Super Film Review: Man of Steel

Director: Zack Snyder
Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner
Running time: 143 minutes

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's the obligatory bird/plane reference that any movie reviewer feels the need to cram into a review of Man of Steel. Now, with that out of the way, let's get on with it shall we?

Amy Adams as Lois Lane

After Superman Returns divided critics back in 2006, the audience has been patiently awaiting this; the big-screen return of the Man of Steel with the comic-book film aficionados behind the Dark Knight trilogy (writers Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer), 300 and Watchmen (director Zack Snyder). With a washed out colour palette, a fresh cast and 'darker' tone, Man of Steel should be the definitive Superman film for the 21st Century; down-to-earth (pun?), straight-faced and inspirational. An instant classic.

Right?

Erm, no, not quite. Man of Steel is not flawless, not even close. Hell, to some audience members, it might not even be the best Superman film released this side of the year 2000.

First of all, let's deal with some of the positives. Man of Steel has a cracking cast. Henry Cavill is fantastic as Clark Kent/Kal-El; he looks, sounds and is like Superman. Likewise, Amy Adams is brilliant as Lois Lane. She's defiant and feisty and still an attractive and likeable character which is good.

Also, the way in which Goyer, Nolan and Snyder paced the first half of the movie was done brilliantly. An opening prelude that charts the downfall of Krypton is awesome; the film spends a lot more time on Krypton than I had expected and that is a good thing. This opening prelude was, in my opinion, one of the best parts. It was like something torn straight from one of the Star Wars prequels and then improved upon
tenfold.

With the planet is collapsing in on itself and General Zod (Michael Shannon) stages a coup to save his people before being outwitted by Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and sent to the Phantom Zone. Whilst Russell Crowe is great as Jor-El (he brings the necessary gravitas the role needs), I found that Michael Shannon's depiction of General Zod to be amusing rather than terrifying.

Admittedly, it would take a special breed of actor to make prancing around a space station with a cape yelling things like "Unleash the World Engine!" and "Open the Genesis Chamber!" sound anything other than a absurdly funny. I felt that Shannon overacted Zod to the point where he was so batshit crazy that is wasn't threatening, just silly.

Antje Traue stole the show as Faora

It was almost as if a cartoon version of Zod had somehow found himself in a more grounded version of a Superman movie. He snarled maliciously, he spat dialogue and he generally had the "crazed villain" dial cranked up to 11.

Instead, I found that Zod's second-in-command, Faora (Antje Traue) pretty much stole the show. She's a much better and more badass villain.

Anyway, the film soon settles down and is all about Clark Kent keeping himself out of trouble with numerous different jobs. He never stays in the one place and lives a solitary life. It's a nice introduction to the 'human' side of the character. One scene in particular where Clark is taunted by a trucker in a diner and walks away instead of beating him was a nice touch. It makes him relatable and likeable.

Clark childhood (and the troubles he faced) were told through a series of flashbacks. These flashbacks were spaced throughout the first half of the film and I liked the way in which Snyder see-sawed between the past and present. One flashback in which Clark's human father, Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner), was killed was stupid  (as it messed with the lore a little too much) but other than that, the way in which Snyder told Clark's past in several key chapters rather than one solid block was good.

Clark soon discovers an ancient Kryptonian scout ship in the Arctic and the truth about his powers, his heritage and his home-world; he realises that he must make the choice between defending his adoptive planet from Zod or embracing his Kryptonian counterparts.

Clark Kent and his mother, Martha

From this point on however, things start to go downhill. I liked the sequence in which Kal-El played around with his powers and flew for the first time (the way in which Snyder envisions Kal-El flying was very visceral and exciting), but once battle commences between Kal-El and Zod, Snyder abandons all pretence of this being anything more than a bombastic summer blockbuster with more brawn than brains.

For the next hour, Snyder bombards the audience with more destruction than you'll see this side of a Michael Bay movie. Kal-El and Zod tear at each other endlessly, ripping trucks, girders and entire buildings apart in their climatic duel across Smallville and Metropolis.

And whilst you can't fault Man of Steel on the sheer scale of the action (at one point, the duo take their fight into space), I found that I tired very quickly of the two (seemingly immortal) enemies tearing Metropolis a new one. The battle just rolls on, and on, and on and on. Not only this, but surely in the process of throwing Zod through several skyscrapers, Kal-El is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. Isn't Superman supposed to protect humanity?

When the credits finally began to roll, I found myself thinking that less would have been more when it came to the final hour of Man of Steel. It felt as though the writers got halfway through the script and went "Oh crap, we've written a Superman film and so far no buildings have fallen down! Quick, add loads so people woop and punch the air in excitement! Screw the plot, let's just throw in lots of Zod and Kal-El punching the crap out of each other!"

The end result was a film of two distinct halves; one well-paced, well-written and well-acted. The other, CGI heavy, lacking in plot and overly long and repetitive. Man of Steel is a disjointed and underwhelming attempt at rebooting the Superman franchise as a result. It's got all the right ideas in place but is executed poorly by assuming the audience craved action and explosions.

I give Man of Steel: 6/10

Read More

Film Review: World War Z

After lengthy delays, re-writes and put-offs, Marc Forster's zombie/action epic World War Z finally hits cinema screens this week. With edge-of-your-seat tension and apocalyptic destruction, World War Z aims to satisfy the appetite of an audience who enjoyed 2012 and I am Legend. So, how does it stack up? 

Starring Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos and Peter Capaldi, this action-heavy apocalyptic blockbuster charts the initial outbreak and spread of a virus that converts swathes of the human race into mindless, mouth-frothing zombies. And not the walking, shuffling kind either. These dudes can sprint, climb and pile onto one another like ants.

I thought that the initial outbreak was written and shot well; it managed to capture that sense of panic well. The fear that spreads through the crowd of people on-screen is relayed to the audience through the way in which director Marc Forster only affords us brief glimpses of the undead through some flashy, shaky editing.

Whilst the technique is effective at first, I found that the use of shaky cam and rapid editing in all of the action sequences was overused and slightly nauseating. I know that it is meant to evoke a sense of panic and adrenalin (like in Bourne or Craig-Bond films), but here it just felt tiresome and really took me out of the action. It wasn't until the final third of the film that Forster let the camera linger on the characters a little more.

If your a fan of the zombie genre, you might be slightly disappointed to know that this rapid editing technique also means there is a complete lack of blood and gore. If you were hoping for a Hollywood-budget version of The Walking Dead, complete with spurting arteries and veins, you will be disappointed.

Forster ensures that the film quickly cuts away from any potential MA15+ style neck-biting. There are three or four jump scares that might send your popcorn cascading onto the floor, but other than that, the zombies in World War Z are positively family-friendly and contain zero squelching.

Throughout the film, Brad Pitt's character, Gerry Lane, zig-zags his way across the globe in search of a cure (from the USA to South Korea, Israel and Wales), and whilst this allows for the film to live up to its 'world war' moniker, it does mean that most of his characterisation is lost beneath swarming seas of the undead.

If he isn't being hunted by zombies in New York, he's being chased by zombies in Jerusalem or stalked by zombies in Cardiff. Once Pitt is made to leave his family behind on an aircraft carrier in the Atlantic Ocean, the attention is squarely on action and destruction. I found that the CGI was okay, but not great. The massive swarms of zombies aren't going to make your jaw hit the ground or anything like that.

The numerous re-writes and script revisions are evident in the final product; The films narrative is annoying episodic, veering from one place to another without time to settle down. I found that I preferred the film's stripped-back, creepier final 30 minutes to the rest of the film combined.

On the whole, I wasn't overly impressed by World War Z. Whilst I enjoyed the final half an hour and the genuine tension it generated, I found that insistence on huge CGI set-pieces diverted attention away from the simplistic plot and underdeveloped characters. It was also fairly tame for a zombie film, almost certainly in an attempt to draw a wider audience.

If your looking for a epic, action-orientated science-fiction blockbuster then World War Z is better than something similar After Earth, which is also in cinemas now. However, if you like your zombie films gooey, scary and gruesome, best leave this one be.

I give World War Z: 6/10

Read More

Film Review: Monsters University

Pixar rewind the clock and send the loveable stars of Monsters Inc., Mike and Sully, off to university so that they can get educated before they are incorporated. The big question is, how does this latest Pixar feature stack up? Has the studio got their mojo back or are they just treading water?

As a prequel to 2001's Monsters Inc., Pixar have rolled the dice a little. Prequels are most often inferior and unliked in comparison to the original. Think X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Prometheus or Underworld: Rise of the Lycans - all pale in comparison to their predecessors.

In Monsters University, Pixar have taken one of their most beloved properties in the hope that audiences will once again be won over by the antics of Mike Wasowski and James Sullivan. Couple this with some gorgeous animations (as always), rosy-eyed and nostalgic script writing and belly-laughs for all ages and Monsters University is a riot. The roll of the dice has paid off nicely for Pixar.

Firstly, it is worth noting that the premise of sending Mike and Sully back to university is not one that is hugely original; in fact, the first 90 minutes of this film are as predictable and signposted as you would expect from a film set on the stereotypical American college campus.

It's a little bit like that episode of The Simpsons where Homer enrols at Springfield University. All the common clichés and troupes are included, right down to the mascot of the rival university being stolen (yes, it's a pig).

It's in the films final third that the Pixar-ness really starts to kick in. In fact, the final half an hour escalates Monsters University from ho-hum to fantastic. The writers effectively side-step a predictable and clichéd ending and replace it one with tons more heart and character by plunging the duo into the human world for the first time. On reflection, it would have been more effective if the film had allowed the duo to reach the story's climax earlier. This would have allowed the sequences in the human world to develop further, rather than rush by.

It's worth noting that the animation and vibrant colour palette used in Monsters University is one of the film's biggest drawcards. With all manner of creepy crawlies populating the screen, the visuals really give the film a distinctive look. The voice acting from Billy Crystal (Mike), John Goodman (Sully), Steve Buscemi (Randy) and Helen Mirren (Dean Hardscrabble) is top-notch, as expected.

Kids, as expected, will love this film. Despite being about monsters, Mike and Sully are as cute and adorable as ever. Even Randell is kinda cuddly with his big dorky glasses. Parents shouldn't be apprehensive when weighing up taking kids to see Monsters University, there isn't anything here that'll cause nightmares.

Probably the biggest criticism you can have of Monsters University is that it plays it a little too safe; like I said  earlier, the plot in the opening 90 minutes plods along nicely, but it isn't the audacious and original writing audiences have come to expect from the studio who brought you WALL-E or Up. The film too heavily relies upon familiar and recognisable genre troupes and stereotypes; the nerds, the jocks, the emos, the oddballs.

Also, it feels like the characterisation of Sully feels tacked onto the end; he doesn't resemble the cuddly and caring animal we see in Monsters Inc. until the credits are already rolling. On the other hand, Mike's character arc was handled nicely and paced almost to perfection.

At the end of the day, you can't help but feel sorry for Pixar. They can't seem to make a great movie without critics rushing to complain that it isn't superb or ground-breaking. Yes, Monsters University is not as good as Up, Toy Story or Finding Nemo. But it is a great film, on the same level of The Incredibles or even the original Monsters Inc. Don't let the naysayers put you off; Monsters University is worth seeing in cinemas and not a let-down in the slightest.

I give Monsters University: 7/10

Read More

Quotes Corner: Phil Dunphy

Phil's-osophy

Arguably the highlight of any episode of Modern Family is when Phil Dunphy (Ty Burrell) opens his mouth and casts his unique blend of wisdom and wit on a topic. 

As a new-found fan of Mr. Dunphy's vocal brilliance, I decided to put together a quick collection of some of his best quotes from Modern Family.

If this tickles your funny bone, click here to read my review of season 1 of Modern Family and my thoughts on the show. Also, if your into warped wisdom, you can find some more brilliant quotes from the deluded (and somehow, genius) Karl Pilkington by clicking on this link. 

Take it away Phil...

On naming his fists
"I'm going to introduce him to the Captain...and Tenille."

On Women
"I'll admit it. I'm turned on by powerful women. Michelle Obama, Oprah, Condolezza Rice, Serena Williams...wait a minute?"

On the iPad
"The iPad comes out on my actual birthday. It's like Steve Jobs and God got together to say, "We love you, Phil"

On Porn
"That was hardly porn. It was a topless woman on a tractor. You know what they call that in Europe? A cereal commercial"

On Perfectionism
"Claire's a perfectionist, which sometimes is a good thing, like when it comes to picking a husband."

On being a cool dad
"I'm cool dad, that's my thang. I'm hip, I surf the web, I text. LOL: laugh out loud, OMG: oh my god, WTF: why the face"

On lemonade

WWPDD: What would Phil Dunphy do?

"When life gives you lemonade, make lemons. Life will be all like 'What?'

On love
"If you love something, set it free. Unless it's a tiger"

On birthdays
"Key to a good birthday? Low expectations"

On fun
"Trust me, I had plenty of fun in my time. Then, I met your mom"

On problem solving
"Claire likes to say, 'You can be part of the problem or part of the solution.' But I happen to believe you can be both"

On Facebook
"She's one of my 447 friends. Everyone wants a slice"

On being a comedian
"I was 11 years old. I hit ten straight fastballs in the batting cage, then my friend Jeff Sweeney took one in the groin. I yelled 'ball two!' Everybody laughed. That's when I knew I was funny"

Using puns
"Let's get Phil-sical"

"So they've asked me to Phil-in"

On riding motorbikes
"I'm not nervous, I've had hogs bigger than this between my legs"

On clothes
"These jeans just slipped onto me so perfectly, my name must be 'Pantserella'"

On film and cinema
"Why do I have to watch a French movie, I didn't do anything wrong?!"

On texting
"Sad face emoticon, I can feel the hurt through the phone"

Inventing new swear words
"Sweet and sour chicken!"

On sex
"It's like you're shaking hands, but you're not using your hands. At all"

Read More

My PS3 Highlights #1: Uncharted 2 - Among Thieves

"I did not tell half of what I saw, for I knew I would not be believed" - Marco Polo

With the fourth incarnation of the PlayStation due to hit stores this holiday season, I thought it was a good time to reflect upon some of my own most cherished and memorable gaming experiences with the PlayStation 3. 

Each entry into this brand new column will give you my thoughts on some of my favourite PS3 games and the enjoyable and grabbing gaming experiences they have brought me. 

First up in this new series is a game that every PlayStation owner should be more than familiar with; the brilliant, gorgeous and action-packed, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. 

Alongside other highly-acclaimed exclusive franchises such as Resistance, Infamous, Killzone, LittleBigPlanet and MotorStorm, the Uncharted series has been something of a 'poster boy' for the PlayStation 3. And whilst the first entry into the franchise, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (2007) was a good starting point, it wasn't until 2009 that Naughty Dog hit the bullseye with Among Thieves.

Returning to central character Nathan Drake, a cocky and adventurous treasure hunter, Uncharted 2 was one of the first PlayStation 3 games I truly fell in love with. Combining fluid platforming levels with third-person shooting sequences and stunning movie-like cut-scenes, playing Among Thieves was like playing out an Indiana Jones movie on your PS3.

My personal favourite sequence from Among Thieves is working your way up the train whilst being shot at by the massive Hind helicopter. Well, I say favourite. I both love and detest that level. Those signals that knock you off the train are a massive bitch.

With a storyline that saw Drake whiz his was across Turkey, Borneo and Nepal in pursuit of the Cintamani Stone and the ancient city of Shangri-La, Among Thieves was a globe-trotting affair akin to some of the best action-adventure films ever made. The game is pretty much seamless from start to finish - there's no 'loading' screens between levels adding to the illusion of being in a big-budget movie. It's all here; Nazis, supernatural yetis, maniacal warlords. What more do you need?

The best aspect about Among Thieves is without a doubt the incredible voice acting and motion capture. Each character feels rounded and interesting. Among Thieves made you really care about the characters and their relationships. Drake, Sully, Elena, Chloe, Tenzin; the player is made to care for their fate thanks to the immersive motion capture technology.

For me, every character is brilliant but I can't get past how brilliantly villainous Lazarevic is. I mean, everyone loves a good villain right? He's got it all; a mean accent, a huge-ass scar on his face, an army of cronies at his disposal and he gets some of the best lines. What's not to love?

Either that or Chloe. She's pretty hot. And Elena, she's nice too. Aarrghh, I can't ever choose.

There are some pretty tricky puzzles to solve along the way too. I'm not much of a puzzle solver when it comes to video games, they tend to boggle my brain and are known to be the cause of controller flinging. However, the way in which the game integrates sketches and scrawlings from Nate's journal into the puzzle solving sections makes it pretty easy for anyone of any level.

Whilst Among Thieves is the kind of game that is constantly at break-neck speed, it doesn't feel like it ends too quickly. The narrative is well-paced and doesn't drag, unlike Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception which really starts to grate once you reach the ship graveyard. The ending scene where the gang part ways and Drake and Elena gaze out onto the sunset is one of my favourite scenes from anything, let alone video games.

An absolute essential for any PlayStation owner, I can't emphasise enough the 'wow' factor I took away from playing Among Thieves. It is without a doubt one of the most memorable and entertaining games to have ever graced my PlayStation 3. You're seriously missing out if you pass this one by.

What are your thoughts on Among Theives? What are some of your most memorable Playstation 3 experiences? Leave me a comment below! Next up in PS3 Highlights, L.A. Noire. 

Read More

Rank the Films #6: Pixar

As any regular reader of feeling fuzzier will know, lists are pretty darn nifty. We have a profound appreciation for straight-up lists. This is the thinking behind Rank the Films, a regular feature that pulls apart the pros and cons of a series of films, ranking them in order of bad to good. 

With Monsters University hitting cinemas at the end of June, we thought it was a great chance to take a look at Pixar's back catalogue of films (from Toy Story to Brave) and settle upon which is best and which is worst. 

Given the large catalogue of films Pixar has produced across the last 18 years, we've grouped any sequels together into one 'entry' - so, the three Toy Story films and the two Cars films aren't included separately on this list.

Please note: this has probably been the trickiest edition of Rank the Films to date; each film Pixar makes is just so special and fantastic in its own way! However, we have to start somewhere, so let's start with...

10th - Cars series: Cars (2006), Cars 2 (2010)

Rotten Tomatoes: 74% (Cars), 38% (Cars 2)

When you're watching Cars, it can be hard to sit back and watch the film or the story. Instead, you're too busy asking yourself questions like "when does this really long commercial for toy's finish?" or "how do the cars build cars when they have no arms?"

I mean, think about it. The whole thing doesn't make a single lick of sense. They're cars, living in a world only populated by cars. So, what is their purpose in life? Do they have seats? Who sits in the seats? How come the cars can talk? Why do they have door handles, or doors at all? How come they talk English? Where do they get petrol from? Who builds the roads/buildings? How do the cars reproduce? WHERE DO THE CARS COME FROM?!

*breathes* Putting logic and the simple fact the films exist to sell toys aside for a moment, it is still plain to see that Cars (and it's even crappier sequel, Cars 2) is Pixar's weakest film to date. Sure, it's packed with stars like Owen Wilson, Michael Caine and Eddie Izzard, but it just isn't up there with the genius of their other films.

It might look really pretty and have plenty of tongue-in-cheek jokes (Jay Leno as Jay Limo har har) but at the end of the day, Cars is fairly forgettable.

9th - A Bug's Life (1998) 

Rotten Tomatoes: 92%

"A Bug's Life - that's the one with Sharon Stone and Woody Allen right?"

"No, that's Antz"

"Oh okay. So does Antz have the crazy German caterpillar in it?"

"No, that's A Bug's Life"

"Uhh, what's the difference?"

Wind back to 1998 and audiences were locked into a battle of wills (I assume); which insect-themed family adventure to commit to? Pixar's A Bug's Life or Dreamwork's Antz? Okay, so maybe I'm overselling that, but you have to admit that the two are just too similar. For me, it is hard to pick one out from the other and as a result, both pale in comparison.

One you get over the odd ant-obsessed year that was 1998 and look a little closer at A Bug's Life, you'll actually find that it isn't all that silly. Sure, it isn't as memorable or moving as Up or WALL-E, but it does provide the little'uns with plenty of giggles and sight-gags. 

8th - Ratatouille (2007)

Rotten Tomatoes: 96%

The first Pixar film I actually enjoy on this list, it is unfortunate that Ratatouille places as low on this list as it does; I would have loved to have put it higher up but it had to come somewhere and decisions were hard.

Anyway, Ratatouille is a beautiful little film about a rat, Remy, who dreams of becoming a top chef in Paris. With the help of talented young (human) chef, Linguini, Remy pursues his dream whilst evading the clutches of the villainous head chef, Skinner.

Set against the gorgeous backdrop of Paris, Ratatouille is a solid and enjoyable entry into Pixar's hall of fame. The voice acting is great and as always, the animation is top notch. It does stick to the recipe book fairly closely (heh heh) however, playing out very much like a classic Disney fairytale. 

7th - Brave (2012)

Rotten Tomatoes: 78%

Brave is the tale of Princess Merida, a flame-haired maiden and skilled archer who is reluctant to marry the man her royal parents have set aside for her. Whilst on the surface it sounds fairly derivative Disney fairytale stuff, Pixar's most recent film is one that is one of it's most ambitious. Setting up their first female lead is a new direction for the studio and whilst the film doesn't pull it off impeccably, they can be praised for their forethought. 

Brave starts out fairly strongly and Merida is a refreshing take on the usual Disney princess troupes. 

It is however a odd twist mid-way through that slightly soiled the full-potential of Brave; it just feels slightly odd and not in keeping with the first half of the film. The film does carry a nice message of mother/daughter relationships however, so Brave is a nice and cute film for kiddies. 

6th - The Incredibles (2004)

Rotten Tomatoes: 97%

If there is one film in the Pixar canon that deserves a sequel, it is The Incredibles. 

Based around a family of superheroes who are forced into living a normal life by a society who fears their powers, The Incredibles is an incredibly (heh heh) witty and self-knowing movie that has a great plot which isn't unfamiliar from classic superhero narratives like X-Men or Superman.

The result is a film that is full of heart (the opening flashback that sees Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl marry is sweet) and one that can be enjoyed by kids and adults of any age. Like some other Pixar films, The Incredibles can be quite dark at times (such as Mr. Incredible being strung up by Syndrome) but family films need that element of danger or threat to teach kids about danger or death.

Anyway, The Incredibles is one of Pixar's most underrated films in my opinion and fully deserving of a sequel. Either that, or a spin-off/origin story for Frozone. That's if Samuel L. Jackson can be pulled away from playing Nick Fury for five minutes to reprise the role.

5th - Monsters Inc. (2001)

Rotten Tomatoes: 96%

Pixar's fourth feature length film is one of it's highest concept; Monsters Inc. is set in a city that is populated by monsters and powered by the screams of frightened children.

Hardly sounds like cutesy, animated family fun now does it? What makes Monsters Inc. such a success then is its ability to make the protagonists, Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sully (John Goodman) seem cuddly and loveable. Despite their odd looking nature, it is hard not to love Sully's 'brother bear' personality or Mike's sarcastic and wisecracking jokes. 

What's even better about Monsters Inc. is the rest of the motley crew in and around the factory; Randall, Celia, Roz, the Abomnible Snowman; each are endlessly quotable twelve years since the film came out. Which, at the end of the day, is a true test of the films longevity.

4th - WALL-E (2008)

Rotten Tomatoes: 96%

In my mind, WALL-E is Pixar most 'out-there' film; it's really adventurous, really different and is actually trying to say something meaningful. All of this, in what is supposedly a kids film.

To me, WALL-E is nothing short of a masterpiece. It is beautiful, heart-felt and touching whilst simultaneously being wonderfully wacky. The film is centred on a robot named WALL-E. Left alone on a desolate and damaged beyond repair Earth, WALL-E spends his days collecting, shaping and stacking cubes of garbage left behind by humanity, who have long departed on a voyage across space.

When WALL-E meets EVA, a simply charming romance sparks into life and together they go on a journey to restore humanity's lost sense of hope. Like I said, for a Pixar film, WALL-E says a lot about 21st Century life. The excess waste, the influence of technology, the ignorance towards our environment; Pixar explores these themes wonderfully and still manages to craft a film that isn't preachy or lecturing its audience.

However, underneath the social commentary lies a film that is simple, effective and well-told. 

3rd - Up (2009)

Rotten Tomatoes: 98%

A close contender for the top spot on this list, Up is a wonderfully touching adventure with one of cinemas greatest 'odd couples'.

Grouchy septuagenarian Carl Fredricksen (Edward Asner) and eager scout Russell (Jordan Nagai) are whisked off a bonkers adventure to South America. Here, they come across dogs that can talk, zany peacocks and stunning vistas that bloom with colour.

Up is not just hugely original, it is quintessential Pixar. With a heartfelt family message at its centre, Up is a simple story told beautifully; who could of thought that a kids film could have carried messages of life, death, love and ageing so brilliantly.

It is also wickedly funny with plenty of sly jokes and references you might not get the first time around. And if you didn't cry during the opening 10 minutes your probably dead inside. Admit it. You shed a tear. You shed a bunch of em.

2nd - Toy Story series: Toy Story (1995), Toy Story 2 (1999), Toy Story 3 (2010)

Rotten Tomatoes: 100% (Toy Story), 100% (Toy Story 2) & 99% (Toy Story 3)

Arguably a contender for 'best trilogy of all time', the Toy Story films have practically defined the childhood of any child born in the 90's.

Practically everyone would have seen the first when they were a kid and it is for this reason that the trilogy ranks so high in everyone's collective hearts and memories. If you didn't have a Woody or a Buzz doll, you missed out my friend.

In my opinion, the films get better and better with each entry. The first film has that original spark of ingenuity whilst the second builds on the strengths of the first and adds even more loveable characters (Jessie, Bullseye) to the crew.

The third film jumps forward in time a whole ten years and moves both the story and the characters on well. I think it might be my favourite of the three but it is pretty hard to choose.

Let's hope that rumours of a fourth entry aren't true and the completeness of the trilogy isn't sullied.

1st - Finding Nemo (2003)

Rotten Tomatoes: 99%

A joyous underwater adventure, Finding Nemo is hard to fault on any level - script, visuals, characters, themes - every element is nigh on perfect.

When young clownfish, Nemo, is whisked from his Great Barrier Reef home and plonked down in a dentist waiting room tank in Sydney, it is up to his overprotective father Marlon (and some ingenious supporting characters like Dory and Crush) to find him and bring him home.

It really is hard to find any fault with Finding Nemo - the vibrant colours, the jokes, the loveable characters, the endless quotability. It takes a simple premise (family are separated) and makes it its own. What makes it even more remarkable is how, at the time of release, many critics simply didn't consider Nemo as a worthy successor of A Bug's Life and Monsters Inc.

Described as being "sub-par Pixar" by the Gettysburg Times, many critics didn't find Nemo to be as "wildly imaginative" as its predecessors. Over time, the film has grown into one of the most beloved works in Pixar's ever-growing pantheon of cinematic greats and my favourite - many critics now use Nemo as a benchmark by which the studios latest are graded, cementing its status as a classic.


What is your favourite Pixar film? Did I make the right call or get it hideously wrong? Leave me a comment in the section below! Check back soon for my review of Monsters University.

Next month, we untangle the often messy and clumsy chronology of the X-Men franchise in Rank the Films #7. If you're a fan of my Rank the Films feature, leave me a comment suggesting which film franchise I should endeavour to order next. See you soon!

Read More

Beady Eye - BE

Beady Eye are back in the spotlight for the release of their second album, BE. It's a record that bursts forth from the off, announcing its arrival with surging guitars and blaring horns; literally. 

Album opener 'Flick of the Finger' kicks things off in great fashion. It's the kind of song that makes you want to walk away from explosions in slow motion and without a doubt one of the best tracks I've heard this year. The spoken word part over the final 30-seconds only adds to this sense of arrival, poetry and 'revolution'.

This is followed up by a cracking track, 'Soul Love'. A relatively tender love-song, 'Soul Love' is particular highlight that sees Liam croons 'come into my world' and 'everything I do, it's all for you'. The lyrics aren't the most original thing in the world but I really liked the hushed and tranquil melody underneath; the final minute of this track fades away into a void, almost like you'd hear from The xx.

Things keep motoring in fantastic fashion with 'Face the Crowd', an faster tempo track that is solid rock'n'roll stuff. Other tracks that stood out for me were 'Soon Come Tomorrow' and the foot-tapping 'I'm Just Saying'. I'm going to skate over track 6, 'Iz Rite'. It's a decent track but that title is crap. It's almost as bad Arctic Monkeys with 'R U Mine' or Nick Cave with 'We Know Who U R'. I mean seriously people, just spell your song titles properly. How hard is that?

Things start to take a funny turn in the middle with 'Don't Brother Me'. I'm sure it's supposed to be all deep and heart-felt, an ode to Liam's notoriously troubled relationship with his brother Noel but an odd sitar section  just comes across as odd. It's a bit of a misstep in my opinion.

At over seven minutes, it drags a fair bit and I felt compelled to reach for the skip button. Never a good sign. It sounds too psychedelic and late-Beatles (even comes with a quick lyrical reference with 'give peace a chance'). I didn't connect with it and it stood out like ketchup on a wedding dress.

'Shine a Light' brings the tempo back up again with some fuzzy, feedback-style synths and jangly guitars however. It does however also drag a little; I felt a minute or so could have been shaved off the end and it would have been a better track for it.

'Ballroom Figured' is a nice, melodic acoustic track that has some great vocals to match. Personally, I liked this track quite a lot. It doesn't push the envelope of the band's music writing ability and that might be an excuse to skip for some people. People might say it sounds a little too much like Oasis (oops, I dropped the O-word in a Beady Eye review, somebody shoot me) but I say similarities and parallels are inevitable.

I'll stick my neck out and say that I liked this album more than their first, Different Gear Still Speeding. Coupled with Miles Kane's latest album, Don't Forget Who You Are, it's been a cracking month for British rock.

Beady Eye - BE: 7/10

Download these: Flick of the Finger, Face the Crowd, I'm Just Saying, Ballroom Figured

Read More