You give and you give and you give. It's just never enough.

mother! (2017)

7.0/10 on IMDb
68% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Signed, sealed, and recommended by Chloe, BUT
Proceed at your own risk

Watch it if you: Are intrigued by the trailer;
Are a fan of the director;
Aren't expecting a horror home invasion movie;
Instead, are keen for an arthouse film with ~deeper meaning~
I decided against using my usual format for movie reviews for this movie, because it's a difficult one to place.

If you watch the trailer, it looks like a creepy home invasion psychological thriller, but the actual movie is really different.

It's more of an arthouse type of movie where there's a huge metaphor and every scene has a deeper meaning to it, but if you don't know the metaphor then the entire movie is extremely confusing, and possibly also a little terrible to watch. So, basically, if you can appreciate arthouse movies, then you might like it, but for the more mainstream viewer, it's potentially the worst film ever.

The film is chaotic, violent, and mind-boggling. One article said, "Co-star Ed Harris joked, “I’m still not quite sure what to think of it all.” Deadpanned Javier Bardem: “Basically I did not know what I was doing . . . I don’t even really speak English.”

For myself, watching the movie was really weird. I knew one piece of the allegory because of an interview Jennifer Lawrence did, but I didn't realise other bits of symbolism until towards the end of the movie. The movie was so fast paced and confusing, though, that I didn't really have time to think about the bigger picture until I walked out of the movie. Then suddenly, it clicked, and I think the movie makes a fantastic metaphor for it all. I think it's a movie that would be really fun to analyse in English class, and yes, I am aware of how nerdy that makes me sound.

I kinda want to watch it again, to fully understand the metaphor, so I think it would be good to know the metaphor going in, but since I didn't do that I don't know whether it ruins the fun by taking away your realisation of what it all means.

Anyhoo, the rest of this review is going to be spoilers breaking down the film, so if you think you want to know the metaphor going in, then proceed. If not, I do recommend this film, followed by some reading up of what it all meant, but I would warn you to proceed at your own risk, because this film is... bizarre.

Click to show/hide spoilers:

So there are two main themes of this film:

1. The film is a biblical metaphor for humanity's sinful nature
   
2. The film is a message warning us of the dangers of neglecting our planet Earth
   

The movie starts off with an image of a lady being burnt, a previous apocalypse. Followed by God (Javier Bardem's character) restoring life through the heart of mother nature (or mother earth, I can't decide, played by Jennifer Lawrence). This restores the planet earth (the house) back to an Eden-like paradise ("I want to make this a paradise for him," paraphrased). Mother earth is clothed in white; she is clean, fresh, and pure. She never leaves the house.

God struggles to write; he struggles to create. He manages to write something down and suddenly a man (Adam, the first man, played by Ed Harris) appears.

Later on, his wife, Eve (played by Michelle Pfeiffer, who still looks amazingly gorgeous despite being nearly 60 years old) appears. I also read somewhere that the thing that gets flushed down the toilet is part of Adam's rib, because it occurs after Adam first meets God, they seem to do some sort of trade, he has a bruise on his back, he vomits in the toilet, then the next day Eve appears. If someone can explain to me why exactly it had to be a creature in the toilet, that'd be great.

Where Adam is considerate and slightly hesitant to intrude on the couple, Eve is entitled, arrogant, and sinful. She is constantly drawn towards the study room containing the previous mother nature's heart, despite God not wanting anyone to touch it, and not wanting anyone to be in that room without him.

Her sinful curiosity ends up in her breaking the stone (eating the Forbidden Fruit), which results in the wrath of God. God banishes them from Eden (boarding up the doors to the study), but still loves them enough to allow them to live in the other parts of Earth.

Cain and Abel appear, with Cain murdering his brother, spilling blood on Earth. God appears to abandon mother earth (when he takes the son to the hospital and leaves mother earth vulnerable to Cain and therefore vulnerable to more sin) and she has to clean up the mess in distraught, but no matter how hard she tries, she cannot clear the sin from Earth.

The funeral scene is resemblant of Noah and his friends (or just other humans in general) being invited to closeness with God, yet these humans are disobedient and neglectful of mother earth (Jennifer Lawrence here speaks with a really sweet voice which I haven't heard her use before; she sounds super innocent and even youthful, yet everyone treats her with disgust). They feel insulted and laugh when mother nature tells them that the room is 'her' room, because they feel entitled to a share of mother earth despite not doing anything to contribute to it. Mother earth did all the work in the house, making it perfect and 'a paradise', these humans do nothing and barge in as if they own it already.

Mother tells the humans not to sit on the sink yet the humans, ever sinful, constantly disobey her, even jumping on the sink to spite her. The sinful actions of the humans starts to cause damage to the Earth, and a great flood occurs and humans are (nearly) eradicated (Noah's flood).

During this, Eve gives a lot of side eye to mother nature, because Eve suffered a lot after being abandoned from Eden (in the Bible, Eve eating the Forbidden Fruit results in all women having pregnancy and labour pain while giving birth; thanks Eve). Eve is resentful towards Mother Nature. 

Soon, Mother Nature is pregnant with baby Jesus in her, and this inspires God to write the Bible. Mother Nature throws away the yellow powder she has been taking every time she received pains. What is that yellow powder? I don't know, but I read somewhere it could be ambrosia, the nectar or food only for the gods. I'm not sure about this though because she does chuck it away once she's pregnant as if it is harmful to baby Jesus.

Anyway, as soon as God finishes the Bible, his publisher, the Herald, spreads the word of God to the masses and they love him. What ensues is a whole lot of focus and attention on God. Mother Nature celebrates for God, but it's not enough for him. God doesn't want the love or attention that Mother Nature provides, he wants the love, reverence, and blind adoration that Humans can give to him. God abandons Mother Nature again, not thinking of her when he tells the Humans that the house (Earth) is all for them to share. God is made out to be the bad guy, wanting attention and religious devotion and worship at the expense of Mother Nature and Earth ("They've come to see me!").

The Humans listen to this and feel entitled to everything in the house, not taking a second's moment to claim pieces of Earth for themselves, fighting, shedding blood, and even destroying Earth in the process. They take for granted all the hard work that Mother Nature has put into this planet, and they rip the earth apart. More and more people start coming to the house as more people start following the Faith, although they don't respect it at all and they neglect and even despise or look down upon Mother Nature (seriously, everyone in this movie was such a dick to Jennifer Lawrence!).

What happens in the fever dream... I can't even remember. I read somewhere that all ten of the plagues that Moses brings down on Pharoah make a brief appearance but I honestly can't think of a single one of them except the frog that jumps out of the basement cellar.

Anyway the fever dream happens and from what I remember there seems to be symbols of overpopulation, the beginnings of religious behaviour and cults, humans fighting against humans, police storming in (are these the Roman soldiers?), war and terrorism occur. Kristen Wiig is the Herald, she makes a confusing cameo just to add to the chaos of the fever dream (kind of like how Domnhall Gleeson's appearance was such a shock in such a shocking scene). She then starts executing people which might be a reflection of the behaviours of religious followers/leaders against non-believers. She also orders people to kill Mother Earth.

There's also a brief glimpse in hope for humanity, with one of the police officers looking at pregnant Mother Earth and worrying for her. He attempts to lead her to safety, protects her from a bomb, but ends up getting shot in the head when he tries to care for her.

Jesus is born, and Mother Nature protects him from God, but eventually God steals Jesus and shows him to the world. The people love Jesus and worship him, but in their haste and irresponsibility they SNAP HIS NECK (which was so traumatic by the way!), killing him like how Jesus was crucified on the cross.

They rip his body apart and eat his body and drink his blood (which is reflecting the practice of communion where you drink wine, which symbolises the blood of Christ, and you eat bread, which symbolises the body of Christ).

Mother Nature loses her shit and starts killing humans. The humans retaliate and beat up and destroy Mother Nature. At this stage she can feel the Earth losing its life, and the house starts to collapse. God implores Mother Earth to forgive the humans, but she refuses. He tries to protect her from the Humans but she in turn abandons him. She realises that God never loved Mother Nature or Planet Earth as much as they loved him. He only loved how much the Earth was willing to provide for him, but he never provided back.

Mother Nature decides to destroy Planet Earth. She is badly hurt during this process. God implies that he is trapped in this destiny of needing to create things, and so he will keep creating, because that is what he does. Mother Nature, ever loving, still has life and love inside of her. God takes this love she has and recreates the earth again, starting it all over again in a show of reincarnation.

Ultimately, humanity never learns (and apparently God never learns too), and history repeats itself.

I feel like I just wrote a HSC worthy essay in that spoiler section. Once you know the metaphor, I think the film feels pretty straightforward, but the film is still pretty insane, and definitely not an easy watch.

Manners Maketh Man redux

Kingsman 2 (2017)

7.4/10 on IMDb
50% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: It's alright;
Low-energy entertainment

Watch it if you: Are a fan of the first Kingsman

When the Kingsman headquarters are destroyed in a mass terror attack, the Kingsmen resort to getting help from their US ally, Statesman.

I loved Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014), and really wanted to love this sequel, but it was a bit disappointing. While it was enjoyable, it tried too hard to be like its original, without actually being anywhere near it.

Ahh yes, we've got another ridiculously crazy save-the-world situation happening. What made the first Kingsman so great was that it was nothing like what we expected. The movie swept us off our feet unexpectedly and we had no choice but to just go along for the ride, loving it all the while.

Unfortunately, this has set a precedent for The Golden Circle, because we expect another weird, whacky, hilarious, and gory movie that's at least just as good as the first. And knowing that, Matthew Vaughn, the director, as well as the producers/studio have all tried to deliver an even crazier and even more action-packed film. And while this paid off in some respects, this film definitely does not live up to its predecessor.

The first half in particular was not that great, and it was obvious that a lot of elements that were happening were put in purely to try to outdo the craziness of the first film. They were just trying too hard, particularly with some of the directing and the camerawork.

After we all loved the impressive tracking shot of the crazy church sequence from the first movie, they must have thought it would be a good idea to do a lot more of that, even if the scene itself didn't call for it. So, especially in the beginning, some of the fight scenes looked really artificial and weird to watch. They spent too much time trying to make everything look cool and smooth, so much so that it had a really unrealistic and digital look to it.

And I think this is where most of my issues with this film lie. They constantly try to add things in for the sake of "people liked it in the first movie, so let's do it AGAIN!" They were never actually adding things in because it made sense to add them in.

For example, they tried to recreate an iconic scene from the first movie and it just did not work. I'll talk about this more in the spoiler section, but it was so ridiculous and illogical to incorporate that in except to have a fun fight scene that also serves as a throwback to the first film. The fight itself was cool because of the choreography, but the reason the fight started in the first place was so silly!

Another thing is that the soundtrack is also super loud and quite distracting. I don't know why I had a gripe against this, though, because I enjoyed when they did this in the first film. For some reason, it just seemed really distracting when they would blare up a song during a fight scene.

But it did get better towards the end, when it got back to being ridiculously badass with all the weapons they were using in the epic fight scene.

However, in the middle there seemed to be just a lot of a waste of characters and actors, and there were certain scenes where you just didn't believe the characters were in any danger at all. More about this in the spoilers.

One thing I did like was how they sort of tied every element together in the final fight scene. Throughout the movie there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary things being shown through the movie, but they do all pay off towards the end.

However, I think the message of the film was a bit... odd. Again, it's hard to discuss this in a non-spoiler way but where the first movie focused on climate change, this movie focused on the war on drugs. And I just don't think they did a very good job at making a stance on the topic of drugs, maybe because the studio wanted to keep it safe. But when your films depict violent and gory fight scenes (which include people being cut in half or having their heads explode colourfully), or even when your film unapologetically makes recurring jokes about anal sex or fingering someone, I don't think a safe stance on a heated societal debate is really the way to go.

So most of the issues come down to the directing, pacing, and writing of the film. The cast itself is great though.

The very handsome Taron Egerton is back as Eggsy, our favourite kid-off-the-streets-turned-gentleman-spy. He did a great job in the first film and was still able to hold his own alongside the very impressive cast of this sequel.

Colin Firth returns (not a spoiler, it was in trailers and on posters), and he does a great job in this. I actually quite like what they did with his character, although I do have some gripes about his arc which I will leave to the spoiler section of this review.

Julianne Moore also plays the villain, and she looks so great in this film! She also looks like she really enjoyed herself, but her villain character was a bit too whacky and comical for my liking. I get that there is an element of suspension of belief here, but it just felt too parodic, even for a Kingsman film.

There's also Jeff Bridges and Channing Tatum in this, but I felt like their characters could have done so much more. The marketing for this film implied they would have a really big role, but unfortunately they don't do all that much and it seems like a waste of casting.

However, Pedro Pascal is great in this film, and I loved it whenever they showed him using his whip and lasso. I actually really liked the idea of the classy Kingsmen having these country-bumpkin-like Statesmen as their cousins. It allowed them to show us some new styles of uniform and weaponry, and was a good contrast to the idea of the gentleman spy that we're used to.

So before I start my spoilers section, I think in the end there are just too many things happening in this movie that the film feels like a mess. It's a very fun and very enjoyable mess, but most of the things here are unnecessary call backs to the first film, or unnecessary sequences specifically made to try and outdo the first film. There are a lot of whacky characters and crazily far-fetched plot devices, but when we loved these in the first film, it's a bit cringey and unrealistic in this film. So while the movie is really fun and enjoyable, and I would still definitely watch another sequel, I probably won't watch this film again. If I wanted to watch another Kingsman movie, I'd just watch the original again.

--------------
Okay, so this is the start of my spoilers section. I was going to incorporate spoilers throughout my points, but there are just way too many things I want to talk about.

Click to show/hide spoilers:

(A word of warning: this spoiler section is a bit all over the place and is mostly me just ranting and nitpicking.)

So the biggest thing that was running through my mind was: I know they killed Roxy, Eggsy's friend Brandon, his dog JB, and the entire Kingsman headquarters and staff homes to raise the stakes, but to me it sort of reinforced the idea that no matter what happens, our beloved Eggsy would still be safe.

This also branches out into a heap of issues I had with the film:

1. Why did Roxy have to die? She did jack all in the first movie, I was excited to see her do so much more here. Also there wasn't really any emotional weight to Roxy's death even though her and Eggsy were such great friends.
   
2. Why was it so easy for Brandon to see all the guns and weaponry in Eggsy's room? Surely they would have better security measures than that?
   
3. I loved how Eggsy put up his own newspaper clippings on the wall, that was very sweet.
   
4. Why did Merlin have to die? I thought they specifically gave Eggsy a minesweeper? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point of a minesweeper is to make sure no one dies from a mine?!
   
5. You honestly want me to believe that when you put two people into the equivalent of a free-falling human salad spinner, they would come out unscathed? I mean, if you don't want to kill them, then at least injure them or something! Even just having a shoulder dislocate and then making a scene out of them popping it back in or something, I dunno! Anything! They literally just walked away from that debacle.

Okay let's talk the bar fight scene. They were obviously trying to do a throwback to the first movie, but there was almost no logic behind that fight.

Firstly, the guy at the bar was listening in on their conversation, but he didn't realise like holy shit they're talking about hacking and showing each other crazy spy gadgets, maybe they're SPIES?!

Secondly, his reason for picking a fight with them was so ridiculous, it was just, "You're British, get out of here, I have no foundings for my feelings of anger towards you."

Thirdly, it's so out of character for Harry to start fighting them over that. That is not very gentlemanly. In the first film, he was about to walk away until they personally insulted him, and only then did he start fighting them. And the only reason he started killing these people violently was because he heard that his colleague Lancelot had died and he needed to "let off a bit of steam". I understand, though that perhaps he just wanted to fight again after spending such a long time not fighting since he was amnesic, but still the whole thing seemed really forced. It made more sense for Whiskey to step in and have fun with them, but I think it would have been better for the redneck to pick the fight with Whiskey in the first place.

Speaking of Harry, how on earth did he suddenly improve his coordination? They show him accidentally stunning a computer instead of the security guard, then he doesn't really do any more fighting except throwing a freeze bomb at people and shooting Whiskey (who is right in front of him and would have been hard to miss), and then he can suddenly take on all of Poppy's goons? Almost as if his near-death never happened?



As to some things on the characters:

• Channing Tatum was a huge waste in this film. All he did was one small fight scene, and then a scene where he danced a bit and they didn't even get him to dance very well! They could have at least asked him to pull off some sick moves
  
• Also Jeff Bridges hardly did anything at all! Elton John did more than Jeff Bridges!
  
• Speaking of, at first I was not keen on the Elton John cameos. I liked them and I found them funny, but just thought there were too many of them and they were overdoing it. However it did pay off at the end though, especially when he just intercepted the robot dogs eating Harry (ELTON JOHN DETECTED - FRIEND)
  
• Also Halle Berry's character could really have been played by anyone but I guess they're just trying to set up a sequel with Channing Tatum and Halle Berry
  
• I was surprised to see that Princess Tilde and Eggsy were so committed. It was nice to see that (especially the asking-for-permission scene) because it was so different to the James Bond spy movies we're used to (and the first movie made it a point to show they were different to James Bond movies). I also think they tried to make Tilde look younger than she did in the first movie so that it wouldn't look too weird that she was dating Eggsy.
  
• I think Charlie was a better character in this film than the last one. His shaved head made him look more menacing, he wasn't being a whiny pompous brat, and I liked his upgrades. The only thing was that it made it ridiculous to see Eggsy fight him. He literally casually chucked a bowling ball through layers of walls, and yet when he throws Eggsy around, his suit doesn't even get scuffed by the teensiest bit. Sigh, I miss Gazelle I wish she didn't die.
  

Nearly finished, I promise.

Do you think they went a bit too far with the fingering joke? I mean, it was funny, but there was an entire like 10 minutes dedicated to that joke. There was seriously no other way to track someone? It was such a lengthy gag.

Also, they put down cannabis and ecstasy in the same class as meth and heroin? Like, really? This was the point I was trying to make about the film trying to not really make a stance on the war on drugs. On one hand, they have Poppy say that sugar is more addictive and deadly than drugs, and they have the President's employee say that people who do drugs aren't bad and sometimes it even helps them function properly at work. Then on the other hand, they have people saying to their friends, "I told you not to use that stuff!" or even "Maybe you should stick to booze!" It just seemed so weird, almost like the studio wanted them to go against drugs just because they were concerned about regulation...

And with that, that's the last of my spoilers points! Congrats on making it to the end.

All this is legal? If you’re doing it for the good guys.

American Made (2017)

7.3/10 on IMDb
89% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: It's alright

Watch it if you: Are a fan of Tom Cruise;
Are interested in movies based on true stories;
Are interested in movies that involve drug muling

This is the story of how Barry Seal goes from TWA pilot, to CIA informant, to Medellin cartel semi-founder(ish), to... well, a whole lot more. It's a fast-paced film on how in the span of just 8 years, Barry Seal went from your average Joe to a key participatant in one of the biggest CIA operations ever.

I wasn't too keen on this film, but frankly there was nothing else really showing so I decided to check it out. I saw the trailer a couple times but would always forget about it so I kind of went into this movie blind. I did end up enjoying the film, but more so because of the interesting story behind this Barry Seal person, since the actual directing of this movie was not the best.

So as I said, the film is enjoyable. It's interesting, Barry Seal's always up to something different and ridiculously complex, and to see his situation spiral and spiral out of control is a pretty great watch.

The film is directed in a way that they explain the story to us in different ways, be it voice-over, home-video-styled explanations, fast montages and diagrams, etc. Which makes it a bit interesting but it also felt like sometimes the movie was trying to be too different and it came across as too much effort on the director's part. I think this was more jarring in the first 30 minutes or so, though, where they try to make it seem like a semi-documentary, with shaky handheld camerawork . It does get better after a while though (or maybe I just got used to it).

The film is also quite funny. It's not just ridiculous how involved Barry gets in things, but you can also see the enjoyment in Tom Cruise's face when he's acting, and I think that just added to your enjoyment of watching him do all these things knowing that he's going to fail, as anyone who tries to outdo himself eventually does.

There were also some pretty funny moments in explaining the plot (for example there's one part where they're talking about how a drug smuggling operation didn't work out, and it cuts to these photos of someone in jail with drugs taped to her body under her clothes). This kind of thing happens quite a bit and I guess, gun to my head, I'd have to say that the director did a good job taking the risk even if it meant I didn't like some of the other things he did.

I think it's just because the film tried to have a real 80's vibe to it, but I mean a movie doesn't need to have an 80's home-doco vibe just because it's set in the 80's. It's perfectly fine to direct an 80's film as normal.

The cast did a decent job too, even though a lot of the supporting actors didn't get that much screen time. I get that Domnhall Gleeson's character was meant to be some kind of a scumbag, but I just didn't like his smug look every time he was talking to Barry Seal. But of course that's just my bias because I love the sweet, innocent Domnhall from other films.

In the end, this movie is nothing memorable. My review of this is already an indicator that I couldn't remember much of the actual movie since I didn't really go that in-depth on it, but I do recall finding it quite enjoyable. I guess it's just really forgettable, and if it weren't about a really interesting pilot-turned-undercover-CIA-drug-smuggler story then I probably wouldn't remember anything at all about.

Depression is not a weakness.

A few weeks ago, I started seeing a psychologist.

It was the first time since late 2013 and I was so disappointed in myself.

I was doing so well coping with depression on my own and it had been over a year since I had been feeling suicidal. I felt like a failure for letting myself get depressed again, and I felt like the fact that I needed to see a psychologist meant that I wasn't strong enough.

I told my psychologist this and she asked me what I meant by "strong"; what did a 'strong' person look like to me?

I half jokingly replied, "Pfft I dunno, maybe someone who doesn't have depression?!"

She then told me this analogy:

Imagine if you were watching a race and there were all these 'normal' people running the race. But you take a closer look and amongst these 'normal' people, there are other people competing in the race that have large rocks tied to their legs and arms.

Then put yourself in that same race. You look around and everyone's lane is normal, but in your lane, you're waist deep in water that you have to run through. And then just before the finish line, there are all these large boulders you have to climb over.

You compare yourself to those in the other lanes and you think that you're weak. Is that a fair judgement?

Of course not, it's not even a comparison! You're running a completely different race.

I told her that I had never seen depression in that way before, and if I saw someone else with depression, I would never in a million years say that they were weak. Yet when I have depression, I'm pathetic and the weakest person in the world.

She said to me, "You think you're weak because you feel weak. But of course you feel weak; you have rocks tied to your legs!"

So many people go through their own difficulties in life, be it family, friends, relationships, work, study, career, etc. But for some, like me, there's a predisposition to depression on top of all that.

But if someone had a predisposition to diabetes, you wouldn't call them weak. Or if someone's kidney was failing, you wouldn't say it was failing because they "weren't strong enough". So how come when it's our brain, just another organ like all the other organs that could malfunction, we say that we're weak?

I know when I injured my knee/foot/ankle, it was because I was overworking myself. I got a little bit too crazy with running, and just ran so much that my legs stopped working properly.

But when I get depression, I never see this as me overworking my brain, or me being under so much stress that the depression comes back. I always think I was just too weak to prevent it.

And my psychologist told me that when it comes to our mood, it's something that we believe we have control over. So when our mood is affecting our daily life, we feel weak because we think we should be able to control it. But unfortunately we can't always control how we feel.

A few things in my life have started to get better, and I'm getting a lot of support from my friends and family, and it's good going to see and talk to a psychologist about this. Depression isn't something you can easily fix, though, and sometimes it just takes time. I still find it difficult to get out of bed, I don't find the same enjoyment in things I used to love (movies aren't that appealing and I literally have to force myself to read), and no matter how badly I actually want to do something, sometimes hours fly by before I can even start to work up the energy to do it.

It will take time for me to change my way of thinking, but I guess I just need to actively keep reminding myself that no, I'm not weak for dealing with depression. In fact, I was strong enough to carry all those rocks all this way and I still remain standing now. I may have fallen over a few times, but each time I've gotten back up. I haven't given up just yet.

I'm about to git nekkid. So no peekin.

Logan Lucky (2017)

7.4/10 on IMDb
93% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: It's alright

Watch it if you: Want to watch a whimsical and bizarre heist scene;
Aren't expecting a laugh-out-loud sense of humour from this film;
Are a fan of any of the main cast

In West Virginia, Jimmy Logan recruits his brother, sister, and an incarcerated demolitions man for a wacky and colourful hillbilly heist.

If you've seen the trailers for this, you might expect this film to be a hilarious non stop comedy fest, but unfortunately I found it didn't live up to the hype. Even now, critics are saying it's amazing and hilariously witty. While I did find it funny and enjoyable, it wasn't hilarious or anything.

But before I get into anything that matters, I have to say that overweight Channing Tatum and Adam Driver are quite funny to look at.

I might be finally getting used to Adam Driver's face because he didn't look that weird here, but maybe because his facial hair is sort of covering his features, and because he's overweight it fills out the weird angular bony structures of his face.

But honestly, these two lead characters don't really matter in light of Daniel Craig's character. He is honestly hilarious in this and he steals every scene he's in. I've never seen him act like this sort of whacky, ridiculous, and bizarre character before, and it was really refreshing to see him.

There's also a really decent cast of cameos in this movie, I kept hearing people go, "Ahhh" or "Ooooh" whenever someone familiar popped up.

But as I said before, this film is funny, but not in the crazy laugh-out-loud sense of humour that I expected it to be from watching the trailers. It was more like the chuckle-here-and-there, or even the what-on-earth-is-happening type of humour.

However, there are a few stand out scenes that are just so ridiculously funny. For example, there is a whole sequence taking a dif at how slow George RR Martin is at releasing The Winds of Winter. Come on Georgie, there's a whole prison full of people waiting for you to release that book!

Apart from this though, some parts of the movie felt like they dragged on for quite a bit. It's only a 2 hour film but it felt a lot longer.

In the end, the plot was kind of hammed in but overall the movie was still quite fun. I don't think it's worth watching in cinemas because there was nothing really exceptional about anything. The cast was fine, the humour was fine, the directing was fine. Everything was fine but nothing was amazing. There are a few jokes here and there that make it quite funny, and there are some very memorable scenes, and overall it is quite enjoyable, but the plot in itself isn't amazing so it just stays as an alright film for me.