HIGH/FRAME/REVIEW

When you look ahead at the year in film you see the big tent pole superhero films and the releases by critically acclaimed directors and actors you like. Sing Street by John Carney wasn’t on my radar until I sat down in the State Theatre for the Australian Premiere. Having seen Begin Again, I knew Carney could direct a feel good musical film, but Sing Street is something else entirely. An unknown cast, a classic soundtrack mixed with new music, Sing Street is a delight that rewards repeat viewings and had me playing the soundtrack for weeks afterwards. If you don’t have Drive it Like You Stole It stuck in your head after you see Sing Street you may need to check for a pulse. Heart and comedy are delivered in equal measures by a cast that doesn’t miss a beat despite many of them stepping in front of the camera for the first time. Seek out this film, then once you have watched it, give it two days then watch it again.

There are entire libraries of films that detail the life cycle of an individual, notable recent films such as Boyhood have captured the imagination of the public. The quality of 'saga style' films is their ability to relate to the individual, we are given an innocent access point and are drawn into the life of the protagonist as we grow alongside them. Moonlight follows the same well worn road, but is able to elevate the film to a magical experience with smooth cinematography and a punchy but ethereal soundtrack. The film is broken into three parts as we see the progression of Chiron, a young black man dealing with life in a suburban Miami community. We are given snapshots of his life, each details formative and traumatizing events, family drama, sexuality and place in the world are all discussed. Chiron is guided by Juan, a local drug dealer who is able to teach lessons Chiron's absent drug addict mother Paula, has neglected. Moonlight shows us a life many are unfamiliar with and presents new ideas that challenge conventional thinking and attitudes. Moonlight walks a tightrope between ordinary and extraordinary,  it remains realistic  and avoids cliques . Scenes roll by, nothing happening, setting the landscape and feel of the film. Natural language and settings lull the audience into a calm empathy before crushing hearts with poignant lines and events. Without a few crucial scenes, Moonlight would be relegated to the snoozefest Boyhood became. Moonlight is visually stunning throughout however a handful of scenes make this film a true work of  art. James Laxton’s cinematography is soft and intimate. Natural pans are played alongside close details shots. A stand out is a scene in which Juan teaches Chiron to swim as a boy. The camera dances on the waves, the natural chaos of the water lashing over the lens juxtaposed with the calm mature performance by the outstanding Mahershala Ali as he keeps Chiron afloat and lets him be his own man. Similarly Nicholas Britell’s score plays with the heart. Used sparingly it plays bold orchestral pieces against modern hip hop songs. Its mature, classic and modern, moulding the evolution of Chiron as the score changes with his age. Moonlight is an important film, a film that looks at issues of black identity, sexual expression and personal isolation. Jenkins has put forward a work of art that feels so natural throughout yet is able to stick with you well after you leave the theatre. Beautiful, tender yet harrowing, Moonlight is the work of a promising filmmaker flexing his muscle with a message that will hopefully connect with many unlike so many similar films before.

Oh what a relief. The Edge Of Seventeen is great. So great in fact that despite being in a room full of its target audience, late tween to mid 20’s women, ( not a situation this late 20's male would normally relish), I walked out with the biggest smile on my face because this film takes a refreshingly new approach to the traditional 'coming of age' teen film. First time director Kelly Freemon Craig, follows a well used formula but does it in such a way that it felt like a new story full of empathy and consequences. Actress Hailee Steinfeld is cast as Nadine, an antisocial seventeen year old struggling to find a place in society following a death in her family. She is seen as the black sheep of the family but she is not the only one with problems. Her world is turned upside down when her only friend Krista (Haley Lu Richardson) starts dating her brother Darian (Blake Jenner) and Nadine finds herself feeling more alone than ever. Those around her display various levels of interest, from a fawning suitor, a preoccupied mother and a sarcastic teacher. Is it the world around her that is broken or is she the broken one ? The character of Nadine is pivotal in this film and Hailee Steinfeld brings an empathy and understanding to this role that underlines what a talented actress she is . Her portrayal of a confused adolescent that cannot work out how the world works and yet at the same time displays little interest in understanding, also desperately wants what everyone else has and longs for somebody to pay attention to her. Nadine lashes out at those around her and where other teen films play with extremes, Freemon Craig has kept the script closer to reality, allowing us to truly immerse ourselves in the plight of our heroine. Nadine is an unlikable character and this does not change throughout the film. There are no real victims in this film, nobody is out to get Nadine, just a world of broken individuals too caught up in their own realities to be aware of, or care much about her. The comedy lands, it actually lands! From the crass sexual jokes to the awkward interactions, there are a lot of laughs throughout the film. Some may have questioned the rating of this film, but 15 minutes in and a joke about incestuous rape that is followed by a scene in which Nadine is seen vomiting and you know this isn’t a Disney family film. The Edge Of Seventeen is a film that understands and clearly articulates the current day to day life of the average Millennial with a strength and empathy that makes it very watchable. The Edge Of Seventeen targets a younger audience (not too young though) and I hope more young people see it. I was thrilled to be sitting in a full cinema following its poor performance at the US box office. There is enough quality in this film to ensure it continues to find an audience across new platforms and well into the future. Without trying to rewrite the genre, Freemon Craig has delivered a heartwarming and real story, helped by a great cast led by Steinfeld and equipped with a note perfect script.

Oozing a film noir lust and layered with mystery and intrigue, it is hard to tell whether Frank & Lola is a wonderful film from a new time writer/director Matthew Ross or a case of style over substance where mood lighting, music and twists galore distract from a stock standard 90 minutes of film. Frank & Lola is a love story told by a man obviously broken before. It is film that hinges on the story so the less details the better, suffice to say it revolves around the titular characters, perfect performances from Michael Shannon and Imogen Poots, as their relationship is challenged by infidelity and emotional baggage. The film is set against the darkest Las Vegas put to film in years, this is Las Vegas away from the casino’s, this is how the rest of the town lives. Las Vegas feels like a symbol for the rest of the film. There is no glitz as in a romantic comedy, there is no sweeping statements of intent, it is secretive and immediate and visceral. The tension builds throughout and you are left thinking ahead to the next turn as each character vies for the upper hand. In the end, you are made too aware of the screenwriters flourishes to really be fully engaged in the story. The casting of Michael Shannon and Imogen Poots is a master stroke. Their difference in age could have easily been problematic in a society hyper aware of Hollywood’s constant dismissal of aging actresses. Those fears are easily laid to rest when you realise the age gap is essential to the relationship imbalance and the way the couple play with each other. Shannon’s stoney face plays perfectly against the tableau of emotion Poots presents on hers. Anytime Shannon does allow emotion to break through, you as the audience feel it that much more from an actor cast perfectly and on top of his game. Frank & Lola is a bold opening salvo from Ross and will be a film that sticks with me for a few weeks before fading into the indie film vacuum of my mind. The noir style and bold storytelling strokes work for and against it but the film stays afloat on the back of the performances of its leads. I would suggest this as being a good film for any noir completest or those who like a good sexually charged romance thriller.  

The failure of Birth Of A Nation at the US box office underpins the great chasm that exists in society today. An already incendiary film that details the real life uprising of Nat Turner against slave owners in 1831 laid against the backdrop of a nation divided over Black Lives Matter and made even more segmented as allegations of rape against writer/director/lead Nate Parker clouded a film tipped as an early Oscar front runner in the wake of #Oscarssowhite and a bidding war at Sundance. Is it possible to strip back the context of a film and just view the film? Is film meant to be reflective of its environment? Can Birth Of A Nation ever stand on its own two feet and should it? As a historical retelling, the plot of Birth Of A Nation plays out similar to how it would it most textbooks. After the violent sexual assault of his wife and years of seeing the worst torment of his fellow slaves, young African-American preacher Nat Turner leads a revolt against the slave owners in the local Georgia county. The story falls short of ever being truly masterful and instead relies on specific moments of horrific violence and cruelty to elicit the emotional response to justify the conclusion of the film. Unfortunately as the moments come and go and the glue between them is often pedestrian. It is a story that is important to tell and more so in a world that seems to hold on to some of the sentiment from the 1900’s onwards, but for such an important story, it didn’t ever feel vital or as engrossing as it should be. With an instant classic film like 12 Years A Slave proceeding Birth Of A Nation by just a few years, it's impossible to avoid comparisons between the two. This is unfortunate because we tend not to compare romantic comedies or who done it crime dramas in the same way, but because there has been very few stand out stories of slavery era America, the two will compete for praise. In this comparison 12 Years A Slave is easy a superior film, packed with iconic images, far reaching ideas and real empathetic characterisations, it stands as a gut wrenching film that will long stick in the memory. Where McQueen was able to view the entire scope of the film with a trained vision, it feels that Parker suffered under the responsibility of his feature debut, too close to the material to see the performances around his not reaching the quality of his own. There are some tableau’s used in the film, but nope feel fresh or challenging. McQueen made a film, Parker recounted history. Parker himself is easily the stand out in the film. He loves the camera and the camera loves him. He is shouldered with the religious sermon that underpins the meat of the films heart. His writing squarely places religion and morality in discussion and interpretation as the crux for kindness or cruelty within. Parker positions Turner as the leader, the hero, the agitator, the moral compass and holier than thou, the result of which is leaving the supporting cast to feel like victims and followers. Some are raped, some are tortured and most are forlorn and demoralised throughout, which undermines their strength and role in the uprising. Parker has obvious and understandable admiration for Turner but fails to ignite the rest of the cast of characters in the same way. When a film is hyped as Birth Of A Nation was, its hard to not be disappointed when you aren’t blown away. Birth Of A Nation is not a bad film, the final act is sensational and holds the film above most others in a relatively poor year, but it does lack that edge that other socially important films in recent years have had and looks to unfortunately fade into obscurity under the weight of aggressive conservative politics and a discussion about separating art from the artist.

Nocturnal Animals tells three stories, each comprising a third of the film but never truly adding up to a whole. Director Tom Ford has assembled a wonderful ensemble cast and drawn compelling performances from each of them in his second feature film. Michael Shannon and Jake Gyllenhaal are engrossing as always, while Amy Adams is haunting and Aaron Taylor-Johnson puts in the performance of his life. A film rich in suspense and violence, Ford has created a perfect mood for the mystery to brew in. Nocturnal Animals looks to compile ideas into a whole but falls short of realising it fully. The story unfolds like a flower, revealing layered backstory and links throughout. Susan Morrow (Adams) is an art gallery curator who has been sent a manuscript by her ex-husband Edward Sheffield (Gyllenhaal). In the manuscript she reads a harrowing tale of loss and revenge. Unnerved by the book’s similarities with her past relationships and its violent nature she recounts her past with Edward over sleepless nights. The film takes us on three journeys, through the past, present and fictitious. Where is all falls apart however is that as the flower finishes unfolding there is nothing to hold it all together in a satisfying way. The fictitious story told in the manuscript takes centre stage. In performance and content it is easily the most compelling segment of the film, and makes reality feel like little more than unnecessary window dressing. For some the ending may play into their desires for the film, reinforcing a now well trodden movie trope of ambiguity. Others will feel cheated, believing Ford wrote himself into a corner and didn’t have any other option to conclude without ‘pulling a Shyamalan.’ The flow of the film is unusual, as we jump in and out of the interwoven stories, progress is stilted and any three act structure is muddied, leaving the conclusion of the film far too early and without cohesion. Nocturnal Animals is a well made film and teetered on the cusp of being remarkable, the acting is exceptional, the cinematography is striking and the story is engaging throughout. Yet as the credits roll, it is impossible to shake the feeling that there is more left the play out on the screen. While some will like the endings ambiguous nature and generate their own concrete course of events, others may feel as if they were fed an entree and are still waiting for their main course.

A film without flashy names or settings, a small film about big ideas, The Fits is beautifully shot and well acted. Royalty Hightower is just delightful as a young tomboy entranced by the local dance troupe when the girls suddenly experience unexplained seizures. A film that has been rated highly by all that have seen it, The Fits is more than the sum of its parts and I would recommend it to a wide array of audiences. It has lessons for teens, reflections for adults and beautiful cinematography that make it a delight to view, even for those used to the big blockbuster fare.

Personal Shopper was something of a mystery going into it. Having not seen anything outside of a trailer which suggested nothing more than a personal assistant and a hint of the supernatural, I was ready to be taken wherever Olivier Assayas dared to venture with his Clouds Of Sils Maria breakout performer Kirsten Stewart. Unfortunately the trailer did give us everything the movie would, but in a nicely condensed version. Personal Shopper follows Kristen Stewart’s american Maureen as a personal assistant to a high maintenance actress. On the side she is also a medium who is trying to communicate with her recently deceased brother before she is able to move on with her life. She hates her job and is still learning her hobby, so unluckily for us, we are going to get chunks of supernatural exposition and a clown car of Kristen Stewart’s best impressions of a disappointed rock. Personal Shopper has a few moments of intrigue. A haunted house and a who done it look to elevate the grungy millennial who hates her job schtick late in the film, but even these moments feel pedestrian by the end. Assayas has given us a film that dwells on mundane tasks as a way to mirror life while also trying to present the magic of the supernatural. The two cancel each other out and what we are left with is a well shot, generically acted and overall frustrating film that offered nothing and delivered less.

I have a problem with most college movies. We either get the nerds seeking revenge on the jocks or the jocks trying to get laid. Both position women as objects to be hunted as prizes and with the rates of sexual assault in American Colleges its perhaps something we shouldn’t be encouraging in light hearted comedies. Neighbours 2 subverted that trope in having a foul mouthed sorority, and Richard Linklater perhaps gives us a slightly different look at it again, albeit still with some lingering feelings of objectification. Everybody Wants Some follows a baseball team in 80’s Texas as they arrive for their first weekend before school and practice begins for the year. The team is comprised of new and old players and focuses on what happens when these men are taken away from their families and put together in a world where the only rules are that of the team. We are given the mandatory drinking and partying scenes as well as a central romance to tick all the genre boxes but where Everybody Wants Some differs is Linklaters ability to drill emotion into the journey. By the end of the film, we are given a strong idea of the character of our protagonist Jake (Blake Jenner) as the moral centre, trying to fit in with the testosterone of the team but not giving away his more sensitive side. While the team camouflages itself to whichever look they think can help them get laid, Jake remains honest and demonstrates a clear interest in others rather than unsubtle pick up lines and quick tricks. We are given a clear distinction between good and bad that lets us take inspiration from one and find humour in the other. The soundtrack is riotous, the costuming is impeccable and the production feels fluid and clear in its vision. This is the real potential of what all other college movies want to be. Without an evil dean, an enemy frat or a road trip, Everybody Wants Some gives us an honest look at the masculine experience that is carefully positioned between bravado and brains and is humorous and enjoyable without undermining itself with extreme objectification and cheap gross laughs.

What the hell is Melissa McCarthy’s character in this film? I will reward anybody who can actually articulate any sort of character arc there. Kate McKinnon plays an eccentric tech genius, Leslie Jones is a streetwise loudmouth and Kristen Wiig goes from science nerd to… well actually her arc is almost non-existent as well, I think her hairstyle is all that changed. The characters can work well together and McKinnon especially is a breakout star here with her comedic timing while Hemsworth steals every scene he is in despite an awful script positioning himself as dumber than any human possible.  The film jolts and speeds through its run time as character development is glossed over in favour of cameos. Every time an original Ghostbuster or character appears on screen (aside from a subtle Harold Ramis) the film screeches to a halt, pointing at itself so hard that you can’t help but know you are watching a remake of a classic property. Much of the fan service was signposted so hard that it destroyed any scene it was in, from logos to catchphrases, the film cringed its way through it all. There was a requirement to be somewhat loyal to the original that they may have missed a chance to do something really interesting. Ghostbusters is competent. It has a few solid laughs amongst its many misses, it is packed with mostly realistic CGI and each of the leads plays their part to varying levels of success and enjoyment. Where the film falls apart is in the writing, production and direction. While it may be important to have Dan Aykroyd and Ivan Reitman so heavily involved with the project, the film never fully embraced the Feig magic and is more often than not more interested to get a cheap laugh or tweak the nostalgia in the audience, failing to deliver anything but a by the numbers plot with weak characterisation, a villain who lacks any substance and an ending that destroyed much of the goodwill for the film and its actors I had left.

Ben Wheatley’s vision only falters when the film looks to compact too much information into the second half of the film. We are given a first half which clearly lays out the landscape and impending descent but are then sped past much of the intriguing decline into the depths of the crisis, just to then slow down again in order to reach the two hour runtime. This disconnect in the middle of the film hurts many of the more subtle changes that take place and much of the more in-depth social commentary Wheatley is looking to embed the movie with. The innocence and role of women and children is lost in the film in favour of more stylised shots in the back half and much of the symbolism and interplay of characters from the first half is forgotten or torn down in the madness of the back end. Even Tom Hiddleston, in another stellar performance, is lost in the film and his arc is made confused with more slick editing.  I really enjoyed High-Rise. The message, the acting and the visual craft were all captivating and engrossing. The film fails to reach the same peak as many of Wheatley’s influences however in part due to the disheveled second half of the film. The film however bodes well for the directors future and i’m sure repeat viewings of High-Rise will result in new interpretations as well as a greater appreciation of the visual intricacies on offer.  

Assumed knowledge is hard to judge in film. Most films you can walk into and you will be able to follow the familiar stories and human emotions exhibited within. As the film industry pushes harder and harder on franchise sequels and harvesting pop culture properties, we are expected to know more about a film before being able to pay hard earned money to enjoy it. Warcraft falls into this trap as the viewing experience will be vastly difference for those who are familiar with the game and its lore and those who come in fresh. Unfortunately if you come in fresh, you will be met with underdeveloped characters, confused plotting and an unsatisfying conclusion. Warcraft tells the origin story of the game in which Orcs are invading the world of Azeroth where humans and other beings such as dwarves, live in peace and harmony. Blue and green magic comes head to head in Azeroth as well as the conflicting armies of the Alliance and Orc’s while individuals struggle with their place in the war and look to drive peace in an effort to save lives. Warcraft throws up a dozen main characters, many of whom walk a fine line between good and evil throughout. While the film tops two hours, it feels incomplete and is more of a set up for a franchise than a perfectly contained story. With a great majority of Warcraft being CGI, it was always going to be important for the graphics to be realistic so it elevates the film above more than just a video game cutscene. For parts of the film, especially close up motion capture of the main Orc Durotan (Toby Kebbell), the graphics make you forget that what you are watching isn’t real. For the majority of the film however the film has a video game look to it as the animation is cheap and choppy. Wide sweeps over battlefields, quick moving magic spells and character movement all break down the sense of reality and suspension of disbelief. The strength of the acting of the likes of Toby Kebbell and future action star Travis Fimmel allows you to feel empathy with the lead characters. While the initial onslaught of information and poor CGI left me cold to start the film, by the third act, the characters had drawn me back in and the final battle had me engaged in the results. This made the conclusion even more frustrating, but will likely see me lining up for the inevitable sequel in a few years time. Each of the characters have space to grow and I hope each of the actors retain their roles in the the franchise. We have come a long way from 2000’s Dungeons And Dragons film, but Hollywood has still yet to translate video games to the silver screen in a way that a wider audience. Warcraft will work for players of the game and those dying for another franchise to keep them from going outside into the sunlight. For those thinking this is a new Lord Of The Rings, it isn’t even close.

The problem with this film I suspect is director Jon M Chu and many of the choices made with the film. Chu has previously been responsible for Never Say Never (A Justin Beiber Film) and Jem And The Holograms, his pedigree seems to be in empty spectacle and unfortunately that is what is provided here. Quick snappy editing, high adrenaline music and colours and quippy banter barely covers an empty carcass of a money grab sequel that could have been promising. Characters are thrown into ludicrous scenarios to satisfy the requirements of big budget Hollywood films. To ensure the audience's attention, there is an action beat every 15 minutes or so, unfortunately this includes a ridiculous heist scene where the cast needlessly flick a card around in a scene which stretches anybodies willingness to suspend disbelief. When a character is then assailed by a mob of henchmen and fights them off with tricks, I was more than aware of what i was watching and instead of the constant quick edit keeping my eyes entertained, I was blinded by chaos. The final spectacle is gorgeous to look at but is paper thin in logic and realism, even in a movie about magic.  A sequel has already been announced for the film and unfortunately this will be just another film that failed to live up to its original and only acts as a way for Lionsgate to develop a franchise. The film is enjoyable and the acting is fine, but the plot is hollow and needlessly complex in parts while then spewing out exposition explanations like the audience was asleep for the last hour. Frustrating. 

Switch off your rational brains for a moment and switch on the part of your brain that tells you 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landing was filmed by Kubrick and that the Kardashians are valuable members of society, because High Frame Review is about to convince you that Angry Birds is perhaps a little bit more Trump propaganda than we would really like. Vulture has published an article suggesting the exact opposite, but they have failed to look at all the signs. I have. Angry Birds the movie takes place on an idyllic island paradise inhabited exclusively by birds. They live in relative happiness, oblivious to the outside world and convinced they don’t fly because they never need to leave. Their peace is destroyed by the arrival of immigrant pigs with different ideals, skin colours, dietary preferences and clothing choices. Initially the island of birds is welcoming to the outsiders until their real nefarious and underhanded plot to steal and eat the eggs of the birds becomes known. Through it all, a single bird stands up to the visitors and doesn’t trust their intentions. By the end of the movie, it is this single bird, Red, who is to be admired and followed as he defends and avenges the birds to ensure a bird only island. You can probably see where the analysis goes from here, but it is the minor details and positioning of certain characters that reinforces the alternate reading of this film. The pigs are an easy substitute for any foreign immigrant, refugee or outsider, playing on fears of difference as has been historically accused of Blacks, Mexicans, Asians and currently of Muslim and European refugees. The introduction of the pigs to the story is initially slow, with just two arriving at first, but once they are welcomed, hordes more take over the island and destroy its balance, enforcing their ways with new technology, being loud and failing to integrate into accepted society. To really drive home the evil outsider angle, Angry Birds then positions the Pigs as monstrous as they delight in looking to eat the offspring. I don’t think anybody has suggested Muslims are looking to eat Christian children yet, but child murder has often historically been used to generate fear of foreigners in times of war. Red, the heroic protagonist of our story, sits as a Trump like hero in the darkness. Ignored by his society, which is too fussed with the trivialities of anger management, free hugs and being ultra PC, it is up to Red to be the voice of reason. Red is an angry bird, but his anger is explained because he had no parents and was teased for his unusual hair (in his case his eyebrows), we are made to feel sympathy and relate to his plight. Red is often angered by things that also make normal people angry, he riles against the injustice of the courts, inconsiderate people in line and at the movies and other frustrating realities. Red is rational and an empathetic character, it is the society around him that is wrong and it takes an act of terror to turn them around. Red’s first interaction with the pigs he says “Are you here to destroy all our houses or just mine.” He knew before everyone else, later adding “If you are staying just tell us, and if you are, why did you leave your homes, how do we know you aren’t fugitives of the law.” A veiled swipe at the accused criminality of refugees? There are constant small suggestions of difference between the groups. The pigs have a king and bring foreign inventions, the birds have an iconic eagle that is tired and needs Red to inspire him into action. A van owned by the pigs is shown late in the film with a CoExist sticker on it, frequently controversial for its acceptance of multiculturalism and multiple faiths. The film could be read as an allegory for European expansion and invasion as well such as Columbus in South America of Cook in Australia, but in a modern context, immigration is a clearer reading. If you get realistic the film is distributed by a Japanese company, based upon a FInnish companies game and looking to appeal worldwide, so a distinct motivation is unlikely, but the text can still be read as bearing a striking resemblance to the current political climate in the USA, Australia and parts of Europe. When a text reinforces particular views or is able to be read in a distinct way, often the original intention is irrelevant. Disney’s Zootopia can similarly be read as an allegory for race relations and the CIA flooding drugs into black neighbourhoods in the 80’s. It doesn't matter if Zootopia and Angry Birds were meant to be politically charged, once you see it a certain way, it's hard to see it another way.  

A sequel that nobody asked for, Bad Neighbours 2 is a welcome return to a set of houses with a surprisingly fresh attitude and focus from the original. Directed by Nicholas Stoller and written by the same team behind the first film, the comedic tone and pacing is almost identical, but it is the social conscious that makes this film a new beast entirely. Following from the first film in which a newly married couple squabble against a frat house located next to their new home, Bad Neighbours 2 sees Kelly and Mac (Rose Byrne and Seth Rogen) facing up against a newly founded Sorority fronted by Chloe Grace Moretz’s Shelby. Through a series of back and forths we see parties, theft and lewd behaviour. Business as normal from the first film. Familiar faces like Teddy (Zac Efron) are a nice nostalgia for 2014 but just act to remind us that this is another hollywood sequel cash grab. Where the film wins me is in its themes. The first film was about understanding and overcoming stereotypes, the sequel deals with sexism and personal growth. We are given a crew of young women of a range of backgrounds, builds and styles all looking to subvert the male dominated sexually predatory college experience. On the back of public discourse regarding rape and consent as well as an increase in gender equality, the film continues a trend of representing female comedic talent as more than just sexual objects. Any suggestion of sexism and reinforced male patriarchy is questioned or mocked, a nice change from the classic youth fare like Project X and Superbad. Bad Neighbours 2 also deals with maturity as Teddy struggles to deal with life post fraternity and Kelly and Mac deal with parenting. The growth of character arcs from the first film help to add some emotional depth to the film. While not every character in the film has an arc and they represent fairly basic life changes, it is more than we experience in most mainstream comedy. Bad Neighbours 2 seems to break the comedy sequel curse by serving up familiar characters and coarse language but progress the concept with a deeper social message. If you like jokes about weed, dildos and childbirth then this film is probably going to give you what you need. If you liked the original, give this one a go as well.

Aesthetically the film is pure Zack Snyder, colour washes, slow motion and dramatic stare downs dominating the slick style that feels like it stepped straight from the panel to the screen. More visually interesting than Man Of Steel, Dawn Of Justice dark tones set up the look that DC will follow with future films, a choice that will set it apart from Marvel’s brighter, clean style. Snyder has also brought some of the negatives from films like Suckerpunch where scenes failed to blend and become separate jarring statements rather than a cohesive plot.  Batman Vs Superman stands as a stumbling start to the DC film universe but a film that looks to set up future films in the quickest way possible. Batman and Wonder Woman are well realised and the action carries the film through but this won’t be the perfect response many DC fans were hoping for against the supreme dominance of Marvel since 2008.

A warning about modern xenophobic politics as much as a family friendly romp about a rabbit solving crime, Zootopia is the latest film from Disney that will keep the kids of all ages entertained. Talking animals inhabiting a human world is nothing new, but Zootopia takes the next step and covers questions about segregation, speciesism and dietary habits, carefully wrapped up in a who done it crime procedural buddy cop storyline. Judy Hopps is the first rabbit police officer in Zootopia, her size leading her to be dismissed and forcing her to take matters into her own hands as 14 animals go missing. Teaming up with a sneaky fox named Nick Wilde, Judy will follow the breadcrumbs and attempt to find the missing animals. If you have kids this is a must see, the young ones will learn lessons about inclusion and not judging a book by its cover as well as get a huge kick out of businessmen hamsters, giraffe juice bars and some pop cheese musical numbers from Shakira. If you don’t have kids it’s still a very enjoyable time, in-jokes about The Godfather, DMV’s and racist, sexist stereotypes ensure a chuckle while you also unwrap the wider message of societal scaremongering and division in society. An successful film is one that works on multiple levels and is something that seemed to be missing from recent efforts like Minions, The Good Dinosaur and Kung Fu Panda 3. The visual realisation of the Zootopia world is some of the best seen from Disney yet. Traditional camera angles and effects are used flawlessly to often make you forget you are watching computer simulation and the attention to detail in such a densely populated world shows how far digital animation has come in recent years. The film will reward repeat viewings for the lush environments that are splashed across the screen throughout. The plot is somewhat formulaic and most people are likely to see the end coming, but that doesn't diminish the impact of the message and the younger audience members will be swept up in the ride throughout. Zootopia justifies the hype and attention is has received since release and continues a trend of quality animation aimed at teaching a positive lesson to the most impressionable minds we have instead of churning out merchandise.