Change Your Image
LWSheffield
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Great Odin's Raven!
**contains spoilers** In no way is this a criticism but my immediate review of this movie for anyone who asked was that it was jingling keys for a baby. For a movie titled Ragnarok - essentially the apocalypse - it all feels somewhat inconsequential as soon as you come away from it, however it is a contender for one of the most entertaining MCU offerings.
It looks great, its pacing is fast and tidy, there are enough tie-ins to the wider MCU to satisfy and finally there is genuine humour in a Thor movie.
I believe this movie will have good re-watch value and is a fine example of what Taika Waititi is capable of with a big budget, alongside his successful and excellent indie portfolio.
I can see that some people will struggle with this movie as nearly everything is played for the joke, and almost every time it hits. The 'Loki turning into a snake' story and every Korg section are hilarious, and the only two misses in the movie for me were the 'Des & Troy' line and the Hela fight scene where she slays an entire army which looked a little too much like CGI Neo fighting a thousand agent Smiths.
The 'Planet Hulk' section is awesome and gives new depth on this character. The Grandmaster is fun, but slightly overstays his welcome (see post-credit scene) and the ending is a perfect cliff-hanger for those of us counting down the days to Infinity War.
The Dark Tower (2017)
We need a bigger, bolder sequel
Having not read the books, I was left with so many questions after watching this movie. My score is not great, but I definitely want to know more about the gunslingers and the universe this takes place in. I just felt as though they dramatically underestimated how much of this world the audience could absorb and decided to settle for a short and sweet approach rather than giving us some of the more superfluous detail that might not have carried the story forward as much, but would have helped paint a bigger picture of the context in which all of this takes place. I felt the casting let this film down slightly, again not for the reason you would expect. it was far from bad, in fact it was too good. Elba and McConaughey are both excellent actors, but in this case I could not see beyond them and believe the characters they were portraying. Their performances were both to the high standard you would expect, but their prevalence in cinema and television has perhaps slightly overexposed us to them to allow them to believably become such far removed characters. The action scenes in this movie are very cool but they only further serve to tease you with something you would love to see so much more of. I sincerely hope this gets a sequel and they are braver in their future approach, fulfilling the potential this movie so clearly has.
The Snowman (2017)
cold and tiresome
I found this film quite a laboured watch. It tended to feel like a stomp through knee high snow rather than the slick pacy thriller the trailer would have you believe it to be. The partnership between Fassbender and Ferguson feels contrived and as a result fails to grow the emotional capital required to make you feel anything towards the end. I also found the twist too plainly signposted. The stark colour palette of the film helped emphasise the remote beauty of this film's location, but a little distraction might have been welcome. Ultimately this film makes you wait a long time for something to happen, and when it finally does it feels like scant reward for your efforts.
Gerald's Game (2017)
Just out of reach...
**includes spoilers** This is a film about reaching for things which are hard to get, both physically and emotionally. On both counts you find that these ends are reach, but perhaps not by the most desirable means. Jessie's struggle to free herself is quite nicely propelled forwards by ideas arriving through the conversations with her imagined self, Gerald or the flashbacks, and the final means of escape is a teeth-gritting watch that does hark back nicely to the days of more visceral, physical effects. The bump in the road with this film comes with the true narrative behind the 'freedom' Jessie finds not only from the handcuffs, but also from the imposing males that have emotionally stifled her in life. Although this subject is not handled terribly, it doesn't carry enough weight in the relatively short runtime of this film for you to buy in to her new found empowered nature. This is also at odds with the reveal that 'the moonlight man' is actually real - a twist that might not have felt so averse to the tone of the movie if I wasn't presented with the suggestion that he was there to have sex with Gerald's corpse. Gerald however, may take solace in the fact that the dirty weekend he planned was not a total washout.
Project Almanac (2015)
The Transforming Butterfly Effect
It doesn't take long to review any film Michael Bay has been anywhere near so I'll keep this brief. Remember the early 'Transformers' films? Shia LaBeouf's nerd character inexplicably gets with Megan Fox's over-sexualised mega-babe character. Its just that again with a younger nerd + babe - because these films are produced by 'dudes' who have to throw in the creepy scenes where they zoom in on the girls' tits, asses and legs and we all have to leer along with them because its just dudes being dudes - even when they're nerds. After the first third of the film replays Transformers for us, we are then treated to the second act of overlong experiment scenes and super-cool time travel experiences which go to the trouble of highlighting every issue they could think of with time travel, and then go and create some inexplicable paradoxes (how does he go back to the wall to kiss her when his past self is already there? why when they replay the classroom test scene do they not run into X amount of their past selves, also trying to replay this moment?) Then finally we get the third act, which can pretty much be summed up in three words that never needed to be the blueprint for anything - The Butterfly Effect. Somehow every combination of effects they have on the past directly effect their present in a negative way - shock horror. The film limps to a predictable end by tying up the mystery of the key ring that had everyone on the edge of their seats for all of 3 seconds. By this point you will be exhausted by all the questions this film raises and will just be glad its over, not caring that none of it makes sense.
It (2017)
Surprisingly good
This movie had me after minutes. The introduction of Pennywise is handled excellently by Bill Skarsgard who delivers a note-perfect interpretation. The switch from playful and infantile to menacing is no better exemplified than in the moment we hear him segue from a jubilant 'pop pop pop' to a guttural hiss. Genuinely the stuff of nightmares.
The film devotes time enough to each character to give them substance without diverting for too long from the threat of an appearance from 'IT'. The 'loser club' are as likable as the bullies are repulsive.
Perhaps the only downside to this film is the message that 'adults are the real monsters' is perhaps a little too on-the-nose but nevertheless this message certainly rings true.
A thoroughly enjoyable film and deservingly the surprise hit of this summer.
Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)
More Austin Powers than James Bond
Some people may assume the title of this review is an insult, but I would say there are equal parts positive and negative in this. Bond has become a laboured, sombre affair in recent years and though those films are still a quality product there is little fun to be had. Step in Kingsman - a high-octane, largely brainless British spy film that might lack the grit of Bond, but is infinitely more enjoyable. I watched this film with a perpetual grimace of disapproval at the cliché-riddled plot (a global super-villain with a lair; the protagonist being unusually proficient at driving and parkour before any of his training, despite being a no-hoper street youth; the mentor fast-tracking the protégé into a role of prominence against the odds etc...) yet... I carried on watching. I wanted to see what happened next despite the lack of originality because the film is paced well and holds your attention. The fight scenes are unnecessarily slow-motioned almost to a point of bending time infinitely, but they are also violent in a way many films are afraid to be for fear of bumping up their certificate and infringing on the profit margin. The Austin Powers ridiculousness of this movie was cemented in the closing minutes as Eggsy is rewarded for his heroics with the chance to engage in anal sex with a princess while Mark Strong has to watch and keep the engine running. Yep, that actually happens... but in fairness, it actually makes the rest of the film seem palatable in hindsight.
Annabelle: Creation (2017)
Everything about it rings a(nna)belle
Far from an awful movie, but sadly lacking in originality and bogged down with inconsistencies. The movie looks good and does contain some decent scares and tension-builders, but it ultimately leaves you with a sense of having seen nothing new and once again with a ton of questions about the 'rules' that define the power of the doll/demon. If this demon can rip the old lady in half at the end, then why is it farting around slamming doors and disappearing from under a sheet for an hour? If you have a doll that contains a soul-hungry demon locked in your back bedroom, find another form of penance other than inviting half a dozen curious, largely unsupervised children into your house.
What I did like was the tie-ins to The Nun and the first Annabelle film, both done well without being a huge nudge in the ribs.
In summary, nothing new to see here but a pretty enjoyable horror movie if you take it at face value.
It Comes at Night (2017)
A missed opportunity
**contains spoilers** Was this titled before it was written? I expect by the end of a movie called 'It Comes at Night', that I would be able to describe what the 'it' is, and would have seen something which made it clear to me why it wouldn't also come in the day. I am still trying to understand how the title relates to the film as a whole. It feels like the title of a spooky story a 9 year old would write, and I think when the immediacy the title suggests is not found in the film it juxtaposes what the viewer expects with what they get and ultimately creates a let down.
There are some good points to this movie.I've no problem with the ambiguity of the post-apocalyptic world. It adds an intrigue and is testament to the quality of the screenplay that there is no awkward expositional discussion about it. I think the pacing is good up to a point and the jump-scares are used sparingly and effectively. I think this movie comes apart in two places, which both feel as though they move too fast. The first is the introduction of the second family - this is too sudden. there is a real tension building on the way to get Will's wife and child with the 'is he / isn't he?' suspicion around the guys they meet in the woods and whether Paul can trust him. I feel like the abrupt cut back to the house and the family arriving gives a hard resolution to what could have been a sustained mystery. The second is the ending. We've seen it all before - the infection is in, and the infected must die. Again, no issues with this series of events, I've seen it a thousand times and it can rouse some emotional weight if the audience care about the characters. The trouble here is we don't. The bleak, stark isolation of the movie which has so wonderfully set the tone throughout becomes its own undoing. All of this is happening in a bubble, and we as the audience have only seen anything from within the bubble and so we are invested in making sure it doesn't burst. Paul has to kill Will and his family to preserve this and we are fine with that because we never got to see anything from their perspective. What becomes of Travis is the kicker, but there is a lack of real purpose to his character throughout which undermines this death. In the end you find yourself looking back at a series of half-explored plot lines (what did the dog chase? how is the infection spread? who opened the door at the end? were Travis' dreams relevant or foreboding, or were they just nightmares because they live in a post-apocalyptic hell where he recently had to destroy his mutant grandfather and he would have still had the same dreams if he lived to be 90?)
There was real potential with this film, but it felt as though there wasn't a real vision of how the ideas needed to be explored.
Spectre (2015)
Weighed down by the spectre of Bond (get it?)
WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS (sort of) This movie helped me work out why the only Bond films I tend to like are the first in a new series by a new actor playing the titular role. The series is locked in a never ending series of nudges, winks and nods to the past. Each new Bond attempts to reset this and does so to a degree, e.g. the 'tough' Bond we get played by Daniel Craig (There's no way Pierce Brosnan is sitting naked on a chair getting his balls smashed in), but then it slopes steadily back towards the tropes that define Bond as a whole. This guy is a hardened killer, he could stab himself in the leg and his heartbeat wouldn't raise. Daniel Craig is a good actor so we believe this too, we buy into the fact that Bond as we now know him is athletic, hard as nails and will stop at nothing to get the job done - yet we are asked to believe that he can fall in love once every two years? That this husk of a human being can fall victim to his emotions on such a regular basis? It's these staple Bond-isms that kill the pace of the film and take you out of the moment. We open with Bond taking some woman up to a room, only to then hop out of a window to kill someone. Why?! Who the f**k is she? Is she now a witness that needs to be murdered? I assume this bit is there just to remind us that Bond loves to f**k, but he was never going up there to have sex, he was out of that window straight away. Then later we get Bond showing up at a funeral to seduce the widow, like Will Ferrell in Wedding Crashers. There is no cause for it and it doesn't suit the tone of the film, the information he gets from this could have been acquired a million other ways. Then we finally get Madeleine, who tells Bond no and you think 'wow, finally'. Oh but wouldn't you know it, we get a boring romantic scene on the train where Bond reminds us that in his world no means yes. This only serves to end the film like most other Bond films where the who-gives-a-s**t love interest is in peril and Bond can do his dead-eyed, sad clown without makeup face.
Overall this isn't a terrible movie, it looks great and there are some cool set pieces, but it struggles to get to the point because it has so many historic boxes to tick. Do we have to go to Q's office in every film to see some inventions? Can Bond just do one cool thing without adjusting his cuff? Can 'M' stop being surprised that after 50 years of doing whatever the f**k he wants, that Bond has just done it again?
There is a lot of detail to this film that requires you to give it your full attention, but you will find yourself going blurry eyed and missing it because it repeats so much that you don't realise when you need to check back in. You really expect me to recall the identikit post-2000 billionaire villains from the other movies in this franchise whilst also trying to force out a s**t to give about MI5 and MI6 merging??
Some people are saying Daniel Craig doesn't look like he enjoys the role anymore, but I think its the opposite. I think he's in too deep, he looks as laboured and drained as this Bond should be. He kills people for a living and has no life, even Moneypenny gives him s**t about this. I suppose that's something new at least.