Search
Search results
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Life Finds A Way
After really enjoying Jurassic World back in 2015, I was excited when they announced that a sequel was in the works. I felt optimistic about it because the ending of Jurassic World left it wide open for a story continuation, and I didn’t feel like they were just making a new one to milk a franchise. It’s no surprise that I can be hugely critical of sequels, but I was willing to give this one a fighting chance.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is set three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World park, and characters are faced with the dilemma of what to do now a volcano on the island is beginning to erupt. It’s a huge moral dilemma: let the dinosaurs die again, or move them to a safe location where they can thrive. Ultimately, Claire and Owen end up back on Isla Nublar with the help of a rescue team to round up the dinosaurs. As you can expect, things don’t go according to plan and we soon realise the rescue team has other, darker intentions.
Whilst this film is not the strongest in the franchise, it’s still an enjoyable watch. I wasn’t expecting it to be as thought provoking as it was, which was a pleasant surprise. I felt like the storyline had a lot of depth to it, and a lot of emotional moments too. One thing I really love about the Jurassic franchise is how they make you connect and feel emotions towards CGI dinosaurs. You know they aren’t real, yet you get so invested in the narrative that you quickly forget. In Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom we see some familiar dinosaurs from the previous films, as well as some new ones too. In classic Jurassic nature, we also see a brand new dinosaur that humans thought was a good idea to create… for some reason.
Another thing that surprised me was the horror-like elements that were present in the film. Without giving too much away, there’s a couple of scenes that are very reminiscent of classic horror and plummets the film into a much darker, creepier atmosphere. These scenes were incredibly well done and didn’t feel out of place, even though they could’ve easily felt too jarring. It was fun to witness the franchise experimenting with this, and enhances the scary side of the dinosaurs. There’s some really impressive shots during these scenes too, that emphasises the imposing nature of these creatures.
My biggest criticism of this film is that I felt like too much was going on, and consequently the narrative felt rushed. Despite it running at just over 2 hours, I almost felt like we needed another half hour to properly tell the story without glossing over some really important plot points. The main narrative was paced okay but then we had random side storylines that seemed unnecessary and just left me confused more than anything. It’s a shame they tried to cram so much into such a short space of time as there was no need to do that.
Long time fans of Jurassic Park should definitely give this a go as I think it’s a solid entry into the franchise, though it doesn’t do enough to ascend above its predecessors. It’s what I’ve described as a “fun, Monday night film” to people who’ve asked, so if you’re looking for a visually impressive blockbuster with loud roars and some creepy elements, this film is perfect for you.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/06/24/life-finds-a-way-jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review/
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is set three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World park, and characters are faced with the dilemma of what to do now a volcano on the island is beginning to erupt. It’s a huge moral dilemma: let the dinosaurs die again, or move them to a safe location where they can thrive. Ultimately, Claire and Owen end up back on Isla Nublar with the help of a rescue team to round up the dinosaurs. As you can expect, things don’t go according to plan and we soon realise the rescue team has other, darker intentions.
Whilst this film is not the strongest in the franchise, it’s still an enjoyable watch. I wasn’t expecting it to be as thought provoking as it was, which was a pleasant surprise. I felt like the storyline had a lot of depth to it, and a lot of emotional moments too. One thing I really love about the Jurassic franchise is how they make you connect and feel emotions towards CGI dinosaurs. You know they aren’t real, yet you get so invested in the narrative that you quickly forget. In Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom we see some familiar dinosaurs from the previous films, as well as some new ones too. In classic Jurassic nature, we also see a brand new dinosaur that humans thought was a good idea to create… for some reason.
Another thing that surprised me was the horror-like elements that were present in the film. Without giving too much away, there’s a couple of scenes that are very reminiscent of classic horror and plummets the film into a much darker, creepier atmosphere. These scenes were incredibly well done and didn’t feel out of place, even though they could’ve easily felt too jarring. It was fun to witness the franchise experimenting with this, and enhances the scary side of the dinosaurs. There’s some really impressive shots during these scenes too, that emphasises the imposing nature of these creatures.
My biggest criticism of this film is that I felt like too much was going on, and consequently the narrative felt rushed. Despite it running at just over 2 hours, I almost felt like we needed another half hour to properly tell the story without glossing over some really important plot points. The main narrative was paced okay but then we had random side storylines that seemed unnecessary and just left me confused more than anything. It’s a shame they tried to cram so much into such a short space of time as there was no need to do that.
Long time fans of Jurassic Park should definitely give this a go as I think it’s a solid entry into the franchise, though it doesn’t do enough to ascend above its predecessors. It’s what I’ve described as a “fun, Monday night film” to people who’ve asked, so if you’re looking for a visually impressive blockbuster with loud roars and some creepy elements, this film is perfect for you.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/06/24/life-finds-a-way-jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Mad To Be Normal (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Mental Health in the 60s
I’ll admit, whenever I see David Tennant’s name on a cast list I get excited. As a long time fan, I’ve watched him play a variety of roles brilliantly. So when I was given the opportunity to review Mad To Be Normal and I learned what the plot was, how could I refuse? Set in the 60s, the film follows Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing and his unconventional approach to mental health treatment, causing controversy within the psychiatry field.
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Statham vs Massive Prehistoric Shark
Before I start my review, I think I should add a quick disclaimer. I knew fine well that I wasn’t walking into a Oscar-worthy, perfect film as soon as I booked my ticket for The Meg. With the exception of Jaws, how many shark films have actually been award worthy? We’ve seen a huge boom in shark popularity ranging from plausible to the downright stupid (yes Sharknado, I’m looking at you and your buddies). But despite my already low expectations, I still have a fair amount of criticism for what I saw.
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Christopher Robin (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Return to Hundred Acre Wood
As a child I adored Winnie The Pooh. From owning soft toys of Pooh bear and his friends to playing Pooh sticks in the woods with my grandad, it shaped a lot of my childhood. Perhaps this explains why I was so drawn to this film from the day it was released. I was excited yet quietly apprehensive as you often are when your favourite childhood characters are revived on the big screen. There’s always a risk that it just won’t be the same.
Thankfully Christopher Robin did a fantastic job of bringing audiences back to Hundred Acre Wood, and telling the story of an adult Christopher Robin. As you can probably imagine; he soon outgrows his toys and is forced to grow up very quickly as he’s sent off to boarding school. Beyond that, he is soon conscripted and upon his return, has to work tirelessly to provide for his wife and daughter. This level of stress soon turns Christopher Robin into a serious workaholic who would much rather see his child study hard than play games. All that changes when Robin is reunited with Winnie The Pooh, and he soon remembers all the fun he once had as a child.
Ewan McGregor delivers a stunning performance as an adult Christopher Robin, perfectly encapsulating the serious businessman persona, as well as one filled with child-like glee. It’s refreshing to see McGregor in a much more playful role than usual, and I believe he’s appealing for all audiences, both adult and children alike. His performance made me cry in places, because the script tugs at your heartstrings and delivers a jolt of welcome nostalgia. In all honesty it makes you want to grab your bear and be a child again, just for a few moments. And even more honestly, is there anything wrong with that? It’s a film that reminds you to stop working so hard, and make sure you enjoy those precious moments with those dear to you. Pass the tissues, please!
Pooh and his friends are animated wonderfully, they blend in effortlessly with the scenes and create this illusion of toys coming to life. It’s very easy to forget that they’re not actually real. I especially loved classic grumpy Eeyore, as he resonates well with the adult audience and makes you think “you know what Eeyore, I can relate to that”. He’s a hilarious antidote to the mushier characters, and reminded me why I’ve always loved his character. It was so fun seeing Pooh and friends again, and I’m so happy they were portrayed the way they should’ve been.
Christopher Robin is an all-round beautiful family film, full of playful visuals, genuinely funny one-liners, and moments that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. It is very cheesy in places but you have to remember that this is a sweet, family film, so overly mushy moments don’t feel too out of place. I soon learned to roll with it and found myself genuinely beaming at the chemistry between characters, and the love that radiated from the screen. Frankly, it’s a welcome change from the blood and guts I’m used to, and I’m happy about that. Sometimes even a die hard horror fan needs a teddy bear in their lives.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/22/return-to-hundred-acre-wood-a-review-of-christopher-robin/
Thankfully Christopher Robin did a fantastic job of bringing audiences back to Hundred Acre Wood, and telling the story of an adult Christopher Robin. As you can probably imagine; he soon outgrows his toys and is forced to grow up very quickly as he’s sent off to boarding school. Beyond that, he is soon conscripted and upon his return, has to work tirelessly to provide for his wife and daughter. This level of stress soon turns Christopher Robin into a serious workaholic who would much rather see his child study hard than play games. All that changes when Robin is reunited with Winnie The Pooh, and he soon remembers all the fun he once had as a child.
Ewan McGregor delivers a stunning performance as an adult Christopher Robin, perfectly encapsulating the serious businessman persona, as well as one filled with child-like glee. It’s refreshing to see McGregor in a much more playful role than usual, and I believe he’s appealing for all audiences, both adult and children alike. His performance made me cry in places, because the script tugs at your heartstrings and delivers a jolt of welcome nostalgia. In all honesty it makes you want to grab your bear and be a child again, just for a few moments. And even more honestly, is there anything wrong with that? It’s a film that reminds you to stop working so hard, and make sure you enjoy those precious moments with those dear to you. Pass the tissues, please!
Pooh and his friends are animated wonderfully, they blend in effortlessly with the scenes and create this illusion of toys coming to life. It’s very easy to forget that they’re not actually real. I especially loved classic grumpy Eeyore, as he resonates well with the adult audience and makes you think “you know what Eeyore, I can relate to that”. He’s a hilarious antidote to the mushier characters, and reminded me why I’ve always loved his character. It was so fun seeing Pooh and friends again, and I’m so happy they were portrayed the way they should’ve been.
Christopher Robin is an all-round beautiful family film, full of playful visuals, genuinely funny one-liners, and moments that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. It is very cheesy in places but you have to remember that this is a sweet, family film, so overly mushy moments don’t feel too out of place. I soon learned to roll with it and found myself genuinely beaming at the chemistry between characters, and the love that radiated from the screen. Frankly, it’s a welcome change from the blood and guts I’m used to, and I’m happy about that. Sometimes even a die hard horror fan needs a teddy bear in their lives.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/22/return-to-hundred-acre-wood-a-review-of-christopher-robin/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A Surprisingly Disappointing Heist Film
Upon seeing King of Thieves listed as a Limitless preview screening, I immediately snapped up the opportunity to see it because I had been looking forward to it since the first trailer I saw. With a well-known cast, an iconic real life heist story, and a classic ‘British crime’ aura, I was anticipating something great. I really can’t understand how they managed to mess that combo up, but here we are. Out of all the reviews I’ve ever written, this one is probably the hardest because of how disappointed I feel. As a film fan it’s difficult when you get yourself hyped up, only to be let down by the finished result.
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
It’s not as bad as you might think…
It feels like everyone has something to say about Venom. Amongst critics and fans, it’s caused a lot of debate and controversy. Whenever this happens, I tend to find myself becoming even more curious about the film because if everyone else has strong words to say, maybe I will too?
Before I begin my review I just want to put in a quick disclaimer: I am by no means a comic book expert, and I don’t claim to be Marvel’s number one fan. If anything I’m a casual fan. So this review is coming from the mind of a film lover and nothing more. Now that’s out of the way…
Venom was quick to grab my attention when it was first announced, as I’m always interested when Marvel move into darker, grittier territories. I have a soft spot for villains and Venom’s character is definitely one of the coolest ones in the franchise. There are few things scarier than the thought of a parasite taking over your body, so the horror elements definitely drew me towards the film. Visually, Venom does utilise things we would associate with horror, such as long, lingering shots and sudden jumpy moments. Whilst they’re nothing new or particularly outstanding, I did enjoy this side to the film. Symbiotes as a concept are terrifying, so it only seemed fair to portray them in this way.
Tom Hardy gives a great performance as Eddie Brock, especially during his interactions with Venom. The comedic side to this film was genuinely funny, and gave the audience some light relief after the more horrifying scenes. This dynamic between Eddie and Venom is what really stood out to me, as they owned the vast majority of screen time and had to keep the audience entertained. For me, it worked and it had some serious laugh-out-loud moments.
Some of the scenes are a bit ridiculous, but I’ve quickly learned to expect a bit of implausibility when it comes to comic book movies. I wasn’t bothered by some of the sillier scenes, though I can see why someone would want to criticise them. The one thing I was bothered by, however, was the plot holes and confusing lines within the film that, so I felt this did weaken the script in places. I’m certainly in agreement that the writing was lazy overall. Nonetheless, I was still entertained by 90% of the film and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The action scenes were fun, chaotic, and made even better by Venom’s presence inside Eddie’s head. Without that, I might not have enjoyed them as much.
I liked the visual effects throughout the film, and was particularly creeped out by the way the symbiote looked before it finds a host. The scenes set within The Life Foundation’s facility stood out to me, reminiscent of other films where science ‘goes wrong’. It’s clinical, confusing and isolating, making you feel just as uncomfortable and scared as those undergoing the trials. I really enjoyed the twisted side to this narrative, showing us a dark side to corporations as films often do.
Is Venom the best film I’ve seen this year? Of course it’s not. But it was a fun way to spend 2 hours on a Sunday evening and that’s good enough for me. It’s a very average, very three star film that kept me entertained. It’s nothing more than that, and to me, that’s okay.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/14/venom-its-not-as-bad-as-you-might-think/
Before I begin my review I just want to put in a quick disclaimer: I am by no means a comic book expert, and I don’t claim to be Marvel’s number one fan. If anything I’m a casual fan. So this review is coming from the mind of a film lover and nothing more. Now that’s out of the way…
Venom was quick to grab my attention when it was first announced, as I’m always interested when Marvel move into darker, grittier territories. I have a soft spot for villains and Venom’s character is definitely one of the coolest ones in the franchise. There are few things scarier than the thought of a parasite taking over your body, so the horror elements definitely drew me towards the film. Visually, Venom does utilise things we would associate with horror, such as long, lingering shots and sudden jumpy moments. Whilst they’re nothing new or particularly outstanding, I did enjoy this side to the film. Symbiotes as a concept are terrifying, so it only seemed fair to portray them in this way.
Tom Hardy gives a great performance as Eddie Brock, especially during his interactions with Venom. The comedic side to this film was genuinely funny, and gave the audience some light relief after the more horrifying scenes. This dynamic between Eddie and Venom is what really stood out to me, as they owned the vast majority of screen time and had to keep the audience entertained. For me, it worked and it had some serious laugh-out-loud moments.
Some of the scenes are a bit ridiculous, but I’ve quickly learned to expect a bit of implausibility when it comes to comic book movies. I wasn’t bothered by some of the sillier scenes, though I can see why someone would want to criticise them. The one thing I was bothered by, however, was the plot holes and confusing lines within the film that, so I felt this did weaken the script in places. I’m certainly in agreement that the writing was lazy overall. Nonetheless, I was still entertained by 90% of the film and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The action scenes were fun, chaotic, and made even better by Venom’s presence inside Eddie’s head. Without that, I might not have enjoyed them as much.
I liked the visual effects throughout the film, and was particularly creeped out by the way the symbiote looked before it finds a host. The scenes set within The Life Foundation’s facility stood out to me, reminiscent of other films where science ‘goes wrong’. It’s clinical, confusing and isolating, making you feel just as uncomfortable and scared as those undergoing the trials. I really enjoyed the twisted side to this narrative, showing us a dark side to corporations as films often do.
Is Venom the best film I’ve seen this year? Of course it’s not. But it was a fun way to spend 2 hours on a Sunday evening and that’s good enough for me. It’s a very average, very three star film that kept me entertained. It’s nothing more than that, and to me, that’s okay.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/14/venom-its-not-as-bad-as-you-might-think/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Anchor & Hope (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A heart-wrenching portrait of parenthood & sexuality
Deciding to have a baby is a big step in many couples’ lives, but sometimes, things don’t always go according to plan. Carlos Marques-Marcet’s Anchor and Hope follows two lesbian women who, one drunken night, decide to use their friend’s sperm in order to have a child of their own. It’s not a decision that should be taken lightly, but makes for an interesting story nonetheless. Insemination is a viable option that is often considered by those in same-sex relationships, or by those who struggle to conceive. This is the first film I’ve seen that deals with the subject so explicitly.
Throughout the course of the film, we focus heavily on the lives of Eva, Kat and Roger. The quality of acting was very good and believable, meaning it was easy for me to stay invested in their lives as events transpired. They all have very different personality traits that inevitably clash, and it’s not long before jealousy starts to rear its ugly head and tensions rise. Kat and Roger are close and both fluent in Spanish, meaning they’re able to communicate and Eva hasn’t got a clue what they’re saying. She starts feeling left out, which may or may not have driven her to think about the insemination. It’s left up to the audience to figure that one out. It’s clear Eva wants the baby more than Kat does, which is already a huge red flag.
The baby becomes a central part of the narrative, and the character’s lives. Anchor and Hope presents us with different viewpoints, all centred around this new life. It’s incredibly emotional to watch as we witness how three very different characters respond to it. I respected the fact the film doesn’t position itself as for or against any argument, it simply presents them to the audience as valid responses to what’s happening. Had the film gotten too preachy one way or the other, I think I may have found that frustrating. This is a film that leaves a lot up to the audience, and one that can spark interesting discussions.
Despite my interest in the topic and praise for the acting, I didn’t particularly like any of the characters. They’re all frustrating in their own ways and sometimes it felt a little too far-fetched and melodramatic. This weakened the film for me as I didn’t find myself rooting for anyone, and just wished they’d never made that decision in the first place. There’s no warmth for any of the characters, which was a let down. I also felt the story could have been shorter and snappier, as it felt too drawn out in places.
However, it is a very interesting look into insemination and sperm donors, and the script is strong and considered. It would be easy to cause controversy if not dealt with respectfully, but I felt like appropriate research had been done and they remained impartial throughout. The visuals are clean, well shot, and I liked the use of small, intimate locations to tell the story. Eva and Kat live on a houseboat, so that sense of minimalism is present throughout.
I was mostly entertained and enjoyed watching it, so I would recommend this film if it’s a topic that interests you. Overall, it’s an emotionally charged and well-written LGBT+ film and we definitely need more of those.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/08/anchor-and-hope-a-heart-wrenching-portrait-of-parenthood-sexuality/
Throughout the course of the film, we focus heavily on the lives of Eva, Kat and Roger. The quality of acting was very good and believable, meaning it was easy for me to stay invested in their lives as events transpired. They all have very different personality traits that inevitably clash, and it’s not long before jealousy starts to rear its ugly head and tensions rise. Kat and Roger are close and both fluent in Spanish, meaning they’re able to communicate and Eva hasn’t got a clue what they’re saying. She starts feeling left out, which may or may not have driven her to think about the insemination. It’s left up to the audience to figure that one out. It’s clear Eva wants the baby more than Kat does, which is already a huge red flag.
The baby becomes a central part of the narrative, and the character’s lives. Anchor and Hope presents us with different viewpoints, all centred around this new life. It’s incredibly emotional to watch as we witness how three very different characters respond to it. I respected the fact the film doesn’t position itself as for or against any argument, it simply presents them to the audience as valid responses to what’s happening. Had the film gotten too preachy one way or the other, I think I may have found that frustrating. This is a film that leaves a lot up to the audience, and one that can spark interesting discussions.
Despite my interest in the topic and praise for the acting, I didn’t particularly like any of the characters. They’re all frustrating in their own ways and sometimes it felt a little too far-fetched and melodramatic. This weakened the film for me as I didn’t find myself rooting for anyone, and just wished they’d never made that decision in the first place. There’s no warmth for any of the characters, which was a let down. I also felt the story could have been shorter and snappier, as it felt too drawn out in places.
However, it is a very interesting look into insemination and sperm donors, and the script is strong and considered. It would be easy to cause controversy if not dealt with respectfully, but I felt like appropriate research had been done and they remained impartial throughout. The visuals are clean, well shot, and I liked the use of small, intimate locations to tell the story. Eva and Kat live on a houseboat, so that sense of minimalism is present throughout.
I was mostly entertained and enjoyed watching it, so I would recommend this film if it’s a topic that interests you. Overall, it’s an emotionally charged and well-written LGBT+ film and we definitely need more of those.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/08/anchor-and-hope-a-heart-wrenching-portrait-of-parenthood-sexuality/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 48 HRS (1982) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 48 Hrs starts as Ganz (Remar) gets broken out of jail while on work detail by Billy Bear (Landham), he heads off to clean up old debts leaving cops bodies in his path of destruction. It doesn’t take long for Ganz to clash with detective Jack Cates (Nolte), where Ganz forces Jack into a difficult situation.
Jack must go to prisoner Reggie Hammond (Murphy) a wise cracking con man to help track down Ganz using his street knowledge. In what is an unlikely partnership turns into something special as the two find a way to get to the bottom of the crime.
Thoughts on 48 Hrs
Characters – Jack Cates is a grizzled cop, he gets the job done with his experience keeping him in high regard. He must stop the killer using criminal Reggie Hammond as the best chance to catch this killer. Reggie Hammond is a criminal near the end of his stint in jail, he is wise-cracking fast-talking meaning he can bullshit his way out of any situation he finds himself in. He uses this chance of time out of jail to settle a few scores. Elaine is the girlfriend of Jack who is tired of not making things serious between the two. Ganz is the killer on the loose, after his break from prison, he has a short-temper which causes his itchy trigger finger to fire on any enemy he comes across.
Performances – Nick Nolte is a great choice for a seemingly warn down cop, he takes the non-sense style needed for the role and goes with it. Eddie Murphy was one of the most popular stand-up comedians at the time, this was his film debut and he handed it very well, bringing his own energy to the role which could have been something we have seen before. James Remar is good as a villain because it is a character we have seen before, but he really convinces in this role. There is a negative here, that is Annette O’Toole, which to be fair isn’t her fault because the character is written so poorly
Story – The story follows a cop and a criminal work together to stop another criminal, yes this is a buddy cop movie. We have unlikely partnership which must work together to get the common goal. This is a story we have seen plenty of times since and it seems to be a hit or miss through the years, but this does keep things simple enough to enjoy not looking to throw us any surprises along the way.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action is by the book for cops and criminals, nothing is over the top and mostly comes off like you would expect. The crime world is the cop needing to work with the criminal that is the best chance to catch a cop killer. The comedy comes from the odd pairing that must work together.
Settings – The film is set in San Francisco which always seems to be a great location for any crime comedy world to unfold.
Scene of the Movie – Settle this with fists.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Ganz seems a lot easier to catch.
Final Thoughts – This is a good buddy comedy that bought us Eddie Murphy to the big screen. We get the action and comedy without being buried with one too often and most importantly we are entertained.
Overall: Great fun action comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/05/26/franchise-weekend-48-hrs-1982/
Jack must go to prisoner Reggie Hammond (Murphy) a wise cracking con man to help track down Ganz using his street knowledge. In what is an unlikely partnership turns into something special as the two find a way to get to the bottom of the crime.
Thoughts on 48 Hrs
Characters – Jack Cates is a grizzled cop, he gets the job done with his experience keeping him in high regard. He must stop the killer using criminal Reggie Hammond as the best chance to catch this killer. Reggie Hammond is a criminal near the end of his stint in jail, he is wise-cracking fast-talking meaning he can bullshit his way out of any situation he finds himself in. He uses this chance of time out of jail to settle a few scores. Elaine is the girlfriend of Jack who is tired of not making things serious between the two. Ganz is the killer on the loose, after his break from prison, he has a short-temper which causes his itchy trigger finger to fire on any enemy he comes across.
Performances – Nick Nolte is a great choice for a seemingly warn down cop, he takes the non-sense style needed for the role and goes with it. Eddie Murphy was one of the most popular stand-up comedians at the time, this was his film debut and he handed it very well, bringing his own energy to the role which could have been something we have seen before. James Remar is good as a villain because it is a character we have seen before, but he really convinces in this role. There is a negative here, that is Annette O’Toole, which to be fair isn’t her fault because the character is written so poorly
Story – The story follows a cop and a criminal work together to stop another criminal, yes this is a buddy cop movie. We have unlikely partnership which must work together to get the common goal. This is a story we have seen plenty of times since and it seems to be a hit or miss through the years, but this does keep things simple enough to enjoy not looking to throw us any surprises along the way.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action is by the book for cops and criminals, nothing is over the top and mostly comes off like you would expect. The crime world is the cop needing to work with the criminal that is the best chance to catch a cop killer. The comedy comes from the odd pairing that must work together.
Settings – The film is set in San Francisco which always seems to be a great location for any crime comedy world to unfold.
Scene of the Movie – Settle this with fists.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Ganz seems a lot easier to catch.
Final Thoughts – This is a good buddy comedy that bought us Eddie Murphy to the big screen. We get the action and comedy without being buried with one too often and most importantly we are entertained.
Overall: Great fun action comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/05/26/franchise-weekend-48-hrs-1982/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1920 London (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 1920 London starts as we meet the Prince Veer (Karwel) and Princess Shivangi (Chopra) living in London, they soon become the latest victim of an evil spirit which takes over Veer’s body, Shivangi must go into her past to find her former lover Jai Singh Gujjar (Joshi) a man that was left banished because of their affair, who has an ability to tackle unwanted spirits.
With the past being placed in the past, Jai comes to figure out how to save Veer and giving Shivangi a peaceful life, only the evil spirit isn’t going to let that happen.
Thoughts on 1920 London
Characters – Shivangi the princess who has just gotten married, she sees her husband become possessed, which forces her to return to her family for help, with her ex-lover being the only one that could save her husband. Jai Singh is the exorcist that was once the lover of Shivangi, but not being from the royal family means he was once banished for their love. Now he must help her fight an evil spirit, he speciality. Veer is the husband that gets stricken down by the evil spirit that has taken over his body.
Performances – We focus mostly on just the two stars of the movie, Meera Chopra and Sharman Joshi who are both great through the film dealing with the horror, the personal status they are facing and love they both feel.
Story – The story here follows a possession, this is a story I have seen many times, but the different is, I have only ever seen Christian or Jewish religions deal with the spirits, this time we get to see how Hindus treat unwanted spirits. The story does follow the traditional scares, but then here is a twist in the story which explains the possession, one about honour, love and revenge, which does make the story feel fresher, I learnt that this is part of a series of film, but I am confident there isn’t a connection between the previous ones. Most of this is by the books and that is al we want from a horror film.
Horror/Mystery – There are good scare moments in this film, nothing overly original, but they will give the jumps required, the mystery comes from just what the motivation of the evil spirit is to be doing the possessing.
Settings – The film takes the action to London, which I guess is new to the franchise, this is fine even though we spend most of the time in the mansions with no landmarks in the background, with the landmark scenes including the bridges only.
Special Effects – The effects are used well to create the horror moments, like most films the practical is good, but the CGI comes off weak.
Scene of the Movie – The final battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While I understand this is a Bollywood film, the songs lose moments of tension in the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that works for the exorcism genre well, it shows how a different religion reads evil spirits and does battle against them, which is interesting to see and does give us good moments of horror.
Overall: Good horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/27/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-1920-london-2016/
With the past being placed in the past, Jai comes to figure out how to save Veer and giving Shivangi a peaceful life, only the evil spirit isn’t going to let that happen.
Thoughts on 1920 London
Characters – Shivangi the princess who has just gotten married, she sees her husband become possessed, which forces her to return to her family for help, with her ex-lover being the only one that could save her husband. Jai Singh is the exorcist that was once the lover of Shivangi, but not being from the royal family means he was once banished for their love. Now he must help her fight an evil spirit, he speciality. Veer is the husband that gets stricken down by the evil spirit that has taken over his body.
Performances – We focus mostly on just the two stars of the movie, Meera Chopra and Sharman Joshi who are both great through the film dealing with the horror, the personal status they are facing and love they both feel.
Story – The story here follows a possession, this is a story I have seen many times, but the different is, I have only ever seen Christian or Jewish religions deal with the spirits, this time we get to see how Hindus treat unwanted spirits. The story does follow the traditional scares, but then here is a twist in the story which explains the possession, one about honour, love and revenge, which does make the story feel fresher, I learnt that this is part of a series of film, but I am confident there isn’t a connection between the previous ones. Most of this is by the books and that is al we want from a horror film.
Horror/Mystery – There are good scare moments in this film, nothing overly original, but they will give the jumps required, the mystery comes from just what the motivation of the evil spirit is to be doing the possessing.
Settings – The film takes the action to London, which I guess is new to the franchise, this is fine even though we spend most of the time in the mansions with no landmarks in the background, with the landmark scenes including the bridges only.
Special Effects – The effects are used well to create the horror moments, like most films the practical is good, but the CGI comes off weak.
Scene of the Movie – The final battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While I understand this is a Bollywood film, the songs lose moments of tension in the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that works for the exorcism genre well, it shows how a different religion reads evil spirits and does battle against them, which is interesting to see and does give us good moments of horror.
Overall: Good horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/27/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-1920-london-2016/
Darren (1599 KP) rated A History of Violence (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A History of Violence starts as we meet mild-mannered Tom Stall (Mortensen) working in his local diner with his own family, wide Edie (Bello) and child Jack (Holmes) and Sarah. One evening two men arrive in his diner trying to rob and kill the people inside, Tom’s quick thinking kills the criminals making him a local hero.
The act of heroism brings gangster Carl Fogarty (Harris) to town who claims Tom is from the criminal underworld hiding out with his older brother Richie (Hurt) waiting for him to return back to the criminal world.
Thoughts on A History of Violence
Characters – Tom Stall is a quiet man, running a diner having a loving family, he steps up to protect his customers and friends makes him a local hero. Now he has drawn a target on his chest with his past coming back to haunt him. Edie is the wife of Tom, she works in law bring home the bigger pay checks, she supports Tom, until she learns the truth and must decide where she stands with him. Carl Fogarty is the mysterious stranger that arrives in town claiming to know Tom from a previous life, he brings the danger back into Tom’s life with the past he wanted to run away from. Richie is the crime boss and brother to Tom, he has been searching for his brother for years and now sees the chance for the connection.
Performances – Viggo Mortensen is outstanding in this leading role we see how he keeps his character perfectly calm in everyday life and how the switch can make him a deadly killer, this is an ability that not everyone can achieve. Maria Bello is strong in her role as a woman unsure who her husband really is. Ed Harris and William Hurt in the supporting role are fantastic both take over the screen with their presence adding much needed tension to everything.
Story – The story here follows a mild-mannered man whose past comes back to haunt him after protect people he loves and cares about. This is almost like the story that follows up one of the gangster films where we see someone leave the life only to get drawn back years later against his will. The film like to use the idea of violence being the breaking point for relationships between husband & wife, father & son and two brothers which gets played out perfectly. There is an air of tension from start to finish in the film which leaves us only wanting to see where things would go next.
Thriller – The film uses the tension to keep us feeling uneasy through nearly each moment in the film never knowing what would happen next.
Settings – The film is set in a small town which Tom makes safe and happy, if would make sense for his character to be there too, it shows how media can expose anybody’s secret.
Scene of the Movie – The first crime rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The bullying side which isn’t the most important thing we see.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best modern thrillers you will see, you have four stunning performances and shocks around each corner.
Overall: Stunning thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/21/viggo-mortensen-weekend-a-history-of-violence-2005/
The act of heroism brings gangster Carl Fogarty (Harris) to town who claims Tom is from the criminal underworld hiding out with his older brother Richie (Hurt) waiting for him to return back to the criminal world.
Thoughts on A History of Violence
Characters – Tom Stall is a quiet man, running a diner having a loving family, he steps up to protect his customers and friends makes him a local hero. Now he has drawn a target on his chest with his past coming back to haunt him. Edie is the wife of Tom, she works in law bring home the bigger pay checks, she supports Tom, until she learns the truth and must decide where she stands with him. Carl Fogarty is the mysterious stranger that arrives in town claiming to know Tom from a previous life, he brings the danger back into Tom’s life with the past he wanted to run away from. Richie is the crime boss and brother to Tom, he has been searching for his brother for years and now sees the chance for the connection.
Performances – Viggo Mortensen is outstanding in this leading role we see how he keeps his character perfectly calm in everyday life and how the switch can make him a deadly killer, this is an ability that not everyone can achieve. Maria Bello is strong in her role as a woman unsure who her husband really is. Ed Harris and William Hurt in the supporting role are fantastic both take over the screen with their presence adding much needed tension to everything.
Story – The story here follows a mild-mannered man whose past comes back to haunt him after protect people he loves and cares about. This is almost like the story that follows up one of the gangster films where we see someone leave the life only to get drawn back years later against his will. The film like to use the idea of violence being the breaking point for relationships between husband & wife, father & son and two brothers which gets played out perfectly. There is an air of tension from start to finish in the film which leaves us only wanting to see where things would go next.
Thriller – The film uses the tension to keep us feeling uneasy through nearly each moment in the film never knowing what would happen next.
Settings – The film is set in a small town which Tom makes safe and happy, if would make sense for his character to be there too, it shows how media can expose anybody’s secret.
Scene of the Movie – The first crime rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The bullying side which isn’t the most important thing we see.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best modern thrillers you will see, you have four stunning performances and shocks around each corner.
Overall: Stunning thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/21/viggo-mortensen-weekend-a-history-of-violence-2005/