halsall-07142

When X -Men first came out in the year 2000 comic book movies were still finding their feet as we didn't yet have the MCU, The Dark Knight trilogy or even Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy. Now 16 years later the X-Men Universe has been joined by Marvel and DC in the superhero movie universe brigade/thing. Having helmed three of the previous X-Men films, including Days of Future Past, Bryan Singer has again been trusted in bringing the mutants to the big screen.

It's now the 1980's and the first mutant Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) has awoken and displeased by the culture he has awoken within (perhaps if he had awoken in the 60's he would have been more chill) decides to eliminate humans from the planet so that mutants can truly rule supreme. He recruits the orphan girl Storm (Alexandra Shripp), Psylocke (Olivia Munn), cage fighter Angel (Ben Hardy) and everyone's favourite metal detector Magneto (Michael Fassbender). Elsewhere Professor X (James McAvoy) is running his institute for the gifted with Hank (Nicholas Hoult) and new student Scott/Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) arrives alongside current student Jean Grey (Sophie Turner). Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) also stops by with Nightcrawler (Kodi-Smit Mcphee) as she is worried about Magneto's well being following a traumatic event. Quicksilver (Evan Peters) is also alerted to this as he feels he needs to bond with Magneto who is his father. Whilst Professor X looks into Magneto's disappearance he comes across Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) again, as there were not enough sub-plots apparently.

Basically there's a lot going on, and it's mostly entertaining but doesn't really feel weighted in anything because there isn't enough time for the film to fit everything in. Apocalypse was one of my favourite villains from the old cartoon series and I didn't feel his more 'subtle' design was effective. Oscar Isaac is a terrific actor but his performance felt very repetitive and stifling, not because of his lack of ability, but there wasn't enough time or nuance devoted in the film's run time to keep him interesting. All of the returning players perform ably; Fassbender delivers a fine mix of gaunt expressions and passionate vengeance of a man going over the edge. Whilst the newcomers all perform promisingly in their roles they don't get enough material to truly flourish and end up simply being promising additions. Whereas in Captain America Civil War Tom Holland was a great Peter Parker/Spiderman in Apocalypse Sophie Turner seems that she could be a good Jean Grey, and Tye Sheridan could be a good Cyclops etc. but they hover on the periphery battling for screen time with all the other characters. Having stolen the show in Days of Future of Past with a breath-taking slow motion (or fast motion I suppose?) sequence Quicksilver returns with a similar scene here. It isn't as good, going for a bigger is better approach, it is funny in parts but lacks the surprise and intricate detail it had in Days of Future Past. Then we get lots of worldwide destruction that makes Man of Steel look conservative by comparison, say what you will about DC's attitude to city wide destruction at least in Batman vs Superman they showed the destruction from a personal perspective to add dramatic weight. In Apocalypse we watch as cities are sucked into the sky and feel simply that the animators did a stylish job with it, but no empathy whatsoever.

Despite my hang ups X-Men: Apocalypse has enough impressive action beats to be entertaining without being immersive. There are some funny gags, and impressive special effects but very little dramatic stakes. It's definitely the weakest film of the "New class" trilogy (First Class and Days of Future Past being superior) but with an impressive cast to sell it does the job.

When Finland based Rovio Entertainment, the group behind the Angry Birds videogames, announced a film adaptation of its headline series it probably made sense at the time. Angry Birds had become a cultural flashpoint of the mobile gaming industry and following the successful development of a cartoon show based on the rage fuelled birds their decision to take a leap into the cinematic arena seemed plausible when you consider the incredible success of titles such as The Lego Movie. However since work on the film had begun the popularity of Angry Birds has declined resulting in Rovio Entertainment laying-off (no bird- based pun intended) forty percent of its employees. Interestingly this venture to further illustrate the multi-media potential of the Angry Bird franchise may now be saddled with the responsibility of saving it. Having invested at least $80 million in producing the film, and another $100 million in marketing, it is by far the most expensive Finnish film ever produced and a box office bomb could lead to the capitulation of the entire company.

Red (Jason Sudeikis) is a bird with an anger issue. Following yet another rage-fuelled incident he is sentenced to undertake an anger management class ran by Matilda (Maya Rudolph). At first Red doesn't get along with the other members of the class which include the Speedy Chuck (Josh Gad), Self-conscious Bomb (Danny McBride) and terrifyingly huge Terrence (Sean Penn). However when some pigs arrive on the Island, led by Leonard (Bill Hader), Red believes they are up to no good and with the help of his fellow birds attempts to find out what the pigs are after.

Angry Birds throws a lot of jokes at you, and their quality is very mixed, from a frankly exhaustive amount of bird and pig based puns (Seriously, if you enjoy poultry based puns you will love this film) to a range of visual and sight gags that some of the younger viewers won't understand, and some of the older viewers won't find amusing. Having said that there are plenty of jokes that do hit the mark, and the frenetic pace of the film keeps you engaged with the action. Sudeikis is charming enough as Red to be likable and is ably supported through the incessant energy of Gad and the, surprisingly lovable, Danny McBride. The story is kept very simple, and moves along with such speed that it never really allows any of the emotional moments the film does have time to breathe. Therefore Angry Birds does not offer as much pathos as films like Zootropolis, or the best work of Pixar, or even The Lego Movie but is still serviceable enough as an entertaining experience. Sony Pictures Imageworks have done a great job animating the film with a lush colourful atmosphere and nicely designed characters even if the world in which they inhabit seems a big rigid.

Overall I feel this is a pleasantly engaging movie with enough comic weight to yield a few laughs from even the staunchest objectors. Though not a masterpiece, or close to overcoming the better animated features of recent years, it is certainly not the cringe inducing film some had expected it to be when it was first announced. In fact, with little true competition, Angry Birds may be the best video game to film adaptation of all time, though with Warcraft and Assassins Creed out later this year it may not hold the title for long.

For more reviews check out my site thebeestheysting.wordpress.com

Following the success of Bad Neighbours, which grossed $270 million worldwide on just an $18 million budget, a sequel was something of an inevitability. When a film performs so well at the box office and is also as entertaining as Bad Neighbours managed to be the only question would be could the cast and crew create a sequel of superior or equal quality?

We re-join Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne), pregnant with their second child, a couple of years after the events of the first film. They have just agreed a deal to sell their house, under the obligation that the new buyers have a 30 day period to back out of the purchase should anything go array. At the same time Shelby (Chloe Grace Moretz) and a group of her friends move into the house next door to form a hard-partying sorority, Kappa Nu. Things are complicated further when Teddy (Zac Efron), leader of the fraternity from the first film, returns to assist Shelby in forming a successful sorority as retribution for his past grievances with Mac and Kelly.

Whilst it is pleasant to see a film attempt to challenge the male- centric domination of certain establishments across the educational system, it is repeatedly brought up that fraternities are allowed to host parties whilst sororities cannot, the attempts to highlight sexism and prejudices within the collegial system are undermined by the limited scope of the movie. Bad Neighbours 2 can't help but feel like a re-tread of the first film, only this time attempting to highlight certain unfair and unwarranted treatment that women can still face. This isn't a negative but there isn't enough new material to keep the action fresh. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are a pair of the most charming actors working today and I wish Byrne had been given more content with which to showcase her talents. As much as I enjoy Rogen's energetic displays one of my favourite aspects of the first film was Byrne's performance and I felt that with so many different characters now in the sequel she was given the short end of the stick whilst others got a more prominent focus. Zac Efron had something of a breakout role with the first film, establishing himself as a talented comedic actor, this time round having seen what he can do his performance is a little bit underwhelming though it may be that the material he is working with is somewhat limited. Whist the previous film felt very fluid this sequel feels like a series of sequences that were written first, with a connecting line constructed as an afterthought. The two writers from the previous feature (Andrew J. Cohen & Brendan O'Brien) are again credited, but with three other writers also receiving credit (Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg & director Nicholas Stoller) which may explain the sense of in-coordination the movie has at times. The newcomers of the sorority are somewhat of a mixed bag humour wise. Moretz doesn't really get much comedic material with her actions carrying the drama of the film, her constant battle to maintain a sorority without having to resort to conforming to male expectancy of what a sorority should be is admirable, but It would have been nice for her to have a few more comic moments that maybe defined her character a little more beyond her battle for individualism.

After all is said Bad Neighbours 2 has a few funny gags, and some charming characters, but is not as entertaining or prolific as its predecessor. As a passable 90 minute romp you could do worse, or if you haven't seen the first Bad Neighbours just watch that instead as it's a lot funnier.

For more of my film reviews check out thebeestheysting.wordpress.com/reviews/