Director Neil Burger may not have much of a pedigree (he’s previously directed just three feature films including 2006’s The Illusionist) but he’s that rare breed – a director who writes and shoots his own stuff. In fact, two of his prior movies have been wholly original material.

Limitless, however, marks a change for the helmsman with an MTV background. It’s the first of his features that he hasn’t had a hand in writing, and it betrays his MTV roots.

HUNK: he may be but he shoulda worn a tie. De Niro's expression says it all see look

As our hero, Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper), plunges deeper and deeper into a dependency on top-secret wonder drug NZT-48, Burger draws on music video-style elements to convey the drug’s effects. Graphics are used to illustrate what’s happening in Eddie’s head but they’re flashy and distracting. Other techniques prove much more effective. Where the camera propels us towards the ground from the top of a skyscraper and hurtles at breakneck speed along New York streets, it’s a massive rush – and goes some way towards replicating what Eddie presumably feels.

But wait. Let’s rewind. What is this drug exactly and what is the film about?

It opens towards the end of the story with Eddie standing at the edge of his balcony, scores of storeys up. Someone is hammering at his door – a thick, metal barricade. Is this guy about to throw himself over the edge? What has led to this turn of events?

Eddie takes us back to the beginning of the story via voiceover. He’s a blocked writer, struggling to deliver a book for which he’s received an advance. His gorgeous girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) dumps him and he’s at his lowest ebb. It’s at this point that he bumps into his former brother-in-law (Eddie was married briefly to college sweetheart Melissa, played by Anna Friel), a drug dealer who offers him a newly-developed, highly illegal pill that promises him access to 100 per cent of his brain, as opposed to the meagre 20 per cent the film tells us we actually use.

That night, he cracks out several chapters of his book and blows his publisher away. As he falls into the drug’s grip, he is drawn into an increasingly murky world where others will stop at nothing to get hold of these powerful little pills. In the meantime, he transforms himself into a financial whizz, teaming up with Robert De Niro’s formidable businessman Carl Van Loon, and makes pots of cash.

When he starts to suffer serious side effects, he uncovers some startling facts and tries to find a way to wean himself off NZT, without having to say goodbye to its mind-bending consequences. But can he do it before he comes a cropper, one way or another?

The intriguing premise of Limitless can’t fail to draw audiences in but can it hold the attention? The answer is a resounding yes. It’s entertaining stuff as long as you don’t question it too deeply (it doesn’t have responses for everything). And Bradley Cooper is charismatic eye candy. But while we identify with him, he struggles to convince as either a (blocked) writer or as a high-functioning super-brain taken seriously by De Niro’s high-powered mogul.

And it isn’t as taut as it ought to be. A film which is a mix of sci-fi, thriller and mystery relies heavily on dramatic tension to captivate its audience but Limitless suffers from Cooper’s narration. Telling the story retrospectively as it does gives the film a sense of fatalism which yanks the viewer out of the situation, removing any sense of immediacy and damaging attempts to build up tension.  

Limitless is, in actual fact, limited but with such a compelling premise and an ability to entertain, it ticks a big enough box to render itself a diverting way to spend a couple of hours.

Kevin Macdonald made The Last King of Scotland – the compelling real life story of Ugandan despot Idi Amin, told from the perspective of the newly-graduated Scottish doctor invited to become his personal physician who was drawn into his web before extricating himself. The film was brutal, uncompromising and involving as well as emotive and breathtakingly convincing.

The same man tackles the story of The Eagle of the Ninth – a novel by Rosemary Sutcliff – and aims to bring a historical epic to audiences that is at once authentic and gripping. From a director of Macdonald’s calibre, you could be forgiven for expecting him to deliver just that.

Sadly, his involvement only sets us up for greater disappointment than we might otherwise have experienced had The Eagle been under the control of another director.

WAY TOO HUNKY: Channing Tatum's looks get a bit spoiled cos he fights too much and rolls around in mud and dirty rivers

The Eagle tells the story of a Roman soldier, Marcus Aquila (Channing Tatum), who heads north of Hadrian’s Wall into a mysterious no-man’s land in order to uncover the truth about the unsolved disappearance twenty years previous of the Ninth Legion  – an army of Roman soldiers that had been led by his father. If he can retrieve the golden eagle standard carried into battle by the troops, he believes he can restore his father’s honour. With him goes his slave, Esca (Jamie Bell), a spirited Briton who owes him his life. But can he trust him?

Despite Macdonald’s failure to create a film with the impact of The Last King of Scotland, he is at pains to craft a movie that packs a punch and draws its audience in. And he isn’t without some success.

Far and away, the most captivating aspect of The Eagle is its use of location. Macdonald has done what very few directors before him have been able to do – shoot in the Scottish highlands where the film is actually set.

The arduousness of the shoot translates to great effect. The hostile conditions of the highlands in midwinter are tangible. You can feel every single freezing cold raindrop and every icy blast of wind. You go through the physically and emotionally draining journey with Marcus and Esca every step of the way, and when Marcus is close to death and his teeth chatter and his skin turns blue, it feels so real (mainly because it is).

The film benefits from this injection of realism – however, the script lets it down. Dialogue is pedestrian at best and performances, aside from the innate physicality of the roles, are nothing to write home about.

Battle scenes also disappoint. They begin effectively – the scene at the start where Aquila and his men form a phalanx is innovative, tense, thrilling and exceptionally well-shot – but they swiftly deteriorate. Where initially close-ups and the handheld camera are successfully used to plonk the viewer right in the centre of fight scenes, combat sequences eventually become a disorientating, confusing mess.

While The Eagle aspires to the likes of 300 and Gladiator, clashes and skirmishes are on the whole disastrously realised, in spite of the odd rolling head and spurt of claret. It wants to be a historical epic with weight and gravitas but is actually an insubstantial effort that lets down its audience.

Pick up a copy of the latest issue of Sorted for my Jeff Bridges interview. He talks about family, career and the legacy of his late father, Lloyd. Woot.

It seems we still like an alien invasion movie because, hot on the heels of Monsters and Skyline, already here’s another one – and there has been a lot of interest expressed so far in seeing Battle: Los Angeles, albeit mostly from video game-playing kidults.

Which makes sense, as it plays out just like a shoot-em-up video game, dropping you straight into the action and bombarding you with relentless battle scenes, often played out in extreme close up.

ERK: This doesn't look good

The story is kept simple:  when a swarm of undetected ‘meteors’ hits the Earth’s atmosphere, the US military is swiftly deployed to Los Angeles – one of the first towns under threat – and briefed about what appears to be an alien invasion. The attack begins immediately and the forces spring into action. A small team of marines, including Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) who had planned to retire, is ordered behind enemy lines to rescue a group of trapped civilians before a planned bombing raid. But they get more than they bargained for as they fight against alien ground forces and deadly aerial drones. Can they escape with their lives – and Los Angeles – in tact?

“An alien invasion action movie starring Aaron Eckhart?” you may ask quizzically. You’d expect it to be something of a departure from the standard CGI-packed apocalyptic fare dished out by Hollywood, such is Eckhart’s pedigree and while it aims to give us something slightly different, it actually succeeds only in creating a sense of déjà vu as it re-hashes chunks of stuff we’ve seen several times over.

Director Jonathan Liebesman’s intention is to bring us a gritty alien attack flick with the feel of a war film, combining elements from the likes of Independence Day and War of the Worlds with contemporary war films like Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down. Instead, what we get is a formulaic and unengaging science fiction actioner that falls some distance short of the standards set by its predecessors.

As a result of its intentions, it ends up feeling like it takes itself way too seriously. And because of this, it fails to entertain or engross. Without the charm of an irreverent character like Will Smith’s in Independence Day, it fails to draw us in and it fails to make the ride fun. Its unoriginal feel also means it lacks tension, thrills and spills and the overuse of the handheld camera grates and distances, rather than working to immerse us in the proceedings.

Of course, in a film like this, the computer generated imagery is important. It doesn’t disappoint as such in Battle: Los Angeles (it’s pretty impressive seeing LA turned into a warzone) but the camerawork and editing mean its impact is lessened. You just can’t see what’s going on all that well.

The characterisation is also problematic. Although there is some attempt to set up characters that we care about, it’s difficult to muster up much sympathy for anyone involved largely because of the lack of humour in the film and the dreadful Stilton-esque dialogue.

Michelle Rodriguez’s welcome presence in a typical role in which she brandishes a firearm and snarls badass-style sadly isn’t enough to save this second-rate alien-based actioner. Never mind Battle: Los Angeles: the biggest battle you’ll face in the cinema is wrestling against your desire to walk out early.

The works of science fiction writer Philip K Dick are pretty popular in Hollywood. On the whole, his novels and short stories make pretty good films. Blade Runner, Total Recall, A Scanner Darkly and Minority Report all started life as Dick-penned sci-fi tales.

The latest Dick story to get the Tinseltown treatment is his short story, Adjustment Team – re-titled The Adjustment Bureau for the movie-going public – and it’s nothing if not peculiar.

Matt Damon is David Norris, a politician whose career (despite a setback following the publication of some photos showing him misbehaving) is on the up. When he meets Elise (Emily Blunt) by chance in the men’s room of New York’s Waldorf Astoria just prior to making a career-defining speech, he is instantly smitten and desperate to see her again. Only she runs off before he can get her number.

TITFER: Fancy wearing a hat and no tie. Tsk.

It’s at this point that things start to get really strange. When a team of besuited fedora-clad officials intervene and warn him off, life becomes extraordinary for David as he learns that humankind is not actually in charge of its own destiny. Falling in love with Elise is not part of the plan and either he must give her up or face being ‘reset’. But for David, free will is the only thing worth living for – that, and Elise – and he will do all he can to craft his own future, at any cost.

The film is an awkward blend of romantic comedy, political thriller and sci-fi actioner. It’s the proverbial jack of all trades. All three genres are haphazardly woven into the plot creating a lightweight affair that fails to come up to scratch on all levels – it never really provokes thought, stirs emotions nor articulates a particularly compelling sense of intrigue.

The film’s central relationship is undoubtedly its greatest strength. There’s a palpable chemistry between the two leads that feels so real, at times it all seems a bit voyeuristic. But despite Blunt’s naturalistic performance and her innate charm, it feels a little like Elise has been cut and pasted from a Farrelly brothers’ comedy. She frequently plays her role as if in romcom territory and consequently, her presence is somewhat jarring.

Watching this insubstantial popcorn flick, directed by first-timer George Nolfi, at no point do you feel anything bad is going to happen and this is a major reason why the film fails to spark. You never feel that David is genuinely threatened and with everything essentially sanitised, there’s a crucial element lacking that’s vital for any science fiction thriller – tension.

Although throughout, the proceedings may well leave you asking: ‘So what?’, Damon himself is highly watchable, ensuring the entertainment levels remain elevated enough for you to feel you haven’t totally wasted a valuable hour and a half of your life.