House of Gucci - Movie Review - A Ridley Scott film lacking the Ridley Scott-ness

Ridley Scott is obviously one of the most influencial directors of all time, though he's not one of my favourites. I've only seen a few of films, though I do really like what I've seen. Alien is a really well crafted sci-fi / horror movie, Gladiator is also really terrific, and The Martian is honestly one of my favourite films of all time, and may even crack the top ten if I ever made one. So, I wasn't especially keen to see his new film House of Gucci because of him, but rather because I just thought it looked good. I mean, it looked very competently helmed and well acted from the trailers, and it also details a story that I know absolutely nothing about, so I thought it would be worth a go. 

The film chronicles the marriage of Patrizia Reggiani and Maurizio Gucci and their turbulent relations while trying to run the iconic fashion company alongside other members of the Gucci family. 

The best thing about the film by far is the acting, it's all rather perfect. Lady Gaga absolutely smashes it as Reggiani; I was rather ambivalent about her breakthrough performance in A Star is Born, but here, I thought she was just on fire. She looks the part, and she conveys this manipulative and conniving character so well. Definitely the standout in the ensemble. Adam Driver is also terrific, though we've come to expect greatness from him so it's less surprising. He's definitely one of the most consistently great actors I've seen over the last five or so years. Everyone else was mostly pretty good too, although I'm not sure how I felt about Jared Leto in the film; he's clearly going over the top and being a very overtly stereotypical Italian, and while it certainly was entertaining, I don't think I liked it overall. 

Production-wise, this was expectedly fabulous. The costumes were all stellar as you may expect from a film where fashion is a crucial aspect, and most of the settings and locations were pleasant and well captured. The film is also very long, at least two and a half hours, but it didn't drag most of the time and was a reasonably well-paced watch. My interest in what was going on did fluctuate a lot of the time but that's kind of inevitable when it comes to any film of this length. 

My main issue I suppose is that a lot of it just felt ordinary; I struggle to believe that this was helmed by Ridley Scott as most of it just feels quite workmanlike and plain, with little about the filmmaking and direction that really stood out to me. This isn't a big deal, but it is a shame when a film doesn't offer much distinction to help form its own identity. 

All things considered, House of Gucci was pretty good. A terrific array of performances make what is ultimately quite an unremarkable piece of filmmaking consistently solid. Probably won't be rushing to catch this again but there's plenty to admire.

I'm going to give House of Gucci a 7.5/10

Encanto - Movie Review - Disney Animation delivers more of the same

Walt Disney Animation Studios are obviously one of the most significant animation studios of all time. They practically invented the game with feature length animation way back in the day and have managed to persevere and maintain their relevance and skill at their craft with time, despite some dark spots here and there. However, in recent years, I can't help but feel like they've just been making the same sorts of films over and over, and while most of them still end up being good, their general commitment to a formula does make a lot of their output feel repetitive and predictable. The trailers for Encanto did not give any hope that they would stray from the age-old Disney formula and give us something surprising, but they did at least show a film that looked good in and of itself, so I went in expecting a jolly good time at the very least while also hoping that maybe it would have something unexpected up its sleeve.

The story centres on a magical family called the Madrigals where each member possesses a special and unique ability. However, this isn't the case for one member named Mirabel, who is not respected by those around her and is seen as a disappointment because of this, not least by her Grandmother, who obtained the source of the magic many years ago and seeks to preserve it at all costs. But, when it seems as if this magic at the centre of the family is in danger, Mirabel might just be the key to saving it. 

Well, first of all, I have to say that, much like how nice it was to see a new MCU movie in the cinema after a long time earlier this year with Black Widow, it was rather lovely so be sat in a cinema watching a new animated film released by Disney. The last one I saw was Onward just before COVID kicked off, and every subsequent one has been a Disney+ watch for me. So, there was a rather pleasant feeling in seeing that logo in front of an animated film in a cinema for the first time in... what feels like forever!

As I suspected, Encanto is very formulaic; it hits all the beats of a standard Disney Animation film and doesn't really have any surprises in that regard. But, on top of that, as you may have guessed from that summary, it also has a very familiar story. We've all seen a story about an outcast within a group who constantly fumbles and is disrespected only to eventually prove everyone wrong and be accepted. You know where it's going to go right from the start and every turn the film takes is highly predictable. While this isn't inherently a bad thing, it did make the film thematically and narratively uninteresting for me as it offered very little nuance. However, I've always believed that a film can get away with being unoriginal as long as it's well executed, and that's definitely the case with Encanto. It thrives off of how well a lot of its elements are executed.

As with any Disney production it has wonderful visuals. The film completely uses the animation to its advantage and manages to find many unique ways to be creative. The best example of this is with the house that the Madrigals live in  - it's personified and brought to life in a way similar to the ocean from Moana, which led to some really inventive moments in terms of how each bit of the architecture conveyed a different feeling or emotion. There's also a really creative choice involving each member of the family living in a space that revolves around their ability, and this gave way for a variety of beautiful and distinct environments encountered throughout the film, such as a vast jungle filled with animals, or a haven covered in flowers. 

I also love how the characters were animated; not only are the designs top-notch, but they all felt so human. When the film isn't being frantic and cartoony, the movement and behaviours of the characters all felt so realistic, making it so easy to emphathise with them. There's one moment where Mirabel picks up a fallen roof tile and cuts her hand in doing so, and each and every aspect of it felt so real. I'm also always amazed at just how much emotion can be expressed on an animated character, a single frame of one of their faces truly speaks volumes. These are very little things for sure, but I find that the little things tend to be the most admirable in an animated feature, as you know careful attention to detail is applied to each and every aspect.

The film is also a musical, and the songs are all really terrific. They weren't the most instantly memorable bunch and they certainly felt very familiar to songs from other Disney films, with the establishing opening number, the protagonist's 'I want' ballad, the goofy side character song, and so on, but they all managed to work really well. I mean, when I got home from the cinema I listened to and downloaded most of the soundtrack while eating my dinner, which is usually an indicator of some pretty damn good stuff. I don't know if I could single out a favourite as I think each of them had something great to offer. 

Additionally, as conventional as it may be, it's hard to get to frustrated by the story in the film as it definitely means well. It's a film all about family and not losing sight of your love for others, as well as understanding how everyone has their own place in the world, which are of course very amiable ideas. They didn't really reach me emotionally, but I can see how they might do for others. 

The only issue I had aside from the predictable nature of the film was the humour. Again, in sticking to the classic Disney formula, the film of course has to throw in some comedy. Unlike some of their other films, it isn't ill-fitting here as the film is deliberately wacky a lot of time, but lots of it was still very toe-curling for me. I've had this issue with many recent Disney and Pixar films, and it may well be because I'm getting older, but a part of me does think that the comedy itself isn't all that good. 

You might be wondering what it is that I want to see from Disney Animation going forward. Well, it's quite simple, I just want to see more unconventional things from them. They've proven time and time again that they can make a solid family film with a sweet message, and while they don't make bad films of that nature, they are very unsurprising, which is making me slowly lose interest in seeing what comes next. Films like The Lion King, Zootropolis, and Fantasia all prove that they can stray from their formula with films that dare to be audacious, rich, and mature, so I know they're capable of doing so, and I'd just like to see more. This is their 60th animated feature, which they proudly show at the start of the film, and I think it's about time they change things up. 

Overall, Encanto doesn't bring anything new to the table and offers very few surprises, but in and of itself, it's a perfectly satisfactory film with some splendid animation, solid musical numbers, and a story that definitely has its heart in the right place. It's about on the same level of quality as Luca, the Pixar film from earlier this year, another predictable yet sweet and charming film. I'd obviously like to see Disney venture into new territory with their animated features after over eighty years of them mostly doing the same thing, but if they can still manage to deliver perfectly good movies, I can't complain too much. 

I'm going to give Encanto a 7.5/10

Ghostbusters: Afterlife - Movie Review - Yet another nostalgia-fuelled sequel to an 80s movie

I like Ghostbusters. It's a movie I've seen a couple of times and really enjoy. It's not an all time favourite, but I do tend to revere it in the same regard as other 1980s franchises that I have a bigger soft spot for like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Back to the Future, because, like those movies, not only is it really iconic, but it's an easy watch and something you just can't seem to go wrong with. But, the fact remains, I'm not an enormous fan. I haven't seen Ghostbusters II nor the 2016 remake that angered many people, and so I never initially planned to catch the upcoming new installment, Ghostbusters: Afterlife. But, because it's a new movie and could be a decent way to spend two hours, I went to see it anyway, not really expecting much. 

In the film, a single mother along her two children move to a small town where her recently deceased father left a house behind. Shortly after arriving, the two children realise that they are descendants of a Ghostbuster, and with ghosts starting to show up again, they need to keep the legacy afloat and save the world. 

Ghostbusters: Afterlife was actually really good fun. It offers many set pieces that are thoroughly exciting, enjoyable, and funny. There's a chase scene around the middle that serves as the first proper action scene and it's very well executed, offering some neat variations on the Ghostbuster gadgets we all know. There's also a really funny scene in a supermarket with Paul Rudd's character encountering little Stay Puft marshmallow men as they cause chaos, and also getting chased by one of those demonic dogs from the first movie. The climax is a little uninteresting by comparison but has its own charm, which I won't get into as it involves spoilers. The visuals were also very memorable throughout most of these scenes too.

I liked a lot of the characters as well. As mentioned, Paul Rudd is in the film and he's as good as ever; such an effortlessly charming and likeable presence and he fit in perfectly here. I wish he had a little more to do overall as he does get sidelined from the end of the second act onwards, but he still makes the most of what he's given and I enjoyed him very much. The two children are also really good, as are some of the others they meet throughout the film. There are also appearances from some more familiar faces, which you can probably guess, and they were all very welcome and put a smile on my face. 

I suppose my main issue with Ghostbusters: Afterlife is that it just felt repetitive. It doesn't have the same plot but with a new coat of paint like other movies of this calibre such as Star Wars: The Force Awakens or Jurassic World, but it does overall feel very familiar. It ultimately just feels like more Ghostbusters, and while that isn't inherently a bad thing, it does mean that the film comes off as kind of superfluous. It is fairly different from a narrative perspective, but many of the plot beats are predictable and have been done countless times elsewhere, so it doesn't really offer anything special or unique outside of, well, giving these elements a Ghostbusters twist. I suppose this is probably an issue for me because I'm not head over heels for this franchise, so if you are a massive Ghostbusters fan, you may well enjoy seeing this kind of story as well as more of the same. But, as for me, it didn't do an awful lot besides servicing some decently entertaining stuff.

One thing that did tick me off a fair bit was the fan service in the movie. This is nothing novel for sequels to a culturally popular film made over a decade or two after the last installment, but Ghostbusters: Afterlife uses it in some of the most contrived ways I've seen. The iconic "Who you gonna call?" line is shoehorned in very unnaturally, and various recognisable props (which I only recognised having rewatched the original the day before seeing this) also pop up in ways that don't feel particularly organic, but rather just because there was probably a checklist of recognisable props from Ghostbusters that the filmmakers were running through while writing the script, and needed to find ways to incorporate no matter what. I won't say this really irritated me, because it didn't, but it did stick out as instances of really lazy writing to capitalise on nostalgia. Fan service isn't something I'm against as I know how nice it is to see a little (or big) nod to something you know and love, but integrating it with such forced means takes away a lot of the charm.

All in all, Ghostbusters: Afterlife was jolly good. While it relies too much on nostalgic novelties and overall feels superfluous, it has enough going for it with some charming performances and well crafted set pieces. Will I ever see it again? Probably not, as most of what it offers can be found in the original, a highly superior film that I do anticipate continuing to revisit from time to time. But, should I ever come across it again, I know I'll be in for a bit of fun. 

I'm going to give Ghostbusters: Afterlife a 7.0/10

Eternals + Spencer - Movie Reviews - A disappointment and a surprise

Once again, I am having to jam my thoughts on two seperate films together just to make life a little easier for myself with the relative lack of time I have to write reviews here.

On this first week of November, two notable films came out here in the UK. One being Eternals, the new entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the other being Spencer, a drama about Princess Diana. I was infinitely more excited for the former but was also interested in checking out the latter as well, so I was able to see them both and came out of each with reactions I hadn't quite anticipated.

First off, Eternals. This new MCU film comes from Chloe Zhao, who only just found great success with her film Nomadland. I wasn't crazy about that film, but it did leave me thoroughly keen to see where Zhao would go next, and the fact that an MCU film from her was on the near horizon was really exciting. Eternals looked great from the trailers and posters; I loved epic nature it presented with characters that seemed straight out of ancient mythology, it looked truly awesome. But, a sea of mixed reactions flooded in, including the MCU's first rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes, currently sitting at less than 50%. I don't really take RT scores as an accurate indication of a film's quality, but the fact that this was the first film in this franchise with over twenty films to get a score this low was interesting. So, suddenly I was a little cautious, but still mostly certain that I'd enjoy the film. It involves a team of ancient warriors known as the 'Eternals' who have lived on Earth for thousands of years, protecting the people from a group of nasties known as the 'Deviants'. After a long period of dormancy, the Deviants seem to be re-emerging as cataclysmic events begin to unfold, prompting the gang to get back together again. 

Okay, so is the film as bad as you might have feared? In my opinion, definitely not. But, is it much good? Well, it's interesting. Eternals is successful in lots of places but falters quite significantly in others. What I liked about it most was the scale, it does feel truly epic and as if great things are at stake, which makes the film thoroughly exciting and visually spectacular. Also, while a lot of the characters were fairly underdeveloped, I still really enjoyed them and their interactions for the most part. Gemma Chan was really good in the lead, Richard Madden gives another solid performance, Kumail Nanjiani is as funny as ever, Brian Tyree Henry is really likeable, Barry Keoghan continues to prove he's a very versatile performer, and everyone else for the most part wasn't bad. It's also great to see such a wonderfully diverse cast of characters, reaching out to demographics that haven't really been represented at all in the MCU prior to this. The main problem is that the film was ultimately kind off a mess. It's structure relies a lot on flashbacks that go on and on and distract from where the plot currently is, there's an awful lot of exposition that is delivered in contrived ways, and these result in the film being badly paced and feeling really long, boosting the runtime to unjustifiable lengths. The humour was also very hit or miss, but mostly miss to be honest, and unfortunately, the action was slightly underwhelming, with some interesting visuals but ultimately boring stuff being depicted. I also feel like the narrative itself was a bit incomplete - I'm sure a future installment will tie some of these loose ends, but that meant this film didn't feel particularly cohesive on its own. 

All things considered, Eternals wasn't as bad as I feared it might be, but it also wasn't as good as I hoped it'd be. I enjoyed it just fine and had fun, but that didn't stop me from recognising how it is a bit all over the place and definitely needs some work. 

I'm going to give Eternals a 7.0/10

A few days later, I saw Spencer. I was intrigued to see this film as the trailers made it look fascinating, but I had an underlying sense that I probably wouldn't enjoy it. I'm not usually a fan of dramas or slow-movers, or even period pieces to be honest, so I suspected I'd just end up recognising things that are good but also feeling quite unengaged overall. The film covers a troubling three days for Princess Diana spending Christmas at Sandringham estate and struggling to adapt to the royal way of living and fearing what sort of future lies ahead. 

I thought Spencer was a very impressive piece of work, and a lot of it comes down to how it depicts the events on screen. After watching this film, the royal life feels anything but enviable. Many scenes are so hard to watch because you're so caught up in how anxiety-inducing certain events are, even if they don't immediately seem that way. Eating a meal seems so uncomfortable and even horrific, having a wardrobe full of clothes to chosen for you to be worn at specific times and being forced to close your curtains is all so restraining, contributing to this extremely pessimistic atmosphere around a way of living that many wouldn't inherently connect. A lot of praise has been directed towards Kristen Stewart and her portrayal of Diana, and for good reason. I'm very unfamiliar with a lot of her other work, but she's really compelling in the film; you easily pick up all the awkwardness and uneasiness that she feels in this environment, to the point where I didn't even feel like I was watching a performance, I just thought I was watching the real Diana, having to remind myself that it was in fact an actor. Amazing stuff from her. The way the film is shot stood out to me as very effective. The choice to shoot on film is gorgeous, and it captures the nature of the setting so perfectly; it seems so bleak and so cold. It makes it all feel so old-fashioned as well, so much so that I almost forgot this takes place in 1991! I also liked how, for most shots inside the estate, Diana is framed to look really small, adding to the idea that she's out of her depth. It also goes without saying that the costumes and set design were all top notch as well, solidifying this film as a visual feast. I also think it's amazing that the film manages to convey this atmosphere (of anxiety, loneliness, bleakness, etc.) while also being set at Christmas. I mean, Christmas is literally the most joyful time of the year, and it's almost impossible for me to watch something related to it and not feel jolly in the slightest. But, somehow, it didn't prevent this film from doing what it did, not even serving as a form of relief for the main character in any way, just going to show how unattractive this way of living is. If there are any issues with the film, my main one would probably be that the overall tone of the film isn't something I'd instantly want to revisit, as successful as it may have been. Also, I'm not at all familiar with the way this story panned out in reality, but there were parts that did certainly feel quite on the nose and as if they were embellished.

Overall, I was very surprised by how much I got out of Spencer. I thought it was a really well made film anchored by a strong central performance and with an atmosphere that was executed masterfully. Is it something I'd love to see again? Probably not, but on this occasion, I thought it was remarkable and certainly worth my time.

I'm going to give Spencer an 8.5/10 

So, let this week of new releases go to show that, sometimes, all is not what it seems. Something you assume you'd really like may not do so, and vice versa. 

Dune + The French Dispatch + Last Night in Soho - Movie Reviews - Everything coming out at once

When observing the 2021 release schedule, I couldn't help but notice that a bunch of things I've been eagerly anticipating all seem to be coming out at once, that time being now in October. Despite September being considerably bare in terms of new releases aside from Marvel's Shang-Chi, all the notable stuff has been piled on top of each other, which is frustrating. 

Anyway, I have been able to see some of the things I was most keen to watch, and because I'm very short of time due to university work and also because I don't have an awful lot to say about each, I thought I'd condense my thoughts into very bite-sized reviews. 

The first of these films is Dune, the new film from Denis Villeneuve. I was very excited for this film purely because it just looked remarkable. I have read the original book, but I wasn't overly keen on it. I found it quite difficult to keep track of all the aspects of this world and it felt as if the story unfolded at an extremely slow pace. I thought the film would have an advantage and be able to engage me in this world and this story in ways that the book failed to. Plus, I like every member of the large ensemble cast, and I am also a fan of Villeneuve, especially his film Arrival. The film centres on a boy named Paul, gifted and soon-to-be the leader of his people. However, through a series of extreme events, he'll find where his true destiny lies.

Almost everything I find praiseworthy about Dune has been said by countless others, so I don't have much to add to the discussion. The best thing about the film is the scope; it feels enormous. You really get the sense of just how vast the world of this film is, which is only enhanced by a cinematic experience. But, close attention is given to all the little details as well. There's one particular moment I love in which, during a big action scene, Paul steps out of a ship and has a moment of tranquility as he feels the sand of which the surface is made, which helped make the world feel very lived in and tangible. I also think the film definitely does a better job than the book in terms of bringing this world to life, and purely because of the visual side of it. Everyone in the cast was great, the cinematography really aided capturing this world, the score was tremendously powerful and effective, and although the film is essentially just two and a half hours of set-up for what's coming next, the masterful filmmaking made it consistently engaging and rarely dull. Towards the end it definitely does start to drag a bit, and to be honest, the dull nature of the colour palette did make the film quite visually tiring as it went on, but Dune remains an astonishing piece of work and I am ever so glad that more of it is on the way. 

I'm going to give Dune an 8.5/10

The second of these films was Wes Anderson's latest outing, The French Dispatch. As much as I was looking forward to this, I should clarify that I am quite torn when it comes to Wes Anderson. I find his films are always visually very pleasing with enjoyable performances and generally charming and funny antics, however, from a narrative standpoint, they begin to falter as they never really engage me. I like most of what I've seen from him, namely Fantastic Mr. Fox and The Grand Budapest Hotel, but overall I'm not the biggest fan. This film chronicles a series of individual narratives that make up an issue of the newspaper known as The French Dispatch. 

My issues with Anderson's films a kind of summarised by this film. Stylistically and visually, I love it. The way the shots are framed is wonderful, the colours are all very appealing (when it's not in black and white), and the cinematography is as sharp and dynamic as you'd expect. As is the case with most Wes Anderson productions, it stars basically every single actor in the world, and everyone is doing a terrific job and making the most of what they're given, which for some is only a few scenes. There are also moments that I found really enjoyable and charming; I mean, it is very difficult to resist overall. However, I just couldn't bring myself to engage in each of these stories. Some have said they found the film to be overloaded with content and difficult to follow - I didn't take issue with this but I most definitely found the film difficult to engage in. I have no doubt that this issue is exclusive to me, so don't be deterred from seeing the film after reading this. If you're all over Wes Anderson films then I can't reccomend this enough as it is basically the epitome of what he's known for, but if you're somewhat in the dark like me, you may have some trouble. 

I'm going the give The French Dispatch a 6.0/10

The third and final film I saw during this extremely congested time was another very highly anticipated one, Last Night in Soho. This is Edgar Wright's newest film, and he's probably my all-time favourite director if I had to choose. Even though this was a diversion from his usual sort of film, that being a comedy, I was still really excited. It looked so twisted and eerie in all the right ways, and it was rated 18 meaning it would be my first time watching an 18 at the cinema, as I'm finally old enough to. Thank goodness this was delayed a year is all I can say. The story involves a young aspiring fashion designer named Eloise who travels to London to study, but soon starts to have strange visions of the life of a woman named Sandie in 1960s London. This seems to positively impact her at first, but as the dark side of Sandie's experiences show themselves, Eloise's sanity begins to deteriorate.

Stylistically, this doesn't feel like much of an Edgar Wright film. It doesn't have any of the snappy, fast-paced editing you've come to expect as the film is, as I said, not in his usual territory. It feels as if anyone could've helmed the film to be honest. However, when turning your attention to the script, I think his presence is fairly obvious. This is another very tightly written film with narrative beats as well as twists and turns that all feel very organic and well set-up. Honestly, I loved the story and how it unfolds. The way it slowly gets darker and darker as Eloise's visions and reality begin to blur is really profound. It's also a visual treat too; with the extreme colours selling a really twisted atmosphere and juxtaposing the presentation of the real world wonderfully. The overall atmosphere of this film is so unsettling but also beautiful in a way. It's also very well acted, with Thomasin McKenzie and Anya Taylor-Joy not only both having wonderfully expressive eyes but also giving really engaging performances. For me, I only really had trouble with the pace at points, with parts of the first act feeling a tad rushed and the ending not being well fleshed out at all. I'd love to see this again because I feel it'll get better and also because I want to experience the utter madness it offers again as it was just something else. This isn't Edgar Wright's best film by some distance, the Cornetto Trilogy and Scott Pilgrim are definitely more to my liking overall, but I will say this was a more interesting experience than Baby Driver, which I'm not completely keen on. He has one of the best filmographies of any director working today, and this is further proof that he never lets us down.

I'm going to give Last Night in Soho an 8.5/10

So, that's a brief look at some of things I watched in the last week. I want to see other things out at the moment like The Last Duel and Ron's Gone Wrong, but I just haven't had the time to with all this other, more interesting, stuff out, as well as more on the way such as Eternals, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, and Encanto to name a few. I may not be able to consistenly write in-depth reviews for new films I've seen anymore, so don't be surprised if this format becomes commonplace. I personally don't mind being concise with my thoughts anyway as usually I don't even really have much to say. Do check out my Letterboxd for more though: Jack W.

Venom: Let There Be Carnage - Movie Review - An improvement from before, if that means anything

I wasn't particularly fond of Venom from 2018. I thought it was fine; definitely not as bad as lot of others said but also not too good either, especially when compared to other superhero movies that came out around the same time. I wasn't initially planning on watching this follow-up, but with being at university and looking for any excuse to not do the heaps of work I have to do, I thought it'd be a sufficient way to pass some time. 

In the film, Eddie and Venom's relationship is tested as their contrasting desires reach a boiling point, and at the same time, a serial killer by the name of Cletus Kasady has been infected with another symbiote called Carnage, and proceeds to go on a rampage after escaping prison. So, the two need to put their differences aside to defeat this new foe. 

Here's the thing, I've only seen the first Venom movie once, when I saw it in the cinema over three years ago. I couldn't be bothered to rewatch it in preparation for this so I instead had to reread my original review of the film to kind of refresh myself on what my specific pros and cons were with it, even though I could remember my overall outlook. 

One thing I do remember being problematic about that original film was the pace. It took an awfully long time to get going and as a whole just went on for way longer than it needed to. These movies don't have interesting themes to explore or well-rounded characters to develop, they're purely focused on all the chaotic action they can throw at the screen, so two hours is a little excessive, especially when the majority of the first hour doesn't have much action. Let There Be Carnage clearly understands this as it's barely ninety minutes in runtime and it moves along at a very brisk pace throughout. Granted, it doesn't have the burden of being an origin story which the first film did, so it is in a better position to just cut to the chase. 

Aside from that, everything else is mostly unchanged. The action is more of what the original offered; that being noisy and chaotic roaring, smashing, and exploding. Its fun at times and doesn't really get too tiring as the film isn't long enough to let it drag on. The dynamic between Eddie and Venom is really fun, a lot more entertaining than I remember the first film being, which was welcome. Tom Hardy is still decent in the role, Woody Harrelson is very enjoyable as the villain, and Naomie Harris, who plays another villainous character called Shriek, was also really good in the film. So, if you enjoyed the first Venom, I think you'll certainly enjoy this as well because most of what it brings to the table is basically the same in terms of quality.

There's not really much else to be said. All things considered, Venom: Let There Be Carnage was just alright. I think it accomplished everything that it had to achieve as a sequel to Venom, with more of what that film offered in terms of action and tone, but I think it marginally has the upper hand for me because it's far shorter and moves along at a much smoother pace. Still, it's nothing I'll be rushing to see again or really thinking about much again, but it was certainly a fun ninety minutes.

I'm going to give Venom: Let There Be Carnage a 6.0/10

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the mid-credits scene. I won't say what happens, but I thought it was really cool and I'm excited to see exactly what it means going forward!

No Time to Die - Movie Review - A fitting farewell to Daniel Craig's James Bond

I'm not the biggest fan of James Bond. Despite being a franchise that has been around since the 1960s, I've hardly seen any of the movies. That being said, I do like most of the ones I've seen, and the era of this character that I have by far the most connection to is its most recent iteration, with Daniel Craig as 007. Casino Royale and Skyfall are both really effective and enjoyable action movies, Spectre is flawed but still solid overall, and Quantum of Solace also exists. So, with my enjoyment of most of these particular entries, I was of course keen to see where the character would be going next.

No Time to Die is generally regarded as the first major film to have it's release date postponed due to COVID, a choice which many of us thought was just a silly one-off at the time, but in the span of about two weeks became very commonplace and eventually an inevitability, with lockdown closing cinemas around the world for months. While most films that were pushed back at around the same time such as A Quiet Place Part II and Black Widow made their way to the screen earlier this year, this film has just been sitting on a shelf for all that time, despite many chances to release it arising. I began to get concerned that once it finally came out it would end up being a disappointment. With so much time spent pushing it back and thus building up the expectation that it's something worth waiting for, even if it was a perfectly solid movie, that might not have been good enough. So, now that it's finally here, the big question is, was it worth it? 

In the film, James Bond has been peacefully living life after leaving active service at MI6. But, he is called back into action when a new sinister plot begins to unfold and threatens the safety of those he cares about among many others. That's really all that needs to be said in terms of plot. If you're worried about things being spoiled then I'd advise to not read on and just wait until you've seen the film, because even though I won't be going into spoilers with my thoughts on the film, some of what I say could still ruin your experience as my vague comments can still largely suggest specific details that you're better off not knowing going into the film.

After the whole ordeal that was getting this film to the screen, not only with COVID but also after the directorial shift during production, it's a massive relief that it turned out to be a thoroughly enjoyable watch. I never got the sense that what I was watching was a hodgepodge, which films that go through this sort of production difficulties often do. It has a lot of the things that the best films during Daniel Craig's time as 007 have had.

Firstly, the action is very well done. The sequence near the start in particular (which a lot of has been shown in the trailer) was very exciting, with Bond swinging from bridges, zipping around on a motorbike, and then driving around in his car with guns that come out of the headlights, it's all jolly good. There's also a well crafted shoot out in Cuba, a nerve-racking encounter at sea, a tense chase through a forest, and plenty more that makes this film very enjoyable from an action standpoint. I was lucky enough to see this film in IMAX (as I've recently moved to university and have an IMAX cinema just down the road!) and that certainly enhanced a lot of these sequences, especially because some were actually shot with 70mm cameras. It's great to see more filmmakers beyond people like Christopher Nolan and J.J. Abrams using this in their films, as I do think it is highly effective.

The performances are all very strong too. Daniel Craig continues to be terrific as James Bond. I was a little worried that, after his very vocal reluctance to return to the role after Spectre, his performance would visibly convey his waning enthusiasm. However, I needn't have worried, as he's still the charming, suave, and charismatic character that he always was. I can't say if I think he's the best Bond, as I'm quite unfamiliar with all the other versions, but I can safely say that he played this character in a way that kept me engaged. I really think that it will be difficult to replace him if the series is to proceed. Aside from him, everyone else in the cast was great, whether it be the usuals like Ralph Fiennes, Jeffrey Wright, Ben Whishaw, and Naomie Harris, or newcomers like Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, and Ana de Armas.

In terms of the theme song, I think it's one of the best. I'm not a huge fan of Billie Eilish but I thought she did an excellent job with this Bond theme. My favourite one is probably still that of Casino Royale, but I'd say this is a close second. Also on the topic of music, Hans Zimmer's score was really awesome; not his most memorable work but still very effective. 

There are a few problems with the movie but nothing major; most of them revolve around narrative and pace to some extent. 

I wasn't so keen on the villain overall. Rami Malek is expectedly brilliant in the role, but I thought his plan seemed a little generic and too over-the-top. The antagonists in Daniel Craig's Bond movies like Le Chiffre and Silva weren't just well acted and entertaining but had motivations that felt a lot more down to earth, which tonally alligns with the serious nature of the films. While Safin's plan isn't inherently bonkers and is decently implemented through some personal connections to Bond, it still seemed very plain and somewhat ill-fitting. Incidentally, while watching the film and learning of Safin's evil plan, I couldn't help but feel like the possibility of poor box office results wasn't the only reason why the movie was delayed... you'll understand what I mean if you've seen the film.

Despite this being the last film for Daniel Craig as Bond, it didn't entirely feel like much of a finale. The stakes are higher than usual and the way it ends definitely gives a sense of closure, but for the most part, I don't know what it is, but I just didn't feel like this was the final mission or anything. The best conclusions of franchises, such as Return of the King or Avengers: Endgame, manage to successfully have a certain atmosphere that makes the audience aware that this is the final stretch beyond the awareness that it is going into the film, and I don't think No Time to Die had that, as most of the shenanigans throughout were reminiscent of any other Bond film. 

Also, I think the ending was kind of rushed; the consequences of what ends up happening didn't seem to be fully explored or emphasised. Again, the best conclusions really let the impact of what happens in the end sink in, which this didn't. Of course, the movie already has a hefty runtime that's just twenty or so minutes short of three hours, but it rarely felt like it was dragging for me a lot of the time, so expanding on the ending would've probably been fine.

With all this being said, I thought the ending in and of itself was terrific. I can't say it was the most unexpected way to go, but that's not to say I was waiting for it to happen; it still struck me as a really bold choice, and a very fitting one too. The film caps off on a vastly satisfying note, though I definitely think a little more time spent fully coming to terms with where it ends up would've improved it. There's also a wonderful quote referenced near the ending. I won't say what it is as that'd definitely give away what happens, but you'll know it when it comes up, and I thought it was beautiful. My vague comments have almost certainly alluded to what happens in the end even if I haven't clarified it, so apologies if this did indirectly ruin the movie for you!

As a whole, No Time to Die wasn't anything groundbreaking, but I certainly think it was worth waiting the extra eighteen months or so for it to arrive. It has all the exhilarating action and charming characters you've come to expect, and goes to places that you perhaps wouldn't expect, wrapping up this iteration of the character in a way that's highly satisfying, if not as well fleshed out as it could've been. It rather snugly finds it's place right down the middle of Craig's run as 007, not quite reaching the highs of Casino Royale and Skyfall, but being a fair amount better than Spectre and way better than Quantum of Solace. In hindsight, I'm actually glad the release of this film was held off for as long as it was; because squeezing it in as soon as possible instead of waiting for the right time could've easily robbed it of its dramatic weight. Defintely give it a watch if you're a Bond fan, I doubt you'll come out disappointed. 

I'm going to give No Time to Die an 8.0/10