Film 2016: Part Three

We've made it to the Top Ten. Are these the best movies of 2016? I'm not sure, but they're definitely the ones we could agree we liked. In several sittings, Alice and I debated these films, and occasionally had to assign points to them and use maths to come to a decision. Now that we're finally here, I can only be sure of one thing: I made this lengthy three-part countdown too hard for myself.

By the way, I've seen three 2016 films that didn't make the list because I watched them much later, and in the spirit of the brevity I plan to employ in later articles, I can summarise them thusly:

A Cure for Wellness = Great

Gold = Good

Assassin's Creed = Shit

10. For a movie about a bunch of white men sitting in rooms talking about money, The Big Short is astonishingly gripping and surprisingly rewatchable. The film tells the true story of an awful crime that's affected us all, so its emotional in places, and it gets you angry (when Steve Carrell and his extraordinary wig investigate the housing market, you share in his disgust). Yet it's also somehow a pretty funny and entertaining ride too.

The film is shot like a documentary, with fourth-wall-breaking asides. After explaining the relevance of the story to come, Ryan Gosling assures the audience, 'I'm not a weirdo- I'm pretty fucking cool.' Gosling makes for a delightful guide throughout, whether he's turning to us to complain or crack a joke, introducing a gratuitous celebrity cameo, or explaining complicated financial stuff with Jenga blocks.

Not a film I expected to like, The Big Short is original, insightful, and makes clever use of an excellent cast.

9. There have been thirteen X-Men movies now and X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) is undeniably one of the best. Therefore, it isn't surprising that the inferior follow-up, X-Men: Apocalypse, was viewed as a disappointment. Plenty of critics like to jump on the bandwagon and crap all over certain films to make themselves look cool (Apocalypse has a critics' rating of 47% on Rotten Tomatoes), but we don't do that here at Cheeseman Returns.

Although underrated, X-Men: Apocalypse clearly has flaws; the 1980's setting is barely explored, CGI is overused (especially in the final act, which features an environment that appears to be mostly green screen), most of the characters are static, two of the series' main villains are rendered ineffective by transforming them into heroes, and the new titular villain's plans and motivations are pretty vague.

X-Men: Apocalypse puts the whole planet at stake, a move likely to turn off a lot of serious viewers. To me, that just makes it more like a fun Saturday morning cartoon. It's still not as daft as Catwoman (2004) or X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) or any of the Fantastic Four movies.

Apocalypse has a very sexy cast (particularly Olivia Munn in skin-tight latex) and lots of superpowered action (including an awesome opening scene in Ancient Egypt, a cameo berserker rage at Alkali Lake, and another fun sequence for Evan Peters' Quicksilver). Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) remains the focal character with a lot more agency than the Rebecca Romijin incarnation, and has matured, shedding the recklessness exhibited in Days of Future Past. Michael Fassbender delivers an emotionally affecting performance as Magneto, tragically losing his new family and remembering his old one when he returns to Auschwitz.

8. According to Wikipedia, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates is a romcom, but it has more in common with American Pie (a 1999 'sex comedy,' according to Wikipedia) than When Harry Met Sally (1989).

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates may not be the accomplishment The Big Short is, but it is more entertaining. This is partly because it avoids the pitfalls common to many comedies: there's no fart jokes, there's no struggle for popularity (there's the suggestion of a dull rivalry courtesy of Mary Holland's compulsive bridesmaid, but this is quickly jettisoned), it doesn't rely on repetition, the jokes don't wear out their welcome, and the heroes aren't mired in toxic masculinity- their mission is merely ensuring their sister has a great wedding. Of course, it also helps that the script is pretty sharp and quotable, the holiday setting is warm and inviting, and Efron, Kendrick, Devine, and Plaza fully commit, ad-lib well, and have great chemistry together.

7. Back in 2016, before the Wizarding World became repeatedly embroiled in controversy, the franchise was revived with the excellent but overlong Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, and this wonderful film, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Familiar, comforting markers of the brand are present (wands, muggles, the Ministry of Magic, recognisable spells like Petrificus Totalus, the tantalising mention of Albus Dumbledore and Hogwarts) but this is no mere re-tread of Harry Potter- this time we're focussed on adult characters, in a different country (the USA), and a period setting (1926). The timeframe isn't just an excuse for fedoras and vintage automobiles either- this repressed era is the perfect backdrop for a script that isn't afraid to go to some dark places, including sadistic executioners, corporal punishment of children, and omnipresent themes of intolerance and persecution. Not that it's a particularly bleak film; its more upbeat than the last couple of Potter films, partly thanks to the lack of teenage angst and self-doubt.

The film opens with a series of newspaper headlines which set the tone, mixing the serious and the amusing, and which get us up to speed in seconds. We're then immediately introduced to the protagonist, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), sticking out like a sore thumb on a boat to New York; while the other passengers mill around in beige and grey, he's wearing a bright blue wool coat and he's talking to his suitcase.

Newt isn't a stereotypical hero- he's no Gryffindor. He isn't brash, witty, aggressive, or all-powerful. What this film does best is present us with an alternative hero; Newt is humble, quiet, vulnerable, stable, wise ('Worrying means you suffer twice'), affectionate, and socially inept. His sensitivity is never played for laughs; instead, its shown to be a great strength. He isn't spineless either; he's liberal and anti-authoritarian and he stands up for his principles. He isn't destined for greatness- he's just a nice bloke who cares about his animals. Redmayne's performance is key - he based Newt's unique gait on trackers and zoologists, and he always avoids eye contact, which is sensible when working with dangerous animals. He even approaches the film's dramatic final threat with care and compassion (though fans of awesome duels won't be disappointed either). He wants to save the monster, not kill it.

After reading the above description, you'd be forgiven for expecting that Newt would go on a typical Hero's Journey and emerge a changed man by the end of the film. Instead, convention is side-stepped and he isn't forced to change. He's the same man after his adventure in New York except that he's made three new friends.

When asked if people like him, Newt says, 'most people find me annoying.' It is evident that Tina (Katherine Waterston), Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol) are the best thing that could have happened to him. Although Redmayne is the standout, the other three heroes are equally endearing, which is a crucial ingredient for your potion when you're trying to (re-) launch a franchise. The sweet, awkward tension is particularly palpable as Newt and Tina play the third wheel at Jacob (refreshingly, not your typical romantic lead) and Queenie's candlelit dinner date.

As the title suggests, these heroes are brought together by the need to find some missing fantastic beasts. The first time I watched the film, I did feel it wasn't very clear how many beasts had escaped, and I was further confused because the Demiguise and the Obscuras are both invisible. However, you can't help but be awestruck by Newt's walk-in suitcase of imaginative CGI creatures (like a stationary Tardis that smells of magical dung).

Of course, the film doesn't spend all its time on Newt's menagerie; there's a second plot involving an anti-witchcraft extremist group led by Samantha Morton, Jon Voight in a totally redundant role as a newspaper magnate, and Morton's Minority Report co-star Colin Farrell as brooding villain Percival Graves. Unlike Voldemort, Graves' chief concern isn't pure-blood supremacy (although he does get into that in the sequel). Instead, his argument is much more seductive- that wizards shouldn't have such restricted lives and be forced to hide themselves away. He comes across as a radical tapping into a real problem for the wizarding community. This stance seems especially appealing once we've witnessed three characters instantly receive the death sentence for risking the exposure of wizards (for some reason, Graves himself is never given the same sentence, even though he's a clear and present danger).

These two main plots and the film's multiple characters coalesce seamlessly. It's much more focussed than 2018 sequel The Crimes of Grindelwald, although we did enjoy the second film too (contrary to critical consensus). Sadly, the third movie, The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022), is riddled with plot holes and treads water with a tale that invents a new problem demanding a boring solution. Presumably, the story proper can get going again in the fourth instalment, if the whole thing isn't sunk first by more scandals.

6. Captain America: Civil War is pretty unusual fare for an entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe behemoth:

-The title suggests it's a solo outing, but most of the Avengers feature.

-It stars the cheerful, quippy heroes we've come to know and love, but they're bitterly angry and fighting amongst themselves, which sets a weird tone.

-It presents the audience with a moral dilemma, but it's never resolved.

The dilemma in question is whether or not the Avengers should accept UN oversight- a predicament which divides the team, who are further divided when the Winter Soldier is framed for a bombing at a UN conference in Vienna. The proposition of oversight is put to our heroes because their previous interventions involved a lot of collateral damage. However, I feel slightly outraged by this- if the Avengers hadn't saved the day in their previous movies, a lot more people would have died and the Earth would now be ruled either by Loki, Ultron or Hydra.

At the beginning of the movie, the Avengers try to stop a terrorist attack in Lagos (a very decent action scene, despite frequent use of shaky-cam) and civilians die (Again, more would have if the Avengers weren't involved). Inexplicably, this is blamed on the Avengers, not Crossbones and his terrorists. Tony Stark (an always magnetic Robert Downey Jr) feels guilt around the destructive battle in Sokovia in Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), so he agrees to oversight. Instead, maybe he should remember he created the killer robots that brought about said conflict and humbly listen to Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), who decides not to be reigned in by the UN. Surely, if the Avengers cede control, they'll be bossed around by the kinds of people who ordered a nuclear strike on Manhattan (see Avengers Assemble, 2012) or by an insidious organisation that's infiltrated a major intelligence agency (see Captain America: The Winter Soldier).

It gets even harder for me to see eye-to-eye with Team Iron Man as the film goes on. They claim to be repairing the Avengers' PR, but they smash up an airport in Leipzig, and when War Machine (Don Cheadle) gets caught in the crossfire, Vision (Paul Bettany) smugly says, 'Like I said- Catastrophe.' If Vision and the rest of Team Iron Man had stayed home and let their friend Captain America do his job, nothing bad would have happened.

I should end this tirade by saying that 1) I do not support real-life vigilantism, 2) Polarisation is one of the internet's greatest flaws, and I'd be wise to avoid it. I realise the decision in Civil War is quite nuanced - e.g. Tony signs the Sokovia Accords, but it's clear from his relationship with Thunderbolt Ross (William Hurt) that he's still happy to disobey occasionally, and 3) There are few lasting consequences of the feud in later movies. We see some repercussions for those who refused to sign, and - frustratingly - none for those who agreed to sign.

The central debate aside, there's a lot of weird stuff going on in this film:

-A major plot point hinges on the existence of CCTV footage of a random country road.

-The romance between Vision and Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen) is seeded when he's acting as her jailer (maybe he's been watching Beauty & The Beast).

-Additional winter soldiers are introduced but turn out to be a red herring that's effective the first time you watch the film and pointlessly intrusive in every subsequent viewing.

-There's an unnatural moment where two characters talk about Brooklyn and Queens, seemingly to raise a cheer from fans watching in New York.

-Strangest of all, Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp) works with a task force with orders to shoot on sight when they really need answers, and waits till Captain America knows she's the niece of his main love interest before kissing him (which is made stranger by the fact this burgeoning relationship goes nowhere in later films).

I've no such concerns around the action in Civil War. There are several marvellous hand-to-hand fights (the second unit director is Chad Stahelski, director of the excellent John Wick series) which are increasingly rare in modern blockbusters (Marvel continued to break the mould with superb martial arts in 2021's Shang-Chi & The Legend of The Ten Rings). There's a car chase that features some complicated choreography and yet it's always clear what's going on. There's also the aforementioned airport showdown, which proves a great excuse to pit hero against hero in an impressively executed melee. The action throughout is elevated by the use of real locations (which is never a guarantee in a Marvel film), and they aren't all in the USA for once. There's also plenty of quipping, which feels unnatural with some of the angrier characters, but fits the new Spider-Man (Tom Holland) perfectly.

Spider-Man and Black Panther (the late, great Chadwick Boseman) are welcome additions to the series. The former arrives with less angst than his predecessors, and strikes a cheerful note amid all the dour, bickering adults. The latter is pure class; he has the gravitas of a king, and a sweet, believable relationship with his father (John Kani). In particular, his dawning realisation on the corrosive nature of vengeance during his final confrontation with Zemo (Daniel Brühl) is understated excellence.

Civil War also gives Black Widow (Scarlet Johansson) the chance to shine. In previous movies, writers didn't seem to know what to do with her- she was mainly there to play second fiddle to other Avengers (Iron Man in Iron Man 2, Hulk and Hawkeye in Avengers Assemble, Captain America in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Hulk again in Avengers: Age of Ultron) - she was frequently defined by her relationships with them. I like that here she is a mostly sympathetic character who tries to do what's right without ego, and just wants to keep the Avengers together.

While Black Widow has matured, Iron Man and Captain America are at the difficult midpoint in their evolution. In all of their solo movies, Marvel presents us with a flawed character who needs to learn a valuable lesson. Sometimes, a confrontation with a counterpart is crucial to their growth (see Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Shang-Chi, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, Captain Marvel). Iron Man and Captain America are opposites- Tony Stark's selfish nature motivates the villains of Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Spider-Man: Far From Home, while Steve Rogers' selflessness leaves him a tragic figure separated from his own time and the love of his life. Unsurprisingly, sparks fly when the two meet in Avengers Assemble, but they gradually learn from each other and change over the course of several movies.

In his guilt over the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron, we find Tony striving for selflessness in Civil War, but confusing it with subservience. Meanwhile, the events of Captain America: The Winter Soldier have increased Steve's cynicism, and his dedication to his outlaw friend Bucky (Sebastian Stan) has transformed him into a renegade. It isn't until Avengers: Endgame (2019) that the two heroes will finally reach the end of their narrative arcs, finding peace and balance.

5. I don't think placing Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice at #5 in our list is going to endear us to anyone. A lot of viewers and critics say it's rubbish (on Rotten Tomatoes, it currently holds a 29% critics score and a 63% audience score. Then again, the crappy 2014 Godzilla is certified 76% fresh!) but it is fashionable to dislike this film (Quantum of Solace, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Prometheus and Green Lantern are also popular targets of unwarranted denigration).

On the other hand, you have the #SnyderCut fanatics who would probably insist Batman v Superman should be at #1! These are the people expecting studios to bow to their wishes like petulant children, demanding they #RestoretheSnyderverse. As you can tell, here at Cheeseman Returns, we don't fit into either category.

What makes it especially weird that our #5 film, Batman v Superman is so polarising is that our #6 film, Captain America: Civil War was welcomed whole-heartedly, despite being a very similar movie. As mentioned way back in my first article, both films are about superheroes dealing with the repercussions of destruction caused in previous instalments, getting manipulated by villains, and turning on one another. Even the posters pictured above are very similar!

I think the reason Civil War was better received comes down to three factors- tone, our expectations about certain superhero icons, and where each movie fell in their respective series:

-Civil War doesn't take itself too seriously; its dealing with heavy themes but every character gets to quip and smile along the way. Meanwhile, Batman v Superman is operatic and gloomy (the dirgy colour palette matches the movie's tone). It would be hyperbolic to say that Batman v Superman is one-note, but Zack Snyder's films do lack the breadth of emotion present in Christopher Nolan's equally serious Dark Knight trilogy.

-Everyone knows Batman and Superman. When Iron Man (2008) came out, did anyone outside the comics fandom know who Tony Stark was? Even if you've avoided the comics, cartoons, video games, etc. you'll definitely have preconceived notions of Batman and Superman because of Adam West, Michael Keaton and Christopher Reeve, and because they're pop culture icons. Though it makes sense to build a story around the destruction wrought in Man of Steel (2013), if you call the film Batman v Superman, you're making at least one of the heroes the aggressor, which is out of character according to what the public knows about these heroes.

In an interview with Jimmy Carter (not the president), Christopher Reeve considered the key to the character of Superman to be that he's 'a friend, a really good neighbour' and that it was his role to 'offer up for children in America and everywhere else a fun entertainment that has an actual character at the centre of it; a character who's caring, who loves people, who's considerate, who's a gentleman, as a possible antidote to the Rambos and the Chuck Norrises and the Schwarzenneggers.' The Superman of Snyder's films (Henry Cavill) is meant to be a flawed man on a journey towards becoming the approachable paragon we know and love. In both Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, the last son of Krypton is trying to work out whether he belongs among the people of Earth and, as Snyder wished to reflect that we don't live in a particularly tolerant and enlightened age, the people don't make it an easy decision.

Batman (Ben Affleck) is on an even darker path. He's a mutable character who has ranged from comedic to tragic, but he's always broadly heroic. Zack Snyder refers to the violent, gritty Batman of celebrated comic series The Dark Knight Returns (1986) as 'the real version,' so in Batman v Superman he presents the audience with a cruel Bruce Wayne who's lost his way, worn down by a lifetime of fighting crime. Batman and Superman are ingrained cultural, almost religious, ideals. As Kingdom Come (1996) teaches us, superheroes don't exist just to fight.

-Captain America: Civil War is the 13th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, while Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is only the 2nd film in the DC Extended Universe. The former had time to introduce its characters and get the audience invested in them long before they came into conflict with each other. The latter rushed into a conflict that didn't feel earned. Audiences accepted an angry and irrational Tony Stark and Steve Rogers because we'd become familiar with them as heroes. Audiences were surprised to be reintroduced to a gloomy Clark Kent and shocked by the new Bruce Wayne because we were meeting him for the first time at his lowest ebb.

Obviously, the film has plenty of other flaws:

-The pacing is really weird. There are long periods of dialogue followed by back-to-back action scenes. The film tries to have its cake and eat it, by following the titular showdown with a battle against Doomsday. I like long films, but they're not for everyone.

-One of the most common crimes in modern blockbusters is the use of ugly green screen backgrounds. This is a frequent concern throughout Batman v Superman. It's a shame Snyder didn't look to The Dark Knight trilogy, which made excellent use of real locations.

-Writers Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer wrote the Wonder Woman franchise into a corner by having Diana (Gal Gadot) declare she turned away from mankind in their 'century of horrors.'

-Superman knows what he’s doing so it’s frustrating when he doubts himself and mopes for several scenes. I suppose he doesn’t have Jor-El (Russell Crowe) to reassure him of his role anymore.

-In a standalone scene, we see Perry White (Lawrence Fishburne) searching the offices of The Daily Planet for Clark Kent. I'm not a screenwriter, but even I know that the next scene should tell the audience where Clark is.

-Henry Cavill is a great Superman, but when he tells Lois Lane (Amy Adams) that he has to kill Batman, he looks like he's smelling a nasty turd.

That's enough negativity; let's look at some of the things we liked:

-Hans Zimmer's Superman theme from Man of Steel returns better than ever. For Batman v Superman, he collaborated with Junkie XL to write a menacing Batman theme and the film's outstanding, thrilling Wonder Woman theme.

-Like real-life billionaires, Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) desperately need to be top of the pile. They’re damaged and used to controlling everything. Batman, Superman and Lex are all very different from their comics counterparts, but so is Arthur in the lauded Joker (2019). Its brave to try something new. Batman v Superman shouldn't be your only exposure to these characters; like Flashpoint (2011) or Injustice: Gods Among Us (2013), its better with some context.

-Batman using his parents as motivation to truly help others is him on his best day. Using their death as an excuse to be nihilistic and cruel is him when depression takes hold. It's a fascinating depiction even if it isn't what fans were looking for. Bruce was helpless to stop Joe Chill (his parents' murderer) so he becomes all-powerful. He witnesses the destruction of Metropolis and realises he has to step up his game. When he tells Alfred he's a hunter, he's clearly drifted from his original purpose; Gotham criminals are like weeds but stopping them (without vengeful brutality) saves lives. When Clark begs for the life of his mother, Bruce sees himself anew. Now he is Joe Chill. We're literally shown he's lost- he wanders aimlessly in fields a few times in the film. After Superman's funeral, he walks away on a clear path.

-Parallels like these abound:

-The conversation between Clark and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) isn't an exciting scene, but it is crucial one. Clark is learning similar lessons to the ones a different Bruce learnt in The Dark Knight. The writers are challenging 1940's icons to cope with modern society. Is it particularly profound? No, but it doesn't need to be because nuance and sophistication aren't Snyder's principal strengths. He's more like Michael Bay; Snyder wants to make bombastic movies that look good.

-And that brings me onto the action. There's a lot of it in this film, but it never outwears its welcome. Every fight has a different flavour, but all of them are clear and visually interesting. The Batmobile may be a murder machine occasionally made from pixels, but it looks awesome in an exciting, visceral car chase. The warehouse scene lets us really see what a superhero taking on a room full of armed men can look like.

At the movies, Marvel often mocks themselves (the overly daft Thor: Love and Thunder marks the epitome of this) while DC frequently go unremittingly grim. However, as the years go on, I think both companies are learning to trust their audience to embrace the earnest, extraordinary tone of the comics.

But what happens when you base a movie on a comic series that constantly makes fun of the superhero genre? That's when you get...

4. Right from the opening credits, we know Deadpool is going to be a lot of fun. Juice Newton's tender, passionate 'Angel of the Morning' sits in stark contrast to the violence unfolding in slow-motion as we're informed that the director is 'Some Douchebag,' and that the film stars 'God's Perfect Idiot,' 'A Hot Chick,' and 'A British Villain.' Ryan Reynolds plays the titular hero and naturally the first part of him we see is his groin.

Reynolds is perfect as the surprisingly sweet yet morally messy Wade Wilson; I will happily join the universal chorus of viewers and critics declaring that he was born to play the character. The plot is very simple, so this pitch-perfect realisation of a beloved comics character carries the movie.

Co-stars Ed Skrein and Gina Carano are terrible actors, but their naturally smug demeanours help us to buy them as loathsome villains and accept Deadpool's killing spree. Morena Baccarin is likeable, soulful and funny as Vanessa; far more than just 'A Hot Chick.'

The action is clear, the tone is cheerfully macabre, and the movie is as brisk as its fast-talking hero. Without devolving into farce, Deadpool is the perfect antidote to self-serious superhero films.

3. Whether you're a die-hard fan or a casual one, there's a lot to love about Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. This is a Star Wars film with a unique darker tone, a story that refreshingly avoids the Jedi, and a diverse cast (for four of the leads, English is not their mother tongue). We visit new, distinctive locations, including an established imperial occupation in the holy city of Jedha, and the surprisingly appealing warzone of sunny Scarif. There's an awe-inspiring sense of scale; the characters are constantly dwarfed by ships, buildings, statues and space stations.

Behind the camera are Death Star-sized talents like cinematographer Greig Fraser (who would later bring his sumptuous landscapes to Dune, The Mandalorian and The Batman) and composer Michael Giacchino (who created a stirring score that is original yet pays tribute to the unassailable heights of John Williams' work in only four and a half weeks). Meanwhile, in front of the camera, heavyweights like Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Mads Mikkelsen and Ben Mendelsohn hammer home the emotional complexity of the story.

The story in question is not perfect, even as it enriches A New Hope (1977) with context. Jyn Erso (Jones) is a mostly passive protagonist- for much of the film, stuff just happens to her. Though unsatisfying, this does make sense- she begins the film with few hopes or cares, and changes as the story progresses. It also bothers me that she doesn't check the pulse of her father (an affecting Mads Mikkelsen) when he dies. I guess there's a too many leaps in logic in this franchise to start complaining now.

The final battle involves a side-mission in which a cable must be plugged in to a comms tower and a master switch must be thrown (Did an electrician write this bit?). This adds unnecessary complexity. Fighting and distracting the Empire is a sufficiently significant mission.

We get to see a lot of rebels in this final skirmish, but disappointingly, 99% of them are human. Andor (2022), an otherwise brilliant series, takes this approach even further- aliens and droids are rare, televisions replace holograms and prisoners get tied up instead of stunned (Even Star Wars cursing has been dispensed with, dank farrik).

An exciting legacy of Rogue One that Andor inherits is the film's grey morality. This is established in the first eleven minutes of the movie when hero Cassian Andor (Luna) meets with an informant who tells him about an imperial defector. Andor then shoots his friend in the back. Very harsh.

The defector is Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed), a whistleblower whose conscience changes the course of Star Wars history. In fact, though Rogue One appears on the surface to be a supplementary film, its brimming with crucial decisions made by forgotten heroes.

None of these decisions are easy, and many lead to character deaths. At the film's midpoint, Cassian and Jyn clash over the death of Galen Erso (Mikkelsen). Its satisfying because both of them have a point- Jyn only fights when it benefits her while Cassian blindly, ruthlessly follows orders. They both learn from this argument and evolve in the final act.

Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker), a rebel but a militant extremist, makes it even harder to tell the good from the bad, while Mendelsohn presents us with an occasionally sympathetic Imperial Director Orson Krennic (Andor fans will recognise similarities to the equally calculating Dedra Meero). Krennic is defined by his ambition, desperate to climb the ladder; he's not an all-powerful, overconfident zealot like the Emperor. In another life, he might have been a high-ranking rebel.

This contemporary grit is tempered with plenty of giddy fan service. K-2SO (Alan Tudyk) is C-3PO with muscle and sass, and we briefly encounter our favourite astromech and protocol droids in the familiar environs of Yavin 4, where we are also reunited with the comforting presence of Bail Organa (Jimmy Smits) and the zen leadership of Mon Mothma (Genevieve O'Reilly). Elsewhere, X-Wings, TIE Fighters, cantina crooks, lava planets, Mon Calamari and resurrected Grand Moffs help to stoke the fires of nostalgia.

This peaks in the film's final moments when a certain Sith Lord gets a gratifying, terrifying action scene (Daniel Naprous does an excellent impersonation of David Prowse's movement). It's a big high to go out on, and the cameos don't even stop there. Whether you enjoy the old, the new, or both, Rogue One delivers.

2. One of the most important differences between fantasy and sci-fi is that sci-fi should examine possible events (Star Wars falls into the category of epic space opera, in case you were wondering). Arrival is a realistic meditation on how Earth would react to aliens. However, unlike many cold, hard sci-fi explorations, this is a deeply emotional movie.

After an opening that's even more painful than the beginning of Up (2009), we're informed of the titular visitation through television and radio reports. Not only is this how we would get this information in real life, but it's also an excellent way to tease our curiosity and draw us in. Next, expert linguist Louise Banks (a soulful Amy Adams, with the weight of the film on her shoulders) steps into the shoes of a predecessor getting wheeled off in a medevac. This is a classic trope used to warn us and build suspense. We're given her perspective from the ground; the alien ship is massive, mysterious and awe-inspiring. Louise goes inside and meets the aliens; their appearance and sound design are phenomenal. Now she's faced with a momentous challenge- to work out how to communicate with them before the world falls apart (international friction, looting, mass suicides are on the rise) ...

Eric Heisserer's original, patient script (based on award-winning novella Story of Your Life by Ted Chiang) deals with big, philosophical questions about language, empathy and human nature, and sci-fi twists you want to watch again and again. Denis Villeneuve brings his sophisticated, grounded, atmospheric sensibilities to Arrival. The visuals, sound effects and Jóhan Jóhansson's mournful alien score coalesce perfectly. It's a film that embraces your senses, your brain and your heart.

1. I don't have a lot of luck with comedies. Some are boring and pretentious (I'm looking at you, Wes Anderson) while others are vulgar and dumb (my hatred for Bridesmaids bled through twice in Part One of this article; I feel I've been pretty restrained since then). However, I have enjoyed plenty of action-comedy films over the years (Hot Fuzz, Rush Hour, Men in Black, Sherlock Holmes, etc) and if anyone knows quipping buddies on a dangerous adventure, it's Shane Black (Lethal Weapon, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), director and co-writer of The Nice Guys.

This pulpy, old-fashioned, hard-boiled detective story doesn't reinvent the wheel, but the laughs come thick and fast, courtesy of two excellent leads in snappy 70's clobber, Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe) and Holland March (Ryan Gosling). Our inept heroes are introduced in comical scenes with a mixture of mystery and knowing cliché. They introduce themselves with a voiceover like Raymond Chandler characters, and they feel fleshed out- we aren't meeting them at the best time in their lives. They're both cowards finding bravery, struggling for a purpose, and against the weight of their own checkered morality. They need each other but, like all buddy movies, they start off hating each other.

It's a great career direction for both Crowe and Gosling; their rapport is perfect, and they get to show off their underused comedic abilities. Margaret Qualley, Matt Bomer, Keith David and Beau Knapp all shine too, but no-one supports the lead performances like Angourie Rice as Holly, March's young daughter. Holly is precocious without being irritating, and acts as the angel on the shoulder of both Healy and March.

This is critical because both have been infected by the unscrupulous milieu of 70's LA. Sleaze and corruption are all-pervading in The Nice Guys; the film opens with the little kid from Jurassic World and Iron Man 3 standing over the naked body of a dying pornstar. There's a dark, despicable story unfolding throughout, but we're mostly too distracted by the hijinks to notice.

There are several gory moments in the film, which could be viewed as gratuitous, but they generally serve as comedic set pieces or punchlines. Most of these happen by chance; Healy and March are frequently lucky, but it's a comedy so you never feel robbed of the more likely outcomes.

Despite leaning heavily on established tropes, the film constantly subverts your expectations. Characters appear out of nowhere, avoid potential action scenes, miss out on their rewards, swerve their comeuppance, die suddenly, and chat with a giant bee.

The Nice Guys was well-received by critics, but it didn't make an impact at the box office, so a sequel is very unlikely to happen. However, it did take the #1 spot in our countdown of the 43 films we saw that year and if that isn't a great honour, I don't know what is.