Sam Mendes succeeds against the odds in delivering a classic Bond film, almost effortlessly blending old and new takes on the character in a spellbinding and increasingly uncomfortable character drama. The acting is the strongest of any in the franchise, the script quite possibly the strongest, and whilst some have complained at a shortage of action, Skyfall gets right into its protagonists' heads. I have some low level quibbles - not with Bardem's Silva per se but certainly with the use of his implied sexual orientation, and the ambiguity of the post-reboot timeline is now downright confusing (was it actually undone?). But this is a thoroughly smart film, a complete departure from previous approaches, which now thankfully completely ignores the brief challenge from Bourne. The villain's motivations actually make sense, 007 is thoroughly humanised for the first time, and whilst there's an overwhelming sense of dread permeating the film, it's also enormous fun; the dialogue (particularly with the excellent Ben Whishaw's Q) fairly crackles. Mendes has proven you don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to make an all-time-great and quintessentially Bond film, just a great script and world class direction.

Quite rightly an ultra-violent shoot-em-up, Dredd ticks all the boxes. Based on the characters from the characters from 2000AD created by Wagner & Ezquerra It never tries to be more than it is, and with Karl Urban growling like he's auditioning for Batman, director Pete Travis and writer Alex Garland utterly nail the tone. The dystopian future of MegaCityOne is grittily realised, with post-apocalyptic justice meted out by Judges that embody the law - Dredd the most ruthless of them all. Nothing much happens other than Dredd and rookie Anderson (the excellent Olivia Thirlby) get sent to investigate a multiple murder in 200 storey tower block PeachTrees, owned in all but name by gangster Ma-Ma (Lena Headey), get trapped in it and end end up having to shoot their way back out. No need for characterisation, this is all about mindless violence, and unapologetically so. It's not entirely without characterisation though - Dredd does develop an uneasy relationship with the psychic Anderson, just never at the expense of him being an utterly unrepentant hardass. It gleeful evokes similar ultra-violent films of the eighties, and you half expect Arnie to come in barking catchphrases, but Urban more than ably acquits himself doing just that. So this rebooted universe could have been fleshed out a bit more fully, but it's a small quibble. Anderson becomes a dominant character in her own right, there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, and the film shows it's not just superheroes succeeding in milking the comic book trend in the cinema right now. Looking forward to universe building in the sequel!

As soon as I saw Tony Gilroy had directed 'Michael Clayton' it all started to make more sense. That Clooney-starrer bored me to tears and had no discernible plot, and that's exactly what you get with this utterly unnecessary film as well. A film laden with needless exposition (very little is actually going on), and with relentless signposting for the hard of thinking, Bourne 4 is an embarrassment to all concerned. What passes for a 'legacy' is Jason Bourne's successful escape at the end of Ultimatum, having caused various US government spooks (led by Ed Norton) to kill everyone else in Bourne's super-spy programme. A notable target for assassination is Aaron Cross (Renner), but Cross is as good as he was programmed to be, and is soon on the run. It's hardly believable that this film was written by the same man responsible for the Matt Damon trilogy - it's clumsy, one-note and utterly bereft of characterisation. Renner is wasted trying to act a role which is offered no hint of characterisation, other than a generalised altruism whilst on the run after saving super scientist Weisz, who upon realising her predicament, offers to save his life with a cure for his incomplete conversion into a super spy. The two run to Manilla, avoid getting murdered by a super villain Norton oh-so-conveniently has on call, and that's it. Oh yeh and Gilroy takes two hours to bring this all about. The action sequences aren't much to write home about, and you have to wait for most of them until the intrepid couple reaches the Philippines, parkour and everything. It feels written to order, in the absence of any need for a fourth instalment, but nonsense ranging from Weisz's deus-ex-machina 'magic virus' through to the one-note villainy throughout make it particularly cringe-worthy, right through to the inevitable sequel set-up. I didn't care one bit about a single character and won't be coming back next time.

Not actually a bad film, but it ends as superficially as it begins, never really investigating the world it depicts with anything other than a cursory nod. Whilst the stripping is enormous fun, and you *really can* see where Tatum's reputation comes from, the character dynamics are shallow, and the story has very little to offer, other than 'stripper decides to take control of his life, grows up and gets his girl'. Given the film's initial unapologetic attitude towards the profession, it seems strange that it would shift in tone so wildly about half way through. The predictable storyline aside, the performances are enjoyable (if not altogether impressive), and it was nice to see not just that Tatum could hold a film on his own, but that Alex Pettyfer could in fact act. But both of them were eclipsed by Matthew McConaughey as Tatum's business partner, who chews up every single scene he's in (one of them with added bongo drums). It's a shame that the subplot involving him developing the business outside of suburban Tampa isn't followed up on. It's a shame that a great deal isn't followed up on, from a logical impact of Tatum's bailing Pettyfer out, through to Pettyfer's own decline. His beauty on display may have been highly impressive, but his character never ultimately matters. It's definitely a film of two halves, one more consistent than the other. We never really learn anything substantial about any of the characters (McConaughey offers the most but is never allowed to shine as fully as he might), and what passes for character development is painfully superficial. Cody Horn is woefully underused as the sister/love interest, who never really influences either of the leads with anything other than an aggressive pout. The dance sequences are genuinely impressive, as are the strippers physiques, and it would be churlish to suggest the film doesn't have any entertainment value. As long as you don't demand anything more of it than enjoyment of the bodies on display, you should enjoy yourself.

It's nowhere near as strong as its much lauded predecessor, but Christopher Nolan's swansong helming the Bat franchise is still a pretty great effort. Having something to say about the nature of family and heroism, whilst having a very sharp commentary about the Occupy movement, Rises only really suffers from being far too long, and burdened with dialogue which at times would have made The Avengers' Joss Whedon cringe with disappointment. Bruce Wayne retired the batsuit eight years ago, after the events of Dark Knight, and has since lived the life of a recluse, that is until the intervention of Selina Kyle, out to steal from the rich, and case in point *him*. At the same time terrorist Bane is manoeuvring against Gotham for uncertain reasons, and hospitalises Jim Gordon in the process. Watching his and Gordon's flawed compromise to keep Harvey Dent's crime fighting legacy alive falling to pieces, Bruce resumes his role as the Batman to protect his city at any cost. The cost is enormous as Bruce finds he's at the epicentre of the plot against Gotham, and he starts to lose everything he held dear. Nolan takes far too long to tell what's a relatively straightforward story about Bruce's fall from grace, and the steps he needs to take to rise again and protect his city and legacy. It's balanced out though, chiefly by the subplot involving Joe Gordon Levitt's Det. Blake. The look this gives into the street level impact of the Batman's war on crime, and how he inspires ordinary Gothamites is one of the strongest elements of the film. A little less of Bruce's ordeal in 'the pit' and a fair bit more of Blake may have made for a more balanced movie, but the third act war for Gotham is spectacularly well done, the conclusion even more so. Nolan makes a couple of notable nods to Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns in his sign off, to make it all the more satisfying a conclusion. It's a well acted piece, with Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine standing out as they would, but it's Anne Hathaway's turn as Catwoman which effortlessly (and surprisingly) steals the show. I would never have thought Catwoman could have been so neatly reinvented (with another nod to Miller), or that Hathaway could so easily have ignored the spectre of Michelle Pfeiffer, but she steals every scene she's in (even the untidy early ones with Bane). Less enjoyable is the strange Bane voiceover: is it Hardy or someone else? Either way it's so consistently overly hammy that it removes a degree of menace which the character needs in order to appear a significant threat to Bruce or Gotham. Bane's army taking on the appearance of an Occupy movement works well, although Nolan's apparent desire for his film to appear socially relevant twice in two movies puts Rises under a little unnecessary strain. Still though Gary Oldman's Jim Gordon consistently rises to the challenge, and Joe Gordon Levitt is unexpectedly strong in his street role, paralleling Wayne's journey from a different perspective until they collide. It's a hugely involving film, that despite its density always impresses, and will leave whoever succeeds Nolan with an almost impossible task. Nolan and Bale have made a deservedly legendary trilogy.

Loved this for all the reasons I was disappointed by the Raimi-helmed era of the franchise - Peter Parker's back to being the real hard-luck hero, the dialogue is fresh and realistic, and the tone is less family-friendly, taking a much darker tone. Andrew Garfield also sets his stamp immediately on Peter, providing not just a highly attractive character, but a psychologically interesting one. The lead up to Uncle Ben's murder (an equally perfectly cast Martin Sheen) is more fully developed than even in the book, and when Ben finally dies the scene packs a real punch. Marc Webb may have shortcomings in his storytelling elsewhere in the film, but not here. The film is largely driven though by the romance between Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and again unlike what's gone before it's highly believable and note-perfectly acted. Stone plays Gwen both true to the book, but with far greater authority than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane - I'd been sceptical about the change of characters, but director Webb changed my mind. As said, Webb doesn't get everything right - the development of Rhys Ifans' Lizard is questionable (although Ifans isn't that bad), and some of the Peter/Gwen scenes are self-indulgently long, but for me these were small quibbles. The infamous 'power and responsibility' quote is alluded to but never used, and to good effect - the film isn't entirely about Peter's rise to herodom. There's also a greater conspiracy (presumably connected to an unseen Norman Osborn) around Peter's parents, which only gets a look-in here, but which is promised to develop in the next two films. This film never had enough good word or attention at the box office, and it was unquestionably foolhardy to have released it so soon after the Avengers, but it's quite brilliant - Denis Leary's George Stacy through to Sally Field's May Parker (even Chris Zylka's Flash Thompson) all support Peter and Gwen to perfection. It'll make you giggle and cry in equal measure, which is what wisecracking Spidey is *supposed* to do.

I've rarely loved a film as much as I love Joss Whedon's Avengers. It misses out on too much of Hawkeye's backstory, but everything else is simply note perfect. From Mark Ruffalo's Banner/Hulk through to Downey's Stark/Iron Man it's true to the characters of the book, and manages what almost every other blockbuster this summer has failed to do: develop the characters and make them likeable! In many ways it's a difficult film to review, because so much of its likeability is the crackling dialogue and razor sharp performances. The conflict between Stark and Steve Rogers in particular is fascinating, with Whedon not just exploring their contradictory characters individually, but what that would lead to when put under pressure. And who thought Mark Ruffalo would be such a perfect replacement for Edward Norton? He and his CGI (this time sensational) alter ego come close to stealing the show, with witticisms Whedon majestically refuses to signpost. It's a long film, but hardly short on plot, although Whedon could at a push be chided for not explaining enough of the back story of Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner never looking better) or Scarlet Johannson's Black Widow, but a start *is* made, and hopefully they'll be given more room to breathe in the recently confirmed sequel. Fortunately Whedon remembers never to short change his geek or newbie audience alike of the humour such a serious and long film needs, be it the initial Thor/Cap/Iron Man battle, or Cap demonstrating just why he's the leader of men his reputation suggests. It's hugely entertaining from start to finish, the 3D is entirely appropriate and I can't wait for the next one. The Marvel movie you thought could never happen!

The Guard is a small film which manages both to tickle and unnerve at the same time. Gleeson's performance utterly swamps everything before it, but it's to the film's credit that it never quite becomes a big screen Father Ted. There may be philosophy-spouting gangsters, but the threat they pose is real, and the film tries very hard (mostly succeeding) to walk a line between comedy and gangster movie. The characterisation is excellent, notably framed by the buddy movie pairing of Gleeson and Cheadle. Is Gleeson an irrepressible, drinking and whoring buffoon, or just smart yet offbeat? You're never left entirely sure until late on in the film. To the film's credit his Guard may be corrupt as hell in most conceivable ways, but he remains an easy hero, whom Bad Lieutenant style, you root for relentlessly. Cheadle on the other hand is someone I normally don't rate, but his FBI straight man is inspired, and fodder for many of the greatest moments in the film. It won't be to everyone's tastes, but in a film market dominated by identikit scripts and superheroes, it's an oasis of originality that I remain hugely fond of.

Self indulgent beyond all comprehension, but that's Seth MacFarlane. Both Family Guy at its blandest and at its most irreverent, Ted's a must-see despite its serious storytelling shortcomings. Artfully narrated by Patrick Stewart, when it hits the spot it's laugh-until-you-weep funny (and he consistently is), which happens just enough to lift it from its otherwise average TV movie delivery. MacFarlane the director is nowhere near as good as he is a writer, and it shows - Mila Kunis for example is acting in a completely different movie to Mark Wahlberg. But Ted just manages to shock and appal in equal enough measures to make this compulsive viewing.

Jesse Eisenberg as a director manages two really important things here: saying something meaningful about the Jewish diaspora experience, and teasing out an Oscar winning support performance by Kieran Cullen (overdue and deserved). Is it always as fun as billed? No. Is the relationship between the cousins as developed as it could be? Also no, but the slice of life look at their relationship while they’re away touring Europe is pretty accomplished. Eisenberg plays himself as ever, but it doesn’t matter much - this tries to be a small film with naturalistic performances, which happens and it’s so rare these days it’s a delight to be immersed into. And Culkin’s performance genuinely is devastating - he has so much work to do as the anchor for the film and he makes it look effortless and once more delivers an unlikeable character and makes him knowable and likeable.

A film I really wanted to like and the first arc, admittedly largely expositional, made for impressive world building. The tone started very similar to Armando Iannucci’s Avenue 5 - flawed but the social commentary managed to bite. But after the premature copy of Mickey 17 that bite fell away and never really came back. I enjoyed Mark Ruffalo hamming it up as an uncoded Trump analogue but it got a little too close for that satire to work, and the real Trump is much worse. Pattinson is good if not stellar, Colette is utterly wasted, as is Yeun, although Naomi Ackie is impressive. The film for me buckles under directorial self indulgence - it’s fun and has big ideas but Bong Joon-Ho is so heavy handed with them he loses sight of the satire. And the loss of Mickey 18 is predictable. It’s certainly entertaining but taken as a whole it disappoints.

Robert Eggers' Nosferatu remake is visually stunning and admirably old fashioned in its staging and production values but despite staggeringly good casting it never really catches fire. Constrained by the original? By Bram Stoker? It's 15 rating (in the UK)? Either way it feels like every time the film threatens to take off, the pressure on the gas pedal gets lifted and the energy grinds to a halt. Given the cast - notably Nicholas Hoult in the leading role - that's slightly unforgivable, but it's an unexpected shift in style too for Eggers, after his delightful psychodrama The Lighthouse, that took risk after risk, yet here we have a leading man uniquely qualified for vampire movies and he doesn't really make an impact. Hoult tore the screen apart with Renfield - an original and sardonic take on vampire movies (with ties to Stoker's novel), and his experience in Skins, The Great and A Single Man have all shown off an unusually relaxed ability to investigate his characters' sexuality (very much a component of vampire films for many). Yet his Thomas Hutter here is an enigma - the ostensible hero without a personality, pretty but without a character. So little is asked of him it's hard to believe the same director coaxed such a dangerous performance out of Robert Pattinson just five years earlier. For Bill Skarsgard's Orlok to seduce him as well as his screen wife Lily-Rose Depp and leave Hoult barely noticeable is just bizarre. The ending of course is as predictable as the rain, for all its intensity offering no surprises or particular discomfort. That has something to do with Count Orlok playing the most tangential of physical roles in the production. His booming, surely digitally altered voice is occasionally hard to understand, and the decision to humanise his appearance feels downright odd. The production though is phenomenal, from the location shoots to the masterful lighting and the Czech sets - this looks out of this world, a period piece like few others. It just has next to no heart to it. The energy behind Renfield is nowhere to be found, the ghastliness of The Lighthouse is hinted at but never takes off, despite Willem Dafoe's relentless (and welcome) scenery chewing. It's a 2 hour watch that feels longer, it plays it safe when it needs real risks taken, and ultimately has a Hammer House of Horror quality to it - a cult aesthetic but lacking in the substance it deserves.

The performances are stellar but this is a slow, cliche-ridden arthouse film that doesn’t really do justice to either the protagonists or the subject matter. Luca Guadagnino’s fourth consecutive film featuring queer American twink protagonists, the second with screenwriter Jason Kuritzkes is as compelling and uneven as his last two outings. Bones and All and Challengers were visually alluring, tonally seductive and brilliantly acted, but had almost no substance at all. Call Me By Your Name aimed to adapt a queer rites of passage story, which I'd argue it largely succeeded at, but since then Guadagnino's storytelling has felt less assured. Queer's Focus on Craig’s drug addled William Lee (an obvious William S Boroughs analogue) offers potential points of interest - what's behind Lee's disaffection in 1950's Mexico City? How is he so confidently out? What was a gay relationship with an age gap like in that age? What answers we get are retrodden from countless other stories, complicated by a descent into psychedelia and ultimately confusing artsy nonsense, leaving the film with a non-ending. Again. I'm happy with artsy nonsense - David Lynch is a hero of mine, and given this is a Burroughs story I expected confusion and psychedelia, but there are themes Guadagnino and Kuritzkes put into play that they leave largely open which I find annoying. And the epilogue is very annoying. Craig and Starkey are amazing though, even though the younger man has little to do. Their differing ideas about their identities aren't ever given the screen time they deserve, nor is there a resolution which fits comfortably with the drama. A lot has been said about the bravery of their sex scenes, but I'd argue they're no braver than any heterosexual scene, and Craig is predictably allowed to keep his modesty. There's little bravery there. It's a mesmerising film, but neither Craig's nor Starkey's characters go through meaningful change, even after their ayahuasca experience. Maybe the attempt to escape who they are is the point, but it doesn't feel enough to carry a 2+ hour screenplay. Craig (despite his appalling American accent - how is he failing to improve it?) will no doubt win awards for his performance, and Queer is an occasionally very lush cinematic experience (I love the soundtrack) but it's mostly a case of sound and fury signifying very little.

As devastating as it is sensitive, this is a remarkable documentary. So much of Reeve’s personal background, the interviews with Glenn Close, Jeff Daniel’s, his ex and his kids painted an unexpectedly revealing picture of a complicated man. His initial Superman success preceded a period where he felt he had a lot to prove, and was always competing, often with himself. It was his response to his life changing injury that others have remarked ignited his marriage, his parenting and his advocacy. The grief his surviving family still feel is both surprising but a testament to the qualities Chris and Dana lived their lives with. Clark met his Lois and whilst they both met tragic ends they lived genuinely super heroic lives. I was in tears often.

Screwball comedy where it’s not needed, an undercooked romcom and a badly developed historical drama, it’s a film that means well but never really delivers. ScoJo is amazing but it’s not enough to overcome an uneven, overly long script. It needs at least to channel Hidden Figures but as much as I like Greg Berlanti he hasn’t put a production together anything like as smart.

It delivers what you’d expect from a cast this good but it’s a cynical script, tailored by algorithm and committee to deliver very little overall. There’s fun, laughs and action but it’s all been done countless times before, the plot is dull and the fixers’ characters aren’t even really interesting. It’s Jon Watts from Spider-Man: Far From Home - fun, likeable (George and Brad are still the best at what they do) but complacent and not essential viewing.

A strong but strange experience. Almost Shakespearean at times, it’s a powerful morality play and character drama with Oscar worthy performances. It absolutely bites off a little more than it can chew in the tensions it toys with in looking at morality in the Catholic Church, but its ambitions are still laudable. Not for everyone maybe but Fiennes will absolutely get an Oscar nomination nod.

Engaging for about the first half but deeply lacking in plot, no further understanding of the aliens or any background into how humankind understood how to face them. Nyong’o is phenomenal even though her character is deeply undermined from the start, and Quinn delivers his character well enough but Eric isn’t much of a character. The cat steals the show.

Very much a tale of two halves - the first driven by spectacle and enjoyably whimsical performances, making up for problems with the plot. The second half is bloated, and manages to be self-indulgent despite the deeply impressive stunt work by Cruise himself. Ultimately MI:7 Part 1 suffers from the same problem that Westworld S03 never overcame - if a sentient AI is the villain how do you successfully deliver a human ally with believable motivations to ally with it? As awesome as Morales is, his script so far hasn't allowed it - his relevance to Cruise is through retcon alone, which isn't enough. Hayley Atwell however rules, and the film is worth watching for the Rome car chase alone!

I'm a massive Daniel Kaluuya fan and I liked (I think) Get Out. Not so this time, I don't even know what I watched and I do need at least an idea, and not to feel like I've been caught in an ego trip on the scale of Interstellar.