googolendtimes

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

On a technical scale, "Everest" is breathtaking and capable of offering visceral thrills enough to keep the attention of its audience. On a human level, however, this is a disappointingly underdeveloped affair that comes across as a squandered opportunity more than anything else. This particular story demands and deserves far more of an introspection into the tragedy of that fateful day in May 1996 that killed 12 people; the social issues that surround it; and the immense personal cost to those left behind. The film's screenplay offers little to none of this and the emotion it possesses can be sourced in the remarkable and committed performances of an accomplished ensemble - Josh Brolin, Jason Clarke, Jake Gyllenhaal, Keira Knightley and Emily Watson throw themselves into their respective roles one hundred percent, both physically and emotionally. The acting aside, I feel as though there was a lot more emotion below the surface, waiting to be discovered. It's unfortunate that the film doesn't take the chance to try and find it.

On previous occasions I have judged this film more harshly than it deserves. After revisiting it, I realize that this is as good a conclusion as Christopher Nolan could have crafted for his masterful trilogy and is a worthy follow-up to "The Dark Knight". This film exhibits the same extraordinary craftsmanship that have set Nolan's Batman films apart from every other superhero film going and is certainly as ambitious and well-acted as its predecessors, even if its reach exceeds its grasp which is not, in itself, a dishonorable thing. Tom Hardy is the film's greatest asset - his turn as Bane may well prove to be as career-defining and iconic as Ledger's Joker. Gary Oldman is reliably excellent as Commissioner Gordon and Christian Bale is as good as he's ever been in the role of Batman. Perhaps the greatest failing of the trilogy was to introduce so many new characters in the final act, but there are no complaints to be had about the actors themselves. One only wishes we could have seen more of Joseph Gordon-Levitt or Marion Cotillard in the series. Ultimately, this is a solid conclusion and a fitting end to the trilogy and while it will not go down as Nolan's opus, I think it shall and should be regarded as one of the greatest superhero films of all time.

This low-key, tightly wound drama may tread familiar waters and expend some of its nuance and grit for the sake of a misguided twist in the final act, but it's an earnest effort fuelled by two brutally sincere performances by Aaron Paul and an absolutely heartbreaking Josh ****

Its almost three-hour runtime, somewhat meandering pace and lack of action demands tenacity. But for the cinephile and the patient viewer, "Boyhood" provides a unique viewing experience of singular ambition and veracity and captures the minutiae of adolescence in the 21st century with searing intimacy and an expansive scope. It is, of course, this focus on the mundane that has divided audiences far more than it has divided critics. But "Boyhood" is, at heart, nothing more or less than what it sets out to be: an authentic exploration of growing up. And it accomplishes that with exceptional clarity and honesty. It feels like we viewed it from a young boy's perspective, not the adults behind the camera. As such, there is no defining moment within the film that makes it stand out: the reality of the twelve years it covers on-screen is its defining moment. Shot by shot, it is far from unforgettable but as a whole, it is definitely memorable. At heart, "Boyhood" is an extraordinary way of telling quite an ordinary story. I can't put it any better than that.

I very rarely say this. And I very, very rarely say this about feel-good movies. But don't listen to the critics. "Tomrorrowland" is well worth your time. More than the elaborate product placement piece for Disney that some reviewers have made it out to be, "Tomorrowland" balances magnificent spectacle and deliberate, thoughtful storytelling to craft and deliver a spellbinding, timely fantasy that kept me more or less in an awe trance throughout. There's so much to love about this film - its extravagant special effects, a wholesome and pervasive childlike sense of wonder, and solid performances by an appealing cast - that any minor quibbles I had with the plot (yes, there are some loose ends - big deal) - make absolutely no impact on my verdict. What a magical movie.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

What a lovely day, indeed. Embodied in Tom Hardy's exceedingly competent hands, Mad Max has been flawlessly and unforgettably resurrected from the bloodstained sands of director George Miller's breathtaking nightmarish vistas like a phoenix and surges forth on the muscular crest of this propulsive thrill ride, fuelled by a potent cocktail of octane, testosterone, diesel fuel and masterfully rendered insanity. Let it be said, partly as an endorsement and partly as a word of warning: for the duration of its two hour running time, "Fury Road" never relents. It exerts a special kind of hold over your senses - an experience guaranteed to burn your eyes out of your sockets and shatter your eardrums. It simply never stops - just roars and thrashes its way through 120 minutes of mesmeric, unadulterated madness. It sustains a raw and palpable tension throughout. This is the most confident and convicted reinvention of the blockbusters since "The Dark Knight". This is genre fusion - a Spaghetti western, a B-movie, a dystopian thriller, a chase and a survivalist drama. It is an examination of the human condition in the harshest conditions. It has B-movie stylings, but is assuredly wrapped in blockbuster packaging and marries the two seamlessly and perfectly. Accordingly, every technical detail is uniquely refined so that it explodes from the screen - the cinematography, editing, sound engineering, score, cohesive direction, and the performances (especially that of Charlize Theron, whose nuanced yet sensational portrayal of Furiosa is one that is immediately iconic). No amount of hosannas however can adequately answer the main question associated with this movie. Yet I will now try to answer that question now in four words. The question: is "Mad Max: Fury Road" worth the hype? The answer: yes. Oh God yes.

"John Wick" matches its lack of sophistication with a wholesome lack of pretension, along with a sharp, assured sense of style and a giddily violent sense of fun that makes for fast-paced, highly enjoyable viewing for fans of the action genre and a worthy comeback vehicle for Keanu Reeves, who is as capable and confident a badass as any actor on the market.

It lacks the requisite edge to fully realise all of its satirical ambitions, but "Office Space" is nonetheless a sarcastic, engaging and underrated glimpse into the life of American office workers at the turn of the millennium, featuring a well-crafted storyline and well-timed jokes, bolstered by a perfectly-cast ensemble of straight men and women - with Ron Livingston an appealing and understated everyman lead - to outright oddballs - especially Bill Lumbergh and Milton, two of modern movies' most memorable and laugh-out-loud comedic creations.

"The Sixth Sense" equates to little more than M. Night Shyamalan trying to compensate for his script's narrative shortcomings with an audacious twist ending that is illogical and does not make sense. Sound familiar? The atmosphere is built effectively enough for some chills, but the narrative is poorly thought out and meandering, and completely undercuts what suspense Shyamalan creates. With a placid, probably miscast Bruce Willis in the lead and Toni Collette performing well in an underwritten role, it is Haley Joel Osment who salvages the film with an empathetic and star-making portrait. It's a shame the rest of the film couldn't live up to his example.

Of course, the solution to the convolutions of "The Usual Suspects" is cleverly devised and chillingly acted by the duplicitous acting wizardry of Kevin Spacey in an iconic two-faced portrayal - its reputation precedes it, as one of the most inspired acts of pulling the rug out from under the feet of the audience in the history of film. If anything, it is this climatic stroke of genius which kills the film. If only the rest of it had been half as good as those last few moments. What comes before that ending is largely forgettable, dull and, by virtue of the ending, obsolete. Of a 108-minute movie, about 8 are worth watching. That is not the signal **** film - rather one overwhelmed by its own ambitions, with a reach that far exceeds its grasp.

First of all, there is no doubt that the reputation of this film, and Heath Ledger's performance, were bolstered by his untimely death. That makes no difference. This is an accomplished and subversive work, and the most fully realised of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy - its predecessor did little more than establish the foundations of this film, whilst its successor lacked focus or a satisfying conclusion. "The Dark Knight", on the other hand, is an expansive, complex and soulful masterpiece of film, which spearheaded the re-evaluation and acknowledgement of the superhero genre as an art form capable of producing stories as daring, layered and emotive as standard art house fare, or modernist literature and being good for more than just action and special effects. This film is masterfully designed, scored, edited, acted, and shot, reminiscent both stylistically and in terms of storytelling as the classic thrillers of the 1970s. Much like New York City in "Taxi Driver", Nolan's Gotham breathes, and so do the characters, who are understood as real people and compelled to act as such, rather than just vehicles transporting the viewer from one action set piece to the next. Both Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart are fantastic, offering nuanced and desperate portraits of virtuous men broken by their own goodness. They deserved Oscar nominations as much as Heath Ledger. As for Heath Ledger, it is an astonishing piece of acting whether he lived to see it on-screen or not. He is explosive, twisted, visceral, and utterly terrifying - and damn near impossible to take your eyes off of. Is this is a perfect film? There's one too many leaps of logic involved, so it falls short, but only by a minuscule margin. This is certainly one of the best films I've seen - a grand and operatic morality play, breathtakingly colossal, searingly intimate, and unbearably sad. Detractors may try to use Heath Ledger's death to discredit its success as circumstantial. I remind you: nobody from "The Avengers" died.

Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella is a dazzling rendition of a classic tale - a retelling which feels both traditional and fresh. It is a down-to-earth and authentic affair, faithful to the original and free of cynicism, and none of the magic is lost in the translation from animation to live action. This is a flawless construction, with an outstanding quality of production design and attention to detail. It is also perfectly cast - Lily James, Richard Madden, Helena Bonham Carter and Cate Blanchett suit their roles down to the ground. I was truly and pleasantly surprised by this film.

Melodramatic and overdone in parts but passionate and compelling as a whole, "Selma" is primarily a showcase for a mesmeric tour de force by David Oyelowo, who absolutely rivets as Martin Luther King. It's one of the most forceful embodiments of a real-life figure, and echoes Denzel Washington's electrifying presence in "Malcolm X". Oyelowo is reinforced by a stellar albeit underused supporting cast of whom Carmen Ejogo particularly stands out as King's wife Coretta.

What "The Theory of Everything" lacks in substance it makes up for in the transformative and tremendously expressive performance by Eddie Redmayne. He elevates what is otherwise quite a conventional and glossy entry to the biopic genre that is handsomely made, affecting and entertaining in its own right, but not nearly as thought-provoking as it ought to be.

Masterfully assembled, "Birdman" is an electrifying and innovative technical tour de force on every feasible level. It showcases exceptional performances by Michael Keaton and Edward Norton who execute their roles with self-deprecating reckless abandon.

"Focus" hits the ground running with an electrifying first half, then it stumbles and falls hard. The opening in New Orleans is energetic and slick, the pacing is brisk, and the comedy and action is deftly and effectively mixed. The second half, however, jarringly ventures into thriller territory the film is neither confident nor comfortable in navigating. There are glimmers of brilliance - B.D. Wong's cameo, a scene in a car with a methodical assassin - but the end result of the film is muddled, with far too many twists, loose ends, and anticlimaxes. Will Smith more than has the requisite charisma for a part such as this, but the film is beneath him and he seems aware of this throughout, which detracts from his performance. Meanwhile, Margot Robbie (who was excellent in "The Wolf of Wall Street") is awkward in an underwritten role, which is more the scriptwriters' faults than hers. Furthermore, the two seem mismatched and have little-to-no discernible chemistry. This is a misshapen, confused, weak, and generic disappointment of a film which doesn't do justice to its stars or accomplished beginning.

I'd stop short of calling this a great film, but "Gone Girl" is very, very good especially in comparison to the book upon which it's based. It's a faithful and expertly paced rendition, in-keeping with that book's uniquely nonlinear style, unreliable narration and clever use of red herrings, even if it is perhaps too cerebral for its own good and somewhat overpraised and underwhelming given the hyperbole. Nonetheless, Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck are perfectly cast - this is a breakout role for Pike and a career-best performance by Affleck. Neil Patrick Harris, on the other hand, was miscast and his character doesn't have the necessary development in the film as he does in the book. Likewise, Tyler Perry is underused. But this still another worthy entry to David Fincher's repertoire which includes similarly good adaptations of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and "Fight Club". It's certainly a must-see for fans of the book.

There has never been a film as difficult to watch or as grotesquely mesmerising as "Requiem for a Dream." Darren Aronofsky crafts nightmares unlike any filmmaker of his generation. This is a film that must be seen at least once. Once was all I could stomach.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This role is an ideal fit for Bill Murray, arguably the best character actor of his generation. His turn in "St. Vincent" is an excellent showcase for both his impeccable comic timing and dramatic nuance. But as well as his star power, the film has some stellar supporting work from Melissa McCarthy, Naomi Watts and Jaden Lieberher, as well as being well-written, funny, and moving, even if it is a bit predictable. For Bill Murray fans, it's a must-see.

Undoubtedly one of my favourite movies of all time, "Mr. Nobody" is a film like no other. It is a post-modernist sci-fi/fantasy epic that traverses philosophies, genres, timelines, and states of consciousness with reckless abandon and frenetic energy. But it's not a nonsensical film, and the element of control it may have lacked in sloppier hands is there in full force. "Mr. Nobody" is in perfect control of the exclusive medium it has designed for itself. It knows exactly where it's going at every stage of its unique journey and this confidence in itself to pull off its complex and lofty is part of what makes it work so well. Of course what else makes it work is its mastery in every aspect of production and execution - the phenomenal lead performance of Jared Leto, rich visual imagination, and rhapsodic score. "Mr. Nobody" is a viewing experience I've never had before and surely will never have again from another film. I've never felt gratitude towards a filmmaker for making a film as I did towards Jaco Van Dormael for making this.

"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" is a bland and derivative mess with absolutely no creativity or originality or talent on show at all. It's a failure on every conceivable level. Don't bother with it. The film-makers clearly didn't.

"Nowhere Boy" is an enjoyable, interesting, and quite moving glance at John Lennon's formative years, and a showcase for a great performance by Aaron Johnson, who perfectly captures Lennon's vulnerability and burgeoning rebellious spirit. Similarly, Anne-Marie Duff and Kristin Scott Thomas are fantastic in their respective roles as John's estranged mother and his aunt/guardian. Perhaps most importantly of all, this is accessible for the most casual fan of John Lennon and the Beatles - though some fans may be a little frustrated at the lack of insight into Lennon's music.

Stylised to a fault, "Kingsman" is an incredible adventure that starts off a bit heavy-handed but soon becomes an effortlessly cool blend of pastiche, humour, action, intelligence, and heart - and one of the best comic movies of the last decade. Colin Firth and Taron Edgerton give excellent performances, especially Firth - this is a role where, cleverly, he both plays against type and entirely to his pre-existing strengths. The church scene involving his character is easily my favourite action movie sequence since the elevator scene in "Drive" and kept my jaw on the floor throughout.

Visually, "Gravity" is a work of art. It is serene, eerie, and captivating. As a storytelling piece, however, it is serene, eerie, and captivating only for the first half-hour. After that point, it becomes a series of repetitive set pieces drifting towards a predictable outcome that simply isn't exciting and lacks enough substance to anchor the spectacle, despite Sandra Bullock's best efforts. My first viewing, I had a much higher opinion of this film, swept up in the hype surrounding it and blinded by its technical accomplishment. My second viewing, issues with the story (or lack of) were magnified and severely detracted from the film.

"The Gambler" is passable, but it's forgettable and there's a huge waste of potential that detracts from the film. Director Rupert Wyatt ("Rise of the Planet of the Apes") and writer William Monahan ("The Departed") ought to have delivered something with a lot more substance than this. It's relatively entertaining don't get me wrong (John Goodman's comic timing is impeccable) but unless you're a Mark Wahlberg fan I'd give this one a miss.

A politically divisive film with somewhat of a muddled moral message about the Iraq War, "American Sniper" is nonetheless mesmerising filmmaking and a haunting elegy to heroism, propelled by a sombre and gripping performance by Bradley Cooper.

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" - the sequel to "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" - more than capitalises on the promise of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", delivering a captivating and electrifying sci-fi whirlwind of ambition, action, intellect and heart. The cinematography, editing, visual effects, directing match and exceed the high standards set by its predecessor, but what truly sets "Dawn" apart from others of its ilk is the surprising depth of thought and feeling that belies and bolsters its dazzling spectacle. The thematic foundations that were laid in "Rise" are built upon here and then some. What that film started to explore - human nature and animal instinct and how frighteningly closely those two things intersect - is looked at more in-depth and given a heightened sense of urgency in Dawn of the Planet of the Ape's post-apocalyptic context. Films like "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" gives the blockbuster genre a credibility that it is losing and shows you do not have to sacrifice a heart, a soul, a brain for a large budget - and they can be as big as each other. This is a franchise still alive, kicking and thumping its chest.

"Frank" is an unapologetically and poetically eccentric creation. It's a movie of many layers, whose offbeat humour and oddball charm belies a profound depth of insight and perception into difficult topics. To begin with, it is an extraordinarily drawn concept that is just as extraordinarily realised. Most films depend on certain elements to be consistent throughout in order for the film to work. Frank is rather the opposite. It chops and changes with relish almost everything - from scenery to genre, characterisation to mood - to deliriously inventive effect, giving the film its own distinctive flavour that's a true pleasure to taste. It spits in the face of convention, taking familiar plot points down routes you would not expect them to go. It is a magnificently layered story and a commentary on such themes of artistry, individuality, talent and one of the most difficult topics to talk about in modern film, mental illness, which is given a superbly nuanced and wholly unexpected treatment here that is sensitive and soberingly heartbreaking. It is the story of Jon (Domhall Gleeson), an aspiring musician whose passion far outweighs his talent, yet manages to fall in with the avant garde outlet Soronprbs helmed by Frank (Michael Fassbender), an equitably weird and wonderful musical genius who is perpetually clad in a papier-mâché head (I told you it was weird.) The other band members are Don (Scoot McNairy), Clara (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and two others who aren't afforded any real significance, focus or complexity in the plot. The most stunning accomplishment is that, in spite of all the eccentricity, the characters feel very, very real. There is genuine dimension to the performances by Gleeson, Gyllenhaal (she is particularly good, with a caustically tragicomic and layered turn as Clara) and McNairy. All three embrace their characters' flaws and use them to flesh out their portrayals, taking their most unlikeable qualities and realising them as their most human. And then there is Fassbender. Not many actors would find being clad in a ridiculously large prosthetic head a liberation rather than a limitation. From behind the mask, Fassbender communicates a wealth of emotions - naivete, ambition, genius, artistry and a desire to be liked and share his gifts, all in the face of a blackness that threatens to overwhelm his soul. It is a seminal portrayal of unprecedented complexity and originality. And this applies to the film as a whole. Anyone looking for a film to watch who desires something different does not need to look much further than Frank. There has not been such an individual work in a long, long time.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

"Jaws" is a mixed bag. Spielberg's direction is excellent and shows the immense talent he would later put to use in iconic blockbuster and genre opuses that would define a new generation of filmmaking. But he is let down, and the skilled cast (Roy Scheider and Robert Shaw in particular) are let down by a poorly paced, unnecessarily protracted, repetitive story which is extended not to the effect of building suspense but dismantling it and diluting all that its effective about the film - its directing, its acting, its photography, its visual style, its score. There is promise and there are parts of the film which are great, which made me sit up and take notice. The final quarter of the film is bloodcurdling and unforgettable. There is no denying the lasting cultural impact of "Jaws". It's a film beloved by many. But not by me, as much as I wanted to embrace it. It felt like a chore to watch in the end.

"Unbroken" tells a true story worth commemorating. It's ambitious, passionate, harrowing, often rousing and immaculate filmmaking, directed with vigour by Angelina Jolie, well-acted (particularly by Jack O'Connell and Miyavi; their interactions are mesmerising) and gorgeously shot by cinematography veteran Roger Deakins. It would have benefited from a more in-depth treatment and picking up the pace a little, but the film is certainly not a bore (at least not in my opinion) and it is most certainly worth watching.

"American History X" is immensely relevant to modern audiences, perhaps now more than ever. A gritty and provocative drama that puts in graphic terms the dangers of racism and hatred, propelled to greatness by Edward Norton's mesmerising and powerful performance and his interplay with Edward Furlong is one of the most affecting pairings in film. And the ending is **** no matter how many times it's watched.

"The Shining" is an unfortunate missed opportunity. Stanley Kubrick's adaptation squanders its source material, sacrificing the complex characterisation, themes and nuance that made Stephen King's novel so distinctive and compelling. Given the sheer brilliance of what it had to work with, and the immense talent attached to it, the film should have turned out to be far more than what it was: a disappointingly basic and stunted "chiller" does not do any semblance of justice to King's masterpiece. It lacks any form of suspense, thrills or chills, manages only to be slightly and sporadically unnerving. "Here's Johnny" and "Room 237" are memorable vignettes. But the film as a whole is forgettable. I will concede Jack Nicholson is excellent - the role of Jack Torrance is a perfect showcase for his talents. But even he cannot override the film's waste of potential.

The Imitation Game's importance in raising belated awareness of an under-recognised war hero and major innovator cannot be ignored, yet its treatment of Turing is trite, over-simplified, clichéd and underwritten Oscar bait. Benedict Cumberbatch's performance is the film's only recommendable quality but even he, in all his electrifying prowess as an actor, cannot redeem the film's stark failure to do justice to its subject matter, a failure that even manages to overstep the mark so to be sacrilegious to Turing's memory and legacy with the inclusion of some falsified details in the last hour that are blatantly untrue and disrespectful to his legacy.

'The Drop' is a thriller that is underwritten, bloodless and unfortunately dry, one that gets by mainly on the turns by Tom Hardy and James Gandolfini, the latter in his final film role which admittedly was my main incentive to see this film being a fan of the actor's past work. Gandolfini is let down by thin scripting which fails to do justice to his full range as an actor, but he makes the most of what little he's got and turns in a performance that acts as a nice footnote to his blazing, diverse repertoire. The only cast member who gets to utilise their full potential is Tom Hardy, who delivers a terrific, likeable and multi-dimensional performance as Bobby that is the film's highlight. The rest of the cast is passable but largely wasted, especially Noomi Rapace. There are worse films, don't get me wrong, but there are certainly better films - and considering the talent attached to this one, that is a fact you are painfully aware of.

Crass, provocative, ambitious, bitingly satiric and gut-bustlingly funny, Borat holds the distinction of being perhaps both the best comedy of the decades and one of the most skilful social experiments and commentaries ever attempted.

A fresh and inspired take on the miner's strike and LGBT rights movement, both of which were prominent issues of the 1980s, Pride takes an unlikely true story and weaves it something quite wonderful. It's a feel-good film that is genuinely heartwarming and tender but without cloyingly sentimentality. It's an excellent showcase of how friendship, understanding, empathy and solidarity between the unlikeliest of allies can accomplish great things, in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. To boot, it's a genuinely funny film and boasts a phenomenal ensemble: Imelda Staunton, Bill Nighy, Andrew Scott (especially Andrew Scott), Jessica Gunning and Dominic West are standout performers in what stands as one of the finest casts of any film in recent memory. Its pop culture touches, particularly the soundtrack, help to create a wonderful sense of time and place. Ultimately, Pride is not to be missed. Its deft mix of humour and drama allow it to handle its subject matter in a way that is neither didactic nor heavy-handed, but never undercuts its pathos, triumphant spirit and importance as its themes - such as LGBT oppression, mistreatment of the working class - are still painstakingly relevant to modern times, particularly in Britain.

Interstellar is a visual masterpiece, gorgeous and dazzling, one that manages to be both technically refined and explode at the seams with beauty, heart and grace. It boasts a cast who are all at the top of their respective A-games: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain are stand-outs, Chastain especially. The story was one that I found difficult to follow during the picture but saw clear as day as soon as the credits rolled - and I marvelled at its complexity, its intricate depth of detail, its formidable ambition. I felt the 3 hours, which isn't a positive, but the time certainly isn't wasted. More than anything else, the film has deep and potent emotional core, one that perhaps runs the risk of being buried beyond the point of access beneath the film's many layers of scientific detail, but shines through at the end and is as blindingly beautiful as the stars the characters find themselves.

Part II is perhaps the greatest American film of all time, at least in my opinion, upstaging Citizen Kane and even its predecessor. If Part I was to Coppola what The **** of Wrath was to Steinbeck, then Part II is his East of Eden. It recreates all that was so brilliant about the first but fine-tunes it in a manner so that it happens on a scale much larger and much more ambitious, with a wide scope traversing decades and continents that intersects the past with the present in its ferocious exploration on how organised crime shapes those who operate at its highest levels. Returning cast members up their game, especially John Cazale, Diane Keaton and Talia Shire, and Coppola replenishes the ranks with a stellar supporting cast that includes memorable turns from Robert De Niro and Michael V. Gazzo. But no-one can detract from Al Pacino, who tops the brilliance of his first outing as Michael Corleone with a mesmerising, electric tour de force of Macbethian portents that gives this film its heart and its gut: both are as crucial to the film's impact as the other. Where Part I was more cerebral and restrained in its meditation on matters of morality, Part II opens the floodgates to unleash a blistering and merciless cascade of betrayal, savagery, bitterness, passion, vengeance and irreconcilable guilt and greed as corrosive as the other, eventually leaving us with something that is tragic, elegiac and searingly true. The morally-corrosive properties of power may be a tried and tired theme of cinema by now, but the unflinching manner that Part II slides it under the microscope and squints as far as the eye can reach has never been replicated - and quite probably never could.

What can be said? 'The Godfather' is one of the masterpieces of cinema, where every element is perfected and congeals to create something that is a work of art - the score, aesthetics, characterisation, directing, script and acting. It catapulted Francis Ford Coppola to the forefront of the New Hollywood wave, was the breakthrough for such stars as Al Pacino, James Caan, Robert Duvall, Talia Shire, Diane Keaton etc. and cemented Marlon Brando's status in the pantheon of cinematic legends, though his work as Vito Corleone here is more supporting than leading. There is dissent over whether this is rightly considered to be one of the greatest movies of all time. For me, it is not the greatest movie but is among them and the length is certainly felt - when first watched, 'The Godfather' is a draining experience. But it ages well with repeat viewings. It meets the definition of classic and then some. It is memorable and masterful. If Part II overshadows it, it is only because Part I was so damn great nobody thought it could be topped.

The Book of Life is charming, entertaining and lively, accessible for audiences, but disappoints slightly on the front it promises to be more than it is with a plot and moral message that's muddled. That said, the eye-popping visuals are overpowering enough to gloss over my complaints and the soundtrack and voice acting is fantastic. The way various different elements of Mexican arts and culture are interwoven into the storyline is clever and intriguing and puts a fresh spin on its all too familiar plot. A good movie overall - a shame it couldn't quite achieve the greatness a more solid story could have reached.

It kind of drifts through the usual biopic doldrums and skims through elements of Steve Jobs's life that would have made for a more fully-rounded story, but for the most part, I found "Jobs" to be engaging, interesting and was pleasantly surprised by a great performance by Ashton Kutcher. It's a refreshing change from his usual roles and he does incredibly well in the role. It could have done with a bit less gloss and bit more substance - that's where it misses the mark most and that's not Ashton Kutcher's fault (I'm disappointed by how unfairly trashed he's been for this movie) - but it piqued my interest in its subject matter: a computer tycoon. And I hate computers.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The story may be a bit thin, but "Godzilla" is living, radioactive fire breathing proof that a wrestling match between gargantuan reptilian beasts destroying multiple buildings in the process can be an extremely entertaining cinema experience. The acting is generally solid, the special effects are extraordinary and the film itself is an entertaining thrill-ride. A summer blockbuster done right.

There wasn't much of a storyline, and that's the film's fatal flaw, but "American Hustle" was an undeniable extravaganza of a film. Director David O. Russell deserves credit for his exuberant, striking evocation of the glitz and glamour '70s. The acting was superb all round: I particularly enjoyed Bradley Cooper, who made for an excellent sleazebag FBI agent. It may have been a massive exercise in style over substance, but it was an entertaining one.

"Drive", from Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn, feels like a love letter to film noir and crime thrillers of years past. It is an unabashedly entertaining thrill ride, free of pretensions. Refn displays an astonishing talent behind the camera. The way in which he executes violence is brilliant; the film features more than its fair share of noirish gore, both audaciously stylized and subdued. There is enough substance to match the style. Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan and Albert Brooks give high grade performances; Gosling proffers his character with a uniquely laconic charisma, Mulligan is softly poignant and Brooks is a chilling evocation of ruthless cunning and **** cowardice as the antagonist. Its storyline accomplishes being sleek and aloof, yet also quite involving; this is largely, in my opinion, down to the nostalgic feeling with which Refn instills proceedings, lending the film an eerily tender heart amid its thrills and gore. I loved "Drive". I'd definitely recommend it.

Macaulay Culkin is adorable and the film itself is generally funny - but the joke wears thin, and the slapstick crude, vicious and an indicator that Kevin on his way to becoming a sadistic, violent psychopath in later life.