The original Jumanji is one of my favourite films. Amongst all the nightmares it gave me, it reminds me of my childhood, and was one of the most played videos, alongside The Witches, at my out of school club. Loved it. In fact I loved it so much that I got the DVD a few years ago whilst I was at uni, so we could watch it as a uni family. I'm sure most people my age would agree it is a seminal piece of cinema. When I saw there was a sequel, I was ecstatic. We were lucky enough to catch Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle on it's opening evening, and it was an absolute treat.
Jumanji is a jungle board game, updated in the new film, where it becomes, what seems to me, a Sega Mega Drive/N64 hybrid game. 4 high schoolers end up in detention, and unbeknownst to them, end up inside Jumanji. In order to escape the game, they must save Jumanji, and return a gem to the top of a giant jaguar statue.
I really enjoyed the references to gaming, for example, with the story telling characters that are not helpful at all. It bought back my frustration of trying to complete Zelda. I liked how each character's qualities and weaknesses all played into the film, and I thought it was really clever. There was also good development of characters, and the relationships between the characters. A fundamental part of Jumanji is the teamwork required to complete the game, which I felt was really pertinent in the storytelling.
I enjoyed the references back to the original film, I thought it was a lovely touch, especially following the death of Robin Williams in 2014. Just seeing the 'Jumanji house' bought back so many childhood memories.
I also enjoyed the fact Nick Jonas was in it. Very random.
The Rock was great, Kevin Hart was great, Karen Gillan was great, Jack Black was great. They clearly had a ball making the film, and it was so much fun to watch. It's not the most intellectual film, but it was really interesting to watch, and there were some really funny parts at all. Again, a lot of the best bits were shown in the trailer, but the film did have much more to give. It's a really easy watch, but the story has purpose and keeps you interested, as well as giving a message to the audience as well. I saw a few kids in the cinema, and thought it must be nice for both parents and children to be enjoying the film together. I think it was very good marketing to pitch the films over 20 years apart.
Overall, if Jumanji is as much a part of your childhood as it was to me, you will love this film regardless. If it wasn't, but you enjoyed the first film, or if you were intrigued by the trailer, definitley give it a go. It's a great little film to watch between Christmas and New Year, and I know Cineworld are also showing it in 4DX (That's the one with the wind and rain and snow and fog and smells etc). If you are reading this and know me in person, the Cineworld in Didsbury have just opened their 4DX screen this week. You're welcome. 8/10. Loved it.
Sunday, 24 December 2017
49. Daddy's Home 2
In 2015, we saw Daddy's Home in between Christmas and New Year. There's always that weird bit in between those two days, where some people are at work, some people aren't. You feel strange because just as you've stopped feeling christmassy you are ready for New Year and there is more prep to do, and more excitement to be had. That's if you celebrate either of them, of course, but I love New Year so much. It's when you can spend an evening with your friends, we don't tend to go out as it's so expensive, but we play games and dance until we fall over or are sick. Anyway.
So when we saw Daddy's Home in 2015, it was a filler activity, and actually it was better than anticipated. It's definitely got that laddy humour, and it's definitely silly and daft, but it gave that light relief and is a bit of a feel good film. As much as I prefer tongue in cheek, or political, or 'clever' humour, there is no doubt in my mind that Will Ferrell is an absolute genius. Anchorman is one of my favourite films ever.
So back to our sequel. The adverts and trailers I'd seen reminded me of how much I enjoyed the first film, and I was looking forward to seeing the next chapter. Again, I knew what I was getting myself into, it was going to be silly and light hearted. This time, the story follows Brad (Ferrell) and Dusty's (Mark Wahlberg) Christmas, as their fathers join them. Brad is the stepfather to Dusty's children, but following the original film, the sort their differences and manage to share the care for the children without argument. Brad's father is overbearingly kind and loving, but there is something else going on behind this, and Dusty's dad is cold and cool, not understanding of the 'co-dad' arrangement between Dusty and Brad. Following the arrangement of a Christmas holiday for the entire family, the plot is littered with ridiculous disasters that happen as the fathers work out their differences.
Now whereas with The Disaster Artist I left saying 'that was fantastic', I left Daddy's Home 2 with 'that was ridiculous'. The plot was weak, the whole premise was almost exactly the same as the previous film, and there was nothing overly exciting about it. I did laugh throughout the film, but I can't tell you any of the jokes now. There was nothing memorable. It seemed like a film for a film's sake. All of the most humorous parts were previewed in the trailers. There was nothing new. I have to be honest and say that this is one of the poorer films I have seen this year.
If you like a silly film, and you just want something easy to watch, then it does the job. But why not watch Shrek instead. The marvellous masterpiece that is Shrek. Daddy's Home 2 gets a 4/10 from me.
So when we saw Daddy's Home in 2015, it was a filler activity, and actually it was better than anticipated. It's definitely got that laddy humour, and it's definitely silly and daft, but it gave that light relief and is a bit of a feel good film. As much as I prefer tongue in cheek, or political, or 'clever' humour, there is no doubt in my mind that Will Ferrell is an absolute genius. Anchorman is one of my favourite films ever.
So back to our sequel. The adverts and trailers I'd seen reminded me of how much I enjoyed the first film, and I was looking forward to seeing the next chapter. Again, I knew what I was getting myself into, it was going to be silly and light hearted. This time, the story follows Brad (Ferrell) and Dusty's (Mark Wahlberg) Christmas, as their fathers join them. Brad is the stepfather to Dusty's children, but following the original film, the sort their differences and manage to share the care for the children without argument. Brad's father is overbearingly kind and loving, but there is something else going on behind this, and Dusty's dad is cold and cool, not understanding of the 'co-dad' arrangement between Dusty and Brad. Following the arrangement of a Christmas holiday for the entire family, the plot is littered with ridiculous disasters that happen as the fathers work out their differences.
Now whereas with The Disaster Artist I left saying 'that was fantastic', I left Daddy's Home 2 with 'that was ridiculous'. The plot was weak, the whole premise was almost exactly the same as the previous film, and there was nothing overly exciting about it. I did laugh throughout the film, but I can't tell you any of the jokes now. There was nothing memorable. It seemed like a film for a film's sake. All of the most humorous parts were previewed in the trailers. There was nothing new. I have to be honest and say that this is one of the poorer films I have seen this year.
If you like a silly film, and you just want something easy to watch, then it does the job. But why not watch Shrek instead. The marvellous masterpiece that is Shrek. Daddy's Home 2 gets a 4/10 from me.
Wednesday, 13 December 2017
48. Wonder
Another Tuesday afternoon film for me, Wonder follows the story of Auggie Pullman (Jacob Tremblay), a young boy with Treacher-Collins syndrome, as his parents (Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson) decide it is time for him to enrol in mainstream school, after being home schooled.
The film deals with issues around bullying and children being cruel, as well as parents being cruel, and people's reaction to when someone is 'different'. I enjoyed the films perspective on this, and I especially enjoyed the fact that the film had a focus on Auggie's sister Via (Izabela Vidovic). The film looked at the whole family dynamic of dealing with the change of moving to mainstream school, as well as other social factors that occur along side it.
The film had a solid moral message, looking at the way people treat each other. As the film progressed, a solid group of friends are formed around Auggie, as the children realise that sometimes being 'cool' or hanging around bullies, have consequences. The children realise that what they really wanted was friendship and kindness.
The film also illustrated the issue of thinking before you speak, as this got one of Auggie's closest friends into a lot of trouble, nearly losing their friendship.
The film is heartwarming and emotional, and is written and produced well to reflect this. It's written and directed by Stephen Chbosky, the writer and director of The Perks of Being a Wallflower (he also wrote the book), and is very similar in style. For me, the plot doesn't necessarily ever come to a head, but actually the emotional story is written very well.
This isn't the best film I've seen all year, but it was enjoyable. If you want something that's relatively easy to watch, and will leave you feeling a sense of justice and happiness, this may be a good choice. I found the film interesting to watch with it's different angles, and it really investigated how the whole family felt about the struggles of the transition to school, as well as the emotional heartache of watching a son/brother have countless major operations.
I do question why Jacob Tremblay was cast, as opposed to someone with a genetic condition themselves.
Overall, I think Wonder deserves a 7/10. Not the best film out at the moment, but certainly one worth a watch.
47. The Disaster Artist
We went in blind seeing this film; we've saved Daddy's Home 2 (a sure fire classic, or aboslute twaddle) for a Christmas special, and this was the only thing left we hadn't seen. I'd seen reviews that had said the film was meant to be great. It had 97% on Rotten Tomatoes when we booked, but as we all know, as time goes on, RT ratings tend to fall. All I knew was the film was meant to be good.
The film starts and tells us it is based on a real story. My first reaction was: is it actually though. Cynical as I am, turns out it actually is. The film tells the story of Tommy Wiseau (James Franco) and Greg Sestero (Dave Franco). Tommy is an mysterious aspiring actor with a seemingly bottomless pit of money. He enlists Greg, another budding actor, as they move to Hollywood to chase their dreams.
With a lack of success in acting circles, Tommy decides to write, direct and star in his own film 'The Room', writing a part for Greg as well. With his endless cash, Tommy is quite the maverick in the way he creates the film, buying equipment instead of hiring it, enlisting only the best of the best to help him produce the piece.
The Room actually became a cult classic film (see IMDb, 3.6/10, RT 26%), and lots of people in the cinema found the film hilarious, I assume there are lots of references to it. For someone who has never seen The Room, I still found the film really entertaining, and there were some excellent comedy moments. I do imagine that there is a certain type of humour the movie appeals to though, I don't think it is one for everyone.
I found the film quite emotionally interesting. There were parts of the film where I didn't know if Tommy had a motive, or was someone who just wanted to please, or if he had no motive at all. I found it quite interesting and the mystery behind his character is fascinating.
The film makes you want to know more, and after looking up some bits and bobs, I found that the film was not only based on the original, but also on a memoir written by Greg Sestero. I now really want to read the book! The story is so outlandish yet incredible, it makes you yearn for more. I really wasn't sure what we were expecting when booking the ticket, but the first thing I said as the credits started to roll was 'That was fantastic'.
As a little treat, at the end of the film there are some side-by-side shots of 'The Room' and The Disaster Artist’s interpretation. The comparisons are great, and shows the quality of acting from all parties, and also how terrible the original film was.
The film was fantastic, it was an unexpected treat, and I have to give it a 9/10. Probably would give it more but I think James Franco is a bit of a knob.
46. Paddington 2
Long time no see, today I'm blogging from the kitchen, halfway through making an absolute mess, halfway through making a bread and butter pudding. What a great pudding. For a christmassy twist, I've used panettone instead of bread. I've never made any type of bread and butter pudding before and I've made up the recipe so it could be an utter shambles. That's why I don't have a food blog.
Anyway, we're hear to talk about Paddington 2. I saw this last Tuesday, as although the film has been out for a while, there are still plenty of screenings, and there was one in the day at 2pm. I'm now a layabout student who has nothing to do Monday - Wednesday (she says this as she picks up extra shifts) so that just suited me fine.
For anyone who has seen the first film and loved it, this sequel is just as good. It's silly, funny and charming, and it has a decent plot line, as long as you are willing to let your imagination run away with you. There were parts of the film where I was trying to stifle laughter, as the only people in the cinema was me, and a mother and toddler combo, and I thought it would be a bit weird to have a 24 year old howling with laughter in the corner.
The plot follows Paddington as he tries to earn and save money to buy his Aunt Lucy a perfect 100th Birthday present. Paddington starts his own window cleaning business, but somehow ends up in a spot of bother, and gets sent to jail. Now he needs to get out, get justice, AND get Aunt Lucy a present.
The film is full of familiar faces, Hugh Bonneville, Julie Walters, Ben Miller, Hugh Grant, Peter Capaldi, Joanna Lumley, to name but a few. The film was co-written by Simon Farnaby, who also has a cameo. I really like Farnaby's work, and comedy. If you are a fan of the Boosh, or this years absolute classic 'Mindhorn', you might recognise him. He also starred in 2009's 'The Bunny and the Bull', a rare film I saw pre-2015. Another great surprise was the brief yet fantastic appearance of Richard Ayoade, a man who could just stand still and do nothing, and I'd still be crying with laughter. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the cast is great and the acting is brilliant. It looks like a lot of fun was had on the set.
I've just put the bread and butter pudding in the oven. Keep reading this and the next reviews for updates.
The whole production of the film is surreal is not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. Many of you will know I love a true to life film, or a documentary, or an interesting but realistic plot. However, I do like things that are fantastical in this sort of way. If you forget about reality and rhyme and reason, and let the film capture your imagination, you will love it. It's a shame the film won't be out on DVD for a while, because it's definitely a film perfect for watching with the family around Christmas, appealing to all ages (Probably the reason why it's out now isn't it)
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film, and have to give it a 9/10. It was brilliant.
Anyway, we're hear to talk about Paddington 2. I saw this last Tuesday, as although the film has been out for a while, there are still plenty of screenings, and there was one in the day at 2pm. I'm now a layabout student who has nothing to do Monday - Wednesday (she says this as she picks up extra shifts) so that just suited me fine.
For anyone who has seen the first film and loved it, this sequel is just as good. It's silly, funny and charming, and it has a decent plot line, as long as you are willing to let your imagination run away with you. There were parts of the film where I was trying to stifle laughter, as the only people in the cinema was me, and a mother and toddler combo, and I thought it would be a bit weird to have a 24 year old howling with laughter in the corner.
The plot follows Paddington as he tries to earn and save money to buy his Aunt Lucy a perfect 100th Birthday present. Paddington starts his own window cleaning business, but somehow ends up in a spot of bother, and gets sent to jail. Now he needs to get out, get justice, AND get Aunt Lucy a present.
The film is full of familiar faces, Hugh Bonneville, Julie Walters, Ben Miller, Hugh Grant, Peter Capaldi, Joanna Lumley, to name but a few. The film was co-written by Simon Farnaby, who also has a cameo. I really like Farnaby's work, and comedy. If you are a fan of the Boosh, or this years absolute classic 'Mindhorn', you might recognise him. He also starred in 2009's 'The Bunny and the Bull', a rare film I saw pre-2015. Another great surprise was the brief yet fantastic appearance of Richard Ayoade, a man who could just stand still and do nothing, and I'd still be crying with laughter. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the cast is great and the acting is brilliant. It looks like a lot of fun was had on the set.
I've just put the bread and butter pudding in the oven. Keep reading this and the next reviews for updates.
The whole production of the film is surreal is not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. Many of you will know I love a true to life film, or a documentary, or an interesting but realistic plot. However, I do like things that are fantastical in this sort of way. If you forget about reality and rhyme and reason, and let the film capture your imagination, you will love it. It's a shame the film won't be out on DVD for a while, because it's definitely a film perfect for watching with the family around Christmas, appealing to all ages (Probably the reason why it's out now isn't it)
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film, and have to give it a 9/10. It was brilliant.
Monday, 20 November 2017
45. Murder on the Orient Express
If you know me, you’ll know I love murder. Murder is in the title of the film. I’m pretty much sold. I love a murder mystery; simple whodunit plot, and I’m there. Chuck in a few massively famous faces, and what could go wrong.
Now I hate to follow suit with any other reviews you might have read/heard/seen, but this really isn’t the best film. You might see Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfieffer, Dame Judi Dench, Kenneth Branagh, Penelope Cruz, but unfortunately a well billed film doesn’t make a good one. Branagh directed the film, and gave himself the starring role, but didn’t live up to it. Depp isn’t in it for very long and doesn’t leave much of an impression, Dench also isn’t in it for ages (but she is great- her side kick is Olivia Coleman, also great, but maybe not the best role for her), Pfieffer and Cruz I just found annoying. I feel like the characters could have been explored and utilised more, as of course they all have depth, and this holds importance in the story.
Sometimes the plot danced around and it lost my attention. I found this difficult, as Murder on the Orient Express is such a famous story (obviously I’ve not seen it previous to this, as I have only seen films from 2015 onwards), you’d imagine I would be fully immersed in it. I felt like I was more hooked watching The Snowman, a murder mystery with some very obvious plot holes. There was a bit of ‘is it him’ ‘is it her’ whilst watching the film, but honestly, I wasn’t overly invested. So when I found out the big surprise, I found it quite boring. I found the ending a bit of a cop out, and I thought it could have been much more exciting.
Now here is where the problem lies. Do I find the storyline dull? Or is it the way it’s portrayed. Speaking to people beforehand, they had told me it was a great plot. It must be, surely, as it is so famous. I can see how the plot could be clever, how it could all fit together like a perfect jigsaw. But through this interpretation, that is not how I felt. I felt disappointed. I wanted more from the film.
Again, we ask the question- is there too much hype? Do the big names attract the attention, but detract from the bigger picture? If you have seen the story before, I would give this version a miss. If you haven’t, I reckon it’s worth seeing it, as it’s a classic, but maybe see a different version. Maybe I’ll see a different version and let you know how I find it (probably not). Overall, I can only give Murder on the Orient Express a weak 6/10. Not worth the hype.
Now I hate to follow suit with any other reviews you might have read/heard/seen, but this really isn’t the best film. You might see Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfieffer, Dame Judi Dench, Kenneth Branagh, Penelope Cruz, but unfortunately a well billed film doesn’t make a good one. Branagh directed the film, and gave himself the starring role, but didn’t live up to it. Depp isn’t in it for very long and doesn’t leave much of an impression, Dench also isn’t in it for ages (but she is great- her side kick is Olivia Coleman, also great, but maybe not the best role for her), Pfieffer and Cruz I just found annoying. I feel like the characters could have been explored and utilised more, as of course they all have depth, and this holds importance in the story.
Sometimes the plot danced around and it lost my attention. I found this difficult, as Murder on the Orient Express is such a famous story (obviously I’ve not seen it previous to this, as I have only seen films from 2015 onwards), you’d imagine I would be fully immersed in it. I felt like I was more hooked watching The Snowman, a murder mystery with some very obvious plot holes. There was a bit of ‘is it him’ ‘is it her’ whilst watching the film, but honestly, I wasn’t overly invested. So when I found out the big surprise, I found it quite boring. I found the ending a bit of a cop out, and I thought it could have been much more exciting.
Now here is where the problem lies. Do I find the storyline dull? Or is it the way it’s portrayed. Speaking to people beforehand, they had told me it was a great plot. It must be, surely, as it is so famous. I can see how the plot could be clever, how it could all fit together like a perfect jigsaw. But through this interpretation, that is not how I felt. I felt disappointed. I wanted more from the film.
Again, we ask the question- is there too much hype? Do the big names attract the attention, but detract from the bigger picture? If you have seen the story before, I would give this version a miss. If you haven’t, I reckon it’s worth seeing it, as it’s a classic, but maybe see a different version. Maybe I’ll see a different version and let you know how I find it (probably not). Overall, I can only give Murder on the Orient Express a weak 6/10. Not worth the hype.
44. Thor: Ragnarok
I really wasn’t bothered at all about this film. I’ve never seen any other Thor film before, and we all know I’m not bothered about superheroes unless is it’s Christopher Nolan’s Batman. I’d heard really good reviews, but as the film started, I wasn’t particularly enthused. The starting scenes I thought were trying to be funny, with Thor captured and struggling to escape without his hammer. I guess this kind of sets the scene for those who managed to see the 2 other films, read any sort of comic, or be culturally aware. For me I didn’t really understand what was going on, and didn’t really care.
However, about 15 – 20 minutes into the film, I was completely hooked. The storyline was good, and captured my imagination. To keep my attention, we have lots of fun cameos from other Marvel characters. My personal favourite was Benedict Cumberbatch, where I exclaimed ‘it’s him, what’s his name, Magic Fingers’. Apparently that character is called Dr Strange (the 2016 movie wasn’t bad at all). I didn’t have a full understanding of the Hulk’s character, but quickly picked this up as we meet him along the way as well. Who knew, maybe I do like superhero films.
We also come across the best character in the film by a country mile, Korg. Voiced by Taika Waititi (the film’s director), Korg is completely hilarious, I couldn’t stop laughing his dry deadpan humour, hilarious stories, and one liners. In fact, Thor on the whole is a pretty funny movie. It wasn’t try hard funny, and it wasn’t laugh a minute funny, but the light relief throughout the film really enhanced the plot and dialogue.
I thought the film on the whole was really well done, I guess when you are on the third in the series of a franchise, you expect it to be a bit rubbish, but I genuinely thought it was a good film. I don’t have anything to compare to, but IMdb gives both the first films a solid 7/10. I thought the acting was pretty good, the interaction between the characters and the CGI characters was believable, and the plot alongside it worked really well. I picked up the gist of the film quickly, and didn’t feel alienated, although I’d imagine there are lots of points of reference for fans of the first films.
Overall, it might sound generous, but Thor: Ragnarok gets an 8.5/10 from me. I went it not expecting much, but thoroughly enjoyed my evening. If you can catch it, it’s definitely worth a watch.
However, about 15 – 20 minutes into the film, I was completely hooked. The storyline was good, and captured my imagination. To keep my attention, we have lots of fun cameos from other Marvel characters. My personal favourite was Benedict Cumberbatch, where I exclaimed ‘it’s him, what’s his name, Magic Fingers’. Apparently that character is called Dr Strange (the 2016 movie wasn’t bad at all). I didn’t have a full understanding of the Hulk’s character, but quickly picked this up as we meet him along the way as well. Who knew, maybe I do like superhero films.
We also come across the best character in the film by a country mile, Korg. Voiced by Taika Waititi (the film’s director), Korg is completely hilarious, I couldn’t stop laughing his dry deadpan humour, hilarious stories, and one liners. In fact, Thor on the whole is a pretty funny movie. It wasn’t try hard funny, and it wasn’t laugh a minute funny, but the light relief throughout the film really enhanced the plot and dialogue.
I thought the film on the whole was really well done, I guess when you are on the third in the series of a franchise, you expect it to be a bit rubbish, but I genuinely thought it was a good film. I don’t have anything to compare to, but IMdb gives both the first films a solid 7/10. I thought the acting was pretty good, the interaction between the characters and the CGI characters was believable, and the plot alongside it worked really well. I picked up the gist of the film quickly, and didn’t feel alienated, although I’d imagine there are lots of points of reference for fans of the first films.
Overall, it might sound generous, but Thor: Ragnarok gets an 8.5/10 from me. I went it not expecting much, but thoroughly enjoyed my evening. If you can catch it, it’s definitely worth a watch.
43. Bad Mom's Christmas
I am still alive, and this review is super late. In amongst deadlines, work, panic and partying, I have finally found a second to write some reviews. Yes I’m on the train. Perhaps now, as we edge towards December, it is a more appropriate time to discuss ‘Bad Mom’s Christmas’; my first festive film this year.
If you haven’t seen Bad Moms, I urge you to. Last year, we went to see Bad Moms as it was the only thing in the cinema – we’d seen trailers and it looked okay, nothing special, but something light hearted. Now I’m not going to kid you and say it’s the best comedy I’ve ever seen (that clearly goes to Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa) but it was a nice surprise. A really good, classic comedy.
Now this isn’t what you came here to read about. I just thought I’d give you a quick overview, as in 2016 I did not have a blog… instead I had a meticulous spreadsheet with a scoring system. Bad Mom’s Christmas follows the same vein: crude, silly but a good enough storyline. Bad Mom’s Christmas doesn’t quite hit the mark for me, but it’s still a funny film, and it definitely got me in the mood for Christmas. However, the acting is average, the plot is okay, the jokes are as outlandish as you’d expect, and it just wasn’t quite as good as the original. I don’t doubt that if you enjoyed the original, you’ll enjoy this sequel, but I’m sure you’ll also agree that it doesn’t quite live up to expectations.
It also doesn’t have too much of the ‘christmassy feel good factor’ as I feel this is cancelled out by the crude and rude humour instead. It’s definitely not going to be a family favourite any time soon. But credit where credit is due, that’s not what the film set out to be.
I do like the ‘message’ of the film, if you can call it that. The film is based around being yourself and not conforming to others and I feel like it does a good job of portraying this throughout the film.
Overall, it’s never going to be the best Christmas film, but if you do fancy a light hearted Christmassy LOL then fill your boots while you can catch it. I’d give it a 6.5 for effort.
If you haven’t seen Bad Moms, I urge you to. Last year, we went to see Bad Moms as it was the only thing in the cinema – we’d seen trailers and it looked okay, nothing special, but something light hearted. Now I’m not going to kid you and say it’s the best comedy I’ve ever seen (that clearly goes to Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa) but it was a nice surprise. A really good, classic comedy.
Now this isn’t what you came here to read about. I just thought I’d give you a quick overview, as in 2016 I did not have a blog… instead I had a meticulous spreadsheet with a scoring system. Bad Mom’s Christmas follows the same vein: crude, silly but a good enough storyline. Bad Mom’s Christmas doesn’t quite hit the mark for me, but it’s still a funny film, and it definitely got me in the mood for Christmas. However, the acting is average, the plot is okay, the jokes are as outlandish as you’d expect, and it just wasn’t quite as good as the original. I don’t doubt that if you enjoyed the original, you’ll enjoy this sequel, but I’m sure you’ll also agree that it doesn’t quite live up to expectations.
It also doesn’t have too much of the ‘christmassy feel good factor’ as I feel this is cancelled out by the crude and rude humour instead. It’s definitely not going to be a family favourite any time soon. But credit where credit is due, that’s not what the film set out to be.
I do like the ‘message’ of the film, if you can call it that. The film is based around being yourself and not conforming to others and I feel like it does a good job of portraying this throughout the film.
Overall, it’s never going to be the best Christmas film, but if you do fancy a light hearted Christmassy LOL then fill your boots while you can catch it. I’d give it a 6.5 for effort.
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
42. Happy Death Day
I’d seen the advert for Happy Death Day, and was really interested to see how the entire film would pan out. When I say interested, I mean I could instantly tell it was going to be great, or absolutely terrible. Unfortunately, I was completely wrong and it was neither. I guess you can take negatives and positives from that actually.
The film stars Jessica Rothe as Tree, as she wakes up on her birthday and bumbles through her day before a party. As she walks to the party, she gets killed. But in true Ground Hog Day style (like I’ve seen that film), she wakes up, on her birthday, in the exact same situation. As you would, she goes a different way to the party, to avoid the murderer. We soon discover that it doesn’t matter what she does, her murder is about to occur, and it does so in lots of different ways, varying in creativity.
Tree realises that to move on from her birthday, and make it to the next day, she needs to work out who the murderer is, and eliminate them.
I will be honest and say I did jump a mile right at the beginning of the film, but I don’t particularly think that it is an intense film, it’s not overly scary. Some moments of suspense worked well in building tension, but I feel the theme of the film takes away uncertainty. You know she’s going to get murdered, so I feel it takes away some of the surprise and build up.
I also am not sure how easy this film is to ‘guess’ as my good buddy George went ‘it’s them’ right at the beginning, and he was kinda right. There are twists and turns in the film, but I don’t think these are fully committed to. The way the film works is that Tree suspects someone, so goes to destroy them, still gets killed, and then wakes up. There isn’t that intense build up of ‘is it? Isn’t it’ for each suspect, and I think that comes down to the concept of the film. In this manner, it also stops it from being overly scary. I think if you’re not a big scary movie fan, but fancied something a bit spooky over Halloween, it’s definitely something you can handle. Not overly gory, a bit creepy, and a few jumpy bits.
Overall, again this film was pretty average. It did hold my attention the whole way through, and I was interested to see who the murderer was, but it just wasn’t the most exciting, interesting, or innovative film. I like films that make my head hurt a bit as I try to work them out. Happy Death Day gets a 6/10 from me.
The film stars Jessica Rothe as Tree, as she wakes up on her birthday and bumbles through her day before a party. As she walks to the party, she gets killed. But in true Ground Hog Day style (like I’ve seen that film), she wakes up, on her birthday, in the exact same situation. As you would, she goes a different way to the party, to avoid the murderer. We soon discover that it doesn’t matter what she does, her murder is about to occur, and it does so in lots of different ways, varying in creativity.
Tree realises that to move on from her birthday, and make it to the next day, she needs to work out who the murderer is, and eliminate them.
I will be honest and say I did jump a mile right at the beginning of the film, but I don’t particularly think that it is an intense film, it’s not overly scary. Some moments of suspense worked well in building tension, but I feel the theme of the film takes away uncertainty. You know she’s going to get murdered, so I feel it takes away some of the surprise and build up.
I also am not sure how easy this film is to ‘guess’ as my good buddy George went ‘it’s them’ right at the beginning, and he was kinda right. There are twists and turns in the film, but I don’t think these are fully committed to. The way the film works is that Tree suspects someone, so goes to destroy them, still gets killed, and then wakes up. There isn’t that intense build up of ‘is it? Isn’t it’ for each suspect, and I think that comes down to the concept of the film. In this manner, it also stops it from being overly scary. I think if you’re not a big scary movie fan, but fancied something a bit spooky over Halloween, it’s definitely something you can handle. Not overly gory, a bit creepy, and a few jumpy bits.
Overall, again this film was pretty average. It did hold my attention the whole way through, and I was interested to see who the murderer was, but it just wasn’t the most exciting, interesting, or innovative film. I like films that make my head hurt a bit as I try to work them out. Happy Death Day gets a 6/10 from me.
41. The Snowman
The Snowman I feel has had quite a lot of PR for this type of film, there were cardboard cut outs and giant posters all over the cinema, and I’d seen Michael Fassbender doing a lot of TV and radio promo. To my surprise, the film had not received great feedback, and once we’d booked the film, I checked Rotten Tomatoes and it had received a grand total of 22%. I read the blurb and thought that the film was really something that I would enjoy, so I was disappointed in the low percentage. To cheer myself up I looked up Johnny English and saw that it had received 20%. If this film is 2% better than Johnny English it will be all I have ever dreamed about.
Honestly.
Who thinks Johnny English is a 20% film. It’s a 110% film and everyone knows that.
The film introduces Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender); a successful detective with the police, with his speciality being murders. Unfortunately for him, for various reasons he is unable to take on murder cases, until the Snowman case comes along. He receives various letters with mysterious clues, as women keep going missing, and bodies keep being found. All the while, we are in beautiful Scandinavia, with beautiful shots of snowy scenes, with an effective dingy dirty grey filter, displaying the heartache of the murders, as well as Hole’s characters struggles.
It’s at this point that you may or may not know that I am obsessed with murder, true crime, crime fiction, mystery etc etc and this really is what I can watch for hours and hours. The film isn’t complex in it’s plot, and it’s relatively easy to follow. It’s definitely not revolutionary, and it won’t blow your mind. But still, it had my attention with the topic and plot line.
Unfortunately, the film is littered with plot holes, bits that don’t really make sense, and the big reveal of the murder theme at the end just didn’t make sense to me. It tried to address the reasons ‘why’ the murders occurred (every crime fanatic’s dream), but it just didn’t add up. It wasn’t difficult to work out who, and how the murderers had been carried out, and although there was a build up, it just didn’t quite deliver. The film is based on a book by Jo Nesbo, and I’m sure that the book would address these missing parts. But for a film that could have been great, it just didn’t quite get there. In that way, it reminded me of ‘Child 44’. An incredible book, but when I watched the film, ½ of it was missing! It just didn’t do the book justice. In a way I am disappointed as I think I would have really enjoyed the book, but I’ve ruined it for myself now!
I’m not saying for one minute that The Snowman is a 2/10 film. In fact I’d be quite generous and give it a 6.5/10, but it’s not a film that’s going to make you think, it’s not a film that makes you feel clever if you work out the murderer, and it is a film that left me wanting more. It’s an easy watch, it does what it says on the tin, and the cinematography is fantastic.
Honestly.
Who thinks Johnny English is a 20% film. It’s a 110% film and everyone knows that.
The film introduces Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender); a successful detective with the police, with his speciality being murders. Unfortunately for him, for various reasons he is unable to take on murder cases, until the Snowman case comes along. He receives various letters with mysterious clues, as women keep going missing, and bodies keep being found. All the while, we are in beautiful Scandinavia, with beautiful shots of snowy scenes, with an effective dingy dirty grey filter, displaying the heartache of the murders, as well as Hole’s characters struggles.
It’s at this point that you may or may not know that I am obsessed with murder, true crime, crime fiction, mystery etc etc and this really is what I can watch for hours and hours. The film isn’t complex in it’s plot, and it’s relatively easy to follow. It’s definitely not revolutionary, and it won’t blow your mind. But still, it had my attention with the topic and plot line.
Unfortunately, the film is littered with plot holes, bits that don’t really make sense, and the big reveal of the murder theme at the end just didn’t make sense to me. It tried to address the reasons ‘why’ the murders occurred (every crime fanatic’s dream), but it just didn’t add up. It wasn’t difficult to work out who, and how the murderers had been carried out, and although there was a build up, it just didn’t quite deliver. The film is based on a book by Jo Nesbo, and I’m sure that the book would address these missing parts. But for a film that could have been great, it just didn’t quite get there. In that way, it reminded me of ‘Child 44’. An incredible book, but when I watched the film, ½ of it was missing! It just didn’t do the book justice. In a way I am disappointed as I think I would have really enjoyed the book, but I’ve ruined it for myself now!
I’m not saying for one minute that The Snowman is a 2/10 film. In fact I’d be quite generous and give it a 6.5/10, but it’s not a film that’s going to make you think, it’s not a film that makes you feel clever if you work out the murderer, and it is a film that left me wanting more. It’s an easy watch, it does what it says on the tin, and the cinematography is fantastic.
Wednesday, 18 October 2017
40. Blade Runner 2049
First of all, congratulations to me! Last year I saw 40 'new' films, and here we are, October, and I've hit that figure. This weeks film review comes from Costa Coffee, in Derby Train Station, where due to a uni open day, the bus got me here 30 minutes before my train is due. Where am I blogging from can become a new feature. Chances are it'll be either on train, near train, or in bed, but there we go.
I was super excited to see Blade Runner 2049. The reviews I'd seen had been great, and obviously Ryan Gosling is great, Harrison Ford is great, it was all set to be great. The film starts with a handy synopsis of the original film, which was clearly helpful as I've obviously not seen it. The premise of the film is that K (Ryan Gosling) is an artificial human programmed to follow orders, working for LAPD. His mission is to retire the older, less obedient models of himself.
The film follows K as he tries to retire the replicants, but also explores his emotion and feelings around being an artificial human. He lives with a hologram type female robot whom he is not able to love (because she's a hologram), which leads to quick an interesting/strange/bizarre subplot. He also struggles with memories, as an artificial human, he was never a child, but he still experiences flashbacks to his childhood. This is another theme throughout the film, looking at where these memories come from.
As expected, there is also lots of action in the film, coming to a head at the end with a really intense and quite exciting action scene. Throughout the film, the action kept me hooked and interested in where the plot was going.
Unfortunately for the film, it clocks in at a grand total 2hrs 45mins, and for me, as we know, I just don’t think this sort of the length is necessary for a film. Although I could keep my attention due to the exciting action parts, I think it’s hard to maintain the focus on the plot over such a long period of time. As mentioned before, there are many subplots, and these start to get confusing and tangled over time. There are parts where Jared Leto is the main character, but I’m still trying to work out who exactly he is, and with my understanding of the plot, I don’t think some of the parts are truly integral (not that Jared Leto was bad in the film, mind).
I also got about 2 hours into the film, wondering where Harrison Ford was. Again, he wasn’t bad in the film, but was he necessary? It felt like he was more of a cameo, and he could have been integrated more into the plot. That said, I haven’t seen the original so what do I know?
Overall, the film is enjoyable, and if you are a SciFi/Fantasy fan you will really enjoy it. For me, not the biggest fan of things that aren’t realistic, it isn’t my film of the year, but I still think it is worth a watch. I wouldn’t say it lived up to the hype, but I’ll give it a solid 7.5/10 for the effort. Someone needs to give the movie industry the heads up that films only need to be 1.5-2hrs long.
Tuesday, 10 October 2017
39. IT
I’ve never seen the original IT (it came out before 2015 so the chances of me seeing it were very slim), but I am a fan of scary films. I probably won’t go back to the original, as I often find with scary films, they date badly with the moving on of technology. I watched The Exocist, and found it hilarious, and not scary in the slightest, because the effects were so awful and laughable. I wasn’t aware of the storyline for IT, as I’ve never read the book either, but I was excited to see what it was all about. When I’m about to watch a scary film, I get excited all day about it, and as soon as I walk into the cinema I get scared and need to hide under my coat. IT was no exception.
The first thing I liked about this film, was the fact I now fully understand the meme where the woman slides into the grid in the pavement. The film gets full marks for this alone. Meme education AND entertainment.
The tension in the film was built up incredibly well, the suspense made me so scared, and there were several points where I jumped. I enjoy this in a film, where the actual scary part is nowhere near as bad as the build up to it. I did find some of the scary bits laughable, but I don’t think that they distracted from the plot. I found the gore manageable, and not used as shock tactics or overkill. Sometimes I think gore is added to a film for goresake, and then I find it quite distracting and annoying.
I found Pennywise absolutely horrendous, those teeth are just disgusting, and he was so creepy, I thought Bill Skarsgård was great. The acting of both Bill Skarsgård and the children was great, and really portrayed the fear and emotion of the film. I think this really enhanced the plot, and made you understand how Pennywise works and how he can be beaten. I did feel like I was watching a Halloween version of Stranger Things, with Finn Wolfhard as well as the period of time it was set in.
I enjoyed the backstory to the plot, with people going missing in the town in question for a period every so many years. It again paints the picture of the film, giving it narrative, and not just being a horror film for horror’s sake. I guess this may be down to the film being based on a book, written by one of the greatest horror writers. As someone who has never read a Stephen King novel, I may be tempted to now.
Overall, I really enjoyed the film, I think it did the job that it set out to do, and has probably inspired a lot of costumes this Halloween. If you’ve not managed to see the movie yet, I’d urge you to try and catch it at the cinema, so you can get the full creepy experience (or maybe watch it at home, on a dark windy night, and leave the front door open for extra creepy noises).I’d give it an 8.5/10, one of the best horrors I’ve seen in a long while!
The first thing I liked about this film, was the fact I now fully understand the meme where the woman slides into the grid in the pavement. The film gets full marks for this alone. Meme education AND entertainment.
The tension in the film was built up incredibly well, the suspense made me so scared, and there were several points where I jumped. I enjoy this in a film, where the actual scary part is nowhere near as bad as the build up to it. I did find some of the scary bits laughable, but I don’t think that they distracted from the plot. I found the gore manageable, and not used as shock tactics or overkill. Sometimes I think gore is added to a film for goresake, and then I find it quite distracting and annoying.
I found Pennywise absolutely horrendous, those teeth are just disgusting, and he was so creepy, I thought Bill Skarsgård was great. The acting of both Bill Skarsgård and the children was great, and really portrayed the fear and emotion of the film. I think this really enhanced the plot, and made you understand how Pennywise works and how he can be beaten. I did feel like I was watching a Halloween version of Stranger Things, with Finn Wolfhard as well as the period of time it was set in.
I enjoyed the backstory to the plot, with people going missing in the town in question for a period every so many years. It again paints the picture of the film, giving it narrative, and not just being a horror film for horror’s sake. I guess this may be down to the film being based on a book, written by one of the greatest horror writers. As someone who has never read a Stephen King novel, I may be tempted to now.
Overall, I really enjoyed the film, I think it did the job that it set out to do, and has probably inspired a lot of costumes this Halloween. If you’ve not managed to see the movie yet, I’d urge you to try and catch it at the cinema, so you can get the full creepy experience (or maybe watch it at home, on a dark windy night, and leave the front door open for extra creepy noises).I’d give it an 8.5/10, one of the best horrors I’ve seen in a long while!
38. Kingsman: The Golden Circle
Firstly, again this is incredibly late. I have two films to
catch up on, this, and IT. I don’t feel so guilty about not catching up on
either. Kingsman is simply not great, and I feel everyone has seen IT. My
excuse for my lateness, is that I have started my Masters at uni, and been
juggling various types of work, uni timetabling, weekend activities. It turns
out that if you do a Masters, you have to do work outside of uni. Who knew! So
here we are. As you probably already know, my new years resolution was to write
my blog for every 2017 film I see, hence the catch up.
catch up on, this, and IT. I don’t feel so guilty about not catching up on
either. Kingsman is simply not great, and I feel everyone has seen IT. My
excuse for my lateness, is that I have started my Masters at uni, and been
juggling various types of work, uni timetabling, weekend activities. It turns
out that if you do a Masters, you have to do work outside of uni. Who knew! So
here we are. As you probably already know, my new years resolution was to write
my blog for every 2017 film I see, hence the catch up.
You might have seen me reference the original Kingsman film
in a previous review. I watched the first film for the first time a month or so
ago, in preparation for the sequel. I really enjoyed it. I found it a good
balance of comedy and action, and found the plot interesting. Predictable in
parts, but an easy watch. I found parts of the comedy sexist and dated, but I
attributed this to it being a slightly older film, and perhaps whenever it was
released, there wasn’t enough publicity around what is acceptable and what is
not. Not that that excuses it.
in a previous review. I watched the first film for the first time a month or so
ago, in preparation for the sequel. I really enjoyed it. I found it a good
balance of comedy and action, and found the plot interesting. Predictable in
parts, but an easy watch. I found parts of the comedy sexist and dated, but I
attributed this to it being a slightly older film, and perhaps whenever it was
released, there wasn’t enough publicity around what is acceptable and what is
not. Not that that excuses it.
So coming into the sequel, I was actually really excited. I
was ready for an easy funny film that would keep my attention. What actually
happened, was that I was watching a really bizarre, silly and offensive film. I
feel the plot line was just quite silly, but not in a clever or surreal way.
The main idea is that Poppy (Julianne Moore) is trying to control population by killing off
anyone who takes drugs. A chemical is produced that when reacting with someone
who has taken drugs, they start a process in their body, starting with a purple
rash, moving to ‘mania’ and then freezing, and finally death. Here Eggsy (Taron Egerton) must save the day, and stop the chemical from being released throughout the
world. Obviously the film takes the stance that people who take drugs clearly
shouldn’t die (which probably still isn't the view of some people) but I felt the
film could have explored social issues and reasons why people may take drugs
more.
was ready for an easy funny film that would keep my attention. What actually
happened, was that I was watching a really bizarre, silly and offensive film. I
feel the plot line was just quite silly, but not in a clever or surreal way.
The main idea is that Poppy (Julianne Moore) is trying to control population by killing off
anyone who takes drugs. A chemical is produced that when reacting with someone
who has taken drugs, they start a process in their body, starting with a purple
rash, moving to ‘mania’ and then freezing, and finally death. Here Eggsy (Taron Egerton) must save the day, and stop the chemical from being released throughout the
world. Obviously the film takes the stance that people who take drugs clearly
shouldn’t die (which probably still isn't the view of some people) but I felt the
film could have explored social issues and reasons why people may take drugs
more.
I also have problems with the way mental health was
perceived in the film. At one point I remember the main nemesis being described
as ‘having mental health issues as a child’. If that isn’t stigma, then I don’t
know what is. Also the so called ‘mania’ portrayed in the film is nothing like
mania, a medical term for a type of mental illness, or a symptom. Again, not
helping the stigma. My working background is in mental health, and I don’t
think some people who are hospitalised due to manic symptoms would be best
pleased to see their condition stereotyped as dancing around and listening to
loud music in a blockbuster film. It’s not particularly helping to educate the
audience, but more contributing to the stigma created by society.
perceived in the film. At one point I remember the main nemesis being described
as ‘having mental health issues as a child’. If that isn’t stigma, then I don’t
know what is. Also the so called ‘mania’ portrayed in the film is nothing like
mania, a medical term for a type of mental illness, or a symptom. Again, not
helping the stigma. My working background is in mental health, and I don’t
think some people who are hospitalised due to manic symptoms would be best
pleased to see their condition stereotyped as dancing around and listening to
loud music in a blockbuster film. It’s not particularly helping to educate the
audience, but more contributing to the stigma created by society.
Another strange thing about the film is the presence of
Elton John. He’s in the film loads and swears occasionally and is generally
made a spectacle out of. Why did he agree to being part of this??? It’s not
like he needs the money. I found it so strange, and it didn’t contribute to the
plot at all, except that robot dogs wouldn’t kill him as he was Elton John.
Very strange experience, I felt like I was on drugs myself just watching it.
Elton John. He’s in the film loads and swears occasionally and is generally
made a spectacle out of. Why did he agree to being part of this??? It’s not
like he needs the money. I found it so strange, and it didn’t contribute to the
plot at all, except that robot dogs wouldn’t kill him as he was Elton John.
Very strange experience, I felt like I was on drugs myself just watching it.
I can understand why some people would enjoy the film, in a
similar way to how people would enjoy Zoolander 2. Actually I’m not that sure
why you would enjoy this film, but George and Bailey did. Maybe this is your
thing. It definitely did not live up to the original film, so I can only give
it a 5/10. I give it a 5/10 as Zoolander 2 got a 4 and it was marginally better
than that, and clearly, looking at the box office figures, this must be the
type of thing some people enjoy.
similar way to how people would enjoy Zoolander 2. Actually I’m not that sure
why you would enjoy this film, but George and Bailey did. Maybe this is your
thing. It definitely did not live up to the original film, so I can only give
it a 5/10. I give it a 5/10 as Zoolander 2 got a 4 and it was marginally better
than that, and clearly, looking at the box office figures, this must be the
type of thing some people enjoy.
Wednesday, 20 September 2017
37. mother!
I feel like mother! has been quite well publicised and advertised, I've seen the trailer at the cinema, I've heard it being spoken about on the radio, and there even was an advert for it in a podcast I listen to, My Favorite Murder. Incidentally, if you are fascinated by true crime, you need to listen to My Favorite Murder, it's great! Anyway, from what I could see, I needed to watch this film. Psychological thrillers are definitely my jam. Ali Plumb's review on radio 1 gave it simultaneously a 2 and 4 out of 5. I was even more intrigued.
mother! is the story of Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem's relationship, and the house they live in. And yes, it is as strange as it sounds. None of the character's in the film are named, and I only realised this towards the end, but actually I think it is quite effective. The acting by both Lawrence and Bardem was so great (as to be expected) that you feel feelings towards the characters, without knowing very much about them at all. One day a stranger arrives at the house, thinking it is a B&B, and Bardem insists he stays as it is night time. Strange things happen with his arrival, and the following day, his wife invites herself in as well. She is quite bolshy, brash and rude, and rubs Lawrence up the wrong way. Next the two sons arrive, and things take a completely different turn.
Now I don't want to ruin the film, but from this point, the whole plot goes a bit mad. Completely wild and mad and I have no idea what went on. We know Lawrence has a connection with the house and hates the visitors disturbing it and it only becomes clear at the very end what the connection is. The film becomes very abstract and I can see why people wouldn't like the film, and why it really is an arthouse movie.
I did like the questions the film throws up, about fame, family and celebrity. I also think it was quite political and asked some religious questions as well. And with that, I can understand why it may be controversial. I really don't want to say too much because I don't want to spoil the film, but it really is bizarre.
The acting in the film was great, I really enjoyed the first half of the film, and I like the fact I left the cinema wondering what the hell was going on. You really want to know what's coming next throughout the whole film. Incidentally, the film isn't particularly scary or jumpy, as you may guess from the trailer. It's neither of those things, it's just plain weird.
I kind of want to copy Ali Plumb and give it a 4 and a 7 out of 10, but I'm going to lean towards 7/10 because in all fairness, I was entertained, and I did enjoy it. I'm glad I went to see it, and if you've been umming and ahhing about going, I think it is worth a watch. Just be aware it's weird as hell and you'll have no idea what's going on by 1hr 45!
mother! is the story of Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem's relationship, and the house they live in. And yes, it is as strange as it sounds. None of the character's in the film are named, and I only realised this towards the end, but actually I think it is quite effective. The acting by both Lawrence and Bardem was so great (as to be expected) that you feel feelings towards the characters, without knowing very much about them at all. One day a stranger arrives at the house, thinking it is a B&B, and Bardem insists he stays as it is night time. Strange things happen with his arrival, and the following day, his wife invites herself in as well. She is quite bolshy, brash and rude, and rubs Lawrence up the wrong way. Next the two sons arrive, and things take a completely different turn.
Now I don't want to ruin the film, but from this point, the whole plot goes a bit mad. Completely wild and mad and I have no idea what went on. We know Lawrence has a connection with the house and hates the visitors disturbing it and it only becomes clear at the very end what the connection is. The film becomes very abstract and I can see why people wouldn't like the film, and why it really is an arthouse movie.
I did like the questions the film throws up, about fame, family and celebrity. I also think it was quite political and asked some religious questions as well. And with that, I can understand why it may be controversial. I really don't want to say too much because I don't want to spoil the film, but it really is bizarre.
The acting in the film was great, I really enjoyed the first half of the film, and I like the fact I left the cinema wondering what the hell was going on. You really want to know what's coming next throughout the whole film. Incidentally, the film isn't particularly scary or jumpy, as you may guess from the trailer. It's neither of those things, it's just plain weird.
I kind of want to copy Ali Plumb and give it a 4 and a 7 out of 10, but I'm going to lean towards 7/10 because in all fairness, I was entertained, and I did enjoy it. I'm glad I went to see it, and if you've been umming and ahhing about going, I think it is worth a watch. Just be aware it's weird as hell and you'll have no idea what's going on by 1hr 45!
36. American Assassin
From the trailer for American Assassin, I was really excited to see the film. The trailer makes it look like an action filled film with an exciting and interesting plot. In all honesty, I don't think this is going to be a very good review, because I wasn't as consumed by the film as I expected to be.
So much so that I've had to read a plot summary to remind me the jist of the film. Now to give me credit I started uni last week (Hi guys I'm doing a masters. I'm going to be a Master. How great is that. I mean it will be great at the end, but right now it seems like i'm just going to have to do a lot of work. A lot of last week was filled with me being told what a Student's Union is -or the Union of Students, Thanks Derby- despite already spending 3 years of my life in a Student's Union on pound pints. So please excuse me for how uninformative this review is)
The film centres around Mitch Rapp (Dylan O'Brien) after being part of a terrorist attack on holiday, and losing his wife to be. Rapp is out for revenge, interacting with terrorists online, and trying to get his retribution through undercover work. After he meets with one of the terrorists, and it comes to a head, Rapp moves from a CIA safe house, to being offered the chance to be trained to become a Black Ops agent. From here we follow him through training, and we learn about a nuclear weapons plan the team need to intercept.
I did like the realism in the film, and it is quite scary to think about similar things happening in different parts of the world right now, in terms of nuclear weapons. Maybe because I am terrified of these things happening, my memory subconsciously erased how I experienced the film...
Overall, from my none review, the first thing I said when I left the cinema was "what a bang average film" so it is only fair to award the movie a bang average 5/10. I feel the film was too long and I ended up doing a bit of clock watching, the plot wasn't completely gripping, and I went in with quite high expectations from seeing it advertised. At the moment there are quite a few interesting looking films out, and I wouldn't perceive this as one of them. That said, maybe I would be more into it if I wasn't full of information about Continuing Professional Development, or how to use Blackboard...
So much so that I've had to read a plot summary to remind me the jist of the film. Now to give me credit I started uni last week (Hi guys I'm doing a masters. I'm going to be a Master. How great is that. I mean it will be great at the end, but right now it seems like i'm just going to have to do a lot of work. A lot of last week was filled with me being told what a Student's Union is -or the Union of Students, Thanks Derby- despite already spending 3 years of my life in a Student's Union on pound pints. So please excuse me for how uninformative this review is)
The film centres around Mitch Rapp (Dylan O'Brien) after being part of a terrorist attack on holiday, and losing his wife to be. Rapp is out for revenge, interacting with terrorists online, and trying to get his retribution through undercover work. After he meets with one of the terrorists, and it comes to a head, Rapp moves from a CIA safe house, to being offered the chance to be trained to become a Black Ops agent. From here we follow him through training, and we learn about a nuclear weapons plan the team need to intercept.
I did like the realism in the film, and it is quite scary to think about similar things happening in different parts of the world right now, in terms of nuclear weapons. Maybe because I am terrified of these things happening, my memory subconsciously erased how I experienced the film...
Overall, from my none review, the first thing I said when I left the cinema was "what a bang average film" so it is only fair to award the movie a bang average 5/10. I feel the film was too long and I ended up doing a bit of clock watching, the plot wasn't completely gripping, and I went in with quite high expectations from seeing it advertised. At the moment there are quite a few interesting looking films out, and I wouldn't perceive this as one of them. That said, maybe I would be more into it if I wasn't full of information about Continuing Professional Development, or how to use Blackboard...
Sunday, 17 September 2017
35. The Hitman's Bodyguard
Seeing The Hitman's Bodyguard was an accident. There was a crash on the M6 meaning we couldn't make it to see Detroit and have tea beforehand, and as it happens, we were all rather hangry. The Hitman's Bodyguard started at 9pm, so we had a cheeky Nando's and were away.
We had no idea what the film was about, I haven't seen loads of advertising for it, and Rotten Tomatoes suggested it was a 36% film. Rotten Tomatoes was right. The film follows Bryce (Ryan Reynolds), a former 'triple A' bodyguard, after being called at the last minute to protect Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson). Kincaid is a notorious hitman, but also Interpol's last chance to prosecute a world leader for crimes against humanity. Bryce must ensure Kincaid is safely escorted from the UK to the Netherlands. As you can probably guess, along the way there are many hiccups - people trying to kill Kincaid, and Kincaid trying to escape.
From the plot summary above, the storyline doesn't actually sound that bad, it seems like it could be quite captivating, and exciting. However, in reality, it is an obvious story throughout, and the execution of it is not the best either. The film is 2hrs long, which is far too long for a movie you could guess the ending from the first 20 minutes, leaving the audience bored in places.
The film is by no means serious, and the elements of comedy do work in some places, but it isn't the funniest action comedy either. I watched Kingsman: The Secret Service last night (revision for the sequel, out next week), and found it far more humorous and exciting.
The only redeeming feature of the film was the chemistry between Reynolds and Jackson, and the way it develops through the film. From the initial relationship as prisoner and bodyguard, to them working together to survive in situations, teasing each other, and possibly even friendship. I think the acting skill here really enhanced the storyline, it's just a shame the storyline was so weak. From that initial review on Rotten Tomatoes, I think it is clear that my view is probably the view of many.
The Hitman's Bodyguard worked in one way for me, it allowed me to have my chicken, and cured my hangriness. But on reflection, if it wasn't for the M6, I wouldn't have seen this film, and I wouldn't have felt that I was missing out. When we pick a film at the cinema, it's often based on adverts, what's popular in the media, the occasional Ali Plumb review on Radio 1, but more often than not, a quick score check on IMDb and RT. The Hitman's Bodyguard wouldn't even reach my radar. Maybe that is for me to open my horizons a bit more, and read more and see more less commercial films, but on this occasion, our system was right. The Hitman's Bodyguard gets a 4.5/10. I've seen worst, but not worth the 2hrs of your life really.
We had no idea what the film was about, I haven't seen loads of advertising for it, and Rotten Tomatoes suggested it was a 36% film. Rotten Tomatoes was right. The film follows Bryce (Ryan Reynolds), a former 'triple A' bodyguard, after being called at the last minute to protect Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson). Kincaid is a notorious hitman, but also Interpol's last chance to prosecute a world leader for crimes against humanity. Bryce must ensure Kincaid is safely escorted from the UK to the Netherlands. As you can probably guess, along the way there are many hiccups - people trying to kill Kincaid, and Kincaid trying to escape.
From the plot summary above, the storyline doesn't actually sound that bad, it seems like it could be quite captivating, and exciting. However, in reality, it is an obvious story throughout, and the execution of it is not the best either. The film is 2hrs long, which is far too long for a movie you could guess the ending from the first 20 minutes, leaving the audience bored in places.
The film is by no means serious, and the elements of comedy do work in some places, but it isn't the funniest action comedy either. I watched Kingsman: The Secret Service last night (revision for the sequel, out next week), and found it far more humorous and exciting.
The only redeeming feature of the film was the chemistry between Reynolds and Jackson, and the way it develops through the film. From the initial relationship as prisoner and bodyguard, to them working together to survive in situations, teasing each other, and possibly even friendship. I think the acting skill here really enhanced the storyline, it's just a shame the storyline was so weak. From that initial review on Rotten Tomatoes, I think it is clear that my view is probably the view of many.
The Hitman's Bodyguard worked in one way for me, it allowed me to have my chicken, and cured my hangriness. But on reflection, if it wasn't for the M6, I wouldn't have seen this film, and I wouldn't have felt that I was missing out. When we pick a film at the cinema, it's often based on adverts, what's popular in the media, the occasional Ali Plumb review on Radio 1, but more often than not, a quick score check on IMDb and RT. The Hitman's Bodyguard wouldn't even reach my radar. Maybe that is for me to open my horizons a bit more, and read more and see more less commercial films, but on this occasion, our system was right. The Hitman's Bodyguard gets a 4.5/10. I've seen worst, but not worth the 2hrs of your life really.
Sunday, 10 September 2017
34. Logan Lucky
As soon as I saw the trailer for this film, I was excited to see it. It's no secret I love films about crime, and this heist looked excited, and Channing Tatum was involved (our lead, Jimmy Logan). The film lives up to expectations, and I really enjoyed it. It's a heist movie, but there is something extra that makes it exciting and enjoyable, as opposed to predictable and boring.
Jimmy has a rocky relationship with his ex-wife Bobbie Jo (Katie Holmes), who he has daughter Sadie (Farrah Mackenzie) with. Sadie is Jimmy's pride and joy, but he somehow always ends up being late (or turning up on the wrong day), angering Bobbie Jo. She decides to up sticks and move away from Jimmy, to an amazing mansion with her new husband.
Jimmy enlists the help of his brother Clyde (Adam Driver) and decides to spice up his life a bit, by deciding to steal the prize money from a big NASCAR event. He decides to win the support of Joe Bang (Daniel Craig) to help break into the safe. Joe is incarcerated for using explosives to open safes.
The plot follows how Jimmy ends up smuggling Joe out of prison for the main event, how they steal the money, and the aftermath. As with most films like this, it's incredibly clever and interesting, and it really keeps the audience captivated in how they will pull it off.
The film is interesting as it looks at family relationships, and inter family relationships, looking at different bonds, and how people work well (or not) together. It also has elements of comedy, which again, kept the interest; it's not a serious film, but it is clever. Tatum played the character of Jimmy really well, although it is within the roles he usually goes for, there is no doubt that he can play it well. Driver was excellent at playing Clyde, he's very mysterious, and quite surprising at times - you're not sure how much Clyde is in it, or just following orders from his brother, and this is played really well. As well as this, I thought Craig was excellent. I feel we all know Craig as James Bond, but I think here he proved he can play varied roles. I was actually surprisingly impressed by his Southern American accent, and also his good-baddie role, if that makes sense.
The film finishes with an open ending, setting up for a sequel, so if that comes to light, I think it will be interesting to see if it is forced, or if there is more on the creators minds. That said, I did quite like the open ending, even if there isn't a second film.
A really entertaining film, I think it's absolutely worth the watch, and would encourage you to see it on the big screen. I give Logan Lucky 8.5/10 for its great lead actors, engaging plot, comedic script, and for making heist movies good again!
Jimmy has a rocky relationship with his ex-wife Bobbie Jo (Katie Holmes), who he has daughter Sadie (Farrah Mackenzie) with. Sadie is Jimmy's pride and joy, but he somehow always ends up being late (or turning up on the wrong day), angering Bobbie Jo. She decides to up sticks and move away from Jimmy, to an amazing mansion with her new husband.
Jimmy enlists the help of his brother Clyde (Adam Driver) and decides to spice up his life a bit, by deciding to steal the prize money from a big NASCAR event. He decides to win the support of Joe Bang (Daniel Craig) to help break into the safe. Joe is incarcerated for using explosives to open safes.
The plot follows how Jimmy ends up smuggling Joe out of prison for the main event, how they steal the money, and the aftermath. As with most films like this, it's incredibly clever and interesting, and it really keeps the audience captivated in how they will pull it off.
The film is interesting as it looks at family relationships, and inter family relationships, looking at different bonds, and how people work well (or not) together. It also has elements of comedy, which again, kept the interest; it's not a serious film, but it is clever. Tatum played the character of Jimmy really well, although it is within the roles he usually goes for, there is no doubt that he can play it well. Driver was excellent at playing Clyde, he's very mysterious, and quite surprising at times - you're not sure how much Clyde is in it, or just following orders from his brother, and this is played really well. As well as this, I thought Craig was excellent. I feel we all know Craig as James Bond, but I think here he proved he can play varied roles. I was actually surprisingly impressed by his Southern American accent, and also his good-baddie role, if that makes sense.
The film finishes with an open ending, setting up for a sequel, so if that comes to light, I think it will be interesting to see if it is forced, or if there is more on the creators minds. That said, I did quite like the open ending, even if there isn't a second film.
A really entertaining film, I think it's absolutely worth the watch, and would encourage you to see it on the big screen. I give Logan Lucky 8.5/10 for its great lead actors, engaging plot, comedic script, and for making heist movies good again!
33. Girls Trip
I think I sabotaged myself with this film, I had heard really good stuff about it, and maybe expected too much. Now Girls Trip is not a bad film, in fact it does exactly what it says in the tin. It's a classic chick flick comedy, a little rude in places, but with a good story line.
The Flossy Posse is formed by Ryan (Regina Hall), Sasha (Queen Latifah), Lisa (Jada Pinkett-Smith) and Dina (Tiffany Haddish), and the girls set off on a get together after not seeing each other for years. They hit New Orleans, where Essence Music Festival is taking place, and also where a company wants to make a big deal with Ryan. Ryan is a big celebrity, writing books about how to have the perfect relationship.
With everything in everyones personal lives, the weekend seems to be a turning point for the girls, getting back together and having some respite from work, family, and relationship troubles. As you can imagine, when we get into the weekend, all is not what it seems. Ryan's relationship is far from perfect, Lisa's life as a single mum gives her no time for romance, and so on.
The film continues with love rivals, cat fights, weeing on a zip wire, and everything else you can imagine, with lots of appearances and cameos from impressive celebrities- Ne-Yo, P.Diddy, Estelle; to name a few. The film is wacky and wild, but it is genuinely funny, and I think would appeal to most people. I had it in my head that the film addressed social and racial issues in a comedic way, and that is not what the film is. What it is, is a really easy watch. It does have some messages, and I think Ryan's situation regarding her love life, and money, is actually quiet thought provoking.
The film is something perfect for a lazy evening, or hungover morning. There are laughs for all, and the storyline on the whole is okay. I just don't think it was very memorable. There are no quotes, funny one liners, and the plot wasn't overly interesting. I feel like it is a film similar to last years Sisters- a comedy with Amy Poehler. I remember enjoying the film, but it's not memorable. I can't remember any plot lines, or any jokes, and I don't feel overly enthused to watch it again.
For this reason, I'll give Girls Trip at 6.5/10. It does what it says on the tin, and would provide light relief after a heavy Saturday night, but it's not a ground breaking comedy, and it's not going to win any awards.
The Flossy Posse is formed by Ryan (Regina Hall), Sasha (Queen Latifah), Lisa (Jada Pinkett-Smith) and Dina (Tiffany Haddish), and the girls set off on a get together after not seeing each other for years. They hit New Orleans, where Essence Music Festival is taking place, and also where a company wants to make a big deal with Ryan. Ryan is a big celebrity, writing books about how to have the perfect relationship.
With everything in everyones personal lives, the weekend seems to be a turning point for the girls, getting back together and having some respite from work, family, and relationship troubles. As you can imagine, when we get into the weekend, all is not what it seems. Ryan's relationship is far from perfect, Lisa's life as a single mum gives her no time for romance, and so on.
The film continues with love rivals, cat fights, weeing on a zip wire, and everything else you can imagine, with lots of appearances and cameos from impressive celebrities- Ne-Yo, P.Diddy, Estelle; to name a few. The film is wacky and wild, but it is genuinely funny, and I think would appeal to most people. I had it in my head that the film addressed social and racial issues in a comedic way, and that is not what the film is. What it is, is a really easy watch. It does have some messages, and I think Ryan's situation regarding her love life, and money, is actually quiet thought provoking.
The film is something perfect for a lazy evening, or hungover morning. There are laughs for all, and the storyline on the whole is okay. I just don't think it was very memorable. There are no quotes, funny one liners, and the plot wasn't overly interesting. I feel like it is a film similar to last years Sisters- a comedy with Amy Poehler. I remember enjoying the film, but it's not memorable. I can't remember any plot lines, or any jokes, and I don't feel overly enthused to watch it again.
For this reason, I'll give Girls Trip at 6.5/10. It does what it says on the tin, and would provide light relief after a heavy Saturday night, but it's not a ground breaking comedy, and it's not going to win any awards.
Monday, 28 August 2017
32. England is Mine
In amongst working 20 days in a row, having a social life, and trying to squeeze in sleep, I managed to see England is Mine, the new Morrissey film, however I didn't manage to blog about it. That could mean I was really busy, or it could mean it wasn't the best.
I am a Smiths fan, and I find Morrissey intriguing to say the least, so I was excited to see the film once I had seen the trailer. I also was excited when I saw that Jack Lowden (see previous blog entry) was playing Morrissey, however I much prefer Lowden as a pilot than as a young Moz. I also made the mistake where I watched an interview with him talking about the film, claiming to like The Smiths but proceeding to know nothing about them. They've got that song about that light that never goes out yeah? Anyway, in the interview apparently Lowden was told to only research certain Smiths/Morrissey information, which I appreciate would help him play the part, but I didn't understand why he was told not to read Morrissey's autobiography. Surely reading that would help see both sides of the picture, painted by both the media and the man himself.
I did enjoy the film, and watching in a Manchester cinema I think was also a good experience. There were local jokes, and actually, the film was really rather funny. If you haven't guessed already, the film is the story of Morrissey before The Smiths. It's the story of his early life, his family, his friendships. It's endearing and awkward, and some characters are hilariously witty. It's an easy watch, with the golden time ticket of 1hr 30mins, and if you are interested in the genre and Manchester movement, you will probably enjoy it.
I do think the demographic for the film is quite slim, lots of people hate Moz, or find him arrogant/cocky/depressing. I find him a really interesting, and though I don't appreciate everything he says or does, I definitely have respect for him, and though the film was a good insight to his early life, depending on how truthful it is.
Overall, the film was surprisingly funny, but it won't be to everyone's taste. The ending was really predictable, and I feel like if you've seen Nowhere Boy, the film about John Lennon's early life, you probably won't be surprised in the slightest. For that I give England is Mine a respectable 7/10
I am a Smiths fan, and I find Morrissey intriguing to say the least, so I was excited to see the film once I had seen the trailer. I also was excited when I saw that Jack Lowden (see previous blog entry) was playing Morrissey, however I much prefer Lowden as a pilot than as a young Moz. I also made the mistake where I watched an interview with him talking about the film, claiming to like The Smiths but proceeding to know nothing about them. They've got that song about that light that never goes out yeah? Anyway, in the interview apparently Lowden was told to only research certain Smiths/Morrissey information, which I appreciate would help him play the part, but I didn't understand why he was told not to read Morrissey's autobiography. Surely reading that would help see both sides of the picture, painted by both the media and the man himself.
I did enjoy the film, and watching in a Manchester cinema I think was also a good experience. There were local jokes, and actually, the film was really rather funny. If you haven't guessed already, the film is the story of Morrissey before The Smiths. It's the story of his early life, his family, his friendships. It's endearing and awkward, and some characters are hilariously witty. It's an easy watch, with the golden time ticket of 1hr 30mins, and if you are interested in the genre and Manchester movement, you will probably enjoy it.
I do think the demographic for the film is quite slim, lots of people hate Moz, or find him arrogant/cocky/depressing. I find him a really interesting, and though I don't appreciate everything he says or does, I definitely have respect for him, and though the film was a good insight to his early life, depending on how truthful it is.
Overall, the film was surprisingly funny, but it won't be to everyone's taste. The ending was really predictable, and I feel like if you've seen Nowhere Boy, the film about John Lennon's early life, you probably won't be surprised in the slightest. For that I give England is Mine a respectable 7/10
Thursday, 3 August 2017
31. Dunkirk
I was so excited to see Dunkirk, it's based on a true event, it doesn't surpass the 2hr mark, and the cast is incredible. It didn't disappoint. Last night before we watched the film, I had a little look at the previous 30 titles I've seen this year, and I'm delighted to let you know, this takes the top spot. I know a lot of the big titles often come out around the back end of the year/beginning of next year due to the awards season, but actually, 2017 has given me a lot of bang average films (hit me up with your suggestions of 2017 winners I haven't seen if you fancy.) This movie was captivating, interesting, emotional, full of action. It really was fab. It also has Tom Hardy in it (and my new friend Jack Lowden...).
The film encapsulates the evacuation of Dunkirk (it sounds Scottish but turns out it's in France) from 3 different view points- land, sea and air. On the beach we follow Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) and his mute mate as they try to battle through the troops to grab a spot on a boat nipping back to England. Amongst setbacks and breakthroughs, they find Harry Styles, and we finally discover the real reason why he cut his hair off all those months ago. On water, Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) is giving the Navy a hand by travelling across to Dunkirk on his private boat with his son and son's friend, in order to help bring some troops back. From the skies, we follow Farrier (Hardy) and Collins (Lowden) as they support troops on air attack on the bomb dropping enemies, fighting against limited fuel. To add to the interest of the plot, we follow the story from 3 different time perspectives; a week on land, a day on a boat, and just an hour in the air. These time frames cleverly match up as we reach the climax of the film.
The film also really followed the British way of life, and anytime a soldier had any kind of break or respite, they were offered a brew. 'Don't worry love go down there there's tea!' 'Go down stairs and grab yourself a brew and a blanket'. A sentiment I can wholly get on board with.
As you can see by the fact I am using proper bulky paragraphs, and not twiddly sentences, I was really encapsulated by the plot and it really held my interest, especially as we switched between the 3 plots. The script was very small, with very little dialogue, but it wasn't needed. The story told itself between the fabulous acting, the tension, the music, the sound effects and the cinematography. I could go on. The cast itself is full of well known, credible actors (Rylance, Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy) and some new faces, but the acting was incredible, and the whole thing was casted really well. I thought Styles would be in it for promotion reasons, or just because he's Harry Styles and he can do what he wants. Apparently he was cast out of 1000s of hopefuls and Christopher Nolan had no idea who he was (everyone knows who Harry Styles is???).
To add to that point, everyone had great cheekbones. Really lovely ones. It was a sight to see. I reckon someone in the makeup department must have had an eye out with all those sharp and edgy faces. However, my one disappointment was Tom Hardy. Almost the entire film he spent hiding behind his Bane mask, until the final scenes. What a tease, and what a waste of an excellent face. Spoiler alert but you essentially have to wait until the end of the movie for him to unmask and reveal his chiselled by angels face.
Overall, I very clearly loved the film. Full of non-stop action and emotion, not bulked out with meaningless romance, or sexism, or silly humour. Get yourself to the pictures to watch it, where you can really find yourself in the film, with the loud effects and great quality screen. It's my must watch of the summer!!! My only gripe being that Tom Hardy's face needed to be in it more, it's a 9.5/10 from me. Go and watch as soon as you can.
The film encapsulates the evacuation of Dunkirk (it sounds Scottish but turns out it's in France) from 3 different view points- land, sea and air. On the beach we follow Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) and his mute mate as they try to battle through the troops to grab a spot on a boat nipping back to England. Amongst setbacks and breakthroughs, they find Harry Styles, and we finally discover the real reason why he cut his hair off all those months ago. On water, Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) is giving the Navy a hand by travelling across to Dunkirk on his private boat with his son and son's friend, in order to help bring some troops back. From the skies, we follow Farrier (Hardy) and Collins (Lowden) as they support troops on air attack on the bomb dropping enemies, fighting against limited fuel. To add to the interest of the plot, we follow the story from 3 different time perspectives; a week on land, a day on a boat, and just an hour in the air. These time frames cleverly match up as we reach the climax of the film.
The film also really followed the British way of life, and anytime a soldier had any kind of break or respite, they were offered a brew. 'Don't worry love go down there there's tea!' 'Go down stairs and grab yourself a brew and a blanket'. A sentiment I can wholly get on board with.
As you can see by the fact I am using proper bulky paragraphs, and not twiddly sentences, I was really encapsulated by the plot and it really held my interest, especially as we switched between the 3 plots. The script was very small, with very little dialogue, but it wasn't needed. The story told itself between the fabulous acting, the tension, the music, the sound effects and the cinematography. I could go on. The cast itself is full of well known, credible actors (Rylance, Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy) and some new faces, but the acting was incredible, and the whole thing was casted really well. I thought Styles would be in it for promotion reasons, or just because he's Harry Styles and he can do what he wants. Apparently he was cast out of 1000s of hopefuls and Christopher Nolan had no idea who he was (everyone knows who Harry Styles is???).
To add to that point, everyone had great cheekbones. Really lovely ones. It was a sight to see. I reckon someone in the makeup department must have had an eye out with all those sharp and edgy faces. However, my one disappointment was Tom Hardy. Almost the entire film he spent hiding behind his Bane mask, until the final scenes. What a tease, and what a waste of an excellent face. Spoiler alert but you essentially have to wait until the end of the movie for him to unmask and reveal his chiselled by angels face.
Overall, I very clearly loved the film. Full of non-stop action and emotion, not bulked out with meaningless romance, or sexism, or silly humour. Get yourself to the pictures to watch it, where you can really find yourself in the film, with the loud effects and great quality screen. It's my must watch of the summer!!! My only gripe being that Tom Hardy's face needed to be in it more, it's a 9.5/10 from me. Go and watch as soon as you can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)