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.

Happy Death Day

Year Of Release: 2017

Genre: Horror

Run Time: 96mns

Age Rating: 15 (UK)

Director: Christopher Landon

**SPOILER ALERT**

Synopsis

After haughty college sorority girl Tree Gelbman (Jessica Rothe), wakes up on her birthday in the college dorm room of Carter Davis (Israel Broussard), she carries on her day as usual. However after leaving her house later that night to attend a house party she is ambushed and murdered in an underpass by a masked assailant dressed as her university's mascot. After haughty college sorority girl Tree Gelbman (Jessica Rothe), wakes up on her birthday in the college dorm room of Carter Davis (Israel Broussard), she carries on her day as usual. However after retreating from a creepy underpass on her way to a house party and returning home to find a surprise birthday party waiting for her, she is once again murdered. Tree soon realises that she is experiencing the day of her death on repeat, confiding this information to her new friend Carter they realise that to move past her death day she must find her killer and prevent her murder.

Review

To say that going to see this film was more of a spur of the moment decision than a €2 tattoo in Málaga would be an understatement. Having never seen the trailer in its entirety my only knowledge of the film came from the first 10 or so seconds of the trailer, in which an attractive girl wakes up in a strangers bed and ignores her dad's call. Naturally my sequence of thoughts upon seeing this were that attractive girl, one night stand and daddy issues are pretty much the standard ingredients for a lonely divorced man's search history on a porn site. My second thought however was 'OH good I can skip this advert'! 'How bad can it be' I asked myself as I sat in the cinema, the answer to that is due to the fact that unlike a €2 tattoo it didn't give me hepatitis and similarly to a porno there was a happy ending I can safely state that this film was a surprisingly enjoyable viewing experience.  

A reconstruction of how 'HDD' gained it's identity.

It's well known that it doesn't count as copying if you take a pre-existing formula and change a few plot points and, well 'Happy Death Day' takes that idea and commits the creative equivalent of grand larceny, with the plot bearing a striking resemblance to a plethora of other creative properties. I can only imagine that the producers started off with the words 'Groundhog Day' written in bubble writing in the middle of a whiteboard as they discussed how they could go about making the reboot. This was until one sparkly eyed intern who was bringing them coffee said to them, 'If an original ship is replaced piece by piece over time at what point does it become a new ship?'. Now being producers in Hollywood c.2016 they were not familiar with the concept of originality, so after a quick Google search of the definition they decided that a ship is a new ship after replacing two oars, the crew and stealing the figurehead from a different vessel. Now this similarity could have been its downfall had the film taken itself too seriously and really tried to be a gritty horror, however after an initial jumpy start it settles out into a more light hearted romp much like the film's blatant source of inspiration. What I feel saved this film from falling into the sweaty pit of try hard despair that is usually populated by hipsters and teen wolf enthusiasts, is that instead of trying to seem different and edgy the film poses a moderate sense of self awareness and acceptance of its origins.

Pictured above: Secondary characters from 'HDD'

make a cameo in Chrome's endless runner

It was only after writing an entire paragraph in which I effectively whinged about how underdeveloped all of the characters were within 'Happy Death Day' that I realised that the writers had struck character development gold with the storyline. The simple fact is that, within a world that resets itself everyday leaving only the main character with all of their memories in tact, no character with the exception of the lead role will have any memory of the previous events and will act out their day in the exact same manner over and over. This means that any character development is rendered void by the end of the day leaving the secondary characters as little more than living props for the protagonist to interact with, but in the context of this narrative, that's fine. Saying that though, the secondary characters were by no means weak as strong acting and believable character interactions that played heavily on stereotypes kept them afloat and managed to make them have very defined individual personalities. So even though what the audience see of these characters is little more than a single scene with each of them, they get to see quite a broad view of their personas each time Tree interacts with them in a different way.

A short excerpt from Tree's diary.

The character of Tree Gelbman (our protagonist) is the one character we truly see change in throughout the film's runtime. She starts off as a typical spoilt and rude sorority girl who's greatest achievement up until the start of the film had been keeping her sexual partner count down to two individuals a day, this changes however throughout the course of the movie. By the end of the story the audience have seen their protagonist develop from what was essentially a gobby bus for venereal diseases transform into a much more likeable and respectful character, a change that we have all seen before in various teen movies. However, I couldn't help but feel like Tree's transformation was a lot more of a rewarding viewing experience than I have seen before in this type of character arc, as many times as it's been used. This I feel was due to the touching romance between Tree and the nerdy secondary protagonist Carter, as whilst it's relatively common for the popular girl to end up with the awkward nerd in this sort of film, the character of Tree changes so dramatically to accommodate him into her life. There is one scene in particular in which she has thwarted her would be murderer and holds their life in her hands, however earlier in that scene Carter had been killed after saving her from the attacker. After realising that should she finish her day Carter would be dead forever she hangs herself so that she can be with him again, creating the most powerful scene in the film.

There was only one character that I truly took issue with in 'HDD' and that was Tree's roommate Lori. Now she had spent the vast majority of the film flying completely under the radar acting as a moderately sweet girl who genuinely seemed to like Tree. This illusion was all flipped however in the closing 10 minutes of the film when it was revealed that she had been Tree's masked assailant all along. I remember sitting in the cinema and thinking that the film must have slipped some clever hidden clues along the way about why she was doing this or just some deep seated reason that had been staring me in the face. I was intrigued, I knew I had to give this film a second viewing to look for all of the concealed foreshadowing. But no, the reasoning behind this sweet roommate's vicious murdering spree was that she fancied her teacher (a character that Tree had been shacking up with at the start of the film) and wanted Tree out of the way so that she could move in on him during the wake, or something to that nature. So phoned in was this explanation that even Tree's initial reaction was that of complete confusion. It was at this point that I realised that I no longer cared if they had slipped in subtle hints about Lori's true nature, due to the fact that her whole issue could have been sorted out by spreading a rumour of her rival having chlamydia!

Overall, even when taking into account that the whole plot of the film rests entirely on the idea that the best way to stop two people from having sex is by killing one of them, I would recommend 'HDD' as a film to watch, if only once. Due to a comedic script that veers towards the self aware and strong performances from it's cast, 'Happy Death Day' overcomes the issues that it could have faced had it tried to sever all ties from it's inspiration.

Scoring

                                                                   

                                                                    Final Score: 14

     

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q: What is your favourite species of cacti?

A: I personally enjoy the Echinocactus Platyacanthus due to their variety of uses in traditional sweet production and weaving

Q: What foot size are you?

A: 6' 1"

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.