incredible! When I saw it, I kept thinking, 'What, that's the film that everybody says is crap? Seriously?"

That's not me who said that, that was Quentin Tarantino, and I think he's spot on. Critic after critic lined up to slate this film, but what element of it? The quality of the film? I doubt it, because this film is not deserving of many of the negative reviews it's received. Its budget? The fact it was delayed? Perhaps that's what they're reviewing. Whatever the case, it was the critics who discouraged me from paying to see this film when it was released, despite the fact I thought it looked good, and it was only a cheap deal at a local retailer that made me pick it up. But I'm sure glad I did. Another member of the team who worked on "The Lone Ranger", though I can't remember whom exactly, has said that this film will be one people will look back on favourably in ten years and, again, I think he's spot on. Because "The Lone Ranger" is brilliant.

There's undeniably a large focus on action and it can get a little silly at times but the film has plenty of other substance to it. The plot is fantastic, not at all linear, and full of twists and turns with moments that can shock or change your perspective of a character altogether. It's a beautifully put-together film.

The character development and acting on the whole is also superb. The development of John Reid's (Armie Hammer) character is pleasing to watch unfold and the way in which we learn more of the true nature and motives of many of the characters, most notably Tonto (Johnny Depp) and Latham Cole (Tom Wilkinson) is fantastic. Armie Hammer is a fantastic John Reid, both charismatic and funny, without being too heroic. Whilst Johnny Depp's Tonto is undeniably similar to his role as Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Caribbean", that's Johnny Depp's problem, not ours. In fact, it's great to see such a wonderful persona make a reappearance, especially as we see more of Tonto's motives coming through. Finally, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) is an absolutely brilliant villain, superbly acted.

The visuals of the film are also spectacular, offering some stunning vistas of the good ol' Wild West, which really help define the setting for the film, and some great special effects which don't fall into the trap of becoming to frequent, so only add to the already fantastic plot. "The Lone Ranger" is, of course, not without its flaws, but they are not so many as several critics would have you believe. The method in which the story is told is unnecessary (though admittedly is useful in one instance) and slows down what would otherwise be a good-paced film. Finally, though the comedy is usually brilliant, it does get a little silly at times.

In summary, "The Lone Ranger" is simply fun. It's not at all what the critics would have you believe, rather an entertaining ride with a fantastically complex plot and plenty of twists and turns, augmented by some great characters, acting and effects. This is a film to be watched and re-watched.

If you're looking for a generic superhero movie, then you've come to the right place. "Man of Steel" offers everything your standard superhero movie should have. An attractive lead star clad in a suitably cinematic outfit (he's even got a cape!) with some mind-blowing powers, facing down enemies with similarly nasty powers and some very big spaceships. And don't worry, there's plenty of explosions, rubble and torn up roads added into the mix.

Sadly, that's about all this film offers, which relegates "Man of Steel" to, well, a generic superhero movie. I am not, of course, downplaying the superhero movie genre for it can indeed produce some truly brilliant films. But where "The Dark Knight" trilogy was dark, gritty and realistic and where "The Avengers" was ambitious in its concept and simply hilarious, and where "Iron Man 3" saw great character development of Tony Stark, "Man of Steel" offers… nothing. The story starts of promising enough, touching upon what is a gripping and entertaining theme - with some spectacular visuals to boot – it goes downhill from there, descending into what is the very bare bones of any superhero move. Even the 'discovering himself' part of the film is too bland and too… usual.

While you can't fault the effects, there's very little other substance in the film, very little character development, very little emotion and even the 'problem' of the film is not really very problematic. There's no moment, unlike in, say, "The Dark Knight Rises" where we think 'hell, how on Earth is he going to get out of this one?' The latter point is particularly disappointing as director Zach Snyder had some great material to work with – the universally recognizable kryptonite – which could have really made us bite our nails in suspense at Superman's predicament.

But there's almost nothing like any of that in the film. The vast, vast majority of the film you are simply sitting, unmoving and unemotional, watching explosion after destroyed building after explosion. You're never sitting on the edge of your seat, you're never shocked and you're probably never moved to even contemplate crying. The rare emotional moments come in a series of flashbacks of Clark's past life, which makes me think that this film would have been far better off as an origin movie, chartering how Superman came to discover his powers and adapt in this alien world in which he finds himself growing up.

To sum up, this is a solidly entertaining film, with some fantastic effects and decent acting and a passable plot. Don't get me wrong, effects and action are great, but a film needs something more but this one does have any more. It lacks substance and has very little meat on the bones, as it were. Instead, "Man of Steel" tries to make up for this by adding in yet more explosions and other effects. Does it make up for it? No, it doesn't.

• Ed