Fresh off the back of an appearance in the Academy Award–nominated 'Inherent Vice', as well as an equally lauded performance in 'Wild', Reese Witherspoon returns to more comedic stomping grounds for the first time since competent if somewhat generic 2012 rom-action-com, 'This Means War'. Unfortunately, the result does little to hit the same heights as her recent dramatic and much earlier comedic turns, as well as the standard elevated by other, similarly-spirited endeavours.

An uptight and by-the-book cop tries to protect the outgoing widow of a drug boss as they race through Texas pursued by crooked cops and murderous gunmen.

Kicking off with an original and actually quite inspired opening, which details the life and motivations of Officer Cooper (Witherspoon), it’s a shame to witness the film slip backwards and rely heavily on outdated clichés and tropes. Writers David Feeney and John Quaintance throw everything at the wall in the name of humour; missing only the kitchen sink, substituted instead for diamond-encrusted shoes. Sadly, very little successfully sticks, with only a running joke regarding Officer Cooper’s height and the age of Daniella Riva (Vergara), as well as Officer Cooper’s climactic choice of disguise, serving to provoke more than chuckles.

Reese Witherspoon gives it her all, throwing herself as unabashedly headlong into role as her character does her assignments, thus imbuing the technically intelligent but frustratingly inept officer with not only a pitch perfect accent but a degree of quirky, endearingly oblivious charm. However, even her considerable abilities are not enough to carry the weight of the writing she has been burdened with. A fact that is exponentially more evident in the scenes she shares with Sofia Vergara, who, is lumbered with a character so stereotypical and over-the-top, there is no room for her to do anything but play broadly into it. She also is extremely game, but the lack of subtlety serves mostly to grate rather than amuse. 

The obvious chemistry apparent in the traditional amid-credit outtakes fails to transfer to the preceding story, with the casual off-screen banter easily eclipsing the scripted humour. The  more dramatic elements and humanising back-story suffer a similar fate, shoe-horned into the reduced run-time in a vain attempt to generate pathos, empathy, and a sense of sisterhood. At no point amid the bickering, betrayals, and out-right cat-fights, does it ever feel believable that a genuine friendship would form, much less that they would rush head-first into danger for the other. Some late-in-the-game twists ably raise the stakes, but feel similarly incongruous and fail to connect with anything that came before, doing nothing to truly deepen the bond.

The mismatched pairing of opposites is nothing new to the world of cinema, and this has nothing new to offer, borrowing unashamedly from the likes of 'Speed' right through to Adam Sandler’s 'Bulletproof'. Director Anne Fletcher sets things in motion early and maintains a consistently rapid pace, navigating some impressive action sequences along the way, but following in the wake of such films as 'Spy', 'Hot Pursuit' not only fails to emulate but actually feels like more than a few step in the opposite direction.

If when watching the 'Inside Out' trailer you found yourself having trouble getting past just how surreal the concept was then I’m afraid that never really goes away, and was my main concern going into the film. It doesn’t help that the film begins with what is arguably one of the weakest Pixar shorts, a film built around a quirky song about a lonely volcano who wishes for love, the point of which seems to be little more than the opportunity to use the terrible pun “I lava you” more than enough times for it to stop being funny. Having said that, 'Inside Out' is a great film in that unique, everything you hope for from Pixar way, and quite possibly the smartest film Pixar have made yet.

Riley is an eleven year old girl living an idyllic life with her loving family in Minnesota where she plays with her friends, goofs around with her parents and excels at hockey on her local team, but she’s not really who our story is about, or … I mean … she is … but … she isn’t.

What it's really about are the emotions that live in Riley’s head, Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust and Anger. Emotions that live inside all of our heads and guide our thoughts and actions. At the centre of our story is Joy, very much the leader of the team and when we first meet the emotions they are working hard to keep Riley’s memories happy, a task they have become quite adept at despite the bumbling of their compatriot Sadness, who is clearly the outsider of the group.

This all seems very wholesome at first but it quickly becomes clear that Joy isn’t just the leader she’s more akin to a manipulative dictator, ostracising Sadness, bossing around the others and even altering Riley’s dreams to make them as cheerful as possible, even though she knows it’s against the rules. As a result the other emotions have become underdeveloped and when things don’t go so happily after Riley’s family undertake a disastrous move to San Francisco away from Riley’s friends and the life she’s built, none of the emotions seem to know how to react.

This dilemma explodes to dangerous proportions when after a disastrously sad first day at her new school Riley’s core memories fall out of alignment and Joy and Sadness are unintentionally thrown onto a perilous journey to try and make things right, leaving the inexperienced Fear, Disgust and Anger cluelessly attempting to keep Riley safe and happy.

I don’t want to go any further into spoiler territory and the above is already a little more information than the trailers have given away but I wanted to illustrate just how clever this story is truly being, because on the surface it’s probably the most colourfully kid friendly Pixar film to date, but this really is a disguise. 'Inside Out' is one of those films that just gets smarter and deeper the more I think about it, however, I’m not sure this works entirely in the films favour.

'Inside Out' is walking a very fine line and is constantly in danger of being too smart for the kids and too silly for the adults, a line Pixar have admittedly made a whole career out of treading, but this feels like their riskiest venture yet. The film is staggeringly surreal, with an extended sequence wherein our heroes foolishly enter the tunnel of abstract thought being the one moment my mind wasn’t quite ready to try and comprehend.

But at the same time the film is super cute, I mean our heroes spend no small amount of time running through the imagination of an eleven year old, though some clever nods are made towards how the mind of a girl on the edge of puberty might be beginning to change, something the emotions are also clearly unprepared for.

Despite my concerns I do think the film finds the balance between it’s high concept and it’s childish aesthetic very well, though not perfectly. You really have to buy into the idea and be able to follow the abstract concepts on display to become fully invested in the struggle of the emotions, and the ending reeks a little of plot convenience. Though when your heroes have unlimited access to the imagination of a child you can’t blame them for taking advantage.

My only other complaint is that it really feels like we’re just scratching the surface of a much larger concept, but at the same time if they made a sequel I’m not sure there’s another story that can be squeezed out of this idea. I just think that exploring the emotions of the other characters might have been nice, particularly as that’s what was teased in the trailer.

On the whole though a fantastic film, comfortably within striking distance of Pixar’s best if perhaps not quite reaching the highest ranks.

In 1986, Ferris Bueller informed an entire generation of movie-goers that, “life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” Almost twenty years later, those words remain as immortal as ever, resonating vibrantly throughout the latest John Green adaptation, 'Paper Towns'.

After the best night of his life, Quentin ‘Q’ Jacobsen and his friends embark upon an epic road-trip to find Margo Roth Spiegelman, the enigmatic and mythical girl who had made it all happen.

Following the commercial and critical success of 'The Fault in Our Stars', writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber return for a second bite of the cherry. The cherry that is bringing to life the works of Youtube celebrity and best-selling novelist, John Green. Whilst 'Paper Towns' may for many lack the subject weight and emotional gut-punches of their 2014 predecessor, the results are just as satisfyingly sweet.

From the childhood flashbacks that opens the film to the new-found and deeper wisdom that permeates the voice-over that closes it, there is much that could be defined as traditional and overly familiar. And yet, somehow, there is also an unmistakable air of something modern and fresh about 'Paper Towns' that confidently engages both heart and mind. Director Jake Schreier opts for a blessedly simplistic and unflashy style, commendably moving the story along at a consistent pace, maintaining a pleasing level of intrigue and ambiguity, and allowing the characters and writing to take centre stage. Because that, truly, is where 'Paper Towns' shines brightest.

How faithful the writing is to the hugely-popular source material is for more knowledgeable minds to discuss and debate, but, whatever the case, it positively sizzles on-screen. The dialogue is sharp and witty - with an almost perfect balance of humour, insight, and emotional complexity – and the pop culture references come frequently, landing more often than not. One in particular, featuring a surprising cameo, will no doubt strike a specific chord and prompt smiles and squeals in equal measure.

Nat Wolff and Cara Delevingne (most definitely not Carla, despite the popular opinion of press junket interviewers) do well with their respective roles. Though he struggles with some of the weightier lines and moments, Wolff offers with Quentin a charming, likable, and contagiously hopeful lead for whom to root for, though not in the way one might expect. He fares much better in the comedy stakes, most notably in the scenes of taunting yet good-natured banter with his two best friends. Meanwhile, as the girl with a fondness for the titular variety of “towns” and that sets everything in motion, Delevingne is sufficiently mysterious and soulful. Competently demonstrating the allure of Margo, as well as the conflicting aspects of a larger than life myth and a simple girl on her own journey of discovery, even if not always hitting the heights and depths that she aims for.

Along for the ride are Quentin’s best friends, Radar (Justice Smith) and the aptly initialled Ben Starling (Austin Abrams), as well as Margo’s one-time best friend, Lacey (Halston Sage). It is with this trio of supporting characters that 'Paper Towns' truly soars and the core message most resonates. Equal parts hilarious and heartfelt, be they discussing and experiencing their first tuba-free party or navigating ever-shifting relationship dynamics, it’s not hard to imagine that, in another movie, these characters could easily have been the central focus. All three of the actors carry the weight on their shoulders with expert grace well beyond their years. So much depth and pathos do they add, that the trend of supporting characters out-shining the leads continues unimpeded in modern film. If John Green was to develop a spin-off novel following any of these characters, there would assuredly be no complaints.

All in all, this is a thoroughly enjoyable coming-of-age tale, one that refreshingly is unafraid to prioritise distinct and well-imagined characters over plot, allowing the latter to believably emerge from the equally believable and relatable actions and decisions of the former. Offering a sincere and universal message that it’s not the destination but the journey, and the friends you share that journey with, that truly matters 'Paper Towns' firmly adds to the pantheon of which the aforementioned Ferris Bueller resides. As well as no doubt solidifying John Green’s status as this generation’s John Hughes. 

Why was Tim Blake Nelson constantly chewing? Sorry, I had to get that off my chest up front, but he was chewing throughout the film, it was very distracting. But we can move on to the film properly now we are past all the damn chewing! Sorry.

Anyway, 'Fantastic Four' is a reboot that deviates from the source material significantly enough for me to have gone into it quite skeptically, as many did I’m sure. In fact it’s not unfair to remark that the story deviates so far from the original that you can’t help but wonder whether or not they only called it 'Fantastic Four' to avoid copyright infringement.

Reed Richards (Miles Teller) is a brilliant young genius who invents a teleportation device out of scraps in his garage before he’s even hit puberty. With the help of unlikely friend Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell) he develops the device into an unappreciated school science fair project that is sniffed at by his teachers, but which catches the attention of nearby nerds Dr Franklin Storm (Reg E Cathey) and adopted daughter Sue Storm (Kate Mara). They inform Reed he has inadvertently created a portal to another dimension and they recruit him to their sister project to help fill in the gaps and create true dimensional travel.

Accompanied by Dr Storm's son Johnny (Michael B Jordan) and rival genius Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), the originator of Dr Storm’s dimensional travel project, they perfect the design and prepare to travel to the other dimension. And if you know much of anything about the Fantastic Four you can surmise the rest of the film. Things don’t go as planned, super powers are gained, the world comes into peril and our heroes must save the day.

If the superhero stuff seems like more of an afterthought in that description it’s because it pretty much is in the film as well, but that’s not strictly speaking a complaint, the film is about seventy percent extended origin story and it actually all works really well. The characters are well established, although Ben Grimm is criminally underused, I’m tempted to say the younger version in the opening flashback has more screen time than Jamie Bell does. Weird as it may seem, the film actually suffers once the superhero element kicks in.

This is the problem, the new set up is actually inventive and interesting but once we have to tackle the source material it seems like the filmmakers lost interest. Even the more horrifying elements of the characters powers manifesting, Johnny Storm seemingly writhing in pain as his body burns for example, make for an intriguing take on the characters but the film doesn’t want to do anything with it. The four are confined to a military facility and treated as a science experiment for the clear exploitation of the continually chewing Tim Blake Nelson who looks to exploit their abilities as a military resource, which as I say is an interesting angle but it goes nowhere.

The conspiracy amounts to much of nothing and the four, despite being conflicted about their allegiances and fearful of their abilities come to terms with these issues in a screen that reads “1 Year Later” (yes, really, we skip this entire plot development). Dr Doom shows up in the third act just long enough to make enemies and crowbar in a climactic battle and that’s it, that’s all we got.

So yeah, we’re left a little disappointed. A lot of the film works but once we enter the superhero side of things it feels weirdly out of place, like you’re not sure why they included it at all. The set up is great and there’s a lot of interesting places you could go with it but for some unclear reason they tried to shoehorn in a bunch of unrelated comic book lore. The films sets up for a sequel, maybe even a franchise of it’s own, so I’d like to think that the point here was more than just a studio dragging out the ownership of this intellectual property, but I suspect this is not a strong enough beginning to spawn anything new and interesting.

The individual pieces work but the whole doesn’t fit together. I didn’t hate it as much as some seem to have and I’d watch a sequel if one did emerge, but I don’t think I can recommend this film with any enthusiasm. See it at your own risk I suppose is what I’m saying.