My Top 5 Films of 2015

Earlier this year in my Oscar blog post, I commented that there was apparently no point in doing a best of 2014 list when basically all of 2014’s juiciest titles didn't come out until the following year. And while the thought has danced temptingly in my mind to count said films as 2015 releases and have an easy, and strong for that matter, top list for 2015, I like to think I'm above such petty cheating.

However, the problem still remains that I haven’t really seen many films of 2015. I certainly haven’t been going to the cinema as often as I was last year, so doing a top 5 of 2015 seems near meaningless, considering I've only seen about 6 or 7 at best. So, instead of a ‘Top 5 of 2015’, I’d like you to think of this as more of a ‘Short Review of 5 of the films I saw in 2015’. And it may just be, purely through crazy random happenstance that I have chosen to talk about my five favourite films of 2015. We happy? Good. Let’s go.

5. Star Wars: The Force Awakens – J. J. Abrams

Ever since Disney bought Lucasfilm back in 2012 to the collective astonishment of the masses, a frankly ridiculous amount of hype has been built up for this film, with an advertising campaign that seemed to infiltrate every industry, from laptops to airplanes, and has returned Star Wars to the mainstream, rather than as a property reserved exclusively for nerds like me. Unsurprisingly, it’s broken opening weekend records with its release, which has happened so often this year it doesn't sound impressive anymore, and I was amongst the many movie-goers who went to see it in its first few days (I managed to book last-minute into a Friday afternoon showing). So, the verdict. It’s a great film. It’s very enjoyable and, most commendably, it feels like Star Wars, something that, in retrospect, the prequels did not. The Force Awakens manages to capture the essence of classic Star Wars perfectly. I don’t know if it’s the use of practical effects, the returning acting talents of Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill or, perhaps, its big weakness – its similarity to A New Hope. Some have called it a rehash or remake of the cherished original, and while I think that’s a little far, it definitely hits all the same plot points, something I might cover in more detail in a separate post, but at the very least, I was disappointed that the big threat is just another Death Star. OK, fine, its called Starkiller Base or something, and it’s bigger, yes, but it’s still a Death Star, and that’s just lazy. As I said, I may do a post expanding on all this in the future, but in short, it's a great film, but not the prodigy we were all expecting. 8/10, High Recommendation

4. Kingsman: The Secret Service – Matthew Vaughn

Of all the films for me to take my family to see, I managed to choose arguably the most graphic of 2015’s highlights. Vaughn’s comic-book adapted spy thriller is certainly a pleasure to the senses: packed with great gags, a sterling soundtrack and deliciously visceral violence that falls right on the sweet spot of being graphic but not unpleasant. Samuel L Jackson as a villain with a lisp and a fear of blood is a masterstroke, and Colin Firth kicks arse as Lancelot, one of the Kingsman’s best agents. And how can we forget the Westborough Baptist Church massacre, set to the sound of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Free Bird. So, why are we only at fourth? OK, well prepare for what may be one of the weirdest criticisms I have ever and probably ever will give to a film. I cannot take the climax of the film seriously with Eggsy dressed in a suit. I know, it’s absurd, but when he’s dressed in the suit and glasses, trying to act all posh at the party, it just looks like a little eight or nine year old has put on daddy’s suit and is pretending to be Bond. I don’t know what they did but it’s just weird to watch, at least for me, and this was enough for me to knock off a mark (I tried to give it a nine, I really did, but I just couldn't agree with it). Everyone else loves it though, so maybe this is just something that only bothers me. Check it out, either way. 8/10, High Recommendation

3. Inside Out – Pete Docter

It seems Pixar have developed a worrying taste for making its audience cry. My generation all grew up on their earlier films, which bought us joy, and now that we’re all older and on the brink of adulthood, they've now changed tactics to instead make us weep for our lost childhood. First, Up showed us two children growing old and dealing with the futility of life in its opening montage, then Toy Story 3 made us confront the end of childhood and leaving our old life behind, and now Inside Out has reminded us of the depression, anxiety and death of childhood creativity that accompany our transition into adulthood. And yes, I cried. Get over it. I believe Pixar spent five years constructing this film, and the work really shows in this powerfully haunting, yet fun ride through the mind of a pre-pubescent child. The metaphorical representations of a psyche are questionable at times, but it all works, and you’ll be too caught up in the emotion (I'm sorry) of the piece to really think about the semantics too much. Kids will undoubtedly love it, and while it’s probably not Pixar’s best output, it’s up there. 9/10, High Recommendation

2. Ex Machina – Alex Garland

With a cinematic release period so short that I’d barely acknowledged it before it disappeared, I didn't actually get around to watching this one until a few weeks back, for possible use in my film studies coursework. And wow, it’s quite a film. The effects are phenomenal, and the soundtrack haunting, as we take an unsettling journey into the genesis of Artificial Intelligence. With only four characters and one location, the narrative is tight and the action suitably claustrophobic, for a film all about being trapped. The plot seems simple on the surface; a programmer is selected to visit his boss’ high tech retreat, where he is introduced to Ava, a potential artificial intelligence that needs to be verified with the Turing test. That’s really about all I can say without ruining it, but essentially, everything is much darker than it first seems. It’s one of those films that really just needs to be seen and experienced and there’s not much I think I can say that does it justice. A new sci-fi classic for sure, watch it with a good sound system. 9/10, High Recommendation

1. Mad Max: Fury Road – George Miller

What a lovely film. I remember eagerly renting the first Mad Max film a little while ago, hoping for a film that encapsulated everything I loved about the post-apocalypse, especially in games like Fallout, of which I am a massive fan. The first film didn't really impress me to say the least, and I never really got around to watching the second or third ones, fearing more of the same. But then Fury Road came out, to the sound of critics, fans, and just about everyone really, creaming their pants in perfect unison. After enquiring with a few of my friends, asking if it was really that good and getting a definite yes in response, I decided to go and see what all the fuss was about. And I can indeed inform you that the fuss was about one of the greatest action films since The Dark Knight, possibly of this century so far. The plot is light and the context pretty simple, in order to devote as much attention and screen time to the stellar action scenes. It’s a miasma of vehicular mayhem to say the least, but there’s enough breaks in the actions that it never grows tiring, but never a lull long enough that the audience get bored. Not to mention pretty much all the stunts and cars were practical effects, with CG only really being used for the scenery and environment, and it really injects life and a certain adrenaline into the carnage that computer effects just can’t achieve. I'm pretty sure most people have seen this film now, but if you haven’t, pick up a copy on Blu-ray now that it’s been released and treat yourself. Heck, I’d even suggest forking over a little extra for the 3D version. I don’t know if it’s any good, I saw it in 2D, but I wouldn't be surprised if it managed to improve on the experience. 9/10, High Recommendation

Well, that’s a wrap for 2015. It’s been my first full year of posting, and I think I've done a fair amount. Next year will be getting pretty busy as I finish my A-levels and move on to university. I have got several posts in the works which’ll hopefully keep this page going for the first half of the year. I’ll also be looking to do Oscars again next year, although I must say the current line-up of Oscar candidates seems a bit muted compared to last year’s offerings. So far, only The Revenant and Spielberg’s Bridge of Spies seem set for the Oscar runnings, and as this list demonstrates, there's been a lot of strong, non-Oscar-bait films this year, so it will be intriguing to see what else follows. I'm especially interested to see the nominations for special/visual effects, because Ex Machina, The Force Awakens and Mad Max have really raised the bar this year.

But that’s enough from me for now; I'm sure we've all got some festivities to return to. I wish you all a belated merry Christmas and a happy new year! See you on the other side.

A Muse Retrospective - Part 1: Overture

So, let’s break up the monotony a bit and talk about something other than films for a change. That’s something I bet you thought I’d never say (or type, but whatever). Obviously this is a film blog, and the vast majority of stuff I talk about on here will be film-related, as that is the area I have the most to say about. But today, I feel like talking about music. Specifically, one of my favourite bands; Muse.

For those who are blissfully unaware of what they are missing, Muse are a three piece alternative rock band from England who released their first album in 1999, and started to become more popular in the mid 2000’s, before becoming a tad mainstream in the past few years, with the help of the London Olympics. They’re well known for their fusion of traditional rock tunes with more symphonic piano pieces as well as frontman Matthew Bellamy’s unique and unmistakable vocals. They’re also the first band I ever really got into, and were my first step into my casual interest in music.

With their seventh album Drones being released earlier this year, I think it’s time for a bit of a retrospective on their discographic history thus far. Although keep in mind I’m not quite as in tune with the music lingo as I am with films, so you’ll have to excuse the slightly more generalised approach to these reviews. That being said, let’s get cracking!

Muse made their debut in 1999 with Showbiz, named after one of the best tracks of the album. Looking at the album cover, we see a woman in white walking around some alien planet thing. I’m not really quite sure of the meaning of this or how it ties into the album, but hey, its nice imagery, and the deep blues and blacks definitely fit in with album’s melancholic tone. When placing the Muse albums in order of excellence, Showbiz is the one no one seems to know what to do with. It’s definitely not the worst, but not really their best either, although this is still a great album. Sunburn and Muscle Museum are the popular songs, and while they’re good, I still stand by Uno and Showbiz being the two best songs on the album, and even now, two of their best songs ever. The rest of the album ranges from very good to pretty good or quite good to serviceable, depending on my mood. Cave, Escape and Unintended are other noteworthy songs, whilst Falling Down brings up the rear. It’s not awful, I’m just not a massive fan, and it takes a little too long to get to the climax of the song. I don’t really give albums ratings, but for the sake of this retrospective, I’m going to make an exception. Showbiz gets four stars (out of five, for simplicity)

In the space odyssey year of 2001, Muse started breaking the ice a bit more with their acclaimed follow-up, Origin of Symmetry. Many fans consider this their best album. Ehhhhh, I’m not too sure. Don’t get me wrong, this is one of their best, and makes up part of the superstar trio along with Absolution and Black Holes & Revelations, but I’m not sure if it represents their best work. Let’s have a look. The album cover shows a field of tuning forks growing out of the ground against an orange sky. Well, they look like rugby posts, frankly, but I think tuning forks is what they were going for. But it’s iconic, simple and memorable. Like Dark Side of the Moon’s prism, although not quite as easy to draw all over your textbook (I drew many-a-prism throughout GCSE English). Anyway, this album went for more of a space-y experimental approach, and it works pretty well. It certainly has a unique sound, and you can always detect that style when you hear B-sides recorded around this time (which, by the way, tend to be much underappreciated). The album definitely has a very strong start, with the phenomenal New Born and is followed by several other great songs, including the popular Plug In Baby and fan favourites such as Hyper Music and the heavy guitar-gasm Citizen Erased. My personal favourites from the album are these four essential classics, but other notable songs include Space Dementia, a haunting yet elegant piano-based piece, and Bliss, a much lighter and pop-y track. While the songs succeeding the landmark Citizen Erased aren’t bad, per se, they are a bit of a falter. Screenager never really gelled with me, and while I once used to love Dark Shines and Megalomania, the former started to fall out with me, suffering slightly from Falling Down’s syndrome of taking too long to get really good, while Megalomania became unimpressive after I discovered Ruled By Secrecy from their next album Absolution, which I feel is a much better and more epic version of the same kind of sound. However, there are still no particularly bad songs on the album, and it’s still a pleasure to listen to all the way through, and I can see why people place it as their favourite. I’ll give it four stars. Heck, how about four and a half.

On to their third and probably best album (again, my opinion), Absolution. With the release of this album, Muse had made a name for itself, and the Absolution Tour’s success proved just how popular they’d become. For their third outing, Muse went all-out and decided to do a thematic album about the apocalypse. Moving on from the more experimental and space-y sound of before, their music came a little closer to more traditional rock with heavy guitar riffs such as in Stockholm Syndrome and Hysteria, while still preserving and upgrading their symphonic sound, with use of a full orchestra in Blackout.

Album cover? Love it. I am a big fan of Storm Thorgerson’s work, and would love to be able to

produce images half as good as some of his album covers, so there may be a bit of personal bias here, but I think this is probably the best Muse album cover so far. The image depicts the shadows of people falling to Earth. Or are they ascending? Is this the rapture? Or are angels falling from the heavens? If they are angels, then where are their wings and robes as depicted in religious artwork? Could this be a damning of contemporary religious imagery while still implying some kind of higher power? Why do they all look featureless and identical? It’s this ambiguity that draws me to this cover, and all the questions it raises make it even more fascinating. Despite being a film studies student, I’m generally not a massive fan of over-analysing media like this, but I can’t help but marvel at the mystery of this image and what its true meaning is.

Let’s get on to the songs. This was the first Muse album to use short transitional tracks, namely Intro and Interlude, making complete playthroughs of the album feel more like a whole. Consequently, this feels like the first album that really works (thematically, anyway) when played all the way through, and if I’m going to listen to any Muse album in that way, this is certainly a top pick. I’m going to break the mould a bit here and not automatically default to Times is Running Out or Hysteria as my favourite songs of the album. Yes, of course they’re great songs, and are highlights, but Absolution’s best has to go to Thoughts of a Dying Atheist. Sporting some absolutely cracking guitar work, mixed with the emotional vigour and desperation of a man on the brink of death makes for a compelling listen. Obvious favourites include other heavies such as the aforementioned Time is Running Out and Hysteria, as well as Stockholm Syndrome and The Small Print, but I’m also a big fan of the slower, more emotional tracks such as Blackout, Endlessly, Falling Away with You and the previously discussed power-house, Ruled By Secrecy. Again, there aren’t really any bad songs on the album, and even the lesser songs I’m about to list are all still great tracks, but if I had to pick, Apocalypse Please, Sing for Absolution and Butterflies and Hurricanes bring up the rear. It’s not really their fault, blame the Shuffle feature on iTunes; it always seems to play these tracks, and they’re unfortunately not good enough to hold up to as many listens as I’ve been subjected to. Thanks, Apple. Regardless, this is still a great album, and it’s clear why this was the one to cement their popularity. Five stars.

Okay, so this went on way longer than I intended, so I think I’m going to split this into a three-part post. Stay tuned for Part 2, where I’ll be discussing Black Holes & Revelations, The Resistance and The 2^nd Law. See you then!

Footnote: Damn, this post has been ready for ages and I somehow forgot to post it. Well here it is, a little later than intended but oh well. Once again, this year I will be posting on New Year's Eve, so stick around for that. Hope you're all having a great Christmas, and I'll see you on Thursday.

Spectre (2015) – A Ghost of its Predecessors

So Spectre has been running for about a week now and has already surpassed Skyfall’s opening weekend, but despite its success it seems to have divided opinion somewhat. With Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, everyone was pretty much in agreement that they were fantastic, bad and great respectively, but now we are at an impasse, and there doesn't seem to be any real consensus as to whether Spectre is good or not. Of course, being British, I have seen the new Bond and so while it’s still hot in our minds, I've decided to summarise my general thoughts on the film and the things I picked up on; my first actual film review, if you like. I'm going to try and keep it somewhat short, so without further ado, let’s proceed.

First let’s establish, I enjoyed Spectre. As an action blockbuster, it’s a solid ride and hits all the marks you’d expect; expensive cars being trashed, attractive women, explosions etc. Compared to other blockbusters like Transformers, for example, this is an engaging and competent thriller. Then again, anything looks engaging and competent when compared to Transformers. Even Alien Resurrection looks competent compared to Transformers, but now we’re getting off topic. Spectre only really falters when you start to look at it as a Bond film, and particularly as a successor to the previously mentioned Casino Royale and Skyfall.

Here’s the problem; Casino Royale and Skyfall set the bar so high for the Bond series, that Spectre had an uphill struggle from the beginning. Compare it to those two films, especially Casino Royale, and of course it’s going to look disappointing; Casino Royale was and still is one of the best thrillers of the 2000s, and it came at a time when the Bond series was in dire need of some defibrillation. While Brosnan’s Bonds were good, and helped transition the classic Bond to a more modern audience, the series was approaching its 40^th anniversary, and the franchise was starting to grow tired. With the rise of more modern spy thrillers like The Bourne Identity, audiences were hankering after something darker, with more realistic violence and less comical villains. Casino Royale was exactly what we all wanted and so it was a major hit. But here’s the thing; Spectre is the fourth entry in this revival series, and so by now we’re expecting a dark, gritty Bond and what’s more we want it to reach the same level, if not surpass its earlier entries. So of course it’s going to seem disappointing when you hold it to those lofty expectations, but if you watch it with a fresh mind, it’s still the same Daniel Craig Bond and it’s still just as dark as ever.

That’s not to say Spectre isn't flawed; of course it’s flawed, that’s why I'm writing a post about it. Primarily, Spectre contains a lot of action set pieces, but the overarching story is loose, at best. The tighter focus and relatively simple plot of Casino Royale aren't present here, and the story sprawls both geographically and narratively. Bond’s in Mexico taking out some dude, then he’s in England where M tells him off, then suddenly he’s off to Italy where he discovers SPECTRE, then he’s off to some other dude who tells him to go to Austria so he goes to Austria and so on, and that’s not even half way through the film. I won’t go into too much plot detail because spoilers, but it really could do with a bit of a trim. It doesn't help that each of these location’s sequences are so brief it feels like we’re watching a best-bits compilation.

Then there’s the gender politics. While I am of course a supporter of equality, it’s rare for me to actually discuss it just because I find it ridiculous that we still have to discuss racism and sexism to the extent that we do. How come we’re creating supercomputers, exploring space, writing messages for extra-terrestrial life and progressively curing cancer yet we still can’t even treat each other right? Regardless, I feel something needs to be said about Spectre. It’s odd that Bond exists so prominently in our modern society whilst still being so old-fashioned in its masculinity. Bond is pretty much about fast cars, hot women and violence, and always has been, but today it seems really out of place. When we had Dame Judi Dench as M, even though Bond was still up to his usual tricks, the gender politics seemed slightly more evened out, and even Vesper from Casino Royale had a substantial role in the plot and Bond’s own character arc. But now we have a male M again, Bond’s questionable attitude to women seems more noticeable. He appears to have his way with three different women throughout the film: one in the opening sequence (supposedly, at least: we never see for sure), a widow of a dude he killed, which seemed very off, almost borderline rape, and the main Bond girl, Swan, who looks about half his age, if that. I'm not sure what to really say about it; it’s such an integral part of the Bond formula that it feels almost wrong to take it out, but it seems really unnatural and backwards in today’s society, especially as this is definitely a more modern interpretation of Bond. Not to mention (Spoilers) the climax of the film is literally Swan tied up and gagged in a building rigged to explode with a countdown timer. (End of Spoilers) Seriously.

And of course, we get the Aston Martin. After all the build-up and release of the new DB10, which was made pretty much for the film, you’d expect a lot from it. It does get a car chase, even with some gadgetry which greatly pleased my inner child, but it’s over so quickly; (Spoilers if you care about cars) Bond just dumps the car in the river after the brief chase and that’s it. Finished. This film, that was supposed to act as the main advertisement for the car, gives it barely fifteen minutes of screen time before trashing it. As a lover of Aston Martins, it was quite a disappointing dismissal of such a great looking car. And I'm really not comfortable with this trend of destroying the Aston Martin; it happened in Casino Royale and Skyfall as well, and I still find the DB5 being wrecked more emotional than M’s death. But then I'm weird like that. (End of Car Spoilers)

Lastly, the violence. It is a grittier more violent imagining of Bond as previously discussed, and now we've secured the 12A rating as a default, the violence wants to stretch its arms a bit, which I fully endorse. And some moments, such as Bond’s torture scene are particularly hard to watch, and Blofeld’s scarred eye looks fantastic. But there’s one particular moment that stands out as not quite hitting the mark. At the SPECTRE meeting, some unfortunate man gets his eyes gouged by a large burly black dude. Of course. However, this act is pathetically tame, to a nearly humorous degree. It probably doesn't help that I saw a similar act in Game of Thrones earlier that week (yes, I'm a little behind; cut me some slack) which was, of course, much more graphic. Just a decent sound effect or two would have helped. Especially thinking of a similar scene in Blade Runner; it’s not on screen particularly (unless you’re watching The Final Cut) but there’s enough information and sound effects to be suitably graphic without being as excessive as Game of Thrones. Maybe they tried to make it worse but were threatened with the 15 rating. Either way, it looks a bit pants as it is, and I can’t help but find it slightly comical, which I'm pretty sure isn't what they were going for.

Well, that about sums up all my main observations. It’s pretty safe to assume anything I didn't mention was generally sound (a good rule of thumb with my discussions). Overall, it’s definitely worth seeing, especially if you’re a fan of Bond, but don’t go in expecting Casino Royale. However, judging by the pattern that’s emerging, the next film (also to be Craig’s last) looks like it’s going to be fantastic, so let’s hope 2018’s entry really delivers. Okay, I think I've definitely exceeded what can be considered a ‘short’ review so we’ll close here for today. Besides, I've got some albums to revisit…

Spectre - 2015 – Sam Mendes - English

Score:   7

Recommendation: Medium

EDIT:  Oh yes, forgot to mention; the new theme song. While it has a decent tune and lyrics, it’s sung awfully. I don’t know who this Sam Smith guy is, but his ‘balls trapped in a vice’ singing style really doesn't do it for me, especially for a Bond song, which generally have deeper vocals. Get Adele back, she actually did it pretty well.

Summer Updates 2015

I'm back. As you may have seen, yesterday I managed to get my Metropolis post up after a week or so of trying to tweak it before forgetting about it for many months only to remember it, finish it off and post it all yesterday.

A lot of things happened in that four month stretch of inactivity, most notably my AS exams and the preparation for them, which I believe is a good enough excuse for my lack of posts (or, at least, it’s the best excuse you’re getting). But now I'm on my summer holiday, slumped in my chair failing to be a productive member of society, I'm going to try and get back on the horse and crack out a few more posts before I go back to college in September and, undoubtedly, get snowed under by the workload.

So, what do you guys have to look forward to? First thing, and probably the most exciting: Films! No, not just films I'm going to talk about on here, but actual films I've made! Yep, this year marks the first time I've actually managed to finish a video project that I can refer to as a film with a straight face, and there are plenty more to come. Here’s a quick run-through of what to expect:

•  Rapid Vengeance – The second film by me and my partner-in-crime Andrew, made last month in only three weeks for the end of our AS Film Studies. This has already been posted on Vimeo for all to see! (Link on the sidebar or click here)
• Maxwell – Me and Andrew’s first film, made for our Film Studies coursework between November 2014 and March 2015. Since it’s coursework, I can’t really post this until after results day, but you can expect this on Vimeo mid-to-late August.
• Specimen 23 – A short stop motion film I'm about to start work on. I've finally got a few technical difficulties ironed out, so hopefully I’ll start work on this within the next few days, and have it uploaded sometime in August.
• ‘Departure’ [Currently unnamed short film] – A quick little live action summer project I plan to make. I can’t say yet how long it will take or when we’ll start production, but it’s unlikely you’ll see this before September.

I’ll be making short notices on here to let you know when each of these have been uploaded, with appropriate links for you to follow as well.

Secondly, I’ll also be trying to make a few more blog posts, of course. I must admit, when I first started this blog, I already had a couple of ideas in mind of subjects to talk about, but unfortunately that idea backlog sort of dried up with the release of the Metropolis post yesterday. However, I'm definitely going to try and come up with some more interesting things to talk to you guys about, although forgive me if some of the new posts don’t reach the essay-size of previous posts, especially 2000 word epics like Michael. But I’ll definitely try to get a few up here before I go back in September.

Well, that's about it for today. Remember to check out Rapid Vengeance, follow my Vimeo for more films, and stay tuned here for more of my mildly cynical ramblings. Until next time.

Metropolis (1927) – The Real Tragedy of Cinema

It hasn't escaped my attention that the two main films I've talked about on this blog are both German films concerning crimes against children, both with single-word titles beginning with the letter M (or even being the letter M, in the former case). So, in the name of continuing this combo, let’s talk about another German film with a one-word title beginning with M. Although it’s not about paedophilia this time. Sorry.

The film in question is Metropolis, Fritz Lang’s science fiction classic of 1927, often credited as the grandfather of sci-fi films, inspiring some of the greats of the genre, including Star Wars and Blade Runner. Now, regular followers of this blog (if such creatures exist) might find this film and director ring a few bells. Well, that would be because Mr Lang is the director of M, which he made in order to recuperate his popularity after Metropolis flopped, as previously mentioned. Despite its initial poor performance though, Metropolis has gone on to become a classic piece of cinema, inspiring countless others.

The main thing I want to discuss here today is not my thoughts and feelings on the film itself, but instead Metropolis’s troubled history. It’s no secret that Metropolis is not a complete film; with its premier cut coming in at around 210 minutes, the most complete versions available today only have a mere 153 minutes of runtime, meaning nearly an hour of footage remains lost. Before the film even starts, a brief title reads as follows;

‘All that survive of the original “Metropolis” are an incomplete original negative and copies of shortened and re-edited release prints. Over a quarter of the film has to be considered lost.

The present version, which combines all of the surviving elements, attempts to recreate the film as it was shown at its premiere.'

It’s truly a heart breaking title card, and seeing it never fails to pluck away at my heart strings, but the worst part is that Metropolis has it pretty well off. For a film as long as it was, in the times when movie censorship was relentless and with such a disappointing initial gross, Metropolis is lucky to have so much of its runtime still intact, so that we can still watch and enjoy it today. But other silent films aren't so lucky. It’s said that around 90% of all silent films ever made are currently lost.

Just going to let that sink in for a second.

Back in the day, of course, no one was bothered with film preservation. Films were mostly spectacle at the time; with the illusion of motion being the USP, rather than the storytelling. A bit like nowadays. Huh, now that’s a cyclical narrative if ever I saw one. Anyway, once a film had made its initial cinema run, the tape was often simply overwritten by a new film, since tape was expensive back then. Not to mention the infamous flammability of the old film, made from Nitrocellulose, meaning that many films, if stored in warehouses, could be wiped out hundreds at a time if a fire was started.

The industry was young; they didn't know any better at the time, and similarly, film was a relatively unexplored medium. All the standard conventions in films we’re so familiar with today had to have started somewhere, and chances are this silent era was at least partly responsible. Le Voyage Dans La Lune inspired our love for Science-Fiction cinema, Un Chien Andalou sparked the experimental and risqué films I spoke of last time, and Nosferatu can be considered one of the many grandfathers of Horror films.

So think, with all the silent films we currently have, and how they've influenced the film industry as we know it, what about the others? The films that were lost, overwritten, burned?

If these films were destroyed before the right people saw them and took inspiration from them, potentially entire threads of film history could have been prevented from existing. Entire genres, technologies, franchises, even directors may cease to be.

Take me, for example. My writing of this blog, my knowledge of the industry, my obsession and love for films, all spiralled from my earliest memory; watching Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strike Back as a three year old child, a film that, along with the rest of its trilogy, was inspired by Metropolis. If Metropolis was destroyed before George Lucas ever saw it, Star Wars may never have been, and I would be a completely different person; my life changed beyond recognition, and I know I wouldn't be alone on that. Not to mention, all the other directors who were inspired by Star Wars would never have made the films they made, and you can start to see how big an effect this would have had.

Just consider for a moment that your favourite film may not exist. What if there was a certain silent film, made back in the 20's, destroyed in a fire, which one day would have become your favourite film, or perhaps inspired your favourite film? Except it never did, because the film was destroyed before you could get to it. Just sit and think about how different the history of film, nay, the history of humanity could have been if that 90% wasn't lost.

To quote Lang himself, “Why are you so interested in a picture which no longer exists?" Because that’s exactly what has happened, maybe not quite with Metropolis, but with others such as London After Midnight, the original Cleopatra, and The Fall of a Nation to name a few, they have simply ceased to exist, via our own carelessness in preserving arguably the most powerful and compelling form of art.

Some heavy stuff there, but I hope I've made you think. Who knows, maybe this post will inspire you. Maybe you will make a film, based on the subject of this post. Maybe your film will go on to inspire countless others to make their own films.

Maybe you’ll do what these films never got the chance to. 

Michael (2011) – Schrödinger’s Room

So, back on schedule. Now that the Oscars are finally over, it’s time to stop rambling about many films at once, and revert back to rambling about just one film in particular. Hey, it’s the title of the blog; it’s what you signed up for. I’ve had this particular article in development for literally months, and it’s been the desire to perfect this borderline-essay which caused my long period of inactivity at the end of last year (yeah, that’s the official excuse; I'm sticking with it). So, what was this remarkable film I saw last year that stunned me into transcribed silence? Well, dear readers; let me tell you about a film. A film that goes by the name of Michael.

Michael appears to be somewhat of a hidden gem, because despite having a decent IMDb score of 7.0 (that’s decent considering the kind of film it is), it seems to have flown completely under the radar. No-one I know knew about it and I only found out that it existed whilst skimming through the reviews section of the Radio Times, since by chance it happened to be showing as part of Channel 4’s “Daring Directors” season. Besides that, I haven’t seen or heard any real media attention or any kind of proper recognition of this film’s existence, which is a shame because this film deserves it, for its sheer balls if nothing else. So, I think it’s time I gave this film some praise and publicity (on probably the world’s least visited blog, but oh well), and maybe then I can spread the word on this wonder.

Now, I am willing to bet that within the next few sentences, someone reading this blog will think that this film is some ghastly abomination and needs to be burned at the stake, banned in all countries, blah de blah de blah. You know, the usual knee-jerk reaction possessed by utter twats with minds so narrow they’re practically two-dimensional. Some may just see it as some kind of shock cinema with no real value, made simply because someone had to eventually, or maybe others don’t want to watch something as serious and thought-provoking and would rather stick to their safe zone; consisting of light hearted romcoms starring Bill Nighy. But I implore you to let me change your mind.

Michael is about a paedophile and the relationship he has with a ten-year old boy locked in his basement.

Right, statistically speaking, the only people still reading this are people who are open to and intrigued by daring film ideas. Bravo to you! I know it sounds like a horrible, disturbing film but, and I hope this doesn't make me sound too much like a monster but, that’s kind of what attracted me to the film in the first place.

Now, it’s probably worth explaining that I’m quite a big fan of controversial cinema. Even though I haven’t watched many titles from this subset of motion pictures, I feel particularly drawn to any film which pushes the boundaries of what a film can depict, and challenges our own insecurities by exploring the taboo. While I haven’t seen any of the following, titles such as Pink Flamingos, Flaming Creatures and Salo: 120 Days of Sodom are all pictures which I find intriguing, and hope to watch someday. I'm not particularly fucked up in the head or anything, it’s just that a) I'm not easily disturbed/offended and b) I like films that are different, and try things other, mainstream films wouldn't dare. Which leads me nicely to my next point.

One of the biggest draws is that Hollywood would never make this film. Especially in an industry hell bent on generating money rather than any actual decent content with moral value or artistic expressions or messages. No no, we don’t want to use this incredible art form to enrich our minds and culture, or challenge our own perceptions of this cruel world and explore the vast depths of human existence; more Transformers please. Sarcasm aside, if a film hasn't got the wide, mainstream appeal to generate a nice fat profit on opening weekend, then Hollywood don’t want to hear about it. Which actually benefits the film quite nicely, but I’ll get on to that later.  With a subject as controversial as paedophilia, it’s obvious that this film did not have economic gain in mind during its inception, which is great, because it means there’s only one other reason the film was made; the director wanted to present his thoughts on the topic. So, with that in mind, Michael is a film that actually has heart and soul behind it, rather than financial backing, and that is what makes Michael so powerful.

Michael does not excessively demonize paedophilia, nor does it need to. Anyone with even the slightest moral centre knows that paedophiles are horrible people and that what they do is one of the most awful things it is possible for a human to do. So, Michael does not need to emphasize and exaggerate the titular character as some kind of demonic villain or heinous psychopath, but merely show him as he really is.

Let me explain.

If Hollywood were to make this film, which as previously discussed they wouldn’t, Michael himself would be running around, shouting obscenities, cackling maniacally and eating small puppies for breakfast. Ok, maybe not quite so literally, but that’s the kind of depiction they’d go for, which is just awful. If nothing else, it’s unrealistic, immature and borderline offensive. To treat such a serious issue in such an over-the-top manner is just such an insulting way of dumbing down a serious real world issue so that the average brain dead American can still process it whilst stuffing their face with junk food and pretending not to be racist. Michael understands this, and so presents our antagonist as a fairly average man. Michael knows and knows the viewer knows that paedophiles are horrible, and therefore the viewer is already against Michael from the get-go, therefore leaving no reason to satirise him or demonize him further, and instead focus on his day-to-day existence. That being said, this concept is marginalised slightly by the skiing scene, which felt like a bit of an “everyone laugh at the horrible paedophile as he struggles in the snow” kind of scene: where the plot ground to a halt for a spot of slapstick schaudenfreude, instead of continuing with the lovely, mature attitude set up by the rest of the film, but I’ll let it slide just this once.

From a critical perspective, there’s nothing ground-breaking about Michael; its cinematography, editing, production values, etc. are all as good as you’d expect from this kind of production. Where the film shines is simply in its character relationships: the depiction of Michael and his captive, Wolfgang. As mentioned earlier, Michael is not excessively demonised and is shown to be a fairly average guy on the surface. He works an office job at an insurance company, occasionally hangs out with some drinking buddies (although admittedly he looks rather detached from the experience) and even goes on previously mentioned skiing holidays. We even see that he still stays in close contact with his family, and here we drive towards Michael’s primary, and best presented point.

The overall message of this film is that anyone could be a paedophile. Now I don’t mean that in a paranoid way; I mean that paedophiles can be anyone and anything. They do not have special jobs or a certain appearance or any means of differentiating them from others visually or socially, (besides being a 70’s TV presenter, I suppose) and their horrendous acts could be taking place anywhere, even in your very neighbourhood and you would never know. Going back to my rant on Hollywood, one of the reasons this film would not have done well in a high budget setting is because this entire, crucial aspect of the film would have been completely lost on those over bloated money-powered automatons who run the studio, and they would never dare to present a paedophile in such a balanced and realistic fashion, and couldn’t risk scaring their naïve audience with revealing the unflinching and awful truth of this world, lest they ask for a refund for making their brains do some actual deep thinking for once.

And so, to draw this gushing to some kind of conclusion, I would now like to talk to you about the ending. So, of course, spoilers ahead.

Wolfgang, desperate to escape, waits for Michael to come and check on him, before throwing a kettle full of boiling water into his face. Whilst the audience cringe from this painful scene, Michael manages to stop Wolfgang from escaping, locking him back in the room, and then running off to treat his injuries. Michael ends up driving to the store to get some medication, but crashes en route and dies.

After his funeral, his family come to his house and begin sorting out his possessions. There is no clear indication of how much time has passed since the night of Michael’s death. His mother goes into the basement, many times walking straight past the door which hides Michael’s secret world.

I was tense, and not just because of the ending itself. This film was working towards having an impeccable ending, but just one slip could ruin the whole thing; execution was key. It would seem, however, that fledgling director Markus Schleinzer knows what he’s doing because he hits it out of the park. After several nail biting minutes, the mother finally notices the door, and cautiously, unlocks it, and enters. Cut to black. We don’t see her reaction, we know nothing of the aftermath, and most importantly, we do not know of Wolfgang’s ultimate fate. Some have argued that the film stops here because this is the point at which Michael’s control over Wolfgang ended, but I prefer to liken it to the paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat. Wolfgang is both simultaneously alive and dead, as its all down to the audience’s opinion of how much time has elapsed, whether Wolfgang knew to ration his food supplies properly and, slightly more pivotal perhaps, the viewer’s own optimism. Yeah, I know that’s not quite how the original paradox worked, but that’s the way I like to think of it. Regardless, the ambiguity of this ending is one of the strongest points of the entire film, possibly the strongest point, and Schleinzer’s choice and execution couldn’t be better if he tried.

End of Spoilers

But enough about quantum mechanics; as is probably clear by now, this is an excellent, daring and thought provoking film that challenges the bitter, over-sensitive and unadventurous audiences of today and makes a bold statement about one of the most disgusting current affairs. In my eyes, Michael is a prime example of the kinds of film the industry needs nowadays; powerful, compelling, intelligent, and arguably most important, different. It’s such a shame that this film is such an unknown, because I’d say this is one of the most important pieces of modern cinema, and I think everyone should watch it, at least once. The film isn’t particularly graphic, so if you’re worried about nudity or violence, rest assured, this film would have been a PG/12 if it weren’t for the subject matter. Be warned though, this isn’t the kind of film where you round up your mates and crash on the sofa with a bowl of popcorn; this is a personal experience, best seen on your own on a quiet weekend afternoon. With that in mind, I really hope I’ve inspired at least some of you to open your eyes and mind a tad further and explore some of the juicier fruits cinema has to offer, and if you’re already into these kind of films, then congratulations; you just got a 2000 word film suggestion!

That’s about it for now, but stay tuned, since I’ve already got my next discussion outlined, and let me tell you, my subject matters are not getting any more cheerful. See you next time!

Michael – 2011 – Markus Schleinzer - German

Score:   9

Recommendation:          High

Oscar Results 2015

Well, the Oscars were announced last Sunday, so while they’re still fresh in our memories, I might as well give a quick follow up post concerning my thoughts on the results. Not much to declare here, so let’s cut to the chase.

Best Picture

I am so glad Birdman won. While I would also have been happy with Whiplash winning this award, I basically just didn't want Boyhood to win. I know that seems a bit harsh, especially since I haven’t seen it yet, but the fact that it came out around half a year ago, went through the whole charade of being nominated for awards left, right and centre and have perfect scores from critics (Metascore is 100), and then had the balls to not really have a proper cinema run over here in the UK, or at least, not near where I live, sort of left a bad taste in my mouth. But I'm sure the film itself is fine. Besides that, it’s also good to see Selma didn't win. I have nothing against the film, but it simply isn't a 2014 release, in my eyes.

Best Actor

Predictions are running well so far, and so consequently I am also happy with Redmayne’s win. Not really much to say here that wasn't really said in my last post, so I guess I’ll leave it at that.

Best Actress

First prediction to go awry. I honestly wasn't expecting Julianne Moore’s performance from Still Alice, as the film seemed a bit too low profile for the Academy to notice, but I'm glad they’re opening their eyes a bit. I personally haven’t seen the film, but it looks very interesting, and based on what I said in my last post about going above and beyond in your role, I would imagine a sufferer of Alzheimer’s to be a challenging role indeed.

To be honest, I'm basically just glad Reese Whitherspoon didn't win for her role in Reese Whitherspoon: The Movie or to go by its alternate title, Give me an Oscar please, featuring Whitherspoon. So, I guess I've got to watch out for those flying pigs.

Best Director

Refer to the ‘Best Picture’ section above.

Best Supporting Actor

Since I wrote my last post, I have finally had the chance to see Whiplash, and it’s pretty damn good. Easily my second favourite film of the year, as long as you still consider it a 2014 release, and one of the things that made it so compelling was J.K. Simmons. If you haven’t seen it yet, be assured, he’s just as good as everyone’s been saying. Really, there was no competition for this category. As great as Edward Norton may have been, I can see Fletcher becoming one of the most memorable characters from this decade of film. Stupendous stuff, and well deserving of the Oscar.

Best Supporting Actress

[Insert frustration pertaining to Boyhood] But seriously, I'm just glad Meryl Streep didn't win. Oh, don’t give me that look; she’s got plenty of Oscars. It might seem a bit weird that I keep wanting certain people to not get Oscars, but as far as I see, preserving the value of an Oscar is just as much about making sure the wrong people don’t get it as it is the right people getting it. In fact, I think they should be able to refuse to give an Oscar out if all the nominations in the category were shit. Of course, that doesn't really apply here, but it’s an idea to consider.

Best Cinematography

You know, despite what I said, it’s actually a slight shame that Whiplash didn't win this. Don’t get me wrong, I still think Birdman rightfully deserved it more, but Whiplash still had some absolutely fantastic cinematography. If it had come out any other year, it would have won the Oscar, but unfortunately it just couldn't compare to Birdman’s one shot illusion. Tough luck, Whiplash. Bravo, Birdman.

Best Animated Film

Big Hero 6 was the deserving winner, although it was the only one of the nominations I've seen, but it was a fantastic film. I've heard some people lament that How to Train Your Dragon 2 didn't win. Personally, I haven’t seen it or it's predecessor yet (don’t worry, I’ll get there in due time) so I can’t really comment. However, Big Hero 6 was better than some of the Best Picture nods, in my eyes, so on that philosophy alone it deserves the win.

Best Visual Effects

Interstellar makes sense. For the Oscar that is, although I suppose the plot is more or less comprehensible, as well. It always brings me joy when a high-concept film uses both computer and practical effects to achieve its visuals; it shows me that there is still hope for the industry to eventually learn that the 100% CGI is not the way to go, and if you combine the two, the end result almost looks real.

Best Sound Mixing / Best Editing

Whiplash was a fantastic film, both emotionally, but almost more so technically. So even though it missed out on the cinematography Oscar, the Academy still decided to make up for it. Whiplash’s strongest technical element besides its cinematography was its editing, and the two went hand in hand to make some chillingly brilliant sequences. Sound mixing seems an odd Oscar to me, since I've never really seen, or heard I suppose, bad sound mixing. It doesn't really seem like the kind of thing that’s a) massively noticeable, relative to other components or b) worth its own award, separate from Best (Sound) Editing. But anyway, Whiplash was a film about music, so I guess that’s grounds for Best Sound Mixing? I don’t know; sound’s not my forte, okay.

And that about wraps it up. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the turnout this year, and also quite happy with how many films I managed to see in the past few months. Judging by my current progress, I'm going to get through a lot of films in 2015, so you’ll be sure to see another one of these posts next year. In the meantime, it’s back to regular film discussions next time, and I've got a film lined up that I am just about ready to gush about from every orifice. So, that’s something to look forward to.

Although not for the cleaners, I guess.

Oscar Nominations 2015

Well, the news has finally broken; the Oscar nominations have been announced. And with a month or two left for film fans to bicker back and forth on who should win, it’s only traditional I should throw my hat into the ring, and give you my take on things. So, just briefly, I'm going to be running down for each of the major categories the film I want to win, and which film will most likely win, with reasons attached. I'm not going to cover the entire cavalcade of categories, because I mean really, who cares about the Oscar for best costume design?

Best Picture

Who I want to win: Birdman

Oh Birdman, why couldn't you have come out slightly earlier? If anyone was looking through my Top 5 of 2014, feeling that a lot of the entries were a bit lacklustre, it’s because they were. Had I have actually seen Birdman last year, or if it had even been fucking released in Britain last year, I would have given it my film of the year position, in place of The Imitation Game. But I guess we can’t change our past. Birdman is a film I find rather difficult to describe; it’s really something that should just be seen rather than explained to someone. The one thing I can talk about though is the cinematography. Some may have heard, but the majority of Birdman is presented as if it were one, continuous two-hour take, with no edits (of course, being an editor, I noticed where the cuts were; namely when the camera passed behind an object and the frame went to blackout for a fraction of a second). Anyway, I personally love these ‘oners’, and from that cinematography standpoint alone, this film had me captivated. The story is also tragic and personal, and supported by an absolutely stellar cast. There’s really not much to complain about here, and I think it’s time something with as much ambition and unique identity as this gem received some well-deserved Oscars.

Who will probably win: Boyhood

Haven’t seen it yet. I would have, but every time I've gone to the cinema recently, it doesn't seem to be on. Odd. Anyway, it sounds interesting. I'm not sure if I’d like it more than Birdman, but it’s certainly an ambitious concept, and it looks like the Academy’s just about ready to shoot its load right into Boyhood’s smug little face, so all the power to it.

Best Actor

Who I want to win: Eddie Redmayne – Stephen Hawking (The Theory of Everything)

I've never been able to really notice good or bad acting as such. Even as an actor myself (I've actually been an actor three times as long as I've been a film buff), I still find that acting is acting, and outside of particular examples, I normally can’t tell. So for me, I think this award should go to someone who has to go above and beyond for their role. The Theory of Everything charts the life of Stephen Hawking, the legendary physicist, and his relations with his first wife. Of course, Hawking suffered from Motor Neurone Disease, and is nowadays hooked up to a wheelchair, unable to move much more than his hand, and the film, inevitably, must chart this decay from fairly energetic young man all the way through the difficult stages of paralysis until wheelchair bound, and that is by no means an easy feat for any actor. But Redmayne pulls it off spectacularly with plenty of emotion and believability, to the point it feels like you really are seeing this man struggling to live. It’s not every day you see a performance of this kind, let alone executed so well, and so I think this stand-out performance needs some stand-out recognition.

Who will probably win: Michael Keaton – Riggan (Birdman)

It’s hard to say who the academy will vote for. Steve Carell in Foxcatcher looks half dead in the trailer and I haven’t seen American Sniper yet, so I don’t know about Bradley Cooper. Cumberbatch, Keaton and Redmayne were all excellent in their respective roles, and if able to I’d want all three to get Oscars. My gut says Keaton will probably get the Oscar though, but it honestly could go either way.

Best Actress

Who I want to win: Felicity Jones – Jane Hawking (The Theory of Everything)

My earlier mentioned ignorance of ‘good’ acting combined with the fact I've only seen one of the titles from the nominations so far, makes this a struggle to choose. While I may just be going with Jones because hers is the only performance I actually saw, she is also very deserving of it. The Theory of Everything is an incredibly emotional piece by default, but it’s really kept aloft by its acting talent, and the previously mentioned Redmayne as well as Jones both contribute so much character to the film. In particular, Jones’s character must endure so much grief to see her husband slowly degrade, having to evolve from wife to carer, and we see as her life becomes more and more of a tragic struggle. I thought considering this role, her acting was spot on, and I think it should deserve some recognition.

Who will probably win: Reese Witherspoon – Cheryl (Wild)

As previously mentioned, I haven’t seen any of these films besides The Theory of Everything, so I don’t even have an opinion on this. So instead, I'm going to talk about the lump of Oscar bait that people refer to as Wild. Not seen it, because it’s literally only just been released here, but I've seen the trailer a couple of times and, just, eugh. I'm surprised they didn't just rename the film ‘Give Witherspoon an Oscar, please’. Featuring sterling performances from Witherspoon and a bunch of other people you don’t care about, the film concerns Reese Witherspoon going for a walk, and that’s about all you’ll gather from the trailer, since it’s too busy showing Witherspoon chewing the scenery to actually give us any idea of what the film will be about. It’s not like she doesn't already have an Oscar; if anyone should be doing this kind of film it should be poor Mr Dicaprio. But maybe the Academy aren't as naïve as I keep making them out to be. Maybe they’ll catch on and give the Oscar to someone more deserving. And maybe pigs really can fly.

Best Supporting Actor

Who I want to win: Edward Norton – Mike (Birdman)

Oh my god, Norton’s voice has actually broken! For context, over my Christmas holiday, I decided to watch American History X for the first time (family friendly Christmas viewing, of course) and I was taken aback by just how high pitched Norton’s voice is. Here we see this neo-Nazi skinhead, standing proudly with his muscles on display, hands on head with Swastika showing proudly, striking fear into the hearts of every mortal in the near vicinity. Then he speaks. Ok, it’s not exactly chipmunk level, but it’s higher than you’d expect coming out of a body like that. After I made this revelation, I just couldn't take him seriously during any of his hate speeches; he sounded like a 12 year old having a hissy fit over not getting what he wants. But I digress. In Birdman, Norton plays an influential and brilliant actor, who also happens to be a complete and total perfectionist, and demands the same from everyone else involved. He really is enthralling to watch, and his character is a great rival for Riggan, as they continue to piss each other off until the only way to sort it out is a tighty-whitey fighty, which is how I am going to refer to that scene from now on. And as previously mentioned, he finally sounds like he’s grown a pair. Hooray for all.

Who will probably win: J.K. Simmons – Fletcher (Whiplash)

I would love to have seen this film, but it, like Wild, has also only just come out here at time of writing. Although now it has been released, I'm definitely going to try and catch a showing. Anyway, I’ve heard exceptional things about Simmons’s performance, and would love to have seen it by now. Since everyone is already gushing over him, I’d be surprised if the academy ducked out and gave it to someone else.

Best Supporting Actress

Who I want to win: Keira Knightley/Emma Stone – Joan Clarke/Sam – (The Imitation Game/Birdman)

Honestly, I’d be happy with either. Both had excellent roles, and both performed them brilliantly. Knightley, taking a similar route to Felicity Jones, portrayed the wife and friend of Alan Turing in The Imitation Game, and like with The Theory of Everything, the combination of her and Cumberbatch deliver the tragic storyline with emotional resonance, which may have nearly almost moved me to seriously consider shedding a tear. Yeah, get over it. Although, I guess that is slightly irrelevant, as it was more Cumberbatch that moved me rather than Knightley. Anyway. Equally, in Birdman, Stone delivers a surprisingly good performance as Riggan’s rebellious yet loving daughter Sam. That sounds a bit harsh on reflection, and I’ll be honest, I’d sort of written Stone off as a bit of eye candy to get the ticket sales off of horny teenage boys. Essentially like Megan Fox only actually attractive and, as I have now found out, not a shit actor. I mean, I've seen her in Zombieland and The Amazing Spider Man 2, but there she was pretty much filling the eye candy quota. But now that I've seen her in a more adult and serious piece, she’s actually quite a believable and engaging actress, and while she’s only really playing a stereotype, she does enough with the role to make her stand out as human character, with flaws and goals. What’s more, the relationship between father and daughter, and mother come to think of it, is very believable, and doesn't feel forced at all, which film families often do in lesser productions. So yeah. Either one deserves it.

Who will probably win: Meryl Streep – Witch (Into the Woods)

Well, I haven’t seen Boyhood, as previously discussed, so I have no idea how Arquette fared in that, and I never even noticed not-Witherspoon in Wild, she just blended in amongst the rest of the not-Witherspoon cast, in order to make more room for Witherspoon to act at people in hopes for an Oscar. So, I guess it’s either Knightley, Stone or Streep.

Has anyone seen Meryl Streep’s IMDb page? Apparently, she’s won 3 Oscars, and has received “Another 163 wins & 239 nominations”. I know, it’s crazy. For comparison, Knightley has been nominated for 2 Oscars and received “Another 28 wins & 68 nominations.” I mean, I realise Meryl Steep has been acting for a lot longer, but how is she getting this many nominations so easily? Only explanation; Streep is in cahoots with the Academy. Either that or the board members are just running out of ideas. "OK, so we've got Knightley, Stone, Arquette and not-Whitherspoon; we need one more. What? Streep? Yeah, that'll do."

And now, a quick run-down of some of the remaining categories.

Best Director

Who I want to win: Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman)

Who will probably win: Richard Linklater/Wes Anderson (Boyhood/The Grand Budapest Hotel)

Best Original Screenplay

Who I want to win: Nightcrawler (Dan Gilroy) – I mean come on, Nightcrawler deserves something, doesn't it?

Who will probably win: The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson & Hugo Guiness)

Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

Who I want to win: The Theory of Everything (Anthony McCarten)

Who will probably win: Whiplash (Damien Chazelle)

Best Cinematography

Who I want to win: Emmanuel Lubezki (Birdman)

Who will probably win: Emmanuel Lubezki (Birdman)

I swear to God, if he doesn't get the Oscar, I'm going to be thoroughly pissed. (Also, why has Ida got two of these nominations?)

Best Visual Effects

Who I want to win: Interstellar (The one Oscar it does deserve)

Who will probably win: Interstellar

So, to bring this post to a close, I’d like to quickly give you my impression of the Oscars. The Oscars should be a ceremony to commemorate the very best that film has to offer, and give out recognition to the productions and teams working behind them that deserve it. But nowadays, the Oscars have become yet another soulless marketing ploy. Films are created and released right before Oscar season, with mature story-lines but often devoid of any true meaning, but just with the illusion of depth to score it Oscars at the Academy, who clearly haven’t caught on yet. Probably the prime example of this ‘Oscar-bait’ is last year’s best picture winner 12 Years a Slave, a film about slavery whose only reason for existence seems to be to get said award. “Oh look, it’s about slavery and based on a book that’s based on real life. That’s all it needs to qualify!” Even though there have been plenty of films made about racism and slavery, which would be fine if 12 Years added anything to the genre. But it doesn't. I watched 12 Years a Slave, and I don’t think there was a single point made by the film that wasn't already made in Django Unchained not to mention all the other films it surely borrowed from. Shit, they even have similar scenes; the whipping scene in particular being almost a shot for shot rip-off of Django. My point is, 12 Years didn't really do enough to distinguish it as a notable film, yet critics and the Academy queued up around the block to suck on its balls, even though there were other films that year which deserved their attention.

My point is that while some of these films may be good, and often are, there’s still many who shamelessly only exist to get awards and not for the reason films are supposed to be made in the first place; entertain their audience or even make a point. The other annoyance is release dates. Almost all of these Oscar worthy pictures have come out in only the last three or so months, and that is unacceptable. There is an entire twelve month stretch they could utilise, but no, release it right at the end of the year so that it only barely counts as a 2014 release and so that its fresh in everyone’s mind when Oscar season rolls around, even though a truly Oscar-worthy film should be good enough and insightful enough to stay with you months, even years after watching it, which just highlights how forgettable some of the obvious Oscar bait can be. Anyway, the problem is that all of these films will come out incredibly late over here in the UK, most not materializing until January. I have no idea why, it’s not like they have to re-edit them to be more British or dub them or anything. How can I possibly make a Top 5 of 2014 blog post, when almost all of 2014’s best films aren't even here until 2015?! And with the Oscars announced at the end of February, this gives film buffs like me, who have other commitments by the way, only about two months to try and catch up on the numerous releases. And they’re still only just trickling out of the Hollywood floodgates as we speak, with Whiplash and American Sniper being released last Friday and Big Hero 6 and Selma still to come. I've been lucky enough to have some extra free time over the past weeks than I normally would, which I've used to make a feeble attempt at a catch-up, watching titles like Birdman and The Theory of Everything, but there’s no way I’ll be able to watch everything I want to by the time February 22^nd rolls around.

But that’s just my ramblings. Good luck to all the nominated people and pictures, especially my picks, and may Birdman, er, I mean, may the best films win.