Once again, this list is based on UK release dates and excludes those up for the majority of awards at the beginning of the year, i.e. Selma (David Oyelowo should have received an Oscar nomination), Whiplash (great performance from J.K. Simmons), The Theory of Everything, Still Alice, Foxcatcher, Inherent Vice and Birdman (the supposed best film of last year according to the Oscars).
An honourable mention has to go out to an afternoon well spent back in April at the Tyneside Cinema watching the final cut of Blade Runner, presented by the BFI. With its stunning visuals, this is the definitive version of Ridley Scott's sci-fi masterpiece which was far ahead of its time and has to be fully appreciated on the biggest screen possible.*
*By the way, are we going to get a "Blade Runner Day" at some point in November 2019? This year we had "Back to the Future Day", so...
15. It FollowsThe second feature film from director David Robert Mitchell (not to be confused with the comedian David Mitchell). And blimey, has he already made his mark on cinema with It Follows.
Set in the suburbs of Detroit, MI, 19-year-old Jay (Maika Monroe) seems to have a happy life, until a seemingly innocent sexual encounter leads to her being plagued by apparitions and a notion that something is following her.
This film actually premiered back in 2014 at the Cannes Film Festival and is very reminiscent of the works of John Carpenter, in terms of its look, the steadicam cinematography and its music score from Disasterpeace. The Carpenter work that this reminded me of most is Halloween, but it is not the same film. This stalking being takes on multiple forms; you don't know what it will look like next, unlike Michael Myers. However, it will always be pursuing you at a walk, meaning that it could be anyone; everyone is a threat. Despite the 70s' nods, it is somewhat timeless in its setting and does look similar to some modern horror films as well. For example, the final act features a set piece similar to that from Let The Right One In (one of the best horror films of this century).
The basic concept of it is the "sexually transmitted curse", playing with the anxieties that young adults experience nowadays. Despite its modern-day attitude, this idea goes back to the "Tale of the Hook" which was the underpin for many slasher films of the 70s/80s. The teens are the main focus of the film and their relationships with each other. The adults are largely absent (when they are on-screen they don't speak and when they do speak they are off-screen).
A lot of people now believes we are entering a new era for horror cinema, where the ideas are more fresh and well-executed, and they have highlighted two key examples for this rejuvenation - It Follows and Jennifer Kent's The Babadook (which you may remember was one of my favourite films from last year); I supposed you could go back a few years and include The Cabin in the Woods. Please can we have more films like these and less of the home video/found footage rubbish which have now run their course.
14. Jurassic WorldCue the original theme music...OK, you've won me over.
22 years on from the events in the original park, Isla Nublar is now home to a series of amusement rides, operated by Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard). They are about to unveil a new dinosaur attraction and she decide to ask Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), an expert on raptors, to test for any vulnerabilities in its enclosure. However, it inevitably escapes and everyone on the island is at risk.
The idea of creating dinosaurs is not as much a phenomenon as it was previously, so InGen feel the need to create this new species through gene-splicing to address declining visitor rates. There is an amusing comment about dinosaurs being named by corporations. It reminds us of the constant warnings from Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, how InGen only cared about what they can do rather than what they should do. But now, they're trying to make genetically-modified hybrids. It has become more commercial and there is an amusing discussion about corporations sponsoring dinosaurs and potentially even naming them. Imagine what a Pepsi-saurus would be like. However, the park's owner Mr Masrani (Irrfan Khan) believes success should instead be judged on whether the visitors and also the dinosaurs are enjoying themselves. Similarly to John Hammond, he wants to spare no expense.
Sure there are some plot holes and under-developed characters, but there is much nostalgia for Jurassic Park. You have the original John Williams theme (perhaps the best movie theme ever); the two kids discover the original park, including the jeeps; there's a memorial to the late John Hammond (specifically to pay tribute to the late Richard Attenborough) and yet the only returning character from the first film is Dr Wu (BD Wong). Speaking of other movie references; the relationship between Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard was based on Romancing The Stone, the relationship between Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner. However, I do think Pratt has a more convincing relationship and connection with his raptors.
And, of course, the visuals are great. The dinosaurs still look as realistic as ever and that ties into the nostalgia as well of remembering the first time you saw the original and seeing a dinosaur on screen. However, it does also acknowledge the fact that cinema and technology have moved on, so the dinosaurs are much bigger than previously; they're scarier and they have more teeth. And that's demonstrated in the scene where the Mosasaurus eats a shark (like the film is wanting to out-monster Jaws (that's not going to happen)).
As a result, it will never be able to top Jurassic Park (very few films can), but does serve as a more honourable sequel than The Lost World and Jurassic Park III ever could. I enjoyed it and I think that's the main thing.
13. RosewaterThe directorial debut from Jon Stewart, the now former host of The Daily Show (it feels weird to say that), and, if this first attempt is anything to go by then we can expect more good work from America's favourite comedian.
Rosewater is based on the real life story of a journalist named Maziar Bahari and recounts his 118-day imprisonment following the 2009 presidential election in Iran. After the demonstrations following the result, he was arrested under suspicion of being an American spy and part of the evidence against him was a satirical interview he took part in with The Daily Show correspondent Jason Jones. The film is based on Bahari's book Then They Came For Me and he is played by Gael Garcia Bernal.
I would not say that this is a personal project for Stewart, but he did feel a little bit responsible for Bahari's imprisonment; The Daily Show were there not because of the election, but due to the fact George W. Bush called Iran the "Axis of Evil" and they wanted to find this so-called "evil". However, Stewart is the one who pushed this project forward and when he couldn't find anyone wanting to write or direct it, he took it upon himself. And you can see why he did. Despite the fact that Stewart is one of America's most loved comedians, this is not a comedy. He does do serious, real world issues with respect. This is a film that is important in this day and age, as the issue it covers is current. There are still thousands of people imprisoned for blogs/videos/etc., who have had their freedom of speech taken away from them. It is a film about torture though the methods used are not as harsh as in something like Zero Dark Thirty, but like that film does not glorify them.
A lot has been made of whether or not to have casted Iranian actors in the leading roles. Garcia Bernal, as you all know, is Mexican and the main antagonist, Rosewater, is played by Kim Bodnia who is Danish (you may recognise him as Martin from The Bridge). Stewart did admit to wanting it originally all in Persian and an Iranian cast (Maziar mother and sister in the film are both played by Iranian actresses), before he was reminded about whether or not he wanted people to see it. Garcia Bernal is very good at portraying a character with nothing to hide and clings on to hope in order to survive this ordeal. Bodnia is good as a man who is attempts to take this away but does not understand the real world. Could he be scared of it or is he just ignorant of it?
Obviously there are certain ramifications surrounding Iran and film; there were complaints made about how it was portrayed in Ben Affleck's Oscar-winning film Argo. Iranian cinema has experienced some change in recent years and it is producing some good stuff. Western audiences/critics have given critical praise to films such as 2011's A Separation (which won an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film) and from this year A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night, "the first Iranian Vampire Western" which was actually shot in California. In the first half of this film, Stewart shows how Iran is developing, that there are those who are more technologically advanced than others who reject the ways of the western world. One of the key focuses is the clash of cultures and values. It is shown as a hopeful nation before the revolution takes effect. It tries not to resort to a depiction of good versus evil, which is a hard topic to avoid on film.
This film is universally true, yet you cannot help but laugh at some of the one-to-one scene between Garcia Bernal and Bodnia, especially when they are going through his belongings and Bodnia is convinced that The Sopranos is porn or when he asks about Garcia Bernal's connection to Chekhov.
Perhaps this film is just in here because of my admiration for Jon Stewart. Anyway, let's hope there is more to come from him in the future.
12. Crimson PeakThe new film from Guillermo del Toro, described as being "gorgeous and just f***ing terrifying" by Stephen King which "electrified" him in a way similar to Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead.
Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska) lives in Buffalo, NY, and has something of an interest in ghosts. She soon meets the mysterious Sir Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston), who runs a clay mining business in Cumbria and seeks backing from her father. However, a sudden tragedy leads to Edith moving to England to live with Sharpe and his sister, Lady Lucille (Jessica Chastain), in a strange house which lies on a clay pit and is infested with ghosts.
In terms of del Toro's back catalogue, it's in the same ballpark as the likes of The Devil's Backbone, Kronos and his most notable work Pan's Labyrinth. In this film he tries to invoke a classic melodramatic gothic sense, but also have a romance going on primarily between Edith and Sir Thomas with the ghosts in the background. He wanted to evoke memories of the classic haunted house genre, including Robert Wise's The Haunting, but also wanted the large set to have a similar feel to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining; "a very set-oriented, classical but at the same time modern take on the ghost story". Does it feel like a throwback? In a word, yes.
Mia Wasikowska's character looks very similar to the one she played in Tim Burton's version of Alice in Wonderland, but her performance in this is much better. Her character has this fascination with ghosts as she's been plagued by events of her past for a long time and she writes stories which, in her words, "have ghosts in them". She moves from the modern, technologically advanced, with-the-times America and gone back to the past. As for other performances, Jessica Chastain stands out as the dominant, commanding and also manipulative figure in the Sharpe family. A lot have said she is taking inspiration from Norma Bates. Tom Hiddleston is as good as ever; you can tell he is somewhat untrustworthy when we first see him and he is not with the times, especially true with his choice of clothes. There is also a good turn from Charlie Hunnam as Edith's friend Dr Alan McMichael.
Despite the great acting from the cast, the real star of the film is the house itself. There is so much attention to detail in it, which you can expect form del Toro, and it all looks real. The house itself was built at Pinewood Studios in Toronto and it has a similar presence to the hotel in The Shining; there is the same sense of grandeur, but also some claustrophobia. The use of colour stands out as well and not just the red of the clay, which always makes the house look like it's bleeding and even more alive as it sinks into the ground. This is continues with the costume designs, especially this bright yellow dress that Edith wears a lot of the time which coupled with the ironwork in places make her look like, to quote Mark Kermode, "a canary in a cage".
There are some scares and there is some violence to this film. Some will find it scarier that others will, but the main thing is the striking look of it. What else do you come to expect from Guillermo del Toro?
11. Slow WestThis film is not as slow as its title would lead you to believe. It is thoughtful and knows where it is leading to, before it goes up a gear. The directorial debut from The Beta Band's John Maclean, which received much critical acclaim at Sundance.
Set in 1870, 16-year-old Jay Cavendish (Kodi Smit-McPhee) has travelled from Scotland to America to find his lost love Rose (Caren Pistorius), who had to leave with her father (Rory McCann) after a bloody incident brought about by Jay. His guide is the mysterious Silas Selleck (Michael Fassbender), who has his own purpose for going after Rose and this also attracts a group of bounty hunters led by an acquaintance of his called Payne (Ben Mendelsohn).
If this wasn't directed by John Maclean, you would think that this was a Coen brothers film; well-paced drama with some dark comic moments thrown in. These come within the dialogue, but then there are also a few unintentionally slapstick moments. Maclean has shown so much confidence in this piece that you would not think that this was a directorial debut. As well as the humour, the action is fairly epic as well, particularly the climatic shootout; there is not too much going on so it's easy to tell which characters are doing what.
Having worked with Maclean previously on two short films, Fassbender does a solid job channelling his inner-Clint Eastwood to some extent. Yet despite this at time ruthlessness, he and Smit-McPhee are almost the odd couple and as a result his personality changes; he becomes more protective of him and teaches him about the challenges of growing up. Fassbender has easily become one of the best actors around at the minute. The innocence of Smit-McPhee's character stands out, as if he knows a lot about the world already has much still to learn. Ben Mendelsohn does very good playing the type of character we've seen a lot from him in recent years.
Unlike some of the other recent western movies, e.g. the Coen's True Grit, Django Unchained and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Slow West was filmed in New Zealand rather than North America. Honestly, 21st-century New Zealand looks very convincing as 19th-century Colorado. It is beautifully shot by cinematographer Robbie Ryan, who also does not get the audience too distracted by the scenery by concentrating on the reactions of the characters showing a sense of intimacy. The sounds are important to this film as well; there is a moment with a group of Congolese singers and the music they sing is diegetic.
This is essentially a coming-of-age film about young love set in the Old West and despite the word "slow" in the title is only 84 minutes long.
10. Kingsman: The Secret ServiceAction. Gadgets. Spies. It's like a Bond film, innit...Remind me never to say that again. This is probably the most controversial entry on this list, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and here's mine.
Based on the acclaimed comic book series by Mark Miller, from the duo of writer Jane Goldman and director Matthew Vaughn - the makers of Kick-Ass and X-Men: First Class - Kingsman is an international covert agency working out of a tailor shop on Saville Row, who is looking to recruit a new member and one of the hopefuls is 'Eggsy' (Taron Egerton), who is recruited by the experienced Harry Hart (Colin Firth). At the same time, they find themselves against tech billionaire Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) who intends to wipe out most of the world's population.
This film was never meant to be taken too seriously, much like the earlier Bond films which had a sense of fun to them. In that sense, it is very much like Kick-Ass, which I was a fan of (though not Kick-Ass 2), in both its action and comedy. Kingsman is paying homage to spy films in the same way that Kick-Ass was a tribute to super hero films. It is brash and there are some tongue-and-cheek moments with a lot of the humour being somewhat laddish, but that is understandable with the type of people the characters are representing. I'm sure people said the same things about Joe Cornish's 2011 film Attack The Block and still liked it. It is certainly one of the riskiest mainstream movies for a few years. Without the comedy, it's your standard film about taking someone from a deprived background and teaching them to become a better person, for example Trading Places and My Fair Lady.
The action sequences are well coordinated, especially the scene in a church in Kentucky which is all shot in one long continuous shot. That sequence ramps up the energy in a film that felt like it was going at a steady pace up until that point. That scene is one of the main pieces of controversy surrounding the film, but as far as I am concerned you'll never be able to listen to Free Bird by Lynyrd Skynyrd in the same way ever again. It will live with you forever.
Whoever thought that Colin Firth could play such a bad-ass role. It's like watching Mr. Darcy walking out of the lake armed with a machine gun and then shooting everyone. The last time I can remember him doing any kind of action set piece in a film were the fights with Hugh Grant in the Bridget Jones films. Taron Egerton and Mark Strong both give fine performances and it comes as no surprise that the head of Kingsman is played by Michael Caine. Plus, there is a cameo from Mark Hamill, who is almost unrecognisable.
One of the few problems is the scene before the end credits, which is especially like the end of a Bond film from the Roger Moore era. Was it really necessary? I'm not someone who has found offensive like some others have, but I do understand their rationale.
There has been a sequel confirmed for 2017. Just make sure Vaughn has more of an input on it than he did with Kick-Ass 2.
9. Love & MercyWho is the band you would most relate to summer? The Beach Boys, naturally. And here was one of the best films released over the summer. This was one of two music-related films released over the summer that was highly praised; the other was the documentary Amy, about the singer/songwriter Amy Winehouse from the director of Senna. That won more praise, but this was a hidden gem for me from 2015.
Love & Mercy is a biopic of Beach Boys' frontman Brian Wilson, played by the duo of Paul Dano (who plays Wilson in the 1960s) and John Cusack (representing the 80s' Wilson). Dano's Wilson has him battling his demons and losing touch with reality but also features the recording of Pet Sounds, whilst Cusack's is under the 24-hour surveillance of Dr. Eugene Landy (Paul Giamatti) but is able to find solace when he falls in love with Melinda Ledbetter (Elizabeth Banks).
Both Dano and Cusack give great performances as Wilson. Dano explores the creative and obsessed side to Wilson, as he wants the Beach Boys to be up there with the Beatles with all these ideas in his head including how it should sound. We see him constantly seeking perfection, especially when he spends hours trying to get the ideal cello sound during the recording of Good Vibrations and encourages new innovative ways of making music; yet he also captures the innocence commonly associated with the band and their music. His performance is described by others as "uncanny", especially with the faux-archive footage of the band performing. Even though he doesn't look like Wilson physically, Cusack's performance is equally effective. Despite this constant surveillance over him, he wants to regain a sense of reality and he finds that in Elizabeth Banks' character. Both of them have a similar theme of abuse - the abuse Wilson suffered from his father resulting in his loss of hearing in one ear and the abuse he receives from his now legal guardian.
Director Bill Pohlad is not unknown to films inspired by real-life musicians; he produced The Runaways in 2010. However, this is his first attempt at directing since 1990 and he does a very good job here. The best scenes for me are the recording sessions; he perfectly manages to captures the atmosphere at work. It has the same texture you would associate with that period, thanks to the way it was shot using 16 and 35mm film. At the same time, he also details the deterioration of Wilson in the 1980s and the amount of control that Dr. Landy has over him. There is a notable difference in the tone and you notice that the 80s periods is told more from Melinda's P.O.V. rather that Wilson's. You do feel sorry for Wilson, yet also question how is it that he has ended up like this.
After seeing this film, I went back to listen to Pet Sounds. At the time, it had critical success, but was a commercial disappointment. Now though, it is regarded as the Beach Boys' best album. I recommend that you do the same after watching this film to appreciate the greatness of the Beach Boys and, more specifically, Brian Wilson.
8. SpectreIs it possible to make a Bond film better than Skyfall? Well, Spectre surely has a damn good try. It certainly helps that Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes returns.
After receiving a cryptic message and an eventful trip to Mexico City, James Bond (Daniel Craig) goes on the trail of a secret organization known as Spectre and its leader Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), who are revealed to be behind most of the villains he has come up against. However, he has to go against the wishes of M (Ralph Fiennes), who himself as to deal with a takeover of MI6 by Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott), the head of the new home-grown Centre of National Security.
The opening of Skyfall was certainly memorable - a chase through the streets and on the roofs of Istanbul, culminating in a fight on the roof of a train. This film's opening is set during the Day of the Dead parade in Mexico City, beginning with a 4-minute long continuous shot (although edited in places), a technique that many have compared to those used in Birdman. However, this being 007 it goes one step beyond to attempt to grab the audience's engagement, having a Steadicam trailed by cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema as Bond moves from the crowded streets to the rooftops. Obviously, it probably did take multiple takes.
One of the themes of the film is the notion of "out with the old, in with the new". We are looking at this new world of global surveillance and technology, for example drones, wanting to take over and replace the idea of the agent in the field - Andrew Scott vs Ralph Fiennes. You do get an early indication that Denbigh is mistrusting, especially with the fact he has adopted his own code name. Admittedly though, there is some fun to be had with it, as M does.
Daniel Craig is my personal favourite Bond, because of the realism. He doesn't try to force humour in the same way that Roger Moore did by raising an eyebrow and can easily retreat from the charm offensive. As for Bond girls, we have two in this film - briefly Monica Bellucci (at 51, the oldest ever Bond girl), but the main one is Léa Seydoux; you'll recognise her from Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, The Grand Budapest Hotel and the Palme d'Or-winning Blue is the Warmest Colour. Seydoux's character, Madeleine Swann, is a strong, three-dimensional woman who can hold her own, unlike some of the previous women in her position, but does ultimately end up like most of them (in danger and in need of rescue). It was only a matter of time really before Christoph Waltz played a Bond villain; we saw play a memorable villain years ago in Inglourious Basterds and now here he is as Max Oberhauser, a character with a known history to Bond. And every villain needs a henchman; step forward Dave Bautista as Mr. Hinx, channelling the spirit of previous henchmen such as Jaws and Oddjob (both in physical presence and lack of words). Ben Whishaw does a great performance as Q, seemingly down to the fact he has more to do in this film than he did in Skyfall. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Naomie Harris as Eve Monnypenny; she gets more to do in the Vodafone advert she was in.
The Craig films have seen the franchise reinvent itself. They became darker, more serious, more painful and more grown-up. Honestly, how on Earth were we ever supposed to take the invisible car in Die Another Day seriously? Part of that I like to think was brought about by the change in the action genre in the early 00s by the Bourne films, in the sense that the action looked and felt real; you could feel the pain, violence and torture. These are no longer really kids you would want or should want to take your kids to see or have shown on a Sunday afternoon on ITV. Parents, please take the 12A certificate seriously. In Spectre, we have the fight sequences, including one in a helicopter flying over a city and another on a train (a possible nod to From Russia With Love and The Spy Who Love Me); we have a car chase sequence on the streets of Rome; we have a torture sequence (which unlike the one in Casino Royale Bond is allowed to keep his clothes on); there is blood and some mild language (nobody drops the f-bomb this time around).
This is Sam Mendes' final Bond film and it remains to be seen whether or not it will be Daniel Craig's. If it is, at least they went out on a high note. I was having some reservations going into it I must admit, that it would go don't the same road that Quantum of Solace did after it followed on from Casino Royale. Fortunately, it didn't. However, it is not as good as Skyfall, which had more surprises and didn't feel a tiny bit predictable or contrived at times. But let's not forget that Skyfall has now set the bar very high for future Bond films. Some people have said that this is the worse film in the franchise for 30 years. Plain and simple, they're wrong. It's better than anything the Brosnan and Dalton films had to offer.
Despite all the great things about Spectre, including the title sequence looking slick, Sam Smith's Writing's on the Wall is one of the worst Bond themes ever, even worse than Duran Duran's A View to a Kill.
7. Ex MachinaThe flavour of the year with regards to sci-fi movies this year appears to have been artificial intelligence. This included Avengers: Age of Ultron and Neill Blomkamp's Chappie. And right back at the beginning of the year we had Ex Machina from Alex Garland, the writer of 28 Days Later, in his directorial debut.
Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is a programmer for the world's largest internet company and wins a contest to spend a week at a mountain retreat/research facility belonging to the company CEO Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Nathan invites Caleb to participate in an experiment, the Turing test (a test to demonstrate whether or not a machine can exhibit human emotions), with the world's first humanoid artificial intelligence, Ava (Alicia Vikander). However, she reveals that Nathan should not be trusted, so Caleb tries to help her to escape.
Upon his first appearance, you can tell that Nathan is a bit of a loner and somewhat paranoid. He lives in a house that you are not allowed within a certain distance of (unless you are his guest) and has no mobile signal, sends Caleb to stay in a room with no windows and denies him access to a phone (cue reference to Ghostbusters). Some have said that he has gone native in a similar way to Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, losing touch of humanity. And that is something that Oscar Isaac does very well. He doesn't want Caleb to be too orthodox in his testing methods; he just wants "simple answers to simple questions". He also has an all-consuming ego, in the sense that he likes to party by himself; it's all about him and he considers himself a God for creating this new form of life. However, his idea for a hangover cure is not the same as everyone else's. Domhnall Gleeson gives a very good performance as someone who essentially signs himself away to be incarcerated in this claustrophobic setting, locking himself away from the outside world. In fact, Nathan admits that Caleb's room is claustrophobic. Caleb starts as polite, inquisitive and a bit geeky thrown in at the deep end, but shows his true colours when he is with Ava.
The special effects are created by Double Negative, in particular the transparent torso of Ava so you can see her power core - possibly a metaphor for her heart. Yet it also has the human face and hands of Alicia Vikander. By the time of the second session with Caleb, she has had enough of answering his questions to her and decides to question him. Vikander gives the best performance of the film and this was her standout performance in what has been a great year for her.
This is almost a three-hander; you remain uncertain for a while as to the characters' intentions and motives, including whether to trust them. Nothing is as it would seem to be. Why has Nathan programmed Ava to be attracted to Caleb? Does she actually like him or is she just pretending? Why the gender and the flirtation? Is this a sign of Caleb's insecurity? These are queries to consider whilst you watch this film. What I mentioned before about the tightness of the setting that you sense, that is a feature from some of the previous films Alex Garland has worked on - The Beach, Never Let Me Go and Dredd. As Dan Jolin wrote for Empire magazine, Garland "has repeatedly tapped the dramatic value of the claustrophobic community".
All three of the main cast members excel in what is another recent intelligent sci-fi flick to be release. As the audience we think we know what is happening, but in truth we don't. What is real and what isn't?
Remember that film with the space hairdresser and the cowboy? The guy, he's got a tin foil pal and a pedal bin? His father's a --I think you get the reference. Well, after those original three films, they made three prequels and now they're making another three. The big difference is that the first film in this trilogy doesn't drag you down with backstory.
So here goes an attempt at a plot summary that doesn't give away too many spoilers. Set roughly three decades after the fall of the Galactic Empire at the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) has gone into hiding and the First Order has come to power. However, there is a Resistance looking for him as well, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher), and one of their pilots, Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), discovers a clue that could lead to his whereabouts. Poe passes it on to his droid BB-8 and he must reach the Resistance with the help of a scavenger called Rey (Daisy Ridley) and Finn (John Boyega), a defected Stormtrooper.
As I'm sure you'll know, The Force Awakens was announced after Disney's takeover of Lucasfilm in October 2012 from the series' original creator George Lucas. And a few months after that, it was announced who would be directing. Fortunately, they chose the man who brought about the reboot of that other beloved sci-fi classic Star Trek - J. J. Abrams. What he did there was take it back to its original roots but also look forward and for the most part he succeeded. Does he do achieve that here? In a word, yes.
Ok, let's forget about the prequels...well, at least The Phantom Menace. Honestly George, trade deficits and taxation??? Abrams has made a film that you can easily understand even if you have not seen any of the previous films. He hasn't felt the need to over-complicate anything. And everything looks real. The planets look real; the aliens look real (many of them were puppets); the ships look real. It doesn't look as if they tried to overdo it with a green screen and CGI; they wanted to go back to their roots. In fact, a lot of it was filmed in the UK, primarily at Pinewood Studios, but also at locations like Skellig Michael in Ireland and RAF Greenham Common in Berkshire. The scenes on Jarkku were filmed in the U.A.E., but have the same kind of grandeur as something like Lawrence of Arabia (that's what they were missing, the overture). A lot of that is helped by the fact it was shot using 35mm and 65mm film.
Ridley, Boyega and Isaac represent a new generation of Star Wars characters, that the audience can be interested in. All three of them give great performances, as do Adam Driver and Domhnall Gleeson as the lead figures in the First Order. I'm sure we will see more from Andy Serkis in the next two films as well. And whilst they represent the new, it is great to see the original cast members again. At the age of 73, Harrison Ford is still kicking ass as Han Solo. Plus, Chewbacca will always be a legendary character.
I will admit that I was sceptical when I first heard the news of Episode VII, but the trailers filled me more and more with confidence; they did not give away a great deal of the plot which is the big problem with most nowadays. What this film does is take your average cinema-goer and makes them feel like they're 9 years old; like they did when first saw Star Wars. It excites people, engages with them, makes them laugh at times and also shocks them dramatically. There are still a lot of questions that need answering though. For example, what did happen to Jar Jar Binks?
And finally, thank God they didn't feel the need to mention midi-chlorians.
5. Bridge of SpiesWhenever you get something from Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks, it is usually good, especially if it is inspired by true events - see Saving Private Ryan, Catch Me If You Can and the executive producer credits for Band Of Brothers and The Pacific. Well, for this let's add the Coen brothers as co-writers. So much greatness on show. As The Telegraph's film critic Robbie Collin called it, "the James Stewart Cold War drama that never was...Mr Smith Goes to East Berlin".
Set during the Cold War, Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), a Soviet spy, is arrested for espionage in the United States and put on trial. The man recruited to defend him - insurance lawyer James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks). However, at the same time a U-2 spy plane is shot down over the Soviet Union and the pilot, Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), is captured. As a result, Donovan is asked to negotiate an exchange between the two parties in Berlin. But to further complicate matters, the Berlin Wall is under construction and a US student, Frederic Pryor (Will Rogers), is detained by the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik (East Germans)).
There is certainly the same sense of paranoia that was prevalent in that era in this film, similar to what you got in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. But, that's John Le Carre; this is Steven Spielberg drawing comparisons to the works of Frank Capra. There is the same sense of a character study at play in this film, but there is also the tension and nervousness you could expect in a Hitchcock piece. The sense of time I think is important, because there is so much that happened in a 5-year period to try to include in a 140-minute film. And it doesn't feel like it drags on. The script for is very well-written by British playwright Matt Charman and the Coen brothers.
Tom Hanks is playing someone with such an unenviable task - defending an enemy of the state - but gives him a strong defence which no one expects from him. He treats him like any other defendant, regardless of the fact he is a member of the KGB. The repercussions could potentially be serious, with him also becoming one of the most hated men in America alongside Abel. Following the trial, there is much widespread public hostility against Donovan, including an attack on his house and a confrontation with a police officer. Hanks always seems to give his best when portraying real-life characters on film - see Apollo 13 and Captain Phillips. Mark Rylance's performance is certainly worthy of consideration with regards to the upcoming awards. He is unreadable in the face of danger and has such a matter of fact attitude. Even with the possibility of facing the death penalty if found guilty, he is just like, "Would it help?" This is possibly his best onscreen performance, as most of his other work has been on stage. The one member of the cast who feels a little under-used is Amy Ryan as Donovan's wife.
Thanks to the work of Spielberg's long-time collaborator in cinematography Janusz Kaminski, the feel of 1950s/60s Berlin is perfectly captured. It certainly looks depressing (in the nicest possible way), maybe because it was depressing period for the city at that time. You see the Wall going up and dividing the city and feel the sense of paranoia on the eastern side. There is one powerful scene where Donovan is on a train and he witnesses East German sentries shooting a group of people attempting to flee over the Wall. And Donovan has to do business with the DDR, whose agenda is not the same as the Soviets. The film's climax, which takes places on the Glienicke Bridge is one of the most tense scenes you will see this year on film.
This is perhaps the best work Spielberg has done in recent years, in which one man must stand for his moral principles in the face of a major geopolitical clash.
4. The MartianThe final part in the "Save Matt Damon" trilogy (check out the video from CineMash on YouTube).
Based on the book by Andy Weir and adapted for the screen by Drew Goddard (co-writer and director of The Cabin in the Woods), a group of astronauts is forced to evacuate their research mission on Mars due to an unexpected storm. Unfortunately, one member of the crew is left behind and therefore presumed dead - botanist Mark Watney (Matt Damon). Oh no he isn't. As a result, he has to find a way to survive until the next scheduled mission arrives in four years time, with the few remaining supplies on a planet where nothing grows and without water. He must also try to make contact with NASA.
I always hate using this phrase, but for me this is "a return to form" for director Ridley Scott. His most recent films, including Exodus and The Counsellor, were not successes, although I have to say I didn't think Prometheus was as bad as many others thought; well it did when it wasn't overindulging with creation theories. For me this is his best work since Gladiator, in a genre which he has excelled in before - Alien (although that's more horror than sci-fi) and Blade Runner. What he needs is a good screenplay, which this has thanks to Drew Goddard. The film was filmed both in Jordan's Wadi Rum, as the backdrop for Mars, and Hungary, at Korda Studios - home of one of the largest sound stages in the world - for the interior shots.
From the trailers, The Martian looked as if it was going to be very serious and bleak, but it isn't. It is actually quite heart-warming and funny in places. It is similar to Cast Away, in the sense of surviving with very what you have and finding alternative uses, but there is also a bit of Silent Running, Apollo 13 and Moon and the final act has some of the same tension that we saw in Gravity. So think of all these elements put together with some 70s dance music. The soundtrack is as cheesy and epic as the one for Guardians of the Galaxy.
Matt Damon plays a very likable character who the audience can easily engage with through his professionalism and his exuberance. He makes a series of video diaries in which he explains the severity of his situation but also the theory behind how he's going to overcome it. Because sometimes the most dire situations you find yourselves in can be resolved with gaffer tape. He has to use his skills/knowledge as a botanist, as well as his wit and ingenuity, to survive. In his words, he has to "science the s*** out of this", both metaphorically and literally (you try growing potatoes on a planet where there's no vegetation, oxygen or water). There is one amusing moment where he's dipping a baked potato in Vicodin: "It has been seven days since I ran out of ketchup." Compared to the grand scheme of things, that is a problem. At the same time, you have those working at NASA, including Jeff Daniels, Kristen Wiig and Chiwetel Ejiofor, who are having their own issues with working out how to rescue him - both practical and geopolitical. Plus, there are Damon's crewmates, who include Jessica Chastain, Kate Mara, Michael Peña and Sebastian Stan, who themselves consider an act of mutiny against NASA to rescue their colleague.
Following on from this film's success - let's hope it leaves an impression on the Academy - it will be interesting to see whether Ridley Scott will continue this good form into his next projects, most notably Alien: Covenant (the follow-up to Prometheus).
P.S. I loved the Lord of the Rings reference, especially when the film is in the company of Sean Bean.
Director Denis Villeneuve's previous film Prisoners was a very dark film, in its subject and its appearance. What he did really well in that film was build up tension and now he has done it again with the Palm d'Or nominated Sicario, written by Taylor Sheridan (who you may know from Sons of Anarchy).
After several members of her team are killed after a drugs raid, idealistic FBI agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) is enlisted to assist a government task force who are fighting the war on drugs in the border areas between the United States and Mexico. The force is led by the unconventional Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) and includes a hitman, known in Mexico as "Sicario", named Alejandro (Benicio del Toro).
The opening sequence is quite extraordinary. The establishing shot makes it look like any other peaceful residential area in Arizona, but it leaves no time for the audience to ponder. The scene doesn't want to play out like any ordinary raid; this one sets the tone for whole film, even if its main discovery would look more at home in a horror film. Another memorable moment is Macer's first mission with the task force in Juárez, the size of which demonstrates the vastness of the mission facing them. It is light on exposition, but compensates that with its action, concluding with a traffic jam.
Blunt gives a career-best performance; she's not a stranger to the action genre after she played a strong female co-lead in Edge of Tomorrow. She speaks for the audience, as out of all the main characters she is the one out of the loop; she is the most honest character in the film. This type of film/this subject matter is always regarded as somewhat masculine, so this film is unique in having a female leading performance. It is also a great performance from del Toro. He is silent for a lot of the time, but when he is called into action he leaves a lasting effect. However, we learn that he has some sort of troubled past early on and eventually his true motivations. Josh Brolin and the other authorities' motivations are vague to say the least. In his words, their objective - "To dramatically overreact". The film also occasionally cuts back and forth to a Mexican point of view in the form of a police officer played by Maximiliano Hernández.
Villeneuve commented how the film's location attracted him, calling the two contrasting cultures in El Paso, TX, and Juárez living next to each other sadly inspiring. He also loves silence and the ways that certain actors can portray that on-screen; that is very well demonstrated in Sicario. As with Prisoners, the film is brilliantly shot by cinematographer Roger Deakins, including bird's-eye panning shots over this vast wilderness. The rumbling soundtrack from Jóhann Jóhannsson perfectly complements the tension.
This film clearly displays the ethical costs involved in the War on Drugs and raises questions on what is morally right and wrong. Lionsgate have commissioned a sequel which will focus on del Toro's character. Also, don't be surprised if this film receives a few Oscar nominations. It deserves them.
And now the top two and I think you might be able to easily guess which two films I haven't mentioned so far. I must say that it was very difficult to separate them, as both of them were brilliant. So, here we go...
2. Mad Max: Fury RoadLast year in my top 10 films, I included Godzilla and I think I mentioned how it needed to be seen on the biggest screen possible with the volume turned up to 11 (if not, I definitely mentioned it on Facebook). The same applies to this film - Fury Road, the fourth film in the Mad Max franchise. Turn the volume up to the max (no pun intended).
Set in a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland, Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) by chance stumbles upon a group of women escaping a war lord to somewhere known as the Green Place, led by Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron). There is not much in terms of plot in all honesty.
So where does this film feature in the Mad Max timeline? Technically it is a reboot, although director George Miller thinks of it more as a "revisiting". We do see that Max has his Interceptor and he does mention that he was a police officer is his past life whilst being haunted by the loss of his family and others, but we are told this is an independent film in the series. However, this film seems to be on a much larger scale; it feels larger than the first three films, which were just limited to Australia. This one was actually filmed in Namibia. The first film was very much a cheap-to-make exploitation film about one man's revenge, whereas this cost $150,000,000.
The film is basically a 2-hour long chase sequence, so there is more than enough action on display. It is visual storytelling; the action is telling the story. The sequences, as with the previous films, look and feel real, rather than as if it was all done using computers (over 80% was practical effects). If there was a scale for CGI use in a film (0 - practically zero; 10 - Michael Bay overdose), this is near the bottom end. It is a symphony of noise and spectacle. Miller has previously mentioned the influence on action movies from silent cinema, about the purity of telling a story visually and not verbally. The dialogue scenes are uncharacteristic to the loud action, as in the sense the tone quietens down and the soundtrack becomes melodramatic. Sure, some things are unexplained, but this film is primarily about the action and lets it take control. That's not something new to this franchise as The Road Warrior was similar; the first film and Beyond Thunderdome had more character and plot development.
And the question that I'm sure was on everyone's mind, how does Tom Hardy compare to Mel Gibson as Max Rockatansky? Well, both would rather let their actions do the talking. But, Hardy is more of a physical actor than Gibson, such as in Bronson using his body language to great effect, which makes him ideal for this film. However, it has to be said that most of the film's attention is on Charlize Theron and this has led to some people describing this as a feminist action film. She very much resembles Ripley in Alien 3 and deserves to sit alongside her in the company of strong female leads in action films. There is also a pretty solid supporting performance from Nicholas Hoult.
This is the best film in the Mad Max franchise, even better than The Road Warrior. Unfortunately, it was beaten at the box office by Pitch Perfect 2. No offence to Anna Kendrick and co, but I prefer the big loud shouty symphony of noise with the guy playing the flaming guitar.
1. Inside OutMany people say we are going through a golden era for animated features, what with the fantastic stories and also the diversity of the techniques used. Think about the best animated films in the last couple of years and the varying styles of them - Song of the Sea from Tomm Moore, Isao Takahata's hand-drawn The Tale of The Princess Kaguya, The Boxtrolls, Hayao Miyazaki's The Wind Rises, Dreamworks' How To Train Your Dragon 2 and, of course, the awesomeness that was The Lego Movie. One studio that has been at the forefront of animation films ever since the 90s is Pixar and this is for me their best film since Toy Story 3. And like that, it will play with your emotions.
11-year-old Riley and her family have moved from Minnesota to San Francisco and she needs to adjust to her new life with the help of her emotions - Joy (voice of Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Disgust (Mindy Kaling) and Anger (Lewis Black). However, they have differing opinions on how to deal with their new surroundings and this leads to an accident with Riley's happy memories.
Going into this, you think that you have seen this idea done before with films like Herman's Head and Osmosis Jones, but after it starts you realise that this is not the same film. It concentrates on the difficulties of adolescence and childhood, especially moving house and how everything changes in new surroundings. That will be relatable to some people more than others, but what everyone can relate to is that these emotions are important to all of us. That is shown with all the human characters having all these emotions, yet they're all different in their own unique way. And these emotions determine who we are. It is thought-provoking. The vast size of the universe is immense, even though it's just inside the mind of one person. There are all the long-term memories, plus those we can easily forget, and also Imagination Land and Dream Productions (I'll let you work out for yourselves what happens in them).
The characters are fantastic, especially when they are fighting for control of the keyboard. They are hapless without Joy and don't know how best to look after Riley when they need her. However, we soon learn that each of them plays an equally important role in looking after her and that they need each other. What is Joy without Sadness? I can finally say that I've found something that I can take Amy Poehler seriously in; she brings a lot of energy to the character, and goes on her own personal journey throughout the film. Anger is without doubt the funniest of the emotions.
The joy of Pixar is that they create films that can equally appeal to both grownups and children and they have been doing that for years. Their films can make you laugh, smile, contemplate and shed a tear. Add this film to a list that includes all the Toy Story films, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo and Up. Many professional critics (those who are better at this than me and get paid to do it for a living) have discussed the possibility that Inside Out could be the first ever animated feature to win the Oscar for Best Picture. And why shouldn't it?
Plus, the short film at the beginning, Lava, was beautiful to watch.
And the worst film of the year is:
- Terminator Genisys - yes, I did actually decide to go and see this, even after it received the blessing of James Cameron. Started as a somewhat interesting revisit to the original in the first act (although they could have easily asked Bill Paxton to reprise his most memorable role), but then completely goes off on its own tangent creating way too many timelines for the audience to keep up with. Acting was terrible especially Jai Courtney, story was unconvincing and what exactly was the point of Matt Smith being there. Didn't help the fact that the trailers gave away the major plot point. On the plus side, marginally better than Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Terminator Salvation (although that's not saying much) and J.K. Simmons was the only worthwhile performance.
- Pixels - just go and watch that epsiode of Futurama (you know the one I mean). Plus, Kevin James is the President of the United States?!? Erm, I'm calling bulls*** on that (although I'm not sure whether that's more or less scary than the idea of Donald Trump being elected president).
- Entourage - go and check out Mark Kermode's review, aka the "EntouRAGE".
And...TV highlight of the year:
Jon Stewart's farewell to The Daily Show. Never before has somebody inspired a generation to sit up and pay attention to the news in the same way that Jon did and we may never have anyone like that again. He highlighted flaws with the political system and never ceased in calling out the media in theirs, especially Fox News and CNN. He did a better job at covering the news than those who were paid to do it for a living. Yet, there were also the serious moments - getting Crossfire cancelled, his emotional speech after 9/11 and his campaigning on behalf of the first responders, going after Fox for their coverage of the Ferguson protests and his responses this year to the Charlie Hebdo tragedy and the shooting in Charleston. The biggest shame though has to be the fact he is leaving with the 2016 US Election only just on the horizon, but the Republican candidates gave him plenty of material in his final weeks, especially Donald Trump. Nevertheless the show must go on with its new host - South African comedian Trevor Noah. In the mean time, all the best Jon #JonVoyage.
So that's 2015 out of the way. Here's what's coming up in 2016 to look forward to:
- The Hateful Eight (January 8th) - the new film by Quentin Tarantino, about a group of bounty hunters in post-Civil War Wyoming.
- The Revenant (January 15th) - from the Oscar-winning director of Birdman (unfortunately); is this the film for which Leonardo DiCaprio will finally win an Oscar for? Well we have been assured that he "wasn't raped by a bear" during its filming.
- Spotlight (January 29th) - early talk of this as an awards' contender; concerns a child molestation scandal in the 1970s uncovered by the Boston Globe, starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton and Rachel McAdams.
- Trumbo (February 5th) - has received much critical praise from its festival premières; about a legendary Hollywood screenwriter jailed and blacklisted for his political beliefs, starring Bryan Cranston.
- Zoolander 2 (February 12th) - admit it, we all like Zoolander in some way.
- Finding Dory (July 29th) - I love Finding Nemo and hopefully Pixar can continue their recent good form following on from Inside Out.
- Untitled Bourne no. 5 (July 29th) - the return of Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass to the Bourne franchise.
- Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (November 18th) - Eddie Redmayne stars in this return to the Harry Potter universe.
- Assassin's Creed (December 30th) - from director Justin Kurzel and Michael Fassbender who both gave us Macbeth this year; will this be the first film based on a video game that is actually any good?
