Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghostbusters (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I ain't afraid of no reboot
So it’s here. One of the most reviled films of the decade before it was even released; the Ghostbusters reboot has a tough job persuading fans of the original films and newcomers alike that it’s worth their time.
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018 (Updated Mar 24, 2018)
What? Why? How?
Right, quick disclaimer - this is going to be less of a review of the movie and more of a rant on how this movie ruins any Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Dec 4, 2018
Not "So Awful It's Good", just Awful
One of the surprise hits of the summer of 2018 was the "so bad it's good" mega-shark movie THE MEG, starring the impediment of modern-day machismo, Jason Statham. So, when I saw that it was streaming on DirecTV, I thought I'd melt into the couch with a blanket and a beverage of my choice and relish in the over-the-top awfulness that is THE MEG.
Well...I am here to report that THE MEG is awful, just not over-the-top "so bad it's good" awful. It's just awful - and that is an awful disappointment.
I can see the pitch now - THE MEG is "Jaws, but bigger, it's Mega-Jaws! What were the best parts of Jaws? Well, we're gonna do that again, just more!" But what these filmmakers failed to realize is that the best part of Jaws isn't the shark attacking, it's the interaction of the 3 men who go off in search of the shark.
And...the folks that are "fish-fodder" for this big shark just aren't interesting enough. The filmmakers give Jason Statham a PTSD backstory that is forgotten about 2 minutes into the film. His nemesis/former crewmate (a forgettable Robert Taylor) hates Statham's character for about 5 minutes...the stalwart captain is...well stalwart and he is played by "I always melt into the background" Cliff Curtis. Rubie Rose is on-board as the "young genius" who's good looks and youth makes everyone underestimate her - even after she proves over and over again that she is young and a GENIUS. And then, there's good ol' Rain Wilson (Dwight from THE OFFICE) who's the megalomaniacal mega-billionaire who wants to capture (not kill) The Meg for profit.
The problem with all these characters (and others like Masi Oka's homesick scientist) is that they are one-note but not SO one note that they are over-the-top caricatures. They're just boring and forgettable.
As for the shark killings (the real reason that The Meg is intriguing), they are just as boring and forgettable as the characters. Most of them are homages to kills ni the Jaws series of films, so there is some fun in that, but none of them are truly unique and original or over-the-top enough.
The blame, I think, probably goes to "the suits" at Warner Brothers or perhaps Gravity Pictures. There are 3 writers on this, so clearly the script kept getting sent back to the drawing board - and 19(!) producers attached. I heard that Eli Roth was attached at one point and he wanted to make it EXTREMELY graphic and bloody - but "the suits" wanted something they could market to a broader audience, so let him go and hired the always mediocre Jon Turtletaub (LAST VEGAS, THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE) to Direct and mediocrity reigns all over.
If you want a "so bad it's good" mega-shark film and check out DEEP BLUE SEA (the Samuel L. Jackson speech in this film is worth the price of admission). And when you see THE MEG on whatever streaming platform you prefer and are prepared to watch it "for a laugh", save yourself the bother (and the boredom) and stream something else.
Letter Grade: C (it is competently made)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...I am here to report that THE MEG is awful, just not over-the-top "so bad it's good" awful. It's just awful - and that is an awful disappointment.
I can see the pitch now - THE MEG is "Jaws, but bigger, it's Mega-Jaws! What were the best parts of Jaws? Well, we're gonna do that again, just more!" But what these filmmakers failed to realize is that the best part of Jaws isn't the shark attacking, it's the interaction of the 3 men who go off in search of the shark.
And...the folks that are "fish-fodder" for this big shark just aren't interesting enough. The filmmakers give Jason Statham a PTSD backstory that is forgotten about 2 minutes into the film. His nemesis/former crewmate (a forgettable Robert Taylor) hates Statham's character for about 5 minutes...the stalwart captain is...well stalwart and he is played by "I always melt into the background" Cliff Curtis. Rubie Rose is on-board as the "young genius" who's good looks and youth makes everyone underestimate her - even after she proves over and over again that she is young and a GENIUS. And then, there's good ol' Rain Wilson (Dwight from THE OFFICE) who's the megalomaniacal mega-billionaire who wants to capture (not kill) The Meg for profit.
The problem with all these characters (and others like Masi Oka's homesick scientist) is that they are one-note but not SO one note that they are over-the-top caricatures. They're just boring and forgettable.
As for the shark killings (the real reason that The Meg is intriguing), they are just as boring and forgettable as the characters. Most of them are homages to kills ni the Jaws series of films, so there is some fun in that, but none of them are truly unique and original or over-the-top enough.
The blame, I think, probably goes to "the suits" at Warner Brothers or perhaps Gravity Pictures. There are 3 writers on this, so clearly the script kept getting sent back to the drawing board - and 19(!) producers attached. I heard that Eli Roth was attached at one point and he wanted to make it EXTREMELY graphic and bloody - but "the suits" wanted something they could market to a broader audience, so let him go and hired the always mediocre Jon Turtletaub (LAST VEGAS, THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE) to Direct and mediocrity reigns all over.
If you want a "so bad it's good" mega-shark film and check out DEEP BLUE SEA (the Samuel L. Jackson speech in this film is worth the price of admission). And when you see THE MEG on whatever streaming platform you prefer and are prepared to watch it "for a laugh", save yourself the bother (and the boredom) and stream something else.
Letter Grade: C (it is competently made)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The First Purge (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Usually when a film reaches the fourth in a series there is the danger of becoming stale and repeating things form the prior film. With the release of “The First Purge”, the creator of the series, James DeMonaco; has stepped away from directing duties this time around and has turned his script over to Director Gerald McMurray to tell the tale of how the Purge began.
With crime, unemployment, and other social issues at all all-time high, a new political group; known as the “New Founding Fathers of America” rises to power and plan to implement a bold new experiment to get the country back on track.
Dr. Updale (Marisa Tomei) has a plan to legalize all crime including murder for a 12-hour span. The idea is that by allowing people to vent their frustrations, it will allow them to be happier in the situations and better able to face the challenges they have.
The decision is made to set it in a poor community in Staten Island and naturally protests arise over this especially from community leaders who see the cash incentives being offered to stay in the area and take part in the event as exploiting the poor.
Despite worldwide condemnation and protests, the event goes on as planned and for the most part does not result in the mass carnage that many expected.
Local criminal Kingpin Dmitri (Y’Lan Noel) plans to ride out the event in his compound surrounded by his crew as he believes that his fortified and well-armed locale will be more than enough to ensure his safety. Others in the community stay at home, gather at a church, or take to the streets for parties and mayhem as nobody really knows what to expect.
Under the watchful gaze of the government, it soon becomes clear that the events of the evening are being manipulated and that there is a much bigger and more sinister agenda behind the event.
When squads of well-armed mercenaries enter the community and start killing everyone they encounter, Dmitri and others must work with one another to survive the night.
The film takes a bit to get started as it spends a good amount of time introducing us to the various characters we will meet over the evening and it helps to show the community and how the events of the evening motivate the various characters.
The series has always been heavy on social commentary and the inclusion of characters and costumes that are clearly inspired by various hate groups throughout history is impossible to miss and the film seems to be pushing home the message that society needs to be careful as we are close to heading down the dystopian path that the series depicts.
If you have seen any of the film in the series, you know what to expect as it shows what happens when humanity is not bound by the laws of society and the threat of punishment. The cast works well as they are not simply fodder to be endangered and disposed of when the Purge begins.
There is a 10-episode television series coming soon and it will be interesting to see where the franchise goes following it. For now, “The First Purge” should be an entertaining enough film for fans of the series
http://sknr.net/2018/07/03/the-first-purge/
With crime, unemployment, and other social issues at all all-time high, a new political group; known as the “New Founding Fathers of America” rises to power and plan to implement a bold new experiment to get the country back on track.
Dr. Updale (Marisa Tomei) has a plan to legalize all crime including murder for a 12-hour span. The idea is that by allowing people to vent their frustrations, it will allow them to be happier in the situations and better able to face the challenges they have.
The decision is made to set it in a poor community in Staten Island and naturally protests arise over this especially from community leaders who see the cash incentives being offered to stay in the area and take part in the event as exploiting the poor.
Despite worldwide condemnation and protests, the event goes on as planned and for the most part does not result in the mass carnage that many expected.
Local criminal Kingpin Dmitri (Y’Lan Noel) plans to ride out the event in his compound surrounded by his crew as he believes that his fortified and well-armed locale will be more than enough to ensure his safety. Others in the community stay at home, gather at a church, or take to the streets for parties and mayhem as nobody really knows what to expect.
Under the watchful gaze of the government, it soon becomes clear that the events of the evening are being manipulated and that there is a much bigger and more sinister agenda behind the event.
When squads of well-armed mercenaries enter the community and start killing everyone they encounter, Dmitri and others must work with one another to survive the night.
The film takes a bit to get started as it spends a good amount of time introducing us to the various characters we will meet over the evening and it helps to show the community and how the events of the evening motivate the various characters.
The series has always been heavy on social commentary and the inclusion of characters and costumes that are clearly inspired by various hate groups throughout history is impossible to miss and the film seems to be pushing home the message that society needs to be careful as we are close to heading down the dystopian path that the series depicts.
If you have seen any of the film in the series, you know what to expect as it shows what happens when humanity is not bound by the laws of society and the threat of punishment. The cast works well as they are not simply fodder to be endangered and disposed of when the Purge begins.
There is a 10-episode television series coming soon and it will be interesting to see where the franchise goes following it. For now, “The First Purge” should be an entertaining enough film for fans of the series
http://sknr.net/2018/07/03/the-first-purge/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Los Angeles of 2028 is a riot laden area where Martial Law is the norm and brutality is a way of life. Amidst this setting, the Hotel Artemis is open for business.. The Artemis is not your typical hotel as it provides emergency medical services to members who engage in criminal activities.
The Nurse (Jodie Foster) runs the facility and with the help of her massive Orderly Everest (Dave Bautista), they ensure that only members get admitted and follow the rules as well as receive state of the art care while in the facility.
Guests at the facility are giving names based on the suite in which they are assigned which involve geographical locales and there are a very strict set of rules they must follow such as no guns, bombs, killing other guests, and so on.
The Hotel Artemis is not a simple stitch and bandage facility as they offer advanced medical services such as Nanites, replacement organ printing, robotic A.I. medical treatment and other services which in 2018 seem like Science Fiction.
Enter Waikiki (Sterling K. Brown), who has tried to leave his criminal past behind him yet was savvy enough to keep paying his membership fees at the Artemis all the while. He and his brother have been injured in a heist and with the city under a deadly riot, they make their way to the Artemis to get treatment and hide out from the chaos outside.
Thanks to their services, the hotel is rarely empty and an Arms Dealer named Acapulco (Charlie Day), and an assassin named Nice (Sofia Boutella), are also in residence. The fact that Nice and Waikiki have a past association makes things a bit interesting as guests are always mindful of those around them even though the strict rules of membership exist to ward off any threats or danger to the guests or staff.
Complications arise when the near capacity hotel is informed that the Wolf King of L.A. (Jeff Goldblum) is en- route. The Nurse opts to follow the rules of first come first served and in doing so enrages his son (Zachary Quinto), who decided to barricade the Hotel to make sure nobody gets in before his father, who incidentally owns the facility.
As if this was not enough of a complication, a police officer from troubled past of The Nurse arrives begging for help which sets a very dangerous chain of events into motion.
The film is a very fresh and entertaining story filled with interesting characters, strong performances, and just enough action to keep the film moving along but yet keeping the focus as a character based drama.
First time Director Drew Pearce gets the most of his cast and has used his script to create a very entertaining and unique film that is well worth a watch. It is so nice to see Jodie Foster showing us once again that she is one of the most gifted actresses of our time as the two-time Oscar winner goes all in to portray a very damaged and troubled character who for what she lacks in glamour; more than makes up for with a determined strength.
I hope this film is a success as I would love to see more stories from the Hotel as I really enjoyed the film from start to finish.
http://sknr.net/2018/06/07/hotel-artemis/
The Nurse (Jodie Foster) runs the facility and with the help of her massive Orderly Everest (Dave Bautista), they ensure that only members get admitted and follow the rules as well as receive state of the art care while in the facility.
Guests at the facility are giving names based on the suite in which they are assigned which involve geographical locales and there are a very strict set of rules they must follow such as no guns, bombs, killing other guests, and so on.
The Hotel Artemis is not a simple stitch and bandage facility as they offer advanced medical services such as Nanites, replacement organ printing, robotic A.I. medical treatment and other services which in 2018 seem like Science Fiction.
Enter Waikiki (Sterling K. Brown), who has tried to leave his criminal past behind him yet was savvy enough to keep paying his membership fees at the Artemis all the while. He and his brother have been injured in a heist and with the city under a deadly riot, they make their way to the Artemis to get treatment and hide out from the chaos outside.
Thanks to their services, the hotel is rarely empty and an Arms Dealer named Acapulco (Charlie Day), and an assassin named Nice (Sofia Boutella), are also in residence. The fact that Nice and Waikiki have a past association makes things a bit interesting as guests are always mindful of those around them even though the strict rules of membership exist to ward off any threats or danger to the guests or staff.
Complications arise when the near capacity hotel is informed that the Wolf King of L.A. (Jeff Goldblum) is en- route. The Nurse opts to follow the rules of first come first served and in doing so enrages his son (Zachary Quinto), who decided to barricade the Hotel to make sure nobody gets in before his father, who incidentally owns the facility.
As if this was not enough of a complication, a police officer from troubled past of The Nurse arrives begging for help which sets a very dangerous chain of events into motion.
The film is a very fresh and entertaining story filled with interesting characters, strong performances, and just enough action to keep the film moving along but yet keeping the focus as a character based drama.
First time Director Drew Pearce gets the most of his cast and has used his script to create a very entertaining and unique film that is well worth a watch. It is so nice to see Jodie Foster showing us once again that she is one of the most gifted actresses of our time as the two-time Oscar winner goes all in to portray a very damaged and troubled character who for what she lacks in glamour; more than makes up for with a determined strength.
I hope this film is a success as I would love to see more stories from the Hotel as I really enjoyed the film from start to finish.
http://sknr.net/2018/06/07/hotel-artemis/
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 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/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
5 years after the release of the first Lego Movie, these lovable characters are back with a brand new adventure. I had such a blast with the original so I was interested to see how they’d continue the story.
In The Lego Movie 2 the residents of Bricksburg are faced with a new threat, soon seeing the city they love destroyed by aliens from Duplo. This leaves them living in a wasteland with a brand new name; Apocalypseburg. Self explanatory really. Everyone was subsequently forced to toughen up and get on with it, except for Emmet (Chris Pratt) of course. He’s still his adorable, optimistic self, with hilarious results.
Emmet’s world is turned upside down when his friends are abducted, including Lucy/Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), whom he cares about very deeply and everyone’s favourite broody superhero, Batman (Will Arnett). When the rest of the city refuses to help, Emmet embarks on a dangerous quest to rescue them and stop another apocalypse. As if one wasn’t bad enough.
Whilst not as strong as its predecessor, I still had a good time with The Lego Movie 2. The soundtrack in particular stood out to me, and I thought it really added to the overall narrative. New character Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) stole the show for me, with her song ‘Not Evil’ being my favourite one. The lyrics are hilarious as she desperately tries to convince Lucy and the gang that she’s a kind, trustworthy person. Considering she kidnapped people, Lucy is certainly not convinced by this.
On his journey to save his friends, Emmet encounters a rugged, charming adventurer named Rex Dangervest (also voiced by Chris Pratt) and the two team up. Hilariously, Rex has pet velociraptors which is an obvious reference to Jurassic World, and something that tickled me throughout the film.
I was surprised at how well-written and clever the script was. Because of this, I believe audiences of all ages can enjoy it due to the array of cultural references and adult humour. It may be easy to write this off as ‘just a kid’s film’, but to me, it’s more than that. It’s a joy to watch with some genuine messages about self-reflection and the importance of friendship.
Much like the first film, The Lego Movie 2 also utilises visual gags where characters build things to escape sticky situations. I always admire the creative process behind this and it never fails to make me laugh, reminding me of all the crazy things I used to build when I still had my Lego sets. The film’s imagination knows no bounds, reinforcing the versatile nature of these toys. You can build anything if you put your mind to it.
Overall, I would recommend this film if you’re looking to switch off and be transported to a crazy world where Lego characters unite and get into adventures. It’s not a well polished, award-winning film, but that doesn’t matter. It’s a solid couple of hours worth of entertainment and fun for all the family. Sometimes that’s all that matters.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/28/%E2%99%AB-this-reviews-gonna-get-stuck-inside-your-%E2%99%AB-my-thoughts-on-the-lego-movie-2/
In The Lego Movie 2 the residents of Bricksburg are faced with a new threat, soon seeing the city they love destroyed by aliens from Duplo. This leaves them living in a wasteland with a brand new name; Apocalypseburg. Self explanatory really. Everyone was subsequently forced to toughen up and get on with it, except for Emmet (Chris Pratt) of course. He’s still his adorable, optimistic self, with hilarious results.
Emmet’s world is turned upside down when his friends are abducted, including Lucy/Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), whom he cares about very deeply and everyone’s favourite broody superhero, Batman (Will Arnett). When the rest of the city refuses to help, Emmet embarks on a dangerous quest to rescue them and stop another apocalypse. As if one wasn’t bad enough.
Whilst not as strong as its predecessor, I still had a good time with The Lego Movie 2. The soundtrack in particular stood out to me, and I thought it really added to the overall narrative. New character Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) stole the show for me, with her song ‘Not Evil’ being my favourite one. The lyrics are hilarious as she desperately tries to convince Lucy and the gang that she’s a kind, trustworthy person. Considering she kidnapped people, Lucy is certainly not convinced by this.
On his journey to save his friends, Emmet encounters a rugged, charming adventurer named Rex Dangervest (also voiced by Chris Pratt) and the two team up. Hilariously, Rex has pet velociraptors which is an obvious reference to Jurassic World, and something that tickled me throughout the film.
I was surprised at how well-written and clever the script was. Because of this, I believe audiences of all ages can enjoy it due to the array of cultural references and adult humour. It may be easy to write this off as ‘just a kid’s film’, but to me, it’s more than that. It’s a joy to watch with some genuine messages about self-reflection and the importance of friendship.
Much like the first film, The Lego Movie 2 also utilises visual gags where characters build things to escape sticky situations. I always admire the creative process behind this and it never fails to make me laugh, reminding me of all the crazy things I used to build when I still had my Lego sets. The film’s imagination knows no bounds, reinforcing the versatile nature of these toys. You can build anything if you put your mind to it.
Overall, I would recommend this film if you’re looking to switch off and be transported to a crazy world where Lego characters unite and get into adventures. It’s not a well polished, award-winning film, but that doesn’t matter. It’s a solid couple of hours worth of entertainment and fun for all the family. Sometimes that’s all that matters.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/28/%E2%99%AB-this-reviews-gonna-get-stuck-inside-your-%E2%99%AB-my-thoughts-on-the-lego-movie-2/