Tag: Movie review

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) Film Review

Rating 12a
Length 2h13
Release 5.7.2017
Director Jon Watts
About Peter Parker tries to stop the Vulture from selling weapons made with advanced Chitauri technology while trying to balance his life as an ordinary high school student.
Moon: None sighted
Where to Watch: Netflix
Trailer:

The Good

  • I love that this film didn’t go all the way back to the beginning and give us an origin story for Holland’s Parker. It allows this film to give us something different from previous incarnations.
    It also allows this Parker to not be entrenched in the grief of Uncle Ben’s death or set on a path of revenge. We get to have a much younger Parker, who is able to truly have fun.
  • Michael Keaton is such a genius bit of casting, characterisation and plotting. Choosing a past Batman has very little impact on the plot, but there’s all the meta goodness that adds to the cinematic experience.
    It’s not lost on me that Vulture is the anti-batman. Where Bruce was a millionaire, Toomes is a working-class everyman embittered by the Marvel’s equivalent of Bruce Wayne.
    I also love the I’d that the name, Vulture, is not only a bird of prey, but is also a scavenger. It describes the aesthetic of Toomes technology, but it is very descriptive of the character too.
  • Ned is a spectacular friend and I’m so happy that he’s not Harry. I adore every scene in which Ned is just himself.
  • Tom Holland really is ideal for the role of Peter Parker. He’s first of all young looking enough to know that he’d at least be carded, but the choice to have Stark as a mentor allows the story freedom for Parker to fail. He’s not the first and final line of defence and it changes the tone of the film and the character expectation of Peter Parker.

The Bad

  • It is a tad too long for it to be a regular rewatch movie for me. By no means a unique issue for MCU movies, but I find myself restless just at the moment when I need to be paying attention.
    The only problem with this, however, is that I have no idea what I *would* remove to trim the fat.

The Ugly

  • I’m so mad that this film did the dirty on Donald Glover! That man was born for a live action Miles Morales so while having him in this was amazing, I’m devastated that it perhaps rules him out from the upcoming multiverse film ‘No Way Home’.

Final Thoughts

Truly my favourite of the the Spider-Man films and I’m so happy that, as of a few hours ago, Tom Holland has been announced for three more films.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Rating12a
Length 2h22
Release 16.4.2014
Director Marc Webb
About Spider-Man embarks on a mission to protect his loved ones when OsCorp, owned by his childhood friend Harry Osborn, unleashes a slew of genetically-modified villains against him.
Moon: Full moon when Harry grabs Gwen
Where to Watch: Netflix
Trailer:

The Good

  • The way this film starts and ends is brilliant. Having us come in, part way through the action is refreshing and pulls you in right away. Then that mid-punch cut to credits allows you to take the story home with you; your imagination takes over and allows Spider-Man to linger with you a little longer.
  • I love the score and music choices; from Peter Parker having the Spider-Man ringtone, to the use of Electro’s words in the music that accompanies his attendance at Times Square.
  • I love the references. Particularly the Jaws reference while Parker troubleshoots his webbing devices.

The Bad

  • Again with the outcast and diversely abled as the villain. I refuse to call any neurodivergent person disabled. However, for the purposes of this film, it does appear to use Max’s neurodivergent characterisation for the age-old cliche.
  • It’s in the blood. I’m actually a little on the fence about this one. On the one hand, it allows the universe to explain the impact of others using the research. On the other, it is Chosen One plotting and to me it feels done. Even in 2014, never mind rewatching here in 2021.
  • The slow-motion! Way too much for me. Not so much in and of itself, but more because I’ve been conditioned to hate it by someone I used to go the cinema a lot with. It triggers all the complaints in my head. Only some of which are valid.

The Ugly

  • The certainly felt like there was more dependence on CGI for this outing, and some of it really shows. Rather than look like it was from a cartoon, it looks like it comes from game play at times.
  • Gwen and Peter/ Spider-Man is only here because I loath the fact that they make them SUCH a great team, for *that* to happen to her. That dynamic was incredible.

Final Thoughts

A decent offering and I will be honest, I am quite sad there wasn’t a third outing.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Film Review

Rating 12a
Length 2h16
Release 3.7.2012
Director Mark Webb
About Peter Parker, an outcast high school student, gets bitten by a radioactive spider and attains superpowers. Soon, he is forced to use his abilities to fight a monstrous foe.
Moon: Full moon during the final scene
Where to Watch: netflix
Trailer:

The Good

  • Yes, it is another origin story but I do like how different it is to the 2002 version. This is no Batman, we’re not seeing the same scenes with different actors.
    I also love that with this origin story, we get a glimpse of Peter’s childhood and the fate of his parent’s. The way it ties into his journey of becoming Spider-Man is also really clever.
  • Martin Sheen and Sally Field as the Aunt and Uncle was just perfect. Sheen has this was of having a firm and fiery nature without it being too harsh. There’s always that understanding that it’s coming from a place of love. As for Field, gah! She doesn’t quite beat the previous Aunt May, but she is a joy to watch and is able to give us wisdom and love in bucket loads.
  • I love that Garfield’s Peter doesn’t give a shit about keeping his identity too secret. It makes for a much different, better, type of hero. Telling Gwen, showing his face to the kid in the car it all allows him to be a little more grounded and have a little more support.
    It also gives us the added conflict with Captain Stacy and I wouldn’t change that for anything.

The Bad

  • I don’t like how both Peters have this stalker vibe when it comes to their crushes. While I loved that it set up Sheen for the whole “He has you on his computer”, I really do hate that he has her as the desktop wallpaper. Creepy!

The Ugly

  • Yet another villain with a disability. Yes, this one has a little bit of a connection in terms of it being the driving force for the character’s research. There’s also the logical leap of using genetics from animals that are able to regrow body parts.
    However clever and ‘rational’ the plotting might be, it still remains a problematic trope and one that has a massive impact upon how disabilities are seen in society. It really is a shame because Rhys Ifans does a brilliant job.

Final Thoughts

In the run of all Spider-Man movies up to 2012, this is the strongest by far. We have a decent Peter Parker who fairs well as Spider-Man.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Rating 12a
Length 2h19
Release 4.5.2021
Director Sam Raimi
About Peter Parker becomes one with a symbiotic alien that bolsters his Spider-Man avatar and affects his psyche. He also has to deal with Sandman and maintain a fragmented relationship with Mary Jane.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Netflix
Trailer:

The Good

  • The one thing every one of Raimi’s films have gotten right is the feature’s main villain. Thomas Hayden Church! God, I love Thomas Hayden Church! I could listen to him all day, I’ve yet to see him give a bad performance (Although it is fair to say that I might never give Crash Pad another watch, but that has less to do with anyone’s performance and more to do with the mortifying predicament of watching Domhnall Gleeson explain he’d had his tongue up another character’s cootch… while watching it with my Dad!)
    I would say that Church’s Sandman is the most serious of Spidey’s enemies and I’m glad there was no hamming. While I’m sure THC is capable, it would have clashed with the overall darkness this instalment seemed to be going for.
  • Yay for attempting to bring in another bad. Yes, I do mean attempt. However, I’m glad of them increasing the number because it was getting a little too predictable.
  • Peter and Harry’s eventual team-up. Brilliant, loved it. Came too late for me, but I personally think the whole Harry story arc was a load of bollocks.

The Bad

  • Harry, Harry, Harry. What the fuck did they do to this storyline?! Like, why have the memory loss for Peter not to learn from his mistake and tell the poor bloke the truth? Well, I know why… the film cannot handle three villains. To be fair, it can barely handle two, so I think that’s why Harry is side-lined, then Sandman. It’s just a fucking mess.
  • In order to bring in Gwen Stacy, did the film really have to shit all over MJ the way it did?! What’s worse is that Gwen gets booted out of the film after the emo-Jazz scene. There needed to at least be a resolution there because the character, and Bryce Dallas Howard who did a brilliant job, deserved better.

The Ugly

  • The retcon of Uncle Ben’s killer. In fact, the continuation of bringing Uncle Ben’s death to the forefront of the plot really doesn’t do this trilogy justice. This retcon removes all of the importance of Peter’s reveal to Aunt May in the previous film, it cheapens the death of the assumed killer in the first film and, worst of all, it bloats this stinking floater way more than necessary.
  • The infamous ‘Emo Peter’. While I’ve discovered during this rewatch Maguire’s Peter is a total douche all the way through, it is this Venom inspired interlude that is hardest to digest.
    Yes, we have found meme enjoyment over the years but I think watching it, is very different that utilising the stills. Fuck me, I want to die a little inside because of how bad it all unfolds and just how shit Maguire is with it; it’s too big for him.

Final Thoughts

I’d only seen this once before, in the cinema. I’d remembered this feeling of hating it, but I always put that down to the fact that I went on to have one of the biggest fights with a dear friend hours after I’d seen this. I never really spoke to him again after that and I do really miss him.

However, it wasn’t that. This film is an underdeveloped, post morning-coffee turd. It’s so bad that even when I missed the crucial part of the final showdown, I could not bring myself to rewind.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Rating PG
Length 2h07
Release 16.7.2004
Director Sam Raimi
About Peter Parker is dissatisfied with life when he loses his job, the love of his life, Mary Jane, and his powers. Amid all the chaos, he must fight Doctor Octavius who threatens to destroy New York City.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Now TV
Trailer:

The Good

  • The visual style is much improved and it’s a lot less ‘primary colours in your face) and is much closer in tone to the X-Men films of the same era.
  • I love Doc Ock and his origin story. What does suck is the fact that in all of Maguire’s outings, the villain dies often after becoming aware of what they’ve done and the monster they’ve become.
    I mention this because Alfred Molina is so good, I’m sorry to see him go. Molina, much like Dafoe before him, is able to take on the duality of the role and provide depth as well as a little ham.
  • I really love the arms of Doc Ock. They have that personality quality to a Disney familiar. Each one seems to take on its own characteristics and its quite awesome to watch.
  • Aunt May! Oh, I do love this Aunt May. Yes, it is a likeable character (there isn’t an Aunt May I don’t like), but Rosemary Harris is just … She’s adorable.

The Bad

  • Tobey Maguire cannot cry. Oh god, it just makes me cringe so much.
  • I mentioned this for the first film, but for fuck’s sake does Kirsten have to scream so god damn much?!
  • I hate the plot point of Peter wanting to stay away from MJ to ‘keep her safe’ when both MJ and his Aunt May are both in danger in both films without anyone knowing Spider-Man and Peter Parker are one in the same. It’s shit, and boring, and either Maguire cannot act, or he’s playing Parker like *he* cannot act. Either way, no one, literally NO ONE, is buying it.

The Ugly

  • I don’t like how the character of Peter Parker has been reset in this film. He’s back to being pre-bite doofus and it really doesn’t help strengthen the character or the story arc at all.
  • Spider-Man having performance issues?! I get that this seems to be a common fear of men, but do we really need it constantly projected onto our superheroes to massage the ego of the toxic masses?! (Not aimed at all men dearies)

Final Thoughts

In some ways, a much better film. However, its still not brilliant. I hate saying this because I love Raimi. I love that he’s someone who grew up making movies on a Super8 and fell in love with telling stories. I also know that he loves superheroes and comics, but this just isn’t an enjoyable watch.

Spider-Man (2002) Film Review

Rating 12a
Length 2h01
Release 11.5.2007
Director Sam Raimi
About Peter Parker’s life changes when he is bitten by a genetically altered spider and gains superpowers. He uses his powers to help people and finds himself facing the Green Goblin, an evil maniac.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Netflix and Amazon Prime
Trailer:

The Good

  • William Dafoe makes for the perfect Norman/ Goblin. Yes, he hams it up, but it works perfectly with that insane laugh of his. The duality of the role was performed with ease. Absolute joy to watch from start to finish.
  • The film sets up so many other pieces for the trilogy. What’s so good about it though, is that it doesn’t make this film all about the origin story like some other films do (Fantastic Four springs to mind). It’s subtle and almost unnoticeable until you look at the trilogy as a complete unit (I did one of my essays in uni on the elements of cause and effect in these films).
  • The music is brilliant. Unlike X Men (Still pains me to this day that the film didn’t include the cartoon’s theme music), this does use the cartoon’s motif, albeit in an updated way. All it took was those first few bars and I felt right at home, so it came as no surprise that the score was none other than the wonderful Danny Elfman.

The Bad

  • The CGI is god awful in some scenes. The only saving grace is that the colours and visual tones give the film that comic book feel so the CGI doesn’t look *too* out of place.
  • Again, this is more to do with the MCU and how it’s changed the landscape for superhero movies, but this outing is so campy. Like, bordering on panto sort of campy. While it works for the Green Goblin, having everything else hammed up just puts the story at odds with itself.
    At the story’s heart is grief. Peter is motivated by Uncle Owen’s death and Green Goblin is the manifestation of Norman’s fear of failure. None of which is light stuff. It all gets lost in the quips, nods and winks to the audience.

The Ugly

  • I know there are some Tobey Maguire defenders out there, and at the time I had no complaints, but the dude looks over 30. Those high school scenes really do make him look a little creepy.
    I’d also thought Emo Peter was relegated to the third outing, but in reality that emo streak was in him all along. Yes, we have been truly spoiled with Tom Holland, but while Tobey makes a good Spider-Man… he’s too old and too shit for Peter Parker. If he cried, I did one of two things; I laughed or I groaned.
  • You cast Kirsten Dunst, THE Kirsten Dunst, yet all you get her to do is scream?! What bullshit is that?!

Final Thoughts

In the grand scheme of things, this is the equivalent of the first two Harry Potters while Garfield and Holland are very much Azkaban onwards. Totally worth the pain of Maguire for the genius that is Dafoe!

Spencer (2021) Film Review

Rating 12a
Length 1h56
Release 5.11.2021
Director Pablo Larrain
About The marriage between Princess Diana and Prince Charles has long since grown cold. Though rumors of affairs and a divorce abound, peace is ordained for the Christmas festivities at the queen’s estate. There’s eating and drinking, shooting and hunting. Diana knows the game, but this year, things will be profoundly different.
Moon: Full moon at 1h 23
Where to Watch: Most cinemas now
Trailer:

The Good

  • It is a visually stunning film. Particularly the establishing shots and those that keep Diana at a distance from the audience. There’s an overhead shot of the grounds near the beginning when Diana arrives, I would happily have that on my wall. You know, if I didn’t loath this film.
    There’s also the opening pheasant drive-by that really had my stomach churning. How they managed to set it up where none of those army trucks made the poor thing go ‘splat’, I’ll never know. Although, if it did, it might have lightened the mood just a tad.
  • The costume department really do deserve at least award nominations. The attention to detail is incredible. The same can be said for set design.
  • On the most part, Kristen Stewart does well. Yes, I suspect she will be nominated for the Oscar. Depending on who she’s up against, I’m pretty certain she’ll win.
  • I was quite intrigued by Diana identifying with Ann Boleyn and the imagery that came along with it. I’d never thought about it before and the similarities. To someone who was suffering from mental ill health, it would be something heavy to carry.
  • Sean Harris was incredible. It took me a moment to work out who he was, but it was lovely to see him in a role that wasn’t him being a creep or a bad guy. Give me a film of him playing that chef and I’m there. There was just something calming about his presence in this storm of chaos.

The Bad

  • My problem with Kristen Stewart’s performance was that there wasn’t the range I was expecting and, in all honesty, the role was rather safe for her. Outside of perfecting the accent, the mannerisms and awkwardness is nothing I haven’t seen from Stewart before. Even the scene in which Diana is in the public, the audience are given the internalised performance.
    Honestly, I don’t think Stewart would have the ability to give us the public persona of Diana, and that really is the shame… and why I don’t think she deserves the awards.
  • The film has certain expectations of the audience and it will put off those who aren’t well versed in the life and times of the Royal Family. Perhaps the film wanted me to go away and look up about Diana in the aftermath of this Oscar bait. However, a better film would appeal to both the well versed and the newbie.
  • One of those aspects was indeed the self-harm. Fuck me, that was so badly handled. Both the bulimia (which for this film I’m going to consider a form of self-harm) and the cutting. The biggest problem being that in an artsy film, it’s hard not to see these moments as gratuitous and lacking the monumental impact this has on the individual.
    When it came to the cutting, I saw red. Okay, on the screen but also emotionally. Diana has a known history of self-harm through cutting. Yet the film chooses to have her cut her unblemished arm? Then, a scene later it is gone. Which is fine (it isn’t really), but in a film that has Diana hallucinating are you wanting the audience to believe she imagined herself cutting?!
  • I love Timothy Spall, so I mean no offense to him personally, but what the actual fuck?! His character was weird. Weirder than when he was Wormtail, and that’s saying something. His character, along with other artist choices, drove the film into horror territory.

The Ugly

  • This film is a try-hard. It spends too much time being Oscar bait, to actually think about the audience and how they would see the film. The story suffers as a result, and when the film is about real people, that’s all the more devastating.
  • Speaking of the audience. Who was this film for? Did the director think about the audience, at all? I mean, from my perspective it alienated Royalist, Diana loyalist and even film fans like myself. So… who is left?!
  • Did you really have to have Diana’s first clear word spoken be ‘fuck’? What was the purpose of that; shock value? It just felt really cheap and the perfect way to alienate the audience. The only people who are going to bought by that are those who have absolutely no intention of seeing this film.

Final Thoughts

Too artsy and bollocks for my liking. Diana’s mental ill health was not shown in a compassionate or concise way. So of course its going to win all the awards.

Next Stop, Christmas (2021) Film Review

Rating PG
Length 1h29
Release 6.11.2021
Director Dustin Rikert
About Angie wonders what life would be like if she had married an ex who became famous. When she finds herself magically transported into the past, Angie has the chance to relive that Christmas and learn what (and who) is truly important to her.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Part of Hallmark subscription on Amazon Prime
Trailer:

The Good

  • It’s a very pretty cast. How can you not want Angie, Surgeon and Kick-Ass alumni, to get the guy.
  • The casting of Lea Thompson and Christopher Lloyd in a time-travel based story. I totally get the reference and I’m here for it.
  • It’s a lovely story that has family and Christmas at the heart. What’s not to love? You just need to not have high expectations and let the joy of Christmas wash over you.
  • It’s not just a love story about the protagonist, but there’s other couples that are helped along the way.

The Bad

  • Perhaps we don’t see enough of Angie and Tyler together, but there is zero chemistry between them. I really do wish we’d seen a little flashback to understand why they were even together. It’s not that big a deal, but I have a format to my reviews, so I’m going to stick to it.

The Ugly

  • For some viewers, this will be a little ‘plot by numbers’. Yes, it’s predictable, yes the characters are clearly labelled and don’t represent real life (for example, Tyler is equal parts of perfect boyfriend and total douche just so you know he’s ‘not the one’)
    However, some time people need that, and if that’s not something you like… stay away from Hallmark.

Final Thoughts

The cold is biting, so what better to warm you up than a sickly sweet story that’s full of charm and not too taxing.

The Great Escape (1963) Film Review

Rating PG
Length 2h52
Release 08.09.1963
Director John Sturges
About During the Second World War, a large group of imprisoned Allied soldiers, known for breaking out of prison, are confined in an escape-proof prison camp.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Amazon Prime
Trailer:

The Good

  • That music. It gives you the sense of the humour that will be shown. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a serious piece of War drama, but that boyish, rebellious humour is akin to the music that plays.
  • The cast is incredible. Watching this as a child, I knew the cast was something special. However, it’s only as I’ve grown up and seen them in other projects I’ve realised how incredible it was to get them all on one project.
  • The reality of what happens and the authenticity really does make this a time testing film. Having so many cast that not only took part in the war, but spent time in POW camps really helps.
  • This film wouldn’t be what it is without Steve McQueen. Hell, he’s so charming that I almost forgive him for shoehorning that bloody motorbike into the narrative.

The Bad

  • Where are out modern day equivalents to these power house actors. Yes, I’d image having all these names in the one film is the same as Infinity War. That’s in name value though. Those Avengers don’t even have a pinkies worth of talent.

The Ugly

  • It’s long. At 2 hours 52, it might be fair to say too long. At least for regular viewing. I can’t watch it any more than once every decade or so.
    Don’t get me wrong, it is an excellent film. It also can easily justify it’s screen time. However, who has time for three hour films?!

Final Thoughts

Of all the films you must watch before you die, this needs to be number one.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) Film Review

Rating 15
Length 1h44
Release 12.4.2017
Director Joseph Sargent
About Four gunmen hold a New York subway train and its passengers for ransom. But as the authorities try to negotiate with the armed men, they wonder how the hijackers plan to escape.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch:  Amazon Prime
Trailer:

The Good

  • This is the first film of Robert Shaw’s I’ve watched outside of Jaws. He’s just as captivating in this thriller. He carries the film on the side of the gunmen. I only wish himself and Walter Matthau had more scenes together. Physically on screen.
  • There’s a reason why this has been remade twice; it’s a damn good story with high stakes.
  • Bloody hell, young Hector Elizondo! I love him, but not in this. It says everything about him as an actor though that he can be this repulsive ‘mafia’ man and make it believable.
  • The setting of the film and the use of an actual New York subway train is incredible. It adds to the realism of the situation and takes away any need for continuous action.

The Bad

  • A sign of the time, but the use of certain slurs and the negative commentary of women really starts to grate after a while. Yes, its brilliant to have as diverse a cast as this film has. However, its rendered moot when they’re there to call them the slurs you do.

The Ugly

  • The Mayor?! I think I was missing something … political, there. It felt like something I’d have understood a little more at the time. However, the big issue I had? Why the fuck did he have a cold?! I don’t get it, it doesn’t add to the narrative.

Final Thoughts

Worth a watch for Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau alone.

Last Night in Soho (2021) Film Review

Rating 18
Length 1h56
Release 12.4.2017
Director Edgar Wright
About An aspiring fashion designer is mysteriously able to enter the 1960s, where she encounters a dazzling wannabe singer. However, the glamour is not all it appears to be, and the dreams of the past start to crack and splinter into something far darker.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: In cinemas now
Trailer:

The Good

  • This is a dark, clever, little film that cements my thoughts of Edgar Wright being a genre film-maker. One in a similar vein to Quentin Tarantino, but less… try hard?! While most of the film being anchored in the present day, there’s still many aspects that are borrowed from films in the 1960’s.
    While there are deliberate red herrings, there are some subtle ones that will have you wanting to rewatch.
  • One of the things I loved about the casting choices were the prominent leading stars of the 60s. Rita Tushingham tugged at my memory for most of the film. A face you know, but can’t quite place. Of course, a quick search reminded me she was in the film that I caused a heated debate about in my Film Studies seminar. The film in question was The Knack… and How to Get It. If you’ve seen The Knack, you’ll understand why she’s rather savvy casting and a foreshadowing of things to come.
    • Terence Stamp gave me the urge to watch Gangster No1. While I perhaps would have preferred Malcolm McDowell in the role, I must even admit myself that would have been a little on the nose. Plus, Stamp offers uncertainty and a performance that hangs doubt on the character and his intentions. I’m not certain McDowell, as amazing as he is, could have pulled it off so well.
    • Diana Rigg. Miss Emma Peel herself. While a little bittersweet knowing this was her last film, it’s a damn fine one to be going out on.
  • The Doctor Who connection does not end at the casting of Matt Smith. Time travel and faceless bodies haunting our protagonist. It is beautiful how it feels like a very dark, very twisted episode of the Time Lord’s. The effects will most likely haunt me for days and that’s the thing; Dr Who was always able to pinpoint your basic nightmares and make them something to truly fear.

The Bad

  • This is a personal thing, but I don’t like the method of Eloise getting to the past. I love her being there, no question, however having it the way it is really does stop a number of red herrings in their tracks.
    I wish there was more of a tangible cause, even if it was as simple as she’d found a dress of Sandie’s.

The Ugly

  • The ending has me so conflicted. While it has left me frustrated, it does serve a purpose. I absolutely must watch it again to find out if my feelings towards certain characters are justified.

Final Thoughts

This is no Cornetto film. It’s dark, it’s twisted and it’s a film of a director with an eye for detail. Beware though, you will want to watch it again once you’ve watched right to the end.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

Rating 12a
Length 2h04
Release 18.11.2021
Director GJason Reitman
About When a single mother and her two children move to a new town, they soon discover they have a connection to the original Ghostbusters and the secret legacy their grandfather left behind.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Cinemas
Trailer:

The Good

  • This is a legacy film for so many reasons. It returns us to the 0 universe in which Ray, Egon, Winston and Peter established the Ghostbusters. Not only that, it’s directed by the son of the original director. This is as much a love letter to Ivan Reitman as it is to us, the fans.
  • There is fan service a plenty, but it’s not the nod and wink effort of the 2016 incarnation. It’s nostalgia. It is that bittersweet feeling you have when you find something you’d almost forgotten.
  • Mckenna Grace gives us Egon reincarnated as the beautifully geeky Phoebe. She’s a little at odds with the world, but she is an absolute genius.
    I adore everything about this character and I am beyond happy with Grace’s performance.
  • The mixing of visual and practical effects really does work for the film. It certainly would seem, on the most part, the production made the right choices about what to use and when.
  • Paul Rudd providing some of the information and filling in the gaps for the new generation was beautiful. It felt almost like he was one of the many dad’s in the viewing I went to explaining to their children the legacy they were about to watch.

The Bad

  • It’s not often I don’t like the score… and it’s not that I didn’t like it, per say. It was that the original score was relied upon a little too much, and too often without giving something that gave this film its own sound.
    Maybe I’ve been too spoilt with the blended scores of Star Trek and Jurassic World, but for me the music used is so embedded into scenes of the first, and second, movie that it distracts from what I’m watching on the screen… mainly because the music has triggered that hop Venkman does after seeing Dana after leaving work.
  • There is an argument for it pulling a ‘Force Awakens’ or a ‘Jurassic World’, in that the film retraces steps. Yes, it does at certain parts however, I do believe it is justified in order to have that connective thread linking the characters. Besides, Ghostbusters Answer the Call (2016) gave audiences something new and you all said it was shit, so… suck it!

The Ugly

  • Be prepared for tears. This is an emotional story, not only for people who grew up on the original films not seeing their childhood being nuked like Indiana Jones did 13 years ago, but in terms of how the film deals with Harold Ramis’ absence.
  • I said the CGI worked, on the most part. There is one part that just didn’t work and I really wish they’d cut it; the damn overhead jump shot of Eco1. It looks cartoonish and really stands out.

Final Thoughts

Have you ever heard a young kid in a cinema shout “They’re going to use the trap daddy!”? Oh my god, the screening I went to was full of chuffed dad’s seeing their kids enjoy a beloved franchise from their own childhood. Fuck me, it was beautiful to watch.
Actually, so was watching the 13/14 year old lads belt out the theme song when it came to the credits.

It’s a film that gives charm, comedy and joy, sets up a potential sequel (not holding my breath, so did 2016 and that got shut down fast) and reminds us … geeks are fucking awesome and always have the best toys!