X-Men: Days Of Future Past (3D) (2014, Dir. Bryan Singer, USA/UK) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ***

 X-Men: Days Of Future Past (3D) (2014, Dir. Bryan Singer, USA/UK) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ***

Starring: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence

Machines known as Sentinels stalk the land, looking to kill off those rare humans with a mutant gene. With the Sentinels now reaching Moscow, a band of mutants, the X-Men (as well as their nemesis Magneto (Michael Fassbender, Sir Ian McKellen) are holding off their advance. With the help of a mutant named Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page), Wolverine (Jackman) psychically goes back in time to the 1970's so that an earlier generation of the mutants can stop the Sentinels before it's too late.

X-Men: Days Of Future Past is a curious concoction. Technically a follow-up, to the 2011 prequel, X-Men: First Class and at the same time tying that up with the other numerous films from film end of the X-Men franchise, especially the initial three films made between 2000 and 2006 and bringing back into the fold director Bryan Singer, director of the first two X-Men films. The 2000 film, X-Men was very significant in that it was basically the spark that ignited the still burning interest in superhero movies. A film subgenre that could've been easily, and unfairly, written off as dumb cookie-cutter generic rubbish this crop of superhero movies have  often shown startling ambition and depth, perhaps best demonstrated by Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy (2005 - 2012). X-Men: Days Of Future Past is definitely ambitious, for which it should be commended. It is not flawless.

Whilst First Class was a superhero movie that took place within the period of the Cuban Missile Crisis, much of Days Of Future Past takes place amidst the final days of an alternate Vietnam War (ending two years, and one president, earlier in this universe than it did in reality) but unlike First Class, we get less of an origins story and more of a time-travelling tale. Time-travel in fiction is often interesting but is also a trouble area in that it's difficult to make it unique in how it's demonstrated. In this case, using a form of psychic projection, it's handled pretty well and also allows the audience to experience two different stories, set across two time periods, in conjunction with one another.

There's a lack of balance in how this is executed. Our initial storyline, set in the future, allows for a reintroduction of the old X-Men cast and plays as an ensemble, whereas the flash-backs are experienced largely through  Hugh Jackman playing Wolverine. This is really Wolverine's film. He is literally inactive for most of the plot in the future but a fully active participant in the past, which plays also as a group in that we have other major characters (James McAvoy as Charles Xavier, Michael Fassbender as Magneto, Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique) but it is largely through Wolverine's perspective. The way it's handled in terms of the 70's is fairly effective. We do get insights into the characters of Charles and Mystique and it builds in character development. 

The ball seems to have been dropped for Magneto, however. One of the best things about First Class was how it portrayed a nuanced relationship between Magneto and Xavier, largely though Magneto's complex character. Here, there's less of a case for this. Locked up underneath the Pentagon for supposedly assassinating President Kennedy with his magnetic powers, you don't get a sense of a changed man from the end of the last film nor does he seem any more embittered despite the circumstances. In fact, part of me feels that Ian McKellen's shorter performance as Magneto's older self is stronger in terms of characterisation.

As for the future-set sequences, these provide us with appearances of some of the figures from the older X-Men films. Of course, there's Sir Ian McKellen as Magneto, Patrick Stewart as Xavier and Halle Berry as Storm to name the most prominent whilst also introducing the likes of Ellen Page's Kitty Pryde, Bingbing Fan as Blink and  Booboo Stewart as Warpath but aside from action sequences there's not much else for for them to do. From the start they're fighting and continue fighting until the final minutes of the film. Perhaps a longer run-time (even if the film is well in excess of two hours) or  stricter editing and control of the story could've created more opportunity explore these characters (yes, Storm has already been in previous films, but Halle Berry gets little more than a single line of dialogue in the whole film) (due to pregnancy, much of Berry's planned screen time was cut from the film - Ed) and give them a more interesting dynamic.

In terms of technique, this is an impressive film. The 3D isn't an essential part of the experience, but there's a stereoscopic depth lacking in most 3D films and there are some very interesting and visually unusual sequences (in particular, Mystique being revealed on the streets of Washington D.C, all played out in the style of grainy Super-8 footage). I feel as if Days Of Future Past should've had more and would've been a better film to deal in either two separate films or as one sprawling three-hour-plus epic. In squeezing this film into a box, some of the character seems to have leaked out. I'll probably revisit this film someday and my views may soften, but as for right now, Days Of Future Past is impressive but it's no masterpiece.

Godzilla (3D) (2014, Dir. Gareth Edwards, USA/Japan) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ****

Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Bryan Cranston, Ken Watanabe

In 1999, shortly following an extraordinary skeleton finding in the Philippines, a nuclear power plant in Japan is destroyed under strange circumstances. Joe Brody (Cranston) an American expatriate who worked at the plant and suffered tragedy on that day has spent fifteen years looking for the truth and when his now-grown son Ford (CJ Adams, Taylor-Johnson) arrives back in Japan, the two go on a search to find out what exactly happened and witness the unleashing of a tremendous beast.

Sixty years have passed since the atomic giant reptile known to the world as Godzilla (or to his homeland in Japan, Gojira) tore his way in. At first in a sombre mirror on Japan's war and environmental tragedies only for him to morph into a figure of fun and even, at times, a hero in later sequels and spin-offs. In 1998, Roland Emmerich brought Godzilla stateside and didn't really succeed. This time, Godzilla gets another Hollywood treatment, chiming (largely) with the original's dark tone and providing a rather satisfying slab of monster mayhem.

Whilst the film is a Japanese co-production, Godzilla has lost most elements that would make it seem very tied to Japan. Yes, a significant part of the story takes place there and we have one major Japanese character (Ken Watanabe's Serizawa. Also the only character, or really a rough approximation thereof, to be in both this film and the 1954 original) but the story is undoubtedly Americanised. That isn't exactly a bad thing. The original Godzilla is tied into Japan's experiences with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the fire bombings of Tokyo, the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, the a-bomb tests off of the Japanese coast, the related radiation of Lucky Dragon 5 and Japan facing a very different future. A lot of comparative elements.

For this film's slant towards America, we get a lot of comparisons with 9/11. The crumbling buildings, a major city covered in dust and chaos and in quieter moments, Bryan Cranston's actions and speeches seem closer to a conspiracy theorist (especially from the 9/11 "Truther" movement) whilst there are still   points that resonate with contemporary points in Japan, such as the opening sequence bringing to mind the Fukushima nuclear power incident (actually, that element of the story was decided upon before the actual event, so it's at least partially coincidental). Still, it's mostly Godzilla romping around Las Vegas and San Francisco rather than Tokyo.

This is by no means the first Hollywood science-fiction blockbuster to tackle themes related to 9/11. Spielberg did it in War Of The Worlds (2005) and J.J Abrams did it in Cloverfield (2008) to name just two examples. Also, akin to Godzilla, both films were heavily informed by earlier films. War Of The Worlds is hugely influenced by other adaptations of the HG Welles story, especially the film adaptation from 1953 and Cloverfield is very much like Godzilla and a number of other sci-fi films in a crazy mish-mash, with one of its most notable sequences referencing the famous poster of Escape From New York (1981). Even this new  Godzilla looks beyond the Godzilla series and 9/11 for other influences. Surely, the main characters being named "Brody" is intentionally acknowledging the Jaws franchise (1975 - 89) with even having some similar traits.

So, what of the Brodys? It's no shock that the film's promotional material has capitalised on Bryan Cranston. Now at a time in his life and career most actors would be slowing down, his success with the TV show Breaking Bad has made him more successful and well-known now more than ever. He's a great actor and not always one for understatement. His style is intense but what could be laughable in the hands of a lesser is actually interesting and impressively emotive. Sadly, this does leave Aaron Taylor-Johnson seeming dull by comparison. Perhaps best known for his role in the Kick-Ass films (2009 - 13) as a dorky kid who becomes a self-made "superhero" vigilante, his role here as the standard soldier, husband and father comes off as generic. A fault that probably lies more with the writing than the performance. Filling out the main cast are Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, Elizabeth Olsen in roles that all also shrink into the background. Overall, this Cranston's show.

Of course, the film's prime focus is as a noisy sci-fi action blockbuster and on that score, the film succeeds brilliantly. Of course, we get to hear THAT Godzilla roar and it sounds fantastic, rivalling if not surpassing the brilliant sound design of Jurassic Park (1993). Buildings crumble and shake to the ground in both a faithful homage and suitable updating of classic kaiju, in the vein of last year's Pacific Rim.

 As you might expect the film is very strong on a technical level, with some truly extraordinary production design. The cities look real and look like they've gone through some realistic destruction and the film has an extraordinary depth (not in the 3D sense, the 3D is once again, superfluous) and the film feels as big as it should. Ultimately, Godzilla os not perfect and lacks some of the original's dramatic punch but for sheer scale and dynamism alone, it doesn't get much better.

SNEAK PREVIEW: Cheap Thrills (2013, Dir. L.D Katz, USA) (Cert: 15/NR)

Starring: Pat Healy, Ethan Embry, Dave Koechner

Facing both eviction and unemployment, mechanic Craig (Healy) slumps off to a bar to drown his sorrows where he bumps into his old high school friend Vince (Embry). As the night goes on, Craig and Vince begin to party with the very wealthy Colin (Koechner) and is much younger wife, Violet (Sara Paxton). Through the night, Colin keeps daring Craig and Vince to commit various stunts and pranks for more and more money, only for the stakes to get dangerously higher each time.

An independent violent thriller with an ear towards very dark comedy, Cheap Thrills is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but for some people's taste, it has something to offer. It's easy to read this film at first glance as first and foremost a comedy. An assumption probably aided by the highest-profile piece of casting in Dave Koechner, best known as Camp Kind in the Anchorman movies (2005 - 2013. Koechner's performance definitely leans on comedy, though with less of an emphasis on Champ's "good ol' boy" schtick, and in a (slightly) more straight-laced performance. 

However, Cheap Thrills is an extremely dark film for its comedic trappings. Given a 15 certificate ahead of its main UK release, this film really pushes that certificate. The sex is there but restrained (a strip club is seen, but only with women in lingerie, there's also a sex scene but pretty much done fully-clothed) but the violence is often brutal and the overall atmosphere is surprisingly dark. The film's use of the house party gone wrong and themes of class exploitation lending vague (possibly coincidental) comparisons to controversial video nasty, House On The Edge Of The Park (1980).

As far as our leads go, Pat Healy and Ethan Embry give adequate performances, even if their characters tend to only go though the same emotional reactions time and time again. Healy plays the nine to five punch clock working man with ambitions that never quite worked out, whilst Embry plays the teen rebel who never quite grew up. Two well-defined characters but not wholly original whilst Sara Paxton's performance as Koechner's girlfriend, a spaced-out aspiring (and seemingly pretty poor) musician is intriguingly played but also lacks depth. Still, an audience wanting to see Cheap Thrills is probably there to watch just that, and not be too bothered by character development and as a slice of small, gritty entertainment, Cheap Thrills does get the job done.

Cheap Thrills will be released in the UK on the 6th of June.

Tracks (2013, Dir. John Curran, Australia) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ***

Starring: Mia Waskiowska, Adam Driver, Roly Mintuma

Looking for excitement and to explore the environment she loves, Robyn Davidson (Wasikowska) leaves her home in Alice Springs in 1977 with four camels and her dog Diggity, walking over 2000 miles through the Australian outback to the Indian Ocean. On the way, Robyn routinely meets with American photographer Rick Smolan (Driver), documenting her journey for National Geographic as Robyn tries to do what many consider to be impossible.

Whilst it may nor be a very well known story internationally, there has long been talk of a film adaptation of Tracks, Robyn Davidson's non-fiction account of her trek through the outback. In fact, film projects based the book (with Davidson's role being bandied around the likes of Julia Roberts and Nicole Kidman) have been around before the birth of the film's ultimate lead, twenty-four-year-old Mia Wasikowska. So with the film finally here the results are fine, impressive in places, but not perfect.

Fittingly, Tracks is a film centred around its landscape. Almost all of the movie takes place against the backdrop of the Australian outback, awash with orange sand and the use of camera angles (often very close to Wasikowska) emphasise the sheer expanse of the region to the point where it almost seems limitless, yet the character of Australia is very much present. Robyn Davidson may be the main character, but in many ways Australia is the star, tapping into the varied wildlife and also giving an insight into the various aboriginal communities and their customs, which the film treats an extremely high level of respect (the film even opens with a disclaimer warning certain groups that the depiction of dead bodies in the film may offend their cultural beliefs).

With it's theme of a lone individual striving through the wilderness in an almost philosophical fashion, there are comparisons to be made with the work of Werner Herzog, albeit this is far lighter than most Herzog's fare (even Fitzacarraldo (1981) one of Herzog's friendlier features is tougher than this) but rather than Herzog's distinctive Bavarian whisper telling of the fragile nature of man in a world he assumes as his own, we instead get Mia Wasikowska's Robyn giving account to her journey and her view on life. Wasikowska's a fine actress and an interesting screen presence, but her voiceover segments lack some of the passion needed, especially in the early going. Adam Driver makes for a likeable nice guy in the second-highest role as an American photographer, but it's a standard role that presents little challenge. Unknown Roly Mimtura is very enjoyable in his role as an elderly aboriginal, tasked with leading Robyn through areas forbidden for lone female travellers.

Tracks is a reverent piece of film in both good and bad ways. On the down side, the film sometimes lacks momentum as it gets bogged down in portentousness, but it's a film of visual splendour that really goves the sense of a journey travelled down a dusty, but undeniably beautiful, trail.

SNEAK PREVIEW: Tarzan (3D) (2013, Dir. Reinhard Klooss, Germany) (Cert: PG/PG) *

Starring: Kellan Lutz, Spencer Locke, Trevor St. John 

In the heart of the African jungle, John Greystoke (Mark Decklin) makes a discovery of a strange asteroid. Upon extracting a fragment from it, elemental forces cause the death of him and his wife (Jaime Ray Newman). Their son, J.J (Craig Garner, Lutz) is raised amongst the apes and adopts the name, Tarzan. Years later, Jane Porter (Locke) discovers Tarzan and the two work together to stop a greedy CEO (St, John) from finding the asteroid and destroying the habitat.

Tarzan is no stranger to the big screen. Going all the way back to the older films and serials, the most famous starring Olympic swimmer Johnny Weismuller as the loinclothed one, all the way up to the animated take on Tarzan in 1999. This time, German studio Constantin Film bring a 3D computer animated version of the story and update it with a science-fiction storyline thrown in for good measure. Oh, how they should never have bothered.

There's no great mystery or intellectual reason why Tarzan doesn't work. The problems are pretty blatant. First and foremost for a computer animated film, it is simply ugly. The characters' movements are stiff and awkward, their eyes often seem glassy and lacking any kind of emotion and the production values seem more in line with cut scenes from an old video game than a major movie studio production and the 3D is almost entirely without pointe except for the end of the film.

The writing is similarly poor. The dialogue is bland and on occasion delivered in a strange stilted fashion, and the narration (on top of being almost completely uneccesary at times) is far too abstract for a movie of this kind, giving off a strange dissonance. As for the plot, a modernisation of Tarzan could've been interesting, even if the jungle environment is more or less devoid of giving any historial context. Here, the Tarzan story compares clumsily with plot elements from Avatar (2009) and, in a strange move, Superman Returns (2006).

In short, Tarzan is probably not going to be very popular with audiences. A film that fails not only on an aesthetic level, but pretty much every other level as well. Hopefully someday, the film makers will prosper into something better, but this is sorely troubled and the effort put into promoting it is a complete mystery to me.

Tarzan gets a wide release in the UK on the 2nd of May. There is currently no release date for the US.

The Other Woman (2014, Dir. Nick Cassavettes, USA) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) **

Starring: Cameron Diaz, Leslie Mann, Kate Upton

Promiscuous lawyer Carly (Diaz) has had a string of short flings with men, but thinks she's found a man to have a steady relationship with in Mark (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau). Handsome and charming, Mark is also married, which Carly only discovers after bumping into Mark's wife, Kate (Mann). Hurt by Mark's serial infidelity, Carly and Kate team up with Amber (Upton), another of Mark's mistresses, to make him pay.

There's a time and a place for The Other Woman. It's the kind of movie you reserve for a quiet night in with girlfriends (of the platonic variety, of course). It's safe and by-the-numbers and whilst the plot is fairly interesting, the sister solidarity element is touched upon a little too lightly It's certainly not a strong player for the emotions of other female empowerment movies like Thelma And Louise (1991) either but bubbles along in its own light and comedic way.

That is save for the fact that the film simply isn't very funny. Some of the reasons are just specifically not great places to go for intelligent humour (Ahh, toilet humour, my old nemesis. We meet again.) but a lot of it is also because the characters aren't that engaging. Cameron Diaz can be a fine actress and certainly can be a charismatic and lively presence on screen. Here, she's just a generic independent career woman who shows little original character even if she's given a whole supporting character (her sassy PA played by Nicki Minaj) dedicated almost entirely to interacting with her. Kate Upton is similarly a little lost, initially introduced as a sweet but slightly dim bimbo, even this is lost whilst her role simply devolves into posing (what are we to make of a character whose main asset is literally referred to as "the boobs"?). Leslie Mann gives the most energetic and strongest performance of the main trio, but it's old hat for her and it's not exactly a great turn.

The editing is pretty messy. I get the feeling that at one point there was a much bigger and more detailed movie that got clipped a lot in post-production. Plot lines and jokes seem to lose track but there are some shots and cutaways that seem almost unnecessary, oddly one of the last things you'd expect from such a seemingly heavily-edited product. I understand I (as a man) am probably not the film's target demographic and whilst I may be harsh towards the film, it does have an interesting idea and raises at least the occasional smile, even if it doesn't illicit much laughter. There is probably an audience that would lap this film up, and that is fine. But there's probably just as big an audience that would find this film intolerable.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (3D) (2014, Dir. Marc Webb, USA) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ***

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Dane DeHaaan

Having previously saved the people of New York City from the dangerous Lizard, Spider-Man has become a hero to the city (although not without his share of critics). Peter Parker (Garfield) struggles to keep his identity as Spider-Man a secret and protecting the one person who knows the truth, his girlfriend Gwen Stacey (Stone). Meanwhile, Harry Osborne (DeHaaan) a childhood friend of Peter's and Electro (Jamie Foxx) a new super-villain and former fan of Spider-Man join forces to take down New York's resident superhero.

Looking at the current reception of Marvel's line of movie adaptations of superheroes, it's hard to deny that this run of success seems like it's not going to run out of steam anytime soon. This seems particularly true with the superheroes surrounding the Avengers franchise (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor etc.). Spider-Man, another Marvel property, has fallen behind a little. This is probably a combination of the fact that the Sam Raimi trilogy of Spiderman films (yes, the spelling difference is intentional)

is still in recent memory and with ol' Spidey cut off from his Avenger contemporaries, he feels somewhat out of the loop and doesn't have much of a sense of being original. However, that doesn't mean that an unoriginal take is a bad one, by and large.

Whilst 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man felt a little bland, Part 2 is more confident and does well because of that. Andrew Garfield's teen prankster schtick that helped give the first film an edge is still present and he's enjoyable on screen. Emma Stone, despite her youth, felt miscast in the first film as a seventeen-year-old high schooler (Shailene Woodley, who was cut from this film having had scenes as Mary Jane and now riding success with Divergent (2014), would probably fit that mould better) but as an older character, Stone has found her niche.

Dane DeHaan is a gifted actor and has an interesting presence in some roles, but as Harry Osborne he feels too much like petulant and spoiled brat for us to feel anything for him in a performance that's a little overcooked, though Dehaan does have a very DiCaprio-esque presence and the last act twist makes him more rewarding, even if it's brief. Jamie Foxx, as big and cool as he is, feels a little lost as super-villain Electro, but Foxx's career in comedy means that his earlier identity as the nerdy Max Dillon is more entertaining and where Foxx seems most comfortable.

On a technical level, the film is about average and unremarkable (though with a little too much slow-mo with the 3D only really being relevant in the Batman (1989) styled finale but after an unsteady start, The Amazing Spider-Man has found a direction and I hope the series follows it.