And the Oscar goes to...

And the 2014 film awards are over! Yes, after last night's Academy Awards, the year's celebrations have reached an end to somewhat mixed results. Predictable could be the word to use, but in some cases it is clear that mistakes were made (and I don't just mean for The LEGO Movie - but c'mon Academy! You let them build LEGO Oscars for some people but don't offer a real one yourselves?!). Anywho, let's get started with...

Best Supporting Actor

And the winner is...

J.K Simmons (Whiplash)

Wow, what a non-shocker! Simmons has been the frontrunner for the award since the film first premièred last year on the festival circuit, and how rightful this win is. He is a fantastic actor and his character is absolutely incredible. Bravo, Mr. Simmons!

 Best Costume Design

And the winner is...

Milena Canonero (The Grand Budapest Hotel)

Hey look, it's the winner of my Best of 2014! A rightful win for just how creative the designs were. I mean, how can you make that purple coat work so well. I'd like one please.

Best Make Up and Hairstyling

And the winner is...

Frances Hannon & Mark Coulier (The Grand Budapest Hotel)

In a category with only three nominations (this, Guardians of the Galaxy and Foxcatcher), it was always going to be a tough call, and the transformation of Tilda Swinton is a spectacular one. It's hard not to love what you see there, but I do believe that Guardians had this in the bag. It had a large array of characters and an even larger amount of different designs needed. But kudos to Grand Budpaest!

Best Sound Mixing

And the winner is...

Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins & Thomas Curley (Whiplash)

Music is a hard one when it comes to film. To synch the music to the instruments perfectly is a challenge within itself, but with the fast pace that Whiplash has to follow, it's an even tougher challenge. But it was a challenge that succeeded, as it was a true tour de force.

Best Sound Editing

And the winner is...

Alan Robert Murray & Bub Asman (American Sniper)

What an odd choice. The sound in American Sniper wasn't particularly notable, aside from the convention gun shots and explosion sound effects. Nothing more, nothing less. A better choice? Intestellar.

Best Supporting Actress

And the winner is...

Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)

Everyone knew Arquette would win. Like Simmons, she won every award she could, and in the end succeeded in the big show. And it's no surprise, as she is a true great within the film and arguably the best thing on offer aside from the 12 year storyline. The only disappointment? This was the only win for Boyhood. For shame.

Best Visual Effects

And the winner is...

Paul J Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Ian Hunter & Scott R Fisher (Interstellar)

The only award where mainstream blockbusters come to play, it's no surprise that Interstellar ended up with the gold, despite the large praise for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. It looks magnificent, and the blend of practical and computer effects is something to be astounded by. Great work guys.

Best Animated Feature

And the winner is...

Big Hero 6

Disney does it again! After last year's immense success with Frozen, they repeat their success with their Marvel collaboration. I personally wasn't a big fan of the film  - it was fine but nothing special - but a win is pleasing against How to Train Your Dragon 2 (Dreamworks is now in deep trouble). But, you know...LEGO Movie.

Best Production Design

And the winner is...

Adam Stockhausen & Anna Pinnock (The Grand Budapest Hotel)

Hello again, Budapest! Yes, another successful win for the most charming film of the year. The attention to detail is something to marvel at, so its no surprise that a win was given. I mean, just look at all the props!

Best Cinematography

And the winner is...

Emmanuel Lubezki (Birdman or (the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance))

Yes I plan on writing the full title every time. As expected, Birdman won the prize it so deserved. How else could all these one shots be done with such efficiency? An award more deserving than any of the others - but arguably one of the few it deserved.

Best Film Editing

And the winner is...

Tom Cross (Whiplash)

For similar reasons as its win for Sound Mixing, music is a hard thing in film. But just like that, the production team behind Whiplash managed to succeed with absolute ease. Bravo, gentlemen. You did far more than a good job.

Best Original Song

And the winner is...

Glory - Common and John Legend (Selma)

Selma was criminally nominated for only two awards - this and Best Picture. Nothing for David Oyelowo or Ava DuVarney, which was a huge disappointment. That said, when the original nominations came out (where I had only heard two of the songs nominated, from Begin Again and The LEGO Movie) I brushed this song off. When I finally heard it during the end credits of Selma, my opinion changed. Yes, Everything is Awesome is a great song (even if it stuck out like a sore thumb at the Oscars when sang live), but Glory made its audience tear up. It's a powerful song, and deserving of its win. 

Best Original Score

And the winner is...

Alexandre Desplat (The Grand Budapest Hotel)

I've included the full soundtrack here. Why? Because it's amazing. It won my Best of 2014 for Best Score, and I've felt like it was criminally underrated at the award shows (although kudos to the score for The Theory of Everything, which is also particularly good). But a win here is certainly pleasing, as I've loved this score since I first heard it in March last year. Plus, Desplat finally won.

Best Original Screenplay

And the winner is...

Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris & Armando Bo (Birdman or (the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance))

Told you I wouldn't. To my surprise, Birdman took the gold here, and honestly...I don't think it should have. Yes, it has some great dialogue and there isn't much to fault with it, but it features a segment which basically tells the audience that they want explosions, not talky films, whilst featuring a one-note antagonist in the form of Lindsey Duncan. It's not a bad screenplay, but the best? Budapest Hotel, Boyhood or Nightcrawler might have been better suited here

Best Adapted Screenplay

And the winner is...

Graham Moore (The Imitation Game)

At last, a win for Imitation Game! Yes, I'm a fan of the Alan Turing biopic, and it has a strong screenplay. The strongest film nominated? No, Theory of Everything and Whiplash were worthy contenders. But The Imitation Game was less safe with where it was willing to go, whereas the others were either straight adaptations or, in the case of Whiplash, an elongation of a short film.

Best Director

And the winner is...

Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman or (the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance))

And this surprises no one. As with cinematography, the overall style of Birdman is one to be amazed by. It works so well, and only Iñárritu could succeed with this.

Best Actor

And the winner is...

Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything)

There were last minute doubts that Redmayne would pull it off, that Michael Keaton would get the gold. But it's so satisfying to see Redmayne win, as he was by far the best on offer this year. Arguably the next Daniel Day-Lewis, he transformed himself superbly into the genius that is Stephen Hawking, and deserves this win no matter what critics think following Jupiter Ascending.

Best Actress

And the winner is...

Julianne Moore (Still Alice)

Still Alice is one of the few Oscar films not to be released in the UK as of yet (unless you kept up with the Sony hack last year), so I've not had the pleasure of seeing Miss Moore in action as the early Alzheimer's patient. But what I've seen and heard is stellar (expect a review next month when it finally comes out). But with so many past nominations, it's nice to see her finally win, especially in such a prestigious category.

Best Picture

And the winner is...

Birdman or (the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Every film nominated for Best Picture this year won at least one award - some deserving, others not. But Birdman has been chosen cream of the crops with the top prize. But deserving? I beg to differ.

Before the awards, I tweeted the following:

#Oscars - From worst to best: American Sniper, Selma, Birdman, Imitation Game, Theory of Everything, Boyhood, Grand Budapest Hotel, Whiplash

Whilst none (bar American Sniper) could be considered a bad film, I felt that Birdman wasn't the best out there, remarking it as more of a technical piece than a strong overall feature - this year's Gravity so to speak. Add that this is the third film about Hollywood in four years to win (The Artist in 2012 and Argo in 2013), it seems like the Academy is simply congratulating itself for what it's achieved rather than as an overall piece of cinema. Take into account the other films:

• The Imitation Game portrays a character not rewarded for his achievements but tarnished by his real persona, at the cost of his own life.
• The Theory of Everything has someone going against all the odds and lasting far beyond his two year life expectancy but whilst not having a happy ending, instead a realistic one for young love.
• Boyhood is about growth of human life - it has no actual story, but instead a set of events which make up who you are when you grow up and become your own person.
• The Grand Budapest Hotel shows off the classic filmmaking style with artistic flair and integrity, with a strong story and cast to boot
• Whiplash is a character piece where there is no hero, and shows just how far people will go to be perfect - the musical version of Daniel Day-Lewis playing Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln

Birdman instead strives on pointing out the flaws in modern cinema - strong arguments, but nothing substantial enough for a Best Picture award. 

For more coverage on awards:

The initial response and predictions for the awards (here)

My personal Best of 2014, which lacks a majority of people because they were 2015 releases in the UK (here)

Boyhood (2014) Revisited

Back in 2014, I wrote a review of Boyhood which I was unsatisfied with. With the recent DVD release and the Oscars hours away, I decided to revisit the highly praised film and see whether I was right or wrong to judge it.

The idea alone of filming over a narrative over a 12 year period is enough to garner a lot of praise from everybody, and it's no surprise that every awards show has been eating up Boyhood and will likely earn a good number of wins during tonight's Academy Awards. And with filming over a long period of time not being a big stretch for director/screenwriter Richard Linklater, who already has a trilogy spanning over 18 years starting with 1995's Before Sunrise (starring Ethan Hawke, who also appears here), it's interesting to see this arguably-gimmicky feature actually succeed where it could have so easily failed. But does it actually succeed? 

The thing with Boyhood is that there is no straightforward narrative, as it quite simply tells the story of one standard American family, whose parents are separated and do their best to look after their two children. Instead, the film highlights specific storylines which come across a number of years for the characters - most notably a domestic abusive storyline which spans across approximately four years. But by removing the possibility of having that forced ongoing storyline across the 12 year period, it could easily make the film dull and a waste of time, especially if it kept to its 165 minute runtime, so the spontaneous changes - like life - feel all the more natural and necessary. Granted, some areas do get glossed over, such as what happens to both of Olivia Evans' (Patricia Arquette) husbands later in life (one of them doesn't eve get a proper send-off) but they do leave room for character growth, which the film is full of.  

Child actors are tough to control, particularly at the age of 6 where lead Ellar Coltrane begins, so to watch this kid grow from an unprompted star who has little idea of what's happening to a fully grown adult capable of reading scripts and following the director's plans with ease is nothing short than amazing, as by the end of the film you do see little Mason Jnr become this great lead character. But he's not the main focus of the film, as for a good proportion of it it's all down to parents Arquette and Hawke, and with that you have a different perspective to how things are. In those early stages, you follow the somewhat clueless children as their parents follow these various situations, with the mother having more notable storylines through her constant marriages. Hawke instead portrays a character who grows up just like his son does, as he grows from a standard democratic rascal to a grown man, finally becoming the father he should have been from the very start. Finishing off the main family is Lorelei Linklater, daughter to director Richard, as the occasionally bratty older sibling. You can tell midway through that she's losing interest in the project (at age of 12 she asked to be killed off) but she regains momentum some time later and becomes a great asset once again. Perhaps the weakest of the family, but still a strong enough performance by the newcomer. 

Other characters are on a come-and-go basis, which is understandable going by the number of changes which occur through the years. Some like a handful of Mason Jnr's classmates (such as a girl in the 2009 segment) and family friends don't get as much presence as you would expect them to, but with such a large timespan and probably a lot of footage, it's clear that a number of elements would have to have been cut to make room for more focus on the dismantled nuclear family, so it's excused in that area. But for those that do get a share of the limelight, including Marco Perella's alcoholic stepdad and Zoe Graham's girlfriend do leave a good mark on the film and on each character they interact with, and with the introduction of new characters until the very end with Mason Jnr at college, it just leaves you itching for a continuation of the story. 

And that's the beauty of Boyhood. Within the little timecapsule of classic Nintendo consoles and pop songs ranging from Coldplay to Arcade Fire, you have a set of characters of which each one you can relate to. Sure, you may not relate to the actual scenarios which play out, but these characters play your archetypal characters; the standard parents, the generic kids who grow into grumpy teenagers, the hook-ups they experience as they grow - these don't specialise because it wants to represent them all. It may not be evident on a first viewing (I was initially impressed but dissatisfied by the final product) but as you watch it again, and possibly on further viewings, you appreciate it all the more. And with a screenplay which portrays family the right way, and Linklater's direction never distracting from the quality of what's being presented, it's all the more pleasing.  When a character returns after years of nothing, you're satisfied by what they've achieved in that time - even if they had little significance in those appearances. Plus, when you can be pleased to see a character you know hardly anything about, then you know you have a good film on your hands. 

Boyhood has every right to be loved by critics. From its humble beginnings all the way back in 2002 to its final shots of Alpine in 2013, it presents a film where every fault has perfectly good explanation as to why it went wrong. It has a strong cast, great screenplay and a creative team who managed to succeed where it should have failed immensely. 10/10. 

Trailer Talk: Super Bowl, Spooks and Superheroes

Hot Tub Time Machine 2

Let's start things off on an unfunny note, as Hot Tub Time Machine continues to fail in telling good jokes. Nothing more, nothing less.

She's Funny That Way

So a film where every couple is having an affair with someone else? All merged to a storyline about a former prostitute-turned-actor auditioning for a role offered by her former lover? Seems interesting enough. Unfortunately the trailer doesn't help highlighting that, with its oddball editing style and terrible comedic moments. A pity.

Fantastic Four

At long last, we get a look into what we can expect for the new run of Fantastic Four movies, and it looks...dull. Borrowing elements from the likes of Interstellar and lacking any sense of originality, it just comes across as bland, if anything. And whilst I've grown to like stars Miles Teller and Toby Kebbell more since their castings, all the actors do come across as a little uncomfortable. Future trailers may appease, but as a first look, it's very weak. If anything, it makes me want to revisit the original 2005 attempt.

Child 44

Whilst I can't admit that I'm impressed by what I see, it does have a sense of ambiguity, as numerous children are found dead across Moscow and Tom Hardy investigates. With Gary Oldman assisting the case, there's is some level of interest - but I need to see more to truly want to see it.

Spooks: The Greater Good

Only a short teaser, but it does leave questions. Mainly, why make a film 4 years after the ending of the series.

Ted 2

I admit that I wasn't a fan of the 2012 original. Despite all its hype, it never captivated me in the same way as it did everyone else. And after the failure that was A Million Ways to Die in the West, it does makes sense why Seth McFarlane returns to his half-a-billion dollar baby. There still isn't much to laugh at (maybe the donor room scene, but nothing more), and it does cover quite a bit of the plot here leaving little to the imagination - so still plenty of room for improvement.

WE INTERRUPT THIS BLOG POST TO BRING YOU THE SUPER BOWL ADVERTS

Terminator: Genisys

There isn't much interested here. Granted, it is only a 30 second teaser, but it borrows so much from the first trailer that it could be considered  waste of money for the company to air it during the Super Bowl.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Same goes with the Avengers - barely any new footage or insight to what's going on. It could be considered as going full-circle after the first film had a Super Bowl trailer, but that did also lead to an extended version.

Minions

Deciding to air during the big game rather than follow the footsteps of other animated features, such as Inside Out and last year The LEGO Movie, and go for the Puppy Bowl, this is more of a little publicity short than an actual clip from the film. It works well with the similarities between Man and Minion, and succeeds in gaining public attention before a new trailer comes out later on.

Insurgent

Still looks as bland as ever. SKIP!

Kingsman: The Secret Service

For this Super Bowl segment, I'm bending my rules a little by including films which have already been released, hence why this and another film will have a little spotlight. That said, this teaser hasn't gained anything new to entice audiences. It is a little spoilery in some regard (I won't say where) but it does sell the product well.

Seventh Son

Still looks very dull - and critics and audiences seem to agree.

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water

Not really much to talk about here. It's still SpongeBob doing his thing, and there isn't anything particularly notable outside of that.

Jurassic World

Now this is what we need for a Super Bowl trailer! Insight, spectacular imagery, and Chris Pratt doing his thing! In all seriousness though, this is a great teaser. Just what the Bowl needed.

Tomorrowland

Speaking of new stuff, Tomorrowland releases more information about itself whilst keeping under wraps. It still looks spectacular, and I still have high hopes for it.

Furious 7

A car jumps through a building into another one. That is all.

Pitch Perfect 2

Hmm, not exactly anything to go on here. It's a tease merged with a full clip, and what's shown isn't exactly interesting.

Ted 2

Returning to the world with Ted with a short clip which makes use of the Super Bowl itself. A nice little clip, if not lacking in the comedy department.

Fifty Shades of Grey

Yeah, if you want my opinion on this, just go over here. You'll understand.

NORMAL SERVICE WILL NOW RESUME

Minions

With each new full trailer comes a bit more insight into the story. They haven't reused jokes or clips yet - aside from that 42 B.G gag - and in turn it allows for more to look forward to as you piece it all together. This trailer isn't the better one though, as it doesn't feature as much humour, but what is shown is strong. It looks like a fun piece from Illumination Entertainment.

Magic Mike XXL

It's an odd decision, making a sequel to the surprise hit Magic Mike, but it does have its fanbase and it earned a modest amount worldwide hence this XXL instalment. This early tease is more of of a tease of Channing Tatum's moves and the various poses his fellow strippers can make than an insight into the story, but hey! Sex sells, and it may have the same magic here.

Furious 7

I'm not a fan of the franchise, and it's unlikely I'll end up seeing the seventh instalment, with this trailer still not selling it to me, even with the return of the flying car.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

 This is why Sony doesn't deserve nice things like Spider-Man.

Poltergeist

Whilst I can't say I was scared at any point during this trailer, it doesn't come off as a remake done right, even down to the casting of Sam Rockwell as the father figure. It does look like one of the better horror films out there, even if it relies on the jump-scare approach.

Pitch Perfect 2

I'm still not digging this. I haven't a clue why, but it just isn't sticking to me. Singing is strong, performances seem good, but the plot is plain meh.

Cinderella

It's nice to see there will be some changes to the original retelling by Disney, as we finally get more of an look at what the film will consist of that adds to the previous story tellings, but it is bogged down by the same-old motifs of old. It's unlikely another trailer will come out before its release, but at least there's some newness here.

Trainwreck

Dull, tedious, and very boring. Welcome back, Judd Apatow.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E

This is quite the test for Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer. Whilst Cavill's introduction as the Man of Steel was a box office hit, it split a lot of audiences, whilst Hammer's rendition as The Lone Ranger that same year was a big flop. Together, they could either bring about big bucks or an avoid meter. But with Guy Richie in the director's chair, and growing star Alicia Vikander gaining a lot of momentum, it could help the movie all the more. Plus, it looks cool.

Hitman: Agent 47

Video game movies never turn out to be good, and this looks no different. Poor effects, laughable dialogue, and a plot that seems to stupid to be real. Eurgh.

Hot Pursuit

I'm all for female double-act comedies. But I'm not for bad comedies, bad writing, and lack of chemistry.

Crimson Peak

This certainly looks interesting. Guillermo del Toro returns to the directing chair to bring a creepy-looking telling in which poor Mia Wasikowska is trapped in a haunted house. Sounds simple enough, but thanks to del Toro's direction and the acting calibre on show, this looks to be the Halloween film for this year.

Why I'm Boycotting: Fifty Shades of Grey

I'm pretty sure you won't, Mr Grey

This Valentine's Day weekend, it's near-impossible to go about without some form of recognition to Fifty Shades of Grey, the big 'romance' film gracing its presence in whatever screen it's not banned from. Whilst America has a Get Out of Jail Free card thanks to the release of Kingsman: The Secret Service this same weekend, the UK's only other releases involve smaller independent films kicked out the way for many cinema chains to make for Grey (only one cinema within my county is playing Love is Strange), and it doesn't help that the promotional material has gone on a mad frenzy, taking up spaces in bus shelters, YouTube ads and Twitter trends to ensure that everyone knows about the film. But not everybody wants to know about it, and least of all me.

A quick bit of background: Fifty Shades of Grey started life as Twilight fan fiction, which with a few rewrites to avoid being sued by Stephanie Meyer and her publishing company was split into three parts and released in 2011, before spreading like wildfire and its first chapter being a part of numerous households in either paperback or eBook form. The book later overtook sales of the entire Harry Potter series in the UK and began millions of knock-off copies on Amazon's Kindle Bookstore - all of which being at the low low price of free. However, it's should be noted that a majority of critics panned it, and whilst sales were high, there was also a quick rate of charity shop generosity as it was quickly added to every charity shop window, alongside its continuations. But of course, seeing it as easy money Universal and Focus Features bought the rights in early 2012 and writer E.L James was brought along for the ride. Even at an early start, it came across that James wanted to be like her original envisions, with Robert Pattinson being her preferred choice as Christian Grey, but in the end the roles went to Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan (replacing Charlie Hunnam who pulled out later in the running). 

By the time adverts started rolling it, it was clear to see that they were relying more on the popularity of the books than the actual content, with the more recent Super Bowl trailer deciding it would be best to shine a light on how many views the trailers got instead of critics were saying. Understandable though, because critics hadn't actually seen it yet, despite the fact that the film was two weeks away from release, although it would get its premiere at the Berlin Film Festival of all places on the 11th February - two days before its release. Even Kim Kardashian managed to get an early viewing. Cut to today, where the film is doing immensely well financially but is getting beaten like a drum in a lesson taught by J.K Simmons in Whiplash by everyone - unless they're a fan of the books - with a 3.7/10 rating on IMDb and sitting at 27% on Rotten Tomatoes. But that isn't stopping sequels coming out, with the first scheduled for 2016.

The reviews and ratings are not what's pushing me away from seeing this theatrically-released porn film - if anything, they're giving me all the more reason to avoid it. It's more the case that it sounds and looks like a terrible movie. I mentioned this back when the first trailer came out during a Trailer Talk entry, in which I said this:

"To start with, the film does look like a generic love film. A bigwig boss falls for a small perky journalist. Add a not-into-romance subplot and lines filled with incredibly high amounts of clichés, and it wouldn't have that much buzz outside of the new rendition of Beyoncé's 'Crazy in Love'. But then come the green-band sex hints at the end, reminding the viewers that this is Fifty Shades of Grey. You know, that book that was popular back in 2012 but quickly left everyone's minds when they realised it was nothing more than fanfiction with different names."

Now that we're actually at the time of its release, it's evident how right I was. The only wrong thing I said was that it wouldn't do well financially - I forgot we live in an age where Transformers: Age of Extinction can be a billion-dollar grossing film. But you see those trailers and you can tell how bad the dialogue is, and in clips such as the one below can tell how uncomfortable these actors are, having been stuck in a film which is literal fan fiction.

But it's not just that, it's also the actual selling point of the film: sex. More specifically, BDSM. I don't have an issue with the actual kink (if that's what you're into, then good for you), but the way that it 's being used in more of a case of having actual control of a person rather than just for sex. That may be a step too far. From what I've read from other critics who have seen it, they've mentioned a scene in which Grey gives out contracts about his and Anastasia's relationship. When she disagrees to the sexual contract, he later breaks into her house and has sex with her. Red flags are now up, flashing bright lights and ringing at 160 decibels as we seem to have a rape in our midst. Not to mention that this sense of domineering is pushed less into what could be conceived as an actual relationship and more of an enforcement of control. It's almost sickening. It also doesn't help that apparently sex scenes with a seductive soundtrack are playing as female lead Johnson is weeping - that doesn't sell sexiness, it sells worry. Worry over the twisted minds who made it.

It's safe to say that I have no plans to see the film, least of all in cinemas. To watch such travesty would be completely against my standards, and to have to pay for it too would be even worse. It's something I plan to avoid with an incredibly long barrier and security guards. There's no doubt that audiences will be curious to see it this weekend, and it will likely be a huge success - over this weekend. Once word of mouth grows and people starting taking their word for it, they'll begin to back away from it. Sure, the sequels are already in pre-production, but with the failure of Fifty Shades of Grey can cause delays and possibly halting altogether. I mean, it worked for Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Editorial: The Web Slinger Rises

Very early today, Marvel announced what many people considered was the impossible: Spider-Man would be joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe in collaboration with Sony Pictures Entertainment. There were rumours of discussions during last year's Sony hacks (which I discussed here), with some statements about talks falling through now appearing to be false. The Amazing run is now over, with a brand new iteration scheduled for an appearance some time in 2016/17 before making his own theatrical appearance on July 17th 2017. This is far from bad news, as fans have been clamouring for such a team up for quite some time, but does come across as more of a silver lining to something potentially worse?

A lot of fans are upset by the loss of Andrew Garfield in the role - which he'll have to sacrifice in order for the character to start afresh. And understandable, for he was charming in the role, even if he didn't exactly match the characteristics of alter ego Peter Parker. And as for someone who wanted so much to be in the role, that conviction is present in his performance. The only problem was that the scripts weren't in the same boat. The first film was good, there's no denying that even with its reattempt at a origin story and baiting sequels a little too hard. The recent sequel however pushed those bad points to the point that they were the most notable things of it; too much sequel baiting, too much focus on the mystery of Parker's parents and a terrible screenplay by some of the worst writers currently in the business. Add the massive promotional costs for both films, and the films not earning nearly enough as both the original Sam Raimi trilogy or any other superhero films currently out there, and it makes a heck of a lot of sense for the change.

From a fan perspective, this is all brilliant just from the get-go. However, imagine it from the minds of the average cinema goer - the second film of a second Spider-Man came out last year, and now next year a different one will turn up in a completely different film before getting his own one year on. Surely that would anger people moreso than the previous 5 year gap between Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield's interpretations, but now there's a two year break. This is arguably way too soon to add the character to the Universe, and confusion is a given. And whilst a origin story again is unlikely, it may be harder for audiences to buy a new actor in the role so soon after Garfield.

But it should be considered that Marvel Studios doesn't get the complete rights. Whilst the character can appear in the MCU films - most likely Captain America: Civil War seeing as he has a prominent role in the comic storyline - and Marvel Studios head honcho Kevin Feige produces the standalone feature, Sony will finance, distribute, own and have final creative control on the film. This could be a big no-no when you consider that it could cause heads to clash constantly during production - they both have different ways and it could prove difficult to agree on ideals, especially if the worse of the two has final say. It's similar to the original deal between Disney and Pixar - Disney distributed, had control, and got the merchandise profits whilst Pixar made the content. It was only when the contract was coming to an end that changes were made - but do we need another situation like this?

There's also the situation about the Marvel slate - with Spider-Man squeezed in for 2017, Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, Captain Marvel and The Inhumans will all be delayed (the last of which will now appear after the big Thanos fight in Avengers: Infinity Wars Part II). It comes across as a rush to bring a character who hasn't been gone long and forcing the delay for diversity within that universe. What will happen to Chadwick Boseman, now that he has an extra year to wait for his own film and could potentially be kicked off Civil War? Will the current Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D storyline involving the Inhumans be dragged out for an additional year? It's seems like they want to stop everything just because they can get Spider-Man involved.

I'm not against Spider-Man joining the Avengers, or the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If anything, I was one of the people hoping for it. But I am against Sony's over-involvement and the huge push to get the character out there as soon as possible. Give the character plenty of time out of the limelight before bringing him back out there, with an origin-free storyline. Heck, if possible leave it for after Avengers: Infinity War, he won't be that much use there. But there's is still a chance it will all work out, and it's good that they are giving him a shot - even if there's a lot at stake.

Review Catch-Up

Over the past week, I've seen multiple films, including Kingsman: The Secret Service and Selma. However, I haven’t had much opportunity to review those other films, and seeing as they were all involved in my Top 10 Films for 2015, here's three quick reviews for each of them. 

Inherent Vice 

I've been interested in his film since the first trailer came out, and when I finally got to see the finished product it was nothing short than disappointing. The direction was a bit all over the place, characters slurred their lines at times, and the opening seems to be in such a rush to get all the storylines going that it ends up tangling all these strands into a large rubber band ball. Joaquin Pheonix is likable as ever, and props must be given to Josh Brolin and Katherine Waterston, the rest of the cast aren't very interesting, but comedy is really good so bonus points for that. But at 150 minutes, it's stretching the novel too far to the point of pure boredom, and it was tempting to join the many others who walked out of the screening during the film. 4/10.

Big Hero 6 

Disney and Marvel collaborating to bring out on of the most obscure comic book titles could have either succeeded big-time or been a colossal failure. The final result? Meh. Whilst its combination of anime-style characters and backdrops against the Disney standards, and San Fransokyo is a thing of beauty, the characters aren't all fully developed enough, especially the majority of the actual team. You have a nice introductory piece, and then it's all little growth outside of learning to use their suits. Baymax and Hiro are a great duo, and the short but sweet inclusion of older brother Tasashi is a nice little opener towards some heartfelt emotional moments, but the story doesn't go in any interesting twists, and plays it all too safe - which is odd considering the more recent hits by Disney taking that extra step. There's plenty of comedy and heart, but there's something severely lacking in the final product. 6/10.

Shaun the Sheep Movie 

Finally, there's the return of Aardman, three years since The Pirates! made a splash at the box office in a slightly-weaker entry to their roster. Here, they opt for a much more child-friendly affair (which does mean fart and poo jokes) as they bring one of their most popular characters to the big screen with very good results. At times humorous - never laugh-out-loud jokes but certainly some strong gags - whilst at time heartfelt, it's a sweet little film which never outstays its welcome (at 85 minutes) and doesn't rely solely on the popularity of the show to bring about appeal. The lack of voices don't hurt it one bit, and the animation is as stellar as ever from the company. However, the storyline involving the Farmer may date really easily as it focuses on social media. But hey-ho, it's a film about sheep! 7/10.