My Favourite Films of 2016

Tags

10 Cloverfield Lane, Adam McKay, Alien Invasion, Aliens, Amy Adams, Anna Kendrick, Anomalisa, Anton Yelchin, Arrival, Ben Affleck, Best Animated Film, Best Picture, Brie Larson, Charlie Kaufman, Christian Bale, Cinema, Cloverfield, Comedy, Comic Book Movie, Comics, Dan Trachtenberg, Dave Johns, David Thewlis, Deadpool, Django Unchained, Don't Breathe, Emma Donoghue, Film, Games, Goodnight Mommy, Green Room, Hardcore Henry, Horror, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, I Daniel Blake, Imogen Poots, Jacob Tremblay, Jake Gyllenhaal, Jeremy Renner, John Goodman, Julian Dennison, Kill Bill, Mark Ruffalo, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Michael Keaton, Morena Baccarin, Movie Review, Nocturnal Animals, Patrick Stewart, Psychological Horror, Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino, Rachel McAdams, Reservoir Dogs, Room, Ryan Gosling, Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L. Jackson, Sausage Party, Space, Spotlight, Stanley Tucci, Steve Carell, Stop-Motion, Superhero, Superhero Movies, Taika Waititi, The Accountant, The Big Short, The Hateful Eight, The Oscars, Thriller, Violence, Wade Wilson, What We Do in the Shadows

via screencrush.com

2016 was an exceptional year for film. The level of quality was so high that I’ve decided to extend my list from 10 films to 15, and even so there are a couple of absentees such as “Sausage Party” and “Don’t Breathe” that I was very tempted to add.

My favourite films of the year will appear on this list in ascending order from the ones that I liked a lot to the ones that I liked the most. If you think that I’ve missed out any exceptional films then please feel free to comment with the ones that you think should appear – you may recommend something that I end up loving! Otherwise, please read and enjoy!

15. Hardcore Henry

via comingsoon.net

“Hardcore Henry” captures everything that’s good about the action genre and crams it into 90 minutes. It’s an adventure that feels so much larger than life that it could never possibly happen, yet the first-person camera allows the audience to experience the action through their own eyes much like they would if they were playing a video game.

The similarities between how this film is presented and how a first-person shooter would be presented are undeniable, and even someone like my dad who doesn’t actually play video games immediately mentioned that “Hardcore Henry” reminded him of that medium. As such this film isn’t particularly pretty; much of it passes by in a blur just as it would if it were happening to you in real life, as quick movements by the leading man result in disorientation and a lack of camera focus. This might prove challenging for some, and as such I wouldn’t recommend this movie to absolutely everyone, but I thought that it worked for the most part and felt like a natural extension of the found footage genre.

The film’s biggest shortcoming is undoubtedly its story, which feels as though it belongs in a game more than it does on the big screen, but this doesn’t ruin the movie as a whole. It’s not that the story isn’t clear throughout or that it doesn’t feature prominently, it’s just that it acts as a vehicle for the action rather than the main attraction, and you’re never really able to care about the hero or the villain because the natural association to video games neutralises any sense of danger. It’s simply impossible to become invested in the way that would be required to make the story feel worthwhile because other aspects of the film take centre stage and push it to one side.

Nevertheless, from start to finish this film is pure entertainment and if you like gore and well-choreographed action set pieces then there’s no reason that you can’t enjoy it for what it is.

“Hardcore Henry” isn’t a film for cinema purists, but in my opinion it encapsulates everything that a film of this ilk should be; funny, violent, and visually captivating, it’s escapism at its finest.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/hardcore-henry/

14. The Accountant

via moviehole.net

Like “Hardcore Henry”, “The Accountant” is an entertaining film that’s fun to watch from start to finish but isn’t always intelligent. That isn’t to say that its story is lacking in any meaningful way or that it’s a simple blockbuster, but in order to buy into what’s happening on screen you often have to rely on the suspension of disbelief. I’m fine with this provided that the film in question is able to retain my attention and keep me invested in its characters, so whilst I don’t think this film’s story is particularly ground-breaking I was very happy once I’d left the cinema.

Affleck’s lead performance was the standout feature of the film as his comedic timing made what could’ve been a clichéd action movie feel more like a nuanced black comedy, and his mannerisms made his character undeniably likeable throughout.

Whether or not you’ll have an affinity for this film depends on whether or not you can become invested in the story that it presents, and this is something which could prove to be problematic for some viewers as there are parts that fall flat and unintentionally muddy the waters, but in my opinion it’s a nice movie with a couple of standout moments that elevate it towards being fantastic.

Perhaps if the story had been tighter and less reliant on convenience then “The Accountant” would’ve placed higher on this list, but even so from my perspective the positive aspects comfortably outweigh the negatives.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/the-accountant/

13. 10 Cloverfield Lane

via variety.com

I love psychological horror, and whilst this film is a little bit tame to confidently place within that genre, it packs everything that’s great about it into its 104 minute runtime.

“10 Cloverfield Lane” is at its most effective in its quieter moments as the audience is left alone to wonder what’s really going on both within the underground bunker and beyond its walls. John Goodman’s powerful performance makes Howard (his character) the focus of attention, with his true intentions being the main source of horror in the film. Goodman provides a sense of unease to every scene that he’s in, even when he’s not losing his mind over the smallest of discourtesies, and it’s because of his performance that this movie works so well.

As the audience you never really know what to think about Howard, and because Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s performance as Michelle is also perfectly considered you can easily buy into what she’s feeling and empathise with her situation.

The only real issue I had with “10 Cloverfield Lane” was that for all of its tension there wasn’t what I would call a significant payoff. Being part of the “Cloverfield” series was both a blessing and a curse for Dan Trachtenberg and his team, because whilst the film gained exposure through its title it also became predictable as a result of it.

The performances and the pacing of the film made it a fun watch and kept you guessing, but once the back and forth was over there was nothing left. Anyone who has seen “Cloverfield” had a reasonably good idea of what kind of disaster was waiting outside, and whilst this didn’t devalue the middle section of the film it did make the ending rather stale. More time spent in the bunker and an ambiguous ending could’ve made “10 Cloverfield Lane” a ten out of ten film, but what we ended up getting was a measured, powerful, and thoughtful film which was robbed of greatness by unfortunate limitations. I still loved it, but it could have placed much higher on the list.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/10-cloverfield-lane/

12. Nocturnal Animals

via gq.com

“Nocturnal Animals” is one of the more recent releases on this list and it’s also one of the hardest to place. I really liked this movie, more than I expected to going in, and the more that I think about it the more that I want to watch it again.

It plays out like a dream within a dream as Susan (played by Amy Adams) imagines the events of a novel written by her ex-husband, Edward (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), whilst we as the audience watch her deal with the feelings that the story evokes. The novel as it plays out on screen is compelling in itself, even though we know that it doesn’t directly effect anything that’s happening in the film’s depiction of the real world. The novel is just a narrative within the narrative; yet in virtue of the fact that the story being told is about loss and revenge I couldn’t help but become invested in everything that was happening on screen.

I was so invested in the story taking place within the story that its purpose escaped me at various points in the film, making the ending all the more impactful when the credits rolled. The events that occur in Edward’s novel are ‘for Susan’, and the novel is actually an allegory for their marriage and the way that he felt when it came to an end. The novel is designed to emotionally manipulate Susan and validate Edward’s career as a writer at the same time, and this all becomes wonderfully clear when the movie ends.

As I said in my original review, “Nocturnal Animals” is a wonderfully realised revenge film on two fronts. Edward’s book is a tale of revenge in itself but there’s also a calculated act of vengeance taking place in the real world as Edward emotionally torments Susan, and thus it works incredibly well.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/11/21/nocturnal-animals/

11. The Big Short

via screenprism.com

I gave “The Big Short” a rave review back when it came out at the start of the year, and at the time I thought that it had a great chance of winning the Oscar for Best Picture. I thought that it was a very well-written take on a relevant event in our recent history, and I was also impressed by the performances of ensemble cast, but whilst that opinion remains I’m not as high on the film as I was back in January.

The thing that I liked the most about this film was that it didn’t try to force-feed information to its audience in order to get the story going, or at the very least it didn’t try to hide important exposition within conversation. This might’ve meant that for some viewers the film wasn’t instantly accessible, but personally I found it quite refreshing. I didn’t feel as though anything was being dumbed down for the sake of making the film easier to consume, and it seemed as though there was a conscious effort on the part of the writers to explain things in as interesting a way as possible without watering down the content, which I feel is far too rare in film.

Adam McKay used his background in comedy to inject a sense of playfulness into the film when explaining difficult concepts, and thus he made moments in which the audience had to learn technical jargon stimulating when in less capable hands they could’ve been incredibly dull. I can imagine a version of this movie in which extended periods of time are spent on one character explaining the ins and outs of subprime mortgages to another character for no other reason than to clue the audience in, and I think it’s safe to say that that version of this film would not have been nominated for an Oscar.

Overall I’d say that what I liked the most about “The Big Short” was that it was smart and confidently executed. It’s a superb film and the director’s vision feels as though it was realised almost perfectly. The only reason that it doesn’t place higher on this list is that having watched it again and watched many of the films on this list multiple times, I don’t think it’s as entertaining as those films which I’ve placed above it.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/the-big-short/

10. Green Room

via indiewire.com

“Green Room” is vicious, relentless, aggressive, and shocking. When I wrote my review on this film I described it as honest and that’s exactly what it is. Violence is violent. Pain is painful. Death is quick, brutal, and inevitable.

I wouldn’t describe “Green Room” as a movie for the masses, but from my perspective it’s one of the more realistic and grounded stories of its kind, and if you’re unfazed by graphic violence then it’s also a lot of fun. I’m sure that it would be seen as overly graphic by some, but it was completely palatable for me and I loved the film’s slow build towards a hectic finish. I enjoyed the pacing, the performances, and the overall cinematography, and having watched it again since its release I can say with confidence that it’s better the second time around.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/green-room/

9. Spotlight

via theodysseyonline.com

When “Spotlight” came out it received positive reviews and a lot of Oscar buzz, and as we now know it ended up taking home the big prize at this year’s ceremony. However, upon seeing it I have to admit that I was a little disappointed. I liked it and I thought that the performances were all admirable, but there was something about the approach it took to its narrative that I wasn’t overly enamoured by.

In my review of the film I described it as procedural, in that rather than focusing on the emotional aspect of a very troubling narrative it chose to cast its eye on the way that the story was handled by the news team charged with covering it. This is an unusual way to tackle such an easy to milk topic, and it was one which I found hard to get to grips with on my first watch. I don’t know if perhaps my expectations were slightly high because of the reviews that the film was getting, or if maybe the trailer was a little misleading, but something about the film managed to underwhelm me.

However, after watching it again my opinion has changed quite drastically. I still don’t think that it should have taken home the Oscar for Best Picture, but having now watched the film knowing exactly what to expect I can appreciate what the writers were going for and enjoy the way that the narrative progresses in a way that I wasn’t able to before. The story of how a news team researches, writes, and then reveals such a delicate story is one that is more than worth telling, and this is one of the few instances where a film being inspired by true events really does make it that much more effective.

“Spotlight” isn’t a flashy film, so if you’re expecting fireworks going in then you’re going to be disappointed when things don’t go bang. On the other hand, if you approach the material with an open mind and understand its purpose then it becomes much more interesting and worthwhile. On second viewing I enjoyed “Spotlight” a lot more than I did the first time around, and that’s something that I can’t say for many of the films on this list, which is why it ranks so highly.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/spotlight/

8. Hunt for the Wilderpeople

via teasertrailer.com

It seems as though “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” disappeared from cinemas almost immediately after its release earlier this year, which is a crying shame considering its undeniable quality and wonderful sense of humour. As far as straight-up comedies go this one was easily my favourite of the year, and it’s just a shame that more people couldn’t have experienced it in cinemas.

Still, it’s now on Netflix along with director Taika Waititi’s “What We Do in the Shadows”, which is arguably as good if not better than this film, so it’s definitely worth watching if you get the chance.

The film revolves around Ricky Baker (Julian Dennison), a teenage boy struggling with life having been dubbed a “bad egg” by child services. The story behind the story is emotional and tragic, but for the most part Ricky’s background is used for comedic effect, and he often references darker moments in his past with a childlike disinterest. This disinterest serves the character and the film’s tone well, but it would be unfair to say that the narrative is devoid of genuine emotion or sadness. It’s clear that when Ricky speaks about his past his foster father is taking it all in and growing in affection for the boy, and we quickly pick up on the fact that Ricky is labelled as a “bad egg” because he’s acting out given that most of the people in his life have either died or neglected him.

This provides the background behind the hijinks that make this film as humorous as it is, as Ricky runs off into the Australian Outback sparking a terribly organised manhunt. Again, I wouldn’t recommend “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” to everyone, because this type of comedy won’t resonate in the same way with others as it does for me, but if you like the sound of an overweight child reciting explicit haikus to a grumpy old man whilst trying to evade child services then this film is for you!

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/hunt-for-the-wilderpeople/

7. The Hateful Eight

via theodysseyonline.com

Quentin Tarantino tells a story like no one else. The dialogue in his movies is distinct in both its delivery and its style, and from the moment that one of his films starts you know exactly what tone he’s going for. Expletives punctuate every sentence and violent death is played for comedic effect in spite of how ugly it may be, and everything is just so refreshing throughout.

If nothing else Tarantino’s films are engaging provided that you’re willing to pay attention. “The Hateful Eight” is probably the most dialogue-heavy film that Tarantino has made to date, so if you aren’t willing to sit back and listen then you aren’t going to enjoy this movie. However, if you are then you should be able to appreciate the fact that Tarantino makes exposition more entertaining than any other filmmaker, and that this film is as polished as any of his previous endeavours.

Similarly to “Reservoir Dogs” this film takes place almost entirely in one location, using an ensemble cast to make motivations unclear and generate tension without the need for excessive action on screen. It’s a slow burn but you always feel ready for things to go south, and when they do it’s both humorous and violent, making you laugh and wince at the same time. If you love Tarantino’s movies then this is exactly what you want going in, and I think it’s fair to say that any fan of “Pulp Fiction”, “Django Unchained”, “Kill Bill”, etc., will enjoy this film from the first minute to the last.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/the-hateful-eight/

6. I, Daniel Blake

via thr.com

“I, Daniel Blake” is a soul-crushing film in the best kind of way. It makes you question the established order and re-evaluate your feelings towards people who are struggling around you. It takes the prejudices of society and turns them on their head, demonstrating how the unemployed in Britain are hampered by a system which is set up to help those who know how to exploit it rather than those who need it the most.

Daniel (played by Dave Johns) is a widower who has suffered a heart attack on the job and has been deemed unfit to work by his doctor, yet he is denied the help that he needs from the government and instead has to apply for Job Seekers Allowance despite the fact that he can’t actually take a job without endangering his life. We watch as he tries to do everything that’s required of him in order to get the money that he needs to survive, whilst also failing to meet the demands placed on him by the Job Centre due to his inability to handle modern technology. Nobody is willing to help Daniel despite the fact that the issues that he’s having could easily be resolved with the proper guidance, and he’s treated like a nuisance despite his best intentions.

“I, Daniel Blake” is a grim but exceptionally good film. As someone who has been unemployed for a long stretch of time and who has also worked in customer services, I can say with certainty that the barriers that are put in place to stop people accessing the help that they need in this film are completely accurate, and also completely ridiculous. As such, “I, Daniel Blake” is simultaneously beautiful and despicable; casting a light on just how broken the world is, and on how we systematically fail to treat people with the respect that they deserve on a daily basis.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/i-daniel-blake/

5. Arrival

via collider.com

“Arrival” takes what I would call the traditional alien invasion movie formula and throws it out of the window, focusing on the communication barriers that stop us from coming together in the face of disaster rather than on how we could fight back against an extra-terrestrial aggressor.

It’s a time consuming and deliberate approach which may not appeal to all cinemagoers, but it’s one that makes this film feel utterly unique. It makes the idea of an alien invasion seem almost plausible by approaching its concept with a scientific eye, which makes it more engaging to watch than any blockbuster could ever be.

The film’s pacing allows the audience to come to their own conclusions and add to the mystery behind the narrative, which in turn creates tension without the need to present conflict on screen and gives the film a technical feel. It grounds the movie with a sense of realism that it has no right to have and gives it an urgent, foreboding tone.

It’s an interesting take on a genre which has been explored many times before, and it was one of the most visually striking movies that I saw this year. It’s a focused and intelligent film with a clear narrative thread, and the understated performances of Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner make for a captivating experience.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/arrival/

4. Goodnight Mommy

via youtube.com

“Goodnight Mommy” is an Austrian horror film about twins whose mother comes home from the hospital with a face full of bandages after an undisclosed accident – do I really need to explain why I love this movie?

As a fan of the horror genre and a twin myself I made it my mission to see this movie, and I even dragged my dad along with me. What we saw was a harrowing but ingenious film carried by two exemplary performances from real life twins Elias and Lukas Schwarz, and a story which was perfectly paced and wonderfully twisted. In no way does “Goodnight Mommy” rely on jump scares in order to unsettle its audience, instead it uses silence and children’s laughter to create an eerie and almost idyllic tone, interspersed with moments of tension within the family dynamic as ‘The Mother’ is incredibly tired and quick to temper due to the struggle that is her recovery.

The real meat of the story doesn’t take place until the closing moments, at which point the writers take the film from first gear straight into fifth in a chaotic explosion of grief and denial. This ending is measured and carefully presented so as to allow you to empathise with every character whilst also hoping out of curiosity that the worst will happen, capping off what is an almost faultless film.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/goodnight-mommy/

3. Anomalisa

via youtube.com

Upon its release “Anomalisa” was called the most human film of the year, and although this was a slightly superficial tagline, it still rings true today.

Essentially this is the story of a man going through a mid-life crisis, and although it’s an inventive and insightful take on its subject matter it’s actually very simple in its execution. The majority of the movie takes place in the Fregoli hotel and in truth not a lot happens on screen. There’s nothing grandiose about the narrative, no significant twists or turns to propel the film towards greatness, just puppets created by 3D printers and the genius of Charlie Kaufman.

“Anomalisa” achieves excellence through charm, clarity, and intelligence. Through the medium of stop-motion Kaufman and co. are able to portray true human emotion as they are unstifled by the intricacies of an actor’s performance. As such the characters’ mannerisms are accurate and honest throughout, making the internal struggle of Michael (voiced by David Thewlis) in particular abundantly clear and allowing the audience to empathise with him as a result.

I’ve seen plenty of animated films in the past year, but none of them were quite as endearing or thought-provoking as this one. “Anomalisa” is a masterpiece created by one of the best filmmakers alive today, and although its story is simple its examination of the human condition is a triumph.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/anomalisa/

2. Deadpool

via flickr.com

“Deadpool” is the second movie on this list that I paid to see twice at the cinema; it never stops being funny, no matter how many times I watch it, and although it can be vulgar at times I still think that the scenes between Wade (Ryan Reynolds) and Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) are as powerful as any in terms of raw emotion.

A lot of people treat “Deadpool” as either a comedy or a superhero movie when they talk about it, but I think that that kind of categorisation is unfair and does the film an injustice. “Deadpool” is a movie which would be entertaining even if we had no idea how to characterise a ‘super hero’. It’s a great action movie due to its well-choreographed fight sequences, witty one-liners, and commanding lead performance; a hilarious comedy with pitch perfect writing and excellent delivery, and a compelling love story with the two lead actors demonstrating genuine chemistry and warmth in their respective roles.

“Deadpool” is a near perfect movie and it just works. It feels as though it turned out exactly as intended and as though everyone was pulling in the same direction, and it treats its source material with respect. Not all of the jokes find their mark, but as I’ve said I don’t think that this movie should be treated solely as a comedy, and for each joke that doesn’t land there’s another that leaves you breathless with laughter.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/deadpool/

1. Room

via flickr.com

From the moment that I saw this film I knew that it would be at the top of this list. “Room” is a beautiful film, and it isn’t just one of my favourite movies of the year, it’s one of my favourite movies period. It made me feel regret, sorrow, sadness, and joy in equal measure, and despite the bleak reality of the situation there was a genuine sense of hope echoing throughout.

Jacob Tremblay’s performance was a revelation and his character’s obliviousness towards his own reality was heartbreaking and heartwarming at the same time. His rapport with Brie Larson was obvious throughout and both of them deserved the acclaim that they received for their performances.

There was something about this film that I found immensely captivating and emotional, and I came out of the cinema after seeing it with the urge to watch it again immediately. It’s a tragic film but it’s also uplifting because of the relationship between Jack (Tremblay) and Joy (Larson); it would be easy to think of Room as Jack’s world because it’s all that he knows, and to him it’s all that there is, but really his world is his mother. She’s the only person that matters to him and he doesn’t need anyone else, and it’s this bond that makes “Room” as emotional as it is.

In my opinion, “Room” is everything that a film should be. It’s insightful but tells a contained story, it’s performed amazingly, it’s well-directed, and most importantly it’s wonderfully written which I’m sure is down in no small part to Emma Donoghue’s book of the same name; I just don’t see any kind of flaw in the entire movie. Clearly I would recommend this film to just about anyone and it’s one that I’ve watched many times since its release, and although I enjoyed every film on this list “Room” sits comfortably above them all as my favourite of 2016.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/room/

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Tags

Adventureland, Amy Adams, Anne Hathaway, Ant-Man, Aquaman, Avatar, Batman, Batman v Superman, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Ben Affleck, Black Panther, Captain America, Captain America : Civil War, CGI, Chadwick Boseman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Cinema, Comics, Cyborg, Dawn of Justice, DC, Deadpool, Doomsday, Ezra Miller, Film, Gal Gadot, Guardians of the Galaxy, Henry Cavill, Jared Leto, Jason Momoa, Jeremy Irons, Jesse Eisenberg, Lex Luthor, Lois Lane, Man Of Steel, Marvel, MCU, Morgan Freeman, Movie Review, Ray Fisher, Spider-Man, Suicide Squad, Superman, The Avengers, The Daily Planet, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, The Flash, The Joker, The Justice League, Tom Holland, Wonder Woman, Zombieland

via denofgeek.com

On Wednesday morning I saw “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”. I did my best to resist the temptation of seeing yet another superhero movie at the cinema, but alas my will-power just wasn’t strong enough and I caved in. I’d heard mixed reviews, and having hated “Man of Steel” for various (and I think very valid) reasons, I was trying to avoid giving DC any more of my money.

Having seen the film I can say that I was justified in my reluctance, because whilst there were parts of it that I enjoyed, there were other moments at which I couldn’t help but roll my eyes and shake my head in disgust. I’m being overdramatic of course, but when the main motivation for warring superheroes to team up is that their mothers share the same first name, you know that there’s something drastically wrong with the film that you’re watching.

via screenrant.com

Whilst Ben Affleck is a fine Batman, and he isn’t putting on a voice when playing the hero (instead he has a device which modifies his voice for him), he doesn’t inspire love or devotion to the character and he’s far less likeable than Christian Bale’s version. This isn’t a major problem because at least it differentiates him from the previous iteration of the character, but when the solo Batman film that has already been confirmed comes into theatres I won’t be rushing to see it… unless Jared Leto is amazing in “Suicide Squad” and The Joker is the villain.

Henry Cavill is also okay in this movie – he’s definitely better than he was in “Man of Steel” – but Superman as a character is given no real personality, and the only thing that gives him any humanity at all is his relationship with Lois Lane. Maybe that wouldn’t be so bad if Lane herself was likeable in the movie, but Amy Adams (who I hate to criticise because I like her as an actress) was awful and her character had no real depth; you can basically sum her up by saying that she’s a reporter who loves Superman because that’s really all there is to her.

As a whole the film just doesn’t work. I could write 20,000 words of criticism on it and still have more bad words to say, but instead I’m going to bullet point what I liked and disliked about it and then talk about why I think that it should never have been made.

via omelete.uol.com.br

Let’s start with the things that I liked:

1. (SPOILER ALERT) The court scene – Despite the fact that “Batman v Superman” was mostly a paint-by-numbers story, the scene in which the courtroom was blown up was quite unexpected and powerful. The aftermath could’ve been more exciting, perhaps with the dust settling and Superman still stood in the middle of the debris for all to see, but it was still a great scene in an average movie.

 

2. Gal Gadot was a pretty good Wonder Woman – I actually really liked Wonder Woman in the film and I thought that she was introduced well. Her initial introduction felt a lot like Catwoman’s (Anne Hathaway) in “The Dark Knight Rises”, but it was still good. The only problem I have here is that the marketing for the film ruined it slightly by having Wonder Woman appear in the trailer.

 

3. The question that the film fumbled over a couple of times – ‘should there be a Superman?’ – was a fair one to ask, and could’ve been fascinating if it was allowed more time to be explored.

 

4. The action was well shot.

 

via comingsoon.net

 

Onto the things that I didn’t like (expect a longer list):

1. Alfred – Although I like Jeremy Irons and I don’t think that his portrayal of Alfred was completely awful, I thought that the film underused him by making him something of a comic relief character. He had the potential to be so much more given how recklessly Bruce Wayne was acting, so it was a shame that most of the time he simply went along with whatever Wayne told him to do.

 

2. Lex Luthor – Jesse Eisenberg is another actor that I don’t take any enjoyment from criticising. Eisenberg is great at what he does and he’s been in two of my favourite films (“Adventureland” and “Zombieland”), but he should never have been cast in this movie. His portrayal of the iconic villain is unique and he gives it everything, but it comes off as cartoonish and ridiculous, destroying tension and bringing more laughs than gasps.

 

3. Doomsday – If DC had courage in their convictions then they wouldn’t have allowed another villain to appear in this movie other than Luthor, but alas, they chose to throw Doomsday into the mix so that the heroes could team up at the end. What they should’ve done was got a better writer on board and focused on the war of ideologies between Batman and Superman.

 

4. Martha – Superman convinced Batman not to kill him by saying that his mother’s name was Martha. That’s all that really needs to be said here.

 

5. The Daily Planet is a terrible newspaper which allows its staff to come and go as they please and write rogue articles.

 

6. So many scenes should’ve been cut from the film – the dream sequences, when Batman confronted Lex Luthor at the end, the scene in which Superman and Doomsday were hit by a nuke, and many more, were awful and should’ve been omitted from the final product.

 

7. The dialogue was terrible.

 

(From left to right) Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, and Gal Gadot at Comic-Con.

From my perspective, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is an example of when business trumps quality in film-making. With “Captain America: Civil War” set to smash box-office records and continue Marvel’s commercial and critical dominance in the superhero genre, DC had to do something big. Their answer was to throw their two most famous heroes together, in what was billed as a gladiator match yet ended up being a team-up against a giant CGI monster.

The baffling thing about this isn’t that DC’s biggest heroes tried to kill each other and then joined forces, but rather DC’s crazy decision to throw Batman into the mix without first giving him a solo movie. They clumsily rehashed his backstory and tripped over his motivation for taking the fight to Superman, and instead of building the character properly they tried to fit multiple storylines into what should’ve been a focused narrative.

DC is desperate to compete with Marvel financially and yet they fail to take the lessons that Marvel has taught them on board. They misunderstand how the universe that Marvel has built has developed over time and they ignore where it all began.

via comingsoon.net

Marvel has spent an admirable amount of time building its characters and creating a very noticeable tone which carries through each film, and they didn’t have the entirety of their main cast together in one movie until they had each had their own solo flick. This meant that by the time that “The Avengers” came along Marvel had already acquired a dedicated fan-base of comic book readers and mainstream cinemagoers, and thus they made an obscene amount of money from that movie. Now that this initial development has passed they are able to throw characters like Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland) into the mix prior to giving them their solo films, but they earned the right to do this and they have strong characters alongside them.

Thinking back, Marvel’s cinematic universe took off with “Iron Man”, a film based on a character that had never truly been a fan favourite. Marvel took a character that they knew they could build around, cast him perfectly, and then made a coherent and isolated film about him which only connected itself to the rest of the MCU through its end credit scene and a couple of Easter eggs here and there.

If DC really wanted to create a dynasty like Marvel’s and steal some of their thunder what they should’ve done was saved Batman for either a brief cameo in their upcoming “Suicide Squad” movie, or his own solo movie, and then they should’ve made a second “Man of Steel” film which focused on the question ‘should there be a Superman?’. This would’ve given Superman much more depth as a character and allowed us to better understand Batman before the pair faced off in a future film. Plus, in the meantime they could’ve introduced characters like Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher), in much more natural and interesting ways, instead of shoehorning them into an already convoluted film like they did in “Batman v Superman”.

via youtube.com

Of course, it’s easy to make these statements in hindsight, but it really is mindboggling that a company like DC could be so impatient. People aren’t stupid – if a movie looks like it’s going to be a muddle then they won’t go to see it, and if they aren’t going to go on the opening weekend then they’ll probably be indifferent enough to listen to a couple of negative reviews and stay well clear. You can’t just throw special effects at people and expect a crowd to gather anymore – we live in a post “Avatar” world where amazing CGI is commonplace, going to the cinema costs £10+, and the superhero genre is incredibly diluted! If it’s a choice between something new like “Deadpool”, “Guardians of the Galaxy”, and “Ant-Man”, or something that fans have seen multiple times before like a new Batman movie, I think that most people will choose the former.

At the end of the day, “Batman v Superman” was exactly what I thought it would be. A film which was doomed from the start because it was trying to do too much, with the wrong writers and director on board, and a marketing team that was so scared that people wouldn’t go to see it that they showed everything they had on the trailer. The action was good and so were the effects but modern day audiences have a right to expect more for their money. The actors did what they could to save the film, and Henry Cavill was a lot better this time around than he was in “Man of Steel”, but ultimately the script let him and the audience down.

5/10

The Oscars: Actors Who Have Never Won an Academy Award

Tags

12 Monkeys, 12 Years a Slave, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Academy Awards, Action, Actors Who Haven't Won An Oscar, Alejandro G. Inarritu, American History X, American Hustle, Animated Movie, Animation, Babel, Batman, Batman Begins, Best Actor, Best Actor In A Leading Role, Best Supporting Actor, Bill Murray, Birdman, Black Mass, Brad Pitt, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Brother Bear, Caddyshack, Child 44, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Christmas, Christoph Waltz, Cinema, Coach Carter, Collateral, Comedy, Comics, Coriolanus, Dallas Buyers Club, Daniel Day-Lewis, Darkman, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Django Unchained, Donnie Brasco, Ed Wood, Edge of Tomorrow, Edward Norton, Edward Scissorhands, Emma Stone, Eyes Wide Shut, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Mr Fox, Fantasy, Fight Club, Film, From Hell, Fury, Gary Oldman, Geoffrey Rush, Ghostbusters, Gladiator, Goodfellas, Groundhog Day, Hannibal, Harry Potter, Her, I'm Still Here, In Bruges, In The Name of the Father, Inception, Indie, Indie Film, Inglourious Basterds, Inherent Vice, Instagram, Iron Man, J. K. Simmons, Jack Reacher, Jack Sparrow, Jackie Brown, James Bond, Jerry Maguire, Jim Gordon, Joaquin Phoenix, Johnny Depp, Jordan Belfort, Kevin Spacey, Kingdom of Heaven, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Lawless, Leon: The Professional, Leonardo DiCaprio, Liam Neeson, Lord of the Rings, Lost In Translation, Love Actually, Magnolia, Martin Scorsese, Mason Verger, Matthew McConaughey, Michael Collins, Michael Keaton, Mission Impossible, Moneyball, Movie Review, Mystic River, Nebraska, Nick Fury, Non-Stop, Ocean's Eleven, Philadelphia, Pirates of the Caribbean, Primal Fear, Public Enemies, Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino, Rain Man, Ralph Fiennes, Rango, Red Dragon, Richard Gere, Risky Business, Rock of Ages, Rushmore, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Schindler's List, Scrooged, Sean Penn, Seven, Shine, Signs, Sirius Black, Skyfall, Snatch, Sofia Coppola, Space Jam, Spectre, Spike Jonze, Star Wars, Step Brothers, Stop-Motion, Sweeney Todd, Taken, The Avengers, The Big Short, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Corpse Bride, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, The Departed, The English Patient, The Firm, The Fugitive, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Grey, The Hateful Eight, The Hulk, The Hurt Locker, The Illusionist, The Incredible Hulk, The Lego Movie, The Lord of the Rings : The Return of the King, The Master, The Oscars, The Outsiders, The People vs. Larry Flint, The Revenant, The Royal Family, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Royle Family, The Usual Suspects, The Village, The Wolf of Wall Street, Thriller, Tim Burton, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Tommy Lee Jones, Top Gun, Tropic Thunder, Twitter, Unbreakable, Walk The Line, Whiplash, William Shakespeare, Willy Wonka, Zombieland

In case you missed it, on Sunday morning Leonardo DiCaprio won his first Oscar. Everybody took to Twitter and Instagram to express their approval, treating the multi-millionaire like an old acquaintance rather than a stranger who would probably avoid them in the street. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against DiCaprio – he’s a good actor and has been in some great films – but he isn’t a man who has been victimised by the Academy because of some fictional bias.

Every year writers pen scripts, adapted from best-selling novels based on true events, and some of them strike gold. They do this with particular actors in mind, and they allow studios to buy the script with specifications/recommendations for which people should play their leading man/woman. So, when you think about the films that DiCaprio has been in over the last few years, don’t attribute his performances to sheer ability – if DiCaprio was cast in last year’s “Fantastic Four”, I doubt that he’d have got an Oscar nomination. He works with the best directors around, taking notes from the likes of Tarantino, Scorsese, and now Iñárritu, so he’d be pretty terrible if he didn’t put in a couple of quality performances here and there.

It’s true that DiCaprio is a brilliant actor – he’s been great in a number of films, (“The Departed”, “The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Inception”, etc.), and to be fair to him he has chosen the right scripts. However, he hadn’t won an Oscar prior to Sunday night because he’s never been the best; it’s as simple as that.

There are only two roles that I think he could’ve won an Oscar for, and neither of them are for his performance in “The Revenant”. The two roles that I’m referring to are Calvin Candie in “Django Unchained” (a supporting role for which he failed to earn a nomination, as Christoph Waltz was nominated and won for his performance in the same film), and Jordan Belfort in “The Wolf of Wall Street”. It’s definitely possible to make a case for DiCaprio’s performance in the latter, because he was undeniably brilliant, but I don’t think that he had any right to feel hard done to – it was just a great year. He was beaten by Matthew McConaughey who gave an exceptional performance in “Dallas Buyers Club”, and also would’ve had to take the award ahead of Chiwetel Ejiofor (“12 Years a Slave”), who was excellent in what was a Best Picture winning film.

With that in mind, and with the mystical injustice that the public has peddled in the run up to this year’s Academy Awards expelled, I present to you ten actors who have never won an Academy Award, despite a number of fantastic roles.

Bill Murray

‘Goddamn it, Bill Fucking Murray!’

If you haven’t seen “Zombieland” then please excuse the language, but come on now, the man is a bona fide legend! He’s the leading man in the best Christmas movie ever made, as well as one of my favourite films of all time, so I think expletives are necessary! You might read his name on this list without feeling too surprised, because it was never likely that he would win an Oscar for his performances in “Groundhog Day”, “Scrooged”, or “Ghostbusters” – those films are bloody brilliant, but they aren’t what I’d call Oscar-bait – but a film that he definitely, definitely, definitely (did I say definitely) deserved to win for was “Lost In Translation”.

Directed by Sofia Coppola, “Lost In Translation” is one of the most beautifully soul-destroying whilst simultaneously uplifting movies ever made. An indie darling with depth and an understanding of the human condition, it features two of the finest understated performances you could ever wish to see, from leading man Murray, and the ever-reliable Scarlett Johansson.

Murray is fantastic in the role, and he shows that whilst he is a hilarious comedic actor with a lot of money, he’s been through life like the rest of us and understands the difficulties that people face to get through the day. It’s almost as though Murray plays a portrait of himself in the film; an actor who has been successful but is slowly fading away, trying to find purpose in a life that doesn’t appear to have one.

“Lost In Translation” came out in 2003, and was up for Best Picture in 2004 against stiff competition. Not many would argue that “Lord of the Rings : Return of the King” didn’t deserve to win that year, and neither will I, but I maintain that Murray should’ve taken Best Actor In A Leading Role ahead of Sean Penn, who won for his performance in “Mystic River”.

Other notable films on Murray’s filmography – “Caddyshack”, “Fantastic Mr Fox”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”, “The Royal Tenenbaums”, “Rushmore”, and “Space Jam”.

Brad Pitt

Brad Pitt was ‘Fury-ous’ about being snubbed for his performance in “Fury”!

Where do you start with a man like Brad Pitt? He’s been in so many great films, and given some fantastic performances, but in most cases these roles have been as part of an ensemble cast. As such, it’s been difficult for him to stand out, which has meant that he hasn’t gained significant recognition from the Academy.

He does have three nominations for his performances, one for Best Supporting Actor (“12 Monkeys”), and two for Best Actor (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” & “Moneyball”), but he’s never really been in contention to win an award. Now, I’m not about to argue that he should’ve done so for any of the aforementioned performances, because in 1995 he was beaten by Kevin Spacey (“The Usual Suspects”), he wasn’t exceptional in “Moneyball”, and I don’t even think he should’ve been nominated for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”.

Nevertheless, it’s a shame that an actor with so much ability and an impressive résumé has been unable to put in an Oscar-worthy performance, and it came as a surprise to me when I found out.

Other notable films on Pitt’s filmography – “Babel”, “The Big Short”, “Fight Club”, “Fury”, “Inglourious Basterds”, “Ocean’s Eleven”, “Seven”, “Snatch”, and “12 Years a Slave”.

Edward Norton

You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry…

Yet another overlooked actor – Edward Norton is fantastic.

He could’ve and perhaps should’ve won for his breakthrough role in “Primal Fear”, which is an unsettling thriller starring Richard Gere. In that film Norton plays a young man accused of murder, when it is revealed that he has multiple personalities; this allows Norton to show off his range, creating two wildly different characters and switching between them with ease. If you haven’t seen “Primal Fear” then I really do recommend that you watch it; I won’t spoil it for you with any specific details, but it’s a tense film with two great lead performances that Norton could’ve easily taken home an Oscar for.

More recently, Norton appeared in Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s “Birdman”, alongside Michael Keaton and Emma Stone, and for me he stole the movie. His performance was so committed and genuine that you forgot that you were watching a film, and his delivery was spot on so that you could just about take him seriously despite how ridiculous his character was. In my opinion, he was desperately unlucky not to win the Best Supporting Actor award back in 2014, which he only lost because of how memorable J. K. Simmons was in “Whiplash”.

Other notable films on Norton’s filmography – “American History X”, “Fight Club”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”, “The Illusionist”, “The Incredible Hulk”, “Kingdom of Heaven”, “The People vs. Larry Flint”, and “Red Dragon”.

Gary Oldman

Gary Oldman is about to blow following a string of ignored performances.

In my view, Gary Oldman is the most versatile actor in the world today, yet I don’t believe that he’s ever had a role worthy of winning an Oscar. If you take a look at Oldman’s filmography then you will see that he’s had a lot of excellent supporting roles; Mason Verger in “Hannibal”, Sirius Black in the “Harry Potter” series, and Jim Gordon in “The Dark Knight” series, to name just three. However, he’s never really done it as a leading man, and the Supporting Actor category is a very difficult one to stand out in when there are so many memorable candidates to choose from each year.

Oldman’s only nomination for an Academy Award is for his performance in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”, a film which critics enjoyed, but I felt was an absolute snooze-fest. This lack of nominations speaks to the fact that Oldman simply doesn’t choose the right films if he actually wants to win an Oscar, but it also goes to show that you don’t have to win an award to be considered a great at what you do.

Nobody could deny that Oldman is an excellent actor who can perform exceptionally in the right film; it’s just a shame that he hasn’t had the right role to truly show the world just how good he can be.

Other notable films on Oldman’s filmography – “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, “Child 44”, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”, “Lawless”, and “Léon: The Professional”.

Joaquin Phoenix

If only there was an Oscar for Best Beard In A Lead Role.

Joaquin Phoenix is probably less familiar to the majority of people than previous actors on this list, mostly because of the type of movies that he chooses, but that doesn’t make him any less talented of an actor.

Most people who have heard of Phoenix will remember him from films in which he plays a supporting role, such as “Gladiator” and “Signs”, but recently he has held his own as a leading man in films like “The Master” and “Her”.

Phoenix has been nominated for Best Actor twice (for “The Master” and “Walk The Line”), as well as Best Supporting Actor for his role in “Gladiator”, but my personal favourite performance of his was as Theodore in “Her”. “Her” is a beautiful film directed by Spike Jonze, which won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay back in 2014, about a man’s relationship with an operating system. It’s a fascinating movie that critiques modern relationships and asks questions about how far our obsession with technology will go, and it also explores what really matters in a relationship, as there is nothing physical between Theodore and the operating system, yet it does have intelligence and is able to have stimulating conversations with him.

Phoenix is great in the movie, displaying a true understanding of his character and allowing the audience to take the premise of the film seriously despite its slightly odd science-fiction elements. It’s just a shame for him that that movie came out in the same year as “The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Dallas Buyers Club”, “12 Years a Slave”, “Nebraska”, and “American Hustle”, so his performance failed to earn a nomination.

Other notable films on Phoenix’s filmography – “Brother Bear”, “I’m Still Here”, “Inherent Vice”, “The Village”, and “Walk the Line”.

Johnny Depp

The lack of nominations has really taken its toll on poor old Depp.

Johnny Depp is one of the most recognisable actors in the world, and yet he refuses to take on a role unless he can completely change his appearance. Depp has become known for his quirkiness on screen and his many strange characters; he has played Edward Scissorhands, Sweeney Todd, and even Willy Wonka, yet he has failed to win an Academy Award.

Like Bill Murray, Depp was nominated for Best Actor in 2004, but was beaten by Sean Penn. The role that he was nominated for is probably the one for which he is best known; Jack Sparrow. Depp was fantastic as the drunken pirate with an ego problem, and he made worldwide audiences spill their popcorn as they tried in vain to hold back laughter.

Again, I’m not going to argue that he should’ve taken the award, because it’s very rare that a role like that wins you an Oscar, but I do think that over the course of his career he has given some truly memorable performances. He’s certainly one of my favourite actors, and although he has gone off the rails recently, his early filmography is magnificent.

Other notable films on Depp’s filmography – “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, “Black Mass”, “Donnie Brasco”, “Ed Wood”, “From Hell”, “Public Enemies”, “Rango”, and “Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride”.

Liam Neeson

Neeson has a particular set of skills, but the Academy don’t seem to notice.

Liam Neeson falls into the same kind of category as Bill Murray on this list. No, I don’t mean that he’s a hilarious actor with a great talent for comedy; the comparison that I’m making is that Neeson is a household name, but he isn’t your typical Best Actor nominee. He was never going to win an Oscar for his role in “Taken”, or his voice performances in “The Chronicles of Narnia”, because whilst they are fun movies that will entertain an audience, they aren’t exactly artistic. However, like Murray, Neeson has been in one truly exceptional movie, in which he most definitely delivered an Oscar-worthy performance.

As Oskar Schindler in “Schindler’s List”, Neeson showed not only his acting ability, but a level of empathy that you rarely find in film. He showed that he really can act when he’s given the right role, and he carried one of the best films of all time by being sympathetic yet strong. It’s a truly brilliant performance which deserved recognition, but unfortunately for Neeson, he gave it in a year that was littered with fantastic acting. At the 66^th Academy Awards, Neeson saw Tom Hanks take the award for Best Actor for his performance in “Philadelphia”, and was up against stiff competition in the form of Daniel Day-Lewis, who had been nominated for “In The Name of the Father” – another marvellous movie. Neeson gave a career-defining performance, but he faced competition that had done the same.

Other notable films on Neeson’s filmography – “Batman Begins”, “Darkman”, “The Dark Knight Rises”, “The Grey”, “The Lego Movie”, “Love Actually”, “Michael Collins”, and “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace”.

Ralph Fiennes

Fiennes has even resorted to magic to try and win an Academy Award.

Ralph Fiennes is another brilliant actor yet to be acknowledged by the Academy. He has received nominations in the past, one for his supporting role in “Schindler’s List”, and another for his lead role in “The English Patient”, but regrettably for him he failed to win either, losing out to Tommy Lee Jones (“The Fugitive”) and Geoffrey Rush (“Shine”) respectively.

Looking back, Fiennes was very unfortunate not to win the Oscar for his role in “Schindler’s List”, because his performance is incredibly dark and extremely memorable. He’s one of the many reasons why the film works so well, and he does a great job of seeming almost too evil to be human whilst remaining believable.

Other notable films on Fiennes’ filmography – “Coriolanus”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”, “The Harry Potter Series”, “The Hurt Locker”, “In Bruges”, “Red Dragon”, “Skyfall”, “Spectre”.

Samuel L. Jackson

One word… motherfucker!

This is getting a ridiculous now – how has Samuel L. Jackson not won an Academy Award? He may predominantly perform in a supporting capacity, but Jackson is one of the most recognisable and unique actors around today. If he’s in a film then you’ve probably heard of it, and if you see his name on a poster then you’ll probably watch it. His delivery, mannerisms, and general ability to take a role and make it his own, makes him one of the best actors in the world.

For me, he could’ve won the Oscar this year for his performance in “The Hateful Eight”, but the Academy didn’t even give him a nomination, and he definitely could’ve got a Best Supporting Actor nomination for “Pulp Fiction”. Sadly, Jackson probably won’t ever win an Academy Award, because his in-your-face style of acting just isn’t what the Oscars usually reward.

Still, that doesn’t make him any less of an actor.

Selected films on Jackson’s filmography – “The Avengers”, “Coach Carter”, “Django Unchained”, “Goodfellas”, “Iron Man”, “Jackie Brown”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service”, and “Unbreakable”.

Tom Cruise

Why does it always rain on me?

This pocket-sized action hero probably doesn’t pop into everyone’s head when they think of Oscar-worthy actors, but people forget that Cruise isn’t a one-trick pony. He might choose roles for pay-checks now, or perhaps for the adrenaline high that he is said to enjoy, but he has some outstanding performances to his name which demonstrate his credentials as a serious actor.

Cruise is part of an amazing ensemble cast in one of my favourite movies, “The Outsiders”, an outstanding film that you can’t really find in the UK anymore. If you’ve ever quoted ‘stay gold, ponyboy’, you’ve probably done so with “Step Brothers” in mind, but in reality that quote is taken from “The Outsiders”.

Stay gold, Ponyboy.

Early on in his career Cruise was also in movies like “Rain Man”, “Risky Business”, and “Top Gun”, all of which show off both his charisma and his acting ability. Cruise is brilliant in all of these films, and most importantly he carries them. He’s a great leading man, and he knows how to get the best out of himself no matter what the role is.

Other notable films on Cruise’s filmography – “Collateral”, “Edge of Tomorrow”, “Eyes Wide Shut”, “The Firm”, “Jerry Maguire”, “Magnolia”, “Mission: Impossible”, “Rock of Ages”, and “Tropic Thunder”.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Tags

Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Age of Ultron, Artificial Intelligence, Avengers : Age of Ultron, Avengers Assemble, Big Budget Blockbuster, Black Widow, Bruce Banner, Captain America, Captain America : Civil War, CGI, Chris Evans, Christopher Hemsworth, Cinema, Civil War, Comics, Elizabeth Olson, Film, Iron Man, James Spader, Josh Brolin, Joss Whedon, Mark Ruffalo, Marvel, Marvel Cinematic Universe, Movie Review, Paul Bettany, Quicksilver, Robert Downey Jr, Robotics, Scarlett Johansson, Stan Lee, Superhero Movie, Superheroes, Thanos, The Avengers, The Blacklist, The Hulk, The Incredible Hulk, The Vision, Thor, Tony Stark

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” is a marked improvement over the first instalment. It makes time for more of the team and fleshes out some of the character’s back stories, even though it does so in a slightly contrived and forced way. I enjoyed seeing how Joss Whedon attempted to weave the infinity stones into the story, telling this film’s tale whilst tackling the difficult issue of setting up Marvel’s third phase. Whedon achieved this in a way such that those watching “Age of Ultron” didn’t need to care about the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe if they just wanted to see a stand-alone movie, but if they did care then there was enough there to make people very excited. This is a good film, even if it’s brought down (in my opinion) by an excess of comedic one-liners and a couple of needless plot points.

The movie is about The Avengers attempting to take down Ultron (James Spader), an artificial intelligence created by Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). However, there’s more to it than that. The film is really about the old guard moving on and letting younger heroes take the lead, and that’s the reason that Stark creates Ultron in the first place. He’s aware of the threat that the world faces following the events of the first Avengers film, and he isn’t sure that he and his team can save the world on their own. He creates Ultron as a precautionary measure against future attack, but things go array and Ultron becomes sentient before he was intended to, which in the end means that he becomes just as dangerous as the creatures he was created to protect the world against. It’s an interesting story because it allows the audience to see Stark in a different light, and it makes sense of the storyline that we can expect in “Captain America: Civil War”.

The film explores the issue of playing God and of artificial intelligence, with each member of the group eventually acting as a mouthpiece for a different viewpoint on the subject. Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor (Christopher Hemsworth) are initially angry at Stark for making the fate of humanity his play thing, and also for leaving them out of the loop, whereas Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) is sympathetic to what Stark wanted from Ultron, having also been party to his creation, because he knows how it feels to want to stop being your alter ego and live a normal life. I enjoyed seeing these debates play out on screen, even if they did end up in melodramatic fist fights and displays of masculinity between the group, and I thought that the subject matter meshed nicely with the darker tone on display throughout the film (a tone which I happen to like).

via makeupmag.com

There are fewer fight scenes in “Avengers: Age of Ultron”, as opposed to “The Avengers”, which makes the film feel a bit less like one huge set piece and allows for much needed character development. I really appreciated this more restrained approach, because for me the characters themselves are more interesting than CGI battles. Personally I have very little interest in seeing characters that I know to be computer generated fighting on screen, especially when I don’t believe that they are in any real danger, so I tend to switch off when those scenes are happening.

In my opinion, “The Avengers” gave itself far too little time to flesh out the intentions of its characters, presumably because they had had their own solo films in the past and they are already well-known through the comics. However, I didn’t know all that much about them going into that film, because I wasn’t interested in “Iron Man” when it came out and I don’t really like the “Captain America” solo films, so I would’ve appreciated more time to get to know who these characters were, especially given the fact that they found themselves in a group of people that they barely knew and were expected to save the world almost immediately.

This film isn’t air tight in terms of character reactions or story, and I have to say that I found it slightly frustrating that Captain America was so quick to turn on Tony Stark, given that he basically saved the world in “The Avengers” and clearly has the best of intentions. Still, the film itself addressed this and things worked out in the end, leading me to wonder why things go so wrong in “Civil War”. That’s not a criticism although it may be worded like one; I’m actually very intrigued to see why the characters suddenly become hateful towards one another, and although I have some knowledge of the story, I’m excited to see how Marvel handle it on the big screen.

via santabanta.com

There were a couple of strange plot points in the film, particularly the love story that ‘blossomed’ between Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and the Hulk, which came a bit out of left field and seemed incredibly pointless. It felt as though that story was only there to make the audience feel for two characters that have been painfully underdeveloped in previous films, and I hated every minute devoted to their relationship.

I also found the Maximoff twins’ backstory a bit frustrating, because I thought it had promise when it was initially revealed, yet in the end the twins barely said a word to Stark and didn’t seem all that hateful. However, that could’ve been left untouched for a later film, because it would probably fit quite nicely in “Civil War”.

The comedy hits a lot of the time, with Thor being my favourite comic relief character in the film, because I think Hemsworth’s delivery and facial expressions are actually really good when the writers give him something other than being masculine to do. There are times when the jokes are excessive and it takes you out of the film, particularly in the moments where things seem really bleak and joking around isn’t exactly called for, but that’s the tone that Marvel have gone for with most of their recent films, so it’s silly to go into this movie expecting something completely different.

via thedisneyblog.com

Ultron (James Spader) was an awesome villain, having enough intelligence to seem like he might be onto something, until suddenly moving into mad-scientist-tyrant territory and becoming downright evil. I don’t mean to say that this is an evolution throughout the film, rather, every time he starts talking he seems rational, until he ultimately concedes that he’s going to basically kill everyone for the sake of… everyone. He wants the human race to evolve, and he thinks that the only way to achieve this is through an extinction level event, whereby the next civilisation will rebuild and the world will become better. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that the world will evolve on its own, and all that he’s doing is accelerating the process in a brutal and unnecessary way.

The acting for the most part was pretty good for what it was; it seems like Ruffalo, Johansson and Hemsworth have evolved as actors since the first Avengers film and have a greater understanding of both their roles and what is required of them as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Although we still know very little about Black Widow, Johansson succeeds in making the character likeable and her performance makes me want to see her character being developed in the future.

My favourite new character was probably Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olson), because I think that she feels like a hero and could be an interesting character moving forward, especially because her power is cool and she has a dark past. I also think that Olson is a good young actress and she’s really likeable, so I’m excited to see what she has to offer moving forward.

via tumblr.com

Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), on the other hand, felt more like a side-attraction than a character, and although his power made for a visual spectacle at certain points, Taylor-Johnson isn’t a good enough actor to give the character any gravitas. His Russian accent was woeful, and at the end of the day his version of the character felt like a shadow of Evan Peters’ Quicksilver in “X-Men : Days of Future Past”.

The Vision (Paul Bettany) was visually impressive and I liked Bettany’s delivery. An AI has to come across as intelligent (it’s in the name after all), and he certainly achieves that, as well as portraying the confidence and composure that such a smart and powerful being would possess. I’m sure that a lot of people will be pleased by the way that the character has been designed, and he’ll be a fan favourite in films to come.

The film ends having satisfied its audience, whilst also giving us a taste of what’s to come. A new set of Avengers are ready to be assembled, and the post-credit scene revealed that Thanos (Josh Brolin) and his gauntlet will soon come into contact with the Avengers. I feel that I’m beginning to understand what will go on in “Civil War”, at least at the base level, and I can see why certain characters would side with Stark and others with Captain America, given the way that their goals have been fleshed out in this film. “Age of Ultron” feels like a step in the right direction for Marvel, and I’m looking forward to seeing how new characters fit into this already developed team. I liked it a lot and had a good time watching it, which was a pleasant surprise because Marvel films are hit and miss for me, and they often don’t suit my tastes.

7.5/10

The Walking Dead: Season Five

Tags

Alexandria Safe Zone, Andrew Lincoln, Breaking Bad, Chandler Riggs, Comics, Corey Brill, Danai Gurira, Daryl Dixon, Game of Thrones, Graphic Novels, Hannibal, Horror, Jon Bernthal, Lauren Cohan, Lennie James, Melissa McBride, Rick Grimes, Robert Kirkman, Ross Marquand, Sarah Wayne Callies, Seth Gilliam, Sonequa Martin Green, Steven Yeun, Television, Telltale Games, Terminus, The Fast and the Furious, The Walking Dead, The Walking Dead Season Five, The Wire, TV, Zombie Apocalypse

via collider.com

“The Walking Dead : Season Five” has been a mixed bag for me. I liked the first half of the season because there was a certain brutality to it all, and the showrunners weren’t trying to be overly artistic or take themselves too seriously. Some of that did return in the latter half of the season, but at times I was frustrated by the fact that the people in charge thought they were visionaries again, and started to try to make the characters more complicated and layered than the quality of the writing allows them to be. Nonetheless, it’s been a good season, and any annoying aspects towards the end were mollified by how great the finale turned out to be.

“The Walking Dead” is to television what “The Fast and the Furious” is to film. It’s not a high standard of acting or writing, but at times it’s very entertaining, and that’s enough to get people with their bums on seats. There’s nothing wrong with knowing your limits, and there’s nothing wrong with being mediocre if what you’re delivering is still enjoyable, but there’s something very wrong about trying to make a work of art and ending up with something that’s barely worth sticking on the fridge.

Some of the writing in the latter half of the season has been truly dreadful, and the new characters have often felt very one-dimensional as a result. Sasha (Sonequa Martin-Green) and Gabriel (Seth Gilliam) are ridiculously dull, and the overacting on show from both of the actors playing the roles has been laughable. Furthermore, the group from Alexandria are all very predictable and lack real depth, particularly Pete (Corey Brill), who was just there to move the story along by getting under the skin of Rick (Andrew Lincoln) and Carol (Melissa McBride), and was less of a character than a plot device.

via collider.com

However, it hasn’t been all bad and I’d be lying to myself if I said that I hadn’t been excited to watch each episode, it’s just that sometimes this show lets itself down when it comes to character development. Having said that, Carol is a layered character now, and the season has seen Melissa McBride flourish in the role. A lot of people were already saying that after the mid-season finale, because she had undergone a transformation which saw her turn into a fighter rather than the victim. At that point I disagreed, because I didn’t think that the change was gradual enough, or that it was done with enough care. I felt as though a switch had been flicked and she’d gone from being one person to another, which wasn’t entirely believable.

I’m glad that she’s still being developed and that the show is persisting with giving her a greater role, because now that we’ve seen her be a powerful and pragmatic member of the group for a few more episodes, I think that it suits her quite well, and I’m able to buy into her transformation now that she is more careful with her decisions. Melissa McBride has really grown alongside the character, and when I’m watching her I’m more immersed in the story than with any other character.

via nerdishgeekweb.files.wordpress.com

Glenn (Steven Yeun) has also developed this season, and now that he’s within a community of weak people he shines as someone who’s battle-hardened. When “The Walking Dead” began he was a runner for the group and he was brave, but he wasn’t a strong and intimidating person. Now he comes across as though he’s in control, and he’s really come into his own. Steven Yeun is a good actor and I wouldn’t have said that before this season, so that’s a big plus for the show going forward.

This season has had a compelling arc, and there’s been a clear underlying theme that’s made things better than they seem in isolation. The whole season has been about how the group, but mainly Rick, can’t go back to the way things used to be, and this has constantly been reaffirmed as things have progressed. Season five began with the group escaping from Terminus, and ended with their infection of the Alexandria Safe Zone. They’ve gone from chaos and near death to what should’ve been a civilised and normal life, but they clearly haven’t adapted as well as they might have hoped.

This season has told us from the start that there is no going back, and Rick stated it again in the mid-season finale, but there’s been other moments that are slightly less explicit which have given off that same impression. Just before the group were approached by Aaron (Ross Marquand), Rick told the group that the world wasn’t going to change, and said ‘we are the walking dead’. That’s a great line just by itself, but it wasn’t just a nod to the comics, it was a foreboding warning to the audience that the group aren’t an unlucky bunch of travellers anymore, they’re vicious when they need to be and they bring destruction with them wherever they go, just like any other zombie horde. They’re as broken as the world around them, and just like that world, it might be too late for things to get fixed.

via amcnetworks.com

When the season began the group were being tortured at Terminus, but it ended with them acting as destructive invaders. They did to the Alexandria Safe Zone what the unnamed group from the first episode flashback did to the people at Terminus, although not in such an intentional or evil way. They’ve torn the place apart and left the people wounded; that’s what happens to people who try to live in this world as though nothing has changed. People can’t change the world back to the way it was, rather, this world changes people – the group are past the point of no return, and to try to go back is to face annihilation from someone else who doesn’t want to.

Rick was turning into a bit of a psycho by the end of the previous season, after all, he did rip a person’s throat out with his teeth and gut a man like a pig! But he did that for all the right reasons and although the means were excessive, the end was necessary. This season he’s gone a step further and almost lost what was left of his humanity, so again it doesn’t look as though he can go back to the way he was before the dead took over the earth. He’s still made out to be the good guy, but good guys don’t act like he does; in my opinion he’s causing all the problems right now, so he shouldn’t get any brownie points for eventually solving them.

The theme was clear from the first half of the season, but the way that the season ended definitely re-established it. Morgan (Lennie James) appeared in the very first episode of the first season, and is a reminder of who Rick used to be, so for him to appear just as Rick reached his lowest moment demonstrated to the audience just how far gone the character actually is. Morgan is a beacon of hope for Rick as a character, and I could see his introduction sparking a change in the group whereby the theme of this season gets turned on its head, because he had slipped into craziness the last time we saw him, but it seems like now he’s as right as rain (or at least as sane as a man can be in a world filled with walking corpses).

via tribzap2it.files.wordpress.com

I could definitely see Morgan acting as a catalyst for Rick to change into something like a normal human being again, reminding him of the man he once was, and making him realise that he owes it to Carl (Chandler Riggs) and the memory of Lori (Sarah Wayne Callies) to take a step back and regain his humanity. Morgan can tell Rick about how much he misses his son and his wife, and how it’s not too late to change, and because he’s a lot like Rick, or at least the man that he used to be, I could see him getting through to him. I think that’s got to be his role going forward, and I thought that could be seen through the line that one of The Wolves said at the start of the episode; ‘everything gets a return’.

Either way, I’m glad that Morgan is back on the show, because he reminds me of a time when “The Walking Dead” was still exciting and promised so much. Morgan is still one of the show’s most memorable characters, and part of one of its best moments, in which he couldn’t shoot his wife, even though she was a dangerous and lifeless zombie.

The season has ended in an interesting place, not only because the Alexandria Safe Zone is a great setting, but because the characters are all in the balance as far as their mental states are concerned. It’s been really fun to see how the characters have reacted to being thrown back into a functioning society, because they’ve been wandering a living Hell for so long. I had my reservations initially, because to me it felt like Woodbury all over again, but I think it’s different enough that those comparisons die away. There have to be plenty of places like this left in the world, so the fact that the group has come across another isn’t sufficient to warrant criticism, and it’s from the comics so it’s fine with me.

via comicbook.com

The Wolves are lurking on the horizon and by the look of it they could be a formidable foe. I hope that it doesn’t take too long for season six to get going and for them to try to take the Safe Zone, if that’s the direction that the series is going to go, but I also hope that if things have to go badly in the Safe Zone, it doesn’t just get destroyed like Terminus did. I don’t want the group to move on straight away next season, I want them to have time to build before everything gets ruined again.

All in all it’s been a pretty decent season, but one problem that’s been apparent from the very start of the series is that none of the important characters have been killed. A couple have bit the dust in the past, most notably Shane (Jon Bernthal) and Lori, but in this season there wasn’t a single death that I actually cared about. This takes a sense of urgency out of the show and makes it seem less realistic. I don’t mind that some of the bigger characters in the show get a pass, because I want to see my favourite characters live on; I don’t want Carol, Rick, Glenn or Daryl (Norman Reedus) to die, and the shock value wouldn’t be worth it to have them gone. However, I think that the show has to do away with Carl, Michonne (Danai Gurira), or Maggie (Lauren Cohan) next season, or it will start to lose credibility (I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – please let it be Carl! He’s such a waste of a character it’s time to let him go).

I enjoy “The Walking Dead”, and this season is no exception. I like creative zombie kills (not the pinpoint headshots), and I like the melodrama between the characters when believable performances are given. I don’t think that it’s worthy of a fraction of the praise and attention that it gets, but it’s a guilty pleasure that I’ve stuck with for a very long time. This season has been good, maybe even great at times, but the quality of writing often lets it down. If it were perhaps half the length then I think it would work much better, but the producers like money, and that’s just that. Overall, it was a well-crafted season of television, but it wasn’t up to the standard of other big name television shows like “Hannibal”, “Game of Thrones” or “Breaking Bad”.

6.5/10

Big Hero 6

Tags

Animated Movie, Animation, Baymax, Big Hero 6, Children's Movie, Chris Pratt, Cinema, Comedy, Comics, Daniel Henney, Disney, Film, Graphic Novels, Hiro Hamada, Marvel, Movie Review, Robotics, Ryan Potter, San Francisco, Scott Adsit, Superhero Movie, Superheroes, Tadashi Hamada, The Boxtrolls, The Lego Movie, The Oscars, Tokyo

via disney.wikia.com

“Big Hero 6” is one of the best films I’ve seen this year. There’s no reason why adults can’t enjoy it just as much as children, because each moment of comedy hits on every level, and the story is both fantastical, as well as being grounded in a harsh sense of reality. It also boasts one of the most likeable supporting characters in movie history, Baymax (Scott Adsit), an inflatable health robot with a tendency to give out hugs and state the obvious.

This is a Disney film inspired by a Marvel comic, and for me the two are a match made in Heaven. In my opinion, one of the most frustrating things about Marvel is that in their live-action films the characters don’t take the destruction of everyone and everything they love seriously enough. However, in an animated film you can’t expect that same sense of despair, because these kinds of films have to appeal to children as well as adults, and at the end of the day young children probably wouldn’t respond favourably to a sense of foreboding doom! The animated nature of this film allows the adult section of the audience to lose the feeling of frustration that live action superhero movies can cause, because a light-hearted tone makes a whole lot of sense. The collaboration has earned “Big Hero 6” Marvel’s first Oscar win, and it thoroughly deserved the golden statuette.

via geeknation.com

(SPOILER ALERT) The film is about Hiro Hamada (Ryan Potter), an extremely intelligent teenager with a passion for robotics, as he attempts to get over the loss of his brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney), with the help of Baymax and a group of Tadashi’s friends. Tadashi is a very likeable character, but his death is necessary, as this event propels the plot forward, leading Hiro to confront the villain of the film. In order to stop this villain, (apparently named Yokai, although I never caught that name and you soon associate the villain with his alter ego), Hiro must team up with his friends to create a group of powerful and wacky heroes. The plot feels familiar, because we have seen plenty of superhero origin stories in the past, but the addition of Baymax really keeps the film from feeling dated, and the fact that we haven’t seen these heroes on screen before makes telling their story right from the very beginning more than acceptable.

One problem which I should highlight is that I didn’t like the name; “Big Hero 6” sounds like an odd translation of a title, rather than an Oscar calibre animated movie from Disney and Marvel. I presume that the comic which the film takes its inspiration from shares the title, so it makes sense that it was kept, but it isn’t exactly forcing people to take notice, or even telling them what the film is about. It refers to the group of heroes that the movie follows, but I didn’t hear them refer to themselves with that title, and the movie would’ve been better served with a more interesting and catchy name.

The movie tackles difficult issues, such as loss, in a very heartfelt and believable way. It doesn’t linger on the emotions that certain characters are feeling for too long, so as to keep the audience from feeling totally depressed and to keep the tone light, but by using the passage of time it showcases how the characters are still reacting to certain tragic events, and you understand just how upset they would’ve been immediately after they lost their loved ones. It’s nice to see a film trying to pull at the heartstrings without excessive tears or screams, because loss isn’t always dealt with in that way. When most people are coping with death they don’t just curse God for five minutes and then get on with their lives, they feel a lack of motivation, they’re depressed, and they just want to be alone and remember the person they once knew. That’s how “Big Hero 6” portrays its character’s struggles, which I was very impressed with in an animated movie.

via bpar.org

The characters are all very likeable, particularly Hiro and Baymax. Hiro is a young boy but he has some great ideas and he’s a bit of a miscreant, which makes him all the more entertaining. You want to see what he’s going to come up with next, and what dire situations he’s going to get himself involved in, because he’s one of those kids that just seems to know how to find himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Baymax is awesome! He’s a fat, inflatable, brainless machine with no tact or subtlety, but he’s so loveable as a result. He sees Hiro as his patient, which leads to some hilarious scenes in which he asks Hiro to rate his pain from one to ten, even if all that’s happened is that he’s stubbed his toe. He also takes note of blood pressure levels and other internal indicators of happiness in order to constantly pervade Hiro’s privacy, and he doesn’t understand the concept of personal space. His lack of understanding regarding anything which he isn’t programmed to know is genuinely funny, and he’s a very uplifting character which the audience wishes they could take home as a souvenir at the end of the movie. He steals the show, whether it be with his drunken low battery antics, or his monotone voice and expressionless face, he’s a marketing team’s dream and a child’s best friend.

via alphacoders.com

The big city setting of San Fransokyo is a wonderful hybrid of the two locations from which it takes its name, and it gives the film a feeling of being out of this world, even though the way that that world is structured is very familiar. “Big Hero 6” also has fantastic visual effects to back up this city, with great art direction and a very sharp look to everything that’s happening. The colours are vibrant and everything feels as though it belongs in the world, which makes the film easy to watch and gives it a distinct visual appeal.

The only serious problem I had with the film was the villain. As far as character design goes he was pretty excellent, and the microbots were a very cool feature, but I had an issue with his motivation. I don’t want to give the plot away or reveal who the villain was, because it actually wasn’t immediately obvious, but the reason why he was doing what he was doing really didn’t make sense to me. I know that this is a film aimed at children, but it’s better than just that, so it should be assessed as such.

via disneyexaminer.com

The villain’s motive was basically revenge, but he had no quarrel whatsoever with our heroes, so it didn’t really follow that he would try so desperately to hurt them when they first saw him. Later on they were actively trying to stop him and had the means to do so, so he had to take action, but initially they were just innocent people and his reason for doing what he was doing shouldn’t have extended to killing children! It made no sense! Things would’ve made a lot more sense if he was just a creepy, greedy, old man, and I would’ve been more than happy with that. His motivations felt like they had been shoehorned into the movie in order to fit the theme of loss which ran throughout it, and also to facilitate the ending of the film, but I felt that it was overdoing it by giving him a vengeful incentive.

Nevertheless, “Big Hero 6” is a fantastic children’s film and a brilliant superhero movie. It’s very hard to criticise beyond knit-picking and personal preference, and it’s more than worthy of the Oscar that it has recently won. Marvel properties are extremely hot right now, and this one is no different, which makes me excited to see what animated film they will make next (I’ll be more than happy if it’s just the sequel to this film). I haven’t seen a better animated movie in a long time, in fact, I think I prefer this film to both “The Lego Movie” and “The Boxtrolls”, which were my favourite animated movies of last year. Therefore, this is one of my favourite movies of 2015 so far, and will likely make my list for the best films of the year when that time comes around again.

8.5/10

The Walking Dead: Season Five Mid-Season Finale – “Coda”

Tags

Andrew J. West, Andrew Lincoln, Beth Greene, Breaking Bad, Chandler Riggs, Christine Woods, Coda, Comics, Danai Gurira, Daryl Dixon, Emily Kinney, Game of Thrones, Josh McDermitt, Lauren Cohan, Maximiliano Hernandez, Melissa McBride, Michael Cudlitz, Norman Reedus, Rick Grimes, Robert Kirkman, Seth Gilliam, Sonequa Martin Green, Steven Yeun, Television, Terminus, The Walking Dead, The Walking Dead Season Five, Zombie Apocalypse, Zombies

via postapocalypticmedia.com

This season of “The Walking Dead” started with a bang, as the group took on Gareth (Andrew J. West) and his team of cannibals with brutality and aggression. Things didn’t just stagnate at Terminus, as we might’ve seen in previous seasons, and the story quickly evolved into something very interesting. There’s been a lot more action this time around than we have seen before, and from my perspective that makes this show a whole lot better, because it doesn’t have (and never has had) amazing writing or acting week in week out. Along with this new focus on action we’ve seen some really impressive makeup on the walkers, and with Rick (Andrew Lincoln) almost in full-Shane mode, I’m actually looking forward to each episode ahead of time.

The mid-season finale, entitled “Coda” typified both the good and the bad aspects of this season so far, and despite a few underwhelming scenes, it was quite entertaining on the whole. As with most of the episodes so far, there was always something going on to keep you invested in what was happening on screen, which hasn’t always been the case on this show. It wasn’t a slow burning or boring episode, even though a lot of what occurred was clearly intended to build tension, leading up to what I’m sure was intended to be an emotional climax.

Nevertheless, because this is “The Walking Dead”, there’s only so many positives you can find before running into a negative, and in keeping with the rest of the season, how the characters behaved in “Coda” was both strange and slightly idiotic. Rick could’ve been a completely different person at the end of the episode than he was at the start, given that his actions in these moments were clearly in conflict. He begins the episode as a cold blooded killer, showing no mercy to an innocent man, but just hours later he’s offering sanctuary to his enemies!

via wetpaint.com

In the opening scene of this episode we see Rick chase down the runaway police officer who Sasha (Sonequa Martin Green) so foolishly allowed to flee in the previous episode. As we watch the attempted escape play out it’s clear that Rick has the upper hand. The police officer, who happens to be called Bob (Maximiliano Hernandez), still has his hands cuffed together, and as such he can’t really make the swiftest of getaways. Eventually Rick decides it would be fun to run him over, and with absolutely no regard for the value of human life he does so, incapacitating Bob and soon after killing him with a bullet to the head. It was an interesting way to show that in the zombie apocalypse no one is really the good guy, it’s just survivor vs. survivor, and the last man standing takes the spoils. I really liked how this was portrayed to the audience with a clever nod to the first episode, as Rick uttered the words ‘you can’t go back Bob’, which Gareth had so fatefully said right at the start of the season.

Despite the fact that this was an enjoyable scene to watch, it wasn’t the finest moment in the first half of this season when you think about it more carefully. The fact that the issue was dealt with so quickly after the events of last week’s episode made the final scene of that episode seem pointless. The dramatic tension built by that scene was knocked down in an instant, just as Bob was by Rick’s reckless driving. That might not seem like the biggest of issues right now, because that tension carried over from last week to this week as everyone emotionally involved in the show had so much time to think about what could happen next, but to me it felt like a kick in the teeth, because I was expecting a much more worthwhile pay-off.

Also, I’m not sure that killing Bob was the best thing for Rick to do in the first place, and I don’t believe that he would’ve actually done it, given the fact that it didn’t really make his life any easier at all. He could’ve easily given Bob a little push with the car once he reached him, and that would’ve been enough to knock down a man who was running desperately with no regard for his balance whatsoever. Rick could’ve then picked him up, taken him back to the group or simply left him in the car (presuming it could be locked), and he would’ve had more to trade with Dawn (Christine Woods) at the end of the episode, possibly avoiding the untimely demise of Beth (Emily Kinney). In short, Rick is completely and solely to blame for Beth’s death.

via squarespace.com

Rick wasn’t the only character acting irrationally in this opening scene, Bob’s decision making skills were clearly affected by the need for his character to service the plot, because there was absolutely no good reason why he would run from Rick and the others. He had more than enough time to think about his next move, and frankly he thought SO wrongly.

His reasoning for attempting to make a break for it was that, in his own words, ‘I don’t know you’, but if he lived his whole life so wary of stranger danger then he must have been an extremely boring character in the first place! Not knowing a group of rational human beings is not a good enough reason to leave yourself at the mercy of a larger group of irrational and murderous zombies! If it were me I would probably take my chances with a group of people that want to use me as a bargaining tool, rather than run outside into a world filled with hungry zombies, tail between my legs and hands tied behind my back. If you have to choose between a rock and a hard place you might as well choose the rock, at least with that you know exactly what you’re up against, the hard place might just be a bigger rock with much more ragged edges.

The convenience of Glenn (Steven Yeun) and Maggie’s (Lauren Cohan) return was extremely frustrating. This convenience was two-fold and it was annoying on both counts. Glenn and Maggie’s initial return served one ridiculously well-timed purpose, which was to save Father Gabriel (Seth Gilliam), Michonne (Danai Gurira), and Carl (Chandler Riggs) from certain death at the hands of the walkers. What really got to me about this scene wasn’t just the timing, but it was the fact that I didn’t care what was happening on screen because I knew that there was definitely going to be something which saved the day.

via twdenthusiasts.com

I didn’t believe for a second that Carl or Michonne would get killed off, and by extension I knew that Gabriel would probably be fine as well. This is a massive failure on the part of the writers, because when you stop believing that anyone important is going to die on a programme about the apocalypse, you know things are far too tame. The show already loses credibility from the fact that none of the characters can swear, which is clearly a feature of everyday dialogue which would carry over into the zombie apocalypse, so to make them invincible as well just makes the show itself quite redundant. Why should I care about the characters being created if I know that only a select few of them are dispensable?

The second way in which this scene was convenient for moving the plot along was that, not only did it get the entire cast back together, but this reunion happened just in time for Maggie to see her dead sister being carried out of the hospital in Daryl’s (Norman Reedus) loving arms. How is it possible to have timing that good? Maggie should constantly carry an umbrella because she’ll always put it up just before the rain comes! The scene in which Glenn, Maggie, Abraham (Michael Cudlitz) etc., first return to save Gabriel, Carl, and Michonne, was an initial convenient plot point to set up an even more convenient plot point! Fantastic writing guys, keep up the good work!

The last thing I want to criticise from this episode was Beth’s death, which wasn’t really all that surprising, because it seems that whenever a character gets a bit more screen time on this show they are likely to be killed off. If a fringe character suddenly gets a more integral part in the narrative you can almost guarantee that things aren’t going to end well (so good luck Carol (Melissa McBride)).

via yellmagazine.com

However, I did like how it happened, because although a lot of people have said that it didn’t make sense, (and in a way I agree because she gave up her life for someone she barely knew and left her sister and friends to mourn her death), she did the heroic thing and at the end of the day maybe she’d just had enough. There’s only so much you can take from people before you snap, which must be even more true when every day is about survival and you can’t turn a corner without wondering what could kill you on the other side, and she was almost suicidal at the end of Season Two, so this could just have been the final nail in the coffin.

All in all this was a solid enough episode by “The Walking Dead’s” admittedly low standards, and I did enjoy it; it was tense and exciting, even if it was slightly ridiculous and altogether predictable. Things certainly weren’t as action packed as I would’ve hoped from the mid-season finale, but there are plenty of avenues to explore when the show returns in February, and at least a ‘main’ character was killed off, as well as there being some resolution to the stories we’ve seen so far. “Coda” wasn’t earth-shattering or fantastic, but it was fine, and that’s about as much as I can allow myself to expect from this show.

As far as the mini-season is concerned (because at the end of the day these mid-season breaks come at the end of eight hour-long episodes and bring a reasonable amount of resolution to the storylines at play, so they aren’t the middle of a season at all, they are seasons in themselves, or at least that’s how I see them. The first season was actually shorter than this half-of-a-season pretender!), it’s been a decent improvement in quality as opposed to the last season of “The Walking Dead”.

via uproxx.files.wordpress.com

However, “The Walking Dead” feels like it should be subtitled “Character Development For Dummies”, because the way in which characters evolve is so obvious and mundane that you have to wonder whether or not the writers have ever actually seen another television show. Having seen “Game of Thrones” or “Breaking Bad”, how can you allow yourself to create such stereotypical and generic characters?

Carol is suddenly strong because she no longer has her husband and has found freedom in a world where no one is left to abuse her, haven’t seen that before! Daryl has become kinder and less angry because he no longer has his brother leading him astray and he finally feels as though he’s found a place and a purpose in the world. Rick has become cold and bitter towards the world because his wife has died and he has seen the evil people can do. Nothing about how these character’s reactions to their situations is original or exciting, they’re all incredibly plain.

Things could be easily rectified if the writers had some guts and let one of their characters just lose it! If you want Rick to be this broody, vicious person, go for it! We’d all like to see it! Make him the anti-hero. Have him hit Carl and hate himself for doing it, have him get in a new relationship with another character but it become destructive, have him find drugs and start taking them, going off the rails. Have him do something. But if you are going to skirt around the issues and just hint at possible changes in character’s mentalities then don’t bother, because most of your target demographic isn’t paying attention anyway, they just like to see Daryl shoot his crossbow and think Rick is cool because he has a base level of authority over a tiny group of ‘heroes’.

via needtoconsume.com

This isn’t the best series on television, and I don’t believe it ever will be. However, I feel as though it’s starting to realise that it works best when things go boom and it doesn’t try to overstep its mark. For that reason I’ve enjoyed the first half of this season a lot more than I did the latter half of last season, and I’m hopeful for more action set pieces and violence in episodes to come. Still, I get incredibly frustrated by the failure to realise potential on the part of the writers of this show, because they have a great platform to build off of in the form of Robert Kirkman’s series of graphic novels, and there are a lot of interesting stories to tell about people who are desperate to survive a zombie apocalypse.

This season has dealt with cannibals, rape, salvation (Eugene (Josh McDermitt) playing the role of a saviour, and Gabriel worrying whether or not he is damned), abuse, and loss, but it still feels incredibly hollow, which is a real shame because this show has a large audience and exploring those themes more carefully could create a programme really worthy of the popularity that “The Walking Dead” has right now.

Episode Eight, “Coda” – 6/10

The first half of Season Five – 6.5/10

Guardians of the Galaxy

Tags

Bradley Cooper, Chris Pratt, Comics, Guardians of the Galaxy, I Am Groot, Marvel, Peter Quill, Ronan, Stan Lee, The Avengers, Vin Diesel, Zoe Saldana

After sitting through a string of Marvel films that I didn’t really care for, “Guardians of the Galaxy” was a welcome change. This is the first film that isn’t a sequel to be released by the company in quite a few years, and it brought back memories of Marvel at its glorious best.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is funny, charming, and also manages to have some very entertaining action sequences with characters that are immediately likeable and endearing. The comedic tone of the film makes it feel like a comedy with an added adventure element rather than an action movie with a few forced jokes. This makes a massive difference when you consider other Marvel films, for example “The Avengers”, which was a superhero movie with comedy injected into it at unnatural times for no apparent reason. I felt that the comedic moments in “The Avengers” were very confusing, considering the fact that these superheroes were supposed to be saving the world from total destruction, which is a job you should take quite seriously. “Guardians of the Galaxy” on the other hand puts its comedy at the forefront, and really uses its tone to great effect, which makes me believe that the filmmakers knew what they wanted this movie to be when they started making the film.

via marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com

What sets this movie apart from other Marvel films is that you don’t have to be an avid comic lover or lover of Marvel in order to enjoy it. The action set pieces and jovial nature of the film, as well as the nostalgic soundtrack and pop culture references, make this a movie for all ages; whereas other Marvel films feel as though they are catered towards a young audience or people who came into contact with the source material at a young age.

Superhero films always seem to make light of the fact that the characters face certain doom around every corner, and when the films are set on Earth I find that very frustrating, because if there is a good chance that you and everyone you’ve ever loved is going to die then you really shouldn’t be wasting any time feeding your ego or making light of the situation. This movie manages to quell those kinds of thoughts because all of the characters are outcasts living in outer space. None of the Guardians have any loved ones left to speak of, they aren’t heroic in the strict sense, and they aren’t who they are because they want to save the world, so I can believe that they wouldn’t feel quite as much pressure or responsibility as other heroes. For the Guardians nothing is really out of the ordinary, there is a chance of death all the time for bounty hunters, Ravagers and daughters of tyrants, so there’s a real believability in their attitudes toward the situation.

However, “Guardians of the Galaxy” does fall victim to many of Marvel’s trademark faults. There are moments in this movie in which emotion is forced on the audience in a very annoying way, which I personally just can’t buy into when I watch these sorts of movies. I know full well that this movie is about being excited by special effects and cheering for things that go boom, so when a sentimental scene rears its ugly head I either switch off or try to overanalyse what I’m seeing. For instance, (SPOILER ALERT), the movie opens with a younger version of our leading man losing his mother to cancer whilst still on Earth. That kind of moment will resonate with a lot of people in the theatre, but not because of the performances or the dialogue happening on screen. What I noticed was the terrible child acting and the numerous clichés. Nothing that was happening was particularly groundbreaking, so there was no point in getting emotionally invested.

via marvel.com

The film itself tells the story of Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), an outlaw journeying through space accompanied by his ‘Awesome Mix Tape’. Quill was abducted from Earth as a child and is now a Ravager going by the name of Star-Lord; early on he gets himself into trouble by stealing an orb wanted by the villain of this film, Ronan (Lee Pace). He meets Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and finally Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista) as he attempts to sell the orb for a profit, and the movie really begins once the group are together and the actors can play off one another.

The story is reasonably simple and it isn’t too hard to predict what’s going to happen next, but it works well because it allows the audience to gain an insight into what the characters are about and what their motives are. Four of the five main characters want to sell the orb for ‘units’, and the other wants revenge against Ronan for the murder of his family, so their motives aren’t exactly noble, the Guardians are more antiheroes than superheroes. The movie is about getting these characters to the point where the opposite is true and we can really see them as the saviours of the galaxy, so it’s fair to say that the story takes a backseat, in exchange for compelling character development.

via marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com

The performances of the main cast were all very good, each actor seemed to understand their role, and the chemistry between the group seemed legitimate (albeit two characters are computer generated). Chris Pratt really won me over as Peter Quill, as I hadn’t really seen much of him prior to this film. His dancing was pretty hilarious and he seemed as though he was actually enjoying what he was doing for the majority of the movie. On the back of his excellent voice acting in “The Lego Movie” he is fast becoming one of my favourite actors. I also thought that Zoe Saldana did a great job as Gamora, she was fierce and had a presence but she was also very likeable, and that was a pleasant surprise because I usually don’t like her acting.

However, at times Dave Bautista did seem slightly out of place. He does well enough considering his background and he delivers some of his lines in a way which gave me a smile and a chuckle, but his character doesn’t actually get into enough fist fights to warrant the casting and all in all it seemed slightly strange. It would be easy to blame Bautista for the fact that Drax is probably the least memorable of the Guardians, but I think that his character was slightly underused in the movie, as he doesn’t get that many meaningful moments. Hopefully in the next instalment Bautista will be given more screen time, with more to do, so that he can prove that he was right for the part.

via marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com

Visually the heroes are quite impressive, and they all look very cool; Star-Lord’s mask is brilliant, Groot looks innocent but strong (just as he should look), and Rocket is a gun-wielding racoon so it’s hard to go wrong there, particularly when you consider the amount of emotion the filmmakers were able to create on his face.

However, the villains are quite forgettable once you leave the theatre. Physically Ronan is imposing, and he is as evil as you’d expect from a villain in this type of film, but we never really see him doing anything all that horrible. His goals are so basic that you can’t hate him, you don’t actually care what he’s doing, he just wants power and unless you’ve never seen a film like this before you will be fully aware that he is destined to fail, I won’t even dignify that fact with a spoiler alert. He’s completely lacking in depth, and the fact that we see Thanos (who is clearly more powerful and menacing than Ronan) makes Ronan’s presence in this film pretty pointless. Thanos (Josh Brolin) looms over the movie from the very moment that he appears on screen, because you know full well that he is going to appear again at some point, so when he doesn’t get much screen time you know that the filmmakers are just using this movie to set up a sequel. I understand that this movie is establishing who the Guardians are and their relationship as a group, while also trying to create a compelling world for them to live in, but I still would’ve liked a more developed villain.

via collider.com

There are also side-villains such as The Collector (Benicio Del Toro) and Nebula (Karen Gillan) which could’ve been far more interesting. The Collector basically tries to keep as many different creatures captive as he can, for reasons unknown (other than cruelty and fascination), and has a wide variety of prisoners in his home. When he appeared on screen I was quite intrigued as to what part he would have to play in the narrative, and I was hoping that he would inconvenience the Guardians by trying to imprison Groot, because he seemed very interested in him. I feel as though a story like that would’ve been a welcome break from the orb and Ronan, and would’ve allowed for a little bit more tension in the film, as well as offering further insight into Rocket and Groot’s relationship, so it was a shame that The Collector didn’t actually do anything of note. Nebula had a couple of decent moments in the film, and was a threatening villain, but she had the potential to cause a lot more damage to our heroes than she actually did, and I feel as though she was being saved for the sequel or another future film.

The soundtrack was exactly what it claimed to be… awesome. The great thing about the soundtrack for “Guardians of the Galaxy” is that it has a real part to play in the movie, and eliminates the need for an original score. The songs mean a lot to Quill because they remind him of home and his life on Earth, and you can see how much his mix tape means to him by his enjoyment as he listens to it and the fact that he is willing to put his life at risk to retrieve it. The choices of song such as ‘Cherry Bomb’ and ‘Hooked on A Feeling’ fit the film so well and they bring a sense of joy to the movie. When ‘Cherry Bomb’ is playing there’s a montage happening on screen, in which the Guardians are preparing for their final confrontation with Ronan; the great thing about that choice of song is that it’s fast and loud, and it gives you an indication of what the battle is going to be like. Music has a way of influencing how you feel as an audience regardless of what’s happening on screen, something which “Guardians of the Galaxy” is very aware of, and uses to great effect.

via collider.com

The special effects were good, and when everything was still they were brilliant, but when the action sequences were happening the effects made the film slightly difficult to watch. In one particular scene the Guardians are attempting to evade Ronan’s forces in separate spaceships, all of which look very similar, and that sequence was very confusing. Everything was happening so fast that the screen became a bit of a blur, so I didn’t really know what was going on or who was being shot at. However, I don’t think that this is a massive fault on anyone’s behalf, it’s just an inevitability when you have to create a world, characters, vehicles and weapons and then blend them together in a moment which lasts just a few seconds.

As a whole I feel that the film was successful, but I do feel that there were a few questions left unanswered. The fact that Quill was abducted so soon after his mother’s death just seemed a bit odd; there was about a minute between one of the most traumatic moments of his life and his intergalactic kidnapping, which seemed a bit like kicking a child while he was down. As the film goes on we do get an understanding as to why that might have happened, but going into the film not really knowing anything about the story, I found that scene very strange and it definitely didn’t reel me in.

The film had one or two clichés, but it knows what it’s doing and each time a certain self-awareness is demonstrated by one of the characters. For example, at one point the characters stand as they decide that they will fight for one another and that they are a team, but Rocket says exactly what we are all thinking and doesn’t want to stand up. I found that quite refreshing, because Marvel films are filled with scenes that might as well have been copied and pasted into each movie. This film actually pokes fun at that issue and gives an insight into the fact that Marvel knows its problems. Not only does that make this film more appealing to me, but it also makes me hopeful that future films won’t have the same problems we’ve encountered before.

via paninicomics.es

At points in this movie I found myself slightly annoyed by the fact that certain things weren’t being properly explained, and then at other moments I felt as though things were being force-fed to the audience, as if everyone was 10 years old. I never understand why a writer would make a character narrate what’s happening on screen in conversation, because we aren’t that stupid, we can see the screen and process basic information. If someone is too stupid to understand what’s going on then they can go on Wikipedia when they get home and look up the story, don’t take everyone else out of the film.

Nevertheless, it is annoying when a scene leaves you with an unanswered question, because for the next five minutes all you are doing is thinking of different possibilities for why a certain character is acting as they are. (SPOILER ALERT) – A perfect example of this was when the leader of the Nova Corps and her team were watching the destruction of their city via a hologram. There was no indication as to where they might be watching the hologram from, so we were left to assume that they too were in the city, yet they didn’t act threatened in any way. Everyone else in the city was running from debris, desperately trying to survive, and yet these individuals were comfortable enough to stand still and twiddle their thumbs, watching the show. This left me with three possibilities:

1) The place in which they were hiding was protected by some kind of force field, meaning that they were incredibly selfish not to open the doors and let the occasional citizen in.

2) The place in which they were hiding was not in the same area as the destruction.

3) They were simply lucky enough to stay safe when they were actually being very careless and really should’ve died.

None of those choices are in any way satisfactory and what they were doing just didn’t make sense! It wasn’t a massive scene and I doubt that many people in the cinema cared enough about those characters to give it a second thought, but you can’t simply ignore the problem and cut back to our heroes fighting Ronan, you have a serious issue on your hands which needs to be addressed!

via screenrant.com

(SPOILER ALERT – AGAIN) The final problem I had with the film was the scene in which Quill decided to save Gamora by putting his mask on her face (in the middle of space). I don’t have a problem with believing that he would do that, or the fact that it allowed her to breathe, but I do have a problem with his stupidity in doing it. The reason that he couldn’t just put her in his pod was that there wasn’t enough room for two people, and it was also said that the pod wasn’t designed to go as far into space as he had taken it. However… he had rocket boots. Boots which not all that long ago allowed him to fly into a spaceship in order to escape a prison. I can only assume that he didn’t use them because they too weren’t designed to go that far into space, or, he wouldn’t have been able to get back to solid ground using them, but without a clear explanation I just felt a bit let down by the scene.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” was a good movie, but it was a GREAT Marvel movie. The life has been sucked out of the superhero genre since the brilliant “Dark Knight” films, with movies like “The Amazing Spiderman 2” and “The Avengers” being churned out for profit without any soul or care, but this film has brought the genre back from the brink. It’s not without its issues, but nor is any film, and there are moments in this movie which more than make up for any negatives (particularly when Groot is trying to explain himself to the others or when Star-Lord decides it’s time to dance). “Guardians of the Galaxy” will appeal to all ages, with rich characters, a great soundtrack, good special effects and real humour, it is definitely worth seeing and deserves its success.

8/10