Films of 2015: Hits and Misses

Hits

Jurassic World

Jurassic World was one of the most anticipated films of the year, and it most certainly delivered. A brand new cast gave it a refreshing boost that proved it is a franchise that will stand the test of time, as it does not rely on particular actors. It was a classic Summer blockbuster, and rightly became the third highest grossing film of all time.

The Martian

There was very little talk of the Martian until it was in cinemas, but it deserved the attention it ultimately got. It was a very timely film; with much talk about manned missions on Mars, it created a "what if" scenario that many would not have considered, and that's an interesting concept in itself. It was able to be funny while still taking itself seriously, which put it a notch ahead of other Sci Fi films of recent times.

It Follows

Personally my favourite film of the year, and one of my favourite films of all time. It's everything a horror needs to be. It's scary without needing to frighten you, the tension will have you trying to pause it or look away and the imagery is second to none. There's no such thing as the perfect film, but It Follows comes pretty close. 

Bridge of Spies

Steven Spielberg is still at the top of his game. The atmosphere, theme and emotional fluctuation is so trademark Spielberg that the film almost feels sentimental. He's a real magician with a camera. Tom Hanks put in a great performance, and the score is memorable too. The combination of people involved meant that anything less than amazing would have been disappointing. Thankfully, it wasn't.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Like Jurassic World, it was highly anticipated. It could have fallen victim to being too nostalgic and not producing a worthwhile storyline, but it didn't at all. The new cast stole the show and the old cast offered some memorable moments. The story made sense and didn't feel forced. The film's cycle hasn't quite finished yet, but it's likely to become one of the highest grossing films of all time. It makes Star Wars the number one franchise in the world once more. 

Honourable Mentions: Inside Out, Song of the Sea

Misses

Tomorrowland: A World Beyond

This isn't a miss because it was a bad film, it just promised to be so much more. It had moments where it was great, but it never really packed a full punch. The film succeeds in terms of trying to restore and reproduce old values and inspire the audience, but fails in terms of telling a story. It was an enjoyable film nonetheless and the visuals were wonderful, but I'm not quite sure who the target audience is. 

Poltergeist

The original is a great film. This remake is absolute muck. There's not much else to say really. Avoid at all costs.

The Good Dinosaur

I really wanted this film to be good. A combination of aspects landed it in the miss pile. It was released at a really bad time, with Star Wars coming out in the same month. Pixar had also released a film earlier in 2015, and people weren't excited about The Good Dinosaur. The characters weren't all that interesting and the story never made me want to continue watching. It's an okay film, but poor by Pixar's standards.

Krampus

You can never really expect a horror film to be good, so it didn't exactly disappoint but it was just visually too dark, and couldn't decide if it was a horror or a comedy. It had potential to be good, it could have capitalized on an interesting concept, but it never delivered. David Koechner's typecast character is intolerable and should never have been in Krampus, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. 

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) Review

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the most anticipated movie of 2015. It is the beginning of the franchise's third trilogy, and tells a new story in the universe of Star Wars. It maintains the old and gritty style of the original trilogy; there's very little CGI and much of the scenery and fighting looks old fashioned and authentic. This appeals to old fans of Star Wars and makes it aesthetically unique in a time when CGI saturated films are a dime a dozen.

I was concerned about the old cast returning. Last summer's Jurassic World created a new story for a new generation, as the story is what people come to see. I feared that The Force Awakens would fail to create that story by simply paying homage to the original cast. It was actually all balanced really well. The new cast (Finn, Rey and BB8) stole the show and told a wonderful new story, while the old cast were blended in and given due homage while still being kept relevant to the story, apart from Leia maybe.

The acting was superb, particularly from John Boyega, Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver. They're a young and relatively unknown cast, and I can't help but feel that these actors will reprise their roles for another trilogy in thirty years, because this film cements Star Wars as the number one franchise in the film industry. The story is great as well; it doesn't feel thrown together for the sake of the film, like I thought it would. It's engaging and balances action and emotion almost perfectly.

BB8 symbolises this film really well; it's old fashioned but it's also new and original. He is a great mascot, and he'll spearhead the merchandising to further increase the profits that The Force Awakens makes. The original trilogy finished up just over thirty years ago, and that means that people who grew up on Star Wars can now bring their kids to see the new ones. There's something really satisfying about that, and it's something that will likely continue for generations.

I'm not a huge fan of Star Wars, but I watched it and enjoyed it from start to finish because it's so accessible to fans and non-fans. They have blown their market wide open and in the process, made an excellent film. Believe everything you hear.

6/7

The Good Dinosaur (2015) Review

The Good Dinosaur is Pixar's latest film, which tells the story of Arlo the dinosaur finding his way back home with the help of his dog-like human friend, Spot. The incredibly realistic scenery steals the show throughout the film, and the caricature dinosaurs and human almost become uninteresting in front of the background, as seen in the photo above. Pixar have spearheaded the animation industry since the release of Toy Story in 1995, and they continue to showcase the evolution of animation. The main problem in terms of animation is the blandness of the dinosaurs. 

This story of the protagonist trying to find their way home has been done to death by Pixar. It's the plot of all three Toy Story films, Finding Nemo and most recently, Inside Out, which was released just five months ago. The audience knows they're going to get there, so any threat to the character not getting home just feels formulated. Emotional moments in this movie feel formulated as well, probably due to the characters not really warranting empathy. 

The poor timing of the release has plagued The Good Dinosaur and prevented it from following the natural development of a Pixar film's release. It's partly their own fault, as it's their second original release this year. They didn't release any film last year, and this film was scheduled to be released last year. While I understand that rushing a release does more harm than good, they should have postponed it until next year, as they are releasing a Finding Nemo sequel next year, but no original films. We've already seen a dinosaur film this year in Jurassic World, and The Good Dinosaur has been release three weeks before the highly anticipated Star Wars: The Force Awakens. All of these aspects combined has made for a very underwhelming release of this film, and that is reflected in the box office earnings. It will likely lose money, and that's a first for Pixar.

Pixar create great protagonists, and they make great antagonists to counteract them. At first glance, The Good Dinosaur doesn't have an antagonist but after thought, it has one of the best antagonists of any Pixar film; nature itself. Nature takes Arlo away from home, and does things that if done by a character, would be unforgivable. Nature is relentless, and yet the audience (and Arlo) can't help but admire its beauty. Nature is treated like a character, and this was executed really well. 

There are some redeeming qualities, and Pixar will probably never make a bad film, but this was nowhere near their high standard. A higher quality of characters and a better timed release would have made this film successful, and hopefully the company will learn some important lessons from this rather than begin to fear the risk of original films. 

3/7

Krampus (2015) Review

Krampus is this year's biggest Christmas themed horror movie. It follows the story of a family who are burdened by the company of their relatives for Christmas, and then further burdened by the company of Krampus, who is described as Santa's shadow. The director Michael Dougherty made Trick 'r Treat in 2008 (which was a great film) and following the financial success of Krampus, Trick 'r Treat 2 has been given the green light. The problem is that that's probably the best thing about this film. The entire story seemed forced and rushed from beginning to end. 

It starts out with the feeling of a festive comedy film and stays that way for while, but gets dark very suddenly. Horror movies generally have jokes and comic moments, and that's fine, but they were all crammed in at the start here, and then it became all action. A transition would have been better, or blend of both horror and comedy throughout. It seemed to get confused in between. The majority of the cast have made careers in comedy so it was a bit unusual watching them all play serious roles for the second half of the film. I didn't need to see David Koechner play the same character he plays in everything he's in, it felt like he was just there to fill that Christmas/comedy stereotypical uncle role. The rest of the cast were okay, but again, the film probably could have benefited from a more serious cast or a better dispersal of jokes. That said, the funny bits were funny.

It's difficult to not compare this with Trick 'r Treat because they're both themed and in the same vein. What stands out most about Trick 'r Treat is that it's fun and really captures that Halloween aesthetic. Krampus doesn't really capture the Christmas aesthetic at all (and so many other films do) so it won't stand out as a Christmas film, whereas Trick 'r Treat most definitely stands out as a Halloween film. Another problem is that it's not that fun. It tries to be but it's not. It turns into a survivor film in the final third, and on top of it being confused between horror and comedy, it becomes a little bit of a thriller too. The story trips over itself on too many occasions for it to be an engaging film.

This film has a monster, and in that monster they have an rare opportunity to create an iconic Christmas symbol, like the Mogwai from Gremlins. Gremlins was so successful for many reasons, but one of the big reasons was that it had a mascot. Krampus really didn't capitalize on this, and missed a huge opportunity to create a modern horror classic. You don't get a good view of the monster for much of the film, but when you do it looks awful. The story is derived from old Austro-Bavarian folklore, and there are many drawings and depictions of the monster available. We know that Michael Dougherty can execute this; look at Sam from Trick 'r Treat. I really can't understand why he hasn't attempted something similar here.

Overall, Dougherty had the right intentions but everything was executed poorly. It's a watchable and somewhat enjoyable film but fails to break any new ground.

3/7

Bridge of Spies (2015) Review

Bridge of Spies is Steven Spielberg's latest work, which follows Tom Hanks through a Cold War era story. He plays James Donovan, an American legal attourney who is roped into a hostage trade with the Soviet Union involving his client. Like any Spielberg film, it is a great drama with plenty of emotional highs and lows. It involves all the Spielberg elements; a good score, a coherent script (written by the Coen brothers), actors chosen for their suitability and talent rather than celebrity status and of course wonderful cinematography. It stands as a testament to Spielberg's mastered skill, and rightly so.

But it gets a little too patriotic at times. The story is obviously told from the American side and more than once, the treatment of American soldiers in Russia is compared to the treament of Russian soldiers in America. Neither are accurate, probably, and it's clearly just American bias in order to dramatize the story. But it is an American movie made for an American audience, so I shouldn't have expected any less.

John Williams was supposed to write the score for Bridge of Spies, but he fell sick before doing it. Thomas Newman is truly the next best thing in the film scoring industry, and he proved that with this soundtrack. I've been listening to it on YouTube ever since I saw the film. Unfortunately, John Williams doesn't have many years left, so Thomas Newman would be a wonderful permanent replacement for Spielberg films, as the score is always a hugely important part of his films.

The story is definitely engaging throughout, but some parts fall away. Frederic Pryor becomes an important part of the finale, but we only see five minutes of his back story, so it is hard to sympathise with him, whereas we see much of the other involved characters and can sympathise with them much easier. It is based on a true story, and while dramatised for the purpose of storytelling, some parts are inaccurate. Upon further reading, James Donovan was actually quite involved in intelligence before this event, but the films depicts him as misplaced among the event. It's something I can look past, but I would have preferred a truer depiction of the story.

That said, it's right up there with Lincoln to show that Spielberg is still in top form in the final third of his career. He has that magic ability to make you feel happy and sad at the same time in the final stages of the film. Even though I've pointed out faults, everything else was close to perfect. The acting was brilliant especially the chemistry between Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance. And it has replay value, it's certainly a film a will watch again.

6/7

The Walk (2015) Review

The Walk follows the story of Philippe Petit and his dream to walk a wire between the Twin Towers in New York. It begins in Paris where he discovers his love for walking the wire, and ends in New York where his dream is realised. For anyone who has seen the documentary Man On Wire, this is a story we've seen already, but in a different form. However, Joseph Gordon-Levitt narrates the story as it happens, making it not all that different from the documentary.

At the beginning, the story sort of stumbles over itself; he was a teenager at the beginning, then we see flashbacks of him as a kid, and then he's an adult. It wasn't very coherent, it would have made much more sense to show it chronologically. But after the first thirty minutes, it stays on track quite well. I feared that the film would memorialize the Twin Towers which would distract the story, but thankfully it didn't do that.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Phillipe Petit very well. Petit actually taught JGL how to walk the wire prior to filming, so he also got to learn Petit's characteristics, which he picked up on well. The supporting cast are also great. Ben Kinglsey and Charlotte Le Bon stand out, but no one gave a bad performance and the characters were all very well written.

I had heard a lot of talk about the height combined with the 3D effect making people nauseous, and I was quite worried about experiencing vertigo but it didn't bother me at all. Robert Zemeckis said in an interview that he wanted people to feel how high up Petit was, he wanted to put the audience on the wire with him. He accomplished that, you do feel high up but it's a different feeling to standing at the edge of a cliff. Perhaps people who fear heights may have issues.

The way in which The Walk differs from the documentary is that it's much more dramatic rather than informative, but that's what a feature film based on a true story is set out to do. Robert Zemeckis has a track record of making endearing drama films, something that is hard to come by these days. Stephen Spielberg did it in the 1980s, and not many big directors do it any more. What we have in place of accessible drama is Superhero films.

Zemeckis' films like Cast Away and Forrest Gump are accessible to children without being children's films, and I think that is his goal for every movie he makes. It makes his films memorable and unique, and this film fits right in to that category. This is the month that Marty McFly and Doc Brown travel to in the future in Zemeckis' own Back to the Future part II (1989), and it's great to see that he's still around and making a great film to mark the month.

5/7

The Martian (2015) Review

The Martian is Ridley Scott's latest science fiction film. A team of astronauts who have landed on Mars prepare to evacuate the planet as a storm threatens to destroy the ship that offers their only way home. Astronaut and botanist Mark Watney gets lost in the storm, and the crew are forced to leave without him. He's presumed dead, but we quickly find out that he's not. The film takes the audience through a process of him trying to survive on Mars by any means necessary.

It's really dense. It's a long film at 141 minutes and a lot happens in that space of time. It feels like some parts were shortened and not explained in order to make the film not run over three hours, which could be perceived as a good or bad thing. Good if you haven't much interest in the science part of science fiction and want to enjoy the story and visuals. Bad if you do have an interest in astronomy. I don't have a huge interest in astronomy and I'm sure the film was as accurate as possible, but I found myself asking questions about why certain things were happening.

And maybe that's okay. It makes the film really accessible to a wide audience. Last year's Interstellar was a very serious science fiction film that needed a lot of attention. The Martian is not like that at all. It offers a wonderful story without taking itself too seriously. There are funny bits, there are sad bits and there are happy bits. And the cast, especially Matt Damon, are really engaging and it's easy to feel the emotions that the characters feel.

The backup cast are extraordinary too though. There is a team of Nasa employees trying to interact with Mark Watney, and their story on Earth develops as the film goes on. The team of Astronauts on the way home also have involvement and we witess their character development too. We see great depth of character with the astronauts as they talk to their families back home and interact with one another. When I was going in, I worried that it would just be one character in one place for the entire film in order to make the audience feel as trapped as the character. This can be effective and memorable, but not particularly enjoyable. It worked well in 127 Hours (2010) and The Man From Earth (2007), but was not something I looked forward to in this film. So I was glad to watch three stories unfold and blend in to one.

The visuals from the scenes on Mars were spectacular. The landscape surrounded his settlement in the form of mountains, and that made the character seem not just alone, but imprisoned. The spacecraft that the astronaut crew travel on is classic Ridley Scott. It has kitchens and living areas that are reminiscent of the spacecraft in Alien. His science fiction films seem to have a motif that living in space becomes normal, and spacecrafts resemble houses. The space centre on Earth also had a lot of atmosphere and intensity.

Ridley Scott has had quite a hit or miss career. He has made Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator which all received Oscar nominations and won some as well. But he has produced some poor films this century such as Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood and Prometheus. From my experience with Ridley Scott films, I feel that he tends to care more about visuals, aesthetics and impressive sets, and doesn't give very much attention to the story and the characters. But Ridley Scott has very few films left to make, and it's brilliant to see him add another great film to his legacy. This film will be remembered as a classic not only for its stunning visuals, but for the compelling story it has to tell.

5/7