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, Her, Blue 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.