In just a few weeks time we’ll be returning to Jurassic World where in all likelihood, all hell will break loose. We know this because we’ve seen the chaos teased in trailers - alongside the reveal that at least half of this planned calamity will take place off Isla Nublar in a new, previously-unseen mainland environment. Spoilers? Well, sort of - but apparently not spoilerific enough to make Universal Studios decide not to use this info as part of their pre-release marketing campaign. All those waiting for the lights to dim before discovering all of Fallen Kingdom’s secrets... well they might want to give social media, cinema trailers, telly - hell, even web adverts - a miss for the time being, as tricky as that may seem. 

And yet revealing (or heavily alluding to) major plot points in movie trailers appears to be becoming more and more commonplace, especially when major tentpole releases are concerned. It’s kind of ironic, especially when you consider these big-budget, CGI-heavy films are often the ones the majority of audiences will mindlessly flock to regardless. Usually sequels, prequels, series installments or spin offs; these franchises with built-in viewers are surely among the easiest sells in any film PR team’s release slate?

Adding to the problem is the fact that these same movies happen to be the ones that come with the highest risk of spoilers. If you’re a fan of this specific brand of spectacle cinema, you’ll likely want to go in blind to ensure maximum enjoyment. Sure, Infinity War requested viewers’ remain tight lipped about its key plot punches but not before dishing out a healthy chunk of marketing material beforehand. Anything eyebrow raising in the Avengers’ recent outing may have technically been new to viewers but it was hardly surprising. With this in mind, maybe it’s time to do away with trailers altogether? After all, it’ll hardly stop the likes of die-hard Star Wars fans from handing over their cash and it could even boost Box Office returns. Not feeling Fallen Kingdom’s military-bred dinos? No trailers leaves you none the wiser until your money’s left your account!

It almost makes you nostalgic for a time before YouTube, smart phones and 24 hour content accessibility. Back when movie news was a lot harder to come by. Imagine the thrill and excitement of seeing that mystery cliffhanger ending in Back To The Future Part II, fresh and for the first time - or unexpectedly experiencing the uncanny worlds of Blade Runner without a heads up. Sadly, these experiences could be a thing of the past - or in the words of Ian Malcome: ‘Don’t you mean extinct?’

Do you think we still need movie trailers? Let me know in the comments section below!

Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino, the sixth studio album from Sheffield quartet Arctic Monkeys hit listeners' ears and immediately split them down the middle. Some were left grinning and chin stroking, admiring yet another deft surprise from the band’s smirking frontman Alex Turner. Others meanwhile were left wondering when the stadium-sized indie anthems the band have become known for were going to kick in. That latter group had a long and ultimately fruitless wait. Whatever you thought Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino was going to to be, this certainly wasn’t that. 

Although surely that’s to be expected, right? Look at Arctic Monkeys today and they’re almost unrecognisable compared to the scruffy indie-lads that burst onto the scene in 2006 with an endless supply of earworm hooks and mile-a-minute lyrics delivered in an overtly Northern twang. That record alone got so much airplay at the time that it quickly cemented itself as a definitive new wave Brit-rock classic, paving the way for similar acts whilst simultaneously birthing a brand new music scene. Fans ate it up and came to expect more of the same from these four lads from Sheffield. The band? They had other ideas. 

Each album release has been a gamble for Arctic Monkey fans - and with each the band has tried their hardest to change identity. From Turner’s greaser look for the 2013 unveiling of AM; complete with shades, leather jacket and slicked back quiff, to the mod-look of Suck It And See and their new long-haired European film star guise donned for this recent release - each collection of new tracks has come from, arguably, a completely new band. However isn’t that what all bands who withstand the test of time do? The Beatles, Radiohead, Blur - All three have transcended to legendary status and all three have universally dividing back catalogues of work and starkly changing personas. 

Those original indie fans stuck around for the ride though, patiently awaiting the return of the band that gave them ‘I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor’ while selectively filtering out the records that might not have provided the same rush (Humbug, we’re looking at you). Meanwhile other indie acts filled the gap, crafting a hit-formula with songs that can often be distilled into easily yelled sounds or football-adopted chants. The Sheffield lot returned to reclaim their crown five years ago with AM and its radio-friendly feel but now they seem to be at it again, itchy to throw their fans off the scent. Imagine the scene: crowds of eager Arctic Monkey fans at midnight Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino listening parties, patiently waiting for the band’s next indie ‘banger’ to drop. Hopefully, someone brought a pillow.

That said, it’s hard not to enjoy the whole thing. With wild new track titles like “The Ultracheese” and “The World’s First Ever Monster Truck Front Flip”, you can almost hear the grin on Turner’s face. Clearly, they’re in on the joke - and we should be too. After all, it’s no coincidence that the record that defined Arctic Monkeys with fans was literally titled Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not. Good bands don't have time to get comfortable and the clues have been there all along. 

Did you enjoy Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino? Let me know in the comments section below!

Watch Out: This post contains *SPOILERS* regarding Avengers: Infinity War - If you haven't seen it, stop reading now… or don’t. I’m not the eye-police.

Having looked at the superhero movies that slipped through the cracks en-route to Avengers: Infinity War last week, perhaps it’s time to focus our attention on the main event and a slight issue that threatens to render all its years of planning and mystique a little flat. If you’re one of the few who’s yet to see it, here’s a quick catch up: spoiler alert - Thanos wins. After gathering all five Infinity Stones (a collection of non-edible, incredibly powerful jelly tots), the purple headed monster heads to Earth and with the combined power of the universe on his fist, clicks his fingers and instantly deletes half the population of the universe. Bad times. 

While us normies made up the majority of Thanos’s body count, a handful of Supers were also reduced to dust. Black Panther, Doctor Strange, the Guardians - even new recruit Peter Parker - are all lost to the ether as Infinity War closes on a particularly precarious note, forcing audiences to speculate on the fate of the Marvel Universe from now until the still-untitled part two arrives next May. What a cliffhanger, right? Well sort off. With fans’ feverish appetite for movie news - and with Studios overly keen to plan our their franchises years in advance - it’s sort of hard to get too caught up with the potential finality of Infinity War’s deadly closing twist. 

Let’s not forget - Marvel’s already fleshed out its slate until at least 2020, with Guardians of the Galaxy confirmed for a third volume and Tom Holland’s recently deceased Peter Parker confirmed to return as early as July 2019.  Combined this with the raw popularity of these heroes and rogues amongst fans and it’s hard to imagine Marvel following through with their threat of killing off half of the cast they’ve worked so tirelessly to assemble. It’s not just release dates that squash any sense of peril either. Sometimes, a quick look on IMDB can often confirm or deny the inclusion of potentially spoilerific cameos and plot-curves, erasing the surprise element that audiences often say they want yet seemingly love denying themselves of. 

That said, a handful of directors still seem intent on keeping the unpredictability of pre-Internet cinema alive. JJ Abrams’ had the Ewok chops to off Han Solo in The Force Awakens - and more importantly keep him dead - and his Star Wars successor Rian Johnson did a fine job of keeping Yoda’s return underwraps in The Last Jedi. With this in mind it’s worth remembering that Marvel has displayed similar gusto in the past, with Joss Whedon stopping Quicksilver in his path with a death scene in Age of Ultron. 

Throw in the fact that a handful of Marvel’s heroes are nearing the end of their contracts and perhaps Disney’s caped-cash cow is avoiding the curse of franchise TMI by pulling a fast one on us. Interestingly, its the Avengers’ most seasoned heroes like Tony Stark and Steve Rogers and not its cinematically deceased stars of tomorrow that seem destined for pastures new. Should we be more concerned for those who survived Thanos’ wrath than those who actually died? That’d certainly be one way to keep audiences on their toes.

Like me, would you watch a TV show called The Eye Police? Let me know in the comments section below!

​Infinity War has finally arrived, marking the culmination of ten years of planning (and 18 cinematic releases) from Marvel Studios. It’s an undeniably impressive feat and one that’s not been achieved by any other studio to date, no matter how many Dark Knights or Kryptonians they have helping them. While the superhero genre currently reigns supreme, it’s not entirely been smooth sailing with some titles slipping through the cracks, doomed to an eternity in a HMV bargain bin. They may not have set the Box Office alight - and they’re certainly not without their flaws - but each has its own strengths that perhaps proved too divisive for mainstream audiences. 

Take Ang Lee’s 2003 Hulk, a movie that by today’s standards seems miles away from the light-hearted-yet-epic tone perfected by Marvel Studios. Instead, Lee made a movie that was pensive, dark and took its own time to tell its story. Undoubtedly it was the type of Bruce Banner tale Lee wanted to tell, even if audiences disagreed - and yet choosing Directors with differing and distinct styles seems to be the Studio’s winning recipe. Louis Leterrier’s 2008 reboot The Incredible Hulk upped the ante as Marvel’s second feature; ultimately a monster movie with considerably more action than Lee’s take but one that failed to match the financial return set by Iron Man. Throw in a fumbled relationship with its lead star and the future of this Hulk iteration was smashed in no time.  

Rival DC Studios has had worse luck. Their attempts to fast-track their own super group with 2011’s The Green Lantern fell flat thanks to an inconsistent script and some dodgy CGI but their ambition was clearly there. However, the silver lining of their attempt at lighting the Lantern was some impressive dedication to world building and the injection of some much needed humour to a comic universe that has a tendency to be bleaker than Batman's Pinterest boards. Sadly it wasn’t enough - proof that even though these franchises have unrivalled audiences on paper, they’re no guaranteed hit when it comes to bringing them to the screen. 

Then there’s the curse of forward planning. Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man double-hitter showed what a loved-up Peter Parker might look like while still at high school - a lighter touch that was counterbalanced with some nifty bad guys with vicious streaks. Unfortunately Andrew Garfield’s take on Spidey was cut short due to circumstance but the strain of an over-packed story lacking a clear direction was already starting to show at Sony. The race the compete with Marvel’s slow-and-steady trail of success has spelt doom for many who have attempted to go up against them. While these titles all fell through the cracks, it’s interesting to see what worked, what didn’t and to remember what stand-alone superhero movies looked like before interconnected universes were the go-to. Love them or hate them, it’s unlikely we’ll see their type again.

Do you miss stand-alone superhero movies? Let me know in the comments section below!

​Remember when Bruce Wayne was debating packing in the whole Batman thing in The Dark Knight and Harvey Dent suggested he might actually be on to something? “You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain,” he said, shortly before becoming a villain himself. While it’s usually not advised to take the advice of supervillains, The Simpsons might be able to learn something from this Rogue Gallery baddie. Especially following their recent fumbled response to accusations of cultural appropriation regarding Springfield regular and Kwik-E-Mart clerk Apu. 

Miss this? Here’s a quick recap: In late 2017 TruTV aired stand-up comic Hari Kondabolu’s documentary The Problem With Apu, a film that explored exactly what its title might suggest by inviting a handful of recognized names to discuss the subliminal negative impact Springfield’s solo Indian American character has had on modern popular culture. Reaction online was swift and soon enough the question was raised as to how The Simpsons’ creative team might counter these accusations. It was a tricky situation made trickier when you consider that Apu has been around for the long haul and that he’s voiced by caucasian actor and voice artist Hank Azaria. If this was an episode of the show, they’d probably throw an awkward collar tug in right about now. 

As America’s longest running sitcom - one that’s deftly handled its fair share of hot topics with a combination of comedy and wit in the past - expectation was high. However instead of serving up a smart, considered response, sensitive to the social expectations of the day, the show’s eyebrow-raising retort fell spectacularly flat, not only shying away from addressing the issue head on but sweeping the whole conversation under the rug altogether. To borrow a phrase of another Springfield resident, it was probably the worst handling of a topical issue, ever. 

Maybe the show’s writers were banking on using the speed at which social issues like these come and go, hoping to offer a brief note, wait out the storm and carry on as usual. However instead of just being a rubbish response, this comes across more like the final nail in the coffin for a show that’s been in a steady decline for almost as long as its Golden Age lasted. When The Simpsons arrived in 1989, it had the gift of being fresh and undoubtedly paved new ground. If it wasn’t for Matt Groening and The Simpson family, it’s unlikely that we’d now have South Park or Family Guy - shows that have arguably taken Springfield’s format and improved upon it for a new generation. 

With this in mind - and with new shows, for new demographics, tackling new, topical issues in new ways - it makes you wonder whether we really need to see the slow demise of a once-pioneering show that’s now old and struggling to keep up. The legacy of The Simpsons at its peak is too sharp and revered to be handled this carelessly by a revolving door troupe of new writers. Suddenly, Harvey Dent’s advice sounds all too apt. Maybe The Simpsons has survived long enough to see itself do more harm than good. Maybe audiences need a little vacation from Springfield. 

Do you think we've seen enough of The Simpsons? Let me know in the comments section below!

Modern horror has been killing it recently. From 2016 frighteners Raw, The Ghoul and knocked-up knock out Prevenge to last year’s tension builder It Comes At Night and throwback mega-hit It, the horror genre has been riding a wave of smart, challenging and most importantly - really good - films that cater to both mainstream and die-hard indie audiences alike. What’s more, this wave of goodness shows no sign of slowing. Just this week we’ve been treated to Andy Nyman and Jeremy Dyson’s cryptic chiller Ghost Stories and John Krasinski’s critically praised terror A Quiet Place and we’re barely four months into 2018. 

Could this resurgence result in the horror genre being taken a bit more seriously? It’s a thought so appealing you almost don’t dare utter it out loud. If the release of Jordan Peele’s surprise hit Get Out last year is anything to go by, then perhaps this new wave of horror means a little more than just a few decent movies. It’s safe to say that not even Peele himself ever envisioned his twisted take on racism in popular culture would have taken him all the way to the Academy Awards. However the fact that he ultimately found himself taking home an Oscar for the movie says tonnes about the way audiences are beginning to change their perceptions of the genre. If a smart horror like Get Out can be deemed award worthy in the eyes of the Academy, then surely we can expect more filmmakers follow suit. 

Krasinski’s A Quiet Place may well be the first drip of the flood. His sophomore feature couldn’t be more mainstream - it’s a monster movie directed by none other than Jim from The Office - and yet critics from all outlets are already singing its praises as a film with both scares and substance. Clearly filmmakers are already starting to tiptoe down the route that Peele paved with Get Out and with Toni Collette’s horror mystery Hereditary due out in just a few months, it’s a safe bet that this path is about to get much more crowded. 

Or maybe not. If Hollywood’s known for anything, it’s cashing in on crazes and bleeding them dry. Maybe Get Out’s success will signal nothing more than a flash in the pan, leaving the horror genre lurking in the bottom shelves of DVD stores and deep-scrolled pages of Netflix sub-genres - and that’s fine too. After all, the unique selling point of this cult corner of filmmaking has always been its underdog appeal - films so nasty, mainstream viewers just can’t handle them quite yet. The horror genre will continue to kill it - whether or not mainstream viewers want in on the action sooner rather than later is up to them. 

Do you think horror movies are about to have their day in the sun? Let me know in the comments section below!

What does it take to ensure a film’s success? These days, you’d be forgiven for thinking that having a big name star to focus all your movie-marketing around is a no-brainer when it comes to box office gold. After all, the majority of today’s film media spends so much time talking to (and about) famous faces that audiences may even feel as though they know them well enough to consider them friends. When it comes to spearheading a new feature (an original feature, that is - not an adaptation or a reboot), slapping their face onto an unknown story surely greatly increases their chances of success, right?

Not always. Especially if the underwhelming release of Jennifer Lawrence-shaped spy thriller Red Sparrow is anything to go by. This in itself raises an interesting problem. If a star as ubiquitous as Lawrence can’t guarantee a hit film in 2018, then just who can? Could it be that star over-exposure has reached its peak? Unlike audiences before us, the cinema-goers of today find themselves in the unique position of being able to (in some cases) pick up their phone and literally speak directly to actors. Barriers have clearly been broken down but has it had an impact on the ways in which viewers digest new stories featuring their favourite famous faces?

It’s not just social media, either. A quick Google search of some of the top names of today reveal the varied ins-and-outs of their private lives and hot topic opinions before serving us examples of their on-screen work. Perhaps this transparency - or awareness of every single nook and cranny of an actor’s private life - has actually made it harder for us to suspend our disbelief and invest in a performance of a character that’s not already familiar to us. That’s certainly what the facts and figures show in the case of Red Sparrow. Present us Lawrence as Hunger Games heroine Katniss Everdeen and we’ll bite your hand off. Give us the exact same star in an unfamiliar hard sell? No, thanks. 

Compare the same circumstance to those who lead more private lives and the reverse appears to be true. Other than his humanitarian and environmental efforts, little seems to be known about the everyday life of Leo DiCaprio. As far as audiences are concerned he’s pretty much a blank canvas. Could this be why we buy him as a wheeling-dealing wall street hot shot just as easily as we buy him as a revenge-ridden revenant? It’s an interesting thought. For many seeking a career in the industry, fame and fortune are unwanted guests that hitch a ride along with your emerging success. However if this idea proves anything, it’s that they’re worth keeping an eye on. Sometimes being too famous can do more harm than good. 

Is being too famous a bad thing? Let me know your thoughts in the comments section below!

​The geek world felt a disturbance in the force earlier this week as filmmaker and pop-culture icon Kevin Smith suffered a heart attack following the recording of his debut stand-up special. Luckily, the Director and Comic Book Man came through the experience relatively unscathed, allowing fans to breathe a sigh of relief that Jay wasn’t prematurely torn away from his hetero life mate Silent Bob. It also inspired a great opportunity of reflection on Smith’s lengthy, varied career and the unrivalled influence he’s had on the movie world. A lot is written about Smith and his work but people often forget that…

​It feels like anyone with an iPhone can make a movie today, mainly because, well, they can. However back in the early 90s, making a fully fledged feature film was a bit harder than whipping out your smartphone and hitting record. In 1993, Smith had to take out (and max out) eight to ten credit cards and sell his extensive comic book collection just to scrape together the modest $28,000 needed to bankroll his debut film Clerks. Shooting nights in the convenience store that he actually worked in certainly helped keep costs down however the whole experience wasn’t cheap or any guarantee of success. Without a back-up plan in place, Smith took a huge financial - and personal - risk bringing Clerks to the screen but if he hadn’t have done, that 90’s new wave indie-scene may never have happened at all. 

Style over substance may have first been introduced by 60s French New Wave films but it didn’t really hit mainstream American audiences until the mid 90s. Quentin Tarantino often receives the lion’s share of praise for revolutionising the ways in which dialogue can be bent, twisted and colloquialized in order to shift a narrative forward but Smith was doing this too in his own equally foul-mouthed way. For every award-winning 'walk through the shadow of darkness’ speech and shoegazey ‘I don’t believe in tipping’ chatter ala Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, you’ll find just as many (if not more) meta-speeches in Smith’s work. From pondering the manual labour-casualties involved in blowing up the Death Star, to the heartbreaking reality that Jay and Bob won’t get to live like fat cats selling dope in the fictional Shermer, Illinois - Smith may not have won a Palme d'Or for his ability to capture the lexicon of everyday speech but it certainly paved the way for others to follow in his footsteps.

It’s hard to imagine a time where a Marvel or DC superhero wasn’t dominating every multiplex, toy store and cereal box and yet back when Smith was starting out, comic book movies were in short supply. Still, that didn’t stop the writer/director and View Askewniverse mastermind from nurturing his passion. In fact, you only have to look as far as his sophomore feature Mallrats - the self-referential celebration of the ink and paper fantasy world we now consider mainstream - to see just how dedicated he was (and still is) to shining a light on the worlds, universes and characters he holds so dear. Critically panned on its release, Mallrats almost derailed Smith’s fledgling career before it had even properly began but cut to 2018 and it feels more relevant than ever. He was even sowing the seeds of a shared-universe long before Marvel Studios suited up. These days Kevin Smith may have the official title of Comic Book Man thanks to the AMC TV show that boasts his name but make no mistake - he earned it. ​

Perhaps the key to Smith’s longevity as a popular presence among film fans is his transparency. Unlike your Steven Spielbergs, JJ Abrams and even his own contemporaries like Richard Linklater, Smith and his work felt more tangible than anything that came before it. From his first Clerks post-screening discussions to his debut (and now legendary) Evening With DVD recordings, Smith not only spoke to his fans through his work on screen but if you were lucky enough, he’d actually show up in your town and chat to you in person. Maybe the most refreshing thing about this process is the fact that he doesn’t just talk but listens too. It’s why Twitter feels like such a natural fit for the Director and his chatty character. Kevin Smith just isn’t content with creating his own brand of popular culture, he wants to join the conversation about the wider picture that’s influenced us all and unlike other filmmakers working today, he wants to know what you thought of it as well.

It’s been a difficult week for Kevin Smith but these are just a few (of many) reasons why we should all be thankful he’s still around. Get well soon, Kev!

What's your favourite Kevin Smith moment? Let me know in the comments section below!

It’s been awhile since we left Tony Soprano eating with his family in that diner. Two whole years have passed since Don Draper dreamed up his last big ad campaign at that mountain retreat. In just over a year’s time, Westeros will be through with fighting and the battle for the Iron Throne will be done and dusted. Old news. Over. Kaput. What will we watch then? Will there be anything out there in telly land worthy of taking the place of these epic water cooler shows or has the wave of amazing TV silently crashed into the shore and disappeared without any of us noticing? 

It was shows like these that heralded in television’s golden age just over over a decade ago. In the years that followed, small screen entertainment just got better and better, from gripping hour-long dramas like The Wire and Breaking Bad to smart, quick-hit comedies like 30 Rock and Parks and Recreation. TV quickly established itself as the place to be, often overtaking its big screen counterparts in terms of quality, depth and overall enjoyment. Big name stars flocked to the series format and awards were won.  It was even powerful enough to bring gone-before-their-time shows back from the dead, with avid viewers embracing high-brow programming and demanding more from those who controlled its fate. However while we were all busy binge watching, we stopped paying attention to how long this flip of fortune may last. 

To say that 2017 saw a lot of changes in film and television is a bit of an understatement. Revelations about Harvey Weinstein not only rocked Hollywood but had ripple effects in all corners of show business, including television. Many of the shows that helped redefine what could be done in the format were affected. Kevin Spacey was unceremoniously fired from House of Cards; FX cut all future ties with Louis C.K; Transparent star Jeffrey Tambour hinted at his departure from the award-winning show and Netflix has yet to decide the fate of Aziz Ansari’s Master of None. Similar to how allegations against Brand New front-man Jesse Lacey signalled a time-to-move-on book-end to the emo genre for let down fans, perhaps this whistle blowing marks the end of a golden era for television entertainment. 

Separating the art from the abusers involved in creating it can be a confusing process for all those who related to, and built aspects of their identity around, the shows impacted by recent allegations. For years, the stream of unparalleled and abundant television entertainment seemed too good to be true and as the Weinstein scandal and its fallout continues to unfold, we may have discovered that that's exactly what it was. Maybe this is the right time for television’s golden age to come to a close. As for what comes next? Only time will tell. However it’s safe to say that big changes are certainly on the way. 

What do you think we can expect from television's Silver Age? Let me know in the comments section below!

2018’s Oscar nominations arrived earlier this week, offering a hopeful change of pace to shake up what most of us have come to expect from Academy voters. While an Oscar statuette is considered the highest praise an actor can receive, they’re not always awarded for the best performance on a star’s resume. Let’s take a look...

Let’s not bury the lead here - 2018 is shaping up to be Gary Oldman’s year, with the screen-vet and twice Academy nominated star looking likely to take home an Oscar for his immersive turn as UK Prime Minister and friendliest person you’re ever (not) likely to see on the tube, Winston Churchill. If he does win big, it’ll be no big surprise. Oldman’s made going to the cinema worthwhile for the better part of twenty-five years and while his take on Churchill is impressive, it’s hardly the role he’ll be remembered for. True Romance’s Dexyl Spivey or The Fifth Element’s Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg may not be welcome in the Academy’s Kodak Theatre but they’re more than welcome on the DVD shelves of die-hard fans. Will Oldman's turn as a prickly PM be as fondly remembered? Don't think so. 

Is there anyone who so clearly wanted an Academy Award more than Leo DiCaprio? Pick a film at random from his IMDB resume. Go on. Take a look. No matter which title you land on, his performance in that movie could easily be considered as a contender for Best Actor. Here’s someone who not only seems to pick his roles based on their ability to blow socks off but who carefully curates his personal life off-screen to maintain the illusion and allow for easy immersion whenever we see him in a new character’s shoes. The guy even started strong; making his mainstream debut with a enviable performance in 1993’s What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. After missing out with classic turns in 2002’s Catch Me If You Can, 2004’s The Aviator and 2006’s The Departed, it took him literally crawling though the mud and putting himself through hell to get what he was after. Is it his best role? Nope. Did it do the job? You bet. 

You’d be forgiven for thinking Jeff Bridges had some sort of advantage when it comes to industry recognition. As the son of Lloyd Bridges and younger brother to Beau, acting was seemingly in his blood and while it never appeared that he was all that interested in awards, that didn’t stop him from turning in performances that were worthy of them. It was his role as grizzled country singer Bad Blake in 2009’s Crazy Heart that won him his Academy Award, melding two passions that are clearly close to Bridges’ heart: acting and music. However the film is almost forgettable when it comes to his extensive back catalogue. Crazy Heart better than Tron, The Fisher King or The Big Lebowski? That’s just, like, the Academy’s opinion, man. 

Sort-of-cockney-sort-of-American sounding actor Christian Bale is known for going to extreme lengths in the name of professional pretending AKA acting. Sometimes he’s losing an uncomfortable amount of weight, like when he appeared in 2004’s The Machinist. Sometimes he’s losing an uncomfortable amount of hair, like he did when he starred in (and won a Best Actor Oscar for) 2010’s The Fighter - and sometimes he’s just plain losing it and it's uncomfortable, like when he got all mad at that lighting guy whilst shooting 2009’s meandering sequel Terminator Salvation. Either way, the guy’s committed, and the Academy clearly acknowledged that - even if it did take them almost 25 years. While it’s undeniable that Bale is an actor worthy of an Academy Award, it’s hard not to think his talents should have have appreciated straight off the bat in Spielberg’s 1987 epic Empire of the Sun or even 2000’s unnerving American Psycho. Perhaps, like Patrick Bateman, his early work was a little too new wave for their tastes. 

Did I miss anyone from this list? Let me know in the comment section below!