Top 5- Oscar Snubs since 2000

The 88th Academy Awards ceremony will descend on Hollywood's Dolby Theatre this Sunday night, with the biggest stars in the world set to attend, with the notable exception of a Fresh Prince and his significant other that is. Indeed, this year's ceremony has been shrouded in controversy, with many taking issue with the fact that, for the second year in a row, the academy has failed to nominate a single person of colour in any of the two top acting categories. It is an argument that has split Hollywood down the middle, with stars like Michael Caine, Whoopi Goldberg and Helen Mirren actually coming out in recent weeks to defend the Academy's nominations. However, what cannot be denied is that this is far from the first time The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have caused controversy with their nominations and, without further ado, allow me to count down my personal picks for the Top 5 biggest Oscar snubs since the year 2000.

5) Ben Affleck- Best Director (2013)

A very strange entry to kick off our list here. In 2013, despite his film Argo picking up the award for Best Picture at the 85th Academy Awards, Ben Affleck was conspicuous by his absence in the Best Director category. This is an extremely rare and bamboozling occurrence (I believe you would have to look back to 1989's "Driving Miss Daisy" to find the only other occasion that this has happened since the Second World War) and seems completely against common logic. How could a man, at the helm of what was considered the finest film of that year, not even be considered for an award in this category in his own right? Am I missing something here? A very strange decision on the Academy's part and one which, in hindsight, I'm sure they would want to correct, despite Ang Lee being very deserving of his victory in this particular year for the cinematic achievements he accomplished with "Life of Pi".

4) Leonardo Di Caprio- Best Supporting Actor (2013)

Ah, poor Leo. Another entry coming from the Seth McFarlane hosted ceremony in 2013, Leo failed to get nominated for his villainous portrayal of plantation owner Calvin Candie in Quentin Tarrintino's "Django Unchained", despite his cast mate Christoph Waltz picking up the award on the night. Candie is probably Di Caprio's most unique performance to date. Charismatic, sinister and sleazy, Candie is the perfect foil to Jamie Foxx's honourable Django. Ever the protagonist, the fact that top-tier leading man managed to pull off being so utterly detestable is a testament to how far he's come since his days playing poor boys on sinking ships. Indeed, one of the film's most memorable moments where Leo cuts his hand on a glass during a particularly heated conversation with Django and proceeds to wipe his hand on Broomhilda's face was not in the original script, and is completely improvised by Di Caprio himself. A very disappointing omission, but hopefully the 41 year old breaks his Oscar drought this Sunday and takes home the Best Actor trophy for his performance in "The Revenant".

3) Uma Thurman- Best Actress (2004, 2005) 

To start off, I'm going to put my cards on the table: Kill Bill is my personal favourite film of all time. From its riveting action to its captivating script to its colourful visuals, this modern classic depicting Thurman's "Bride's" roaring rampage of revenge failed to be nominated for a single Academy Award, despite being eligible for nominations at two different ceremonies because of its split release. To me, this is absolutely outrageous and I feel personally affronted by this travesty of justice. If I had to pick just one category that Kill Bill should have been nominated in (believe me, I could cite more), I would argue that it should have been Uma Thurman for Best Actress. While putting herself through considerable physical strain, Thurman gives an exceptionally entertaining performance and delivers each line of dialogue in a very deliberate and unique manner. The film hinges on the strength of her performance, and her work should have been acknowledged. A problem evidenced by Charlize Theron not being nominated for her performance in this year's "Mad Max: Fury Road", action stars need to get their credit when it's due, especially when you give a permanent as iconic as Thurman's. Not since Sigourney Weaver's role in "Aliens" has the Academy properly serviced action-movie actresses, and this is a problem they must address. Amongst other things, of course...

2) Andy Serkis- Best Supporting Actor (2003)

Speaking of iconic performances, Andy Serkis' Gollum is perhaps the most recognisable film character this side of Y2K. Known as the "Godfather of Motion Capture", an accolade he has earned by being the most high-profile actor to perfect the art, Serkis' work too often goes unappreciated due to its unconventional nature. Yet, it could be argued that motion capture performances require more from the actors than a typical live-action portrayal, due to the challenging nature of having to portray largely inhuman characters. On top of this, in the case of "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers",  Serkis essentially has to play two separate characters: that of Smeagol and that of Gollum. Taking all of this into account (the challenging nature of motion capture, the duality of the role and the unique ability required to pull off such a performance) it is really surprising in hindsight that the "Planet of the Apes" star was overlooked for a nomination, especially when the category wasn't particularly competitive in this year. Serkis is one of the most underrated actors of our generation, and this is just the most infamous example of his work being overlooked. 

1) The Dark Knight- Best Picture (2009)

Do you remember "The Reader"? No, neither do I. So riddle me this, why was this largely forgettable film nominated for a Best Picture nod over Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight"? The Dark Knight proved that comic-book movies could be of an extremely high quality while still being entertaining and close to its source material. It was a film that turned an entire genre on its head, and was heralded by both critics and audiences alike upon its release. A film that has become a true modern-day classic, with its smart plot and enigmatic characters, the failure to nominate The Dark Knight in 2009 led to the Academy making the decision to increase the nominations in this category from 5 to 10, acknowledging the mistake they had made and allowing them in the future to acknowledge more films as worthy of contendership for the top prize. It looks fantastic. The acting, particularly from Heath Ledger, is stellar. The score is seamless. The action is incredible. Despite not being a typical "Oscar film", The Dark Knight will forever be remembered as the true Best Picture of 2008 and the Academy's failure to nominate it was a mistake it may never live down. 

Film Review- Deadpool

In 2009, 20th Century Fox released X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It wasn't very good. Aside from containing truly awful visual effects and a plot less cohesive than a Kanye West tweet, the film's greatest crime was arguably its shocking interpretation of its characters, namely "The Merc with a Mouth" known as Deadpool. For those not in the know, Deadpool is a Marvel Comics character created in the early 90s by Rob Liefeld and Fabian Nicieza. Mentally unstable, hideously deformed and hilariously funny, the filmmakers decided to take this immensely popular, loud-mouthed and obnoxious anti-hero and... sew his mouth shut. Literally. This actually happened. Anyhow, ever since this train-wreck of a movie, actor Ryan Reynolds has campaigned for the character to get a real chance at big screen glory. So, after a groundswell of support from fans and the anticipation created from mysteriously leaked footage in 2014, a Deadpool solo movie was finally green-lit and released earlier this month to unexpected financial success and critical acclaim. 

And, for the most part, this praise is warranted. Deadpool is a movie that stays very true to the source material on which it is based and serves the character very well. Ryan Reynolds absolutely nails it in his lead role as the fourth-wall breaking hero. Demonstrating great comedic timing and a unique charismatic goofy quality, Reynolds is the film's strongest asset. Even as Wade Wilson (Deadpool's less interesting civilian identity) the former "Green Lantern" star shows off great emotional range, making the film's slower moments more bearable than they otherwise would have been. Funny, charming and an overall badass, Reynold's performance is so good that it makes the rest of the cast seem uninteresting in comparison. However, let that not take away from the Canadian's stellar work in what could potentially become the defining role of his career, as he encapsulates the essence of the character perfectly and I take my hat of to him for proving any naysayers wrong. 

In saying all this, there are other positives to take away from the film outside of the performance of its leading man. The action sequences feel fresh, innovative and, for the most part, strangely realistic, complimenting the comedic tone of the movie well while still being intense enough to keep the audience invested emotionally. The writing at times is truly fantastic, with Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick having put together a script that is fast-paced, action packed and unbelievably quirky. But, more than any particular specific element, it is the chances and the risks that this film takes that truly makes it special. Over the course of the past decade, superhero movies have become trapped in a specific formula and pigeon-holed into becoming largely family-friendly flicks. Deadpool largely subverts this formula and instead opts for a more "rated-R" approach. The reason Deadpool has made as big a splash as it has at the box-office is because people are simply sick of the same old song and dance. Deadpool offers an alternative, and does not set itself limitations in terms of the violence it can incorporate or the type of humour it can apply. It is a mainstream superhero movie that takes chances and does something fresh and new. More than anything else, I found myself respecting this film for what it was and what it was trying to achieve.

Yet its flaws cannot be ignored. The love story and the character's origin tale are by far the film's weakest elements, and almost feel shoe-horned in. And yes, while I accept that both were necessary in terms of giving the plot emotional stakes and introducing mainstream audiences to a previously unknown character respectively, I can't hide from the fact that these were the parts of the film I most definitely would have chosen to take a bathroom break. Other issues include underdeveloped side characters (who else wanted to know more about Negasonic Teenage Warhead? And who came up with that awesome name?), a very vanilla antagonist and an underwhelming finale that didn't feel in-keeping with the tone of the rest of the movie. Deadpool did a good job of reintroducing us to Marvel Comics most outside-the-box character and is a good first solo outing, but there are times where the plot grew stagnant and some jokes didn't land and this did affect the quality of the movie for me as a larger whole.

Overall, Deadpool is a fine effort. Entertaining, humorous and very witty, it is a really good popcorn action film, and I would recommend seeing it. It is very "meta", it hilariously breaks the fourth wall and it is well worth the price of admission.  It's attempts to transcend the superhero genre are admirable, even if it does at times revert back to the formulaic structure it is trying to mock. Personally, I do feel that the character would be better suited to being part of a stronger ensemble (perhaps the X-Men?) as for the most part the supporting cast were overshadowed by Ryan Reynold's truly outstanding portrayal as the regenerating degenerate. All this aside, the film's success will prove to the bigwigs of Hollywood that filmgoers are clamouring for something different from the superhero genre, which should have a very positive affect on future big-budget releases. Simply put, Deadpool is a good reintroduction to a character that deserved another chance, and despite its flaws, it is a very fun film that takes chances and offers something new and, in this day in age, that is something that has to be supported and commended. 

Score: 7.6/10

Film Review- Spectre

It was always going to be extremely hard for Sam Mendes to follow up the success of his previous Bond film, Skyfall. With two Oscar wins, a brace of BAFTAS and a Grammy nomination to boot, the highest grossing UK film of 2012 was praised by critics upon release and was instantly hailed as one of best and most unique films in the franchise's 50 plus year history by the fans. It is clear that everyone involved tried hard to make this film as good as its predecessor but ultimately, and unfortunately,  several bad decisions on the part of the filmmakers make it fall way short of the mark.

That's not to say that Spectre doesn't have its good qualities. Daniel Craig is once again impeccable in his gritty portrayal of the world famous gentleman spy. While he doesn't get to show his emotional range as much as he did in his previous entries to the franchise (namely Quantum of Solace and Skyfall) he continues to hold himself with a combination of class and ruggedness that is absolutely perfect for a 21st century bond. Christoph Waltz is perfectly cast as the movie's main villain, Franz Oberhauser. While it does feel at times as though he is coasting through the film a bit, Waltz's acting ability is so strong (as demonstrated in Django Unchained and Inglorious Basterds) that his performance is still one of the strongest in the movie. He should have been the perfect foil to Craig's 007, oozing equal measures of class and charisma, however he is wasted in the role by reasons that will be discussed later on. Ralph Fiennes does a good job as the new "M" (though the subplot involving him, Q, Moneypenny and the brazenly christened "C" was rather boring and unnecessary) while Lea Seadoux and Dave Bautista both put in decent performances as the traditional "Bond Girl" and old school villainous henchman respectively, even though I do feel that Bautista's "Mr Hinx" could have been given more screen-time. The only real casting problem was the inclusion of Monica Bellucci as the widow of a recently deceased member of the Spectre organisation. Bellucci doesn't feature in the film all that long, and her sole purpose for being included seems to be to fill five minutes with an unneeded sex scene, despite being heavily featured in the film's promotion. The littering of the Bond movies with too many one off and one note sex objects is a major problem with the franchise as a whole, and it is becoming more monotonous and needless with every passing film. Her character was weak and forgettable, and while this is more than likely down to bad writing, the actress did herself no favours with a very one-note stereotypical performance.

Visually, Spectre is a beautifully shot movie, from the film's beginning in dusty, hot Mexico to the beauty and serenity of the Austrian mountains. From a cinematography perspective, it is one of the most "easy on the eye" Bond movies ever made.  The action is also impeccable, with every fight scene choreographed beautifully, while an abundance of perfectly created chase sequences that would give the "Fast and the Furious" franchise a run for its money are also included. The opening scene is the film's strongest, with the long, continuous tracking shot, which gets the film off to an amazing start, being a cinematic achievement in itself. Stylistically, Spectre is very strong indeed.

In saying this, the way Spectre is plotted prevents the viewer from truly engaging with it as a story and subsequently lessens the impact of the elements the film does get right. What has made Craig's previous turnouts as 007 work is the emotion that's been at the heart of the story. "Casino Royale" dealt with the dangers of him falling in love, while "Quantum" followed this up by exploring the repercussions of his heart being broken. "Skyfall", perhaps the most emotionally engaging of all Craig's films, dealt with Bond's intense loyalty and respect for his boss, Judi Dench's M, which was counterbalanced by Silva's hatred towards the former Head of MI6. With Spectre, the emotional centre is missing, and that is the most frustrating part of the movie as the potential was there to make this the most emotionally charged film of the lot. The issue is that it seems that the filmmakers expected most viewers of the movie to have seen not only the previous Daniel Craig movies, but also the entire Bond back catalogue as well. While continuity is good, the Bond movies should be able to stand on there own without relying too heavily on previous instalments (a problem that was also glaringly obvious in Quantum of Solace). Fan service is all well and good, but it shouldn't come at the detriment of the casual viewers movie watching experience. In this case it did, leaving Spectre feeling like a movie without an emotional core.

However, this was not the only problem I had with the film from a storytelling perspective. Without venturing too far into the realm of spoilers, Christoph Waltz' main villain has a very rich back story that is never really explored and analysed by the filmmakers as much as it should be. The background of the character is extremely dark and very closely linked to Bond, however we never really get the impression as a viewer that this battle is intensely personal for the spy. This is extremely frustrating. The plot point that Oberhauser and Spectre were the puppet-masters behind all of James Bond's previous missions, and therefore his heartaches, never seems to strike the emotional chord that it should. You don't come out the theatre thinking that Bond has just fought his greatest adversary yet. Now, while this can't be put down to Waltz' performance, it could possibly be put down to lacklustre writing which really doesn't give Bond and Oberhauser the character development which could have made this an all time classic. The filmmakers had the putty in their hands to create the most intriguing Bond villain of all time and, in my opinion, they completely squandered that opportunity. 

All in all, Spectre is a very frustrating film. It had all the tools to be one of the best Bond films in recent memory and expand on the success of Skyfall. And in some ways it does. The cinematography is fantastic and the action sequences are choreographed beautifully. However, the plot is weak, which is a shame as the characters involved had the potential to be some of the most interesting and complex the franchise had seen. Hopefully Daniel Craig stays on for one more outing as the iconic spy, as he deserved to go out on a stronger showing than this. Spectre had all the elements that could have made it the best film of 2015, however weak character development and inconsistent plotting make this entry into the 007 series fall short of the mark. Overall, Spectre is a decent action movie with stunning visual effects but, with the finances it had available, the legacy it had to live up to and the talent it had at its disposal, it should have been so much more.

Score: 6.6/10

Film Review- Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Earlier this week, Sony Pictures announced that they are in the process of making a Sonic the Hedgehog feature film, due to be released in 2018. Now, while this revelation did fill me with a strange sense of nostalgic delight, having watched the Fox Kids TV show "Sonic X" religiously in my formative primary school years, one particular part of the announcement made me let out a large audible groan, prompting passers-by to give me concerned and fearful looks. Sony Pictures have decided in their infinite wisdom to make Sega's little blue mascot's first foray into the world of cinema a live action/animation hybrid. Now, I could be proven wrong but, in my opinion, combining live action with animation is extremely hard to pull-off and is rarely ever done well, with the annals of film history being littered with examples of this sub-genre at its very worse (Watch any late 90's/ early 2000's Looney Toons movie and you will know exactly what I mean). However, I refuse to let a speedy blue mammal wearing sports trainers break my New Year's resolution of being more positive and, in that spirit, I have decided to review the only film that managed to make this concept work and that is the 1988 Robert Zemeckis favourite "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"

Set in Hollywood in the year 1947, the film depicts a world where cartoon characters are real and interact directly with real people. After famous "toon" Roger Rabbit is accused of murdering a top studio executive, prompting alcoholic private investigator Eddie Valiant to try and help clear his name. Sounds awful serious for a kids movie right? Well, it is, but that's one of the reasons Roger Rabbit works. Robert Zemeckis is a master of making films that can appeal to the whole family, with the Back to the Future franchise being the most obvious example, and with Roger Rabbit he manages to perfectly fuse a really good story with humour that will appeal to children and adults alike. Younger viewers will laugh out loud at the goofy antics of the title character Roger as he guffaws and clumsily stumbles his way through the plot, while older audiences may find the scene where Roger finds out his wife, Jessica, is playing "patty cake" behind his back with another man more to their comedic taste. It is a family movie that transcends demographics, something that is sorely missing from today's market. 

Bob Hoskins is the focal point of the movie as private detective Eddie Valiant. Hoskins certainty has fun with the part. Playing the straight man opposite a wacky cartoon rabbit couldn't have been an easy feet, but Hoskins is totally convincing throughout. His physical comedy is impeccable, and it is a performance thoroughly deserving of the Golden Globe nomination he received. Joanna Cassidy is delightfully sombre as Valiant's love interest Dolores while Christopher Lloyd is quite terrifying as deranged toon/crooked policeman/evil business tycoon Judge Doom. However a special mention has to be given to vast array of talented voice actors involved in this film, most of all Kathleen Turner, who's sexy and slightly husky tone brought to life what would become one of the most iconic cartoon characters of a generation. Simply put, the acting is strong across the board. 

However, Roger Rabbit is a film who's strength can't be determined by the sum of its individual parts, but by the moments it creates on screen. Who can forget our introduction to Jessica Rabbit as she performs "Why Don't You Do Right?" in front of a large and excitable (and perhaps rather seedy) audience, inspiring Halloween costumes for decades to come. The opening scene is also a standout, giving audiences a throwback to the golden-age of animation in a sequence that could have come right out of a 1950s cartoon. Yet, the true delight of this film is getting to see the classic cartoon characters of a by-gone era share the screen and interact with one another. Who Framed Roger Rabbit features Micky Mouse and Bugs Bunny sky-diving together, Donald and Daffy Duck trying to get the better of each other whilst playing pianos and Tinker Bell and the "That's All Folks" pig (who's name escapes me) combining their signature sign-offs in a moment of sheer magic. God knows how Robert Zemeckis managed to get Warner Brothers to hand over the rights to their iconic characters (I think the answer must include a dollar sign and several zeros) but the film is all the better for it as their presence on screen helps to create moments of cinematic brilliance that will live on forever.

In saying this, I do have a few issues with the film. The inconsistencies in tone can be rather jarring, and some plot points are set up really well but are given very little in the way of satisfactory resolution. Examples of this include Valiant's sudden, "don't blink or you'll miss it" victory over his alcohol addiction, Judge Doom's characterisation which seemed to include every stereotypical villain trope known to man and the reveal of who killed Valiant's brother, which added nothing to the film as a whole. The ending wasn't to my taste either and felt "too Disney" for what was otherwise a good effort at making a film that could have fun while taking itself seriously. Some of the humour has unfortunately become a bit dated too, not generating the laughs I'm sure they would have gotten at the time of the film's initial release. These minor  problems aside, Roger Rabbit is a really great movie. It is a smart, well-acted and funny piece of pioneering filmmaking which, for the most part, has held up very well. Overall, it should be remembered as one of the best family films of the past 50 years and a major landmark in the progression of post-production work in modern cinema. 

Score: 8.0/10

Top 5- Martin Scorsese Films

When you look back on the history of cinema, it is hard to find a director with a more stellar and consistent track record than the iconic Martin Scorsese. One of the most decorated and celebrated filmmakers of all time, Scorsese's career has spanned over six decades and his films have enjoyed universal critical acclaim all across the globe. His career shows no signs of slowing down, as it has recently been announced that he will be directing a Mike Tyson biopic starring actor Jamie Foxx, while he will also once again collaborate with actors Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci in "The Irishman", where the two old friends will share the screen with fellow Oscar winner Al Pacino. It is rare for a filmmaker to achieve the longevity that Scorsese has and, in tribute to this, I count down my favourite Martin Scorsese films of all time.

5) Gangs of New York (2002)

The first of many collaborations between Scorsese and actor Leonardo Di Caprio, Gangs of New York is set in 1863 and tells the story of a young man seeking revenge on the crime boss who killed his father, all the while dealing with the political corruption and restless nature of 19th century New York City. The set design and the costumes in this film give it a truly unique look, while Michael Ballhaus' cinematography is spell-bounding at times. However, the movie's main strength lies in the powerful performances given by its lead actors, particularly Daniel Day Lewis. Taking on the role of crime boss Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, Lewis is absolutely terrifying in this role, combining the murderous rage of a savage and deadly gangster with the slimy sophistication of a politician, and his chemistry with fellow lead Di Caprio gives us some of the film's best and strangely tender moments. While some imperfections (such as Cameron Diaz' performance and a lacklustre finale) prevent it from placing higher on this list, Gangs of New York is a large and ambitious production that deserves to be remembered as one of Scorsese's best. 

4) Casino (1995)

While not as universally acclaimed as Scorsese's other gangster film starring Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci yet to feature on this list, Casino is a very entertaining movie in its own right, offering something completely different to its predecessor. Highly stylised, Casino shows us both the glitz and the glamour of Las Vegas with a cast of very human characters. What Casino achieves is a certain sense of razzmatazz combined with Scorsese's signature grit, and that is what makes this film stand out. Sharon Stone is the stand out of a star studded cast, more than holding her own as ex-prostitute Ginger McKenna in what may prove to be the best performance of her career, Basic Instinct aside. Anything but a Goodfellas remake, Casino is a great film in his own right and deserves more critical recognition than it otherwise receives. 

3) The Departed (2006)

Remembered by many as the film which won Scorsese his first Academy Award for Best Director, The Departed is the best film Scorsese has made since the dawn of the 21st century. Dark and gritty, the film features more memorable performances than I could possibly list here, however the best of the bunch comes, in my opinion, from "The Shining" star Jack Nicholson, who is completely believable as gang boss Frank Costello, milking everything he can out of his scenes the way that only he can. Nicholson is no spring chicken and, with age now catching up with the 78 year old, it look likely that this will go down as his last truly great acting performance. However, what makes The Departed truly stand out from Scorsese's other work is the dynamic plot which, with its constant twists and turns, keeps the viewer glued to the screen throughout. Storytelling done right, this polished production will be remembered as a modern classic, earning itself a spot on this list.

2) Taxi Driver (1976)

In terms of the themes it tackles, the philosophical ideas it puts forward and indeed it's technical execution, Taxi Driver is a near perfect movie. The neo-noir flick is by far the best character study of Scorsese's career, following ex-marine Travis Bickle as he descends into severe depression, disgusted with the society he lives in and the corruption within it. Bickle is an extremely complex character, more of an anti-hero than a straight up protagonist or villain, and leading man Robert Di Niro's performance is key to the success of this movie, having to show his vast range throughout. Controversial and divisive, Taxi Driver is a film that you will either love or hate. Personally, I feel Taxi Driver has a timeless appeal to it, with the ideas it presents and its commentary on the nature of society being concepts that are just as valid today as they were at the time of the film's release. Though very dark, it is a film with a lot of important things to say and, in my opinion, any film who's ending is still being discussed and debated forty years later is worthy of being mentioned as, not only one of the best of Martin Scorsese's career, but one of the greatest movies of all time.

1) Goodfellas (1990)

Goodfellas is a masterpiece. Pure and simple. Beautifully paced, the gangster flick explores the life of Henry Hill over his thirty years as part of the Mafia. The plot is almost Shakespearean, at first almost romanticising the idea of being part of the mob, before we witness the gradual downfall of the organisation with little fanfare or fuss. Joe Pesci bagged himself an Oscar for his portrayal of underling Tommy DeVito, in what will ultimately be remembered as one of the most iconic performances of modern cinema. The rest of the cast also shine bright, but Pesci's performance is so charismatic and easily identifiable that he steals every single scene he is in. The soundtrack is great. The camera work is spectacular. The production design is flawless. The dialogue is memorable. I could list oh so many reasons why Goodfellas is as good as it is. Is it the best gangster movie of all time? That's a list for another day, but what I can say is that this gem of a film is by far the greatest that Martin Scorsese has ever made and, considering his filmography, that is a very high honour indeed. If you haven't seen it, go watch it now.

Film Review- Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Star Wars: The Force Awakes was without a shadow of a doubt the most anticipated movie of the new millennium, breaking box office records on the back of its pre-sales alone. Ever since the seventh instalment in the legendary saga was announced, fans of the series were immediately overcome by feelings of both uncontainable excitement and underlying apprehension, for while the original Star Wars trilogy brought us three of the most beloved films of all time, the CGI filled prequels were, quite frankly, below par to say the least. Many were also sceptical of the fact that corporate giant "The Walt Disney Company" now had their hands in the mix, while others were more weary of the fact that franchise creator George Lucas was being ousted in favour of "Star Trek" director JJ Abrams. Before its release, Episode VII was one of the biggest question marks in cinema history, a movie that could have easily went over to the dark side. 

As it turns out, The Force Awakens was absolutely fantastic. 

Abrams has managed to recapture the magic of the original films, while also giving the new instalment its own unique look and tone. The use of mostly practical effects and sets after Lucas' unsuccessful foray into the world of green screens and God-awful CGI was a breath of fresh air, giving the film a much more realistic feel, whilst also making it easier for the audience to suspend their disbelief and to truly invest in the story. In saying this, the few occasions CGI was used in the film were tastefully done and for the most part, not overpowering. The only exception I would take with the filmmakers in this regard was the almost cartoonish appearance of Supreme Leader Snoke, played by motion capture maestro Andy Serkis. Though not a major issue, mostly due to Snoke's very limited screen-time, it does stand out as looking overly-animated and not in keeping with the more natural look of the rest of the film.

As mentioned, part of what made this new instalment in the Star Wars saga work was the way Abrams and company have managed to seamlessly combine the old with the new, and this is reflected in the performance of the cast and there respective roles in the film. First and foremost, the next generation of Star Wars heroes shine in The Force Awakens. Daisy Ridley is absolutely fantastic as our heroine, Rey. A typical Star Wars protagonist, she is a peculiarly quirky and adventurous character while also being incredibly headstrong and brave. It is great to see a strong female character take centre stage in the franchise, especially with the film industry currently being very much a male dominated market place in terms of leading roles. Hopefully the success of this character will lead the way for more female-lead projects to start appearing on our screens over the next few years, as Rey is quite frankly more entertaining and, in some ways, more relatable across the board than any other blockbuster lead we have seen in some time.

In saying this, Ridley's male co-stars more than hold up their end of the bargain. John Boyega excels as Finn, a former stormtrooper who wants to escape the First Order (who have risen from the ashes of the previously defeated Empire) and get as far away from them as possible. Finn is a very flawed character, one who has a great moral compass yet is just too fearful to even contemplate fighting alongside the Resistance at first. All Finn wants to do is run as far away as possible. Boyega's balanced performance perfectly translates Finn's inner turmoil throughout the feature, and his character arch is perhaps the most interesting out of all the character's in The Force Awakens. Adam Driver plays the mysterious Kylo Ren, a student of the dark side of the force. Revelations about Ren's backstory come thick and fast throughout The Force Awakens and, while it may still be too early to tell, he may prove to be the most compelling villain in the franchises entire history. In saying this, not every character received the proper development they should have been given, with Resistance fighter Poe Dameron and the First Order's Captain Phasma, both of whom were featured heavily in the promotion of the film, feeling slightly shortchanged in terms of their individual screen-time. Both Oscar Isaac and Gwendoline Christie are exceptionally strong actors, as proven by their work in Ex Machina and Game of Thrones respectively, and it would have been nice to see them given the opportunity to do something more with these roles. 

A special mention has to be given to the MVP of this film, and that is Hollywood icon Harrison Ford, who returns to the role of Han Solo more than thirty years after the release of 1983's Return of the Jedi. This isn't the case of an actor coming back to a part he made famous and giving us a cheap and dispassionate imitation of what came before (i.e. Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3 and beyond) but an actor who cares both about the material he has been given and about the legacy he wants to leave behind with one of the most iconic characters he has played in his career. What Ford manages to do in The Force Awakens was combine what made us love the character in the original trilogy (his roguish charm, his rebellious nature, his witty one liners etc) and added a layer of emotional maturity on top of that. Yes, it is the same Han Solo we all knew and loved, but it is a more experienced Han Solo, a Han Solo who has suffered loss and heartbreak. Harrison Ford shows off both his dramatic and comedic chops in this film and, without delving too deep into the realm of spoilers, I believe that this will be remembered as Ford's greatest outing as everyone's favourite intergalactic smuggler. 

Another franchise veteran who most definitely deserves acclaim for his part in The Force Awakens is the legendary John Williams and his Academy Award nominated score. As seems to be a theme with Episode VII, Williams both pays tribute to his past work on the saga while his new material also manages to reach the same standard of what has come before it. Out of his newer compositions, "Rey's Theme" is the most prominent. Just like the character herself, the track is adventurous and fun, while also giving us hints into Rey's future moving into Episode VIII with its subtle similarities to the popular "Force Theme" from earlier instalments. Masterfully composed, William's score has the ability to pull at the nostalgic heartstrings of older fans with the beautiful build of Han and Leia's love theme "Han Solo and the Princess" as they continue to reconcile throughout the course of the film, while the echoes of the iconic "Imperial March" when Kylo Ren holds Vader's helmet in his hands will send goosebumps down the back of any true Star Wars fanatic. Simply put, John Williams once again delivers.

As many cynics will be quick to remind you, it wasn't perfect. Could the story have benefited from a steadier buildup and a slower pace throughout? Possibly. Should underdeveloped characters have been given more of a chance to shine? Absolutely. Did the plot feel almost familiar, suspiciously similar to the original of 1977? Yes, but I think that this was Abrams' way of us telling us that the franchise is back on track, that it going back to its roots. Could they have pulled this off with a bit more of a sprinkling of originality? Probably, but all I know is that, for the first time in thirty years, Star Wars once again felt like Star Wars. Overall, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a really great film. It was the perfect continuation to the Star Wars story and truly put the series back on the right course. With his clear vision, use of practical effects and well crafted script, JJ Abrams has managed to course-correct one of the most successful franchises in movie history. Most of the new stars were given their fair chance to shine, and the old favourites were serviced very well and handled with great care and respect. In short, it was a great beginning to the next chapter in this now legendary tale. The Force Awakens was exciting, entertaining and, at times, awe-inspiring and, more than anything else, it has given fans a "New Hope" for the future of the space saga.

Score: 9.2/10