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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.