The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

What's it about? Part 3 in what will be a 4-part film series, based on The Hunger Games trilogy. Dystopian Young Adult Fiction. The Hunger Games take place in a future where the US has been ravaged by war and hardship and is now renamed "Panem", separated into the haves (in the Capitol) and the have nots, who live in a series of Districts, where they labour and toil for the good of the Capitol-dwelling wealthy elite. Children are chosen from each district to fight to the death in a deadly arena, all for the Capitol's entertainment and Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) has competed in those Hunger Games across the first two films. As we catch up with her in Mockingjay Part 1, we transition into a very different type of film. No longer concerning ourselves with arena warfare, we are now in the realms of political machinations, propaganda, control of the airwaves and the battle for the hearts and minds of people. Katniss is not sure if she wants to be a propaganda puppet, but as she sees the brutality inflicted by the Capitol, her position changes and her resolve hardens.

What's it like? Not as effective as the first two films, but definitely worthwhile for fans of the franchise. If you haven't seen the first two films, you are unlikely to start here, but if you've come this far, there is much to enjoy. Much less action-packed but just as thought-provoking, Mockingjay Part 1 confronts us with inequality of power, a yearning to be free and the grey areas occupied by propaganda wars. Jennifer Lawrence continues to carry the franchise on her back through another effective, subtle and nuanced performance, at once brittle, resolute, toughened and tender. A seemingly irreconcilable bundle of contradictions effortlessly held together by a young actress of phenomenal ability. The late great Philip Seymour Hoffman and an always-reliable Julianne Moore give great support and if some of he rest of the cast don't make quite such an impact, the overall effect of the film is engaging.

Should I see it? It's not quite a "must-see" and for my youngest it wasn't as interesting as the previous two films. There are a few scenes of injured people that won't go down well with younger more delicate children, but the scenes are far from gratuitous, showing the impact of a brutal regime and giving rise to a righteous anger on the part of Katniss. Consider carefully what you consider suitable for your children , but otherwise enjoy the ensuing conversations about politics, class struggles and control of the airwaves!

Interstellar (2014)

What's it about? Ostensibly a science-fiction film about a desperate mission to find an alternate habitable planet for mankind, after the Earth becomes uninhabitable due to crop blight, Interstellar is as much about life, love and family as anything else. Matthew McConaughey's former pilot, now farmer, must leave his family behind to join a mission that will travel through a nearby wormhole in order to find a new home for mankind. The planets they find need to be assessed for suitability for starting over, while fluctuating gravity fields wreak havoc with the relative passage of time, not only for the mission compared with life on Earth, but also between the people on the mission itself. McConaughey's everyman Cooper wants the mission to succeed but more than anything he wants to keep the promise he made to his daughter Murphy that he would return.

What's it like? Phenomenal, but not to everyone's taste. In its final third it very much moves into the fiction part of the sci-fi genre, which is fine, but the plot developments will have to be accepted on their own terms if you are to come out of the cinema feeling satisfied. The visuals are imaginative and stunning, the alien worlds plausible and breath-taking and the passage through wormholes, black holes and frozen atmospheres thrilling. For a film-maker like Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento, The Prestige) who has always brought a strong element of veracity to his film making, this is his most fantastical venture yet, but it also has perhaps the strongest heartbeat of any of his films to date, the unbearable heartache of Cooper and his daughter as he leaves her behind being among the film's most resonant and affecting scenes, despite being one of its quietest. All of the acting performances are top-drawer, especially McConaughey and Mackenzie Foy, who plays the youngest iteration of Murphy. Many will have wished that Nolan had finished on a more open-ended note (like Inception) rather than something a lot more neatly wrapped up (like The Dark Knight Rises), but that is the film-maker's prerogative - they get to choose the film they make and thankfully this one is ace.

Should I see it? It certainly is a big screen experience, given the spectacular visuals, but if thought-provoking, mind-bending sci-fi isn't your thing then you might want to save some pennies. Although the film carries a 12A certificate, there's is relatively little violence, no sexual content and very little bad language, so in terms of taking children it is more a question of what they can understand and make sense of, rather than a concern over inappropriate content. At over two and a half hours, there's quite a lot to take in.

The Amazing Spider-man 2

What's it about? It's about Spider-man. He's Amazing. Having seen off Lizard in the previous film, Spider-man begins this sequel very much in full flow, swinging around and thwarting crime and also holding down a relationship with Gwen Stacy, despite having promised her dying father that he would stay away for her safety. Meanwhile, Max, a nerdy, lonely and anonymous employee at Oscorp, accidentally fries himself while trying to make repairs to an inordinately sophisticated engineering set up and (as is the usual outcome for science experiments and medical procedures within the Spider-man universe), he becomes "Electro" - a creature of pure electricity, hungry for power. At around the same time, Harry Osborn, a childhood friend of Peter Parker's, arrives in town to take over the running of his father's company. Harry has grand plans, including trying to find a way to stave off the rare but devastating genetic disease that ravaged his father. The solution may lie somewhere in Peter's new physiology, which itself turns out to owe a debt to his late father's life's work. It's complicated. There's a lot of building of mythology to cover the next few films. And probably a bit too much of everything, all things told.

What's it like? Okay, so it is a little bloated and it feels like far too much is being squeezed in. At times the problematic spectre of Spider-man 3 and its excess of villains looms large and always there is the distinct memory of Spider-man 2 (the one with Dr Octopus), which kept things lean, exciting, engaging and comprehensible. That's not to say that TAS2 is a failure, far from it. The relationship between Parker and Gwen Stacy is believable and involving and Parker's feelings of guilt at having dishonoured the dying wish of her father is well-conveyed by having Parker see Gwen's dad here and there with a disapproving look on his face. Andrew Garfield is an excellent Parker and Spidey, both awkward/nerdy and confident/flippant when the characters require it. Despite a suit that robs him of facial expressions, Garfield convinces just as much as Spidey as he does as Parker, even if director Mark Webb continues to seem much more at home with character interactions than action set pieces.

Admittedly high-quality CGI work dominates those action set pieces, which robs them of a certain amount of heft, but the human stakes are sold by the cast so that we do at least continue to care about the outcome. As a twitchy, ultimately malevolent Harry, Dane DeHaan is excellent and we are easily convinced by the rapport that is quickly established between Harry and Peter. The building of Peter's backstory and specifically the secrecy and mystery of his parents' disappearance is teased but not frustratingly so - we are given enough to satisfy without the film showing its hand too clearly.

We also get a fore-taste of what Oscorp is going to be up to over the next couple of films, with the current appetite among films for franchise-building and multi-film story arcs tending to overload the film when it could do with being lighter on its feet, but this is the cinematic air we breath these days, so we had better get used to it. Exciting and funny, entertaining and engaging, but not ultimately hugely memorable or life-transforming, The Amazing Spider-man 2 is good but not great.

Should I see it? If you like this sort of thing, then it will go down a treat. If not, this will be unlikely to make a convert of you. There are certainly better and more entertaining comic book properties doing the rounds this year, but there is something enduring about the appeal of Spider-man. Although there is a lot of back-story and mythology presented here, what is lacking is subtext, depth and meaning. The eyes are dazzled, but the mind less so. The themes from the series' current high-water mark, Spider-man 2 of duty, insecurity, burdensome responsibility and loss of power are lost here amidst all of the noise, leaving us altogether less engaged. Although Garfield sells the weight of the consequences of his choices, it feels like an afterthought, an add-on, rather than a vein running through. Not every film can be Schindler's List or The Shawshank Redemption, full of meaning, weight and subtext, and there is of course a place and time for entertainment, but this outing for Spidey felt hollow in the end and the gruesome countenance of the Green Goblin really upset my usually fairly robust 8 year-old to the point of him wanting to leave the auditorium, so exercise the usual 12A discretion in relation to younger children.

Divergent (2014)

What's it about? In a dystopian future, where some sort of conflict has resulted in Chicago being turned into a walled city, society is divided into five factions. Although children are raised by their parents within a certain faction (Amity are peaceful and mostly work in farming crops for the other factions, Dauntless are brave and exciting and serve as security/peace-keeping, Candor are honest, Erudite are clever and logical and Abnegation are selfless), at the age of 16 each child takes a test which results in them being allocated to a certain faction. Beatrice ("Tris") produces unusual results in her aptitude test, revealing her to be "Divergent" - not naturally suited to one faction over another - and although her parents are in Abnegation, she is drawn to the excitement of Dauntless and chooses them in her allocation ceremony. As she then progresses through her training, Tris becomes aware of political shenanigans involving Dauntless, Erudite and the fight for power over and control of the city.

What is it like? An adaptation of book one in a young adult series, set in a dystopian future, built around a strong female protagonist - the shadow of Hunger Games hangs over Divergent, but it is its own creature and nowhere near as derivative as might be feared. Despite the somewhat cumbersome synopsis set out above, the future world and its rules are created fairly economically and there is relatively little clunky exposition. The characters are well-drawn (credit of course to author Veronica Roth for creating a believable future world and populating it with three-dimensional characters), the narrative moves along briskly and we are able to care about and understand motivations, destinies and demises. Tris must pass through her training with enough success to not be eliminated and cast out of Dauntless and her brittle strength and determination are convincingly portrayed by Shailene Woodley. The rest of the supporting characters are less well fleshed out, but this is a story all about Tris and only the first of three books, so it is a minor quibble. The leaders of Dauntless are suitably ambiguous and the development of relationships and antagonisms believably progressed. As the manipulative and menacing leader of Erudition, Kate Winslet brings real heft. Indeed, it is easy to imagine Winslet playing Tris if Divergent had been made fifteen years ago.

As with The Hunger Games films, Divergent doesn't flinch from genuine consequences, abrupt violence and the deaths of significant characters. It would be nonsense for it to be otherwise and the film trusts audiences to be grown up and engaged enough to appreciate the narrative coherence and integrity that requires such steps to be taken. Action sequences and set pieces are suitably thrilling, most of the characters are engaging and consistent and the film ends on a note that leaves us looking forward to the next instalment. 

Should I see it? Although it depends on your appetite for this sort of thing, even someone like me who could take or leave this sort of thing was suitably engaged. Although parents can take under 12's into a 12A certificate, the BBFC continue to (rightly) maintain that a 12A rating means that it is not generally considered suitable for children below that age. There is a significant amount of violence, including hand to hand combat, knives and guns and although the film's themes (Who am I? What is my place in the world? Do I fit in? Should I toe the line or embrace my desired destiny? Why am I different?) are important for young and old to grapple with, the reality is that those going through their teens and therefore adolescence are more in need of engaging with these ideas and more likely to find them affecting. Younger children may be excited by the visuals, but ultimately may find the violence and death on display a bit much. If you are a concerned parent, you can always look at the BBFC's detailed listing for this (or any other film). Click on this link for more guidance on this important issue.

Twelve Years A Slave (2014)

What's it about? Solomon Northup is a free man, living in the state of New York and making a living for himself, his wife and their two children as a violinist. He is invited by two travelling circusmen to joint them on a tour of Washington, at the end of which is drugged, imprisoned and sold into slavery in the South. His initial indignation at his plight and his refusal to "play the part" of a compliant slave, eventually begins to give way as he realises that although mere survival feels wholly unsatisfactory, it may be preferable to the only other alternative.

What is it like? Slavery in the US has been handled on the big screen before, but rarely very well. Important literary works like Uncle Tom's Cabin have been adapted but often ineffectively and so it was unclear how Northup's hugely important memoir was going to fare, especially in the hands of a British director, working on only his third full length feature. All such concerns can be fully and emphatically set aside. As almost unwatchable as Twelve Years a Slave might be in places, it is a hugely important, utterly effective and devastatingly impactful film that deserves its "instant classic" tag like few other films in recent memory. Scenes of lynching, whipping and rape are of course harrowing but they are not dwelt upon gratuitously - on the contrary, these moments are presented starkly, bleakly and truthfully. At times, horrendous events unfold on screen as other slaves dutifully go about their duties elsewhere within the shot - so commonplace are such events for them that they almost disregard them, yet we are devastated by them at the same time. It is a tonal tightrope that, like Spielberg's Schindler's List, is exceedingly difficult to walk. Too much bleak miserablism and your audience switches off, denying them an essential history lesson. Too little truth and reality and you tell a lie and dishonour those who suffered (and continue to do so).

Chiwetel Ejiofor is utterly compelling as Northup, dignified, resilient, steadfast, righteous, broken. So much of the story and his experiences is conveyed with a look, a glance, a moment - it is a phenomenal piece of work and rightly lauded and lavished with awards earlier this year. Tears are likely to come at various intervals and the more monstrous characters will cause rage to rise within us as well - the inhumanity and injustice of what was meted out for centuries continues to be a wound that won't heal. The climax to the film is necessarily cathartic, but the abiding sense of loss, that something has been taken that cannot be restored, is what remains with us. Heart-breaking but essential.

Should I see it? If at all possible, yes. The film's (UK) classification of 15 is probably right, given the levels of violence, abuse and swearing depicted on screen, but unlike other films with that classification where the violence is played for laughs and the swearing likewise, Twelve Years a Slave is devastating. Many will feel that they would rather not sit through something so traumatic and that is an understandable viewpoint. Similarly, younger teenagers might benefit from the history lesson but caution should be taken in exposing them to something as grown up as this. It is not a film for the faint-hearted, but it has so much to commend it. Hope and despair, humanity and inhumanity, hatred and injustice and a scar on the conscience of an entire country. Monumental.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

What's it about? Picking up after the climax to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, DOS takes us back to the Dwarf kingdom, where Smaug the dragon jealously guards a colossal hall of unimaginable treasure. Along the way, Bilbo and the rag-tag company of dwarves run into benevolent and not-so benevolent men, ambiguous  and powerful elves, ride barrels down a mighty set of rapids and then finally square off against the eponymous creature, who needless to say will not easily or gladly be parted from his gold.

What's it like? For those who found Unexpected Journey too slow and uneventful, those wrongs are righted here to a degree. DOS moves quickly and is generally far more full of incident than the scene-setting first part. Having said that, a volume as slender as The Hobbit never had any business being fleshed out into three 2.5 hour films, so there is still a bagginess here that cannot be avoided or denied. Set pieces such as the afore-mentioned barrel run down the rapids and the finale with Smaug are thrilling and effective and Martin Freeman continues to bring a perfect blend of innocence and bite to Bilbo. With thirteen dwarves, some were bound to continue to fade into the background and it is difficult to remember much from most of them. Even with a long running time, it was always going to be hard to keep them from being largely anonymous. 

Peter Jackson brings Orlando Bloom back as Legolas and introduces an entirely new character in the shape of Evangeline Lilly's Tauriel, an elf warrior with a bit of a soft spot for one of the dwarves. The fighting and action sequences blend live action with complex digital effects with considerable success and although the whole enterprise feels necessarily other-worldly, it is not a distancing experience. As always, Jackson draws us into a real, convincing, fleshed out world. We believe in the characters in all of their various shades of grey and even if this series of films has already become bloated, we stick with it and most importantly, we care.

Should I see it? There is a lot to like and admire and not too much to be concerned about for younger audiences. There is certainly no sexual content or bad language, but the violence is pretty strong in places. A decapitation is a decapitation, whether it is an orc/goblin head or not. A giant spider attack will not go down well with more delicate sensibilities either, so be warned on that score. On a more positive front, there continues to be a lot of interesting content about power and corruption, the rise of insidious, infectious evil, pride and greed and a longing for home. As is often the case, these important and weighty themes can be lost amongst the loud noises, but they are there if you are prepared to look for them.

Man of Steel (2013)

What's it about? Krypton is on the brink of destruction due to out of control mining of the planet's core. General Zod and his cohorts seek to take over control from the planet's ruling body, discovering in the process that Jor-El and his wife Lara have violated Krypton's laws by conceiving and giving birth to a child the "old-fashioned" way, instead of through the now normal genetic engineering approach. Before Zod can stop them, Jor-El and Lara launch their son towards earth in an escape craft, knowing that Earth's yellow sun will bestow on Kal-El powers that will render him all but invincible.

When Kal-El crash-lands in Kansas he is found and adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent who quickly discover that he is no ordinary child. As the newly-named Clark grows up and his powers develop he struggles to come to terms with them, hide them and control them and as he moves into adulthood he becomes a nomadic loner, although his occasional use of his powers begins to attract the attentions of Lois Lane, a reporter for The Daily Planet. Then, Zod and his associates arrive, searching for Kal-El and planning to take over the planet. Clark must come to terms with who he really is and take his stand on behalf of his adopted home.

What is it like? As has been the case with much of director Zack Snyder's output, this one divided audiences, perhaps moreso than it divided critics who mostly seemed to enjoy the approach taken to this most iconic of superheroes. The opening scenes on Krypton play out as full-on sci-fi, with the planet proving beautifully and richly rendered with harsh, angular landscapes and suitably other-worldly flora and fauna. Kal-El/Clark is presented as a person very much out of place, not feeling at home and not sure of his place in the world. His conversations with Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent are the richest elements of the film, his plea of "why can't we go back to pretending I'm your son?" met immediately with, "you are my son". Zod is presented as suitably villainous by the outstanding Michael Shannon, his performance wholly different from but just as compelling as that of Terence Stamp in the original franchise. Amy Adams' Lois Lane is a perhaps a little thin, but Henry Cavill really delivers as Superman, covering his move from solitude to prominence adroitly and always convincing as a fully-rounded character.

As the story moves into its final act and Zod and Supes set about each other, we do find ourselves embroiled in the seemingly now unavoidable massive city-wide destruct-othon. As Zod comes to terms with his acquisition of the same powers enjoyed by Superman, they inevitably lay into each other with increasing gusto, but the wholesale collateral destruction does feel a little too familiar to really impact. Likewise, the decision to play the film very straight and very serious will not suit everyone. It is a definite and committed approach and works excellently, but many will protest "where is the fun?". With Christopher Nolan on board as producer, this was always going to take the Batman/serious approach, so if nothing else go in with your eyes wide open. This is not being played for laughs.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

What's it about? In this long-anticipated sequel to 2004's cult favourite (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy), we catch up with Ron and his wife Veronica Corningstone in 1980's New York. They co-anchor the news, but in a shake up he is fired and she is promoted. Ron heads back to San Diego to compere a dolphin show at Sea World, until one day a producer from GNN (Global News Network) invites him to read the news on a revolutionary new 24-hour news station. He rounds up the old gang (Brick, Brian and Champ) and heads back to the Big Apple to once more read the news.

What's it like? Firstly, let's get the obvious and important question out of the way. No, this is not as funny as the original. That might be on account of how long Anchorman has had to lodge itself in our affections, its freewheeling style, throw enough gags and something will stick approach eventually wearing down all but the most determined nay-sayer. It feels at times like a deliberate and calculated attempt to repeat a happy accident, the winning improv of the original becoming more inconsistent and bloated this time around. Two hours is really too long for a simple comedy film, but the pretty consistent laughs and decent level of invention at least keeps it from feeling like it has overstayed its welcome.

With this many gags being thrown at us, some inevitably fall flat, but there is a great deal to enjoy here, even if almost all of the strongest material has been spoiled by the super-saturation of the marketing campaign. For every mis-firing line, you know that something laugh out loud funny is only a moment away, with Brick and Ron continuing to provide the steadiest stream of consistent amusement.

Interestingly, Anchorman 2 also ventures into territory that the first film didn't remotely consider, namely some unexpected commentary on journalistic integrity, the importance of family and the impending death of traditional news reporting in the face of the trivial and irrelevant. Tonally, it grates a little alongside the more outlandish comedy moments (Ron's attempts to ingratiate himself to the family of his African-American boss is especially wince-inducing) and perhaps the rehashing of some of the best moments from the first film (instead of selecting a cologne we see Brian's condom collection, we get more jazz flute and there is another cameo-laden inter-news-team rumble near the end) could have benefited from a little more inventiveness, but on the whole this will make you laugh. A lot.

Should I see it? That depends. If you didn't get the first film, this will not do anything for you. It is rated 15 for some strong language and sexual content, so younger children should be kept away. For the most part the humour doesn't rely on lewdness, but there are some more adult references that might turn off some. The balance is perhaps much the same as with the first film, the comedy alternating between raunchiness and silliness. This will work for fans, but otherwise might feel like listening in on a load of private jokes.

Monsters University

What's it about? Set many years before the events of Monsters Inc, Monsters University sees Mike and Sulley enrol at Monsters University, where they intend to study the art of scaring. Mike is studious but not scary, Sulley is lazy, living off his family reputation and his instinctive scaring skills. Both of them find themselves thrown off the course and the only way back on will be to team up with a fraternity of misfits and try to win the Scare Games.

What's it like? Monsters Inc is firmly established as a classic Pixar feature - funny, inventive, intelligent and beautifully crafted. Monsters University may struggle to endure to the same extent, but it is still a very accomplished, successful film. Most live action college-set comedies are pretty bawdy and so it is something of a challenge to swim in those waters while still keeping everything child-friendly and appropriate. That Pixar manage it so deftly is a sign of their enduring talent. We meet a younger, nerdy and eager Mike, who befriends Randall Boggs (before he went "bad") but finds himself at odds with Sulley. Billy Crystal's voice work continues to be one of the high points of animation in general and this series of films in particular and a combination of carefully crafted conversations, great visual gags and dynamic set pieces keep our attention easily through a long-ish running time (IMDb says 1h40 and it feels like it).

Whether chasing a mascot, breaking into the scare factory or navigating a tunnel full of toxic spiky plants, the exciting and funny action sequences are inventive, even if they don't hit the heights of the finale of Monsters Inc. The third act is not just thrilling, it also fits in with the character arcs of Mike and Sulley perfectly, eschewing the obvious in favour of something more considered, subtle and imaginative. Brief appearances by Roz, Waternoose, the Abominable Snowman and Celia all help the film blend seamlessly into where Monsters Inc kicks off and the overall message of "maybe who you're meant to be isn't who you thought you wanted to be" is far more welcome than the alternative of "be who you want to be, just wish hard enough". Not as instantly memorable or quotable as Monsters Inc, Monsters University nonetheless has much to commend it, including a slug racing to class, a great gag revolving around teenage cliches, a thoroughly funny mum and a University principal who is genuinely creepy (clickety-clack go a hundred spiky feet).

Should I see it? It's not essential big screen viewing, but it is another really strong effort from Pixar. They have been off their game a little from Cars 2 onwards, but this is still really good stuff. There just isn't anything offensive, mean or inappropriate about this film and although very tiny children will be scared by it, everyone else will have a blast. Afterwards, try to have a conversation with your kids about their dreams and ambitions, what they feel called to, or interested in and what they might feel God has for them. Monsters University has a lot to say about those times when we might become uncertain as to whether we are cut out for what we had pinned all of our hopes on. For slightly older children, this might be a way to start to explore these sorts of issues with them. Enjoy!

Star Trek Into Darkness

What's it about? After earning the captaincy of the Enterprise in the first film, Kirk has been leading the crew and the ship on a series of adventures. After a run in with a far less developed planet involving saving them but violating the Prime Directive, Kirk is chastised by Admiral Pike for his attitude. Before much can be done (other than taking away Kirk's captaincy), a terrorist by the name of John Harrison unleashes a campaign on Star Fleet, to which Kirk volunteers to respond.

What's it like? I really like Star Trek. Really. A lot. The 2009 reboot was an absolute master-class in rebooting, prequelising, whatever you want to call it - respectful but free, exciting but character-driven, JJ Abrams showed himself to have the Midas touch. All of this puts a lot of pressure on his return to the much-loved franchise and he doesn't buckle. Yes, some of the characterisation is sacrificed in the rush to keep it all moving, but there is still time and space for each character to develop, still a compelling story and of course, so much lens flare.

Kirk is still cocky, but needs to learn to toe the line. Spock is in control of his emotions, but at times, like all of us, needs to be able to cut loose. Harrison is an excellent villain, played with lip-curling relish by Benedict Cumberbatch who handles the Lector/Starling-like sequences in the Enterprise brig with as much aplomb as the physical fights and chases. His background is well fleshed-out and the resonance with the original Star Trek series is threaded through convincingly and cleverly. The space battles are thrilling, as are the scenes of hand to hand combat, with a real heft and crunch to one particular "altercation" where the eventual futility of all of Kirk's rage is shown to him. He can exhaust himself in anger, but he cannot undo what has been done.

As with the previous film, this stays close enough to the tone, spirit and style of classic Trek to keep die-hard fans happy, but still manages to be its own beast. Many of the third act developments will bring a knowing smile to the lips, but there are still surprises in store, even for those who might think that they know what is coming. Excellent entertainment.

Should I see it? I guess it's not for everyone and it doesn't quite hit the heights of the previous film. It has a better villain, but less compelling character work, more action, but fewer affecting emotional scenes. There is an infuriatingly gratuitous underwear scene, but mercifully little bad language. There is some violence but little blood and there are clear consequences for both the victims and the perpetrators of that violence. The spectacle of course lends itself to big screen enjoyment, but this might just as well be enjoyed for a family DVD night with a wheelbarrow of popcorn.

Iron Man 3

What's it about? After the dramatic events of The Avengers, Tony Stark is suffering. He can't sleep and he experiences regular panic attacks. He has been tinkering as well, producing dozens of new suits. Meanwhile, a scientist by the name of Killian has been developing new technology to enhance the strength and healing powers of human test subjects and a new terrorist by the name of The Mandarin is unleashing attacks on America.

What's it like? Shane Black, the writer and director, is new to the superhero genre but has worked with Robert Downey Jr on Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and the same flippant tone finds its way into IM3 too. As with all of Marvel's output these days, there is plenty of spectacle, plenty of witty lines, lots of fun, a reasonable amount of peril and a 12A certificate as standard. The presentation of Stark as a fragile man, suffering and insecure is an excellent and realistically handled direction to take the character in and returning him to some of the simplicity that characterised the first act of the first film in this franchise is a sensible move.

The grand finale (as shown in the trailer) is a little bit too crash bang wallop and although it is exciting, there is the usual loss of character for the sake of spectacle and as with the worst excesses of the Transformers franchise, it can become a little difficult to see exactly what is going on. Having said that, the earlier sequences, especially the character-oriented segments involving Stark striking up a friendship with a kid in the small town he crash lands in and the unveiling of The Mandarin are really engaging, with excellent script work from Black and Drew Pearce. The cast deliver the goods across the board, especially RDJ, who has made the character his own and newcomers Guy Pearce and Ben Kingsley give good villain.

The pacing and the story development are great and random jokes about Croydon and Downton Abbey will please UK audiences in particular. There is a creeping tendency for films to get longer and longer these days and although 130 minutes is a bit much here, it could be worse. There isn't too much loose flab and we are kept well entertained throughout.

Should I see it? I saw it twice, returning the second time with my three children. It was a bit much for my daughter, who didn't enjoy some of the scarier scenes and eventually went off with my wife to do something else. My 12 and 7 year olds loved it and although 12A's these days can carry a certain amount of bad language, there was relatively little of that here (no f-words, just one fairly light-hearted use of p***y). There are some interesting themes being explored here in relation to fear, anxiety and the fragility of our emotions and if you are able to take the time, it can be good to discuss those with your kids.
 

Wreck-It Ralph

What's it about? Wreck-it Ralph is the antagonist in a computer game named after its hero, Fix-It Felix. He is fed up of being the baddie and so decides to set off into other computer games to become a hero so that he can live in the penthouse and be friends with the other good guys. On his way, he meets Vanellope, a girl stuck in a cart racing game who wants to win a race and reset the game. Ralph has been wreaking unknown havoc on his way through the gaming world and the question becomes, can he fix what he has messed up, before the computer games world is destroyed forever?

What's it like? Very sweet. Although targeting the young, it has in-jokes that gamers from the 80's will savour but no ham-fisted "oh look, aren't we being really edgy sneaking in rude grown-up jokes" that could have spoiled this endearing confection. Though the plot through-line is simple and comprehensible, it isn't so simplistic and twee in its execution as to alienate or frustrate the parents who will inevitably accompany their children to screenings. The "just be happy being you" message is admittedly superficial and reductive, but there are worthwhile points made about how we are all complex shades of grey rather than "good" or "bad" and themes of kindness, sacrifice and generosity are well-aired too.

 

The animation is, as you would expect, superb and the voice work from John C Reilly and Sarah Silverman is delightful. The different computer game worlds are imaginatively, intelligently and humorously designed and rendered and there are plenty of subtle jokes, as well as laugh out loud moments. In essence, it covers all that a proper family film should - entertaining, well-written, eventful and well-paced and with a decent amount of subtext for chewing over later. Great stuff.

Should I see it? Absolutely. There is plenty here for everyone to enjoy and nothing that is going to offend or upset. Tiny children may find the alien/bug things a little bit much, but my six-year old lapped it all up. It is funny and worthwhile, so check it out.

 

Les Miserables (2013)

What's it all about? Jean Valjean has completed a lengthy prison sentence after stealing a loaf of bread. Javert, a ruthless and inflexible policeman, vows to watch him like a hawk. Unable to find any work as a parolee, Valjean is taken in by a priest, but then is caught stealing from the church. In an act of undeserved mercy and grace, the priest tells the police that he gave the items to Valjean, who then resolves to reform and live his life much better. He eventually ends up looking after Cosette, the young daughter of Fantine, a worker in his factory who has died in poverty and though he longs for a better life for him and her, Javert is ever on his tail.

What's it like? Goodness me. This is as moving, affecting and uplifting a film-watching experience as you could hope for. I am a bit of a Philistine when it comes to musical theatre and so haven't seen Les Mis on the stage, but on the evidence of this it is easy to see why so many flock to it. As Valjean, Hugh Jackman (Wolverine from the X-Men films, but an accomplished musical theatre performer long before he hit that franchise) hits all the right notes, broken, defiant, tender, sympathetic and strong. As the doomed Fantine, Anne Hathaway is simply breath-taking, summing up in one devastating rendition of "I dreamed a dream" a whole backstory, a whole life, a whole tragedy. In one take, and that an unblinking close-up on her face, the horrendous tale of a life torn apart and hope destroyed is told and you never fully recover.

 

Director Tom Hooper, who was rightly much lauded for The Kings Speech, sensibly opens up the stage-bound production with soaring camera shots and long-range vistas, both of Paris and the church where Valjean first experiences grace and mercy. He managed to persuade his cast to sing live on set rather than lip-sync to a pre-recorded soundtrack, which exhausted them to a man and woman, but delivers in spades in drawing us into what can be a distancing technique of having virtually every syllable sung rather than spoken. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter excel as the ghastly Thenardiers, irredeemably unpleasant and venal and although Russell Crowe's signing is a little below par, his performance as the inflexibly ruthless and unforgiving Javert is powerful and affecting. As unable to accept forgiveness as to give it, Javert has nowhere to go when Valjean shows him undeserved mercy.

 

Should I see it? Yes. It has been and gone from cinemas now, but it will be on DVD before long. Some of the scale will be lost on the small screen, but I would guess none of the impact. Certainly its enduring themes of undeserved grace and mercy to the merciless will have no less impact on your TV. Some of the earlier scenes, especially where Fantine slips into prostitution after losing her job, will upset younger children, but older children will benefit hugely from so powerful and evocative a depiction of God's mercy to us in our undeserving helplessness. That a man of God is the one person who helps Valjean in his desperation and who goes on to forgive and extend mercy when Valjean bites the hand that feeds is something for us all to dwell on and aspire to.

 

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

What's It About? Christopher Nolan brings his rightly lauded Batman trilogy to a close. It is eight years since the events that concluded The Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne is a recluse at the rebuilt Wayne manor, Batman a fugitive from the law. His years of crime-fighting have wrecked his body and he hobbles around the mansion on a walking stick. Meanwhile, a mercenary by the name of Bane has arrived in Gotham City, working with an industrialist who seeks control of Wayne Enterprises, but with a murky agenda of his own. Selina Kyle, a cat burglar of surprising ability and agility is also lurking, seeking a way to wipe the slate clean and start a new life.

*****

What's it Like? In a word, astonishing. Some critics, friends of mine among them, were less impressed, but all comic-book films, all summer blockbusters, should be this intelligent, exciting, thought-provoking and affecting. It might seem a little long at 160-odd minutes, but as has often been said, a good film cannot be too long and a bad film cannot be too short. The running time doesn't drag at all but instead gives room for characters to breathe - developing believably without story strands feeling rushed. Towards the end, a couple of developments feel a little too conveniently quick, but this is to be forgiven in the overall scheme of things.
This time around, Bruce Wayne is given more time and we see that he continues to be weighed down and inconsolable over the loss of Rachel Dawes, though still beset by a literally crippling sense of duty and responsibility. As Anne Hathaway's excellently portrayed Selina Kyle says to Batman at one point, "you don't owe these people anything more, you've given them everything", "no I haven't", he replies, "not yet". It is heart-breaking, moving and compelling in a way that Nolan's film sometimes fail to be - he always crafts excellent stories, but has not always managed to get to our hearts, he has not always made us care. Here he does.
It taks a good chunk of the film before Batman returns and this enables other characters their time - although Bane wears a mask that obscures most of his face and some of his voice, Tom Hardy makes for a physically threatening and intellectually challenging foe for Batman, Gary Oldman is excellent again as Commissioner Gordon, bringing shades of dark and light to the dignified chief of police. As the new cop on the beat, John Blake, Joseph Gordon-Levitt essays goodness, compassion, decency and integrity and gets plenty of time to shine as the action closes in on Gotham in ther film's latter stages.
To say too much else plot-wise would be spoiler-ish, but there is a lot going on and it will take repeat viewings or at least a lot of thinking time to piece it all together and make sense of it, but it is thrilling, fascinating, compelling stuff. The story may not have the propulsive, linear clarity of The Dark Knight, but it touches on sacrifice, forgiveness, hope, despair, self-destruction, political and economic commentary and fate/destiny. A lot to get through in anyone's book and for Nolan to have done so amidst such thrilling action and without getting bogged down in "worthiness" is to his utter and enduring credit. See it.

*****

Should I see it? Yes. By avoiding any blood-letting during the violence, Nolan has kept himself to a 12A certificate, but there is a lot of brutality and callousness on display here and under-12's should stay away. No doubt lots of children below that age will want to see it, so exercise your parental decision-making carefully. It is of course unmanageably expensive to see it twice, once on your own and once with your kids, but somehow you will need to find a way to test the waters for younger children. There is no nudity, sexual content or coarse language, but the themes and content are grown-up across the board. Much of the boardroom shenanigans won't make much sense to the younger audience members, so you may prefer to wait for the DVD/Bluray release to enable you to pause, skip sections and explain what is going on.
For those who want to see it and can, there is so much that bears discussing and contemplating over a drink afterwards. How much of ourselves are we prepared to give for those in need? When despair threatens to overwhelm us, can we find the hope to persevere, to overcome, to triumph? What do we do with our fears? Can we wipe the slate clean and start again? Can we live with ourselves when we run away, or set someone up so that we can get away? Can we stand by when those we love and care for are bent on self-destruction? Can we overcome the seemingly insurmountable? There's a month's worth of dinner table discussion right there.

The Amazing Spider-man (2012)

What's it about? Peter Parker, orphaned as a young boy, now living with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May is trying to get by at school. One day, during a visit to a gene-splicing facility run by Dr Curt Connors, he is bitten by a spider and everything changes - super powers abound, as do tragedy, trials and adventure.

*****

What's it like? It has only been ten years since the last time the Spider-man franchise was launched and a mere five years since the curtain came down on Sam Raimi's very successful trilogy with the flawed but entertaining Spider-man 3 (you know, with Sandman, Venom and all that stuff). Some would say that it is too soon to re-launch with another origin story, especially with it touching on the same bases as last time around - same school bully (Flash), same spider, same powers, same character arcs - but to its credit this manages to be its own creature. Reverting to the comic-book web-shooters instead of Raimi's organic version, giving us Gwen Stacey as Parker's love and trying to give a more over-arching story regarding the fate of Parker's parents all help put clear water between this and the Raimi/Maguire trilogy.
Director Mark Webb (whose last film was the excellent (500) Days of Summer) handles action and character beats with aplomb, even if the villain (Connors turns into Lizard as a result of trying to re-grow his lost arm) suffers from a cut in the special effects budget this time around (Spider-man 3 cost $300m, this a mere $80m). The film takes its time in moving through Parker's story arc and Andrew Garfield, despite being 28, makes for a far more convincing nerdy high school kid than Tobey Maguire ever did. The chemistry between Parker and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is affecting and perhaps the most successful aspect of the film, although Garfield deserves kudos for delivering Spider-man's witty quips even through the limitations of a spandex suit.
An improvement on the first and third Spider-man films but falling short of Spider-man 2 (though there is no shame in that) this is excellent entertainment and has a little to say as well. Well worth your time.

*****

Should I see it? That depends on whether this is your sort of thing, I suppose. There is no strong language as far as I can recall and although Lizard and Spidey have a few pretty meaty scraps, the violence is kept the right side of the film's 12A certificate. Lizard would be unlikely to scare or upset anyone other than the very young, though the theme of losing parents may be hard to process for the young as well. Thematically, the ideas of coping with school, standing up to bullies, using your strength and opportunities responsibly and protecting the vulnerable are all worth examining and talking through with family and friends and so the film presents a opportunity to dive into that realm. There are deeper, more meaningful films out there, but this is far from a superficial exercise. Watch it and engage with it.

The Five Year Engagement (2012)

What's It About? Tom (Jason Segel) and Violet (Emily Blunt) have been together for a year, living in sunny San Francisco, when Tom proposes on New Years Eve. They start planning their wedding, when suddenly Violet is offered a job as a University lecturer in snow-bound Michigan. They move there and put wedding plans on hold for a little while. As Violet's career takes off and Tom struggles to find meaningful work, cracks start to show and they wonder if they will ever make it down the aisle.

*****

What's It Like? Sal and I saw this film during a weekend away and it was just what the doctor ordered - funny and sweet, realistic but heart-felt. It comes from producer Judd Apatow (Knocked Up, The 40-year Old Virgin, Bridesmaids etc), which is not necessarily a guarantee of quality, or an assurance that everyone will like it, but we did. The sequences where their relationship starts to feel the strain are affectingly realistic and thanks to the casting of such a likeable duo, even when they respectively act like boneheads, we still pull for them, like them and want to see them work it out.
At a fraction over 2 hours, the running time is a little too long for a romantic comedy, but it never drags too badly, benefiting from supporting actors who keep our attention and keep the chuckles coming. Although it has some highly amusing sequences, it is refreshingly free of gross-out humour or unpleasantness, relying instead on genuine laughs from relatable and funny scenarios.
There are a few cheats along the way. The characters that serve as the respective temptations and distractions for Tom and Violet are written and played so as to never be able to be legitimate competition, which drains a little bit of dramatic tension, but then it could be argued that the outcome is obvious and something for which everyone is rooting anyway, so what's the harm? Throw in a couple of Sesame Street character impersonations and one of the wildest "man of the wilderness" beards seen in many a year and you've got a great night out (or in).

*****

Should I See It? It has a well-earned 15 certificate from a combination of frequent strong language and regular sex scenes, as well as quite a lot of sexually-themed dialogue. For teenagers, it might represent an unhelpful dose of content and subject-matter that will not help them much in their current or future relationships. Having said that, the question begs is this sort of thematic content helpful for any of us? It is easy to say, "well, I'm married, so sexual content in films isn't a problem anymore". That is of course simplistic and dangerous. In the end, let your own conscience guide you. If you suspect this sort of content will cause you to stumble, or if it just isn't your thing, if the language will annoy you and prevent you enjoying the film, just stay away. If your teenage children want to see it, try to make it a family trip. If they don't fancy that idea, at least try to make a point afterwards of talking the film through with them - see what they thought of it and whether the point of view it puts across grates with them. As always, try to engage with films and your family and friends, rather than letting these opportunities pass you by. The film has much to say about relationships, co-habiting, faithfulness, predatory men and women, marriage, a sense of purpose in life, careers. Lots to think about.

The Avengers (2012)

What's It About? Uniting a veritable bounty of Marvel's cherished characters, we see Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Black Widow, Hawkeye and Nick Fury join forces to prevent Earth becoming enslaved to Loki, Thor's vengeful brother.

*****

What's It Like? This is comic-book film-making on an epic and virtually peerless scale. Whereas some properties have "gone dark" (see Nolan's Batman films), this manages a seemingly impossible task of balancing half a dozen big characters, giving them each their moment to shine and still presenting a genuine threat in a light-hearted but never flippant or trite manner. It could easily have become bloated, weighed down by the need to cover so many characters and give them a reason to join forces, but the excellent, intelligent, funny and accessible script moves through the gears quickly, establishing each character with economy without feeling rushed.
Although Iron Man is the most obviously charismatic character and has had the most successful films out of this bunch, Robert Downey Jr never tries to steal the show, enjoying his moments in the sun without embarking on an ego trip to dominate every scene. Instead, it falls to the more measured Mark Ruffalo, or more to the point his alter-ego Hulk to run away with virtually every scene he is in. Hulk's fight with Thor and his encounter with Loki are particular highlights, though the early square (triangle?) off between Captain America, Thor and Iron Man manages to be thrilling, funny and serious all at the same time - there are stakes here, not just witty quips to make us laugh.
In Loki and his assembled minions we have a menacing villain, one who is able to convince as a match for such an abundance of super-powered heroes and although the rules of franchises dictate that we suspect we know who is going to make it to the closing credits, the film isn't afraid to show occasional ruthlessness. The first big blockbuster of the summer has set the bar exceedingly high and it is doubtful that Prometheus, Spider-man and Batman will find it easy to measure up.

Should I See It? Yes, you really should. It won't be to everyone's tastes but I've yet to speak to anyone who didn't like it. It is refreshingly free of any coarse language, even though the film's 12A certificate would enable it to get away with a certain amount. There is no sexual content and although there is plenty of violence, it is for the most part bloodless, with the indestructible Hulk, the armoured Iron Man and the Norse god Thor taking the sternest beatings. I would not have any reservations about taking my 6 year old son to see it, if that is any help.

Chronicle (2012)

What's it about? Andrew is struggling at high school. He is picked on, lonely, his mother is critically ill at home and his father no longer works as a fireman after being injured. He starts chronicling his life through the lens of a video camera, including his drunk father's abusive behaviour towards him and the bullying he suffers at school. One evening at a school party, he and his cousin Matt and the prospective high school president Steve find a hole in the ground that leads through to a mysterious underground chamber housing a seemingly other-worldly crystalline object. None of them can resist touching it and shortly thereafter they find themselves developing increasingly potent telekinetic powers.

*****

What's it like? With the whole film being shot through Andrew's video camera, obvious connections will be made to everything from The Blair Witch Project, through District 9 and Cloverfield. Thankfully, there is none of the shaky, nausea-inducing amateurish filming that made some of these sorts of films a little unpopular and instead there is good reason why Andrew should be filming everything and if nothing else, it is the first time we have seen a superhero film (which is what this boils down to) done in this format.
What sets this film apart from the superhero genre however, is the refreshing lack of obvious and cliched character arcs. Rather than everyone becoming noble and seeing the potential their powers have for making the world a better place, or becoming corrupted by boundless power and trying to take over the world, we instead get teenagers larking about, playing pranks, getting their own back on bullies, making mistakes, acting thoughtlessly and impulsively and trying to work out what might be the right thing to do in unimaginably unique circumstances.
Andrew is the most obviously "troubled" of the three and although he seems like the one most likely to use his powers problematically, our sympathies remain with him. His home life is unmanageably difficult, as his drunk father hits him, blames him, rages at him and insults him and his mother slowly slips away in pain and sadness. Matt and Steve become his friends through their shared experiences, but as their powers escalate in potency, they struggle to understand him and relate to him. Underpinning all of this is the philosophical debate that was also weaved through Jurassic Park and Spider-man - just because you have the ability to do something does not mean that you should. Spider-man reduced it to "with great power comes great responsibility" and Matt essentially offers the same counsel to Andrew, who instead reads up on evolution and bestows upon himself the title "apex predator", which is clearly not going to end well.
The scenes showing the three boys exploring and developing their powers are exciting, funny and engaging and the film moves briskly through these sequences, allowing the characters to develop believably. There is the ongoing sense that everything is at any moment going to go horribly wrong, much to the credit of the director (26-year old debutant Josh Trank) who balances lighter and more edgy, tense moments (and a few big jumps) with real ease. The relatively unknown actors who make up the central threesome are all effortlessly convincing and their respective journeys are believable and compelling. A really great opening volley in what will be a summer of superhero behemoths slugging it out.

*****

Should I see it? You really should. It is certainly one of the best films to grace our screens so far in 2012 and will take some beating, even by its most obvious genre comparatives (Avengers, Batman, Spiderman). As a Christian, I found the film giving me plenty of food for thought, from Andrew's sense of being "different" (even before he acquires super-powers), through the broader thematic issues of hubris, the corrupting ability of power and finding your place in the world. Although Andrew's father is easy to dismiss as a mere brute, a harsh unsympathetic monster, he likewise gives us a lot to ponder in relation to the modern malaise of male impotent rage. He is a man desperately unhappy, weak and angry and takes it out on his son because he doesn't know what else to do. Not to excuse him, but it is an interesting performance and an intriguing character.
The film is rated 12A and contains some swearing (though thankfully none of it too strong) and violence. Younger children will likely find the brutality of Andrew's father more upsetting than anything else and the absence of a sense of fantasy to the more superheroic elements makes the film more affecting and potentially distressing than something like Thor, where you do not feel you are watching real-life events unfold. If you are trying to understand and connect with your teenage children, this might be a good film to see and then use as a way of opening up a dialogue about finding your own identity as a young adult and coming to terms with being different and how we deal with sadness, frustration and the usual challenges of life. Catch it if you can.

The Muppets (2012)

What's it all about? Walter and Gary are brothers, though Gary is a human being and Walter is a Muppet. Walter & Gary discover The Muppet Show as children and grow up to be massive fans. On a trip to California with Gary's long term girlfriend Mary, they visit the Muppet Studios and are saddened to find them run down and all-but abandoned. Walter overhears a conversation between unscrupulous oil prospector Tex Richman and his henchman, when he reveals that if the Muppets cannot raise $10m within the next week to buy back the studio, he will be able to raze it to the ground and dig for oil. Walter and Gary must set about reuniting the Muppets for one big fundraising show, before time runs out for good on the Muppets.

What's it like? Goodness me. The last genuinely decent Muppet film was their take on A Christmas Carol and that was the best part of two decades ago. Since then the quality of the product has dropped off and so has the profile of the releases. Since Muppets in Space, TV movies and Christmas specials have been all there is, until star and co-writer Jason Segel (Gary) decided to try his hand at rescusitating the beloved felt puppets. And what a rescusitation it is. Segel, along with director James Bobin really get the Muppets, really understand what makes them special. What we get then is a suitably and delightfully knock-about round-up of the Muppets, some charming and funny song and dance numbers, an utterly chaotic show featuring talentless but guileless Muppets and all of our favourites chipping in.
The reason why it works so well is precisely because of its understanding of the charm of the original series - no-one knows what they are doing, Fozzie's jokes are terrible, Gonzo's death-defying feats never work, the songs make you laugh, cry and cheer, the show is a shambles but everyone staggers through to the end, the villain is silly and fundamentally harmless, Miss Piggy is prissy and feisty and Kermit holds everything together.
Crucially, the script, songs and performances never make fun of the Muppets or become too arch or knowing. There are occasional tongue in cheek, "we know this is a movie" moments (Gary hands Mary some broken flowers, "sorry, they must have been damaged during that song and dance number we just did") but they are affectionate and in keeping with the grandest traditions of Jim Henson. Some of the traditional voice artists are missing (Frank Oz is a noticeable absentee), but their replacements slot in seamlessly and there is perfect continuity in terms of character traits and tone in relation to the Muppets.
Ultimately this is a return to form of breath-taking quality. There was no reason to expect that The Muppets would be this good, but it really is. Wonderful for the young, nostalgic and heart-warming for the old(er), a perfect film for the family.

Should I see it? Yes, yes, yes. It will perhaps appeal even more to those who grew up with The Muppet Show than your children who are coming to it either later in the day, or off the back of lesser-quality TV specials. There is nothing even remotely rude or offensive here, no "adult" jokes to keep the grownups happy. Instead, the film-makers understand what Pixar understand, namely that funny is funny, however old or young you are. I spent at least half of the film in floods of tears and well up now, every time I think of Kermit's hearfelt rendition of Rainbow Connection. The rest of the film was spent wearing a beaming smile. See it as soon as possible and take as many people with you as you can. An utter joy from start to finish.

Breaking Dawn Part I (2011)

What's it all about? The Twilight Saga continues. Bella, a human teenage girl, has agreed to marry her one true love, the vampire Edward Cullen. Her friend Jacob (who is also a werewolf) is troubled and concerned for her well-being. The plan is that after their honeymoon Edward will "turn" Bella and she will be a vampire with him forever, however she unexpectedly falls pregnant on their honeymoon, creating massive concern within the vampire and werewolf worlds over what sort of creature is growing inside her, whether she can survive the pregnancy and whether everyone (except her and her child) would be better off if the pregnancy were terminated.

*****

What's it like? If you are not familiar with the Twilight films, this film will make little or no sense at all and if you are not interested in them, this will not make a convert of you. For fans, it represents the progression of the saga towards its conclusion and is likely therefore to be considered indispensable. Undoubtedly the films are an acquired taste, being for some utterly banal and for others affecting and compelling. I don't profess to being a fan, though the films do contain some themes that make for interesting discussion and consideration. Bella remains a virgin until her wedding night, a commendable decision and it is altogether welcome to see that element retained, especially in a film for and about teenagers. The protective instincts of her boyfriend Edward and friend Jacob are also interesting to consider, especially in terms of Edward's concerns about his own self-control.
The story takes us from the Pacific North-West USA to a honeymoon in Rio and then back to the US and takes a pretty long time to move along, though on Bella's return, already heavily pregnant after only a few weeks' gestation, everything begins to pick up a bit more of a head of steam. The werewolves want the baby dead, the Cullens (Edward has parents and siblings, in a manner of speaking) have sworn to protect her and Bella is deteriorating horrifically as the baby growing within her begins to drain her. The scenes of her emaciated body are upsetting to say the least, drawing involuntary gasps from most audiences, a convincing combination of make up and CG-work having the desired effect.
Aside from pacing issues and an entirely misjudged scene involving talking werewolves rendered very unconvincingly, this is not a bad entry in the Twilight saga, with the melancholy tone of the earlier films giving way to some rather more adult body-horror in the third act that pushes the boundaries of the film's 12A certificate. If it's your sort of film, you have probably seen it already, if not, you probably won't anyway.

*****

Should I see it? There isn't really enough space here to do this debate justice, but there are serious questions to be answered as to whether a film about vampires and werewolves is especially suitable for us as Christians, especially where the target audience is around the early teen years. Added to that is the issue with this instalment in particular, namely that there is an awful lot of blood and body-horror in the final scenes which the younger and more sensitive among us will not cope well with. Vampires and werewolves are of course long-standing staples of the horror genre and Twilight itself has contributed to a new sub-genre within fiction writing of gothic romance revolving around the supernatural. The representations of both types of creature have tended towards the relatively tame in earlier instalments, but if you will pardon the pun, the delivery/Cesarean scene at the end of Breaking Dawn is pretty full-blooded. I suspect that although the 12A certificate means younger viewers can go along with a parent, anyone younger than their teens would struggle to stomach the later scenes of the film and I cannot recommend that you (if you are a parent considering whether to see the film with your children) take along anyone below secondary school age.
Aside from the horror elements, the film does offer food for thought and debate for Christians. Bella saving her virginity for her wedding night, the relatively subtle consideration of the issue of abortion in the face of the havoc being wreaked on Bella's body, family ties, including honouring your parents, or standing up to your peers when it comes to the question of "doing the right thing", if you can see it with your children (who may have seen it already, or be determined to see it one way or another) it might be good to do so in a way that gives time and space to discuss it afterwards. It is certainly a film that can and should prompt lengthy conversations.