Paper Towns is a perfect example of what I like to call a "candy film". Definition: all gloss, superficial and saccharine entertainment aimed to please everyone. It's best to get the positives out of the way first. Here we go.

The cast is good. Nat Wolff is clearly an actor with potential, who should go down a Miles Teller-esque route in his acting future (minus Fantastic Four). In scenes with improvised dialogue, he lights up and adds a realistic element to his character. In dramatic/expository scenes, one can see him struggling with the banal dialogue. Cara Delevigne proves she's not just a pretty face and demonstrates that she has on-screen charisma. Austin Abrams and Justice Smith also prove to be perfectly good at playing teenagers realistically, and with humour. The cast is good.

Now, the main issue that was a consistent problem in the film was the visual element of it. Oops. When portraying a story in a visual medium, surely that's something one should concentrate on? The cinematography and editing are perfect examples of mind-numbingly dull filmmaking. A defence to this might initially be to explain that it's not trying to be showy, that simplicity was the aesthetic intention. Mahmoud Kalari constructs invisible and simple cinematography, Stéphane Fontaine is not showy and at the same time powerful. In Paper Towns, the cinematography is simply lazy.

SLOW MOTION MUST DIE.

Now that everyone and their grandma can capture slow motion images on their iPhones, we've tipped past the over-saturation limit with slow-motion, no thanks to Zack Snyder. Just as the advent of photography told the plastic arts that realism would now be the norm, smartphones are telling Phantom Flex's that their hey-day is long gone.

Paper Towns begins with an extended slow motion sequence for no discernible aesthetic reason at all. Later on in the film, when a clichéd voice-over drowns out all nuance, the main character walks down a school corridor whilst bumping into people in slow-motion. I leave no comment here, as one is not necessary.

I almost forgot to mention that you may have to strain to hear dialogue during dramatic scenes. Or rather, you don't need to seeing as the soundtrack is obnoxiously obvious and constructed to be sold as a compilation soundtrack album for young teens. Even if that were the case, the soundtrack is sometimes confusing: Lady In Red? Chris De Burgh? Seriously?

I digress. The script is as insipid and insanely uncreative as the cinematography, a boring strictly beat by beat three act structure, not much better than The Fault In Our Stars (props to John Green: he found a formula that works for him).The children delivering dialogue beyond their years works in literature when you give them a voice in your head - but only about 1% of the time in film. Don't forget the increasingly infuriating slow-motion.

Look, the characters are all nice enough people. It's a coming-of-age film, and no doubt will resonate with some of the age-group it's aimed at. Just watch Dazed And Confused or The Spectacular Now instead.

P.S. Credit where credit is due, the Ansel Ergot cameo was fun, if not terrifying: is a John Green Extended Universe upon us?