Pixar

 Disney, once known for their supreme care and attention with such animated classics as 'The Beauty and The Beast' and 'The Lion King' are now more renowned as the giant cinematic conglomerate owning over 5 different major franchises including the star wars and marvel universes. Whilst their quality of produce isn't awful neither is it excellent and comparable to their early classics ( remember 'Meet the Robinsons'? 'Home on the range'? No? Don't worry no one does) and this attention to revenue instead of quality, has also effected one of it's subsidiary companies, Pixar, who are experiencing a short cinematic sickness following years of overwhelming success.

 After a 6 film run of cinematic success ( all of which scoring no less than 92% on rotten tomatoes) Pixar was ready to add yet another film to the list in 2006 with 'Cars', an idea fuelled very much by the interests of Pixars chief creative officer John Lasseter who also directed the film. Being released to a relatively average reception, 'Cars' could hold very little up to its momentous predecessors despite the fact that it was actually a fairly good, well rounded film. The negativity surrounding the film was more a frustrating reaction to the company as oppose to an outcry about the film knowing quite plainly that Pixar could do and can do a lot better. After 6 films of excellent quality, audiences expected each new film to be just as good as the last (much like the work of directors such as Spielberg) and after 'Cars' was released many hoped it was simply an idea too closely held onto by Lasseter, an idea that not everyone was on board for and was an idea which for many was overlooked as a 'blip on the radar'. To everyone's delight this was very much the case with 'Cars' being followed by the excellent 'Ratatouille' reminding audiences of Pixars film making talent, this was then followed by 3 films of the same quality including 2010's 'Toy Story 3' which completed perhaps the best trilogy of all time with passion, style and tears. Audiences were ready to leave the 'Toy Story' team behind and meet new characters that could perhaps replicate its success and Pixar had found their answer in its audience’s very favourite previous film...Cars.

The success of the first films merchandising programme (bringing in no less than $10 million) was something that simply couldn't be ignored by the money driven owners of both Pixar and Disney so their sequel policy quoted by John Lasseter "If we have a great story, we'll do a sequel." was put to the test. It failed. Cars 2 was a critical flop earning a 39% on rotten tomatoes and became Pixars first film to not get nominated for an award in the Oscars. ‘Cars 2’ was flashy, heartless and no fun having no central values which all of its predecessors evidently possessed. Audiences felt let down that their once quality committed company now had dollars in their eyes instead of a paintbrush, making themselves look sub-par in the light of far better animated films of the year, most notably 'Rango'. The obvious reason for this was of course the focus of revenue over quality however it can't be ignored that the once scattered release dates of their previous films, coming out every 2 or so years had now been changed to a strict release every year restricting the company slightly from perhaps expressing their true artistic talents. If an idea has not fully developed they shouldn't feel the need to push a release date of the following year, audiences would be much more appreciative if we wait until a film has been tended to, to the best of the companies abilities.

 The release of 'Cars 2' had downhearted fans who yet again searched for Pixar’s redemption in their next film 'Brave' which although wasn't quite as comparable to the majority of Pixar films, still stands strong as a good quality animation. Receiving a 78% on rotten tomatoes, similar to that of 'Cars' which helms a slightly lower score, however as we all fully well know Pixar can do a lot better and with perhaps 2 films of sub-par quality Pixar hit a slump in quality. With the release of 'Monsters University on the horizon many hope Pixar will return to their renowned attention to quality

 If anything however this current disappointment and annoyance in the company is a sign of just how good the company really is, giving us childhood films so touching, so imaginative that when we receive something even slightly below par we're disappointed.  Pixar are the company who have fuelled the dreams of children throughout the world and they remain the best animation company in the world without a doubt. Every company encounters bumps throughout their existence and it was inevitable that Pixar would too; it's just taking them time to find their feet once more. With doubts that 'Monsters University' will do this, next year’s announcement of the original story of 'The good dinosaur' follows the prospect of if dinosaurs never went extinct and were integrated into today’s society, and will no doubt return the company to their rightful form, as their very best films have been the most original ones. With also the recent announcement from Pixar that 'We’re going to have an original film every year, then every other year have a sequel to something.' it looks as though they've found the winning formula of quality and revenue, the futures bright .

We can all see the 'faces' on the front of cars, but few of us can even begin to imagine the life of a dirt collecting robot or the cooking skills of a young rat.

 Pixar, bring us original quality not a regurgitated business plan.

Man Of Steel

In this battle of cinematic superhero dominance a clear divide has been made between the wildly different Marvel and Dc universes. The exuberant world of Marvel is a financially successful one appealing to everyone both old and young, expressing a softer more fabricated view on ‘superhero life’. Dc however couldn’t be more different, finding success in its beloved Dark Knight trilogy being extremely dark, gritty and realistic with its director Christopher Nolan being still undoubtedly clutched to, to aid the company to produce films of quality. With hope to replicate the trilogies success and widen the Dc universe to match Marvels ever expanding one, notorious superhero, Superman has now returned in Man of steel, seeing him fight his classic rival, General Zod with a gritty screenplay and the disposal of his kitsch red pants.

 Prior to even his arrival on earth we are treated to Superman’s origins story seeing him blasted into the universe in an act of defiance from his parents as his planet Krypton comes under attack from the repressive General Zod (Michael Shannon) who opposes the natural birth of Superman (Henry Cavill) in favour of his more orderly system. Soon enough Superman lands on earth as the plot unfolds and he undergoes a journey discovering his purpose on earth. Whilst many superhero movies like to elaborate and over indulge in origin tales, here we are given the bare bones without the cheese and whimpering drama working heavily in the films favour as it fairly quickly gets it out of the way to make room for the more exciting, more important story at hand. Strong for the most part the film’s opening provides the energy necessary to fuel the rest of the explosive film, showing vast areas of Krypton unprecedented in the Superman franchise with huge amounts of money being spent on smooth CGI yet perhaps not enough on simple tripods to hold the cameras steady in scenes of much shaky annoyance.

 These scenes of action are by no means only seen in the first act, oh… no, this opening sequence is simply the foundations by which the film builds its story and fantastic action set pieces. Used perhaps a little too much towards the end of the final act becoming quickly formulaic and contrived, these scenes were mostly hugely enjoyable seeing hovering battles between the two foes carried out with style and a fantastic soundtrack. Following in the footsteps John Williams is by no means an easy task; however Hans Zimmer does an excellent job in matching the films enormous scope with a soundtrack which makes you giddy with excitement every time it’s heard painting a rather huge smile on the faces of the audience. Perhaps expectedly the soundtrack however can barely compete against Williams original and this is certainly unaided by the sheer amount of times it’s used throughout the film, even in times when it doesn’t fit the action on screen it’s clumsily thrown in to almost comic effect. This is simply an irritating feature however in amongst truly riveting action scenes where a prominent sense of realistic peril is felt for each and every character both minor and major leaving you on the edge of your seat.

 Consistently counterbalancing its successes throughout, Man of Steel lets itself down with a fairly poor script with thin character development for everyone but the protagonist. This leads for the love between him and renowned love interest Lois Lane (Amy Adams) to feel totally fake and subsequently disinteresting. The script is saved for the most part with terrific acting performances from the lead, Henry Cavill, filling the boots of Superman both visually and charismatically being suitably witty yet overwhelmingly confident with an impressive American accent to disguise his English origins stamping the seal of approval. Michael Shannon who fills the role of General Zod also does an impressive job but is undoubtedly burdened by his lack of screen time and poor script making him feel like an underused utility especially considering his outstanding acting credentials.

Is Superman super? Well no, not quite, but he’s certainly not a disappointment either being the superhero that Dc needed to kick-start their new set of films to rival Marvel after the conclusion to the Dark Knight series, being suitably dark yet extremely enjoyable.  Yes the script is weak and yes is burdened with minor mistakes however Man of steel ultimately proved to be hugely entertaining despite its lack of a sustainable plot; it is quite simply bags of fun.

7/10- If you are able to brush past the films weaknesses a spine tingling and wildly epic tale of Superman can be found from his realistic origins to his action packed adolescence.

Calum Russell

Mud

After finding success with 2011’s critically acclaimed ‘Take Shelter’, director Jeff Nichols is back with a more linear narrative than that of his ambiguous previous hit; surrounding the story of Mud, a rugged fugitive taking residence on an island when two teenagers cross his path and vow to help him in his quest for love.

Being comparable to such engrossing and explorative tales of the novelist ‘Mark Twain’, Jeff Nichols’ storytelling is just as wildly impressive being immersive, believable and lovingly nostalgic throughout. Usually used as an irritating device to infuriate audiences and do little but play up to typical childish personas, both children in ‘Mud’ are the exact opposite being loveable and engaging, acting as mature and hugely realistic protagonists. Tye Sheridan leads as Ellis, a teenager in the limbo between childhood and being a teenager facing the relevant issues of this age such as parent troubles as well as the more foreboding issue and theme of love. Used subtly and tentatively throughout, this theme is well defined and used effortlessly to run parallel to the films central narrative. This creates for an unexpected yet undoubtedly welcomed ‘coming of age’ tale of two boys with a powerful friendship as they learn the realities of adulthood in a situation that they don’t quite understand.  These strong themes and general explorative tone of the film hold strong for the majority of the film, sagging slightly in the third act where the film slows slightly and coincidently produces some inconsistent tones that feel jarring in amongst a film of a very different message.    

Similar friendships are shown throughout as the film juggles plenty of differing themes shown through a plethora of acting talent. Matthew McConaughey, plays protagonist Ellis’ rock of support throughout the film whilst also focusing his efforts onto pleasing himself with the reuniting of him and his lover. Following in his fairly recent emergence as a serious and wildly talented actor, Matthew McConaughey is fantastic as the title character, Mud,  effortlessly adapting to his changing situation with realism and style. As the plot progresses the film becomes ever more engrossing, introducing a well-developed handful of characters that are used intelligently to enhance the story instead of bogging it down. Mud’s relationship with one of his old friends of the town,Tom, (Sam Shepard) is especially notable as it feels genuine and heartfelt being very much comparable to the relationship of the two boys which shares just as much passion.

Mud sails at its own breezy pace being tentative and insightful throughout its journey, reminding audiences of the joys and confusions of childhood within a mesmerising setting of rural Mississippi. With excellent acting across each and every character, Mud easily immerses its audience through its fantastically written script and neatly woven characters that are overwhelmingly enjoyable to watch and engage with.

8.5/10- An uplifting tale of childhood disguised within a thrilling drama.

Calum Russell