Ah, another year has passed. This year, we saw the first photos of Pluto, found evidence of water on Mars, the Dawn spacecraft orbited Ceres, and also the atmosphere of Mars is slowly being depleted (I'm studying Astronomy in college, can you tell?) We saw same-sex marriage being legalized in the United States and Ireland, the deaths of several longtime actors and singers. and what is sure to be a very interesting US Presidential election. (The common complaint that it isn't 2016 is hence no longer valid). Meanwhile, the world suffered through the Paris attacks, the earthquakes in Nepal and the floods in Chennai, the collapse of martial rule in Burma, and the continuing scourge of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa. But that's not what you're here for. No, you're here, (maybe) for the movies. 2015 proved very rewarding in film. Many notable films were released this year, some of which were able to become very large cultural phenomena. Of course, there were duds, but there are a great many good films to balance it out. And we're going to take a look at some of them. Once again, these are restricted to film released between January 1st and December 31st, 2015, that I watched in that particular time period. So, if it's off the list, I didn't see it. The list works, such that the first movie you see is the worst I saw all year, and as you go down, they improve, until the final entry, which is the best film. Now with all that out of the way, let's dive right in, folks:
The Worst Film of 2015:
Tomorrowland
Yeah, I was way too kind to this film in my initial review. Like I said in the spoiler review, the more I thought about this film, the more I grew to despise it. My distaste was not derived from some narrow-minded irritation at the film's message. I sympathize with its message. However, it ultimately lacked any substance to really back that message well. In the end, it ultimately lacked the narrative substance to really make the message stick, without sounding preachy (which it did, a lot). Speaking of narrative, the story and tone are both messy and cluttered, which makes the message even more apparent to rise above the mess, ruining any subtly. It's a real shame this had to be so bad, because I wanted to like this. I was massively hyped for this film, and it just came up short. So much potential to be a great family film, which promotes science and innovation, with Brad Bird directing. And the product was just... That's why it's my worst. It had all the potential to be great, and it just wasn't.
On the other hand, this film was not disappointing in the slightest. It gave me exactly what I was thought I was going to get. Aside from the gimmick of filming entirely from the perspective of a computer, this is ultimately a typical cliched slasher horror film, where a bunch of annoying teens are offed one by one. The computer screen technique is initially moderately interesting, (and by far the only thing people are talking about), but it ultimately fails to save the lack of real scares this supposed "horror" film actually has, and the sheer annoyance of the characters. The damn name sounds like a hashtag should be put before it. I probably should have stuck with my gut feeling about this.
Love and Mercy:
Aside from some legitimate good moments in the 60's, and Paul Dano's performance as Brian Wilson, and despite the ramblings of the filmmakers, there is nothing distinguishable about this musical biopic. It is pretentious. Very pretentious, and it has John Cusack. As John Cusack trying to play Brian Wilson. (Why do they keep miscasting John Cusack as historical figures). Overall, this film biggest sin is, despite its very impressive cast, being largely unmemorable. It isn't unwatchable, and the story of Brian Wilson making Pet Sounds and later suffering from drug addiction is very fascinating in its own right. It just doesn't come through in this film.
Me, Earl, and the Dying Girl:
Another film that is greatly pretentious. And also trying way too hard not to be "another teen film." This is an adaptation of a book, and they want you to know that, because it is separated into "parts", which are usually (and should only) be seen on the DVD menu scene selection. I haven't read the book, and after watching the film, nothing in it makes want to go and actually read it. The story is not really that original , despite the at times annoying narration insisting it is. Once again, there are several legitimately good moments that save this film from being totally dull. However, it, to be frank, doesn't warrant much interest. Also, the title. You know, if the title of your work sounds slightly absurd, Cross It Out, and Think of Another One.
Like I said in the review, I liked this better than Jurassic Park III. Of all four films, the third one is the worst, mostly because it seems like a retread of both the previous films, but with all the tension taken out. This film was at least original. It took this franchise in a new and different direction. Hell, this could have been a sequel Crichton himself could've written. It also had some good acting, and some good practical effects, homaging the first film. But that's the problem. It focuses a lot on homaging the first film, and the film ultimately suffers, because it can't really stand on its own, without being close to the original. That, and a villain Sue are the two biggest problems with this film.
Once again, I put these two in the same slot for the same reason. Surprisingly good kids film. I had somewhat low expectations for both of these films, but they honestly surprised me. For Minions, I was not a big fan of the Minions in Despicable Me, and I never though they could hold their own movie. However, there were some pretty good jokes and gags, utilizing their sixties setting well, It was surprising how subtle some of these gags were. For the Good Dinosuar, I had low expectations based on the trailer, but the actual film, despite having basically the same plot as Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, was actually a decent children's hero's journey, with some fascinating characters along their journey. However, it still wasn't Pixar's best, not even this year....
I was too harsh on this film in my review. Not even on the whole film, just the third act. It's not bad, in any way. It's good as a conclusion. It's just the third act in the book was less rushed, and took more time. The book had a good ending, and I did want to see that on film. While the film's ending is fine, the book had a sweet ending, which still tied all the loose ends to some extent. You know what, I should probably shut up about the book. This is still a decent teen film, with a decent cast, which would satisfy any John Green fan, or anyone wanting to watch a film on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Of the two movies that came out this year based of 60's spy shows, this was the better one. Despite not having a tense moment of Tom Cruise moving off the highest tower in the world, it still had some nice tense action scenes, and a gripping plot, which sees the IMF disbanded, and Tom Cruise going rogue to find the Syndicate. Yeah, nothing deep, but it was enjoyable to watch, despite this being the 5th in this franchise. This has proved to be a very durable franchise. Hopefully, this franchise can continue to be good.
A fascinating look into the life of chess champion Bobby Fischer. I knew the real story somewhat well, but this gave more insight into the man. His intense preoccupation with the game of chess, his various difficult relationships, and especially his severe paranoia and antisemitism. Of course, there are intense sequence of chess playing, but it is more unique in that you have Fischer actually contemplating the moves in a heavily schizophrenic manner. It also had some nice scenes with Liev Schreiber as Fischer's rival, Boris Spassky, who shows himself to be very different than Fischer, but has the same fundamental reverence for the game of chess. The final scene was very well done, as one of the most famous chess matches of all time is depicted. I remember after leaving, my mother mentioned that she remembered that particular game from back in 1972, and how it was so stunning, which they portray well in the film.
Top Films of 2015
The Worst Film of 2015:
Tomorrowland
 |
| Source: http://collider.com/tomorrowland-trailer-international/ |
Bad:
Unfriended:
 |
| Soruce:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfriended |
On the other hand, this film was not disappointing in the slightest. It gave me exactly what I was thought I was going to get. Aside from the gimmick of filming entirely from the perspective of a computer, this is ultimately a typical cliched slasher horror film, where a bunch of annoying teens are offed one by one. The computer screen technique is initially moderately interesting, (and by far the only thing people are talking about), but it ultimately fails to save the lack of real scares this supposed "horror" film actually has, and the sheer annoyance of the characters. The damn name sounds like a hashtag should be put before it. I probably should have stuck with my gut feeling about this.
Love and Mercy:
 |
| Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903657/ |
Aside from some legitimate good moments in the 60's, and Paul Dano's performance as Brian Wilson, and despite the ramblings of the filmmakers, there is nothing distinguishable about this musical biopic. It is pretentious. Very pretentious, and it has John Cusack. As John Cusack trying to play Brian Wilson. (Why do they keep miscasting John Cusack as historical figures). Overall, this film biggest sin is, despite its very impressive cast, being largely unmemorable. It isn't unwatchable, and the story of Brian Wilson making Pet Sounds and later suffering from drug addiction is very fascinating in its own right. It just doesn't come through in this film.
Me, Earl, and the Dying Girl:
 |
| Source: http://popculture-y.com/2015/09/review-earl-dying-girl/ |
Another film that is greatly pretentious. And also trying way too hard not to be "another teen film." This is an adaptation of a book, and they want you to know that, because it is separated into "parts", which are usually (and should only) be seen on the DVD menu scene selection. I haven't read the book, and after watching the film, nothing in it makes want to go and actually read it. The story is not really that original , despite the at times annoying narration insisting it is. Once again, there are several legitimately good moments that save this film from being totally dull. However, it, to be frank, doesn't warrant much interest. Also, the title. You know, if the title of your work sounds slightly absurd, Cross It Out, and Think of Another One.
The Middle:
True Story:
I somewhat liked this film the first time I saw it. Now that a few months have passed, I've really thought it through, and realized that this didn't work well. The problem, I think, is the film struggles to really pinpoint its characterization of Christian Longo. I understand they are trying to make his character ambiguous, but the character changes from scene to scene. This makes his characterization inconsistent, and ruins the idea that he is a complex, ambiguous figure. Of course, he is, if you can't keep the character straight. I didn't know the real story that well before watching, and after watching, I know precisely the same amount about it. What keeps this off the bad list is James Franco's and Jonah Hill's performances, and the fact I saw this on a plane, meaning I didn't actively give money to see it.
 |
| Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Story_(film) |
I somewhat liked this film the first time I saw it. Now that a few months have passed, I've really thought it through, and realized that this didn't work well. The problem, I think, is the film struggles to really pinpoint its characterization of Christian Longo. I understand they are trying to make his character ambiguous, but the character changes from scene to scene. This makes his characterization inconsistent, and ruins the idea that he is a complex, ambiguous figure. Of course, he is, if you can't keep the character straight. I didn't know the real story that well before watching, and after watching, I know precisely the same amount about it. What keeps this off the bad list is James Franco's and Jonah Hill's performances, and the fact I saw this on a plane, meaning I didn't actively give money to see it.
The Man from UNCLE/The Avengers: Age of Ultron:
These two are on the list, because I disliked them for the exact same reason. Technically competent action films, which ultimately failed to be really interesting in their own right. In The Man from UNCLE, while the action and acting were decent, it ultimately underutilized its 60's, Cold War setting, and the fact an American and Soviet agent had to work together. Both would have made the film infinitely more interesting. Instead, it is simply a generic action film, with a somewhat interesting setting. I hadn't seen the original show, but I know it has a reputation for heavy camp, and aside from some silly moments, it fails to really use any campiness, to make the film more enjoyable. It was just a (perfectly fine) generic action film. The same with Avengers: Age of Ultron. Again, perfectly fine movie. It's just.... generic. Yes, all the classic Marvel humor and the epic action was there. However, it simply doesn't have much else. Especially since the original had all this film does, but does it much, much better. The original manages to create a great superhero action film. I like Superhero films, so I'll see Captain America: Civil War, but they do need to space them out more, that way superhero fatigue doesn't start to kick in.
 |
| Source: Google search "Man from UNCLE" |
 |
| Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron |
These two are on the list, because I disliked them for the exact same reason. Technically competent action films, which ultimately failed to be really interesting in their own right. In The Man from UNCLE, while the action and acting were decent, it ultimately underutilized its 60's, Cold War setting, and the fact an American and Soviet agent had to work together. Both would have made the film infinitely more interesting. Instead, it is simply a generic action film, with a somewhat interesting setting. I hadn't seen the original show, but I know it has a reputation for heavy camp, and aside from some silly moments, it fails to really use any campiness, to make the film more enjoyable. It was just a (perfectly fine) generic action film. The same with Avengers: Age of Ultron. Again, perfectly fine movie. It's just.... generic. Yes, all the classic Marvel humor and the epic action was there. However, it simply doesn't have much else. Especially since the original had all this film does, but does it much, much better. The original manages to create a great superhero action film. I like Superhero films, so I'll see Captain America: Civil War, but they do need to space them out more, that way superhero fatigue doesn't start to kick in.
Mockingjay:
 |
| Source: http://www.ew.com/jennifer-lawrence-katniss-mockingjay-part-2-final-poster |
Why was this in two parts? Oh, yeah, that's right. Money. Seriously, this film dragged on and on for what seemed like an eternity. That's what happens when you adapt half of a book. You have to pad it out. That's primarily why this is so low on the list. It's length, and the lack of any real action for most of that length ultimately ruined the whole film for me. While Jennifer Lawrence and the others gave a good performance, it struggled to really maintain interest, until the end, where it finally picked up. At the very least, it was a good conclusion to the franchise.
Jurassic World:
 |
| Source: http://screenrant.com/jurassic-world-poster-2015/ |
Like I said in the review, I liked this better than Jurassic Park III. Of all four films, the third one is the worst, mostly because it seems like a retread of both the previous films, but with all the tension taken out. This film was at least original. It took this franchise in a new and different direction. Hell, this could have been a sequel Crichton himself could've written. It also had some good acting, and some good practical effects, homaging the first film. But that's the problem. It focuses a lot on homaging the first film, and the film ultimately suffers, because it can't really stand on its own, without being close to the original. That, and a villain Sue are the two biggest problems with this film.
Mr. Holmes:
 |
| Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Holmes |
This is the part where I stop complaining. In a half a decade of various interpretations of the Sherlock Holmes character, this is a fresh and interesting look into the character. How his persona had been exaggerated in the Watson stories, much as sometimes real figures are exaggerated. Ian McKellan gives a great performance as the aging Holmes, whose skills have declined with his age. Mr. Holmes is also a nice stand alone story about a detective who is trying to remember his last case, despite early Alzheimers, and also befriends a young boy, and how that boy helps him remember. If you have any interest in the classic Conan Doyle character, I say give this a watch.
Minions/The Good Dinosaur
 |
| Source:http://screenrant.com/good-dinosaur-trailer-poster-international/ |
Once again, I put these two in the same slot for the same reason. Surprisingly good kids film. I had somewhat low expectations for both of these films, but they honestly surprised me. For Minions, I was not a big fan of the Minions in Despicable Me, and I never though they could hold their own movie. However, there were some pretty good jokes and gags, utilizing their sixties setting well, It was surprising how subtle some of these gags were. For the Good Dinosuar, I had low expectations based on the trailer, but the actual film, despite having basically the same plot as Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, was actually a decent children's hero's journey, with some fascinating characters along their journey. However, it still wasn't Pixar's best, not even this year....
The Peanuts Movie
 |
| Source:http://www.peanutsmovie.com/content/posters/us/teaser-poster.jpg |
Once again, not much to say on this. It captures the spirit of the old cartoon shorts, and does justice to the Shulz strip (not surprising, given his son and grandson wrote and produced the film), which is shown in how Charlie Brown is a loveable loser. And there is enough Snoopy in this film to entertain everyone. And there is never too much Snoopy in anything.
Paper Towns
 |
| Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3622592/ |
I was too harsh on this film in my review. Not even on the whole film, just the third act. It's not bad, in any way. It's good as a conclusion. It's just the third act in the book was less rushed, and took more time. The book had a good ending, and I did want to see that on film. While the film's ending is fine, the book had a sweet ending, which still tied all the loose ends to some extent. You know what, I should probably shut up about the book. This is still a decent teen film, with a decent cast, which would satisfy any John Green fan, or anyone wanting to watch a film on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Spectre
 |
| Source:http://www.christiantoday.com/article/james.bond.24.movie.news.sam.smith.leads.bet.on.singing.spectre.theme.song.skyfall.cast.returns/45029.htm |
The one thing that I was told going into this was that this was a very disappointing film, especially in regards to Skyfall. I agree, but I still felt this held up on its own. All the things that made Skyfall good were in Spectre (except for Spectre's song, which I thought was dull and uninspired). I finally like Daniel Craig in this role, and Christoph Waltz was a good villain (won't spoil who he turns out to be). Overall, I thought this was decent, until the end. The ending sucked. I won't spoil it, but it really doesn't make much sense. Not the villain's scheme, nor Bond's actions. Still, I can't in good conscience call this bad.
Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
 |
| Source:http://screenrant.com/mission-impossible-rogue-nation-imax-international-posters/ |
Of the two movies that came out this year based of 60's spy shows, this was the better one. Despite not having a tense moment of Tom Cruise moving off the highest tower in the world, it still had some nice tense action scenes, and a gripping plot, which sees the IMF disbanded, and Tom Cruise going rogue to find the Syndicate. Yeah, nothing deep, but it was enjoyable to watch, despite this being the 5th in this franchise. This has proved to be a very durable franchise. Hopefully, this franchise can continue to be good.
Good:
Pawn Sacrifice
 |
| Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawn_Sacrifice |
A fascinating look into the life of chess champion Bobby Fischer. I knew the real story somewhat well, but this gave more insight into the man. His intense preoccupation with the game of chess, his various difficult relationships, and especially his severe paranoia and antisemitism. Of course, there are intense sequence of chess playing, but it is more unique in that you have Fischer actually contemplating the moves in a heavily schizophrenic manner. It also had some nice scenes with Liev Schreiber as Fischer's rival, Boris Spassky, who shows himself to be very different than Fischer, but has the same fundamental reverence for the game of chess. The final scene was very well done, as one of the most famous chess matches of all time is depicted. I remember after leaving, my mother mentioned that she remembered that particular game from back in 1972, and how it was so stunning, which they portray well in the film.
Everest
 |
| Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everest_(2015_film) |
The one thing that shocked me about this film was its intensity. Not just in the portrayal of slow frostbite deaths, but in the filming of Everest itself. It really emphasizes the height of Everest, and the dangers of climbing it. It was visceral, so much so that I was slightly sick after watching it, because Everest was shown so... realistically. It also didn't pull any punches with its portrayal of a real life incident. Some of the characters that we've followed, including one with a pregnant wife, actually die, as they did in real life. It was the most intense experience I had at the cinemas this entire year.
Now this is a horror film. A great horror film. One I watched purely on a whim. And it scared the hell out of me. Seriously, it is very creepy, very skin crawling. It doesn't use cheap jumpscares or excessive gore. No, the monster in this just takes the form of a human and walks very slowly towards its victim. It sounds somewhat dumb on paper, but the film is very well paced, and shot, which allows the tension to build appropriately as "It" approaches our heroine. It is so chillingly effective. It reminds of John Carpenter horror films, which are always very good. I was nervous the whole film, because the way "It" slowly approaches. It's the same thing that makes a Romero zombie work. They aren't monsters that lie in closets, waiting to jump out. They just walk slowly towards their victims, which actually makes them scarier, because they are single-minded, and seemingly inescapable. Some people said this was a metaphor for STDs or fear of sex. I disagree: This film is not about sex. Okay, it kind of is, but it is more about adulthood, and the fears that go along with that transition. It is very scary to become an adult, and that slowly creeping fear is very much represented, in a very scary matter. Months after I had watched this film, I still had trouble sleeping because I keep expecting "It" to come out. That is how much this film stuck with me. Like I said, it is bound to become a modern classic.
Ant-Man
 |
| Source:http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/05/06/marvels-ant-man-poster-wants-to-remind-you-of-the-first-iron-man/ |
Now, this was the better Marvel movie this year. I think people gave this movie more crap then it deserved. Is it a generic backstory? Yeah, but this isn't a well known character amongst the Marvel gang, so people may need it. It's still a good story. I think the strongest part of this film were the effects of the small Ant-Man. I have an affinity for this style (I saw Honey, I Shrunk the Kids as a child, after all). and they created a very interesting world, where the very minute things in the environment, become the most useful tools for Ant-Man to utilize. This is a good way to use the environment, and a great introduction into the world the character inhabits. Other than that, it is funny, and the cast is good. The villain having the same power as the hero is starting to get old, but that's only at the very end, and it doesn't really affect anything in the film proper.
The End of the Tour
 |
| Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_the_Tour |
The second biopic starring Freaks and Geeks alumni (Really good year for them, by the way). This was the good one. While sometimes all talk, no show, and a bit slow at times, this is a very fascinating look into the nature of writing, friendship, fame, and jealousy. Jason Segel gives an excellent performance as David Wallace, who seems very normal, but is actually very insecure about his newly found fame, and Jesse Eisenberg as David(...) Lipsky portrays someone who wants that fame and respect, but doesn't show it. Their budding friendship and companionship, and the conversations which result, is the absolute highlight of this. Once again, knew little about the real story behind this, but this actually made me interested in that real story (it seems accurate, but Wallace's estate has denounced the film, so who knows), and maybe one day, reading Infinite Jest.
The Big Short
 |
| Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short_(film) |
An hilarious look into a group of men who predicted the financial crisis of 2008, and decided to profit off it. While some of the jargon they used in the film was indecipherable to someone of little financial training such as myself, it manages to explain most of it very well (through the use of funny celebrity cameos). It really does illustrate the enormity of the mortgage crisis, and its mishandling by the big banks, and the ultimate consequences of it. It's a no-win situation. If our protagonists are wrong, they lose their reputation and their money. If they're right, the world economy collaspes. Actually, now that I write that down, the former actually doesn't seem that bad.
Kingsman: The Secret Service
 |
| Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsman:_The_Secret_Service |
Yep, you probably expected this one up here, given the glowing recommendation I gave it early in the year. An enjoyable rump, which, rather than use brutally realistic fighting, instead uses fantastic and absurd violence to make this an excellent homage to the early Bond films. Colin Firth and Samuel L. Jackson both give great, memorable performances, and it is just damn exciting. The success of this film shows that a little absurdity in your action film could go a long way. Not much else I could say, that I already haven't. Just a fun, really good film. I hear they're making a sequel to this, and you can guarentee that I will be first in line to watch it.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
 |
| Source:http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-the-force-awakens-theatrical-poster-first-look-in-theater-exclusives-and-more |
I told most people I was going to see this in January. Because I thought that all the tickets were unavailable. Well, I actually looked, and found them, so....yeah, I was able to watch it shortly after its premiere. A worthy addition to the franchise, and a good starting point for non-fans, this proved that sometimes hype is justified. It was able to respect the original trilogy, while also trying to be original and fresh. Abrams captures what made Star Wars great, and managed to replicate, without feeling overly derivative or straying too far from that original premise (something Lucas himself failed to understand a decade ago.) With this film as the staring point of a new trilogy and franchise, I feel that Disney is making the right decisions in this case, and that the franchise will be "reawakened" (har har). But, you probably already knew that (and probably have tickets to see it again).
Crimson Peak
 |
| Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Peak |
While this may not be del Toro's best work, it still very much still has his touch on it. Good characters, good story, great atmosphere. His presence and direction makes most of his films intensely watchable. While not big and epic like Pacific Rim, it still has that touch of passion. And it shows. Usually, I don't go for gothic period pieces, but this drew me in with an excellent mystery, which revealed more and more creepy and disgusting layers. This is a good ghost story, for people (like me) who aren't overly fond of ghost stories. However, it doesn't have many scares. Because it's not a horror film. It is a classic paranormal romantic drama, and it does that beautifully.
It Follows
 |
| Source: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/it_follows/ |
Now this is a horror film. A great horror film. One I watched purely on a whim. And it scared the hell out of me. Seriously, it is very creepy, very skin crawling. It doesn't use cheap jumpscares or excessive gore. No, the monster in this just takes the form of a human and walks very slowly towards its victim. It sounds somewhat dumb on paper, but the film is very well paced, and shot, which allows the tension to build appropriately as "It" approaches our heroine. It is so chillingly effective. It reminds of John Carpenter horror films, which are always very good. I was nervous the whole film, because the way "It" slowly approaches. It's the same thing that makes a Romero zombie work. They aren't monsters that lie in closets, waiting to jump out. They just walk slowly towards their victims, which actually makes them scarier, because they are single-minded, and seemingly inescapable. Some people said this was a metaphor for STDs or fear of sex. I disagree: This film is not about sex. Okay, it kind of is, but it is more about adulthood, and the fears that go along with that transition. It is very scary to become an adult, and that slowly creeping fear is very much represented, in a very scary matter. Months after I had watched this film, I still had trouble sleeping because I keep expecting "It" to come out. That is how much this film stuck with me. Like I said, it is bound to become a modern classic.
The Martian
 |
| Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_(film) |
This was amazing. I don't know what else to say. This was a great adaptation of a great book. Drew Goddard managed to faithfully adapt the source material without being too dogmatic or too liberal. Just the right amount for a filmed adaptation to work. Matt Damon is incredible, funny, but still fearful and scientific. The rest of the cast is great too. Mars looks incredible. Almost like it came directly from the Curiosity or Pathfinder feed. The direction of Ridley Scott is fantastic, showing he can still direct. While it did have a lot of jokes, it still emphasized the enormity of Mark Watney's situation. This struck a perfect balance, With overly serious dramas flooding the market, a little humor is needed from time to time, and this movie knew how to adapt the irreverent tone of the book well. It also makes a great promotion of science, with the situation largely resolved through Mark Watney's ingenuity, and the ingenuity of Earth scientists to get him back. It also used very good scientific accuracy, as per the help NASA gave it. This film was so good, I watched it twice, and even though the second time I needed to go to the bathroom, I still sat, and watched the conclusion, that's how good it was. I can't recommend this film enough. Go, find a DVD or Blu-Ray copy, and watch it now.
The Best Film of the Year:
Inside Out
_poster.jpg) |
| Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Out_(2015_film) |
I don't know how exactly to convey how well this film works. It just works, so unbelievably well. Sure, the concept isn't exactly original, but it's approach is very original and very intelligent. In years to come, this will probably be taught in psychology classes, because it illustrates the concepts of emotions and their effects very creatively. It really is one of Pixar's more cerebral, high concept films. It has all the Pixar hallmarks, great animation, memorable characters, and very striking emotional moments. (the marketing probably gave the latter away to you.) The casting was nothing short of perfect, including enthusiastic Amy Poehler as Joy, somewhat morose Phyllis Smith as Sadness (both from NBC comedies, by the way), and especially, Lewis Black as Anger. It had great jokes, great writing, and a fantastic message. One that isn't seen much not just in kids films, but really in some adult films. What really stood out is the sheer intelligence of the script, one which wasn't afraid to take certain risks, and treat its audience with a certain degree of intelligence. This very much shows that, despite recent duds from studio, Pixar can still make great films. And this will certainly be remembered as one of their classics.
--------------------
Well, that's my list for the year. Thanks you all for reading, and I hope to keep entertaining you into this new year, and many more to come. Happy New Year, folks. Here's a little familiar song:
