88th Academy Awards: My Predictions

Alright, as usual, here are my predictions for the Oscars




Best Picture
Will win: The Revenant
Could win: Spotlight
Should win: Brooklyn/The Martian


Best Director
Will win: Alejandro G. Inarritu - The Revenant
Could win: George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road
Should win: George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road


Best Actor
Will win: Leonardo DiCaprio - Hugh Glass in The Revenant
Could win: No one, it's his
Should win: Leonardo DiCaprio


Best Actress
Will win: Brie Larson - Joy "Ma" Newsome in Room
Could win: Saoirse Ronan - Eilis Lacey in Brooklyn
Should win: Saoirse Ronan


Best Supporting Actor
Will win: Sylvester Stallone - Rocky Balboa in Creed
Could win: Mark Rylance - Rudolph Abel in Bridge of Spies
Should win: Mark Rylance


Best Supporting Actress
Will win: Alicia Vikander - Gerda Wegener in The Danish Girl
Could win: Kate Winslet - Joanna Hoffman in Steve Jobs
Should win: Rooney Mara - Therese Belivet in Carol


Best Original Screenplay
Will win: Spotlight
Could win: Inside Out
Should win: Inside Out


Best Adapted Screenplay
Will win: The Big Short
Could win: Room
Should win: Brooklyn


Best Animated Film
Will win: Inside Out
Could win: Nothing
Should win: Inside Out

My Top 10 Films of 2015

Yes it might be over a month late, but the fact is I live in the UK and what can I say, our film release schedule isn't exactly helpful when it comes to fashioning a top 10 list. Many of these films actually didn't come out in the UK until January and I've only just been able to see recently. My point is, I'm not procrastinating; I'm being thorough. With that said, the rules:

A film is eligible to make the list if it is eligible to be nominated at the 2016 Academy Awards next month, that is to say in spite of the fact that some of these films didn't hit UK shores until 2016, they're eligible to be nominated for the Academy Awards that honour films from 2015. Also these films are not necessarily ranked in order of objective merit, they're based on my own personal preference, although I do think all these films are also very good. All clear? Splendid.

First of all, here are some honourable mentions, in no particular order:

Ant-Man

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Jurassic World

Minions

Mr Holmes

The Big Short

The Revenant 

So, without further ado, we're counting down...

The Top 10 Films of 2015

At #10: Spotlight
Formerly the hot favourite to win best picture at the Oscars later this month, Spotlight's position has come under threat from the surging momentum of The Revenant, particularly following it's BAFTA victory on Sunday. However of the two, I do think Spotlight is the better film. The Revenant is arguably more impressive in it's technical brilliance and it's stunning visuals, but I found Spotlight's simpler, more formulaic story carried more emotional heft in it's story about the Boston Globe team that broke the story about widespread sex abuse within the Catholic church, and was ultimately the more compelling film in my view. It's hampered somewhat by an unremarkable screenplay, but it's talented cast makes it more interesting than this journalism procedural film would otherwise be. As Oscar bait goes, I'll take this over The Artist any day.

#9: Creed
Is it a sequel? Is it a reboot? Is it just a standalone film set in a preexisting universe? Creed manages to deftly straddle the fine line between all three, paying respect to the original Rocky story but with a very clear identity of it's own. A cheap cash in this is not, Creed is crafted with passion and skill, and has earned it's place along with the very best films in the Rocky series. Michael B. Jordan gives an understated, perhaps occasionally a little passive leading performance as Adonis Creed, son of the late Apollo Creed who tracks down his father's old rival, Rocky Balboa, and asks that Rocky train him. Sylvester Stallone returns to the role that made him famous and gives what is surely the finest performance of his career, as Rocky wrestles with the pain of his past losses, the incessant forward march of time, and new battles unlike any he has fought before. It's a great performance in a great film, and Creed demonstrates that even in it's seventh outing, the Rocky franchise clearly still hasn't heard no bell.

#8: Bridge of Spies
Tom "America" Hanks and Steven Spielberg are at it again. Bridge of Spies doesn't try and do anything fancy with it's premise, what you're expecting going in is what you'll get, but it's story is told so competently and confidently, and Hanks is such a likeable screen presence that it doesn't detract from the experience at all. Matching Hanks stride for stride is Mark Rylance who gives a magnificent supporting performance as soviet spy Rudolf Abel. Ultimately there isn't much to say about Bridge of Spies, it's almost too straightforward for it's own good, but it's unadventurous screenplay tells a wonderful story, and that is more than enough to secure it a place on this list.

#7: Carol
Carol is a film that lives and dies on the strength of it's two lead actresses. Fortunately Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett are more than up to the task as Therese Belivet and Carol Aird respectively. They are magnificent in their roles and combined with the assured direction of Todd Haynes, Carol creates a truly engaging love story that I enjoyed every moment of. It's production values are excellent, it's score is perfect, it's a thoroughly well made film from beginning to end, and had it had a more satisfying ending it would have been higher on this list. As it is though, it's still a wonderful film, and not much else needs to be said about it.

#6: Mad Max: Fury Road
At it's heart, Mad Max: Fury Road is a big, dumb, popcorn movie. But it's a really, really good one. Fury Road is the best action film of 2015 by an absolute mile. It's action is creative, memorable, and visceral, the adrenaline rush rarely letting up. But so what? Many films are just wall to wall action and end up being an unenjoyable, brainless mess. What makes Fury Road different is that at it's centre are two likeable, competent main characters who you like and want to see succeed. A revolutionary concept, I know. The film could land George Miller a much deserved Best Director award at the Oscars, but equal praise should go to it's production values, it's cinematography, and the performances of Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy for making Fury Road, without hyperbole, one of the best action films I've ever seen.


#5: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
It's become something of a cliché, but The Force Awakens really did make me feel like a kid again. I saw better films than this in 2015, I saw films I liked more in 2015. Even comparing it to other films on this list, I'd find it difficult to argue that it's better than films like Fury Road or Carol. But the experience counts for a great deal, and The Force Awakens was by far the most fun I had at the cinema all year. It's an exhilarating, wonderful ride, and it's here for that reason. That's not to say it's just spectacle though, far from it. It boasts a terrific cast, including John Boyega who's solid and likeable as Finn; Domnhall Gleeson as General Hux is a kind of over the top but still fun bad guy, while Adam Driver's Kylo Ren perhaps doesn't quite work as an antagonist, but is an engaging, often sympathetic character. Leading the cast is Daisy Ridley giving a star-making turn as the film's protagonist, Rey. When she's finished with Star Wars, Ridley has a very bright future ahead of her. The force is indeed strong with this one. As it is with the film. The Force Awakens is a blast, I loved it. It's #5.

#4: The Martian
Well whether it's a comedy or a drama, The Martian is a tremendous film. It actually topped this list at one point, and while it has slipped a few places, it's quality is undoubted. Not only is it Ridley Scott's best film in years, it boasts the best performance of Matt Damon's career. Damon is terrific as Mark Watney, a botanist stranded on Mars who must call upon his knowledge of science to survive until he can be rescued. At it's heart, the Martian is a film about smart people solving hard problems in difficult situations, and while such a procedural could become wonkish and bogged down, Matt Damon's terrific central performance, and the performance of the cast in general, along with a witty, entertaining, and yes often funny script, help give heart to the film's head. In addition the film's staging of Mars is both beautiful and authentic, and the film is bolstered by snappy, solid direction that helps the film keep a good pace without ever feeling rushed. It really is a tremendous achievement, and if I were ranking these films based purely on merit, excluding personal preference, the Martian would finish a very close second.

#3: Brooklyn
This film is just beautiful. Not just visually, but as a film, as an entity, as a piece of art, Brooklyn is an astonishingly beautiful opus. The film is unashamedly, even proudly old fashioned, not in an antiquated way, but in a way that feels truly timeless, telling a story that would be as equally lovely in any era. Saoirse Ronan gives the best performance of the year as Eilis Lacey, an Irish girl who emigrates to the USA to build a life and ultimately find love. Though it may seem straightforward, Brooklyn tells it's story with great competence and total confidence. I laughed, I cried, most of all I smiled. It's one of the best written films of the year, with a screenplay that runs you through the emotional spectrum and in the perfect way, because every thing feels earned, nothing ever feels forced or contrived, it gives exactly the emotional payoffs it needs to, exactly when the audience wants them and exactly when the film needs them. I may be gushing here, but it's my list and I'm allowed to; Brooklyn is a wonderful, wonderful film.

#2: Inside Out
Inside Out is quite possibly my favourite Pixar film ever. It's world is more alive and fully realised than in Finding Nemo, it's more moving and poignant than Wall-E, it's highest peaks are higher even than the opening sequence of Up. I honestly believe that it's as good as either of the first two Toy Storys. Central to all this lavish praise is the strength of the film's screenplay which is one of the most intelligent and yet most heartfelt screenplays I've ever seen translated to screen. It communicates challenging, often nebulous concepts relating to growing up and coming of age, and it does it in a way that is coherent and thoughtful without ever feeling reductionist or like it's talking down in any way. It's characters are memorable, likeable, and engaging, and part of that credit must also go to the cast who all do a great job. As with Brooklyn, I laughed, I cried (yes, particularly at THAT scene, anyone who's seen it knows the scene I'm talking about), but mostly I smiled. It doesn't quite top this list, but as far as I'm concerned: Inside Out is the best film of 2015.

#1: Steve Jobs
Steve Jobs was pretty much destined to top this list from the moment I first heard about it. A film starring Michael Fassbender and written by Aaron Sorkin, my favourite writer of all time, I didn't think anything was going to stop this from being my #1. And nothing did. I loved Brooklyn, I loved Inside Out, but Steve Jobs is my favourite film of 2015, and for all the reasons I expected it to be; the cast are all on top form, all of them rattling off Sorkin's trademark, quick-fire dialogue that's as entertaining as it's always been. I knew going in that I would be entertained, but I wasn't expecting to become so emotionally invested in the relationship between Jobs and his daughter, which is the core of the film. But I did, and full credit goes to the writing and the performances by Fassbender and the three actresses who play Jobs's daughter Lisa throughout the film (Mackenzie Moss, Ripley Sobo, and Perla Haney-Jardine). I also want to give a special mention to the ending. Sorkin has both a penchant and a real talent for huge, emotional endings (Season 2 of both The West Wing and The Newsroom being perfect examples) and does he ever provide one here, I can think of few films that ended on such a wonderful, triumphant note. A few films came close, but Steve Jobs is my favourite film of 2015.

David Silverman's Cross

So, David Silverman is at it again.

I happened to catch a glimpse of a... "debate", on Fox News the other day, and after a long eye bath while blasting one of theoreticalbullshit's videos on Youtube to clear it out of my system (check him out if you haven't, smart guy), I analysed it a little further. David Silverman, for those who don't know, is the president of American Atheists, an organisation that campaigns for the rights of atheists in America and that challenges Christianity when it gets special treatment in public, as it almost always does.

Now, I'm not a big fan of David Silverman. Like Richard Dawkins, his heart is in the right place and he should be lauded for his intent, but his tactics often do more harm than good (his anti-religious "you know it's a myth" billboard springs immediately to mind) but, as he himself said on a recent interview in The Guardian, he fights the battles that are not popular to fight, but need to be fought regardless. There is nothing more difficult than doing something you know you're going to be publicly crucified for (pun not intended) and I respect him for that. Now, let's take a look at what he's picking a fight over this time

So there's this iron cross at what has become known as ground zero, the sight of 9/11 that has become a memorial for all who lost their lives on that tragic day. Silverman is arguing that not only is this a religious symbol on public land, which he argues violates the US constitution, but that it is discriminatory to all the victims of 9/11 who weren't Christians. Now, let me make something quite clear. The cross in this instance doesn't really bother me. It's not something I would be campaigning so heavily about BUT that doesn't mean I don't agree with Silverman's points. On the first point, there is no grey area, he is absolutely right when he says the US constitution expressly forbids religious iconography on public ground. The establishment cause of the first amendment of the US constitution  states "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Well, what the constitution wants, the constitution gets, it's the same deal with the so called "war on Christmas" that Bill O' Reilly likes to bang on about every December because he, like many other Americans, insist that their religion gets special treatment, constitution says no. So much for 'murica being a "Christian nation".

As for the second point about discrimination, I personally don't feel discriminated against, but then again I wasn't an atheist/muslim/hindu/buddhist etc. who lost someone on 9/11. If there is to be a memorial erected, why shouldn't it be all inclusive? Why can't it be religiously neutral, in fact why should religion be brought in to it at all considering we're talking about a terrorist attack perpetrated by religious fundamentalist extremists? Because it's alright, so long as Christianity gets special treatment. I'm aware that there will be many Christians who agree with David Silverman, I know not all of Christianity can be tarnished with the same Ken Ham/Ray Comfort brush and I wouldn't dream of doing so, but to progressive Christians who may read this, I implore you: talk to your people.

The Maths Student: Standard Form

Well, after a week off, largely because what we did last week wasn't really meaty enough to warrant a full blog, we're back with a bang, and the first thing we're going to talk about is standard form.

Standard form (sometimes called scientific notation) is, broadly speaking, a way of writing numbers. See, this is the kind of analysis that makes me the hard-hitting investigative blogger that I am. More specifically speaking, standard form is a way of writing numbers that can't be conveniently represented by normal means. Even more specifically, the type of standard form we will be looking at, called normalized standard form, demands that the coefficient being used in standard form is at least 1, but not greater than 10. It's very commonly used in science, for example the age of the universe.

A number written using scientific notation looks like this

where the coefficient (represented by a) can be any number that is at least one but less than ten, and the exponent "b" is any integer.

So, if we look at the age of the universe for example, which is approximately 13.798 billion years old, or 13,798,000,000, we could write that number using normalized standard form, and it would look like this:

1.3798 x 10^10 (Times 10 to the 10th power)

In simple terms, the exponent, 9 in this case, is the number of places we are moving the decimal point by. If it's 9, we move the point 9 places to the right. Standard form can also be used to represent very small numbers. If we wanted to write 0.0000001, we could write that using standard form as 1 x 10^-7. A - sign in this case means we move the point to the left, not the right. Standard form is a simple, beautifully elegant way of writing large numbers, and it's very much worth remembering.

This is a new format I'm trying out, a bite-size approach, rather than one blog for the whole class, so expect another one later in the week, until then, I've been the maths student, signing off.

The Maths Student: Circle Theorems and Pythagoras

Well, after the probably unjustifiable disappointment that the English student endured last week, I admit it was wonderful to get back to that most beautiful of languages (yes, even more beautiful than English): numbers. After what felt like months of revision, the new semester begin in earnest, centering on geometry, with a little statistics thrown in, because we wouldn't want to make things too much fun (pretty sure statisticians were put on earth to make astrologists look good). We kicked things off with circles, and circle theorems. We got reacquainted with different terminology (circumference, diameter, radius, nothing new) and a few that perhaps some of us weren't familiar with. The chord for example.

A chord, generally speaking, is a line segment joining any two points in a circle, or indeed on any kind of curve. The diameter for example is actually a specific type of chord, although the term chord is usually used to refer to an unequal splitting of the circle into two segments, one major and one minor (no points for guessing which is which). The other slightly less well known term is the tangent. A tangent, informally speaking, is a line that touches the curve of the circle, or any shape with a curve, at a single point. To elucidate further, consider a ball resting on a flat plane. Only a very small part of the plane actually makes contact with a very small part of the ball. In this way, the plane can be said to be tangential to the ball (of course, this example is in three dimensions, but the principle holds just as well in two dimensions).

After that, we moved on to the actual theorems. Incidentally, a theorem in mathematics is simply a mathematical statement that has been proven to be true (based on certain axioms, which we'll not get in to just now). Another piece of jargon to remember is the term "inscribed angle". An inscribed angle simply means the the angle created when two chords in a circle share the same end point, creating an angle, the vertex of which lies on the arc of the circumference. All the angles in the example below for instance can be said to be inscribed angles.

Theorem 1: Subtended Angles in the same segment are equal to each other

So, let's take a look at the above illustration. The line AB is the chord divides our circle into a major segment and a minor segment as we discussed earlier. The angles ADB and ACB are what are known as subtended angles. A subtended angle simple means that the line running from A and the line running from B both meet at the same place on the arc of a circumference, and it refers to the angle created at that point. Therefore, if angle ADB is 45 degrees, that means that line AB subtends 45 degrees from point D. The first theorem means that angle ADB is equal to the angle ACB. So if we assume that ADB is 45 degrees, it mathematically follows that ACB must also be 45 degrees. Note that this theorem only applies to angles confined within the same segment of the circle, as shown below.

As you can clearly see, ADB does not equal ACB when the angles are in different segments on the circle. Something to bear in mind.

Theorem 2: An inscribed angle is half of the central angle

So, as we said earlier, an inscribed angle is the angle created when two chords share the same end point on the arc of the circumference, in this case, AP and BP both share the same endpoint, therefore P is an inscribed angle. The central angle is created when two radii sharing separate, distinct end points on an arc meet at the center, creating an angle that subtends the aforementioned arc. With me so far? In the case of the above diagram, the central angle is AOB, AO and BO being the radii that create the angle and O being the point the subtends the arc created by A and B. This theorem simply states that an inscribed angle is half of the central angle. In other words, if AOB = 120 degrees, APB will always equal 60 degrees. As with theorem 1, this only holds true if both angles occupy the same segment (the segments in this case being split by the chord created by A and B.

Theorem 3 (Thales' theorem): The diameter of a circle always subtends a right angle to any point on the circle

The final circle theorem we will deal with is called Thales' theorem, and it's by far the simplest of the three. It simply states that if A, B and C are points on a circle, and AC is the diameter, then the angle subtended by B will always be a right angle, regardless of the where on the circle it is. Simple, easy to remember, but useful all the same.

Anyway, that's enough about circles, but we're not done with the theorems just yet, and this next one is possibly the most famous of all

Pythagoras' Theorem

So, the Pythagorean theorem doesn't need much explanation, simply because everyone who's ever stepped foot in a GCSE maths classroom knows what it is, but let's take a look at it anyway. In the above triangle, the angle created by sides a and b is a right angle. The side opposite the right angle in a right angle triangle is called the hypotenuse, c in the above illustration. Pythagoras' theorem simply states that the square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. This is shown in the above illustration. So, if a is 5cm, and b is 12 cm, we can use those values to calculate the length of c. I'm going to use ^2 to represent a number being squared, due to the limitations of my keyboard. So, a^2 is 25cm^2 and b^2 is 144cm^2. Adding these figures together we get 169cm^2. So, with that information, all we need to do to find the length of side c is find the square root of 169, which is 13. Therefore, side c is 13cm long.

I decided to skip over the frequency diagrams that we covered simply because they're not that interesting or difficult and they only appear on the may exams, but we might cover them a little nearer the time. Until then, the English student will be here on Thursday, I've been the Maths student, saying that such is the beauty of maths, something as simple as a circle can become interesting... or maybe that's just me. 

The English Student: Derailed

So, the exams have come and gone, and so let the inevitable postmortem begin in earnest. While the maths student will be awaiting his results until Monday at the soonest, I got my English results on Wednesday night. I scored 79% overall. I haven't quite managed to shake off the totality of the disappointment that may or may not have been justified in the first place, but open a deeper dissection of the results, there is actually some cause for cautious optimism

For those who read my last blog, the structure of the English exam is already familiar but for those who didn't (I can only assume you were comatose or battling an alien invasion at the time) the layout was straightforward, there were 4 questions and without going into detail on what they were, questions 1 and 3 were quite rigid in their format, not allowing for a great deal of freedom or expression. 2 and 4 on the other hand did allow for that expression, with 4 being an essay on the question of "Does a longer life lead to a better life". I scored much more highly on 2 and 4, the essay in particular as it was a very nebulous kind of question that was open to a lot of personal interpretation and allowed one to infuse a lot more of their own opinions, personality and style of writing into their work. We face another barrage of exams in mid May, and we were informed on Wednesday night that these exams will be a lot more geared towards questions like 2 and 4, allowing more freedom. With that in mind, I will be looking to improve on my score come May.

In addition to getting our results back, we were also given a brief outline of what faces us this coming term. The brunt of the work will center around two poets, Wilfred Owen and Sean O' Casey, particularly the latter, as we will be asked to give a 10 minute presentation on an aspect of O' Casey's life or work in front of the class, which should be a lot of fun (sadly, my request to give my presentation on Einstein's theory of special relativity was turned down). Still, should be fun.

So, signing off with this admittedly rather threadbare blog, which is only the case because that was literally all we did in English this past week, the maths student will be here on Monday with inevitably better results than I have, and until then, I've been the English student, and I'm apparently not doing so good at it. Goodnight :)

The English Student: ...and the train kept a-rollin'

It's a funny thing, when I was at school (the first time, that is) English was actually my favourite subject. It was easy, poetry, writing, analysis, speaking, it all came so naturally. Fast forward 5 years and the tables could not be anymore turned without tunneling into higher-dimensional space. A fresh start coupled with a new found respect has seen mathematics rapidly and without contest ascend into the position of my favourite subject, while my love of English (only the subject, not the language) has withered over the course of the last 4 months. But, I am still an English student, so I feel compelled to find something to talk about on the subject.

So, on Monday night, the maths student, lucky bugger that he is, was enjoying calculations and demonstrations while deliberatin' and a-conjugatin' the emancipation proclamation (South Park reference, don't ask me why, I don't even watch the show) in preparation as our train keeps a-thunderin' inevitably on towards examination station on Monday. In that same spirit, last night our class was doing some last minute preparation for our English exam, also on Monday. The general format of the exam is essentially the following. Question 1 asks one to elucidate the meaning of certain phrases that are proliferated throughout the passage that we have been given to analyze. Nothing too difficult, although it did lead to something of a comedic moment when my friend Katrina and I translated "generally considered to die" to "widely believed to expire". Replacing words with their direct synonyms is probably not an unsound strategy, although I have no difficulty imagining an examiner having a particularly bad day would dock a few marks for it as their is an undercurrent of tongue-in-cheek to the answer. Safest practice if one is truly lost is to try and grasp the context the words are spoken in, target the words that you do know the meaning of and make an educated assessment on the balance of probability regarding the meaning of the rest of the words. Also this has already been stressed by our tutor Rodney, but I would hope it is fairly obvious not to use words already found in the phrase, other perhaps than conjunctives ("and, but, of, because, so, is" for example). So far so obvious.

Question 2 allows a little more freedom, in the case of the practice paper we were given, we were told to outline the three principle findings of the passage. Not too much time spent on any of them, just an outline and a little exposition, not too much, no need to go overboard, but it is a chance to demonstrate some flair, I would take it, partly to show off and partly for the sake of my own sanity that has been locked in mortal combat with the rigid structure of the subject as a whole.

Question 3 seems to be the one that trips a lot of people up. Essentially we are given a part of the passage and asked to boil the information down to it's most important, concise points and present it as a condensed summery, in the case of last night it was a 45 word summery for a passage lasting a few hundred words. This is where having an expansive vocabulary can be very useful, being able to condense a phrase down to a word or two is an invaluable asset for this, but it's not essentially that you be a walking thesaurus. Patience is key, take the time to plan the summery out, make a few rough drafts, be careful with how you use your language. One thing that was working really well for me was to strip the passage down to it's absolute bare essentials, to as few words as possible and then add bits of information in, rather than trying to take bits out after finding it was too long. If you can't, you can't, but if you can, then as I say, I found it helpful. One thing I can say for definite is that summaries are not as difficult as you think they are, just be careful with your language and don't be afraid to make rough drafts and tweak it until you're happy.

Question 4 is where the fun really begins, because this is the essay question. Usually, as was the case last night, the question posed is pretty vague and gives you a wide scope of material and arguments to work with. Last night it was "Does a longer life lead to happiness?". A question like that is money, there is so much you can do with it, there are so many arguments for and against, points to follow up on, analysis to be given, observations to be made, that you could very easily go on for a good 5-6 pages and only scratch the surface. As it is, 2 pages is probably as far as you should go, maybe 2 and a half, so it's important to be concise, but at the same time, for the sake of the quality of your work, and for the sake of your own sanity, try as far as possible to enjoy it, really try and get inside the mindset of the question, and of the sides arguing for and against it, and if you can't enjoy the question it's self, try, as with question 2, to at least enjoy the freedom that an essay format can give you to put your own stamp on your work, to imbue it with your own character and flair in a way you really couldn't when faced with the rigidity of questions 1 and 3.

So, we have passed our last stop, the exams are on the horizon and inching closer all the time. 0930 at examination station. Until then, I've been the English student, and wherefore (as in "wherefore art thou Romeo") does not mean where, it means why.

The Maths Student: 09:30 Train to Examination Station

Note to self: devote more time to coming up with wittier blog titles.

Anyway, for the indubitably vast, global audience that no doubt hangs on my every written syllable, I started an access course in September, and I thought it might be fun to pepper my blog with a more personal flavour, in addition to it's usual programming. Incidentally, Google chrome is informing me that I have spelled flavour wrong. Well you listen to me Google chrome, this is Britain! You hear me? Britain! You're not allowed to tell me something is spelled wrong just because it doesn't match up to your warped defilement of the majesty that is the English language. We only invented the bloody thing! Damn Americans.

Um... yeah, studying and stuff

For those who don't know, an access course is aimed primarily though by no means exclusively at people who, for whatever reason, don't have the necessary academic qualifications to get into university, or perhaps do, but not for the subject of their preference. In my case, I dropped out of school at the age of 17, four years ago next month as a matter of fact. After a few years in the wilderness, I decided I wanted to study theoretical physics, which has led me to this course, which will lead me to doing A-levels upon it's completion in 18 months, which will, all being well, lead to university in 2017. Now, background information, or to needlessly use some film terminology, establishing shot out of the way, let's actually look at the course it's self

Essentially, I and my classmates will be studying English and Maths at essentially GCSE level, in addition to the three major sciences at GCSE level in year one and AS level in year two, AS level for those who don't know being essentially the first year of a two year A-level course. In our first four months, we've looked at osmosis and basic anatomy in biology, the period table, salts, and fractional distillation in chemistry, and random and systematic errors, Hooke's law, and electrical resistance in physics. (Incidentally, as a heads up, I am very much in favour of Oxford commas) However, English and Maths are currently the more pertinent to discuss, as it is these two that we face exams for this coming Monday. Last night, Monday night that is, we had what was largely a review session of essentially everything we had covered in maths up to this point. Nothing too drastic in the grand scheme of things, the maths on the course being GCSE equivalent meaning that we faced nothing that had not been previously encountered. The few months we've spent doing maths has more or less been a refresher course, everything from shapes, angles, perimeter, area and volume to probability, averages, graphs, long multiplication and division, and multiplying and dividing by decimals and fractions. It's nothing new, but it has been 4 years since I was doing GCSE maths, and even longer for others. The information not being fresh coupled with the workload it's self being quite densely packed has resulted in the course, even doing it part time, being more intense than one might think for GCSE level, quite a few people in the class already having dropped out, our numbers having dwindled from 19 in September to 12 at present.

Tomorrow night brings English, the last stop on our journey before pulling into examination station on Monday. Ideally, I'll be doing a fairly broad review of English tomorrow night, and looking in more depth at each individual lesson in future, but with last night's and tomorrow night's classes largely being review sessions, it's not really feasible to cover everything we've done in four months in one blog. Still, promising beginnings, or so I feel. Until then, I've been the maths student, and I can confirm that two plus two does, in fact, equal four.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug: The Review: The endless sequence of colons: Here's another one:

So, following the head crushing success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and coming off the back of part 1 of the hobbit film, I mean, two-part film, I mean... trilogy, here we are with the Desolation of Smaug and... why are you looking at me like that?

Alright, so I haven't posted a blog in almost 9 months, I never got around to declaring the winners of the BWAP awards, and I'm sure all those who were nominated have just been wetting themselves desperate to know who took home the platinum galaxies orbiting my head in real time that I have decided the BWAP awards trophies look like, I've just been really... really lazy, and kind of busy, but if I'm being mostly honest, it's mostly lazy. But fret no longer internet, the prodigal son has come home, so let's do something nice and familiar before we dive, head first into the vat of awesomeness that is the future projects that I have in store right here on Ph.D.

So, The Desolation of Smaug. I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings films immensely, I think they rank among some of the highest achievements in the history of cinema, certainly in terms of raw scale and size, in addition to being very well put together, immaculately cast, visually stunning and boasting perhaps the greatest music in the history of film. They also made quite hilarious amounts of money, so I suppose it was really only a matter of time before New Line cast there all seeing eye (see what I did there [and indeed, there?]?) on Tolkiens other, though not quite as famous opus, The Hobbit. After part 1 avoided any real trip ups last year, despite not being all that memorable (as evidence by the fact that I can't remember much about it), part 2, The Desolation of Benedict Cumberbatch, was released today. So, was it any good? Yes. Yes it was. Thanks for joining me here on Ph.D and I will see you guys next time...

Alright, alright, a little more information might be necessary. The Hobbit: The Unblocking of Clog is most definitely worth a watch, it's well acted throughout, it's well paced, it's exciting... but it missteps in the most curious of places. Strangely enough, TH:TDoS suffers from... poor visuals. Now, to qualify that statement a little, I don't really mean poor of course. What I mean is relatively poor, it's not in the same league as Man of Steel for example in terms of pure visuals, and even the Lord of the Rings films, now more than 10 years old, have it beaten visually (in addition to all the other ways). The Orcs look strangely computerized, and there's a strange sense that it's missing a certain... Hollywood sheen. Now, to be totally fair, this may very well have been the fault of the 3D that was my only viewing option, so really the jury is still out on the visuals until I see it on DVD, but tonight at least, it was quite jarring, and it took a solid hour to really get used to it. Not that length was something The Hobbit: The Resurrection of the Blog was short on, it runs a formidable 2 hours 41 minutes, but it's to the film's credit that it never feels that long, it's well paced throughout, there was never a scene during which I felt bored, even if newcomers Tauriel and Bard are a little underdeveloped to really carry the few scenes that they're asked to.

The biggest exception to my gripe regarding the films visuals is without a doubt, the appearance of Smaug, voiced by sexiest man alive, Benedict Cumberbatch. Smaug is an incredible cinematic achievement, and more than deserves the near 5 hour build-up preceding his appearance. Cumberbatch is an inspired casting choice, blessed with a voice that can go from soothing and soft to the pants-crappingly evil growl possessed by Smaug. The final few scenes before Smaug appears are breathtakingly tense, and the dragon utterly dominates the last 30-40 minutes of the film, which can only be a good thing.

It's not without fault, but The Hobbit: Ground and Pound on the Lonely Mountain Fountain is an improvement over it's predecessor, and sets things up nicely for the third installment, The Hobbit: What Are We Going to do After the Dragon is Dead?

Overall: 74/100

The 2nd Annual BWAP Awards: The Nominees

Welcome ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to the nominee announcement for the 2nd ever annual BWAP awards, the awards show dedicated to honouring the actual best films of the year, rather than whatever film best panders to the academy's tastes (looking at you, King's Speech and Artist). A few announcements first however...

1. To my deep regret, this year there will be no "Best Actress" category. I apologise profusely for this, but the fact is that I just didn't see that many films this year featuring women in a leading role. I know I'm gonna have feminists knocking my door down, but it is what it is, again, I apologise.

Alright so it was just the once announcement, so let's not waste anymore time, let's get right down to it, here are the nominations for the 2013 BWAP awards:

Best Supporting Actress

• Emily Blunt - Sara Rollins in Looper
• Anne Hathaway - Selina Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises
• Maggie Smith - Muriel Donnolly in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Best Supporting Actor

• Michael Caine - Alfred in The Dark Knight Rises
• Tommy Lee Jones - Thaddeus Stevens in Lincoln
• Mark Ruffalo - The Avengers
• Alex Russel - Chronicle
• Tom Wilkinson - The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Best Visuals

• The Avengers
• Looper
• Dredd

Best Audio

• The Dark Knight Rises
• Looper
• Skyfall

Best Screenplay (Adapted or Original)

• Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon - The Cabin in the Woods
• Rian Johnson - Looper
• Tony Kushner - Lincoln
• Max Landis - Chronicle
• Joss Whedon - The Avengers

Best Ensemble

• The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
• The Cabin in the Woods
• The Dark Knight Rises
• Lincoln
• Looper

Best Actor

• Daniel Day-Lewis - Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln
• Dane DeHaan - Andrew Detmer in Chronicle
• Robert Downey Jr - Tony Stark/Iron Man in The Avengers
• Joseph Gordon-Levitt - Joe Simmons
• Karl Urban - Judge Dredd in Dredd

Best Director

• Drew Goddard - The Cabin in the Woods
• Rian Johnson - Looper
• Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight Rises
• Josh Trank - Chronicle
• Joss Whedon - The Avengers

And now, last but not least, the big one, here are the nominees for 2012's... 

Best Film

• The Avengers
• Chronicle
• The Dark Knight Rises
• Lincoln
• Looper

And there we have it, the nominees. The 2013 BWAP awards will be announced on March 31st. See you then.

85th Academy Awards: My Reaction

Alright, alright, so I didn't get around to doing predictions this year, so freakin' sue me.

So, another Academy awards ceremony has come and gone, and honestly, I thought this was a huge improvement over the last two. Considering the last two Best Picture winners have been a black-and-white silent film, and a formulaic pot-boiler about a bloke with a stutter who just happened to be the king, we knew going in that the winner this year would be a huge improvement, and while Argo seems like less of an accomplishment than it's rival going in to the show, Lincoln, it is worth noting that I haven't seen Argo yet, and it certainly looks a hell of a lot better than the previous two winners.

Which is why it absolutely baffles and astounds me that Ben Affleck was on the receiving end of quite possibly the worst snub in the history of awards, yes, worse than Christopher Nolan not even being nominated for Inception. How, tell me, how can a film that was apparantly the best film of the year not have it's director even nominated for Best Director. It's almost like a book winning "Best Book" at the... "Book Awards" and the author somehow not being nominated for best author. It's utterly ridiculous. 

I could also have done without Michelle Obama presenting the award for Best Picture (yes that did actually happen, for those who haven't heard, although the fact that I just typed that out does still seem a little surreal). It's the most prolific awards handed out for the medium of film, I want to see someone somehow connected to the world of film handing them out. 

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention Anne Hathaway. Now don't get me wrong, I like Anne Hathaway, I wanted her to win, I felt like she should have won, and I was very happy for her when she did, but that girl just cannot give an awards speech. I thought the BAFTAs were bad, but this was worse. It just didn't seem real, at all. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that she was incredibly overwhelmed by the emotion and that it was certainly the crowning moment of her acting career, and she truly did feel humble and overcome, but it just didn't come accross that way at all. Sorry Anne. 

But it's not all gloom and doom. Seth McFarlane did an ok to pretty good job, in my opinion, his jokes worked on a broad scale and he's naturally charismatic, although I do wonder if he has the kind of star power that an event like this needs, plus he only was one fairly mediocre film to his name. But I enjoyed his performance, I thought he hosted well, although I really think they should get someone more versed in out-and-out stand-up comedy to host next year. 

I felt that most of the awards went to the right films, at least out of the films that were nominated. It was a shame that The Dark Knight Rises went home empty handed though, it was more than good enough to merit an Oscar, with Best Cinematography being it's best shot although that went to the big winner of the night, Life of Pi, which claimed four awards, including a second Best Director prize for Ang Lee. I think Lee deserved it more than Spielberg, despite Lincoln being a tremendous film, Lincoln is memorable for a different reason...

Daniel Day-Lewis is as good an actor as there has ever been. You may disagree with his methods, although why people do so continues to baffle me because the results are unparalleled, but Day-Lewis deservedly made history as the first person to ever win Best Actor three times, and he did so with one of the finest performances one is ever likely to see. Day-Lewis is utterly spellbinding as the eponymous Lincoln, in what was easily the best performance of the last year and possibly the best performance of the last decade. Day-Lewis also gave probably the nights best acceptance speech (Take notes Miss Hathaway) It was a sweet, funny, charming and very humble speech when it would have been incredibly easy to have a little more bravado, given that he had just made history, and was probably the high point of the evening...

Or at least it would have been, had it not been for Adele's breathtaking performance of what is in my opinion the best Bond theme there has ever been, "Skyfall". Ironically, given the evening was supposed to be dedicated to films, it was probably the part of the show that I was most looking forward to, and I wasn't disappointed. I've heard it said that the backing orchestra was too loud and it drowned Adele out a little bit, but I personally didn't think so. Maybe the vocals could have been a little higher in the mix, but a singer as talented as Adele could make a pub band sound like a world class musical force.

On the whole, it was an enjoyable show, it flowed nicely, the awards were given to the right nominees for the most part. Although I think Lincoln should have won Best Picture, it didn't put too much of a damper on things, and it makes me a little more optimistic going into 2013, hopefully the Academy can continue the trend.

_________________________________________________________________________________

But, awards season is not over yet, because the most prestigious awards of the year have yet to be announced, yes, that's right, it's time for the 2nd Annual BWAP awards, hosted by me, right here on Ph.D.

Here is the schedule:

The catagories and nominees for them shall be announced on the 15th of March, with the awards themselves being held on the 31st of March. Keep an eye peeled. Until then, good night, and good day.

Creating a WWEXI Football Team

A few months ago a happened across a blog on the Bleacher Report, discussing a WWE baseball team, and what superstar would play in what position. Not being from the USA, I haven't the slightest idea about baseball, but it did give me a thought. It took a while, but it did. I thought "What about a WWE football team? That would be the perfect subject of discussion for an online blog, which is lucky because I happen to run one" So, let's take a look, and create the first ever WWE Football team.

The formation of our team will be 4-3-3, and we'll begin with the goalkeeper.

GK: Kofi Kingston
This was one of the harder positions to pick, but I ended up going with Kofi. Kofi may not have the presence or size of some keepers, but he's one of the most agile guys on the roster, and his natural athleticism and leaping ability will make him hard to find a way past. His height may leave him susceptible to crosses though, which means he'll need two big center backs in front of him...

CBs: John Cena (Captain) and Antonio Cesaro
Captain wow himself, John Cena picks himself at center-back, he's got the build, he's got the presence, he's not as bad with the ball at his feet as he's sometimes made out to be and as we are unceasingly reminded, he will never give up and he'll rise above hate and all the other things. His experience is also invaluable, particularly alongside the somewhat more green Antonio Cesaro. Cesaro has size on his side as well, but he bolsters it with plenty of technical skill and composure on the ball.

RB/LB: Sin Cara and Rey Mysterio
Pace is the name of the game at full back with Rey Mysterio and Sin Cara. Mysterio may be slowing down as he gets older, but he has bags of experiance, and he can still get up and down the touchline, reliably supporting wherever he is needed. Sin Cara is almost the exact opposite. His electric pace will punish any side, and his stamina is unrelenting, but he has been prone to costly mistakes in the past.

CDM: Wade Barrett (Vice-Captain)
If you're playing in midfield against the WWEXI, watch out, because chances are, you'll be given a pretty rough time by the team's anchor, Wade Barrett. Barrett's physical strength coupled with a mean streak a mile long means that he is one of the most intimidating guys you'll ever come up against, bullying opponents off the ball all over the field, and acting as an excellent shield in front of the back four. Barrett's presence also allows the two men ahead of him to roam free and terrorise the opposition like only they can...

CAMs: CM Punk and Daniel Bryan
Look out. That's all you can really say when faced with CM Punk and Daniel Bryan. The two men are sublimely talented, and have bags of experience. The two men are by far the most technically gifted players in the team, very agile and very hard to stop, in addition to being more than competent when being asked to defend. They are the fulcrum of the WWEXI's attack, and will supply the forward line with ammunition, time and time again, in addition to chipping in with plenty of goals themselves.

RW: Dolph Ziggler
Ziggler was born to play on the wing. In addition to having the cocky attitude of a certain #7 before him (coughronaldocough) Ziggler has more than enough skills to back it up. His technical ability is second to very few, and his athleticism and work rate means that he has the pace and stamina to boss his side of the field. He'll score, he'll supply, he'll do it all.

LW: Alberto Del Rio
While Del Rio may lack the raw pace and agility of Ziggler, he makes up for it with class and experience. Incredibly sound with the ball at his feet, he has the composure and experience to punish any team's defence.

CF: Randy Orton
The Viper, Randy Orton has the experience and skill to turn any game on it's head in the blink of an eye. He's not quick, he's sudden, slithering seemingly out of nowhere to make his mark. Take your eye off the Apex predator for one second if you dare... because one second is all he'll need.



Well that's my team, there's the bones of a champions league winning side there, in my opinion. What do you think?

A Royal Occasion...

The road to Wrestlemania has begun, and as ever, our first stop is arguably the second-most popular pay-per-view on the WWE calender, the Royal Rumble. Let's take a look at the card for tomorrow's event, and make a few predictions...


Royal Rumble Pre-Show
US Championship: Antonio Cesaro (Ch) vs The Miz

I have mixed feelings on this match being on the pre-show. On the one hand, they will given a little longer and will probably be able to get more things done in the time allotted than if they were on the main card. On the other hand, this has been building over the last few weeks, and it's unusual to have a well built to match not even making the main card. Still, look for it to be a good match, Cesaro is one of the best workers in the company right now, but Miz can hold his own. I don't think Cesaro's time as US Champion is going to end just yet, particularly not on the pre-show, and besides, this feud has enough in it to take us to Elimination chamber next month at least.

My Predictions
Winner: Antonio Cesaro
Ending: Cesaro pins Miz after hitting The Neutralizer
Time: 15 minutes

Royal Rumble Main Card
WWE Tag Team Championship: Kane and Daniel Bryan (Ch) vs Damien Sandow and Cody Rhodes

I've loved Kane and Daniel Bryan, but I think their time as champions will come to an end at the Rumble, at the hands of Team Rhodes Scholars, Rhodes and Sandow. Kane and Bryan's story arc has gone as far as I think it can, and, no offense to tag team fans, but they're too good individually to stay in the tag team division for much longer, they belong back in singles competition. Rhodes and Sandow are great as a team for now, and they'll make good tag team champions. I think both are destined for greater things, Rhodes for certain, but they're good in their current roles and should hold the titles through Wrestlemania and into the Summer.

My Predictions
Winner: Cody Rhodes and Damien Sandow
Ending: Rhodes hits Daniel Bryan with CrossRhodes for the pin.
Time: 15 minutes

World Heavyweight Championship: Alberto Del Rio (Ch) vs Big Show in a Last Man Standing match

I've enjoyed Del Rio as a face a lot more than I thought I would, but then again, he's a guy I have always wanted to like. He's very good in the ring, but was held back by a heel character more staler than a month old sandwich. He's over with the crowd, and I don't see his title run, which is only 2 weeks old, ending here. Big Show has been good over the last few months, his feud with Sheamus was one of the best of 2012. With the stipulation, this match should be brutal and violent, and a potential show-stealer

My Predictions
Winner: Alberto Del Rio
Ending: Del Rio hits Big Show with his car for the 10 count
Time: 20 minutes

Royal Rumble Match

Probably the most popular match type in the history of WWE, the Royal Rumble is here once more, and needless to say, I'm excited. The line-up is pretty solid. Confirmed so far, we have the likes of John Cena, Randy Orton, Sheamus, Dolph Ziggler, Kane, Daniel Bryan, Wade Barret, Antonio Cesaro, The Miz, and of course, Ryback. In addition we can also expect some returning superstars (Christian, Mark Henry are my bets) some old faces making surprise returns (John Morrison seems the safe bet here) and a few legends stepping back into the ring to show the young whipper-snappers how it's done (My money's on Roddy Piper and Billy Gunn). In terms of winners, Cena and Ryback are the two the most people have their money on, with a possible dark horse in Dolph Ziggler, although his odds just got alot longer with the announcement that  he will start at either #1 or #2. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm gonna take the perennial safe-bet here, and go with WWE's resident superhero...

My Predictions
Winner: John Cena
Ending: Cena wins by last eliminating Dolph Ziggler
Time: 70 minutes

The winner of the Rumble match will go on to face either the World Heavyweight Champion or the WWE Champion at Wrestlemania. I've already said that I think Alberto Del Rio will retain his world title. But the more pressing question is who will be the WWE Champion come Wrestlemania? That will be decided in the biggest WWE Title match in over a decade...

WWE Championship: CM Punk (Ch) vs. The Rock

CM Punk, as of the 26th of January, has held the WWE Championship for 433 days, the sixth longest reign in history, and is without a doubt one of the most talented overall performers in the history of WWE. He's excellent in the ring and arguably the best talker to ever pick up a mic. The Rock is arguably the most famous wrestler of all time. He's a 7-time WWE Champion, he's main-evented multiple Wrestlemanias, he's won the Royal Rumble, and he's beaten Steve Austen, Hulk Hogan and John Cena on the grandest stage of 'em all. He's done everything there is to do. The build-up between the two has been perfectly executed. The first confrontation on Raw three weeks ago between the two was one of the highest points the show has reached in years, one of the highest points it's ever reached. And now, we are a little under 24 hours away, at time of writing, from the biggest WWE Title match since Stone Cold vs The Rock at Wrestlemania 17, 12 years ago.

In terms of quality, the build-up has easily trumped the build to Rock vs Cena at Wrestlemania 28, and the match should do the same, simply because Punk is a much better worker than Cena. It will be back and forth with Punk probably having the advantage for most of the match. The Rock looked pretty tired halfway through the match with Cena, so hopefully he will have a better idea of his limitations this time round. In spite of that you're probably looking at 30 minutes of what should be a 4-star match, 3.5 minimum. If the crowd is hot enough, it could be an all-time classic. I hope Punk wins, but as with the Rumble match, I'm gonna play the odds. I don't think it's a certainty, but it's more likely than not...

My Predictions:

Winner: The Rock
Ending: Rock pins Punk after a Rock Bottom
Time: 30 minutes

Top 5 Christmas Songs Ever

Christmas time is here again, like every year before. And like every year before, all the old Christmas hits are upon us once more. From "Merry Christmas Everybody" to "Merry Christmas, Everyone", here are the top 5 Christmas songs...


Of Allllllll Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime


5. Feed the World - Band Aid/Band Aid 20 (And any other versions there may be)
It's pretty damn hard to argue with a song with as much moral high-ground as this one. Normally I'm fairly lukewarm towards songs like this because very often the music is sacrificed for the song's message. Here however, there is no such sacrifice: The song is actually pretty damn good, it has a big chorus, a wealth of singing talent the likes of which has never been seen before or since, and yes, what they're singing about is important, and shouldn't be forgotten about. I say, don't feel guilty about having been lucky enough to be born into a wealthy country... but spare a thought for those who aren't so fortunate as you tuck into your Turkey this Christmas day

4. Merry Christmas, Everyone - Shakin' Stevens
God. Damn. This. Song. It's SO catchy. The Grinch himself would sing along. It's certainly not the most lyrically complex or thematically diverse song you'll ever come accross, it's as simplistic as it gets, but it just doesn't matter, such is the infectious nature of it's melody, and that DAMN chorus. The key change at the end of the second chorus is the icing on the proverbial Christmas cake as it kicks off a superb ending to a superb song.

3. Merry Christmas Everybody - Slade
Do I really need to say anything about this song? Everyone knows it, everyone loves it, and with good reason: This song is Christmas. The anthemic chorus, the resounding "IT'S CHRIIIIISTMAAAAAAAAS" that bookends the song, the eminently identifiable lyrics, the song is utterly synonymous with Christmas, and tightly deserves to be considered one of the greatest Christmas songs of all time.

2. White Wine in the Sun - Tim Minchin 
This song isn't quite as well known as the others on the list, and may be a little more polarising... but I don't think anything better sums up what Christmas means to me, on a personal level, than Tim Michins magnum opus, White Wine in the Sun. I, like Minchin, am hardly religious. And sometimes I get asked, as an Atheist, why do you celebrate Christmas, a traditionally religious holiday. This Christmas, as with every other, I will celebrate the fact that, for one day, my family will all be under one roof, and this song, this beautiful piece of art... reminds me what Christmas really is all about.

1. Fairytale of New York - The Pogues ft. Kirsty McCall
How on earth could it possibly be anything else? This song is one of those songs that reminds me why I listen to music in the first place. It's music goes from beautifully sentimental to wild and merry, it's lyrics effortlessly transition between contempt, pity, happiness, sadness, optimism, pessimism, love and hate in a song that has more emotion, more poignancy, more intimacy and more heart in 4 minutes than the Twilight saga has in it's 10+ hour running time. This song... is perfect. Every line, every note, every beat, every second. It reaches as high a point as any piece of art has ever reached. This song... this beautiful, wonderful song... is perfect.

UEFA Champions League 2012: Analyzing the Candidates

The group stage of the UEFA Champions League has concluded, the stage is set and now the cast is confirmed. 16 of Europe's elite will now do battle to claim the most prestigious prize in club football, and become champions of Europe. Four wins are all that separates the remaining teams from failure and immortality...

But, cliche ridden wank aside, which of the remaining teams has the best chance of lifting the coveted trophy, come the end of March? Let's take a look at who we have left, as we (and by we, I of course mean me) rank these elite clubs, and Arsenal, starting from least likely to win and moving up...

16. Galatasary
The Turks barely escaped group H by the skin of their teeth, even having an inferior goal difference to 3rd placed Cluj. They would be underdogs against any of the other 15.

Prediction: This is the team everyone will have their fingers crossed to draw against in the second round, where Galatasary's European quest will almost certainly come to an end.

15. Arsenal
One of just two English teams in the draw, Arsenal only qualified by a point from what was one of the relatively weaker groups, and are now very likely to face a difficult draw in the next round.

Prediction: Considering their second placed finish, Arsenal are highly unlikely to progress any further, barring a very kind draw.

14. Shaktar Donetsk
Shaktar progressed through the group stages at the expense of reigning champions Chelsea, and could be a tricky challenge on their own turf, but are unlikely to cause much trouble over two legs.

Prediction: Barring some luck on and off the pitch, Shaktar probably won't get much further.


13. Porto
Porto currently sit joint top of their domestic league, tied on both points and goals with Benfica who are only top due to having scored one goal more. They have they talent to cause problems, particularly James Rodriguez who may well have sought pastures new by this time next year.

Prediction: A tricky draw for whoever the meet, but Porto would be fortunate to reach the quarter finals.


12. Schalke
Despite reaching the semi-finals of the UCL in 2011, Schalke are unlikely to cause much damage this year. They currently sit in fifth place in the Bundesliga, 16 points off the ridiculous pace set by the rampant Bayern Munich, but winning their group means the possibility of a kinder draw in the next round.

Prediction: Schalke are largely relying on a fortunate draw to progress further, and are very unlikely to repeat the success of 2011.


11. Celtic
The Scottish champions secured one of the most famous results in their history with victory over group winners Barcelona, and are notoriously difficult to beat on their own ground. But they face stern competition in the next round, with the possibility of drawing Borussia Dortmund, Manchester United and Bayern Munich.

Prediction: On their own ground, Celtic really can beat just about anybody, and that prowess at home could see Celtic perhaps sneaking into the quarter finals. Against the elite clubs though, they simply won't be good enough over two legs.

10. Valencia
Impressive in the group stage as they pushed last years runners-up Bayern Munich all the way, only finishing second on head-to-head, Valencia have gone off the boil a little as of late, with just 2 wins in their last 5.

Prediction: Valencia have the talent to progress further, but they may be relying on the draw a little, and are certainly unlikely to go further than the quarter finals.

9. AC Milan
Milan currently sit in 7th place in Serie A, 14 points which might as well be 14 light years away from Juventus who currently top the table. They also failed to top their group and thus face the prospect of a difficult draw in the next round

Prediction: Milan could very well go through, but it's difficult to see progressing past the quarter finals.

8. Malaga
Malaga's domestic form has also sputtered a little as of late, but they topped a group that included AC Milan, and are better than most of the teams they can draw in the next round.

Prediction: Malaga are better than any of the teams they can draw in the next round and are likely to progress to the quarter finals. They won't trouble the elite clubs though.

7. Paris SG
In spite of the incredible financial power that PSG now posess, they are currently 3 points off the pace in Ligue 1, sitting second behind Lyon. In a straight match however, with the likes of Zlatan Ibrohimovic and Tiago Silva in their ranks, PSG will be a challenge for any team they come up against.

Prediction: PSG should reach the quarter finals, and may even have an outside chance of reaching the Semi's if the draw goes their way.

6. Juventus
Juventus currently sit top of Serie A with a four point lead over Inter Milan. It's been a long road to recovery for Juventus, but the Italian champions are most definitely back amongst the elite of European football.

Prediction: The quarter finals should be a bare minimum for Juventus, and realistically they should be looking to reach the semis.

5. Manchester United
It's been a strange season thus far for United, as they have coupled probably the best strike partnership in Europe with one of the leakiest defences in their history. However, they currently sit 6 points clear at the top of the premiership following a dramatic win over second placed local rivals and current champions, Manchester City, and if they can stay free if injuries, United have the firepower to outgun anyone, anytime, anyplace.

Prediction: After a disappointing exit at the group stage last season, United will be looking for a strong showing, and will be aiming for the semi-finals, anything less would be considered failure.

4. Real Madrid
Going into this season, I really thought this was Madrid's year. I had the reigning Spanish champions picked to win the champions league and claim their 10th European cup, but they have struggled to gather any sort of traction so far, culminating in stunning defeats against Real Betis and Celta Vigo. They currently sit 3rd in La Liga, 11 points behind the still unbeaten force-of-nature that is Barcelona.

Prediction: After finishing second in their group, Real Madrid face a challenge from the get-go, but with the sheer talent in the team, they will be very difficult to beat. The 2-2 draw against Barcelona earlier this season proved that they can still match up with the best of the best.

3. Borussia Dortmund
The reigning champions of Germany have set their sights firmly on the UCL, topping what was easily the hardest group, comprising themselves and the champions of England, Spain and Holland, Manchester City, Real Madrid and Ajax: and they finished unbeaten.

Prediction: Dortmund are dangerous and have a very real chance of winning. If they can avoid the next two teams, they stand an excellent chance of making the final.

2. Bayern Munich
The runaway league leaders in Germany have an 11 point margin over second place Borussia Dortmund and have scored 43 goals in 16 games, averaging almost four goals a game at home. Bayern have been utterly rampant so far this season, and after losing the final last year, on their own ground no less, they will be desperate to right that wrong and reclaim Europe's top prize.

Prediction: Bayern match up favourably against just about anyone, and have an excellent chance of winning the UCL. But a hero is only as good as his villain, and in this case, Bayern's antagonists may well be too much...

1. Barcelona
What more can be said about Barcelona that hasn't already been said? And the scary thing is... they appear to be getting better.  15 games in and Barcelona are still unbeaten, only failing to win on one occasion, a 2-2 draw with their greatest rivals Real Madrid. They've won the trophy 3 times in the last 6 seasons, and their lethal offense is led by the greatest player to have ever graced the game, a man who this season has recorded 33 goals and 7 assists in just 20 games, the incomparable Lionel Messi.

Prediction: A final contested by Bayern and Barcelona really could go either way, and of course anything can happen on the night... but Barca at their best are better than Bayern at their best.

I can't wait until the UCL starts again in February. The draw for the next round is on December 20th, keep an ear out, and no matter who wins, let's just hope that football is the ultimate winner, and that this years Champions league is remembered for all the right reasons.

FIFA 13 Review

Let me tell you a little of my history with football games. Up until just a few short years ago, I was a dyed in the wool, hardcore Pro Evolution Soccer fan. To me, nothing else would do. FIFA had always been glitzy and shiny, it had the licences, it had better presentation, but in the gameplay department? Pro Evo skewered it, time and time again. For me though, all that changed with FIFA 11. I was originally won by the possibility of playing as the goalkeeper, an option that FIFA 11 offered, alluded to by it's apt tagline, "We are 11". What I found was that, undeniably, FIFA and surpassed Pro Evolution Soccer as the king of the football games mountain. My allegiances changed that day. The following year, it wasn't Pro Evolution Soccer 2012 that I shelled out my money in, it was FIFA 12. It was FIFA 12 that truly blew me away, I marvelled at it's completeness, at long last it's presentation and graphics were matched, surpassed even, but it's incredible gameplay. The game felt so good to play, it was a realistic tonic to Pro Evo's increasingly arcadish gameplay. But one thought lingered in my mind: "How on earth can they top this? What can they possibly add?" FIFA 13 answers my question. What is the answer?

To be brutally honest, the answer is: not a whole lot. Don't get me wrong for a second, there are new features, both on and off the pitch. The most heavily touted addition being the added unpredictability, attempting to mirror one of the scant few real life aspects of football that FIFA 12 had been unable to produce. In FIFA 12, the ball would stick the players boot like glue. In FIFA 13, it's all in the maths. How skilful is your player? How fast is he moving? How fast is the ball moving towards him? Is he being pressured by defenders? Is it raining or is it dry? All these variables add up to produce that unpredictability that makes the actual game so compelling. And it is pulled off very well, to the point where even if and when it works against you, you are able to sit back and admire the craftsmanship. Goalkeepers flap at crosses, shots are sliced hilariously wide, it is very well implemented, and a very welcome addition.

In the gameplay department however, that's about is innovative as FIFA 13 gets. The game is littered with tweaks. Passing feels a little smoother, the player impact engine has been refined so that players aren't blown half way across the pitch by a falling leaf, free kicks aren't as unforgiving as their previous iterations, but on the whole, the gameplay department, while still reliably brilliant, may have hit a glass ceiling... on this generation of consoles at least.

A few new gameplay modes have been added, one of them being "Skill Games". In a nutshell, skill games are essentially mini-games that will ease newcomers in to the game at their easiest and provide a reasonable challenge to more seasoned veterans at their hardest (If anyone can figure out how to do the final crossing challenge, let me know) Everything from dribbling assault courses to crossbar challenges to smashing penalties to a wall of cardboard boxes, the games are delightfully addictive. There have also been some updates to that ever reliable stalwart, manager mode. The interface is now even more authentic, sky sports being printed all over the menu screens as a man who's name tragically escapes me reads out the other results of the day and how they affect the league table. The biggest addition though is the ability to manage international sides. While it's not really my cup of tea, there are undoubtedly those who have been pining for this addition for some time, and for whom it will increase the depth of manager mode greatly.

Given that my xbox live gold account has tragically expired, I can't comment with a great deal of authority on the online modes, although I did try my hand at "Ultimate Team" for the first time. I haven't spent too much time with it yet, but I can see myself doing so, I can see why many people find it so addictive. For those who don't know, in ultimate team, you basically build up... the ultimate team. You buy packs of trading cards that unlock new players for your squad and slowly build up an army of superstars who could handily thump Real Madrid on their own ground without breaking sweat. As I say, I can see why it would be addictive, and I look forward to getting to grips with it more in future.

On the whole FIFA 13 is very good. It's very good because FIFA 12 was very good, I would be lying if I said a great deal has changed, but there are changes there, most of them small tweaks as EA fine tune their sports masterpiece. On the whole though, my concerns as to where EA go after FIFA 12 do whole some water... and they are only compounded for the next iteration. Ultimately, there really is only so much in a game that can be improved. And that may be FIFA's eventual downfall.

Top 5 Disney Songs

I loved Disney growing up, and still do. They may perhaps have taken a dip in quality over the last few years, but speaking as a guy who grew up in the late 90's and early 00's, back in my day, Disney could do no wrong. And one thing that Disney managed to hit out of the park time and time again was music. These are the top 5 songs ever to appear in a Disney film.

5. A Whole New World - Aladdin (Sung by Brad Kane and Lea Salonga)

This song is so romantic it makes me want to marry Aladdin. Of the four big Disney films to come out in the 90's, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King, Aladdin is usually considered the weakest. This song however is definitely one of Disney's best moments, a truly touching and sincere moment, bolstered massively by the fantastic vocal performance of Lea Salonga as Jasmine.  It's very genuine and emotionally driven in addition to being just a very good vocal performance. This song might have placed a little higher were it not for the less than stellar vocal performance of Brad Kane as Aladdin. Don't get me wrong, it isn't bad, but there are a few moments where it does let the song down a little. Still, indubitably a great song.

4. Friends on the Other Side - The Princess and the Frog (Sung by physics defying wizard, Keith David)

This is a film that some of you might not have seen, hell, even I haven't seen it, so it's a little hard to comment on this song from a story telling standpoint but OH... MY... GOD... this song is SO catchy. It is weaponised catchiness. The problem that of course is that there really isn't much else to say, it's a song that's pretty much on the list solely because it pushes my buttons as far as music goes, although it's certainly helped by impressive visuals and an excellent vocal performance from warlock master of time and space, Keith David. I guess all I can really say is give it a listen. It doesn't quite stack up critically to the rest of the songs on the list, but between that infections catchiness and the smooth vocals of Jedi Master and the legendary son of Zeus, Keith David Not the most professional review I've ever done, but hey, no one's perfect, I'm just the closest thing to it.

3. Circle of Life - The Lion King (Sung by Carmen Twillie and Lebo M)

*Clears throat* ...NAAAAAA ZE BETNYAAAAAAA

Sorry, couldn't resist

All kidding aside, I am more than willing to go on record and say that I think the opening to The Lion King is the greatest intro to a film I've ever seen. It introduces our main characters our main characters and sucks you into the film. I admit that without the visual accompaniment, this song wouldn't be so high on the list, but it is nigh impossible to sit watching that intro and not get chills down your spine. It really establishes the gravitas of the whole situation, the birth of the kings son, it sucks you in, it makes you feel that this really is a massive event that you're watching, that you're a part of. The song its self is very good, it obviously ties in with the films central "circle of life" theme, and really helps establish that theme right from the word go. With a duo as potent as Hanz zimmer and Elton John composing the soundtrack, The Lion King was always going to have awesome music, and it doesn't get much better than the Circle of Life.

2. Be Prepared - The Lion King (Sung by Jeremy Irons)

The primary antagonist of The Lion King, Scar, tends to divide opinion. Some people view him as whiny and camp, while others point out Jeremy Irons masterful vocal performance and the fact that Scar actually manages to achieve his goals, killing one of the main characters and taking over pride rock. I tend to lean more to the latter school of thought, but one thing most people agree on is that Be Prepared is one of the best Disney songs ever. Jeremy Irons is no singer, but he doesn't have to be, his vocal performance for Be Prepared is as excellent as it is throughout the rest of the film, as Scar reveals his plans to his Hyena minions. It's a perfect example of not sacrificing storytelling for good music, or vice versa, as this song manages both with panache. The visual accompaniment is excellent too, at one point Scar is seen looking down over an army of Hyenas bearing a less than coincidental resemblance to the traditional view of a certain army who fought in a certain war from 1939 to 1945... not naming any names. Some people don't like it, personally I think it works. Regardless, Be Prepared is a great song, and a great example of how to further a story through music.

1. Hellfire - The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Sung by Tony Jay)

In terms of artistic merit, Hellfire may just be the highest peak that Disney have ever reached. This song is nothing short of masterful from beginning to end. Let's start with the actual performance. Tony Jay is a roaring wonder throughout the film as Frollo, one of the great Disney villains, thanks in no small part to this song. It's not the best pure singing performance you'll ever hear but it doesn't need to be. As an overall vocal performance, it's terrific, Jay's authoritative baritone anchoring what are some absolutely tremendous lyrics. The lyrics are quite buzz word heavy, a good example being the line "Don't let her fire sear my flesh and bone", but it isn't at the expense of substance as they suck you in like a black hole to Frollo's state of mind, his internal anguish at the thought of damning his soul in exchange for acting on his lust for Esmerelda. The song is excellently structured, starting off as a latin chant before evolving and building over the course of it's 3 and a quarter minutes into an intense, straight up scary finale, as Frollo accepts the fate of his decision. Hellfire is as an intense and gripping piece of music as you are likely to come across in any medium, blending music, storytelling and character development in spellbinding fashion. I don't hesitate for a moment to call it a masterpiece.

Ranking Every Christopher Nolan Film (Part 1)

I've never hesitated for a moment to say that I think Christopher Nolan is the greatest filmmaker of his generation. He has yet to make a bad film in eight attempts, and films such as The Dark Knight and Inception are frequently heralded as some of the best films of the last decade. I, Lee Woolsey, haven taken it upon myself, for the benefit of mankind, to settle the question once and for all... what is Christopher Nolan's best film... and what is his worst?

Honourable mentions: Following, Insomnia

These are the only two films that I have not seen from Nolan's collection, so there isn't much I can say about them... let's crack on

6. Memento

Memento was Nolan's first "big-budget" film (Even if Memento's budget of $9 million seems rather paltry compared to the $250 million spent on The Dark Knight Rises). It stars Guy Pearce as a man with amnesia attempting to get revenge for the murder of his wife. Memento's bread and butter is it's narrative structure. The film is told chronologically backwards, beginning with the ending scene and working it's way back to the beginning. The effect puts the audience in the shoes of the protagonist, perceiving reality as he does. It's clever and well executed and no doubt, but the fact is, strip it away, and Memento is rather unremarkable. It certainly isn't bad, it's well acted, it's themes are thought provoking and well handled, but you're still looking at a fairly run-of-the-mill revenge film (albeit a well above average one). Therefore, Memento must take it's place at the bottom of the pile. But against such fierce competition, even last place is nothing to be ashamed of. Just take a look at what's next.

5. The Dark Knight Rises

The biggest blockbuster of summer 2012 without a doubt was the third instalment in Nolan's Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises. And I won't lie, I was hyped. I had been hyped for a year. Were my expectations met? Yes... and no. The Dark Knight rises is very good, but it is only very good. It would have been unrealistic to expect it to meet the same lightning-in-a-bottle levels as it's predecessor, but the fact is, it is necessarily in a position where it must be compared to The Dark Knight. And it's absolute peak, The Dark Knight Rises isn't far off The Dark Knight's pace, the acting is very good, Anne Hathaway and Michael Caine in particular are tremendous in their roles. Bane is an excellent but flawed villain, his motivations aren't particularly strong, and the questions about him that intrigued me were never really given a good answer. The story progression is... interesting. The film almost goes through two different story arcs, one after the other, in the same film. A more accurate title might have been "The Dark Knight Rises Twice". The Dark Knight Rises is a very good film, more than worthy of it's place in the greatest film trilogy of all time, (yes, I said it) and though it may be the worst of the three, as with Memento, with competition this fierce, that's nothing to be ashamed of. 

4. Batman Begins

Batman Begins was the first Batman film since Joel Schumacher's execrable Batman and Robin, and was made at a time when young, up and coming director Christopher Nolan wasn't quite the household name he is today. For this reason, Batman Begins was possibly the most important film of Nolan's career. The Dark Knight may have been the film that launched Nolan into the stratosphere, but had Nolan failed with Batman Begins, The Dark Knight would never have existed. But as we know, Nolan didn't fail. He knocked it out of the park. With terrific performances across the board (Katie Holmes the only blemish), and Nolan's trademark non-linear narrative, Nolan created a film that could be enjoyed by someone who had never heard of Batman, he took the character of Batman and revamped and rebooted him for a modern world. Here was someone who so clearly understood the character of Batman, delving effortlessly into the psyche of Bruce Wayne, and perfectly grounding one of it's central themes: fear, virtually from the opening frame until the end credits, the film finishing with one of the best sequel teases you will ever see... for one of the best sequels you will ever see. But we'll get to that later. 

Join me again for part 2 when we finish grading the remaining three films, and find out what Christopher Nolan's greatest film really is.

The Mario Paradox

The most famous video game of all time is arguably Super Mario Bros. Mario as a brand is up there with Coca-Cola, David Beckham, Microsoft and Manchester United, it's one of those things that everyone has heard of. It's also a game series that causes me rather unhealthy amounts of frustration. It isn't that the game is bad. It's the fact that Nintendo have been releasing essentially the same game with a new coat of paint for the last 20+ years. This is inarguable. New Super Mario Bros. Wii, in addition to being a rather unpalatable title, is still fresh in the mind as the most recent reincarnation of that original classic, the only difference being a few different power ups and the addition of one of the more frustrating multiplayer modes you are likely to come across. And yet... people continue to buy it. This is a phenomenon that has perplexed me for some time. It should be clear that nintendo are just cashing on the brand name, beating a dead horse and any other cliche you can think of in order to make as much profit for as little effort as possible... but people still buy it. It's clear that the original hasn't gone anywhere, hell you can download an old SNES emulator online and play it totally free... but people continue to fork out the £40 hard earned pounds that Nintendo asks of them in order to play a game that they have probably already completed five different iterations of. This is a social phenomenon that I have dubbed: The Mario Paradox. My question? Why? It's a fair question, in my view, but it's never one that I've gotten a satisfying answer to. And I think I have a decent idea why. It's because nobody knows. No one has quite cracked the riddle of why, in these very difficult economic times, people would pay to buy a game that is almost identical to one they already have. So I will attempt to give it a shot.

I think the main reason, ironically enough, is that the current economy is actually the spur to buy these games, rather than the deterrent. Let's say you have two choices. You can buy New Super Mario Bros. Wii (henceforth known as NSMBW) or you can buy, just because it's a game I am familiar with, Mass Effect. Let's assume for the moment that they cost the same price, and that our hypothetical customer hasn't played either of them, and has no preference between platformers and RPG's. Chances are, she's not got a lot of spare change, and wants to take the purchase option with the least risk involved. Few people are going to argue that Mass Effect is the superior title, it has much more depth, great writing, superb characters and a wonderfully gripping story, taking your hero from a small human colony to beyond the furthest stars. But that doesn't matter. In fact, let's assume our customer knows all this, knows how critically well received the Mass Effect series has been. NSMBW is still the less risky choice. Why? Because she's already played it. She sees the Mario name attached to it, she knows she'll enjoy it, because, really, she's already played it. In the short term, we have one happy customer. In the long term... we have complacency. Game developers, like Nintendo, will continue to pump out the same game in a new suit over and over because they know it will make them money. What does this mean? It means we have fewer and fewer developers trying to push the boundaries of what gaming is, fewer developers trying to create a truly unique and creative experience, because... they don't need to.

The same is true of films. Did you know there is ANOTHER Resident Evil film coming out? Yeah, there is. The metaphor of the customer can be applied to the studio producing Resident Evil (don't know what studio that is, sorry) Supposing you are the studio. The Resident Evil guys come to you with another film in mind. Another instalment from a bankable, moderately successful franchise with an in-built fan base who will be happy to lap up another RE just to switch their brains off for a few hours. Now, supposing a small time director comes to you with a pitch. He's written a smart, engaging original screenplay, and he has come to you for financial backing. The film could be a beautiful story, centred around a wonderfully creative cast of emotionally engaging characters, something that will resonate with people, something that will make them sit up and take notice. Which one would they pick to finance? Resident Evil, every time. Why? Because the second film is a risk that they don't need to take because people will pay to see brain junk food, like Resident Evil.

In the end, humanity continues to be it's own worst enemy. Our art is what our descendants, hundreds of years from now, will remember us by. And for as long as we continue to accept mediocrity, mediocrity is what we will get. That is the word that will define this artistic period in human period. The age of mediocrity. Sure, there are a few diamonds in the rough that will stick out, and shine all the brighter next to the dross standing beside them. Mass Effect, Inception, Let the Right One In, The Dark Knight trilogy... but these are few and far between. In the end, we are far more likely to be held up to our descendants as an example of how things shouldn't be done. We will be remembered, not for our successes... but for our shortcomings.