The raison d’être for my 'top 10 films of 2015'

I have once again been asked to defend my top ten films of year X, where this time the year is 2015.  And yes, I've already switched 8 and 9 around.

Small spoilers throughout, but the spoilers for The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation and Crimson Peak are big.

The same caveats as last year apply.

Also, most of the films I've been down on have failed on the intellectual satisfaction criterion.  The only one where I've muttered about technical merit is Spectre (yes, I really hate the faux-Instagram filter that much) and Crimson Peak is the only one that just plain old didn't work for me.  Hence its position in 10th.

1 - The Martian

Sorry I just loved it.  Every single character in it feels like a real person, doing their best and trying to do the right thing.  It would have been very easy to turn say, Teddy Prendergast into a boo-hiss bureaucratic villain, but they resisted the temptation.  It was beautifully shot, and looked reasonably realistic.  So far none of the space scientists I know have complained about any of the science.

It had my favourite scene of the whole year, the one where the two Chinese Space Agency scientists decide to do the right thing.

Absolutely loved it.

2 - Mad Max: Fury Road

As I said in the original post, 1 and 2 could be the other way round.  Mad Max: Fury Road does a lot of similar things to the Martian and hits many of the same narrative themes that I so love (see also, people trying to do the right thing in trying circumstances).  It also did the same thing of mixing CGI with physical effects to get the most out of both of them - in Mad Max's case, trying to make something look like hell on Earth and succeeding.

I liked how it let you, the viewer, do a lot of the background heavy-lifting and giving us little breadcrumbs to follow.  I also liked how everyone, good, bad or both, got to be human (see also Rictus and his announcement about his brother).  It was very well spaced, allowing the characters to have character, despite there being so many of them (see Nux and that moment when he fails spectacularly in front of Mortan Joe and despite him chasing after our heroes you just feel so sorry for him).

It's also beautifully filmed.

3 - Jupiter Ascending

I will be the first to admit Jupiter Ascending is not a good film, and how you feel about it can be guessed by your response to 'dog-man fights dinosaur in space' but it's interesting, and not based on a pre-existing book, film, comic or other entertainment property.  I give points for interesting.

I still think it would have made a much better tv series than film, because I wanted to see all the things they didn't have time to show in the film and what happened after the film.

Also, I am totally behind any film which gives me 'dog-man fights dinosaur in space'.

4 - The Hobbit: Revenge of the Hobbit (or Battle of the Five Armies as its real title may be)

Last year, certain people complained that I didn't have Guardians of the Galaxy higher given that the tree made me cry a lot.  Because I knew what my reaction would be to this, I knew that that was no reason to give a film a higher (or lower) placing.

Because I can tell all the things that are wrong with it, and they are many and I am aware I over-identify with the dwarves.

But I'll be damned if I didn't cry for twenty minutes straight when Thorin died.  Actually I shall rephrase that, I started crying before Thorin died, I started going at "Will you follow me, one last time?"  The film got me and good.

5 - Ant-man

I had low expectations for this but I really enjoyed it.  And came out of it wanting my own ant army.*

I don't get why people say this is one of the silly Marvel films when the beginning is all about the inability of ex-convicts to get decent jobs when they're released and how this can lead to recidivism, and the threat of someone losing contact with their child due to circumstances.  And there's some glorious satire about the Western arms trade.  But there are people out there who believe that that's less realistic than a film where an evil robot drops the mass of an entire country onto the Earth and there's almost no effect on neighbouring countries.  (I know, talk about the films not the idiot film critics but, they're so stupid and their opinions are so glib, facile and show evidence of not having watched the films they're talking about.)

It's not perfect but it's a fun way of spending a couple of hours, and Cassie Lang is adorable.

* Without knowing this my Uncle bought me a Hexbug spider for my birthday.  Truly, I am lucky in my family.

6 - Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

This is where I start shading into equivocation.

There is nothing wrong with this film and I appreciate Tom Cruise's continuing quest to get banged up for our entertainment.  The film did some fun things with it's theme, especially the whole character of Ilsa Faust (and she is truly awesome and really is the deuteragonist, if not the protagonist), the Prime Minister and I'm always going to approve of them having bits in Vienna.  Especially when they either do film the underground scenes in Vienna or make the mock up look right.

That being said, I think the bad guy goes down a little too easily and it's mostly a waste of Sean Harris.

(I do also wonder if Simon McBurney as the head of MI6 is a casting joke or a complete accident after he played Lacon in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.)

7 - Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Things in this film's favour - it's fun, it's light, I will willingly rewatch it, the soundtrack and the acting.

Things against this film - it's just not U.N.C.L.E.  I can't shake the feeling that I would have adored this if it had been it's own thing and not claiming to be a different thing that I already love.

8 - Avengers: Age of Ultron

The things I really love (Quicksilver, Vision and Ultron) are outweighed by some truly hamfisted writing, and gratuitous misuse of two of the Avengers (and Rhodey.  Why does Rhodey get no respect?).  And the now-getting-to-be-usual Marvelverse thing of setting up something interesting (i.e. the Insight Program in Cap2) and then ignoring the interesting ramifications of the idea, on this occasion the whole 'are the Avengers the cause of more trouble than they're worth' thing.  If Ultron had stuck to his early thing of not hurting civilians, this would have been significantly more interesting film.

9 - Spectre

I don't like the camera work, it makes it look like it's been shot through an Instagram filter and I have major philosophical issues with the plot and themes of the film.  The acting is solid though, but there are things that even Christoph Waltz being gleeful evil cannot make up for.

10 - Crimson Peak

I know what del Toro was trying to do.  It just didn't work.  It's was all a bit too much.  Which is what one of my friends says is the difference between Gothic architecture and Neo-gothic architecture in one of those accidentally apt for something else comments.  And that really does explain what the problem is.  Maybe if they'd not gone with *all* of the Gothic literature themes in one go, it would have worked better.

I also find myself sympathising significantly more with Lucille, and the films constant attempts to make me feel sorry for Thomas make me want to go 'no, he's useless' at it.

Film Review - Spectre

Writing this so that I can write my explanation for my top ten films of the year.  That and friend L wishes to complain about my illogic some more, despite him having heard it all at the time.

First, a note - the Picturehouse cinema in London is lovely.  Its over-the-phone booking system is less so.  As in accepted payments but did not provide tickets.  The cinema staff sorted it, but take this as a warning.

Spectre, which I keep putting in all capitals because I am old.

My problems are all with the writing and directing, the acting is uniformly solid.

I’m still not sold on the theme song, but I liked the evil Spectre-pus opening credits.

Comments in more or less chronological order (spoilers throughout):

My main objection to the directing is how Mendes has made large parts of it looks like he ran it through an Instagram filter, you know the one, the one that makes things look like a 50s photograph.  It's distracting.  It also makes it look like the main actors are standing in front of a green screen, which cheapens some of the action shots, which is a shame, because I know how difficult they are to do, particularly the helicopter loop-the-loop.

The distracting filter continues on to Rome, a section redeemed by the awesome car chase.  And the Mickey Mouse joke.  And let down by only having Monica Bellucci in two scenes.  Why would you only use Monica Bellucci in two scenes if you've got her (including one of the worst not-quite sex scenes in a Bond film)?  I do start to suspect the only reason they got her in was because they needed an Italian actress for Italian funding and needed an older actress as a Bond girl to counteract exactly how screamingly young Lea Seydoux is.

I know I shouldn't be shocked that Batista is good after Guardians of the Galaxy, but he really is good as Mr. Hinx.  (He's also remarkably precious about the whole acting thing, which is strangely adorable.)  I also like whoever did his suits.  I know Tom Ford did Bond's suits but I don't know if he was also Hinx's tailor.

After Rome we lose the stupid filter for a while, because Austria is obviously not warm and Latin and therefore needs no filter (just assume my sarcasm is heavy and my contempt for the director is great).  I'll give them this, even before I saw the end bit saying it was filmed in Austria because the plane had an Austrian registration, and it pleases me more than I can say.

But those are not the symptoms of thallium poisoning.  Yes, I am being pernickety, but it's not like thallium’s symptoms are hard to research or all that mistakable (see also Agatha Christie's descriptions of it being good enough to save lives).

The stupid filter returns for Tangiers and Morocco (until we reach Blofeld's lair).  And again it cheeses me off.  This bit also included my favourite scene, which we shall call Bond vs the Mouse, which gives Daniel Craig something to do other than look bleak.  Now he does a fine 'looking bleak' but he's a much better actor that just the one mood.  And there's an uneasy borderline hysteria in that scene which fits the film perfectly.  Fantastic scene.

Part of the problem with the film, for me, was that everything after Morocco felt tacked on.  Particularly Dr. Swann being trapped in MI5's old headquarters.

Bits of the film not working with another was one of my other main problems.  Bond vs Blofeld, while I might not like what they do with Blofeld, works.  Bond vs the encroaching intelligence complex, is oddly time-sensitive for a Bond film, something I generally agree with and not something I think Bond would agree with.

Bond vs the encroaching intelligence complex doesn't quite work (certainly not as well as it worked in Mission Impossible: the new one), but I don't mind it because it gives Q, Moneypenny et al something to do.  (Dear villains, do not threaten Q, any Q, I disapprove.)  My main problem with the Bond vs Big Brother bit was the terrible dialogue they gave new! M.  If Ralph Fiennes can't make something work, I can be reasonably sure that it cannot work.  At the beginning we need a reason to believe that C is a well, the word that the film keeps calling him, and we don't, other than him being played by Andrew Scott (who actually does a good good guy when he needs to).

As I said, I'm not sure I like what they did with Blofeld.  I like my evil impersonal and precise.  Although I do love that he wouldn't stoop to poisoning the champagne.

I did have one moment of complete, uncontrollable giggle fit, which I don't think was intentional.  It's just that normally Blofeld wears a Mao-jacket variant but what this Blofeld wears looks like a modernised Tiroler jacke (Tyrolean jacket) and my brain went 'you can take the boy out of Tyrol but not the Tyrol out of the boy' and I had a giggle fit in the middle of a very serious scene.  Sorry about that, people in the screening.

Now onto my actual problems with the film:

I think I see Bond completely differently to how the writers see him. 

Partly it's because I don't believe what he does is something that requires redemption (in the sense of all killing requires it but not Bond in particular out of all secret agents), and I don't think love can redeem in quite the way the film thinks it can.  (And that's before we get onto more theoretical discussions on the nature of redemption and sacrifice, which shall be skipped for time.)

The film doesn't seem to be very clear in re: redemption, because it seems to be saying that Bond's job is necessary, and cannot be replaced by drones, but that means that someone has to do it, and M seems to have an almost split-personality on the topic not wanting Bond to do it, but needing someone for the job.  If the film had gone into that a little more, or even at all, I think I could have lived with it better.

The love redeems thing seems very cheap.  As does the 'only a killer (or relative of one) can understand a killer'.  What happens if someone out of Bond's past decides that they want revenge and kill Madeline?  What does Bond do next?  Does his redemption stick or was he doing it just for Madeline, which suggests that 'love redeems' is as bunk as I think it is.  It doesn't even have to be an international assassin, the number 49 bus does the job just as well.  And I don't think redemption can be due to external things, I think it has to be internal for it to be "redemption".

It feels even weirder because the post-Hinx's death not-actually-a-sex-scene is, I think, held up to be a mirror to the Vesper shower scene in Casino Royal, where Vesper's response to someone's death was utter revulsion while Madeline's response is getting every bit as aroused as Bond, and therefore she's a much better match (according to the film) and yet ... the scene just feels really awkward in a way that the Vesper scene didn't.

The whole 'understanding + sex = redemption' thing feels awkward.

 I also think that they're believers in the Many Bonds theory:

Because they've just salted the Earth for following Bonds if we're pretending that all the Bonds are the same guy.  Because why does Bond come back or do we just have to ignore Madeline and everything in Spectre for the next film.  I know it's one of the problems of having films with closer internal continuity but this one has pretty much broken the line for anything following.  I think that the next film is going to have a different Bond might help that somewhat, but it does mean the Craig Bond-films are pretty much shut into their own cul-de-sac.

Edited to add: I've been told I ought to tell people that I haven't seen Skyfall yet, and that my problems with the film might be due to that.  To me that's still a failure on the writers's part.

My Top 10 Films of the Year, 2015

1 - The Martian
2 - Mad Max: Fury Road
3 - Jupiter Ascending
4 - The Hobbit: Revenge of the Hobbit (or Battle of the Five Armies as it's real title may be)
5 - Antman
6 - Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
7 - Man from U.N.C.L.E.
8 - Spectre
9 - Avengers: Age of Ultron
10 - Crimson Peak

The top two might be the other way round but are head and shoulders above anything else, and 6-9 are subject to movement, particularly between 6 and 7 and 8 and 9.

Worst was definitely Inherent Vice (yes, it was worse than Fantastic Four).

In which I am willing to admit I was wrong about a factoid

The original factoid was "NFL salary capped teams would, adjusted for inflation, RELATIVE terms, be in the bottom 4 of the premier league".  Now the friend who said it did admit he couldn't remember where he'd heard it but the whole proposition sounded dubious anyway.

Obviously I try to be a little more reasonable than 'that doesn't sound right' so I've been ferreting away to prove the factoid is incorrect.

First, it does not compare like with like.  The NFL and the Premier League operate in very different ways.  The NFL has a salary cap and no promotion and relegation.  The Premier League has no salary cap, promotion and relegation, and has to compete for players with other equivalent leagues, primarily in Europe.  When a player is transferred between NFL teams, it tends to be for other players and draft picks, not for money.  When a player is transferred between football teams, it tends to be for cold, hard cash.

As a general rule, if someone's making an analogy that involves an apple and an orange being the same thing, and they don't caveat it like crazy, then they're being disingenuous at best.  So I presumed the factoid was wrong.

I was able to scare up some data, but it's the most complete set is not that recent (2011), so the following might no longer be an accurate reflection, particularly in the case of the Premier League where the new TV deal has meant teams going a bit crazy on the spending front.

The 2011 NFL Salary Cap was $120 million (£78 million).  This is for a 53 player team so we'll call that $2.26 million (£1.47 million) per player on average.

According to this website, the average take home pay for a Premier League player was $2.71 million (£1.76 m), so yes that is more, and I think this is where the factoid comes from.

However, that's an average, and for the factoid to be correct, even the NFL team paying the most for its players would have to be paying less than the average Premier League team.

According to ESPN, in 2011, the team with the highest salary cap was the Dallas Cowboys with $136.6 million (88.65 million) or $2.58 m (£1.67 million).

So I was wrong, and the average wage is indeed higher for Premier League teams.  I can't prove all of the factoid because I don't have an average wage breakdown by team for 2011 so there's no way of telling what the bottom four Premier League teams were paying, but from these numbers, it wouldn't surprise me.

* All currency conversion is done using the $1 : £0.649 ratio given as the average exchange rate for 2011 by the IRS.

The Provisional Azerbaijan Grand Prix

Now, there are good reasons for complaining about the planned Azerbaijan Grand Prix.

For instance, Azerbaijan's terrible human rights record.

Or that it clashes with the Le Mans.

Both perfectly reasonable reasons.

It's too difficult to get from Canada to Azerbaijan in a week is not a good reason.

For once, this isn't just me being mean.  Several years ago, Baku hosted the Cadet and Junior World Championships in fencing.  Three days after the end of the Worlds, several fencers had to be in New York for a fencing grand prix.  They made it with a day to spare.  If a severely under-funded squad, with what can at best be described as a semi-pro organising team can do it, then I expect twenty professional sports teams to be able to do it without fuss, especially as several of them have access to FedEx and their own corporate jets.  Marussia and Haas are allowed to complain, but only because they have tiny, tiny budgets.  Mercedes and Ferrari really, really aren't allowed to whinge in quite the way they have been.

Mexican Grand Prix

Fastest Friday  Practice	Price	Fastest Saturday Practice	Price	Fastest Qualifying	Price
Nico Rosberg	9/4	Nico Rosberg	5/4	Nico Rosberg	5/4
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet	£3.25	Amount won/lost on a £1 bet	£2.25	Amount won/lost on a £1 bet	£2.25
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet	32.50	Amount won/lost on a £10 bet	£22.50	Amount won/lost on a £10 bet	£22.50
Season Total £1 bets	-£3.36	Season Total £1 bets	£8.97	Season Total £1 bets	£8.30
Season Total £10 bets	-£33.53	Season Total £10 bets	£87.71	Season Total £10 bets	£90.17

Rugby World Cup final in diagrams

Even if, annoyingly New Zealand's name gets cut off when the image is exported from Gephi. (Again, if anyone has any suggestions on how to fix that, I am all ears.)

The Waratahs are the most represented club side with 10 players in the final, with the Brumbies, the Crusaders and the Hurricanes next with 9 players each.

At least this diagram is cuts both team's names.

With the late withdrawal of Wyatt Crockett, both teams have used the same number of players overall.  The Waratahs are still the most represented club side with 12 players, the Crusaders come next with 10, followed by the Brumbies and the Hurricanes next with again 9 players each.

US Grand Prix

A few notes first.

As Friday second practice was not run due to the weather, I took the results of the first Friday practise session instead.  I did the same thing with the Q2 results as there was no Q3.

Fastest Friday  Practice	Price	Fastest Saturday Practice	Price	Fastest Qualifying	Price
Nico Rosberg	5/2	Lewis Hamilton	8/15	Nico Rosberg	5/4
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet	-£1	Amount won/lost on a £1 bet	£1.53	Amount won/lost on a £1 bet	-£1
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet	-£10	Amount won/lost on a £10 bet	£15.33	Amount won/lost on a £10 bet	-£10
Season Total £1 bets	-£6.61	Season Total £1 bets	£6.72	Season Total £1 bets	£6.05
Season Total £10 bets	-£66.03	Season Total £10 bets	£65.21	Season Total £10 bets	£67.67

Rugby World Cup Semi-Finals In Diagrams

New Zealand remain in splendid isolation, while Toulon are the only team guaranteed to have a player in the final. That noise you just heard was European rugby union fans going 'blasted Toulon' or something stronger. Australia are the national team closest to the centre while Toulon are the club team closest to the centre, probably because they're the team holding South Africa, Australia and Argentina together. The Argentine Super Rugby side remain the team with the most players represented with 20, followed by the Waratahs and the Crusaders with 10.

The total players used diagram is now a lot more even, with all the teams having only had to add 1 or 2 players to their original starting squad. Something which may also have helped their teams gel and their overall performances.

Four Thoughts About The Rugby World Cup Quarter-Finals (And Some Diagrams)

1 - I don't think this is the end of Northern Hemisphere rugby

All of Ireland's injuries (and one idiotic suspension), and several of Wales's, were starting players.  So we know that Ireland B and Wales A minus can't beat full strength South African and Argentine sides.

Scotland were done out of their match by a mistake.

France had their first choice kicking person off-injured and seem to have a thing against choose Trinh-Duc, who is better than Michalak anyway.

Reports of the death of Northern Hemisphere rugby may have been greatly exaggerated.

2 - New Zealand look to be terrifyingly good

Because France were not bad in that match, despite what the scoreline says.

But Julian Savea is something else.  Mum's boyfriend was cooing over him.

3 - If this is how Argentine play after getting Super Rugby, think how good Japan will be

Stolen from a friend, but so true.  The possibilities for Japanese rugby are magnificent.

4 - Bringing in the new concussion protocols was a good idea.

For evidence see Scott Baldwin's 'no, I'm fine' after being knocked spark out and also Dan Biggar's.  We can't expect players, who are desperate for their team to succeed and see themselves as part of that, to declare when they're injured.

The diagrams took longer than expected to produce because of the number of teams that were removed and size of each team.

New Zealand are now drifting along in splendid isolation, with the loss of the Tongan and Samoan players that play for New Zealand teams.

Argentina are the national team closest to the centre, while Bordeaux Bègles are the club team closest to the centre.  Leinster and the Argentine Super Rugby franchise are the teams with the most players represented with 20 each.

The important advice remains 'don't be Wales' but don't be Ireland is also important.  When all players used are counted the Argentine Super Rugby franchise has the most players represented, followed by Leinster and Glasgow Warriors.