kyle-domination

Well, despite how "average" the first one was, I went to see the second. And oh boy I am glad I did (you can already tell this is a positive review). More to the point, the film is one of, if not the strongest individual Marvel installments to date. One part spy thriller, one part character journey, one part action movie, and one part straight-up superhero adventure film, The Winter Soldier hits all of the right notes and serves as an example of the very best of what comic book movies have to offer. I was extremely surprised at how much I enjoyed the film in the first place. The beginning of the movie is a sort of message from the directors, "Welcome Back to the Marvel Universe". In The Avengers, Captain America acted like just a normal soldier who can jump high and punch hard but in The Winter Soldier, his powers really do shine. His superhuman strength and agility is shown perfectly, like the comics, and this is one of the main improvements from the first film and The Avengers. Captain America: The Winter Soldier benefits from a great story, solid actors, realistic CGI, action and also a mysterious, haunting villain, The Winter Soldier. Character isn't sacrificed for the sake of plot, though. The Winter Soldier is a well-balanced film that involves comedy, drama, and action. The big and small moments are equally thick with tension and there is some powerful development in this film. In fact, Chris Evans' Steve Rogers / Captain America in some ways becomes the most relatable of the Marvel heroes in this film, which is, of course, a bit odd, given his origin.

Story: Post-Avengers, Rogers is a useful asset for superspy organisation S.H.I.E.L.D., but also a pain in the backside. During a great opening set-piece in which Rogers, Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and a squad of S.H.I.E.L.D. goons take out a crew of pirates, our hero complains of being forced to play "Fury's caretaker". This is not what he signed up for. This is not what America should be doing. History has seen the nation gradually diminished from world's saviour, to world's policeman, to a "caretaker" over the course of decades. For Rogers the moral decline appears instant, and it rankles intensely. Then, the viewers are warned, that there is a mole inside S.H.I.E.L.D and Cap needs to find who it is and from then on...disaster strikes. The Winter Soldier makes his appearance and Cap has his most challenging enemy. The story has an old-school thriller vibe and is certainly Marvel's most mature film even though there are pretty much no explicit scenes. It's a sort of action epic conspiracy thriller mystery all in one. And the filmmakers, Anthony and Joe Russo, nail it all. The Winter Soldier doesn't fall in the cliché pit like it's Iron Man brothers and therefore makes it one of Marvel's most enjoyable movies. 8/10

Action and Acting: The Winter Soldier's action is one of the most surprisingly visceral of all and The Russo Brothers definitely show how powerful Cap is. From punching baddies to throwing his SHIELD (haha) against packs of goons, knocking the living daylights out of them. It's brutal and is actually really cool to watch. Agent Romanoff's agility is unmatchable and The Winter Soldier's power is underestimated. There is much more to admire and The Winter Soldier has plenty of epic action scenes hidden up it's sleeve. The Acting in The Winter Soldier is also great as you expect from a Marvel film so there is nothing to judge about. 9/10

The ending may be a bit negatively unorthodox but the film Marvel is made is one of the best they have ever made. A perfectly enjoyable thriller epic that hits all the right boxes. Go and see it. I rate it 8.7 out of 10.

The film is particularly hard to judge, mainly because it has fantastic moments and some weak moments. Since the entire story of Noah is only told in three chapters in Genesis, it will always be a hard film to make and Darren Aronofsky should certainly be applauded for his brave effort. Directors like Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan, I imagine, will say that it would be a hard film to make despite how good they are. Director Darren Aronofsky has made some artistic and powerful films like The Fountain and Requiem For A Dream. He made Black Swan, which was a particular critical favourite. The audience however didn't get the entire film I have heard. He is a fantastic director but I don't think he really suited the project itself but from what he has done, he has done a confident effort in delivering the story of Noah. The combination of Darren Aronofsky and the story of Noah is certainly an evocative one. Aronofsky's films often feel like vivid fever dreams, and it's an intriguing choice for him to tackle this huge biblical tale. Noah, played by the legendary Russell Crowe, is an interesting interpretation. He is good however. Very good in fact but one of the main flaws of the film is about Noah's character: He is depicted as a negative character.

Story: The opening (including some text on screen that, essentially, gives you a cliffs notes of the Bible, up to the Noah tale, over some cool Aronofsky visuals) establishes that God, here continually called "The Creator", is certainly believed in by most everyone, but also has gone so long without making his presence felt that it's assumed he long ago abandoned or moved on from the people he put on the Earth. In my personal opinion, I didn't like the opening. It's ambitious and audacious, yes, but it is hard to watch and hard to take in the amount of information given to you. It's rushed and since it's rushed, it sadly opens a massive hole in the boat of characterisation. This is one of the film's flaws but as the film's story progresses, it is easily forgivable. Noah who begins to have visions sent to him by the Creator, warning that thanks to humanity's misdeeds, the end is coming, in the form of a great flood. Noah then devises a plan, to build an ark to save the innocent (the animals of the world) and his family. If I continue to offer more exposition, it will spoil the film's story! As a warning for those who will be surprised, expect added material to the story. I find this perfectly necessary to add more elements to the story because, if you do realise, Noah is three chapters long in the Bible. You have to add stuff to make the film entertaining. The added material by Aronofsky is, yes, unexpected, but I thought it was cleverly executed and very necessary. I won't go into too much detail. But as the story progresses, Noah is depicted as a negative character through his intentions and this isn't correct. In the Bible's teachings, Noah was very obedient and respectful. This is shown in the film, yes, but the audience doesn't clearly understand. Noah does things in the film to be obedient and I think the audience won't realise what he is actually doing. This does cause confusion and you need to watch the film to understand. Epic battles take place in the film and this is part of the added material, but it is well done and I think it suits perfectly with the story.

Action, FX and Acting: Noah's epic scenes really are epic and Aronofsky's visual intepretation is brilliant. The film involves the telling of how the world was created and beautifully and noticeably blends evolution and the creation of the world without telling false doctrine of the Bible. This involves amazing imagery and artistic visuals to tell the story and is very well executed by the filmmakers. The action is brief but effective. Ray Winstone's villain, Cain, is generic, as you expect, but interesting and sinister. The battle's between Noah's allies and Cain's army are admiring, intense and perfectly assembled and this is one of the positive things about the movie. Noah is inventive, ambitious, brutal and beautiful: a potent mythological epic. But also wilfully challenging, as likely to infuriate as inspire, whether through its unmitigated Old Testament harshness or its eco-message revisionism and the action is part of that. The acting is very, very, very good particularly by rising star Emma Watson as Noah's adopted "daughter", not really, and Noah's wife played by Jennifer Connolly. In fact, they are Golden Globe worthy but not quite Oscar worthy. Powerful and affecting performances.

Darren Aronofsky and Russell Crowe bring an offbeat, visually exciting version of the story of Noah to the big screen. The lack of characterisation is disappointing and the opening of the film is far fetched and hard to watch. Yes, this does let the film fall but not much. It's religious aspects confuse but this is because Noah is told in a certain way. A polarising way. It's a love or hate film but I did like it. It's phenomenally bold and ambitious, and ends up being, in my opinion, one of the hardest film to make that rightfully succeeds. People may not like it for it's creative, weird method of storytelling but they will like it for its bold effort. A preposterous but endearingly unhinged epic with soul and heart. This is a Noah for the 21st century, one of the most dazzling and unforgettable biblical epics ever put on film.

Just go and see it. See for yourself.

Verdict = 7.1 out of 10

The Amazing Spider-Man was a hard buy. It's aesthetics didn't match Sam Raimi's trilogy, despite how bombastic the third one was, but Andrew Garfield was a better Spider-Man, not a better Peter Parker. It was a favourable average film that had a lot of room for improvement but since they announced the second film, I was instantly excited. I was expecting the sequel to have major improvements over the first and my expectations were correct. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has lots of improvements to admire. Director Marc Webb's sequel is bold and bright and possesses charm in abundance. It swings into the future and carries the audience with it. Entertainment is important and this film has it. One thing in the film is noticeable, however, it suffers from a clumsy script.

Events begin not long after the end of the first film. Peter Parker is still haunted by the death of Gwen's father and the promise he failed to keep (to protect his daughter by leaving her alone). But in some ways he's moved on, graduating high school, enjoying life and really embracing the role of being New York's protector. Unlike so many superheroes, the identity of Spider-Man doesn't seem to be a burden but a release for Peter – he's confident and cocky with his now-honed abilities. Director Marc Webb presents this brilliantly. The audience are instantly hooked into Peter's life and his responsibilities and this is because of engaging screenplay and playful cinematography, expertly executed. The beginning of the film shows Spider-Man battling on-the-run criminals as part of his responsibility and this gets in the way of Peter and Gwen's relationship. During this chase, Peter saves a man from a car crash named Max Dillon (played by Jamie Foxx) who works for Oscorp, led by Harry Osborn, Peter's childhood friend. The film tries to introduce Max Dillon as a character for whom we should feel sympathy – he's socially awkward, lonely, unappreciated, and since Spider-Man saved his life, he's become obsessed with the hero. Max, shortly after a major accident at Oscorp, discovers that he has powerful electric powers and soon becomes Electro, the main antagonist of the film. This is well told through the detailed, enjoyable but increasingly clumsy script. One thing that confuses me about the film is that the first instalment was supposed to be "the untold story of Peter Parker". This film actually shares more untold elements than the first, such as finding out what happened to Peter's parents. Peter's parents are a big part of The Amazing Spider-Man 2's plot, without going into much detail. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 benefits from a lot of good qualities, such as a brilliant chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, a great Spider-Man, satisfying and exhilarating action and well presented villains but also negatively benefits from minor issues. It's childish but emotional script penned by Alex Kurtsman & Roberto Orci lets the film down and frankly, it may be a biased opinion, their work on Transformers was TERRIBLE. There's a lot going on in Amazing Spider-Man 2, and sadly it doesn't always come together because of it's writers.

Action, as you expect from a Marvel film, is very good indeed. Spider-Man's abilities are shown perfectly without any flaw in the picture. Music is quite unique and heroic, brought together by Hans Zimmer, The Magnificent Six, Pharrell Williams & Johnny Marr. It certainly sounds good, with high-quality instruments and themes but some material sounds like it came from another movie. The acting is very good as well. Andrew Garfield is a FANTASTIC Spider-Man and is certainly better at his role than the previous instalment. The film positively benefits from a great cast in overall and there is nothing to judge, especially Dane DeHann as he steals the show as Harry Osborn / Green Goblin.

Pros & Cons:

+ Great chemistry with Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone and director Marc Webb.

+ Very entertaining presentation and opening. Perfectly judged slingshot ending.

+ Great Spider-Man action and great villains.

+ Improves the strengths of the first film entirely such as action and presentation.

+ Unique and powerful soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, The Magnificent Six, Pharrell Williams and Johnny Marr.

• Disappointing script and muddled story dominates the film's positive reception.

• Not enough action from a Spider-Man film like the first.

Verdict: 7.7 out of 10