July is traditionally big studio film territory, and that is what we have this year. Four films…

First up, Terminator Genisys is yet another entry in a franchise that should be facing its own Judgement Day. The film immediately sets to ripping apart the timeline to great effect, but quickly squanders its boldness with a plot about an evil Facebook-like company. There are some great set pieces, but they’re undermined by the clunky exposition and bad acting (Jai Courtney is especially flat). It’s a better film than its immediate predecessor, but that wouldn’t be hard. Fun, but not a classic. (See my Terminator Genisys Twitter review).

Seth MacFarlane certainly has his style of comedy and, as in Ted 2, it’s starting to wear a little threadbare. Even if you like his heavily referential/gross-out jokes, here they’re presented as a loosely connected series of sketches barely held together by the thinnest of plots. There are a few funny moments, but it’s largely devoid of anything to hold your interest. Avoid this movie, there are many better options. (See my Ted 2 Twitter review).

When Ant-Man was first announced, it wasn’t clear how they’d fit a character who is more grounded in the golden age of comics, despite his relative latter day importance. This film manages it with a few knowing winks and a fairly unique heist. When it’s being light and breezy, Ant-Man does very well. The small scale set pieces work surprisingly well, with both action and comedy moments aplenty. It doesn’t, however, earn a few of the main character beats. The relationship between Hank Pym and Hope Van Dyne feels particularly unearned. Light-hearted and fun. (See my Ant-Man Twitter review).

Finally, Southpaw is built on every boxing cliche that you can imagine, from the rise-fall-rise structure, to the external struggles (family, drugs), and the training montages. We’re not getting originality so what are we getting? Well, another jawdropping performance from Jake Gyllenhaal, who couldn’t look more different than he did in Nightcrawler, and an absolutely gut-wrenching plot involving his daughter. Some of the emotional moments are genuinely affecting, even if some of the relationships are by the book. It’s a mixed bag, but a solid film. (See my Southpaw Twitter review).

It’s difficult to pick a winner this month, with a serious film and a fun film that could win other months, but I think Ant-Man edges out for the simple fact I’d watch it again sooner than later.

June’s Film Fight is back up to the nearly standard four films…

First up, Spy is, as the name suggests, a spy film. Melissa McCarthy gets to show off her comedy skills as an agent who is thrust into the field after years behind a desk, and does so admirably. The comedy works as a mixture of great lines, unexpected brutality, some slapstick, but never becoming a spoof. The extended cast are mostly good, but this is definitely McCarthy’s film. We feel sorry for her, but in a way that keeps us on-side. Very funny.  (See my Spy Twitter review).

Jurassic World is an attempt to bring back the classic dinosaur franchise and, for the most part, uses that as a reason to coast on what we’ve seen before. Chris Pratt is as likeable as he usually is, but almost nothing else in this film works. The plot doesn’t hold together, seeming like an excuse to glue together a bunch of set-pieces. Most of those action sequences are done with CG that is bad enough to undermine them entirely, with the jungle bike ride being particularly awful. This is empty spectacle. A fairly mediocre waste.  (See my Jurassic World Twitter review).

Michael Fassbender stars as a classic near-silent outlaw with a good heart in the Slow West. Following a young man’s journey across the American frontier to find his love, the story is enjoyable if obvious. Instead it’s the beautiful and simple cinematography, coupled with the lead performances, that make this something special. It gets enough right that its few faults become glaring (an unnecessary dream sequence and epilogue, an out of place song), but not overbearingly so. Well-acted, beautifully shot, and generally very good. (See my Slow West Twitter review).

Finally, The Overnight does a kind of comedy that you rarely see: building up an uncomfortable tension for over an hour before releasing it in a big moment. There are laughs along the way, but the focus is very much on the weirdness of the situation: a couple meeting new friends at their kid’s playdate, that gets a little out of hand. The whole (tiny) cast is great, and it’s extremely well-paced, save for an unnecessary epilogue. Very worth seeing. (See my The Overnight Twitter review).

There are three good films this month, but I think I’d probably revisit Slow West over the years to take in those performances and scenery.

For May, Film Fight has 4 films…

First up, Child 44 is a slow-paced thriller, starring Tom Hardy as a Russian officer trying to link together the disappearances of several children. It takes its time to cover the ground it needs to, building up slowly over the 2 hour or so runtime, without becoming a slog. While some of the accents are weak and the action sequences are ill-advised (but infrequent), it manages to do what it needs to do fairly well. Solid. (See my Child 44 Twitter review).

Samuel L. Jackson seems like he’s open to do pretty much any film that seems like it’ll be fun, and Big Game is no exception. It’s clearly on a tiny budget given its action aspirations, but does surprisingly well within its constraints. Following the dual plots of a boy sent into the Finnish wilderness to become a man and the attempted assassination of the US president, that quickly come together, it starts silly and remains generally fun. It’s definitely not a classic, but is an entertaining enough way to pass an afternoon. (See my Big Game Twitter review).

We’ve waited a long time for another in the series, so it’s good to see that Mad Max: Fury Road does not disappoint. This is a film that manages to get a surprising amount of world-building and characterisation through the deluge of action; with Charlize Theron’s Imperator Furiosa a clear stand-out. The main event, however, is the relentlessly paced and breath-taking action. Tere are several lengthy sequences of chases that are always crystal clear, and constantly moving. While the handful of quiet scenes are a welcome relief, they are weaker than the rest of the film. An excellent action movie that is as technically brilliant as it is fun to watch. (See my Mad Max: Fury Road Twitter review).

Finally, Tomorrowland is probably the most well-meaning film you’ll see for a long time; focussing on a central message of trying your best to improve the world. It’s genuinely nice to see such a hopeful message given in a fun way. Sadly, the film doesn’t quite get to where it is trying to reach. It’s inoffensive, but fairly bland. None of the action sequences really grab you, the plot is a little flimsy, and it does get more than a little heavy-handed when delivering its core message. All in, it’s pleasant but forgettable. (See my Tomorrowland Twitter review).

The winner for May is Mad Max: Fury Road. Great action is rarely done with this level of clarity.

April is a little quieter, with just three films…

First up, Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck is a documentary that covers the early years of Cobain’s life, through his success with Nirvana, his relationship with Courtney Love, and ultimately his death. It starts off strongly, by showing a side of the icon that we rarely see, his formative years, in such a way that we both get insight into and sympathy for his later struggles. There are powerful moments throughout the piece, but the presentation is somewhat lacking. Lengthy montages over Nirvana songs make up the bulk of the piece, and these are the weakest segments by a long way. It works far better when it’s being a more traditional talking-heads documentary. Languid pacing ultimately ruin an otherwise interesting take on the man. Mediocre, meandering, maybe dull. (See my Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck Twitter review).

Keanu Reeves has a reputation for being a little wooden as an actor, and John Wick does very little to shake that, even amongst a movie full of forgettable performances. The story is pretty weak, and the world building is a mess, but it does have some fairly spectacular action sequences. The action choreography works extremely well, stylised and efficient gun play throughout. It’s fun but absolutely mindless. (See my John Wick Twitter review).

Finally, Avengers: Age Of Ultron gives us exactly what we now expect from these films: a large ensemble (including some newcomers), fight against a huge threat (in this case, the titular Ultron, played well by James Spader), in a series of increasingly large scale battles. It’s a high quality blockbuster action film with everything that implies. It’s polished, fun, exciting, but very much of its genre. If you like the rest of the Marvel canon then you’ll know whether you want to see this; it’s not the best in the franchise, but it’s certainly not the worst. (See my Avengers: Age of Ultron Twitter review).

The winner for April is Avengers: Age of Ultron. It wouldn’t win in a stronger month, but I’d watch it again long before seeing the other two films.

For March, we have five films to review…

First up, Predestination is that rare film that does far more than the description. The synopsis suggests a time travel plot about catching a mysterious bomber before he strikes again. The actual plot is very different, but to speak about it would spoil some of the surprises. Obviously made on a lower budget, the film manages to fit in a remarkable amount of world and character building, with striking visuals and genuinely unexpected twists. Very good. (See my Predestination Twitter review).

Catch Me Daddy is a dark and provocative look into so-called “honour killings”. While the details of the plot are best watched, it’s fair to say the film progresses slowly and grounded firmly in a realistic style, giving a sense of grim menace. Despite the pacing, the film is gripping throughout. The performances are, for the most part, understated, but that feels right given the subject matter. Worth seeing, but not easy going. (See my Catch Me Daddy Twitter review).

Neill BlomKamp’s latest, Chappie, manages to further erode the stellar reputation the director set up with his debut, District 9. The plot is thin and limp, telegraphed from the outset, and with little originality on display. Despite a great cast, the performances from the traditional actors are bare, and those by Die Antwoord (who make up the emotional core of the movie) are atrocious; consisting of either flat line readings or one-note, overwrought depictions. You won’t care about what happens to anyone. It’s an awful film, avoid. (See my Chappie Twitter review).

If you’ve ever seen a con-man film before then Focus will have few surprises. Expect the usual breezy dialogue, heavy use of narrative exposition (usually explaining the next con), and twists-upon-twists that you can see coming from the outset. That’s not to say it’s a bad film: it’s entertaining and competent, if a little predictable. Fun, but far from essential. (See my Focus Twitter review).

Finally, The Voices is about a man whose dog and cat speak to him, and encourage his better and worse natures. The film takes sharp turns between comically overdone violence and brutal, gritty realism, which greatly helps amp up the dark humour. Ryan Reynolds does well as the lead (as well as providing the voices for the dog and cat), and the remaining cast fit nicely around his increasingly strange behavour. Weird, but funny. (See my The Voices Twitter review).

The winner for is Predestination. Despite me trying to avoid saying anything too substantial about the plot, it’s worth seeing.

February is a lot shorter than January’s behemoth edition with just 3 films.

First up, Jupiter Ascending has some stunning visuals. If you took the Wachowski’s latest film as a series of isolated moments, it can be absolutely striking. Sadly, those moments are tied together as a film; and a terrible one at that. The plot is nonsensical, largely told in exposition, and with characters for whom it would be a stretch to call them “sketched”. Some of the devices and ideas tying the world and action together are beyond dumb, the gravity skates being a particular low point. This film is awful, and I’d wager a contender for worst film of the year. (See my Jupiter Ascending Twitter review).

Selma is a fresh take on the American civil rights movement, focussing on the period Martin Luther King took his campaign to Selma, Alabama. It’s a fascinating insight into both a small moment of the movement, and does a reasonable job of showing that King was a visionary but not perfect. David Oyelowo puts in a fantastic performance as the lead, demonstrating King’s well-known oratorial prowess, and some of his frailties. At times the swelling music and sweeping visuals can be a little on the Oscar-bait side, but this is a movie worthy of that grandeur. Very good. (See my Selma Twitter review).

Finally, Kingsman: The Secret Service is the kind of big, silly, fun, comic-book chaos that you expect from a Matthew Vaughn film. Sure, it doesn’t quite make sense, and some of the action is a little more chaotic than clear, but it’s entertaining. It’s not going to win any awards, but some films don’t have to in order to be enjoyable. Good. (See my Kingsman: The Secret Service Twitter review).

Fairly easy but deserving win for Selma in February.

Welcome to Film Fight 2015! I haven’t checked to be certain, but I believe this is going to be the biggest month yet with 9 films in the fight. Even the thought of tackling this number has delayed this post by a silly amount. Because this was during the season for Oscar releases, most of these are going to be better than average.

First up, Big Hero 6 rightly makes a big deal of the main character’s robot, Baymax, and his understated and unintentional humour. He’s a great addition to an otherwise barely sketched cast of characters, none of whom get enough individual screen time to get beyond a single character trait. I’m not expecting nuance, but a little more than we get would be nice. That said, the film is the kind of fun adventure we’ve come to expect from Disney Animation Studios. It’s certainly not the best kid’s animated film you’ll see, but it’s far from the worst. (See my Big Hero 6 Twitter review).

St. Vincent has Bill Murray play a grouchy but funny old man, a role with which he has become more than comfortable. Keeping the act fresh is the introduction of a single mother and son as neighbours who begin to rely on him. All of the characters build just enough, their interactions work very well, and the movie ticks along nicely. A funny, and at times sweet, comedy. Well worth seeing. (See my St. Vincent Twitter review)

Taken 3 is the next inevitable cash grab in the series, following the surprisingly great original. There’s nothing new here, and many of the ideas have been done to death. It’s formulaic, but fun; entertaining, but with an utterly nonsensical plot. The action set pieces that we’re always moving towards are reasonable enough but you won’t care about any of the cast, making those sequences fairly hollow. Watch if you want something mindless. (See my Taken 3 Twitter review).

The relentless pace and movement given to Birdman by both its seamless editing and direction define it. There’s no looking away from Michael Keaton’s lead performance as an actor losing himself to self-doubt and self-obsession, a nihilistic narcissism played out between stage performances. The supporting cast are equally brilliant, particularly Edward Norton and Emma Stone, each bringing their own distractions. We’re never allowed to see what is real and what is imaginary, where the play within the movie ends and the lead’s breakdown begins. An excellent movie. (See my Birdman Twitter review).

Foxcatcher is based on the true story of a millionaire funding wrestling in the US, for mostly vanity reasons, and the two brothers who get caught up in his ill-conceived act of egotism. The lead performances are exceptionally strong. Steve Carrell shows a serious side we haven’t seen before, and Channing Tatum puts in a great physical performance as an awkward, lumbering wrestler. As a whole, however, the movie is languidly paced. Until the very end, you want things to move just a bit faster. Worth seeing. (See my Foxcatcher Twitter review).

Never before has musical performance been so tense as in Whiplash. I can think of few films that had my muscles tighten so much as when the lead, an aspiring drummer, performs as hard as he can whilst being berated by his bully of a coach, fantastically played by JK Simmons. As you might imagine, the film sounds incredible, one of the few times going to the cinema pays dividends unless you have a high-end sound system. The story itself is weak (you’ll see most of it coming) but it’s the two thoroughly unlikeable main characters going head-to-head that make this film something you. Excellent. (See my Whiplash Twitter review).

There are many war films that have something to say that would be worth hearing. American Sniper is not one of them. Its few messages (the impact of war on veterans, the unflinching/harmful patriotism of some) have been said far better in other movies. The plot itself, focussing on a sniper chasing one of his counterparts over the years, is dull: each of the four main segments are similar enough that even the few action sequences are pretty unengaging, with the only stand-out being the scene used for the trailer. Not worth seeing. (See my American Sniper Twitter review).

I have a lot of time for James Franco and Seth Rogen. Their comedy is often juvenile, but it frequently tickles me just the right way. The Interview is not one of those occasions. The premise is thin, the jokes are one-note (and it’s a dud), the progression is contrived, the acting is weak, and there’s really not much else. It fails to do just about anything well. There are a million better comedies to see than this. (See my The Interview Twitter review).

Finally, Ex Machina is a fascinating and gripping take on some very important issues. It’s an exploration of AI, human nature, and manipulation. There are enough twists and turns, layers of complication, to keep things moving nicely. Alex Garland has shot this beautifully, squeezing surprisingly great and nuanced performances from his small cast. This is an exceptionally good movie, directorial debut or not. (See my Ex Machina Twitter review).

There are at least three movies that could win the year this month, but only one gets through. Very hard to call, but I think it has to be Birdman, for keeping up that pace and quality for so long.

Yes, most of the Film Fights this year were terribly late, with roughly half showing up in December, but we got there in the end. So what was the best film of the year? As always, my caveat from earlier years applies: Film Fight is done in a knock-out style and, as such, only picks my favourite film of the year; there are no guarantees about second place.

First up, the honourable mentions; the good films that, for some reason, did not win their month:

  • American Hustle
  • The Wolf of Wall Street
  • Inside Llewyn Davis
  • Dallas Buyers Club
  • The Lego Movie
  • The Double
  • Only Lovers Left Alive
  • Zero Theorem
  • Under the Skin
  • Starred Up
  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier
  • The Raid 2
  • Frank
  • X-Men: Days of Future Past
  • Edge of Tomorrow
  • Guardians of the Galaxy
  • Interstellar
  • Snowpiercer

Now, the monthly winners:

  • January: 12 Years a Slave
  • February: Her
  • March: The Grand Budapest Hotel
  • April: Calvary
  • May: Blue Ruin
  • June: Fruitvale Station
  • July: Boyhood
  • August: The Rover
  • September: Before I Go to Sleep
  • October: Gone Girl
  • November: Nightcrawler
  • December: In Your Eyes

It was an uneven year, but it started incredibly well. January, February and March were absolutely rammed with great movies, where the mid to end of the year were a lot weaker. Looking over the winner’s list, though, and they’re all strong contenders (but not classics).

The moods evoked by Before I Go To Sleep, HerBlue Ruin, In Your Eyes and The Rover were all affecting in very different ways. The dark humour in Calvary and Gone Girl hit perfectly, with some lovely direction in both. The real-life inspired 12 Years a Slave and Fruitvale Station showed up awful, brutal moments of humanity. The Grand Budapest Hotel was another strikingly shot and wonderful Wes Anderson film. Boyhood, while not the most gripping story, was a fascinating cinematic experiment.

However, the winner for 2014 (not by much) was Nightcrawler. The lead performance was a career best that no-one saw coming (the bit parts are all strong too), it’s cleanly shot, and is a very dark, satirical statement on modern journalism that never missteps. A great film.


The last film fight before the big finale has three films…

First up, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 is that most annoying of films: the set-up for another movie. It feels very much like a cash-in. With the lucrative franchise coming to an end, the decision to split Mockingjay into two films has seriously harmed at least this part. For the vast majority of the film, we see a boring set-up and a few dull action sequences to fill it in. With the exception of one remarkably well structured sequence towards the end (the SWAT-style assault), this film is fairly tiresome, never making us care about many of the characters. To be clear, it’s not bad; merely unnecessary. Avoid. (See my Mockingjay Part 1 Twitter review).

Joss Whedon decides to do something different for In Your Eyes: his newest writing project (he did not direct), that went straight to digital services, rather than a regular cinematic release. So what does a Whedon indie film look like? Pretty great. It’s strikingly pretty, with sweet dialogue (rather than the writer’s trademark humour) and great pacing. The two leads are very good, giving a sense of reality to the central conceit (people across the country who can see and feel through each other’s eyes) and keeping the whole thing interesting until the end. Very worthwhile. (See my In Your Eyes Twitter review).

Finally, Big Eyes is based on the true story of Margaret Keane, an artist who let her husband take credit for her work as it became world-renowned. While there are great moments in the performances by Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz, they are ruined by the film’s lack of tonal consistency. It can’t seem to decide whether it should be a straight biopic, somewhat light, or wildly over-the-top and thus fails at them all. It also has the worst voiceover I’ve seen in a long time. A minor character pops in occasionally to literally state what is already happening on-screen. A real shame, because the core of the story is interesting but there’s too much wrong with this for it to really work. Avoid. (See my Big Eyes Twitter review).

The winner for December is In Your Eyes. Well-written, and touchingly performed.

There are three films in the film fight for November…

First up, Nightcrawler is a stylish, dark satire about the shock culture prevalent in modern journalism, particularly the nightly news. Jake Gyllenhaal absolutely nails the lead performance as a psychotic, but fascinating, camera man who will chase down any story; it might be a career best. The pacing is excellent: always pushing forward without being relentless, leaving the viewer gripped to their seat as the story unfolds. It’s made clear that the protagonist will do anything to get ahead, but it’s quite something to see exactly what he does. Exceptionally strong. (See my Nightcrawler Twitter review).

As a fan of Christopher Nolan, it feels strange to say that Interstellar might be his weakest film. That’s not to say it’s bad, it just doesn’t live up to the high points he has elsewhere. The visuals are stunning, bringing clarity to any number of complex scenes and scenarios that involve astronomical phenomenon that are hard to comprehend. This bleeds over into the world-building which swiftly shows the end-of-days scenario playing out for humanity, and why the mission must go ahead. Despite the odd slow patch, the whole never feels like a three hour movie. All of that said, some of the dialogue is absolutely terrible, incredibly cringeworthy and painfully out of character speeches mar the otherwise good performances. Anne Hathaway’s speech in the middle is jarringly bad (due to the writing, not her performance). The central conceit in the plot (about love and family) doesn’t help much here either, turning a solid hard sci-fi film into an overly saccharine movie. Good, but flawed. (See my Interstellar Twitter review).

Finally, Snowpiercer is that rarest of things for a modern action film: clear. The linear set-up, of taking a train carriage by carriage, brings a clarity to the plot and action that is often missing in many movies. While the performances are solid (Tilda Swinton and Chris Evans in particular), it’s really the mix of different action sequences and the big, dark moment at the end that really make it all work. Mostly fun. (See my Snowpiercer Twitter review).

The winner is Nightcrawler: well-paced, looks great, and with a top-class performance. Film of the year material.

« Older entries