Perhaps I was wrong about Daniel Radcliffe all along

I don't know about the rest of you, but in general I've always found Radcliffe to be a tad bit underwhelming as an actor. He fits the role of Harry Potter, but I've always thought that in the films at least, the character's written to be a bit thin, all too reactionary and a bit passive in some regards. In addition, some of the scenes which demanded a bit more emotional power from him, particularly in Prisoner of Azkaban and Order of the Phoenix I thought he fell a bit short - though I do think some of his crucial reactions in Goblet of Fire are good. He noticeably improved from The Half-Blood Prince onwards, but I still thought he could've brought a bit more to his performance impact. Then in his post-Potter career, I've liked some of the things he's done, like The Woman in Black and Horns, but though he's technically okay in them, there's always a sense he's slightly miscast for the role, a bit of an awkward fit. Then in Kill Your Darlings I didn't believe him for a second as Allen Ginsberg despite the best efforts of the film, and in Victor Frankenstein I just didn't take to the film nor his portrayal of Igor for one second.

I may sound overtly harsh, but that's my opinion. But having seen Swiss Army Man today I feel that I may have to...retract my statements previously about him being only being able to kind of play Harry Potter and never feeling quite right for anything else. In Swiss Army Man he shows exactly why I might have misjudged him all this time; he takes on an utterly zany, bizzare performance in an utterly zany, bizzarre film that I thought I'd only be midly entertained by, but ended up loving quite a bit. The best quality to the film is of course, Mr Radcliffe as Manny, a corpse on a deserted island who's found by Paul Dano's stranded shipwreck survivor Hank. I'll not get into this performance into too much detail, as I may well be covering it in my future personal Oscar choices post...but just to my UK readers, if you're going to pop over to the cinema this weekend, please check out Swiss Army Man. I've found that publicity surrounding it has been surprisingly muted, and the presence of constant fart jokes and gross-out humour in the trailers might not appeal to some, but trust me: it's not just that. It's an intimately made, rather personal and absolutely hilarious/heartbreaking in equal measures film, that really hits you hard in both the heart and funny bone. And Radcliffe, to not give anything away, is a shining ray of physical dexterity in his performance worthy of mention to another famous Daniel (and I should mention that Dano's no slouch either). 

Top 10 - Sports Movies

Hon. Mention - Rush

I have to leave this off the top 10 because though I really, really like the film, quite frankly I find the James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) side of it a bit generic and predictable, though certainly entertaining enough. The film works best however as an exploration of Hunt's rivalry with Nikki Lauda (a terrific Daniel Brühl), and the examination of Lauda's very specific mentality towards racing.

Another film I really love that's a sports film is 'Brian's Song' which I left off the list because it's a television movie; I also hate to leave the likes of 'White Men Can't Jump' off the list.

10. Shaolin Soccer

Just an extremely entertaining, daft ride through the world of exactly what the title suggest: kung fu masters using their kung fu powers to kick off some extremely invigorating, entertaining action sequences. The humour is a bit hit-and-miss as is commonplace for Stephen Chow, but when it's hilarious it is very hilarious, and there's a nice heart to its core I felt was missing from the likes of Kung Fu Hustler.

9. Dodgeball

Also another extremely funny comedy, though I think I prefer this one slightly because it takes the sport of dodgeball and not only milks the sport for laughs, but basically every aspect of organized sport, from the pair of bizzare commentators to the ridiculous uniforms of the competition's contestants, and the comedic subversion of the brazen, ball-busting coach played by Rip Torn. It's all a bit discordant and as always some of the laughs are followed by groans, but I quite love it.

Also, in retrospect that Lance Armstrong scene not only still works, it's even more darkly funny in hindsight.

8. The Fighter

The boxing itself in the film is well handled but hardly memorable, and some of its dramatic beats, especially anything involving a particularly underwhelming romantic subplot with Amy Adams, don't work. The film works marvellously, however, as an exploration of the behind-the-scenes drama of a boxer, Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg), trying to earn redemption from an ugly loss. The relationship between Micky and his mother (a terrific Melissa Leo) is very interestingly drawn, and even more so his relationship with his half brother Dicky Ecklund, played by Christian Bale in a mesmerizing, physical portrayal of a recovering heroin addict with delusions of grandeur from a past he can never get over. In many ways it's a standard boxing film, but elements within it verge on greatness.

7. Hoosiers

A sweet little film about an Indiana basketball underdog team led by the tough, no-nonsense Norman Dale (Gene Hackman) that's about as feel-good as it gets. The film works wonderfully as just a very low-key sort of tale about a small town and its inhabitants, focusing on how their love for basketball brings them together in such different ways, Bonus points for giving Dennis Hopper a rather moving role as the local drunkard who redeems himself as Dale's assistant coach, and has one breathtaking scene where he takes control of the team.

6. Raging Bull

One of those films I don't love, and think is a tad bit overrated...but I still admire it greatly. It's a fantasitcally directed biopic of Jake DeLamotta (Robert De Niro), with Scorsese eschweing any of the usual conventions of the boxing film to create an almost anti-inspirational film of a man who's a beast in the ring, and a beast outside of it too, in a rather unappealing fashion. Both Scorcese and De Niro were every bit as deserving of the acclaim and accolades (at least for the latter) they got, though I still insist that the true deserving winners of that year were The Elephant Man, David Lynch and John Hurt.

5. The Hustler

An extremely iconic film that sprung an unfortunate, workmanlike sequel directed by Scorsese, and a rather bad choice of a career Oscar win for Paul Newman. It's terrible when you think about how they could've awarded him more than 20 years before for his scintillating turn as the same character, 'Fast Eddie' Felsen, in this fantastic drama that takes you into the depths of underwoold pool tables. Newman is brilliant, as are all his co-stars, and every pool game is a masterful example of building tension.

4. Chariots of Fire

This is sort of the film I felt Rush could have been, but never properly realized. It has an iconic theme song for the ages, but that's not all there is to the film; it's also a very well-made exploration of two British cross-country runners in the 1924 Olympics, Jewish Oxford student Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) with a chip on his shoulder and the religiously devout future missioanry Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson). The film is lovely because it breezes along with such an enjoyable pace, and is suitably lighthearted and endearing for the most part, yet there's always a serious conviction to the material and the runner's stakes that makes the finale so nail-bitingly intense. The script is amazing, one of the best examples of the British prestige picture done right.

3. Field of Dreams

One of the last true 1980s sweet spot movies, this one hits you right in the heart and never lets go. Kevin Costner is the ultimate American Dad Ray, a farmer who hears a voice in his cornfield telling him: 'if you build it, he will come' - and in true American fashion, starts to work on constructing a baseball field on it. It's a love it or hate it film in terms of its schmaltzy feel good nature, and I must confess that it entirely works for me. I love every moment of the film's gradual transcendence into fantasy as the ghosts of the past come out, strongholded by a great supporting cast featuring the greatest voice of all-time James Earl Jones, Ray Liotta in an early atypical role as a former baseball player making amends, and best of all Burt Lancaster as a player-turned-doctor who finds one last chance to play ball. It's a whimsical, hilarious, heartfelt film with a great, emotionally resonant ending, and one you can love even if, like me, you don't quite understand baseball.

2. Creed

1. Rocky

I've written a lot about Creed recently, and I'll be writing about Rocky in the future. As it stands, I'll give the original film the win first, though I'd say Creed reaches some even higher peaks in its depiction of the relationship between Rocky and his rival-turned-friend Apollo Creed's (Carl Weathers) son, Adonis (Michael B. Jordan). The Rocky series is one I absolutely love through and through, well maybe besides V, and that's because of the character of Rocky being such a deservedly iconic one. Stallone's original film and screenplay is so underrated in how it establishes not only Rocky as a character, but the whole world surrounding him and his underdog status in relation to others, especially his trainer Mickey (Burgess Meredith) and Apollo. The boxing/training scenes are great, and build up to a great finale in which I can never get over how inspired the last few shots are, the announcer reading out the victory of Apollo Creed in the background as Rocky embraces the love of his life Adrian (Talia SHire). Creed technically resurrects many similar beats to Rocky, but in an extremely effective fashion that never feels derivative. I love boxing films done well, and both these films are great examples of it done to perfection.

Top 5 Performances - Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie

Lest the onslaught of paparazzi nonsense envelop their careers completely, let's remember that both these actors are very, very capable talents in their own right...

Pitt

5. Fight Club

One of the most effective utilization of star power onscreen, Pitt blazes the screen with his overwhelming presence and makes an indelible impression as the one and only Tyler Durden. He plays off Edward Norton's more understated performance particularly well, and while it's one of his simpler roles in term of where the character exactly stands, it's certainly one of (arguably the) most memorable of them.

4. Burn After Reading

It's fantastic how such a naturally 'cool' actor, as Pitt showed in the likes of Fight Club, Snatch, Inglorious Basterds etc. can often step outside of his comfort zone and play complete loser, doofus characters. His early career featured one of them in True Romance as a very, very lazy stoner, and here in the Coen Brother's screwball comedy he's a hoot every minute as Chad, a gym instructor with very little stored up there and a great deal of laughs to spread. I love every moment of his performance here from his interactions with John Malkovich's abrasive FBI agent, and his final exit which could not be more perfect.

3. Se7en

Some hate the performance for purely the final scene. I see no problem with it; people react to grief in different ways, and while Pitt's David Mills might react in a bit of a peculiar way, it doesn't take away from the power of the moment, and anyway even if it did, the rest of his portrayal of a hotshot detective pulsates with such charisma, energy, enthusiasm and conviction, finding some great chemistry with Morgan Freeman and slowly depicting a rather fascinating arc for his character.

2. The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Overshadowed by Casey Affleck's towering (though that's probably the wrong way to describe Robert Ford) performance, Pitt's performance as the legendary outlaw Jesse James is nevertheless an excellent utilization of his strengths as a dramatic performer and status as a superstar. He's good at being the harsh and ruthless criminal figure and fits in with Andrew Dominik's vision of James as a legend, but what impresses me most about the performance is the more sensitively played side of James' weaknesses and more fallible side which leads Robert Ford to become disillusioned by him.

1. The Tree of Life

I re-watched this recently, and while it's still far from the standards of The Thin Red Line and Badlands, it's grown on me a great deal. One aspect of it I've always loved is Pitt's performance as Mr O'Brien. I've always been perplexed at how bad his performance in Twelve Years a Slave was as he's so good at bringing out the sensitive moments of poignancy and fatherly love here when the film requires him to bring it. What's great however is that Pitt never plays Mr O'Brien simply one way or the other. He's a harsh and strict father figure, a hypocrite to an extent, but one thing that's never in question is his love for his family. It takes what could've just been a prop to Malick's vision and makes it into a fully fledged, heartfelt and heartbreaking character. His 'apology' scene to his son is perhaps the highlight of his career.

Jolie

5. Mr and Mrs Smith

A film that may prove to be unwatchable for some in the future? Um, perhaps, but personally I never liked it all that much, as well as feeling that it contained one of the more dull Pitt performances in recent memory. Jolie, on the other hand, I enjoyed quite a bit throughout this spy comedy as a seductive and deadly assassin, which Jolie plays with the appropriate amount of sass and gravitas, but with a slight comedic edge that works quite well too.

4. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

Again, don't really care for the film. Jolie though is pitch-perfect as Lara Croft, from the prim and proper accent to the physical portrayal of the character in each of the action scenes, and even manages to make the ridiculous central plot and emotional backdrop work despite the film being rather paper-thin in those regards.

3. Maleficent

Another film I didn't really care for, despite having a very intriguing concept and a solid creative team behind it. Sharlto Copley is one of the worst villains in anything in recent memory, the visual style is decidedly unimaginative, and it completely sells out it's 'subversive' intents with a finale that's oh-so-generic Disney. Jolie, though, is fantastic initially as the EEEVIILLL Maleficent, completely eating up everyone else in the cast with her brilliant villainous portrayal. The 'cutesy' touch the film gives her character as the film progresses doesn't quite work, but she manages to mend it into her performance well enough and succesfully manages to make us care for one of the House of Mouse's most notorious sorceresses.

2. Changeling

An intriguing sort-of procedural merged with domestic drama, Jolie stars as a real-life single mother Christine Collins who's lost her son, and is reunited with a boy - who isn't her son. The resulting film isn't flawless and is sometimes undermined by a somewhat workmanlike direction by Clint Eastwood, but Jolie carries the film admirably with her rousing and defiant portrayal of a woman who won't back down from finding her son, whatever the cost. There's a few 'Oscar-y' scenes in the mix, but I think they work through Jolie's sterling work.

1. Girl, Interrupted

The film which was her true breakout, won her her first Oscar, and is to this date her career peak for a good reason. Girl, Interrupted is not a flawless film but it's endlessly intriguing. The script and storyline is actually extremely derivative over films with similar topic matters like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but what enlivens it are its characters. Aside from Winona Ryder (who should never be given a bland role), the whole cast is stellar, with the late Brittany Murphy particularly worthy of mention as Daisy. Jolie's turn as Lisa, the Randle McMurphy-esque rebel, who's equal parts charming and manipulative. Jolie is fantastic every moment onscreen in never shying away from the unsavoury qualities of the character, instead reveling them to create a supremely hateful but also somewhat sympathetic character, and makes the ending of the film more poignant than it probably deserves.

Musicians/Actors (besides Bowie) Who're Actually Pretty Good

It's easy to scoff at musical artists who try to make it big in the film industry, and sometimes it can prove to be a complete flop. Occasionally, and not all that rarely though, a popular singer/artist/musician can prove themselves fairly adept at the art of acting...I've left off Bowie because I've dedicated a whole article to the legend's screen presence, but here it is if you've missed it, https://actorvsactor.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/david-bowies-screen-presence.html

Ice Cube

O'Shea Jackson Sr., better known as the eponymous Ice Cube, has always been a larger than life sort of personality, well-renowned for somehow making everything he say somewhat intimidating. This talent is played to brilliant effect in the likes of Boyz N the Hood, where he plays Dougboy, a tough street thug with a secret sensitive and insecure side. He's great at being the abrasive and violently unpredictable criminal, but also very impressive at showing the more tender side to the man, and his final monologue is downright brilliant. Then in the 21 Jump Street films he's hilarious by using his intensity to marvellous deadpan effect as Captain Dickson, I particularly love his dynamic with Jonah Hill's Schmidt as the former is so aggresive and the latter so hapless in their interactions.

Björk

Basing this purely off Dancer in the Dark, Björk is not only a breathtakingly unique singer, but also an extremely compelling dramatic actor. She carries this rather depressing musical (directed by Lars von Trier, who else?) on her shoulders beautifully, disappearing effortlessly into the role of a single mother beset by an onset of blindness, and yet still trying to always see the beautiful side of things. She's endearing, heartfelt, complex and makes her character one you root for to succeed, and one to weep for her tragic fate.

Tom Waits

More often than not he gets fairly miniscule roles, but even with these in the likes of Ironweed as the local drunk, or Dracula as a particularly repulsive Renfield, he's rather compelling in, like Bowie, his one-of-a-kind performance style. When he gets something a bit meatier like the role of the Devil in The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus or best of all, his equal parts hilarious and heartbreaking turn as Zacharia, a serial killer who went round the country killing people who went round the country killing people (I'll never stop loving that line of dialogue) in Seven Psychopaths,

Ludacris

He's perfectly fine in the Fast and Furious films, in being just a naturally charming part of the ensemble of antiheroes you root for. As Anthony in Crash, he showed a different side to his abilities; despite an awful script and atrocious, heavyhanded direction in a film that's all about 'RACISM', but does very little in terms of making its point, he makes his race card playing and ultimately redeemed street crook Anthony's storyline actually resonate emotionally, and is rather funny to watch despite the often terrible dialogue he has to work with.

Cher

Haven't seen Silkwood yet, but on the basis of most of her 80s output, Cher's a particularly engaging onscreen performer who can excel in both showboating turns in the likes of Moonstruck as a quirky Sicilian-American widow looking for love and excitement (which she finds in the form of none other than ol' Nic Cage), and the understated turn as a druggie biker-cum-loving mother in Mask where she generates beautiful warmth in the connection between her and her onscreen son Eric Stoltz, the fierce passion she has in defending her son and the complex selfishness of her drug addiction making her Rusty a truly great character.

Dwight Yoakam

Actually haven't seen all that much of him, but he's a fantasic ball of sleaze in Panic Room and especially Sling Blade where he shows countless other failed attempts, how to play the alcoholic deadbeat asshole abusive boyfriend chillingly and effectively. It contrasts very well with how he usually comes across as just a pretty chilled and relaxed guy.

Eminem

Only seen him in 8 Mile and Funny People. He plays himself in both films essentially, but that's actually harder than it sounds. He's really interesting to watch in 8 Mile as the rapper with a chip on his shoulder, and is never dull to watch despite the somewhat repetitive nature of his character. Then in Funny People he elicited pretty much the only laugh I got all the film with his putdown of Ray Romano from Everybody Loves Raymond.

Tupac

It's a shame we didn't get to see more from him, as his turn as a heroin addict trying to rehabilitate himself and failing in Gridlock'd is a very promising and naturalistic piece of work where he shares some great chemistry with Tim Roth and more than proves himself as a screen presence.

Bing Crosby

Confession: I don't mind his Oscar win, at all. At worst he's a good singer and a charming presence as the sweet young Father O'Malley. At his best, in the likes of The Country Girl he proved he could certainly be a compelling dramatic actor in the right sort of film, with his rather unsettling performance as a washed up musician.

Dean Martin

Fabulous at playing the drunkard, it has to be said, but also a very interesting emotional presence. In Rio Bravo he actually steals the show away from John Wayne, AND Walter Brennan, as the pitiful alcoholic sherrif's deputy who gradually finds in himself the strength to become a better man.

Courtney Love

The People vs Larry Flynt is actually not a very good film about porn mogul Larry Flynt, and I find the best part of the film is easily the controversial Courtney Love as Flynt's AIDS-infected, drug-addicted girlfriend who provides both the happiest and saddest moments of his life. The role reeks of Oscar bait but Love never lowers herself down to that, and instead delivers a knockout turn that's so hard to watch because it's so good.

Frank Sinatra

He's bad, bad, bad in From Here to Eternity, but in everywhere else, especially Von Ryan's Express I dins ol' Frank a fairly compelling presence as the smarmy, quick-talking sort, and as he showed in The Manchurian Candidate he's not half bad at playing the darker and more brooding type either.

Burl Ives

One of the best musicians-turned-actors, period. He even won the Oscar for The Big Country where he's great as a domineering father figure, but even more so in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof where he takes on an iconic role as a dying family patriach and is so goddamn moving. Then in something like Our Man in Havana he's effortlessly hilarious and heartfelt without ever feeling the need to steal the spotlight. One of the best examples of a musician-turned-actor because there's not a hint of ego in his acting style, and yet despite being so selfless he always manages to steal the show,

Mariah Carey

She's apparently terrible in general onscreen, and her music isn't really my sort, and I've gotten the vibe from some interviews that she's a bit egotistic. But I may be completely wrong since her performance in Precious as the supportive school counselor, is the ultimate example of underplaying a role generously to allow co-stars to thrive, while also making her presence felt.

Jared Leto

Ignoring Suicide Squad completely, because besides that I really like him in general. In particular, in Dallas Buyers Club he disappears into the role of Rayon, an effective heart and soul that permeates Ron Woodruf's (Matthew McConaughey) rough exterior, and in Requiem for a Dream he's pretty good at just being a well-intentioned guy whose descent into decadence through drugs is quite poignantly felt.

The Criminally Underrated, Underused Don Cheadle

The first ever Don Cheadle role I saw was his marvelous performance as Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda. In this real-life story of a hotel manager who in the midst of the Rwandan genocide, despite being Hutu himself, uses his hotel to provide sanctuary for more than a 1,000 Tutsi refugees at his hotel. The film itself is extremely powerful and harrowing, one I've grown to appreciate all the more with time, and Cheadle's performance is utterly brilliant. It's one of the quietest performances of a heroic figure I've ever seen, as Cheadle does not overplay the bravery or selflessness of his character. He keeps his performance very quiet, very understated, and brings out a realism in Rusesabagina's quiet but clever manipulations of the Hutu soldiers. And in the moments where the film brings out the more intense moments beyond Cheadle's control, he plays these perfectly, his authentic reactions and emotional responses to the effects of the genocide making the film even more powerful. Many talk about how DiCaprio was snubbed of an Oscar for The Aviator, but I personally think Mr Cheadle's work here is far more deserving of that 'snub' honour.

After watching that amazing performance, I thought, 'gosh, they must be falling head over heels to cast this guy in everything'. Turns out I was wrong; Cheadle's probably been one of the most underused and overrated actors by Hollywood in recent years. Even when discussion turns to the 'OscarsSoWhite' debates or diversity in casting discussions, Cheadle's name rarely comes up, which is utterly ridiculous. He may not have had the most big roles in his career nor the biggest films to his name when he's the leading man, but that should not take anything away from the fact that even in his small roles he's a tremendous talent.

1990s Cheadle was a very interesting sort of character actor. He'd pop up in small but crucial roles like the trigger-happy tough guy Mouse in Devil in a Blue Dress, or as a member of a large ensemble like Boogie Nights and Out of Sight. In each of these roles, no matter what he'd find a way to steal his scenes. I find it paritcularly impressive how he manages to do so in Boogie Nights; despite Buck Swope's story being one of the least dramatic and emotionally draining plotlines, he manages to make his depiction of a man just trying to make his way in the world so compelling.

Come the 2000s and Cheadle began finally getting considerably more substantial roles. I'd say he's arguably the most prominent character in the ensemble films Traffic and Crash, and though in both he's saddled with somewhat limited roles of officers of the law, certainly much less colorful characters than the porn stars and career criminals he used to play, he was certainly solid enough within those limitations (which include the awful dialogue of Crash).

His Cockney accent in the Ocean's films was terrible in the first one, I think he realized that too since he began to tone it down afterwards. They remain some of his relatively weaker performances, and unfortuantely are probably some of the performances most people know him for since his earlier work was somewhat obscured by either the films he was in being too small-scale (Devil in a Blue Dress), or more prominent A-listers taking attention away from him.

He had Hotel Rwanda in 2004, ad a good run as a leading television star in House of Lies (which I also need to check out), but otherwise meaty leading roles have been scarce. He was apparently wonderful as radio show host Petey Greene in Talk to Me, but the fact I can't find the film anywhere is testament to the fact that his leading turns remain criminally underseen.

He was a wonderful straight man to Brendan Gleeson's avuncular, potty mouthed Irish cop in The Guard, and was actually quite the box office success, but for some reason it just doesn't seem to come up in discussions about Cheadle's filmography. And in Flight, a deeply flawed film with a great performance by Denzel Washington, he just didn't have anything to do. It's shameful, really.

He's become primarily defined by his role as James 'Rhodey' Rhodes/War Machine in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Even in the fantastic Civil War, Cheadle remained criminally underused in those films, though in that film at the very least he had a fantastic final scene that beautifully demonstrated both the friendship between Rhodes and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). I don't mind that he's taken on these smaller roles, clearly he enjoys doing them; but as Miles Ahead from the same year as Civil War shows...he's one of the best in the biz the more he gets to do.

I'll probably be covering him in some capacity come awards season for 'Miles Ahead', so stay tuned...

Ranking - Christopher Nolan

Haven't seen 'Following'.

8. Insomnia (3/5)

My least favourite Nolan film, and not that it's bad at all, just a bit forgettable outside of Robin Williams' great performance as the villain of the murder mystery, Walter Finch, a crime writer who's mysterious and creepy in an oddly innocent way. The murder mystery isn't terribly interesting, and though Nolan captures the smalltown environment atmosphere and gives Al Pacino a good role for once in the 21st century, it doesn't stick in my mind at any point like the best of Nolan's films. Perhaps I need a re-watch, but I'm not particularly keen on it.

7. The Dark Knight Rises (4/5)

On a technical level I should probably give this a lower grade. The screenwriting here is disastrous in some regards. There are some inane lines and line deliveries by usually adept actors like Aiden Gillens, Ben Mendelsohn and of all people, Marion Cotillard. The plot is at times needlessly convoluted, particularly in the final act with the needless introduction of a second villain, as if Tom Hardy's Bane wasn't memorable or menacing enough. The whole character of (Robin) John Blake is just not all that necessary, more focus should've been given back to Jim Gordon, and it seems like a lesser element that would fit better in the current DC movie universe where every film tries to futilely set up characters for future installments. And though I don't really care how Bruce got into Gotham in the third act, it wouldn't be amiss to include a scene detailing that. The thing is though, even these flaws are quite entertaining in a way, despite not being 'good' filmmaking so to speak.

There's also points in The Dark Knight Rises where we get the best of Christopher Nolan. The escape from Bane's prison cave sequence is an amazing segment, which is supplanted by a fantastic Christian Bale giving his best performance in the series (though not his best Christopher Nolan performance). There's an emotional undercurrent to this film's themes of redemption that extend to characters like Selina Kyle (a delightful Anne Hathaway), and Gordon that though not perfectly realized, has just the right amount of heart to make it work. On a visual level it's perfect as ever, with the Bane/Batman showdown, the increased decadence of Gotham under Bane's regime, all being rather exquisite to look at. I'll probably revise my grade for this film in the near future but as it stands, it's a deeply flawed film but, at points where it gets it right, in small parts a masterpiece.

6. Interstellar (4/5)

Like The Dark Knight Rises, I'll get the flaws out of the way. The film in many ways showcases some of Nolan's worst tendencies as a writer to hammer in the point. Some of the characters here exist purely to express themes, like Matt Damon's mad astronaut and Michael Caine's ageing scientist, which not only seriously limits the actors but also makes their storylines less engaging. It's however, visually as splendid as ever, as Nolan's 2001: A Space Odyssey of sorts in its unique realization of galaxies and universes, Its scientific concepts are well-explained as is the plot, and even though it feels a bit bloated at points the film mainly works due to the most important aspects of the film working well.

That being the central story of Matthew McConaughey's Cooper, and astronaut sent into space to find a new home for humanity. Had the film stuck to this story more closely I'd say it could've been one of Nolan's best. As it stands, it's part of an imperfect overall package, but McConaughey carries the human element of the film brilliantly through his warm and emotional performance, and helps to make his relationship with onscreen daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy, Jessica Chastain, Ellen Burstyn) so incredibly powerful. A film I think is let down in some regards by the less than amazing screenplay, but Nolan's direction always soars in giving a memorable depiction of a journey in space, and I'd love to see him revisit the genre with a tighter, more concise storyline to follow.

5. Batman Begins (4.5/5)

Ah, the first Batman film that oddly enough seems to be forgotten when discussing the trilogy, more due to the title not having The Dark Knight in it than anything concerning its quality. What's interesting is that it's actually far more intertwined to The Dark Knight Rises than The Dark Knight is, through one of the central elements being Ra's al Ghul's League of Shadows, and its relationship to Bruce Wayne/Batman. As an origin story to Batman, it's completely solid and actually quite daring in that Batman doesn't actually appear onscreen till about halfway through the film, making the first half or so more of a Bruce Wayne story. Christian Bale holds the screen rather well in his first venture as the character and depicts the gradual transition from angry, violent young man to a more intelligent and imposing one, as well as being quite entertaining in the scenes where he puts on the front of multimillionaire hedonistic playboy, and having some very good chemistry with Michael Caine. It's in the scenes depicting the rise of Batman that the film is at its best, the first appearance of the Caped Crusader is one of the highlights.

Outside of the origins story, the film is solid but never spectacular. The villains this time round are a little less memorable outside of Cillian Murphy's deeply unnerving Dr Jonathan Crane, soon to become the 'Scarecrow' (his delivery of 'the Batman' is deliciously creepy). Tom Wilkinson's Carmine Falcone and Liam Neeson's big bad are good villains but not particularly memorable outside of being played by renowned actors and carrying some fine menace. The final act, also, is not particularly distinctive, and doesn't have quite the complexity of The Dark Knight (though few films do) or even The Dark Knight Rises, but it provides a decent enough backdrop for Batman to kick some ass, and manages to blend the emotional and action elements together really well. It's a simpler story than the next two films in the series, but that's probably one of its strengths as well.

4. Inception (5/5)

Nolan's most high-concept film, and even though doesn't quite hit the heights it's striving for, you can't really hold anything against it for that. It stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Cobb, a dream 'extractor', a thief who goes infiltrates the subconsciousness of others to obtain valuable information for corporate espionage, and is offered a proposition he can't refuse by wealthy businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe); 'inception', the implementation/planting of an idea into the subconsciousness of another. Complete it, and Cobb can have his criminal history erased and return to America a free man to see his children.

This is on one level (no pun intended), a heist movie, and the glimpses of potential Nolan showed in that regard from The Dark Knight is wonderfully realized here. The team Cobb assembles to undertake this near-impossible task aren't some of the most interesting characters in a Christopher Nolan film ever, more defined by what they do than who they are, though there's of course Tom Hardy making a strong impression nevertheless. As a heist procedural the film is arresting more in the visual presentation of the heist on each level of their target's, Robert Fischer's (Cillian Murphy), subconsciousness. The realization of each level is aesthetically great, in particular Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Arthur fighting in a zero-gravity hotel environment, and the third-act snowy fortress.

I have to say on a dramatic level it's not as compelling as the next three films I'm going to get to. Cobb's personal dilemma is well-handled, but the intrusions into the heist by his deceased wife (Marion Cotillard) into the dreams are very effective. Each scene feels like it contributes to the plot and makes the conclusion of the film all the more satisfying. There is also Robert Fischer's own personal storyline which creates quite the moving conclusion scene than perhaps the film ever intended. It's not perfect, but it's a great film in many regards, particularly in its visual elements, and is most certainly never boring, and also has perhaps one of the most iconic soundtracks of recent times by Han Zimmer.

3. Memento (5/5)

Where do I start with this utter mindfuck of a film, which I should note I last re-watched about a year ago...so a re-watch could bump it up. The central concept of the film is that it takes both a backwards chronological and chronological order to tell its story, concluding with the two strands coalescing in the middle of the story. It's used to reflect the mental state of our protagonist, Leonard (an amazing performance by Guy Pearce), who after a blow to his head has become inflicted with anterograde amnesia, meaning he can remember details of his life before the injury, but can no longer record new memories and can only remember the past 5 - 10 minutes at any given moment in time.

It's a fascinating concept, and one the film makes full use of; everything in this film is so meticulously constructed, it's probably the one film that I think warrants the comparison to Kubrick. Nolan's utilization of the parralel chronology timeline is dealt with in stylized fashion, the reverse chronology side filmed in colour, and the chronological side filmed in monochrome. There's also the inspired visual element of Leonard having names and numbers that have some sort of significance to his ongoing investigation tattooed on him, and the inspired script elements of him interacting with the same characters over and over again in reverse chronological order as we gradually begin to see how they relate to him, and in the chronological order finding the process of Leonard trying to figure out how to go about finding the killer of his wife.

What I love about the film is that there's a certain ambiguity as to whether or not his wife was actually murdered, since there's another anecdote in the chronological monochrome scenes about a man with a similar condition as him, whose wife died in circumstances that could very well be Leonard's wife's own. Leonard is a character who genuinely knows nothing beyond what other people tell him, and clues he finds on his own body, and the genius of Guy Pearce's performance and the screenplay is that it's utilized through and through for not just the investigation, but also for dark comedy, and a certain emotional poignancy to Leonard's plight. It's a film I definitely need to re-watch soon to re-examine, but even with a less than perfect memory of the film it's one that's most certainly worth a watch, perhaps Nolan's biggest challenge as a screenwriter in particular and one he pulls off perfectly.

2. The Prestige (5/5)

My appreciation of the film has only increased over time - this is pretty much the definition of a film which grows with age. A fascinating examination of two magicians in 1900 London, Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman), friends turned rivals, the film is essentially one sequence of magicians' one-upmanship games after another, with a bit of romance, tragedy, and science-fiction on the side courtesy of Nikola Tesla (David Bowie). To describe the plot of the film is difficult, even more so than Memento, because the various strands of plot surrounding the central rivalry can appear initially discordant to the first-time viewer, which extends to Christian Bale's performance. It does resemble Memento in the way that the plot is unraveled through the two seperate lines of narrative, with protagonists reading each other's journals, but even that isn't exactly what it seems; what's made clear from the outset is that they're trying to get the better of the other, but the way in doing so remains vague till the very end.

We begin with Michael Caine's Cutter (the best of his mentor figures in Nolan films), explaining the various stages of a magic trick,  the 'Pledge', the inspection of an ordinary object; the 'Turn', making an ordinary object do something extraordinary, and has you fooled; and the 'Prestige' where you make that something come back. It establishes the film brilliantly; it's all a big magic trick, and whether or not you choose to go along with it is a hugely important factor to one's appreciation of the film. I personally have always been enraptured with the film, and all its twists and turns in how it depicts the battle between the driven, somewhat charmless and intense Borden and the charismatic showman Angier after the former inadvertently causes a personal tragedy for the latter.

The film up till that point is relatively straightforward, though told in a pretty cryptic, flashback-flash-forward format with the aforementioned journals. A trick called the 'Transported Man' soon becomes one of the objects of conflict; another comes in the form of Olivia Wenscombe (Scarlett Johnasson). The film's non-chronological back-and-forth results in us also getting insight into a visit to Tesla by Angier. I realise that all of this still isn't giving much clarity to the plot, and perhaps that's the point. Onscreen, you're thoroughly entertained and intrigued by each act of one-upmanship, affected by the personal relationships of Borden with his wife Sarah (Rebecca Hall in a brief but extremely effective performance), Olivia and his partner Fallon, intrigued by what Tesla and his mysterious machines have to play in all of this, but it's not till the final act where you begin to really make sense of it all.

It's certainly a daring approach and can result in some feeling the whole film does nothing but build towards its twist...well, two twists. I'd disagree. There's so much to praise in this film beyond just that. In terms of technical aspects it's brilliant, with Tesla's laboratory, the stages and theaters where the musicians practice on, all having so much character of their own. The special effects are subtly handled but great too, the costuming is immaculate. The whole ensemble is stellar; Johansson has the most thankless role but still manages to make an impression, Caine is a warm and effective avatar for the audience to enter the film through, Hall is viscreally effective, Andy Serkis as Nikola Tesla's assistant is very entertaining, and David Bowie is MVP of the supporting cast with his superlative, haunting turn as a genius who knows very well the cost of it all. As for Jackman, it's one of his best performances, and he's excellent at showing the descent of Angier from sympathetic charmer to a fickle, petty man consumed with vengeance, and sells the twist of his character perfectly (it'll take awhile to explain here but it involves the most sci-fi elements of the film).

The best aspects of the film though, are the screenplay and direction of Nolan, and Christian Bale. Nolan knows how to set up hints throughout the screenplay about the secrets of both magicians without ever giving the game away, but when you re-watch the film you don't feel cheated as the film earns these twists completely. Nolan's direction brilliantly implements the more fantastical elements of Tesla's experiments to give the film even more layers, particularly resonant given his real-life rivalry with Thomas Edison, and also never makes these elements feel out of place, in fact they feel just so right. The human element that can sometimes be lost in the midst of Nolan's intellect never does so here as both screenplay and film humanize the characters and scenarios, and while it's all a magic trick, deceiving you at every twist and turn which it's certainly great at, on subsequent re-watches with awareness of the twists you can appreciate the depth of the film's emotional input. A lot of this comes from Borden's half of the story, which brings me to Bale's performance.

SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT

It's impossible to discuss Bale's performance without discussing the twist concerning his character, which is consderably more downplayed and less overtly built up to by the film than Angier's twist (which is that Angier is still alive, even though at the beginning of the film it appears he has drowned), but I'd say is even more effective because of that. You can't really appreciate Bale's performance fully by just watching the film once. At times there's such violent intensity and crazed determination to succeed in creating the perfect illusion; and sometimes with a kinder, compassionate edge, less invested in the drive to create a perfect illusion, more invested in the wellbeing of his family, and yet even in these scenes he sometimes veers back to his more driven, colder self. It may seem like two completely different people, and here's the twist, it is two different people; Bale plays twins throughout the whole film, and it's so fascinating to examine this on re-watch since you can pinpoint clearly in each scene which twin is onscreen, and yet you can never accuse Bale of giving the game away. He threads the twist in so neatly into his performance and even though it's there, right in front of you the whole time, the intentional duplicity of his performance is so subtle you can't notice it - it's a fascinating portrait of two people in one identity, with little hints here and there of how they differentiate. In that sense Bale's performance, and Nolan's writing and direction behind it, is indicative of the excellence of the film as a whole. It plays a trick on you, without ever cheating or giving it away, and yet that's not all there is to it.

1. The Dark Knight (5/5)

I should state that a re-watch of The Prestige could easily bump it back up to first place again. One reason I can make for that is that while The Prestige is pretty much flawless through and through, The Dark Knight has a few flaws I can nitpick. Some forced dialogue here and there for the extras, Batman's raspy voice can be a bit much at certain points, and I've never loved the underwritten nature of Rachel Dawes, even though it works for the film just fine.

These are quibbles though, and the strengths of the film outweigh the very minor flaws. And that's a vast understatement. The Dark Knight is my favourite superhero film of all-time, but I hesitate to call it even that since it really is more of a crime thriller with the comic book elements of Batman added to it. Standing atop of the crime and decadence of Gotham in this installment of Nolan's Batman trilogy is Heath Ledger as the Joker, who I've talked about multiple times here already, so I won't repeat myself again. It's a crowning, grand pinnacle of the masterpiece that is The Dark Knight, but like the twists to Memento and The Prestige, that's not all there is to the film.

The film is first and foremost, VERY entertaining as just an action thriller. From the opening bank heist, to the Hong Kong extraction setpiece, to Batman chasing down the Joker through the streets of Gotham on his Batmobile, to my favourite setpiece, the SWAT team building battle, they're all incredible sequences to look at, listen to. Nolan's direction and the excellent cinematography by Wally Pfister as per usual, gives each of them a very gritty, down-to-earth vibe that's nevertheless extremely fun to watch. Every punch thrown by Batman is particularly resonant through the excellent sound editing, and the choreography of the fights are great, as are every car chase, and rescue scene, really on a technical level it's a perfect action film.

It goes beyond that though by also being a fascinating psychological thriller in many respects. The cast to The Dark Knight is hugely stocked, and what I love is that you get an insight into just about every character. Harvey Dent, whose arc is technically dealt with fairly swiftly, never feels shortchanged as a character due to the excellent casting of Aaron Eckhart, and a screenplay which never paints him as perfect when a hero, or imperfect when a villain; though he's never referred to as 'Two-Face' within the film I believe, that side of the character always comes through in each scene he's in as both the heroic D.A. and the grieving secondary antagonist.

Lieutenant, and eventual Police Comissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) is so much more than just a cop; Nolan builds up the strong-willed individual he created in Batman Begins by essentially making him the understated heart of the film, a man simply trying to do some good in a world corrupted by evil. Oldman's performance is one of the unheralded beauties of The Dark Knight, as the reactive face to the atrocities of Gotham's chaos, and the character is particularly compelling in the final act where things get personal, and to cap it all off he gets an amazing final speech to cap off what Batman really means to Gotham.

I've mentioned two of the more prominent supporting players outside of Joker, but really everyone in the cast (of mostly crooks) is outstanding. The screenplay does such a great job of delving into the underworld of Gotham, making a subtle distinction from Batman Begins in that the criminals now are resorting to teaming up together to take on the new threat that is the Batman. It does an equally great job in examining the 'good' side of the city, though even that is rampant with corruption. Watching Gordon and the Gotham police force taking down the money laundering schemes of the Gotham mobs is intriguing to watch, and how Batman both works alongside and in opposition to the authorities adds another layer.

This all builds up of course to that brilliant interrogation scene of the Joker where we finally see how all these elements come into play, how through all the threads of crime and justice pulsating through The Dark Knight, the central confrontation between Batman and the Joker's essence is that they're not part of either side; 'don't talk like one of them, you're not...to them you're just a freak like me'.

Some have argued that Batman is overshadowed in this film by the Joker entirely. I'd disagree, in that as showboatingly brilliant Ledger's Joker is, the writing and direction actually utilizes him to amplify the themes and characterization of the Dark Knight. Each of their confrontations brings so much out of each character; we never get a clear sense of what the Joker's past is exactly, but we get a fascinating exploration of his twisted psyche, love of chaos and his view of human nature being inherently ugly. His love for jokes, riddles and wry laughs as a way of bringing out his cynical view of the world as a deeply twisted and selfish place stands in stark oppostion to the humourless, blunt and often violent Batman who believes the best in people. Whether it's the Wayne Ball scene, the interrogation scene, or their final showdown, each confrontation between the two characters makes for scintillating food for thought.

Particular moments within this dynamic I love include: the heartbreaking Sophie's choice he forces Batman to make; Joker daring Batman to kill him ('Hit me! Hit me') and being disappointed when he ultimately chooses not to; their opposing views as to how the two groups of people on the ferry will react to his terrifying social experiment.

It's ethical dilemmas like that which are sprinkled around The Dark Knight that gives the film such an intelligent edge, and yet it never feels bogged down by it. In fact it's these very dilemmas which provide the film with its unrelenting pace and impact; almost every scene is going to absorb you in some sort of hard-hitting impact, whether it be viscreal (the Joker's videotaped murder of a Batman impersonator) or emotional (the conclusion to the 'Sophie's choice' scene). It's a film that can be appreciated as both a treat for the mind or treat for the senses since it never seperates the two apart; it's both an extremely entertaining and extremely complex film.

Raimi's 'Spider-Man' vs Webb's 'The Amazing Spider-Man'

Pretty self-explanatory where this is coming from, no?

Direction: Sam Raimi vs Marc Webb

It seemed like a match made in heaven. Mark Webb and a series about the world's most famous webslinger. The director of 500 Days of Summer bringing the same sort of vibrancy and knowing humour to one of the most humorous superheroes. And he certainly brought quite a bit of that to his The Amazing Spider-Man films, particularly in the elements of the Peter Parker-Gwen Stacy romance I'll get to in a bit. Unfortunately, outside of those elements, Webb's work on the cancelled series was a mixed bag veering greatly towards the negative. He never seems completely assured in the action scenes, the establishing of a superhero universe, the establishing of villains, there's glimmers of potential here and there but mostly, though his style suits the romantic/comedic scenes, it's ill-at-ease in pretty much everything else.

Raimi's work is almost the opposite. His handling of the central romance and the comedy is a mixed bag, there's some touching moments in the relationship side of things and a few great black comedy sequences in Spider-Man 2 that hearken back to Raimi's The Evil Dead films, the Daily Bugle scenes, and of course his Bruce Campbell cameos, but a lot of Spider-Man 3 is brought down by his misplayed approach to the lighter material and 'dark comedy' of Peter Parker's emo dancing. Not all of it is his fault, but his approach is sometimes tonally inconsistent; otherwise though, his work on the Spider-Man trilogy was mostly very, very solid in terms of his handling of the dramatic and action blend that the webslinger requires, he managed to fuse his personal style with the style of the comics, and managed to make the films both very entertaining to audiences worldwide, while also very respectful of the source material outside of a few exceptions.

Winner: Sam Raimi

Spider-Man: Tobey Maguire vs Andrew Garfield

I actually like Maguire's Spider-Man more than most people. He might seem a bit uncofortable at times zinging out some of the more snarky one-liners, but he handles himself well in general with the action scenes, and is quite endearingly funny whenever Spidey needs to be a bit more mischeveous and lighten things up.Really, Spider-Man in costume isn't really an acting challenge so to speak, more than anything it's a director's job to make the character stand out in the surroundings. Raimi's direction allows Maguire to thrive in the action scenes and makes each Spidey set-piece in the first two films quite compelling, and even has some inspired moments in the lacklustre third film with the whole 'evil' Spider-Man complex.

I think I'll give the slight edge to Garfield here though. Maguire makes for a fine Spidey with good direction, but Garfield makes for a fine Spidey with sometimes very questionable direction. He hits the same notes as Maguire does in terms of just being an endearing and convincing action hero, but in addition there's a bit more spark to some of the more wisecracking deliveries, in particular the car burgular scene above, and his voice and lankier physique works much better to his advantage. He plays into the motormouth Spidey more often and it makes a slightly bigger impression than Maguire's and the Raimi trilogy's slightly more serious, stoic approach to the role. Though Webb makes some questionable choices with the character (i.e. making him start off as a vigilante hunting down Uncle Ben's killer exudes more of a Batman vibe than anything else), Garfield mostly manages to brush past these to make for a very good Spider-Man.

Winner: Andrew Garfield

Peter Parker: Tobey Maguire vs Andrew Garfield

Here's the bigger gap between the two. Now I'm a fan of Andrew Garfield in general. He's leading two of my most anticipated films this December, Hacksaw Ridge and Silence, and I've found him a thoroughly engaging presence in the likes of Never Let Me Go, 99 Homes and especially his great performance as Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network. However, I can't say love all of his performance as Peter Parker. Garfield's approach to Peter Parker pre-Spider-Man is a bit of a misstep as he tries to play him as this loner skateboarding hipster more than the traditional awkward nerd. Yet the script also tries to bring in some of these more traditional elements, by combining this with the early comic's presentation of Peter as a cold, reserved kid with a chip on his shoulder. It may have worked in the comics, but it doesn't really work onscreen, making Peter Parker from the outset more distant. Garfield does his best and it kind of works in the first film, not so much in the second. In addition Garfield doesn't really look the part of Peter Parker all that much; he's almost far too good-loking and physically quite imposing actually from the outset, not the sort of person Flash Thompson really want to bully, more just ignore than anything else.

Whereas Maguire is pretty much perfect for Peter Parker. Maybe it's just easier to accept him as Peter Parker because he looks the part and acts the part within his usual 'type' of the time (he's since branched out into different sorts of roles like his solid turn as a PTSD war veteran in Brothers and a paranoid chess player in Pawn Sacrifice), but Maguire is wholly convincing as ol' Pete. He may not have the bitterness and chip on his shoulder that the comics had initially portrayed him as, and may be more of a doormat than anything else for his friends like Harry Osborne and J. Jonah Jameson, but one of the most excellent qualities of Maguire's performance is that he slowly finds his way out of his shell as a pushover while still maintaining a certain 'facade' of it with certain people. Anyway, before his transformation into Spidey, Maguire is just so likable and awkwardly sweet as Peter Parker that you immediately want to root for him, even if the film does show that he's like many teenagers, selfish and flawed in his own ways.

Maguire also manages the transition into Spider-Man better, Garfield sorts of just turns Peter into Spider-Man immediately as if he'd been born to be a hero and has no difficulties finding himself in such a position. Maguire keeps it far more realistic by showing the gradual learning curve of Peter Parker growing into his role as New York's protector; it's very subjective of course, but I personally like how he never quite loses that initial edge of meekness and awkwardness to his Peter Parker. It makes sense, people don't change completely overnight, and why would you want Peter any other way anyway? He makes it understandable why people continue to like him as Peter Parker, perhaps even more so since even J. Jonah Jameson seems to have a slight sense of affection (very slight, mind you) for Peter, while Garfield's Peter just becomes increasingly obnoxious over the course of the two films, except for interactions with one very specific character.

You continue to root for Spider-Man over the three films of Raimi's trilogy because Maguire's Peter remains a uniquely charismatic, identifiable and lovable hero, that you even forgive some of the more obnoxious elements of the character the films throw at him.in the second film where he grows indifferent to everyone around him after losing his superpowers, because he's been otherwise such a swell guy. You know it's only time before he does a turnaround which he does in that rousing scene where he rescues a girl from a burning building, you'll love it so much you won't even mind it's essentially a re-tread of the first film. You even forgive the 'dark' phase of Peter as a complete weirdo in the third film because it's just a phase, you know he'll turn it around.
Spider-Man is the symbol to the city in the same way the Dark Knight is a symbol to Gotham; but it's the man underneath the mask that compels me above all. That's why I still consider Christian Bale to give the best performance as Bruce Wayne, a perfect casting choice, even if his Batman has a few shaky moments, and why for all the nonsense of Spider-Man 3 and the few iffy moments he has as Spidey, Tobey Maguire was the best choice for the role.

Note: After writing all that and watching some clips again...I feel I'm being overly harsh on Garfield. It's more the way the character is conceived from the outset that makes his portrayal a bit of a mixed bag for me. I actually really like some of his establishing scenes of Peter coping with his powers, and of course his chemistry with Emma Stone. In short, I feel in praising Maguire I may have inadvertently criticized Garfield. He's a decent Peter and a good Spidey, it's just that perhaps Maguire will always be ingrained in my mind as the definitive version of the character.

Winner: Tobey Maguire

Primary Love Interest: Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson vs Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy

An easy pick, since Dunst, though never really actively bad as MJ, is just not given to do much in the films besides being a damsel in distress and a bland romantic partner. The role as written does not allow for any of the more interesting elements of the character in the comics to come into play, and so as it stands Dunst and the film make Mary Jane Watson a likable enough love interest to Peter Parker and Spider-Man, but it's always the direction of the film that makes it more memorable than the performances of the actors in their scenes together (see: upside down kiss).

I'm not going to say that Emma Stone is a greater actress than Kirsten Dunst, in fact based on Fargo, Interview with the Vampire, Midnight Special, etc and presumable Melancholia which I've had yet to see, Dunst might actually have the considerable edge in terms of dramatic characters. Stone, however, is definitely a much more engaging presence when pigeonholed into the 'stock love interest' role, and makes a lot out of an actually quite limited role in itself. She's also kind of the damsel in distress, but Stone transcends the restraints of that by giving a very nice and sweet, and very funny at times, performance as popular girl Gwen Stacy. She has some great chemistry with Andrew Garfield, whose performance as Peter Parker she always somewhat enlivens in their scenes together. I really like every moment onscreen she had in Webb's Spider-Man films, and it's a shame what they did with the character in the second film. I know it's canonical with the comics, but just seemed in ill-taste considering that she was probably the best element of that film.

Winner: Emma Stone 

The Osbornes/Green Goblins: Willem Dafoe/James Franco vs Chris Cooper/Dane DeHaan

The two Norman Osbornes are not equal in terms of overall screentime, but based on the wholly uninspired way with which Chris Cooper played the dying Norman in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, as if he couldn't wait to get away from the set, then he's easily the worse of the two. With more screentime I'd imagine he'd just be phoning it in even more, and based on what little we see of him it looks like he couldn't wait to get off set. Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin isn't flawless. The Green Goblin suit in the first film is kind of cheesy looking, and it doesn't help that a few times his performance goes into overly hammy, 'look at me I'm eeevvvvilll' territory.

When he's more subdued with his menace, however, Dafoe is great - I mean, look at him in The Grand Budapest Hotel, it's practically second nature for the fella. Not enough time is spent on his development into the villain from the egotistic but not altogether unsympathetic scientist, but he manages to make it fairly affecting and realistic, and also has a nice juicy one-scene wonder in the second film to cap it off.

As for Harry Osborne, James Franco also has more time than Dane DeHaan to develop his character. Franco was an interesting choice for Harry in that the comic book version of the character is usually described as quite snobbish looking and unappealing overall, whereas Franco's Harry is quite handsome, a bit awkward in his own way with his wealth and prosperous family background, and friendly if a bit smug at times. His performance isn't great initially, I'm not a huge fan of Franco in general, and it's still not particularly impressive once he starts going darker, but he has okay chemistry with Maguire, and a few pretty good moments in the third film in portraying the conflicted state of Harry Osborne between avenging his father and loving Peter as a friend, even if his costume is not great. Dane DeHaan's Harry Osborne is a complete ass, which is probably the intention, but the fact that that's all there is to the character is problematic, You never get a sense of a history between him and Peter which makes the relationship between the two characters completely fail, his motivations for being a villain come out of nowhere, and when he does become the Green Goblin he's grotesque, but really not that menacing. DeHaan was probably doing this for the paycheck, I can't blame him for that, but there have been better performances for money's sake, and this is one of the worst villain turns ever.

Winner: The Raimi films (Dafoe/Franco)

The Other Villains

Both film series have had terrible villains, so let's compare those first. Spider-Man 3 is not a good film, and one of its villains is a big reason why. Eddie Brock/Venom is one of the greatest comic book villains in Marvel history, a fascinating examination of a sort of alternative Spidey. In Topher Grace's hands he becomes a complete joke of a character. I'll grant that I'm always up for actors playing against type, but only if they can pull it off. Eric Foreman does not pull it off, his Eddie Brock is smarmy and unlikable for sure, but there's not a hint of villain portrayal in these early stages as the way the script completely negates the interesting original backstory to the character is just PAINFUL. Then when he becomes infected with the alien symbiote the performance goes from bad to very, ver bad. As Venom there's not a hint of venom or menace to his portrayal, and adding to that the special effects involved aren't particularly great. I normally like Grace, but this was just a bad inclusion to a film already overflowing with villains.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is similar to Spider-Man 3 in that it's overflowing with villains. The difference is that Spider-Man 3 has one bad villain; James Franco's Harry Osborne/Green Goblin 2 isn't terrible and does his job decently enough, and though I'm not a huge fan of the 'Joker killed Batman's parents' gambit they pull with Flint Marko/Sandman, I actually really like the visual effects and casting of Thomas Haden Church, who looks EXACTLY like his comic book counterpart. His heartfelt portrayal of a reluctant criminal is flawed in writing but performed as perfectly as could be.

In The Amazing Spider-Man 2 every villain is dreadful. Every villain. Paul Giamatti as the Rhino sounds good on paper, but not once you've seen how they've mutilated the whole concept of his character onscreen, and have a talented actor give a painfully, offensive, over-the-top and hammy portrayal of a 'Russian' supervillain, all stereotypes intact. He's only in the film for a few minutes but still makes a bad impact.

Then there's Jamie Foxx in the 'main' villain role of Electro. Foxx is not terrible initial scenes in establishing Max Dillon, the geeky unstable guy who admires Spider-Man to the pint of insanity. He's not great though, and soon turns bad when he transforms into Electro. The visual presentation of the character doesn't help he's laughable as Electro himself, complete with self-declaration of 'I AM ELECTRO' and corny one-liners worthy of Batman and Robin. I generally like Foxx, but this was a huge misstep for him. I've mentioned DeHaan as well who's bad, but then Martin Csokas as Dr Kafka, whose performance...eh...I'll just leave it at there.

Csokas's awful 'mad scientist' routine actually goes to show how a performance like Alfred Molina's as Dr Otto Octavius/Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2 is so effective.

Doc Ock isn't a subtle villain by any stretch of the imagination, his name itself spells what he's all about quite overtly, but one of the excellent things about Spider-Man 2 is how it gives nuance to its villain. Otto Octavius is presented at the start as just this charming, low-key and affable guy who completely takes to Peter Parker as a protegee, and I really love the warm chemistry he shows with his onscreen wife. He's just a nice guy which makes it terrible when you see his science experiment go wrong, inadvertently killing his wife and causing him to become fused, phyiscally and mentally, to four extended mechanical arms attached to his spine. Doc Ock is the villain I'm guessing Sam Raimi most wanted to film, since he has a lot of fun with the arms and battle techniques of Doc Ock, implementing him into some tremendously entertaining action sequences, and Molina is very fun through all of these scenes by playing up the maniacal villain to the extreme. However there's also glimpses within of a more compassionate and sensitive soul lurking within which makes the character's eventual redemption all the more affecting.

Rhys Ifans' Curt Conners/Lizard in The Amazing Spider-Man is actually interesting enough in the initial stages as a downtrodden scientist who's desperate to make a scientific breakthrough, but is ultimately let down by a very negative element of the character once he undergoes his transformation into the Lizard, the film wasting a very intriguing character.

Winner: The Raimi Films 

Aunt May and Uncle Ben: Rosemary Harris/Cliff Robertson vs Sally Field/Martin Sheen

There's nothing wrong with Martin Sheen's Uncle Ben portrayal. It's a nicely warm, tough love portrayal of a good uncle whose death we mourn. The problem is something I'll get onto in a bit but he's good enough in the role, as is Sally Field as a particularly vibrant and energetic Aunt May.

However, Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben just seems like absolute pitch-perfect casting. I really love his portrayal of Ben and you really feel the power of his departure from the film. Rosemary Harris as Aunt May is perfectly fine, I particularly like her in the second film, so in this round I'll definitely have to hand it over to the Sony films.

Winner: The Raimi Films

Uncle Ben's Death/'With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility'

I did a seperate category for this because the problems I have with Uncle Ben in the The Amazing Spider-Man films has nothing to do with Mr Sheen. The way that Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker comes around to accepting that with great power comes great responsibility is really problematic in the sequel; the store robbery scene is one I understand they're trying to convey that Peter is becoming an ass over small matters, but frankly it doesn't quite pack the punch of Peter lying to his Uncle Ben about going to the library, and exiting it to find his uncle dead. I can't explain it, it feels a bit forced. Also the way the 'with great power, comes great responsibility' speech is relayed to him at the end is a bit too much. I guess it shouldn't be blamed for trying to do something different, but this is probably why it's wise not to do the same origin story twice in the row.

Winner: Spider-Man

The Spider-Man Costume/Design/Powers

I like the original Spidey suit designed by Peter, but the Andrew Garfield one does recreate the look of the comic-book version better, which I quite like. Although I have to say, my favourite one thus far is Tom Holland's one for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Winner: The Webb Films

Costume Design (outside of Spider-Man)

I've mentioned before that the old Green Goblin costume is somewhat ridiculous, but so is the newer one, so both those cancel out. In terms of the other villains, the Raimi films are more minimalist but work better that way, particularly with Doc Ock's sunglasses and trench coat and Flint Marko's iconic black and green t-shirt. The Marc Webb films have some atrocious costumes in the form of whatever the hell they decided to put the Rhino in, and Electro's whole design is just so ill-conceived.

Winner: The Raimi Films

'Precocious Children/Infants' scenes

Both have their fair share of these sorts of cheesy scenes, seemingly a staple of superhero films that not even the great Christopher Nolan can avoid. Raimi's films do these better because they're actually mostly integral to the plot, in particular Peter Parker saving a girl from a burning building without his powers in Spider-Man 2, which makes me forgive some of the cornier moments of kids admiring Spider-Man and being told to eat their vegetables.

The Amazing Spider-Man has a very forced scene where Spider-Man has a kid put on his mask while climbing out of a burning car, and a terrible one at the end of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 which is an example of both bad parenting, and badscreenwriting. I cringed, hard, both times.

Winner: The Raimi Films

High-School Life

The Raimi films didn't dwell on the high-school life of Peter Parker too much, seemingly in a bit of a rush to get to the Daily Bugle segment of Peter's life. However, it does well within these limits. I particularly love the scene where Peter tries his powers out against the school bully. I do think The Amazing Spider-Man does give quite an interesting look at how Peter Parker adapts to his powers within the campus environment, although the basketball scene suspends disbelief (so when a superhero with amazing leaping powers comes around later on, no one's going to think it's Parker?), and more time is dedicated to Peter at high school, so I'll give the edge in that regard.

Winner: The Webb Films

Screenplay

Cinemasins helps here, but there's plenty of other flaws I could get into for those films - the romantic flirty dialogue aside (which isn't even that great, Garfield and Stone just deliver it well), a lot of the dialogue is corny, and not in a fun way like the Raimi films. Even worse is the plotting. The motivations behind the villains of both the first and second film are terrible, especially Norman Osborne, whereas in the Raimi films no matter how terrible the villain was you still kind of knew where he was coming from. Then there's the whole overblown issues about Peter Parker's missing parents and the attempts at universe building a la Marvel Cinematic Universe, in the Webb films, neither of which amounts to anything more than bland distractions. The scripts for the Raimi films aren't perfect, but they're at best perfectly solid and at worst not great. The Webb scripts are at best serviceable and at worst terrible.

Winner: The Raimi Films

Editing

The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are great examples of how NOT to cut a superhero film. The latter in particular seems to just throw scenes at you in random. There was apparently a lot on the cutting-room floor, whole characters like Mary Jane Watson got cut, and it shows in the final product. You'll have one scene focused on Peter and Harry, another on Peter and Gwen, an action setpiece, Electro doing something weird, Peter and Gwen, action, Harry, Harry's assistant played by Felicity Jones, something about Peter's parents, Gwen and Peter, nothing ever seems to cohere together properly. With blockbusters nowadays, I find something like Mad Max: Fury Road is the ultimate example of how to edit a film together. Make everything tie in with each other; keep it deceptively simple and straightforward, and work on intriguing your audience with the plotline you have rather than piling on too many of them.

Raimi's Spider-Man films were always solidly edited, even the third one with its mediocre screenplay and muddled direction flowed along smoothly enough, and Spider-Man 2 is a pretty good example of a good three-act structure action film in terms of how all the scenes are spliced together. Also all the action scenes are edited well, while The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 have some truly incoherent action sequences, fitting to the nature of the film I guess.

Winner: The Raimi Films

Cinematography

The Webb films are perfectly fine in terms of cinematography I guess, on a similar level to the Raimi films in many regards, but the Raimi films have some brilliant inspired moments like the scene where Doctor Octopus' arms come to life on their own, and of course the great train sequence.

Winner: The Raimi Films


Visual Effects

The Lizard alone gives the Webb films the loss in this regard. Everything is just wrong about the creation of the character. Add to that the terrible effects for the Rhino, and Green Goblin, and especially Electro (people are giving the new Flash shit about how his lightining effects look, well take a look at what they did with Jamie Foxx here and be grateful), and I certainly much prefer the more understated work by Raimi's films. Venom's design isn't great but isn't overly bad either, and the effects used to convey the powers of Doc Ock and Sandman, in particular, are pretty good for the time, and not all that dated.

Winner: The Raimi Films

Soundtrack

I couldn't even remember the score to The Amazing Spider-Man films till I listened to them again on Youtube. They're perfectly fine but far from James Horner's best work. The Spider-Man films feature some of Danny Elfman's best work. He nails the tone in the same way he nailed the tone for the Tim Burton Batman films, and I'll give him the win here.

Winner: Danny Elfman and the Raimi Films

Action Choreography/Set-pieces

I'll just compare the best fight scenes in the respective series. In The Amazing Spider-Man the high school fight scene is pretty darned entertaining, and one of the best setpieces in either series. It was more difficult to pick one for Raimi's Spidey films though, since I could pick from any of the World Unity festival sequence in the first film, the climactic showdown in Spider-Man 2, even any of the Spider-Man/Sandman fights in Spider-Man 3.

Instead I chose the instantly iconic train fight scene in Spider-Man 2 which hasn't aged a day for me since I was first wowed by it in cinemas. It's a great scene and easily my favourite one in the series, not just for how excellently it's choreographed and directed, but also for its...

Winner: The Raimi Films

Emotional Investment

This is something the new Spider-Man films lacked. There were moments where I felt like I was meant to be emotionally involved; Uncle Ben's death of course, Peter's parents having gone missing, Captain Stacy's death, the plight of Curt Conners, the plight of Electro, feeling sorry for Harry Osborne, and of course Gwen Stacy's death, which many consider to be one of the ultimate tragedies of all comic book lore. Instead, they all left me a bit cold; even Gwen Stacy's death wasn't built up to well enough to make it affecting, instead I just felt angry and annoyed that they killed off the best part of the film. Everything that was set up before these emotional moments just felt too contrived; there was never the needed 'punch' to any of them. The Raimi Spider-Man films are far from perfect but one thing they always nailed was heart. The ending of all three films have a certain lasting emotional impact that is dealt with very well. Each death of each character, and even more contrived emotional scenes like Sandman's confession scene, feel affecting because they feel sincere.

One of the most iconic scenes in all the original Spider-Man films, immediately in the aftermath of Spider-Man saving a whole train of people from imminent death just by his strength and determination, is of him being lifted above the heads of New Yorkers, and them staring into his maskless face, realizing the guardian of their city's just a boy. It may not work for everyone, but it certainly made more of an impact for me than anything in the Webb films.

Winner: The Raimi Films

J. Jonah Jameson

Okay, I'm being a bit of a dick now. But the reason the remakes didn't cast a J. Jonah Jameson, let's be honest, is because no one, no one could play JJ apart from J.K. Simmons. The man was born to play the editor of the Daily Bugle, and that alone warrants a noteworthy mention from me.

Winner: J.K. Simmons

Winner: Raimi Films 16, Webb Films 4