I'm Back

Hi again everyone, I know there has been a really long hiatus since my last post and that wasn't something I wanted to happen, life just caught up with me a bit.
I am planing to reinvigorate this blog again however and maybe do some re-branding as I think its gotten a bit stale.
So if you are still interested, stick around and something will be coming your way soon.

Joe

The Movies That Deserve Awards Awards Ceremony

It's finally here! The Movies That Deserve Awards Awards.

Lets get straight into it with the first category.
The nominations for best picture are:

• Star Wars: The Force Awakens
• Inside Out
• Mad Max: Fury Road
• Steve Jobs

And the winner is

Mad Max Fury Road!  This may not be a surprise to anyone who reads my blog but it is still a worthy winner.  While it might not have the most detailed plot it more than makes up for it with stunning action, camerawork, acting, cinematography and pretty much everything else.

The next category is Worst Picture.

The nominations are

• Fantastic 4
• Terminator Genysis

With only two movies nominated (because I haven't seen many bad movies this year) the winner is

Fantastic 4! What an abysmal movies this was. There was literally nothing good about it but what really irked me the most was that there were so many possibilities for a good movie. If Fox had just left Josh Trank to make the movie he wanted to make it could have been decent.

Next is another heavyweight category with lots of great contenders, this is Best Actor.

The nominations are

• Tom Hanks for Bridge of Spies
• Micheal Fassbender for Steve Jobs
• Tom Hardy for Legend
• Matt Damon for The Martian
• Jake Gyllenhaal for Southpaw

The winner is 

Micheal Fassbender for Steve Jobs!  He portrayed Steve Jobs with such humanity but also a sense of greatness. Also I would urge anybody who like good movies to go and see Steve Jobs as it has not received enough praise and didn't do well at the box office.



Next is the other side of the coin, Best Actress.
The nominations are

• Charlize Theron for Mad Max Fury Road
• Rebecca Ferguson for Mission Impossible Rouge Nation
• Alicia Vikander for Ex_Machina
• Emily Blunt for Sicario
• Daisy Ridley for Star Wars the Force Awakens

And the winner is

Rebecca Ferguson for Mission Impossible Rouge Nation!  Its rare a new talent can come on screen and steal the show from a veteran like Tom Cruise but Ferguson managed it. She has loads of charisma and acting talent and hopefully could go on to become one of the biggest action stars out there.

The Worst Actor Category is up next.

The nominations are

• Jai Courtney for Terminator Genysis
• Any of the guys from Fantastic 4

And the winner is

Any of the guys from fantastic 4! I know this seems like a bit of a cheat but everyone in this movie delivered their lines with the same amount of boredom and disinterest so I picked them all. This is annoying too as the film had such a great cast on paper.

Next is Worst Actress

This award goes by default to Kate Mara for Fantastic 4. Pretty much for the same reasons I mentioned in the last category plus that really awkward interaction in the movie with Miles Teller where she does that dodgy accent, if you have seen the film you know what I mean.

The next award is probably the one I am most passionate about as cinematography is something I love to analyse in movies. I also think good cinematography adds so much to the viewing experience.

That award would be Best Cinematographer.

The nominations are

• John Seale for Mad Max Fury Road
• Daniel Mindel for Star Wars the Force Awakens
• Roger Deakins for Sicario
• Adam Arkapaw for Macbeth
• Dariusz Wolski for The Martian

And the winner is

Roger Deakins for Sicario. Deakins, time and time again proves he is the greatest cinematographer working today. Every shot in Sicario is laced with beautiful interplay between light and shadow and stark colors that really show the Mexican landscape at is best and worse. Deakins also managed to give so much personality to the landscapes which really added to the movie.


Next is another favorite category of mine, Best Director.
And the nominations are

• Steven Spielberg for Bridge of Spies
• JJ Abrams for Star Wars the Force Awakens
• George Miller for Mad Max Fury Road
• Ridley Scott for The Martian 

And the winner is

George Miller for Mad Max Fury Road. Fury Road is one of the finest directed action movies of all time. Miller managed this by taking a ridiculous amount of shots and only picking the very very best ones. Thankfully there was no shaky cam anywhere to be found.


Best Score is up next. For me this really only came down to 2 films.

• Star Wars the Force Awakens by John Barry
• Mad Max: Fury Road by Junkie XL 

In pretty much any other year John Barry would have scooped this award up no problem. However last year Junkie XL created such a visceral and complex score that it dwarfed John Barry's. Every track from Fury Road is laced with brilliantly heavy drums and complex violins, this combined with the film made for one of the most visceral experiences ever.


Similar category up next. Sound Design.
The nominations are:

• Mad Max: Fury Road
• The Martian
• Star Wars: The Force Awakens
• Ex_Machina

And the winner is, quite unsurprisingly, Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Every sound effect in this film was spot on to what they sounded like in the originals.  The ship to ship combat was especially brilliant as the classic Tie Fighter and X-Wing sounds we know and love all prevalent here. The new additions also have brilliant sounds like Kylo Ren's unstable lightsaber and the riot troopers spinning baton.

Next is a category that I like very much as it highlights a film that completely exceeded all expectations anybody had for it.

The nominations are:

• Spy
• Kingsman: The Secret Service
• The Martian

And the winner is

Kingsman: The Secret Service! After a series of mediocre to poor trailers released for Kingsman, not many people were excited to see this film. We were all proved wrong when it came out with a well directed, tightly scripted and well acted film with breakout star Taron Egerton stealing the show from everyone but Samuel L Jackson because of that weird lisp that was so entertaining.

Personal preference is a very big factor in this next category. Most Disappointing Movie.

I don't have a nominations list for this one as, for me, the clear 'winner' is Spectre.

Spectre had an almost impossible task of living up to Skfall which is widely regarded as the greatest Bond film. And while Spectre is not a bad movie its just not very good either.  The action scenes lack punch, except one, and the story is actually abysmal. It is a terribly weak attempt to cash in on the connected film thing that Marvel has pretty much perfected at this point but instead it creates tonnes of plot holes and retroactively makes the other Daniel Craig Bond movies a little bit worse. 

Well there it is. The first annual Movies That Deserve Awards Awards. Sorry for the long wait but it took a lot more time that I had ever imagined it taking. My first review of the new year will be coming up soon and will either be Creed, The Revenant or The Hateful Eight, depending on which I see first.

Thanks for reading,

-Joe

Update

Hi,

Sorry for the lack of content recently, I have been really busy with Christmas and revising for exams and things but don't worry. My movie awards ceremony is coming up soon, its just taking longer than I expected.

Thanks for sticking around

-Joe

Joe The Movie Guy Presents: The First Annual Movies That Deserve Awards Awards.

This year has been a pretty great year for movies and in the tradition of a lot of other film 'critics' I am going to do my own awards ceremony for the best and the worst.

As the categories go they are to be as follows:

• Best Picture
• Worst Picture
• Best Actor
• Best Actress
• Worst Actor 
• Worst Actress
• Best Cinematography 
• Best Direction
• Best Score
• Best Sound Design
• Most Surprising Movie
• Most Disappointing Movie 

Expect additional categories as I think of them.

The actual awards will go up after Christmas after I have seen Star Wars and all the festivities are over. Another thing to keep in mind is that since I live in England a lot of movies such as The Revenant and Creed wont be released here until next year so if you see something that is missing that will be why.

Hope you like them.

-Joe

Quick Thoughts: Black Mass

While this movie has only been out in England for a short while it has been out in America for a while which is why this a 'Quick Thoughts' and not a full review.

Johnny Depp is superb in this film. He takes on this entirely knew, slimy quality that is a great deviation from the parts he normally plays and is really magnetic on screen.
The other performances are also commendable, most notably Benedict Cumberbatch who has a pretty decent Boston accent.  However they never feel anywhere near as interesting to watch as Depp which makes the scenes without him feel somewhat lacking.



Technically this movie is also great with solid camerawork and art direction. The scrip and screenplay are also both pretty good but nothing that will set it apart from the likes of other gangster movies, not even its big contender 'Legend' that released earlier this year.

There is one glaring problem with this film that stopped me enjoying it nearly as much as I wanted to, this being the lack of soul.
I know that is quite a pretentious thing to say but it's true, there was no sense of an artistic passion from the people behind the cameras that you get with so many of the great films. This left us with a technically very good movie but one that is just not that engaging with the audience and has almost no re-watch-ability.


With this in mind I would say go and see Black Mass if you either really love the gangster genre or a single superb performance is enough to draw you to a film.  Otherwise there wont be much to enjoy for the masses in Back Mass as, whether they know it or not, artistic passion seeping through the camera to the audience is what gets them to really connect with movies.


Thanks for reading this Quick Thoughts.
Soon I will posting my own made up awards for different categories, kinda like the Oscars but a bit more ridiculous. It should be a fun one.

-Joe

Quick Thoughts: Slow West

Slow West, not quite sure what to say about this one.
They title really says it all, it's slow and it's a western. It has some really nice cinematography but the actual directing is nothing to shout about.
I have three main problems with this film.
Firstly are the performances.  Micheal Fassbender gives a somewhat lackluster turn as the outlaw Silas which is a real shame as he has had some incredible performances earlier in they year as Macbeth and Steve Jobs.
Kodi Smit-McPhee also give a underwhelming performance as Jay Cavendish, a young boy traveling the frontier to find his girlfriend Rose (Caren Pistorius) who actually give the best performance in this film.
My other problem with Slow West is that all the locations they visit look remarkably like sets and not real places, especially the buildings which all have a 'newly built from B&Q' look to them which really betrays the character of the wild west which is supposed to be gritty and dirty.


My last issue with Slow West is more a personal one. I never really connected with the characters and a lot of the time I felt their actions never really lined up with what they were saying which led to points where I was wondering if I had missed a part of the movie.

Having said this though there are a lot of things to like about Slow West.
As I said before the cinematography is really excellent.  Also whilst it may take a while to get going the finale is really something to behold.
There is also a cartoon-like sense to the movie in the way it looked and how the characters moved, this may not be for everyone but I found it quite endearing and gave the film a whole lot of personality.


To sum Slow West up, I would say that its a very artsy but quite enjoyable film to watch.
If you enjoyed the likes of Drive and you are into westerns then I would recommend you check this out.
If you are more of a mainstream cinema goer however I don't think you would gel too well with Slow West, at only 84 minutes however you might as well give it a go.


Thanks for reading my quick thoughts. I saw this film so late as it was another one of the BIFA awards movies my cinema was playing.

-Joe

Quick Thoughts: Ex_Machina

See this movie!
Those three words pretty much sum up what I want to tell people about this film.
Ex_Machina came out earlier this year but due to it being nominated for a BIFA (British Independent Film Award) it was played once more at my local cinema.

Ex_Machina has got to be one of the tensest films I have ever seen, from the opening shot right through to the end credits I was filled with a sense of dread of what dark and twisted revelation may or may not be round the next corner.  This is all thanks to the terrific scrip and cinematography.
The former creates tight dialogue between the three main leads (Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Issac and Alicia Vikander) that is friendly enough on the surface but has subtle hateful undertones that really set the tone for the movie extremely well.
The latter bathes the shots in a futuristic glow that is strangely clinical on the eye and gives and sense of unease to the facility where a vast majority of the film takes place.

The real star of the show however is Alicia Vikander as Ava. She manages to give a distinctly robotic performance (which is good as she is playing a robot) whilst having it be sympathetically human in parts. Vikander also imbues a child like quality to the charterer that, on the surface, is endearing but the more you see it in action the more it becomes unsettling.
 

I came away from Ex_Machina with my head spinning with questions about humanity and conscience and other morally ambiguous topics. For me this is a great feeling when a movie genuinely makes you think when leaving the theater. If however you like seeing movies just for a bit of brain switch off fun then I might give this one a miss.

Overall Ex_Machina is an incredibly slick and inventive sci-fi that poses some important questions to mull over, all wrapped up in an unnerving physiological thriller. Great, great stuff.

-Joe

Captain America: Civil War Trailer Breakdown

As you are probably well aware, the trailer for the new Captain America movie, Civil War, dropped not too long ago and its pretty damn good.
The Russo Brother presence is definitely felt here again as all the shots have the same clean and shiny quality they did back in the previous movie, The Winter Soldier. The muted cinematography is also very nice and gives the wide array of colourful characters a chance to shine.


We also get our first real look at Black Panther in this trailer. Being a new hero to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (to be getting a solo film in 2018) he has to make a big impact to be taken seriously among the more well developed and loved characters. Well he sure does make an impression in his excellently designed suit that looks both quite ridiculous but strangely tangible at the same time, a balance that makes him fit into the universe well.  There is also an impressive shot of him sprinting down a highway followed by Captain America, if this is anything to go by he could really be a force to be reckoned with.

By far the best thing about this trailer however was the last shot of Bucky and Cap double teaming Iron Man, it is an incredibly well choreographed sequence with some really complex moves. It is also some great acting from Chris Evans, it really looks like he hates what he is having to do but is still doing it, great contrast to the other times we have seen him all jokey in a lot of his previous fights.


Overall this was a pretty great trailer and I liked how it really retained the identity of a Captain America movie whilst incorporating a larger cast of heroes. Can't wait for this movie and personally I am more excited for it that Batman v Superman.

Thanks for reading.

-Joe

Update

Sorry I haven't been able to get my review of Steve Jobs out. Its been a joint effort between my university work and my bad internet to stop me blogging.
I will get back to a better schedule soon, a week or two at the most.
Thanks for being patient

-Joe

James Bond: Where to go Now?

With Spectre getting very mixed reviews from critics and fans alike and the likelihood of Craig reprising the role once more decreasing, it is time we think of what direction Bond 25 should go in.
This is also very relevant as the distribution rights for the Bond franchise are up in the air and when a new studio picks it up it is highly likely they will want to do another semi-reboot with the property.

New Bond:

 I really like Daniel Craig as Bond, I think he is the best we have ever had. Saying this though, after Spectre wraps up his story quite well there is really nowhere that his version of Bond can logically go without it being forced. This is why we need a new Bond.
There are a few good choices for this but as I have said in my previous article about new Bond actors, I think Tom Hardy is the best choice.



He possesses a lot of the same charming, rough qualities that Daniel Craig does so the transition would be relativity painless. The key thing however is that he also has a Sean Connery vibe which means that the series could go back to the the old days with the realistic gadgets and action, not the over the top comedy sections that Spectre had too many of.

Another contender for the Bond title is Idris Elba. Many have wondered if he is right for the part as he would be older than any of the Bonds have been in their first movie.
However this could really be used to his advantage as it could give a whole new spin on Bond that hasn't been seen before.


Picture this. An old and James Bond in retirement form the service bought back in for one last job. It would be like the Dark Knight Returns of Bond movies and would mean that not much of the Bond character we know and love from the Craig films would have to be changed.
It also creates the possibility that Elba could be the Second Bond to only star in one movie because whilst the premise is good I'm not sure how much staying power it has.

As far as the rest of the MI6 regulars go, all of them bar Moneypenny should be kept. They do great in their roles, especially Ben Whishaw as Q. However I think that the new Moneypenny's help define the new Bond eras almost as much as the new Bonds themselves so a new one will be needed to proper fit the tone.

New Director:

Sam Mendes has stated that he will not be doing the next Bond movie. I personally think this is a good thing as it feels like he has run out of ideas following Spectre.
Christopher Nolan's name has been thrown around for this role and while I think that is quite a good choice, the doubt would be in if he 'knows' Bond enough for the job.

This is why I think the perfect person for this job, especially if we are getting a new Bond, is Martin Campbell.
He has already successfully launched 2 Bonds as he was the director of Goldeneye and Casino Roylae and knows Bond inside out. This means he can play around and reinvent the formula to keep it new and interesting whilst retaining the essence of Bond like no-one else can.


Tone.

I think people have had their fill of the broken, depressing Bond for the moment. This why I think the new Bond (if its not Elba) should revert back to the Connery era tonally. This way we can have a more quipy Bond but one that could, at a drop of a hat, turn into a cold killer when needed.
I feel this would add an interesting dynamic to Bond and more depth than we have seen before. It could also create some interesting dynamics with the supporting characters, shifting their opinion of Bond accordingly, especially with the Bond girls.

As for the other little things, the DB5 should still be Bonds personal car, he should still use the DB10 for missions (as that thing is beautiful) and as far as the MI6 building goes, it should just be reinstated and lets pretend it never even blew up.

Thanks for reading my thoughts on where the Bond franchise will go, I'd love to hear yours in the comments below.


-Joe

Spectre Update

Well I went to see Spectre again the other day as I really wanted to see it through objective eyes as opposed to the fan-boy ones I viewed it in the other week.
I must say, I had a good time with Spectre this time around. I still stand by the points that I made in my review in that its not particularly interesting but if you go in with a really empty head (and I mean really empty) you will probably have a good time with it.
As far as it fits in with the other Craig films, Skyfall is still the best, then Casino Royale, then Spectre then Quantum of Solace.

So yeah, I would still recommend you go and see it in theaters but just don't expect too much.


Thanks for reading the update.

I was supposed to post something I've been formulating over the weekend but I honestly have been too caught up in playing Halo 5 that I totally forgot. I will get it out in the next few days, its a pretty good one if I do say so myself.


-Joe

Spectre Review: Return to Classic Bond?

If you track the Bond movies over the years you can see some distinct patterns. The hard edged but not too serious Connery era which really set the tone for pretty much everything to come. Next came the Moore era (which lasted too long for what it was) which is now know as possibly the lowest point in the franchise for many people, with the possible exception of Die another Day.
Next came Timothy Dalton who really reset the franchise to what it should be. The same thing Daniel Craig would do but way before its time.
Its sad to say then that after watching Spectre that it has a distinct and now unpleasant whiff of Roger Moore.



What I mean by this is that there are constant visual gags that would not be out of place in say, The Spy Who Loved Me. Not things we are used to seeing sharing the same screen as our hard edged Bond for the modern world.
Bond himself is almost a different character at points as well with none of the killer instinct and brutality we saw in the previous 3 films and its not a believable transition for the character as his films are supposed to be linked.

Then the other side of the movie kicks in.
The super serious side that wants to think it's way more important of a movie than it actually is. This in essence is why Spectre does not work, the campy half does not mesh with the modern serious side at all and makes for a very jagged structure in which you never know if you are supposed to be laughing or gritting your teeth.

After Skyfall having a film of such mediocrity is extremity frustrating, especially because throughout specks of excellent keep showing only to get over shadowed by something else.
Ben Whishaw is one of these specks, he brings and energy to the role of Q that hasn't been seen before, building very nicely on the character that we saw in Skyfall. I would love to see him continue in the franchise throughout multiple Bond's as he really is scene stealing.

The rest of the MI6 team don't fair so well, they do admirably in their respective parts (Ralph Fiennes as M, Rory Kinnear as Bill Tanner and Naomi Harris as Moneypenny) but the presence of Judi Dench is still felt and they can't ever quite live up to that.


The script at points is also really excellent, the quips work well (mostly) and the banter is some of the best we've seen since Connery. It's just not enough to keep the lifeless plot chugging along.
Its basically boils down to a lot of contrived reasons for Bond to go from country to country and it never feels like its progressing naturally.  It also reuses a tonne of things from other (better) Bond films to the point where its just feels like Sam Mendes tried to put as many tropes in as he can.

On such trope that is never unwelcome in a Bond movie however is a car chase, sadly in Spectre they use the rather un-thrilling chase to dish out exposition instead of making it a compelling sequence which was a real shame.
As for the other action scenes, most fall flat with not much choreography and little thrills. However there was an admirable, yet very one note, opening sequence (it does have an absolutely beautiful opening shot however) and a very excellent train fist fight with Henchman Mr Hinx (Dave Bautista) who is very under utilized. This is a shame as the other villains aren't particularly compelling.
Christoph Waltz does admirably with the little he is given to work with but never quite pulls it off as well as he should have been able to and Andrew Scott as C was just quite bland.


 
Overall I don't think Spectre can be called a bad film, just the sum of its parts doesn't equal a particularly good one either, which after Skyfall really just isn't good enough.

Thanks for reading my Spectre review, let me know in the comments if you're planning to see it or have already, would love to hear you'r opinion.

Thanks

-Joe

Spectre Review Incoming

It' taking me a while to formulate my opinions on Spectre so my review will be a little bit late, possibly today or tomorrow.

Thanks for sticking with me.

-Joe

Quick Thoughts: Sicario

Sicario has been out too long to warrant a full review so I will give my quick thoughts on it.

Lets start with the good:

• Cinematography. The cinematography, done by the legend of our time Roger Deakins, is breathtaking. Every shot is a feast for the eyes, especially the later night time scenes that ooze depth and amazingly actually look like night time unlike a lot of other movies.
• Acting. Everyone gives a stellar performance with the main cast of Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro really bringing their A-game. The stand out star though has got to be Del Toro with his excellent layered performance of his mysterious character of Alejandro.
• Scrip. The scrip is wonderfully tight and has realistic and has lots of clever dialogue that brings the intrigue of the plot to life.
• Action. I don't really want to call them 'action' scenes as they are propelled by the suspense created and not necessarily the action, because of this is makes for some of the most suspenseful scenes seen in cinemas this year creating really 'edge of your seat' stuff.
• Characters. While somewhat archetypal they still are very layered and intriguing and are what really tie the film together and keep it rolling through some of the slower sections.

Now the bad:

• Sound-mixing. The sound effects for Sicario were excellent with great gun sounds and the like but it really wasn't mixed particularly well with the action being too loud and and the dialogue being too quiet, this forced my ears to constantly adjust which was irritating and made me miss some of the quiet dialogue and in a movie like this that isn't something you can do without missing important lines.
• Story. The story is a pretty much by the book drug movie with no real surprises and was occasionally a bit hard to follow, this isn't much of a gripe however as it has sky high production values that more than make up for it.
• Sometimes a bit boring. Through some of the longer dialogue scenes I found myself a bit bored and just waiting for the next suspenseful action set piece. This is quite a lot of personal preference however.

Overall I would absolutely recommend this movie to somebody who likes a well acted suspense drama, not unlike Hurt Locker. However if you go to see movies for a bit of fun, I do not recommend Sicario as, while great, has a really dark tone and is not what would be described as a 'fun' movie.

Hope you enjoyed my new 'Quick Thoughts' post. I will be doing these more for films that I see later than I would like. 

Thanks for sticking around.

-Joe

Update

I'm seeing Sicario later today so I will be giving you a new type of article on it that I like to call 'Quick Thoughts'.
Hope you enjoy it.

-Joe

Who Should Be the Next James Bond: My Choices

With Daniel Craig's recent comments about playing Bond again (he said he would rather slit his wrists), it is unlikely that he will be doing another movie after Spectre comes out this winter.
Because of this I have compiled a list of the top candidates for next Bond according to internet buzz and the bookkeeper William Hill and put them in order of who I think should take up the mantle, worst to best.
Disclaimer, I would be perfectly happy if any of these actors got the part but this is my personal ranking.

5. Michael Fassbender
   Odds according to William Hill: 7/1

The Good:
Well he definitely has the look of Bond, he is suave and handsome and at 38 he is around the right age.  He has also shown he has the acting chops for it because he is good in pretty much anything he is in. He has also shown he can do action in most notably X-men: First Class.





The Bad:
If there is such a thing as being TOO famous for a part, Fassbender definitely has it, and since he doesn't blend into his roles as other  high profile actors such as Tom Hardy do he would always be (in my eyes at least) an actor playing Bond as opposed to Bond himslef.

Another reason I don't think he is too suited is because he doesn't have the underlying cold-heartedness that is what makes Bond, Bond. To play a successful Bond you need the outer shell of a confident, suave man but the underlying brokenness and loneliness that makes the character deep and interesting.

4. Idris Elba

    Odds according to William Hill: 4/1

The Good: 

Well Elba definitely doesn't have the problem of being too famous. He also carries enough weight to really nail the emotional complexities that weighs down Bond. He would be a good choice for the political side of things too (outside of the movies) as, being black, it would positively impact the 'whitening' of Hollywood that has been happening recently and show that a black man can be just as successful as a white man.

The Bad:

As author of the latest James Bond novel 'Trigger Mortis' (Anthony Horowitz) said recently, Elba is too 'street' to play Bond, an I agree. He just doesn't have the sophisticated quality that an London-living, middle class agent should/would have. 

Another problem, regrettably, would be the profits. It has been seen that movies with black leading characters don't do nearly as well on average as ones with white leads do, and if we want Bond to keep going strong maybe alienating a big part of the audience wouldn't be so clever.

 

3. Henry Cavill

    Odds according to William Hill: 5/1

The Good:

He is Bond, his looks that is, as they pretty much encapsulate everything one thinks about when they think of Bond.  Cavill is also the youngest of the choices at 32 so if he was chosen he could go on to do Bond for a good while before another re-cast is needed.

If you have seen the movie 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E' that came out this summer you will have noticed that Cavill was excellent as the super slick agent Napoleon Solo.  Minus the American accent he put on for the role, it would be the perfect basis for Bond and potentially a more upbeat Bond like we saw in the 60's. This would make a good change to the serious Bond Craig has portrayed these last 8 years.

The Bad:

My only concern about Cavill becoming Bond is that I'm unsure weather he has the acting ability to accurately portray the complex tapestry that is Bond.

Being Superman may also be a concern because it would be hard trying to share one actor between 2 franchises, especially as Superman will be appearing in a majority (probably) of the DC universe films.

2. Damien Lewis

    Odds according to William Hill: 11/4

The Good:

Lewis is a fantastic actor, this has been shown in many, many things. Because of this I am fully confident that he could adequately convey all sides of Bond.  He has also shown his proficiency in the espionage genre in the TV show Homeland where he was also great. While he might not physically look the part as much as some of the other people on the list he does still posses that charming but lethal quality that is essential.  

The Bad:

He is old, at 44 he is only 3 years younger than Daniel Craig who is getting on a bit for the role at the moment. If Bond 25 came out with Lewis as Bond in a very generous 3 years time (almost defiantly longer with a recast) he would be 47 which is pretty old to be starting your Bond career.

There would also probably be an uproar from idiots if Lewis was cast because he is ginger. It would be like the 'Blond Bond?' headlines we got back when Craig was cast.

1. Tom Hardy

    Odds according to William Hill: 5/2

The Good:

Tom Hardy is absolutely the best choice for Bond. He is the best actor out of the lot and he really looses himself in his roles so he would probably be the most convincing Bond we would ever get. He is also a good age at 38 and definitely looks the part. He is also more in line with how Craig appears as Bond, that is to say rough and ready, so the transition would be smooth and probably keep most people happy.

He has also proven that he can handle the physicality and toughness needed for Bond, especially in the new Mad Max where he did a good lot of his own stunts. 

His recent turn as Reggie Cray in Legend also shows that Hardy can do the charming/suave end of the Bond spectrum fantastically too.

The Bad:

Nothing, there is absolutely nothing bad about this casting if it were to go ahead (in my opinion anyway) as Hardy ticks all the boxes of Bond.

The only thing that might prevent this though is Hardy himself, he is more prone to non-franchise work and normally steers clear of multiple movie deals.

He has also signed to do 2 more Mad Max movies (surprisingly given the previous statement) but seeing how long the last one took to get off the ground and the comments from George Miller (Mad Max director) its unlikely we will see these in the near future.

Also if Hardy does get cast I would love to see a Bond who always has a beard as they look great on Hardy

Thanks for reading my thoughts. Please comment with yours, I would love to hear them.

-Joe

The Martian. Ridley Scott's Best Movie?

Ridley Scott has been somewhat of an inconsistent director over his long career, with some truly great movies under his belt such as Blade Runner and Alien. He also has some not so good to truly awful films too such as Prometheus, The Counsellor and Exodus: Gods and Kings.
One thing that has stayed consistent throughout all his movie however are the visuals and The Martian is no exception to this.  It has stunning vistas of space and the Mars landscape that in 3D are truly breath-taking and when things get more high octane the action is also just as stunning with some very competent camerawork and interesting angles that really show off the most interesting aspects of space travel.


The heart of this movie however is not in how technically impressive it is but in its characters who are all well fleshed out human being as opposed to the cut-outs you see in many other Hollywood blockbusters these days.  They are all bought to life exceptionally by the cast and I am pleased to say that at no point throughout this 2 hour 21 minute film was I ever not fully convinced that they were real people facing a very real problem.
The standout performances come from Sean Bean in a minor role as Mitch Henderson where he really gave above and beyond from the small but integral role he was given. Another highlight was Michel Pena (second time this year he has done an ace performance, the first being in Ant-man) as Rick Martinez who brought wit and a light heartedness to the film.

The real star (obviously) was Matt Damon in what is perhaps his best performance of all time as Mark Watney, the astronaut that gets stranded on Mars. He portrays Watney as a lovable jerk who in the face of danger tries to make the best of things which introduces some very funny lines into what is a surprisingly upbeat and funny movie. He also brings home, with excellent depth, the torn and depressing emotions somebody would go through in a situation such as this and makes you ride the ups and downs with him as opposed to just being an observer.


With Damon doing such an excellent job it is always kind of a shame that the film has to switch back to the events on Earth as they aren't as interesting as the Mars goings on. This is emphasised in an especially long Earth sequence that lasts about 20 minutes that does get fatiguing towards the end, so when it switches back to Damon its like a breath of fresh air to break the political side of things.

This movie also does suffer from being a bit long so when the climax hits it doesn't have the same impact as it might do if the movie was just about 15 minuets shorter. This is probably due to the fact that it doesn't go through many environments, switching from Mars to a grey building on Earth and back again, not giving they eye much to feast on in the last act that we haven't had our fill of earlier in the movie.


Saying this though, the film does come to a very satisfying and intense climax that really kept me on the edge of my seat throughout(even though Neil Degrasse Tyson had already spoiled it for me on twitter). The wrap up scenes don't feel unwelcome or too long as they give us much wanted closure on all the main players of the film that really makes you feel you got your moneys worth when leaving the cinema.

Overall this is an excellent movie with very few flaws that is a fun time despite the depressing nature of the subject matter. Ridley Scott does a great job at the helm, making up for some of his recent flops. Although it makes you wonder if it should really be credited so heavily to him since the source material was so good and did a lot of the work to start with.


Thanks for reading another review and I urge you to go out and see this film, especially in 3D as it is absolutely worth it.
I will be doing a post a week from now on as I am also busy with university work so its hard to fit it in.


-Joe

Is Nicolas Cage a Good Actor: The Final Answer

This quite possibly is the ultimate question when it comes to acting.
Lets start with the arguments for yes.
He has won an academy award for best leading actor for 'Leaving Las Vegas' and surely bad actors don't win awards right? (except Razzies obviously). He has also done some emotionally competent performances in movies like 'Joe' and potentially 'Moonstruck'.
Yes he is over the top in most of his 'good' roles but in said roles it works for the character as they are normally emotionally broken in some way.

BUT

And it's a big but, he is pretty much god awful in a majority of the movies he has made, and not always the same kind of awful.
The first kind is the boring Nick Cage (as I will be referring to him from now on).
This crops up in movies such as the two 'National Treasure' features where he plays boring treasure hunter Ben Gates. His performance in these movie is highly wooden and disinterested like he can't wait to get off set and have a Big Mac or something.
Another such example of the boring Nick Cage is in 'Left Behind' (please, nobody watch that movie!) where he is Rayford Steele, a jumbo jet pilot who is flying when a catastrophic event happens yet he doesn't seem to react that badly to it, except for a forced crying sequence.


The main things these performances are lacking however is the trademark Nick Cage freak out (basically the only reason I watch a Nick Cage movie) but I will come back to this later.

The second type is crazy Nick Cage, this is where his performance is off the wall mad. So crazy it stands out like a sore thumb from the rest of the movie and showcases Cage at his worst. This normally happens when the movie is more serious in tone and the casting of Cage throws this all out of wack. A great example of this is 'The Wicker Man', a serious film turned unintentional comedy due to Cage's presence. ( I will link a video below of a Cage freak out montage)

However, there is a few times the crazy Nick Cage can work well, surprisingly.
This occurs in movies that are already insane to begin with and where his presence just heightens the ridiculousness to an even more enjoyable level. Good examples of this would be 'Face-Off' where his performance opposite Travolta is just glorious and makes the movie one of the biggest guilty pleasure titles out there.
The other example would be 'The Rock' with Sean Connery where the same thing is true. His freak outs in these movies are some of the best too (especially in Face-Off) and are insanely enjoyable.


I think the answer to this question really doesn't have a traditional answer. Clearly Nick Cage is a good actor as he has an award to prove it and some of his movies are very enjoyable made even better by his presence (the aforementioned Face-Off). Clearly Nick Cage is also a bad actor as he is terrible in a large part of his filmography (National Treasure, Left Behind to name a few).

Taking in mind these facts, I put it to you readers that, in fact, Nick 'The Cage' Cage is a multiplier.
When the movie is bad/boring to start with and Cage is introduced it gets even worse.
On the other hand if the movie is good/entertaining to start with and Cage is introduced it becomes even better!
That is the definitive answer.


  Nick Cage freak out montage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S73swRzxs8Y
My personal favorite Cage moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDnW5XxjwI8

Thanks for reading guys. I decided not to do the piece on theme tunes as I decided I don't have enough musical knowledge to do so sufficiently, sorry.

-Joe

Update

So I was meant to be going to see Bill today but that didn't pan out so I cant bring my review of that to you guys.
I'll probably do a piece on theme tunes tomorrow.

Thanks for the patience
Joe

What Movies Can Learn From Metal Gear Solid 5

For those of you that are unaware, the video game Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain was released a couple weeks back and the cut scenes are glorious. Each cut scene is done in one sweeping, dynamic shot. Quite a lot like Birdman.

However that's where the similarities to Birdman end. Whilst in that movie they moved and then stayed almost static then moved again, in MGS 5 they are constantly on the move and zooming around the place to give amazing camera shots.

These camera shots are especially amazing during the action, whipping around the environment and showing it from wides, peoples perspectives and various other angles and adds a new level of dynamic-ness that I have never personally seen in a video game cut scene.


This is where the film industry can learn something, normally action in big budget films nowadays is too shaky and edited into oblivion resulting in something that is barely cohesive and incredibly difficult to understand. Possibly the worst example of this ever is the final fight scene in the movie 'Alex Cross'. The entire thing is just a mess that doesn't make any sense at all. ( I will link it below)

If a movie like that just took part of the Metal Gear Solid 5 cut scene philosophy everyone would have a much nicer time, the director, the editor and us, the audience.
Just imagine if movies with good direction to start with started to do longer flowing shots, they would be absolutely beautiful.  For instance if Sam Mendes, an already superb film maker, started to do longer shots for the new Bond movie Spectre, it would be a triumph.


So listen up film makers of Hollywood, stop editing your movies into oblivion and start utilizing the long and even super-long shot. It will make all our lives better, less shooting, less editing, better final product. I rest my case!



Thanks for reading my thoughts on this topic and if any of you are video game player and haven't picked up MGS 5, what are you waiting for!  Its superb.

Link to Alex Cross fight scene:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc_tv86pXZQ



-Joe

P.S I know dynamic-ness isn't a word but I thought it fit well.