Venom

Year Of Release: 2018

Genre: Superhero

Run Time: 112mns

Age Rating: PG 13 (UK)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Review

I know what you're thinking... "Holy crap Pixar branched out creatively after Toy Story 2!" Well no, not exactly. The truth is that my Monsters, Inc. review is currently still in the works, and having heard that Venom had just dropped into the cinemas with a dismount from the editing studio that bore a stark resemblance to Samir Ait Said's 2016 exit from the Rio Olympics, I was keen to investigate it. 

Above: Venom's shoddy dismount from the editing studio.

Before going to see the film I had scanned through a few reviews as I usually do and by golly gosh did that cancerous blanket of general distaste that had settled itself over the film's Rotten Tomatoes page, like powdered asbestos, draw me in! One of the articles I read was a review on IGN that remains in my mind, even after seeing the film, as a very apt summary of 'Venom'. "A turd in the wind", reads the title, taking a quote from the film, a quote that I have to agree with them on, as the film was not great. However, after having walked into the cinema, popcorn in hand and ready to have a good chuckle at the resulting mess of over 10 years of other people's hard work, I was to be disappointed. Whilst 'Venom' was certainly the film equivalent of a turd in the wind, what I hadn't accounted for was that much like I imagine literally watching excrement being ushered down a street would be, the film wasn't dull. I found myself at times laughing with the film rather than at it, as it cheekily gushed along the gutter scaring passers-by. The only problem was, as I sat in the middle of that street watching it from afar, occasionally the metaphorical wind would change direction and I would be treated to a face-full of shit!  

First of all I'm going to do what all good millennials do. Argue my point against people (reviewers) who are older, more experienced and just generally better at what they do than I am, whilst simultaneously ignoring all the well analysed points that they present. My point being that this film is not poor enough to warrant only a 30% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. So here goes! 'Venom', is by no means a great film. But on the flipside, it's certainly not a bad film. The negative points are unequivocally more entertaining and plentiful so I will trot through a couple of them first. My main qualm with the film did not sit with the awful pacing or with the occasionally BTEC level script. Instead it parked it's rear end firmly next to the action scenes. I am not a fan of action films as 'lack of an actual story' and 'unbridled masculinity', aren't exactly two of the main things that I look for in a film. This is however not why I find the truly bombastic action set pieces, that litter themselves throughout 'Venom's runtime, obnoxiously unnecessary. The reason for this is that they change the tone of the film completely. Don't get me wrong, this film lacks subtlety like most females lack a Y chromosome but even for this film the set pieces are so over the top and drawn out that it drags down the aspects of the film that are genuinely entertaining.

My other problem with Venom that I will touch on is the relationships within the film, or lack thereof. I can't think of any two characters within this film that share screen time, who show any kind of chemistry. Plot points that really should effect relationships between characters are used solely to push the film forwards and character development was completely forgotten. Tom Hardy gave a multi-layered and believable delivery of the characters that he portrayed, his performance within this film outshining the oftentimes sloppy script and cringe inducing dialogue. However even Hardy seemed to share more chemistry with his other self than he did with any other character within the film! 

A HD image of the dust 

settling on an average Venom fan.

Like I said, Hardy should be commended for his work in 'Venom' and although the actor has seemingly tried to distance himself from the feature post release, I believe he has nothing to be ashamed of. The scenes with just Eddie Brock and Venom were, in my opinion the films high points. Not only were they engaging and somewhat believable but they were also the main source of the laughs for me. The first 30 or so minutes of the film is mainly what I would refer to as exposition and by god does it drag. However, from the point at which the titular Venom is bonded with Eddie, the film picks itself up to dust off some of the disappointment that had settled on the studded wristbands and liberty spikes of the edgy Venom fans. From this point onwards, Venom proceeds to reveal itself as a moderately enjoyable B-list superhero flick. I think what truly sums up it's B-List status is the production company cards at the start of the film. "In Association with MARVEL STUDIOS", it proudly announces. I'll admit, this was my first laugh at the film. It's presence on the screen made  me imagine an inherently unpopular child namedropping one of the 'cool kids' in order to gain some early credibility. In actual fact, what seems to be the case with this film is, that past the initial creation of its characters, Marvel had very little to do with the production of Venom.

Overall Venom is an earnest attempt to bring the titular character to the silver screen and whilst it's true, the film is a pretty large mess, it's entertaining. Much like a dog with wheels for hind legs, it's moderately endearing in its attempt to join the other dogs atop the stairs of popularity and also like a dog with wheels for hind legs, it is definitely worth spending your money on just to see it... I mean, even if you hate the film you get a free comic from it so, win win!


Scoring

Final Score: 8

Footnote (to answer the questions that nobody asked me):

Q. Is this review sponsored by any companies?
A. I'm shocked that you think that I wouldn't make Sure you knew from the outset of the review whether it was sponsored or not. I'm so angry that I'll only let you Axe me one more question so long as you never mention brand deals again. Knorr shall you bother any companies that you may suspect sponsor me. Unilever.*

Q. What is the most egregious act of animal on animal bullying that you have ever witnessed and where did it occur?
A. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.


*Disclaimer: I am not actually sponsored by Unilever. Knorr anyone else.

Toy Story 2

Year of Release: 1999

Genre: Adventure

Run Time: 89mns

Age Rating: U (UK)

Director: John Lasseter

Review

It has now become time to review the second movie in Pixar's highly regarded 'Toy Story' trilogy and the third and youngest child of my three siblings analogy. Toy  Story 2 sat in it's soiled nappies and marvelled as it's oldest brother (Toy Story) receive praise for his ground-breaking strides in dinner time etiquette. He also watched as his middle brother (A Bug's Life) received a first birthday card from his parents two days late after he was forced to walk home from the shopping centre at which they had left him. As he sat, Toy  Story 2 took in all this information and analysed it before proceeded to demonstrate such an unbridled level of all round insufferable perfection that even the angel child that was its oldest brother wanted to sucker punch it.

Now that I have completed that strained analogy, that I'll admit, probably stretched on for 2 reviews too many, I can proceed to give my uniquely unqualified critique of this film. This film is, honest to god, the quintessential example of how to make a sequel for a film that is held in such high regard that I'm sure that if it started a career in magic it would gain some disciples and have a religion named after it! Rather than allowing the tsunami of praise that followed Toy Story's success to fill their heads with a sense that they could do no wrong, Pixar looked back at their previous works and ironed out their short comings to produce what is no less than the best sequel ever put to film. A sequel that, in my opinion at least, is superior to the original in every aspect!

A photo of Toy Story's 4th birthday party featuring close friends and loved ones. A photo of Toy Story's 4th birthday party featuring close friends and loved ones.

The story is larger in its scope than the first and therefore feels more like the adventure of truly vast proportions that the first had promised but not quite delivered upon. Toy Story 2 not only delivers a sense of scale to the toy's adventure that was missing in the first but also adds a true sense of possibility that the group may be separated forever. I'm now going to trust this review pelvis first into spoiler territory, however quite frankly if you are old enough to be able to read this review and you have not yet watched this film, the lack of joy in your life must seem like the more pressing matter than reading a spoiler to a film that is nearly two decades old. Within the main story arc of this film we learn Woody's origin story and meet the rest of what is, for all intents and purpose, his true family. These new characters are in turn the keystone of Toy Story 2's superiority to its predecessor as not only do they cohesively merge with the existing cast, they are also so well built upon, not once coming across as a half-arsed attempt to further their profit margins with new merchandise.

A picture of an early, more realistic version of the final chase 

before Disney called for the re-writes.

Their contribution to the story is not only in their mere presence as they provide a believable reason for Woody to leave his friends and Andy forever. They are his birth family, a link to his origins that had remained alien to him until meeting them, he completed their set and even though he'd only just met them he felt like he was home. The film excellently plays with this possibility of Woody leaving forever up until the very final act. I'll admit, this suspense is completely upheaved when you remember that Pixar are owned by Disney and that this is a kids film so of course there is no way on Bald Mountain that Woody was going anywhere other than back home with his friends. This to be fair is probably a better message to send to children than 'it's alright to expatriate oneself with some people you met 1 day ago'!

Once again however, Pixar completely lose me in the very final act as they once again demonstrate their inability to close a Toy Story film without a toy displaying an ability that is so unrealistic that it even seems out of place in a children's film about sentient toys! In the first Toy Story it was RC the remote controlled toy car who managed to keep up with a truck that may have been going up to 35mph. In the sequel however Pixar knew they had to up the anti. So in order to one up themselves the closing sequence had a toy horse keep pace with a plane. Now I have done my research, and the average take-off speed of a fully loaded 747 is 184mph. I just can't help but feel that even a real horse would be running on bloodied stumps at that point, I'm sorry Pixar but I can only suspend my disbelief so far!

Scoring Final Score: 19   Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about): Q. What is your favourite colour? A. H.144, S.144, L.255 Q. How does your scoring system work? A. I choose a random number from 1-20, 1 being unbridled hatred and 20 being unrequited love. I then cut that number down into 4 new random numbers who's sum equals my original number and voila. Some people just like numerical stimuli in reviews.

A Bug's Life

Year Of Release: 1998

Genre: Adventure

Run Time: 91mns

Age Rating: U (UK)

Director: John Lasseter

Review


Hello, welcome to this, my second review in a series of reviews on Pixar films. A series that is proving to be a lot more intrusive upon my free time than I first thought. This review will be looking at 'A Bug's Life', a film that can proudly hold the title of 'nobody's favourite Pixar film' before glumly trudging off to wave the trophy aloft the podium of 'most forgettable Pixar film'.

Pictured: 'A Bug's Life' is allowed to

stand on the podium as they accept 

their participation award.

As I've grown older and (perhaps disagreeably) wiser, I have come to regard 'A Bug's Life' as the middle child of three. Pixar's first creation had been around for 3 years upon the arrival of 'A Bug's Life' and so the same people who had cooed over 'Toy Story' as it learned to use the potty nary glanced towards 'A Bug's Life', as it competently cocked it's bare buttocks over the toilet on it's first attempt. This being because they were too busy packing their firstborn's lunchbox as they prepared to head off to big boy school. To compound 'A Bug's Life'[s]' ultimate fate, Pixar, being the ever procreative parents that they are, had barely christened their second child before announcing the upcoming arrival of their third. An arrival that promised to be much the same as their first - a sequel if you will! This announcement in turn sent the relatives into a wild tizzy of joy, so much so that they completely overlooked the fact that 'A Bug's Life', was busy in the garden making friends with the neighbour's Pitbull.

Now, I like 'A Bug's Life', however I am more than happy to concede that it is by no means Pixar's finest work. For a start they seem to have taken a step back from the animation quality of their previous work, which I found odd as for me the steps forward that they made in the industry with each subsequent film was an aspect of Pixar that I admire. For them to have released a film in which their characters reflected light off of their carapaces like arthropodan lighthouses must have meant that they were under some kind of time constraints. It was almost as if Pixar had caught wind of another intellectual property that followed a very similar storyline being in production... Anyway I don't care too much whether Pixar copied DreamWorks or vice versa as the latter mentioned company could not hold a candle to the animation quality of even Pixar's worst work. 

'A Bug's Life' makes rude gestures

 to the other films as his parents

 pick him up in their Rolls Royce.

My main point that I want to get across is that I just don't feel like Pixar tried overly hard with 'A Bug's Life', which is annoying as much like that one snotty nosed brat we all knew who could breeze through exams 'without even revising', Pixar did not do a bad enough job to warrant any kind of negative reaction. It holds fairly strong critical acclaim on most sites and whilst I don't necessarily think that it deserves to rot in a stinking pit of shame, I also don't think it deserves a 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The film does keep to Pixar's high standard of charm and wit and the characters are memorable. They are however, in my opinion, some of the least relatable characters that have come out of the production house so far, with (the main character) Flik's idea of sorting out his cock-ups involve begging another group of insects to do it for him under false pretences.

Overall 'A Bug's Life' doesn't hold up as well as other Pixar properties but is still nonetheless a strong film. The Pixar standard of a strong story and an excellent script help this film float effortlessly above the moist bog in which you can find the deformed carcasses of less fortunate animated affairs such as 'Minions'. I must say though that although Pixar had a lot of shortcomings with this film - they certainly managed their objective of making the most curvaceous ant in cinema history with the Princess!
Scoring

Final Score: 14

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q- When will the quality of your illustrations improve?
A- I believe the phrase in these situations goes along the following lines; You can't polish a turd.

Q- If you could be any celebrity for the day who would you be?
A- John Malkovich. 

Toy Story

Year Of Release: 1995

Genre: Adventure

Run Time: 77mns

Age Rating: PG (UK)

Director: John Lasseter

Review

I don't know what the first DVD that I owned was but if I had to take a guess it would probably have been something like Scooby Doo and the Cyber Chase. However, for the sake of this review let us pretend that, even from a young age, I was showing signs of amounting to a well rounded individual who's opinions were actually valid, and say that the first DVD I owned was Toy Story. Now that we have successfully swept my early ineptitude aside you can read this review with the knowledge that, much like the average millennial around election time, fact and my opinion are one in the same.

Pixar prepare to open the new land

 bridge that their 

profits helped build.

Toy Story is a good film. It's story was, to my knowledge, a fairly original concept upon it's release. Which is funny when you bear in mind that the film plays heavily off of the childhood fantasy of one's toys being sentient. Pixar took a running jump off a cliff with this film, should Toy Story have failed it would have more than likely ended their aeronautical career a little over two decades ago. Luckily enough, their exceptional screenplay, fleshed out characters and overall marketable plot made enough money to cushion their fall, cure world hunger and throw them into Disney's good books in one go. This good fortune meant that their initial leap of faith was more comparable to Scrooge McDuck's than it was Tommen Baratheon's. 

I don't want to focus too heavily on what this film does well. Oily Ponces in braces and dickie bows have been smothering this film in praise since before I had learned that defecating in my underwear was a no-no in most social circles. So to finish off this review I will leave you with a small list of things that I have disliked about this film since I was an ankle biter and the reasons why my young critical mind held such opinions.

• Sid - not only is his character design similar to Megamind if he had a belt strapped around his head from birth but he strongly reminded me of a twat that once bit my nan.
• Buzz Lightyear and Woody's relationship - Yes, it is one of the most thrilling bromances that animated cinema has ever provided, with sexual tension that you couldn't crack through with a jackhammer. However I have always found the start of their blossoming  bromance rather grating. Both parties show equally annoying and over the top traits (not present in the subsequent sequels) that stick out like a sore thumb from the rest of Pixar's subtle character development.
• No one notices toys dropping through a car's sunroof - This is a petty one however the whole final sequence, no matter how pant-wettingly thrilling, has always baffled me. Not Andy nor his mum pay any kind of attention to a firework going off  less than 100 meters behind their car. Nor do they notice two dolls - larger than their heads - fall through their sunroof.

Scoring

  

Final Score: 18

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q. Have you ever cried at a film?

A. Yes, The Seventh Son was a challenging viewing experience for both me and my childhood.

Q. Who is your favourite god?

A. Cardea - Goddess of thresholds and door hinges. This woman had her priorities on straight.

23 Years of Pixar

A toy cowboy towards the end 

of the third and final act.

Pixar have been churning out classic children's cinema for nearly quarter of a century now. Yes, that is a long time! Doesn't that just make you feel oh so old and nostalgic. And yes, to those few that are reading this and those fewer still who would stand to correct me, I know that Pixar have been making films since 1986. I however flat out refuse to sit and gaily sing songs around the campfire with those that believe that what Pixar were producing pre 1995 was akin to the second coming of Christ. This is because unlike those that do I prefer to go to bed after the campfire songs are done, whereas they prefer to sit in a circle, merrily producing jets of spunk whilst quoting Citizen Kane. I say this, as no matter how monolithic or important these films were in their time or how important they were in helping to create the cinematic experience as it stands today, they seem nothing but quaint in their antiquity when compared to todays standards. It is for this reason why I choose to ignore the first 9 years of Pixar's independence from Lucasfilm, instead focusing on 1995's Toy Story as their first real contribution to their true target audience. This being the film that changed the animation industry forever whist simultaneously changing the way every child swung open their bedroom door in a desperate bid to catch their toys midway through a mass re-enactment of the Jonestown Massacre. (ooh how edgy)

In all seriousness Pixar studios have played a very large part in my childhood. Growing up I remember watching their first three feature length films; Toy Story (1995), A Bug's Life (1998) and Toy Story 2 (1999) again and again. They were fun, well animated and different to other children's films at the time. They were like the cool uncle to Disney's overbearing, no sex before marriage, traditionalist father figure. They would throw in reference after reference, small little Easter Eggs crammed into every nook and cranny with countless hours of brainstormed backstories to each and every character. And whilst its true that toddlers who weren't born in a McDonalds car park won't understand these more adult references before they hit puberty - this is the beauty of it. The films have no age bracket, parents are just as likely to enjoy these films as their little winners are. Unlike Disney's happy-go-lucky filmscapes, Pixar believe that you are mature enough to hear some hard layered truths about growing up (see Toy Story 1, 2 & 3) and the human condition in general (Inside Out, Finding Nemo and Up to name a few).

Balding man celebrates his prowess

in weaving cohesive narratives.

This isn't to say that I dislike Disney films either, I quite enjoy them however it's a clinical sort of enjoyment. It's been strung through so many focus groups and boards meetings to make sure it's groomed to their family friendly image that it almost reeks of Barbicide, like a hipster at a beard show. It's the Disney charm, whilst you watch the film you are captivated by the story and you love the characters, when you leave the characters are what stay with you. Pixar, by contrast, have a near unparalleled mastery of storytelling at this point second only perhaps to the proverbial sweaty balding man explaining to the police why he was within 200ft of a school. Their successes so far have always outweighed their shortcomings in every one of their projects, even their weakest films (in terms of critical reception) are some of the highest grossing animated films of all-time.

Now, if you've read this far, I will tell you why I have written this self indulgent nonsense. Over the next few days I will be releasing a series of concise reviews on each of Pixar's feature length productions. 'Well isn't that just a posh way of saying that you're going half arse a review?', I hear you cry. Yes... yes it is.

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q: Is 'filmscape' even a word?

A: Ah, a fine question! I wrestled with this conundrum for many a moon until I googled it and turns out it's a Malaysian production company. So yes, it's a proper noun!

Q: So doesn't that just mean that, in the context you used it at least, it's a nonce word?

A: You're the nonce, shut up.

IT (2017)

Year of Release: 2017

Genre: Horror

Run Time: 135mns

Age Rating: 15 (UK)

Director: Andrés Muschietti

**SPOILER ALERT**

Synopsis

When Bill Denbrough's (Jaeden Lieberher) young brother Georgie goes missing from their home town of Derry, Maine the adults of the town treat it as just another missing child on an ever growing list of similar cases. Refusing to accept his brother's fate, Bill, along with his gang known as the 'Losers Club', try to uncover the mystery surrounding the recent spate of child disappearances. Soon however almost every member of the gang has a run in with Pennywise, a child eating creature in the guise of a clown, these meetings lead the gang to the conclusion that Pennywise is behind the disappearances. Knowing that adults would not believe the truth, the 'Losers' decide that they must deal with 'IT' themselves, overcoming bullies, parents and their worst fears for a final confrontation with 'IT' they must come together in order to stop the bloodshed that plagues their town.

Review

My usual opinion of horror films is that if I wanted to pay to soil myself I'd fork out the 20p for the use of a public toilet, as opposed to doing it in a room full of strangers. However when I heard that they were making a film out of Stephen King's 'IT' I was drawn to interest immediately as I had heard good things about the 90's miniseries. Having never watched this miniseries myself due to both my lack of existence upon it's original release and a crippling fear of clown like beings, I put the 'IT' [2017] in the back of my mind as one to watch for reasons unknown to even myself. I eventually decided that it was the impending arrival of my long overdue transition into manhood that got me into that theatre seat. This theory however was overruled approximately 3 minutes into the film when any testicles that may have been growing recoiled in terror as I realised that I had 132 minutes left of the film and a countdown clock on my bladder that was measured only in seconds.

The Problem with 80's horror films

Whilst I have nothing against horror as a genre, I feel that it can be one of the weaker genres in terms

of overall quality. I know that many people will disagree and spout about the 'classics' such as 'Nightmare on Elm Street' and that's fair enough, horror as a genre did have quite the golden era in the 80's with memorable campy horror flicks flooding theatres throughout the decade. But, like a French aristocrat in the 1700's these old horror films sorely lack something. The heart's in the right place but it doesn't look quite right as storytelling is only half the experience of cinema and sadly these films sorely lack the visuals to appeal to today's audience. This trope reversed in more recent years with horrors using updated visuals but completely forgetting that they needed writing staff. The combination of both of these aspects is where 'IT' scores it's [skid]marks for me.

The writers for 'IT' admittedly had very strong source material to begin with but even baring that in mind they created one of the best screenplays I have ever witnessed. The film was a truly terrifying spectacle throughout, not because I was worried that something would jump out but because most of the film had a constant dark and uncertain atmosphere only emphasised by Pennywise's unpredictable nature, it was due to this that I spent a great portion of this film trying to retain both dignity and control over my sphincter. This feeling of dread was juxtaposed entirely by the scenes in which the young cast were on the screen together. These moments contained some of the most heartwarming acting I've seen, the friendships seem genuine with quite a few of moments of hilarity provided by Richie (Finn Wolfhard), who's character fires off juvenile jokes like Adam Sandler on speed. Unlike Adam Sandler however these jokes are not forced or out of place and fit the character perfectly, providing a sense of ease before throwing you back into the turbulence of the horror, this contrast amplifying both the horror and calm equally. 

The casting for 'IT' was quite the ball-pit of unknown actors which, when recreating a much beloved material that has a fanbase the size of a small country, is the equivalent of sticking your genitals into a tank of prejudgemental piranhas. Andrés Muschietti however must have decided that he had a manhood to spare because he took the risk to include no real well known names in his cast. However, as they so frequently do, the fanboys had to eat their words and whatever else they'd claimed they would consume if the film turned out well because the cast all gave astounding performances not least Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise. It would have been a near Herculean task for even a seasoned actor to fill Pennywise's size 32's, previously occupied by the legendary Tim Curry, however Skarsgård, a man with fewer acting credits to his name than I have GCSEs, managed to give one of the most chilling and memorable performances of a villain in recent memory.

Skarsgård at 6'3" falls towards the top of this
Fear to Limb Length chart.

Skarsgård's performance was constantly brilliant on a mentally scarring level throughout the films runtime with every minute of his screen time seeping with menace. The slow burning threat that is always in the background of 'IT' is what makes this such a strong film and the simple fact is that this threat would not be present without Skarsgård providing his unique take on the character, introducing a new generation of viewers to the joys of coulrophobia. I can't however talk about the cast without mentioning the child actors. Now child actors can normally only fall into 2 categories: shit or cute enough to cover up the fact that they can't act, however the children of 'IT' all gave colourful and believable performances that culminated into the most watchable 2 hours and 15 minutes of film that I have viewed through tears of terror.

Overall 'IT (2017)' is a well shot, atmospheric ode to a classic novel that I would rank with the likes of 'Stand By Me' as it was as rewarding of an experience as it was terrifying. Both lighthearted juvenile fun and dark disturbing imagery brings 'IT' into a league of it's own with the image of Pennywise's dismaying interpretation of a Cossack dance staying with me until my dying breath.

Scoring:

Final Score: 18

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q- What is the thickness of your ideal writing paper?

A- It's has changed over time, currently it is 80gsm however I did go through a rather embarrassing stage in my teen years in which I would only write on 100gsm paper.

Q- Did you copy and paste Bill Skarsgård's name every time you used it in this review because you couldn't figure out how to get the 'å' symbol?

A- Yes.

The Nice Guys

Year of Release: 2016

Genre: Comedy

Run Time: 111mns

Age Rating: 15 (UK)

Directed By: Shane Black

**SPOILER ALERT**

Synopsis

After the sudden and mysterious death of a porn star, a private detective called Holland March (Ryan Gosling) is hired to look for a missing girl however hired thug Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe) is hired by Holland's only lead to stop him making any progress. After coming to blows the two discover a case far more complex than either of them could have imagined and start working together. During the course of their investigation the two encounter psychopathic assassins, crooked officials and a rather confused old lady and along with the help of Hollands' daughter Holly (Angourie Rice) they try to uncover the links between the seemingly unrelated clues.

Review
Since my first review was somewhat negative I thought long and hard about what I would like to review next that wouldn't make me sound like the whinging fanboy that I am. So I sat and looked through my film collection to find a movie that I could distance myself from sufficiently as to watch, note down and review it without having a red storm cloud of pre-judgement in front of my eyes. However I got bored of trawling through them so I went to HMV and spent my 'hard earned cash' on a film I had never heard of instead ... and what a brilliant decision that was!

'The Nice Guys' is an American neo-noir comedy starring Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe and to get this across from the off it is a wonderful example of what modern American comedy should resemble. The dialogue is sharp and witty, the action scenes are tight and well directed and there is a heavy element of slapstick comedy within this movie, which I have to say is a welcomed change to the more recent trend of over the top obnoxious humour we've been exposed to by the likes of the Lord himself, Adam Sandler. Now I have gushed my emotions like a love-struck 13 year old Tumblr user I feel that I should expand on my feelings.

First and foremost I'm going to talk about the writing and acting within this film as it pretty much hit the nail on the head. The story itself is at heart a buddy-cop comedy which in my humble opinion is a genre that has been stretched out using the same rinse and repeat formula for some years now, yet somehow the writers managed to make a script that not only felt fresh but also seemed somewhat original. The performances of the three leads (Gosling, Crowe and Rice) are exceptional and their on-screen chemistry is a wonder to behold, the way they bounced their lines off each other seemed so relaxed and natural. It was the lead's chemistry that really held this film together even in the story's weakest points, which came for me around the halfway mark.

The characters themselves are also a high point of the film for me as even though they are in essence all slightly over exaggerated caricatures of 70s stereotypes e.g: Gosling's hapless private detective character with more mustache than he has career prospects. It was also nice to see a change in what I'd expect to see from roles played by Gosling and to some extent Crowe who for this movie dropped their respective typecasting. Usually when it comes to a Gosling character I would expect equal parts romance & abs however in this film neither appear, instead Gosling more resembles a Jar Jar Binks-esque character with a bumbling nature. Crowe starts out as his usual unshaven badass character, a man who is willing to kill on a whim but as the film goes on and his relationship with Angourie Rice's character evolves he softens and for me this is what makes these characters' special, behind the slightly over the top nature of  them there is a vulnerable human side to them to which makes it very easy to relate to them.

The one fault that I could pick with the characters is that I felt too much time was spent on the protagonists meaning that the film sorely lacked a villain with a Z axis, this did make it hard for me to comprehend which character was the primary villain or to fully understand their actions. Even though I doubt these villains could stand up in a strong breeze I still found that I enjoyed the screen time that was spent with them as the extravagant portrayals of the characters made them entertaining enough to fit right into the mold of this movie. A good example of this ridiculousness is when one of the villains, a hit-man named 'John Boy' sent after Gosling, starts shooting up the front of Gosling's character's home and as Gosling and Crowe return fire, the villain keeps changing his weapons starting with a small pistol and ending with a fully automatic assault rifle, his car boot channeling Mary Poppins' handbag but with more calibre in this situation.

This brings me onto my final topic nicely as I want to talk about the action scenes within this film as they are definitely some of the best I've seen in a while. Fights are fast paced and fluid for a comedy film and the deaths are pretty brutal whilst maintaining a certain level of realism, for example if a character dies they don't get a monologue before their expiry. This brutal realism juxtaposed with over the top characters genuinely shocked me on a couple of occasions as, unlike in other unflinchingly violent films such as  'Saving Private Ryan' in which the characters all seem so fragile due to death being so prevalent, the characters in 'The Nice Guys' are so fanciful that you are lulled into presuming that they are invincible rendering the idea of their sudden and violent deaths even more shocking.

Overall I'd say that 'The Nice Guys' is a very entertaining film with a strong script and an excellent cast who have a great onscreen chemistry. It is also an exceedingly well shot film which truly immerses the viewer in it's setting as although I wasn't around in the 70's I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing that screams 70's like seedy porn, hippies and Ryan Gosling's mustache.

Scoring:

Final Score: 16

1-5 Wouldn't be out of place in a sewer

6-10 Pretty Bad

11-15 Good

16-20 Excellent

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q - What is your favourite consonant cluster?

A- I am a personal fan of the classic 'yrgyz' cluster due to its wide variety of uses.

Q - In your opinion is there anything worse than a clown?

A - Yes, a marionette dressed as a clown in a potholing crevasse.