The Secret Life of Pets (2016)

"I got big plans. 

I'm gonna sit here and I'm gonna wait for Katie to come back."

Like 'Toy Story', but with your pets.

Max's life as the favourite pet is turned upside down with the arrival of a new dog - Duke.

I was so excited to see this film after seeing the hilarious trailer that circulated the cinemas and social media a few months ago. Animation seems to have found its stride these days so seeing another one is always (or so I thought) guaranteed to be fun.

Unfortunately, 'The Secret Life of Pets' doesn't quite live up to the hype that the trailer promised and it left me pretty disappointed.

Max has the perfect pets life until his owner adopts a new dog called Duke. The pair don't get along and, after bumping into a rabbit hell bent on destroying mankind, the two must team up and put their differences aside.

Pixar have always been the top dog (as it were) for animation and, no matter how hard they try, other studios never quite do it as well. Pixar make films that are intelligent and fun that entertain both adults and children alike, which is the golden recipe for animated films. Illumination Entertainment hit a good note with 'Despicable Me' and now they return with 'The Secret Life of Pets' after their last film 'Minions' that took over $1 billion worldwide. I liked 'The Secret Life of Pets' probably just as much as I liked 'Minions'... Which wasn't an awful lot.

'The Secret Life of Pets' is definitely more of a kids film than it is a film for all ages. There were a few jokes thrown in there that only the adults would appreciate but it's more aimed at the kids to laugh at the fluffy bunny and the clumsy dogs. 

What really disappointed me was how much they could have done with this story and didn't. It felt like a very "by the numbers" plot with worn out ideas and jokes. It wasn't particularly new or exciting which is what animation should be. They have the power to push the boundaries of what's possible in the genre, especially with the leaps forward in technology, and they didn't.

If 'The Secret Life of Pets' had been released 20 years ago then maybe it could have found it's place as an animated classic but, for the most part, it just felt a little dated and admittedly slightly boring. The animation is good but it's not among the best we've seen recently. Even the title is a bit on the nose because the film is literally about the secret life of pets.

My biggest gripe about 'Minions' was taking a really popular secondary character and giving them their own movie, it loses the novelty and they can't sustain a whole movie on their own. "The Secret Life of Pets' had a similar problem, the characters all felt like funny secondary characters in a sub plot or short film, which I feel probably would have worked better. None are particularly likeable and they are pretty much banking on you liking them because they are "cute".

What I did enjoy about the film was the fact that they effectively captured the characteristics of the animals. They had clearly done a lot of research on the different animals and picked up on some humorous traits. Chloe the cat and Mel the pug were fantastic and really caught the essence of what we love about those animals. 

The voice acting on a whole was pretty good with the likes of Kevin Hart voicing the evil mastermind bunny, who is leading the revolution against the humans. Hart is becoming over exposed recently and his voice is completely recognisable but, despite this, he is still one of the funniest characters in the film.

The comedy is sporadic for adults but the kids in the cinema were loving it. It's silly and it's slapstick and you don't need to think too much about it. 

Overall, 'The Secret Life of Pets' wasn't as good as I had been lead to believe. The best bits were undoubtedly shown in the trailer which is a real shame because the trailer itself was great.

Watch Disney's 'Zootropolis' and you'll see how to do these films right.

Genuinely believe my turtles get up to way worse than the plot of this film when I leave the house...

The Hateful Eight (2015)

"One of them fellas is not what he says he is..."

Better late than never... Right?

A bounty hunter and his prisoner find shelter from the Wyoming winter in a cabin with a group of unusual characters.

Having totally missed ‘The Hateful Eight’ in cinemas, I was pretty keen on getting my hands on the Blu-ray release. For one reason or another, it never found its way to Cineworld and, because my Cineworld card obviously doesn’t cover other cinema chains, finding the time to go elsewhere got harder and harder until it slipped by without me seeing it. 

After the script leaked, it was nearly scrapped by Tarantino and made into a novel, I held back from reading the leaked script so that I could enjoy it as a film, the way it was intended. 

I am a fan of Quentin Tarantino’s movies, especially his early work, but he's not been getting much praise recently. 'The Hateful Eight' was released to mixed reviews and I was becoming more and more afraid because it seemed that it was being pegged as the downfall of the once fresh and exciting director.

On the whole, I’m happy to say, that my fears were misplaced. 

‘The Hateful Eight’ is pretty much just John Carpenter’s ‘The Thing’ set in the wild west. Tarantino openly used it as his inspiration and it is clear to see why. He tries to recreate the claustrophobic, tense and suspicious atmosphere that 'The Thing' is famous for. The characters are all cornered with nowhere to go and none of them trust each other. It even has Kurt Russell in one of the leading roles.

The film kicks off with Samuel L. Jackson's character - Major Marquis Warren - crossing paths with bounty hunter John Ruth, who is taking dangerous outlaw Daisy Domergue to Red Rock to hang for her crimes. A cold winter storm hits them hard and they have to take shelter in Minnie's Haberdashery, an isolated cabin that is already housing a group of misfits. Not long after, suspicions arise about the honesty of some of the group in the cabin...

Each of the characters have their own motives and goals which clash with the others that are residing in the cabin. The cabin even seems to have motives of its own as it becomes a character in itself. 

A film like this lives and dies by its cast and I can't really find any real flaws in the troupe of actors. Samuel L. Jackson has his first leading role in a Tarantino film, despite it being their sixth collaboration. He's still a bit of a caricature but he's always an interesting actor to watch. He can be up and down, subtle then obvious and he always makes you laugh. He handles the lead role with ease and has some of the best scenes in the film. One in particular is when he's antagonising old war veteran General Sandy Smithers with an unforgettable tale that really shocks. 

The other stand out performances of the ensemble are Kurt Russell as the mean John Ruth (who I"m pretty sure is meant to be a Tarantino version of John Wayne), Walton Goggins as Sheriff Chris Mannix and Tim Roth as Oswaldo Mobray. Each of the characters have very distinct characteristics that make them unique and interesting to watch. They all deliver some really stylised and unusual performances that will stick with you.

I think that if you love Tarantino's dialogue, style and characters then this will probably be right up your street but if you don't then it might be a stretch too far. It has a huge running time of 167 minutes for the digital release and a whopping 187 minutes for the 70mm roadshow so if you're not a fan then it's going to be a long 2 hours and 45 minutes. 

As with most of Tarantino's films, the dialogue is one of the main driving forces in the film with long and intricate monologues and extended conversations between characters. It builds characters and adds tension to specific scenes that only Tarantino could pull off. Like I said, if you're not into that style then the film will probably drag but for me it doesn't feel like nearly three hours. 

Ennio Morricone does the score, for which he won his first oscar, and it's funny because I don't think it's his best score. It's almost like someone trying to do their best Ennio Morricone impression but, nonetheless, it's a Morricone score so it's still epic. It's different having an original score in a Tarantino film and you do miss that signature soundtrack that Tarantino would put together from his record collection.

There are some shocking scenes that you know to expect from a Tarantino film and they do deliver on shock value while adding to the story. If you are squeamish then you're not going to handle some of the later scenes in the film, aside from 'Kill Bill' this has got to have some of the most violent set pieces I've seen in a Tarantino film. 

I wish I could have seen the roadshow version in all it's 70mm glory, it would have enhanced the viewing experience tenfold and was shot with that in mind. It's meant as a throwback to the golden age of cinema when going to the movies was an event that people would get dressed up for. There would be an intermission and a musical overture and Tarantino actually created that same layout for 'The Hateful Eight'. Also, to see Robert Richardson's cinematography on the big screen would have been incredible. He captures some stunning moments that remind us why cinema is king and why the Western was so important to our cinematic landscape.

Overall, a solid movie that reminds us of why we love watching Tarantino's films. They're fun, entertaining and cinematic. 

Tarantino's masterpiece? I don't think so but an enjoyable movie? Absolutely. 

And at the end of the day, I'll never get tired of hearing Samuel L. Jackson saying "motherfucker".

Hush (2016)

"I can come in anytime I want. 

And I can get you, anytime I want."

Note to self, if you’re deaf and living in the woods on your own, maybe don’t leave all your doors and windows unlocked and your phone in another room...

A deaf writer isolates herself in the woods to finish her book when a masked killer appears at her window. 

I’ve been known to enjoy a horror film or two and, after being given ‘Hush' as a recommendation, I was in the mood for some good old slasher fun. 

If you’re up for a horror flick that’ll keep you entertained without having to think too much then ‘Hush' might just be the movie for you.

For a lot of reasons, I both loved and hated this film. It's a constant back and forth between horror film cliché and horror film innovation.

'Hush' starts off with a dated premise but with a fresh take on it. Maddie, a writer, has moved herself to a house in the middle of nowhere so she can finish her new book. At a young age, a disease left her deaf and unable to speak so she has had to learn to cope in isolation. A masked killer shows up at her remote house in the woods and we have our movie.

Kate Siegel plays Maddie in the film and she delivers a competent and engaging performance. Her character is deaf and mute so trying to portray those aspects realistically while still conveying emotion and drama is quite a task for any actor. Good acting in any horror film is a bonus so it's nice to see Siegel bring some credibility to the character. I've not seen her in much else other than 'Oculus', by the same director, which I didn't love but I'd be curious to see some more of her work.

What I found really intriguing was the new dimension that was brought to the horror genre with Kate Siegel's character being deaf and mute. It isolates her even more and makes things even more challenging when the masked killer shows up wanting to kill her. They play on the idea a lot and make good use of it for the tension and atmosphere. She can't hear the killer so everything becomes visual and makes for some relatively tense viewing when she doesn't know where the killer is coming from.

It's a pretty straight forward slasher film. A masked killer wants to kill isolated woman in the woods. Not exactly ground breaking storytelling and, as much as I'd like to say that it does, it doesn't elevate itself much above that simple premise despite the added element of the deaf protagonist. It's pretty much just plain old vanilla. 

With any slasher flick you have to watch the line between cheesy fun and serious horror. You have to really know which side of the line you land on because, when the line starts to blur, the problems start appearing. 'Hush', for me, felt like it was trying to be a serious horror film so when the clichés and flawed logic started cropping up, I knew that it wasn't deliberate. 

There are a lot of convenient plot points that allow the story to progress that don't make a whole lot of sense and we end up screaming at the screen because of the lack of common sense that Kate Siegel's character Maddie shows. Bad decisions and wasted opportunities just take you right out the film and make you question everything Maddie is doing.

The tension is pretty decent but not nearly as tense as it could have and should have been. It's a little scary but not as scary as it could have and should have been. It's has some gore but it's not as gory as it could have and should have been... You get where I'm going with this?

It lacks impact and packs only a gentle punch that seems to simply graze your cheek rather than knock you flat out. With a set up as isolated and as claustrophobic as 'Hush' is, it should be a white knuckle ride that keeps you breathless and dreading the next appearance of the killer. Foreign horror films with similar premises like 'Switchblade Romance' and 'Inside' have got this tension and execution nailed but Hollywood doesn't seem to have the balls to go all out and grab us by the throat. We want to be pushed with horror and the genre should have the ability and freedom to do that.

Overall, 'Hush' is a flawed film but it does make some new choices behind the safety veil of clichés and genre conformity. It does try something different, which is to be commended, but the film lacks impact.

A better version of this film would probably be 'The Strangers' from back in 2008. 

Plus it has Liv Tyler in it so you can't really go wrong there. 

 

Enemy (2013)

"Chaos is order yet undeciphered."

A man seeks out his doppelgänger after spotting him in a movie. 

Denis Villeneuve is an interesting director that’s been doing pretty well recently with his films ‘Prisoners’ and ‘Sicario’ so I was curious to check out some more of his work. FYI, if you haven't seen 'Prisoners' already then I highly recommend it... Anyway, I stumbled upon the trailer for ‘Enemy’ by accident and was intrigued by the dark and cryptic atmosphere that it had. I realised it was directed by Villeneuve so I got my hands on a copy and put it on without knowing much else about it. 

‘Enemy’ turned out to be a film that is as mysterious as it is puzzling. 

I don't think I'm at any risk of revealing spoilers because, even if I did, it still wouldn't make 100% sense... 

The film starts off with Adam Bell, a History professor played by Jake Gyllenhaal, who seems to be permanently stuck in a monotonous routine. One night, he breaks that routine to watch a movie where he spots an extra in the background who looks exactly like him. We follow his journey discovering who the man in the film is and why they look so alike. 

‘Enemy’ is definitely a slow burner. It's in no rush and it gives the story plenty of space to breathe and build the mystery and the characters. As things begin to unravel and the plot thickens, Adam faces some difficult choices and it gets undeniably tense. There’s a sense of dread that hangs over the film like a black cloud. You don’t really know where it’s going but you know it’s not going to be good. 

Gyllenhaal impresses once again by playing two characters in one film, much like Tom Hardy in ‘Legend’, both Adam and Anthony are played by Gyllenhaal. He creates two entirely individual characters that he develops and brings alive with intelligence and style. There are nuances and subtleties to each of the characters that most actors would struggle to bring out in one character let alone two. Both characters have to exist separately while still being able to interact with each other in the same scene. You'll forget that Gyllenhaal is both characters as you make the separation yourself and, after a while, you can recognise which character is which just by how he is acting.

The tone and style of the film is an exciting blend of Hitchcock and Kubrick, who happen to be my favourite directors. You’ve got classic tension and mystery, which feels very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock’s films, and these elements are then wrapped in a puzzle that leaves you perplexed but curious to explore the possible answers, much like how Stanley Kubrick’s films leave you.

The cinematography is beautiful. Balancing a washed out, stark colour scheme that is contrasted with harsh, sharp yellows and blacks. Add this to the fluid tracking shots and intricate composition and it makes for a feast for the eyes and really sets the tone for the film and builds more layers of tension. It looks as strange as the film is and contributes a lot to the films style.

‘Enemy’ has layers on top of layers and explores the depths of the male psyche through Gyllenhaal’s characters Adam/Anthony. It examines a lot of interesting themes and it heavily deals with masculinity, control and infidelity.

It has recurring ideas and motifs that only become clear after the film has finished and you analyse what you've just seen. I have a theory as to what it all means but there is still a lot to discover in the film. It merits a second and even a third viewing just to get it all solidified in your head.

Overall, ‘Enemy’ is a very dark, complex and secretive film that gets better the more you think about it and break it down. 

It’s a slow burner with a head scratcher of an abrupt ending but it has a lot of tension and intrigue to keep you hooked till the finish. 

Although I must say, if you don’t like spiders then I’d probably stay clear of this film… You have been warned.

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

"No more false gods. 

I'm here now."

I don't think I've ever seen so many dramatic single tear drops in one film...

After an ancient mutant emerges and threatens to destroy mankind, the X-Men must unite and face him head on. 

By this point, I’ve totally lost track of the whole X-Men franchise with it’s many prequels, sequels and spin offs. I’ve seen the original two X-Men movies along with the most recent installation ‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’ which wasn’t too bad so, as I sat down to ‘X-Men: Apocalypse’, I didn’t have much to go on. 

What followed was one of the cheesiest film experiences I've had in a long time...

As far as plot goes in this X-Men prequel/sequel hybrid, it's pretty much your bog standard "end of the world" situation. You've got a big blue dude who's more powerful than the other blue dudes so all the blue dudes must come together and fight the biggest blue dude or the world will end. Slightly exaggerating as not all of the X-Men are blue but you get the gist. 

And that's your 2 hour movie folks.

You are taken back to ancient Egypt for the re-introduction to the X-Men world as Apocalypse is revealed. Believed to be the very first mutant, he's a badass with some powerful superpowers. 

At first, it appears that there are a lot of stakes. This ancient mutant is gathering a team of powerful outcasts and is planning on dominating earth and becoming a god. As the film proceeds, you soon begin to realise that there are actually no stakes at all. All of the "new" cast members are all featured in the other movies and the main X-Men are obviously there for the long haul. For me, this deflated the whole film. All the action became hollow showpieces and had no impact on the plot because, at the end of the day, you already know the outcome. This seems to be an issue in just about every prequel I’ve ever seen, there's no danger or excitement in watching an action sequence where you know no one is going to get hurt. You know for a fact that everyone is going to come out of it alive because you’ve seen them in later films so when the tagline of the film is “only the strong will survive” I find it a bit hard to believe...

The performances vary wildly from character to character due to some exceptionally difficult dialogue to spew out. Two actors in particular that I felt really struggled were unfortunately two of the main female roles, Sophie Turner as Jean Grey and Jennifer Lawrence as Raven/Mystique. Hammy dialogue and poorly written characters make for a battle between the actor and the audience. 

Most of the seasoned actors that you’d expect solid performances from deliver quite well, Michael Fassbender being one of them. He seems to always be convincing and relatable in every role I've seen him in. It was nice to see him bring some humanity to a character that could very easily become a caricature. Alongside James McAvoy, he holds a lot of the film together when the comic relief in Quicksilver (who I initially thought was The Flash…) isn't on screen. Played by Evan Peters, Quicksilver is pretty entertaining. I distinctly remember him from ‘Days of Future Past’ and he definitely has some of the best scenes in the film. 

Oscar Isaac plays the main villain Apocalypse and does a pretty good job. Personally, I think he’s currently one of the most interesting actors working in Hollywood and he did the best job he could with a comic book villain. He’s menacing and wants to take over the world and you believe him so I suppose that’s all you really need in a villain like this.

What I did like about 'X-Men: Apocalypse' was the fact that there were a lot of practical make-up effects on the actors. This brought a whole new level to the film that a lot of other blockbusters are missing. Within the boundaries of the comic book universe, it felt real and more believable seeing the actual actors with prosthetics on. 

To balance this fantastic use of practical effects, there was some horrendous CGI... I’m not entirely sure if the CGI looked worse because of the intelligent use of practical effects or if they were just poorly executed. I’d like to think it was the because of the practical effects but, either way, a substantial amount of it looked really bad.

I feel that the cheese factor in this film has to be addressed… I’ve not properly cringed at a film as much as I did in this one in a long time. At some of the saddest scenes in the film I accidentally broke into uncomfortable giggles which was probably not the reaction they were looking for. If there was a world record for the amount of single tears drops that a film can have then I think 'X-Men: Apocalypse' would take that record with ease. I know the single tear drop cascading down a characters cheek can be dramatic but they certainly do flog a dead horse in this one. 

A little cheesiness is good in a film like this but I don’t think a lot of it was deliberate. You can only pass it off as over the top comic book silliness for so long before you have to look at it objectively and realise that it’s just plain cheesy. Especially when this film in particular was taking itself relatively seriously. You can't take a character back to Auschwitz and try and tell me that it's all just shits and giggles...

Overall, ‘X-Men: Apocalypse’ is pretty cheesy film that, for me, is just another blur in a long line of comic book films. It has ups and downs with performances, an overblown and predictable plot and so much cheese it’s hard to see anything other than the single tear drops. 

Is it bad that I really want a beloved character to die? Just brutally mauled by a villain like Apocalypse and the next movie is just all the characters coping with PTSD because of what they've seen. 

There's your next movie Marvel. 

'X-Men: Apocalypse Now'.

Small Soldiers (1998)

"What are you worried about? They're only toys..."

'Toy Story’ meets ‘The Terminator’.

Globotech Industries designs an action figure embedded with a military microchip that brings the toys to life.

The nostalgia is strong in this one.

It's scary to think that 'Small Soldiers' was released when I was 5... Alongside ‘Space Jam’ this was one of my favourite films growing up and I'm pretty sure I wore out my old VHS copy of both. I was excited and nervous to revisit ‘Small Soldiers’ after so many years because, on the one hand, it’d be great to relive it but, on the other, it might not be as good as I remember...

Fortunately, even with age and experience, I still loved ‘Small Soldiers’ as much as I did when I was a boy. The magic hasn’t gone and neither has the fun so my fond memories, thankfully, haven't been destroyed.  

It’s funny what you remember and what you don’t when you revisit a childhood film. There was a lot that I actually didn’t remember but this didn’t make a difference because I was hooked again and was laughing straight from the beginning.

Two Globotech designers make a toy that can move and interact with children, not realising that the microchip they implant in them is for military use only. The toys come to life and the commandos take their programming extremely seriously and vow to hunt down the Gorgonites at all costs. Let the fun and toy violence begin. 

There’s a lot of humour for children in the film but what I enjoyed was the fact that, returning as an adult, there was new "grown up" material for me to discover. Hidden crude jokes and adult themes make for some humorous moments that were totally fresh for me. It's always the sign of a good kids movie if the parents can enjoy it just as much. Pixar tend to have this balance nailed and, as it turns out, DreamWorks did too before they moved to become DreamWorks Animation.

It has a lot of subtle homages and throwbacks in there that I'd obviously never noticed when I was young. Movie references and cameos are the most prominent, even down to the casting with George Kennedy, Clint Walker, Ernest Borgnine and Jim Brown, who all play toy commandos in the film, all actually played soldiers in the original ‘The Dirty Dozen’.

I had totally forgotten about the appearance of a very young Kirsten Dunst who doesn’t seem to age like regular human beings... She actually has some decent chemistry with Gregory Smith who, unlike Dunst, hasn't went on to do much more. For two child actors, they hold the film together and have as much fun with it as we do. Tommy Lee Jones even voices Chip Hazard, the main toy villain, which makes it all the funnier. 

'Small Soldiers' has a badass attitude and it's so much fun because of the subject matter. At the end of the day it's toys that are attacking each other but that doesn't even matter because of the style that it brings. It's got a banging soundtrack featuring the likes of Queen and Led Zeppelin which just adds to the attitude. The action, for being toys, is exciting and pretty violent when you break down what is actually going on. A lot of this has to do with director Joe Dante who also directed 'Gremlins' which has a similar borderline tone for kids and adults. 

For me, this was the golden age of CGI work. CGI was just being introduced but practical effects were still at the helm of filmmaking. This meant that a wonderful blend of CGI and practical effects was being used. CGI was only used when something couldn’t be done practically which is the way it should be. It was only meant to enhance the practical effects rather than replace them. ‘Small Soldiers’ still looks great and the effects still hold up today which is a testament to the balance that was found at this time. 

What I loved about this film growing up and revisiting it now is the fact that the toys have real personality and character. You invest in the idea that they are alive because they're not just purely created in a computer. They are physical toys that move and react like toys would and, when CGI is used, it's so well mixed in with the live action moments that you just believe it.

Overall, ‘Small Soldiers’ is as much for grown ups as it is for kids and I'm glad that I've been able to enjoy it as both. 

I would not like to see what these toys would do to poor old Woody and Buzz...

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

"We need to be put in check. 

Whatever form that takes, I'm game."

'Capman V Iron Man: We do it better than DC'.

After too many public incidents and casualties, The Avengers are given an ultimatum by the rest of the world to either agree to government surveillance and command or retire for good.

The newest edition of the Marvel Universe comes in the form of 'Captain America: Civil War', comedically released not long after DC's dreadful 'Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice', and shows us all how a battle between heroes should be done. 

Not so much a "war" as a group of friends having a tussle in the playground but it certainly is civil.

After booking a seat for yet another superhero film, I was less than excited to sit down and watch the newest comic book film in the never ending stream that we seem to find ourselves with. However, this feeling was quite short lived as a surprisingly enjoyable film played out in front of me. 

For me, 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' was one of the better films in the MCU, it didn't feel like a superhero film and it adapted into a different genre very well. Even though 'Captain America: Civil War' falls more heavily into the traditional comic book film genre, it has some pretty interesting things going on and was, on the whole, entertaining.

Multiple casualties and collateral damage caused by The Avengers "saving the world" has forced the countries of earth to re-evaluate how The Avengers operate. It does a good job of laying that out clearly early on and gives us a new insight into that world. It's relatable and makes sense. Obviously when faced with a proposition of this kind, some agree to be governed by the United Nations but some are clearly against the idea altogether. This is a logical and well thought out story step from Marvel, which is based on the comic book, as it forces our heroes to re-examine their roles and the use of their powers. It was really interesting to watch how each of the different characters rationalised their choices and decided which side of the fence they sat on. You'll constantly hop back and forth as to who is in the right and the characters, much like real people, do the same.

Like most Marvel movies, the comedy is always great. Not that this is a laugh out loud movie as recent marvel films have been, the jokes are few and far between because of the serious subject matter but they still manage to lighten the mood with some well needed comic relief. 

We see a lot of new faces appearing in this film along with the usual cast and some familiar characters from other spin offs. When Ant-Man shows up he's as good as he was in his own film and a brand new addition to the group is a very young Spider-Man, who doesn't have a key role but is fun and adds a new dimension the cast. I won't go into too much detail about the new characters to avoid any accidental spoilers so you can discover that for yourself. On the whole, pretty much all of the performances are of a high standard, especially Robert Downey Jr. who always manages to steal every scene he's in. 

The big throw down between the heroes is what you go to the cinema and pay to see and it's definitely the main spectacle of the film. It actually happens around half way through if I remember correctly so it's not the climax of the film, more of a mid-season finale. The action is top notch and seeing each character utilising their skills in a battle like this is fun and exciting. It's more of a friendly kick about in the park rather than a real match though, no one is really trying to do any damage and you don't expect any real casualties because they're all, mostly, good friends. This did take out some of the tension, a group of this much power smashing head first into each other could have been a lot more tense than it was, there weren't really any stakes involved but it doesn't negate how exciting and action packed the scene is. It's like emptying your entire toy box out onto the floor and making them all fight as a kid.

Despite the impressive visuals and action sequences, when you start to take a look at the plot itself and go deeper than surface level, the film starts to show its very obvious flaws.

The idea and concept of the film is the number one selling point. It's what is interesting and exciting about the film and is the meat on the bones for the viewers. However, the skeleton of the main storyline is thin at best with a totally forgettable villain who wasn't entirely essential to the story. There are a lot of convenient plot devices to get us from A to B with the main storyline being illogical and a little convoluted. The main "villain", if you can call him that, has a grand scheme that just feels somewhat pointless in the end. If you were to take his character out of the film it wouldn't actually affect the plot in a major way. You could change a scene or two at the beginning and the film could almost play out the same way without his input. We go round and round on a wild goose chase only to be unsatisfied by the execution and reasoning behind the ending. 

This long winded plot makes the films pace feel sluggish and a little bland at points. Coming in at nearly two and a half hours, it could have been cut down by about 45 minutes with the right storyline but, unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. A lot of recent blockbusters feel the need to have huge running times and 9 times out of 10 it could have played out in a more bitesized, action packed chunk.

There was a lot that I wanted to happen and a lot that could have happened to shake things up a bit but nothing really comes to fruition or concludes in a satisfying way. Just one long Act 2. 

I always find the same issue with superhero films. It's like eating a McDonalds. 

It seems like a great idea and is totally enjoyable when you're eating it but afterwards you're never fully satisfied and you just end up hungry again in a few hours. These films are designed to make us come back to the cinema time and time again. Every film is promised to be the next best one and, personally, I feel like they're always selling an idea rather than the finished product, the advertising and marketing is manufactured like the click bait that plagues social media. 

They're fun on surface level but they're not challenging or worth a second watch for me. It's a popcorn flick and, until the market changes, I think they'll have to stay that way. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a popcorn flick but when it's making so much money and demanding so much respect, I think it should have a little more quality than quantity in the storytelling. 

The 'Daredevil' Netflix series is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Marvel and Netflix have the freedom to explore some deeper and more challenging ideas and stories with the TV show and they do it so well. I recently just finished season two of 'Daredevil' and was very impressed, it blew season one out of the water. They manage to elevate it from the superhero genre into something that stands on it's own two feet and I think that's why I liked it more than the films that have been released. 

I think I just have to accept that I'm never going to be a real superhero fan...

Ultimately, 'Captain America: Civil War' is one of the better superhero films in recent memory with some spectacular action sequences. It's entertaining, it's comedic and it's exciting. The plot leaves a lot to be desired and it does lag the film up a bit but on the whole you'll have a good time with it, even if you do pick it apart after the credits have rolled.  

I forgot to mention that eating a McDonalds is improved tenfold by eating it when you're drunk or hungover... Maybe that's the key to truly enjoying Marvel movies?