http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/ ... s-20150915
Ouch...Following along with the plot only serves to enrage, as you quickly realize that nothing and no one you see has any substantial or thematic purpose for existing other than the shock-value of their gaudy superficiality. Think of the film as a perfume ad for poison, directed by the deformed spawn of David Cronenberg and Kurt Vonnegut.
They found something positive:
Hoping it's one of those that gets polarized reviews...With a few great lines of dialogue, and something of a self-deprecating tone (the film becomes its own best critic when Samson tells Nicola that she'll be perceived as a one-dimensional male fantasy in his book), "London Fields" may not be as disastrous as it immediately feels to be. Buried underneath the glop are interesting notions on reality, creation, and the nature of death. And thanks to its aesthetic, it's at least a very beautiful catastrophe.
This wasn't so negative as the first:
http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/lond ... 68.article
EDIT x2:London Fields overflows with interesting ideas but they are frequently buried under lurid fantasy sequences, blunt-edged satire and the sense that it is much more amused by its own wild daring than we are.
Variety doesn't like it either:
http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/lo ... 201594094/
And a last one for to night...Martin Amis' novel proves even more unadaptable than expected in this misbegotten mess starring Amber Heard and Billy Bob Thornton.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/se ... -treatment
London, even the nightmarish incarnation Amis imagined, feels a long way off. The canny location scouting (Pope’s Road in Brixton, the stone dinosaurs of Crystal Palace park, the Emirates Air Line cable car) can’t make up for the lack of any sense of real meaning.
I think I can just as well go to bed now...