London Fields (2018) Poster

(2018)

User Reviews

Review this title
155 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
What were they thinking???
Sleepin_Dragon1 September 2020
I'm not sure if Jim Sturgess was encouraged to play the insanely over the top cockney geezer, or it's simply how he did it

I give it three stars, simply because the opening was brilliant, two minutes of stylish, elegant, engaging cinematography, those sequences were the best part of the film. Some scenes looked nice. However...

As soon as Keith arrives, the film becomes unwatchable. The plot vanishes, the story telling is nothing short of a fiasco, it really does become a self absorbed mess, I applaud you if you see it all the way through.

Theo James by contrast is very good, he's a fine actor, but the damage had been done beyond belief by the time he arrives.

Didn't enjoy it, 3/10.
33 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
a mess
SnoopyStyle29 March 2019
Struggling writer Samson Young (Billy Bob Thornton), sleazy darts player Keith Talent (Jim Sturgess), and well dressed man Guy Clinch (Theo James) are in a dive bar when Nicola Six (Amber Heard) walks in dressed in sexy mourning. The clairvoyant femme fatale can see the deaths of people. In that moment, she realizes that she has seen her eventual murderer. She lives above Samson and is a character in the story he's writing.

It's a disjointed mess. I like a few of the surreal touches but dislike a whole lot more other ones. The Enola Gay makes Guy look stupid or is the writing stupid? Or is the writer's expectations of the audience is too low? At least, the story could be about Bockscar and Fat Man. It just makes the movie stupid overall. Next, Samson Young is an unreliable narrator. He's a sleepy unreliable creator. It makes everything in the movie unreliable. In addition, Amber Heard is nothing but sex. She's an empty character. There is no motivation. She is a figment of Samson's imagination. She is a surreal fake creation of the male libido. She's a sex robot bending to each male's fantasy. Finally, there is Jim Sturgess contorting his face unnaturally beyond camp. It's completely ridiculous. With the darts playing, it reminds me of The Big Lebowski but in a bad way. There is no loveable character. There is no fun. There is no enjoyable quirkiness. This is a mess waiting for the reveal which I don't care about with characters that are not compelling.
52 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Simply put, awful
stanadrian25 December 2019
A pathetic attempt of a deep, interesting and artsy movie. Just awful, and I usually find some good things in bad movies. Do yourself a big favour and avoid this utter failure.
21 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful. Just awful
kikiclogwyni28 March 2020
One of the worst movies I've ever watched. Amber Heard plays a woman who has foreseen her own murder and spends the rest of the film trying to work out who her killer will be, apparently by ... shall we say "sleeping with" .... all the possible suspects.

I am writing this while half way through it and I already want to kill her myself. She sashays and vamps around valiantly, but cannot pull off the film noir vibe. Heaven only knows what Jim Sturgess thought he was doing. I would like to say he chews up the scenery, but I doubt his crack-head yellowed teeth would be up to the job. Billy Bob Thornton is, well, Billy Bob Thornton, only sleepier than usual. The only high spots are the few appearances by Johnny Depp as a cheerfully villainous Cockney gangster, but he is uncredited in the final product. One can only presume he did not want to be associated with this abomination.

Pretentious, badly acted, boring tosh. Total waste of a good book and almost two hours of my life! Awful. Absolutely awful.
87 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Someone's perverted sexual fantasy
Gordon-117 October 2019
This film tells the story of a writer who gets inspired by her neighbour of his flat swap.

Seriously, this film is so sexually charged that it gets me uncomfortable. It basically is the vehicle to objectify Amber Heard, thereby fulfilling someone's perverted sexual fantasy. It tries a bit of noir, but it does not succeed. Instead, it is less than engaging and does not offer suspense or mystery as intended.
76 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wow
arfdawg-17 April 2019
Hands down, this HAS to be one of the WORST movies ever made.

It's a mess.

Not a film noir. It's a film No
78 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Quite Terrible.
catblack-692-31435514 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This is not in any way a cult classic. It's just a terrible movie. Amber Heard is hot in this. Billy Bob Thornton is ok in it. (He kind of phones it in.) Johnny Depp has more screentime than Theo James, but is uncredited somehow. Too much of the movie is taken up by a darts throwing yellow-toothed Jim Sturgess who plays it far too unsavory to be believable. And the film is made up of these horrible Thornton voiceovers and... you know what? You are probably going to watch because of the hot girl. But trust me, just put on Showgirls, it's a better movie.
109 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bizarre nonsense
jnrb715 July 2020
The ingredients: (1) A very bored chain smoking Billy Bob Thornton without yellow fingers. (2) The femme fatale who is consumed by all things sexual like a female cat on heat. She doesn't work, prepare food or go shopping but instead prances around all day in her underwear in her flat in case male visitors arrive. She has also been living in the neighbourhood for a year but the boys never noticed before. How come? (3) The posh gentlemen who prefers to hang around in sleazy underground bars all by himself where he has no friends and doesn't fit in. (4) The dart player scumbag who squints his eyes and pulls faces every time he speaks as if someone emptied a bottle of lemon juice in his eyes. (5) The kid in a dinosaur suit who behaves like a total gremlin and has to be stopped physically or he will eat the furniture. Where can it go to from here? Only downwards, and we didn't even get to see her boobs.
68 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Annoying.
mikehavekin20 February 2019
I'm going to be brief: Jim Sturgess overacts so much it's embarrassing, my neighbours three dogs bark from the minute they leave to when they get back, Jim is way more irritating than them. It's like amateur dramatics night.

Give this one a wide berth.
76 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
SEE THE DIRECTOR'S CUT
lalalohan28 October 2018
Two versions of London Fields are currently playing in theatres. The film most theatres are showing is the producer's cut, but select theatres are showing the director's cut instead.

It's amazing how two different edits of the same film can make such different movies. Yesterday I saw the producer's cut of London Fields and today I saw the director's cut, and wow THE DIRECTOR'S CUT IS SO MUCH BETTER! Why isn't this one the main cut? Here the bad CGI'ed skies are substituted for tension, mystery, emotion, and a plot that's easier (plus more interesting) to follow; as well as a whole new score and different takes that bring out better performances from the actors. Every emotional beat is so much more powerful, which makes the mystery of who will kill Nicola Six that much more suspenseful and engaging.

THIS is the version of the film that should be playing everywhere. The producer's cut honestly shouldn't even exist; it just doesn't add anything to the film. It's no wonder the director sued the producers over this. According to him the "main" cut released is a cut he hasn't been involved in for over four years.

If you had any intrest in seeing London Fields I would 100% recommend seeing the director's cut, and if you liked the producer's cut then you'll love this one even more! It's still not a perfect film, but THIS one is more entertaining, engaging, suspensful, and overall just a better film. I really hope both cuts are released on the DVD to compare them even better; I find the whole thing so interesting.
109 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What did I just watch?
pink_floydilia25 November 2019
This has got to be the dumbest movie I've ever watched. And I've never seen anyone overact more than Jim Sturgess has in their movie. Absolutely ridiculous. Even the rest of the cast couldn't pick this disaster up off the floor. Nothing makes sense, transitions are messy, acting is shocking, storyline is ridiculous. No redeeming qualities at all.
37 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
DIRECTOR'S CUT IS A GORGEOUS, INTELLIGENT TREAT!
cgibrand1 November 2018
Make sure you see the Director's Cut!!! It seems there is only one imdb page for these two, WILDLY DIFFERENT, movies. At least for now.

I don't know how an adaptation of this story could have been done better. Somehow an American director managed to portray London in a very specific era through this unusual, slightly weird but so captivating story, perfectly. The Director's cut is sexy, thought-provoking, surprising, beautifully filmed and full of moments that will pop up in your head in the best way for the next few days. I don't think Amber Heard has ever been captured this beautifully, and this will probably be her best movie, ever. The rest of the cast, especially BBT and Theo James, is great too.

Location, details, choices of images and where to push makes this more than a movie, it's an excellent piece of art for this time. Finally, the MUSIC is unbelievable. I must get my hands on this album! So beautiful. And if I understand everything correctly, the music (or most of it?) is exclusive to the Director's cut! That's incredible!!!!
44 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
An Unintentionally Funny Catastrophe
CANpatbuck366410 July 2019
I'm not going to write much in the defence of London Fields (even though I gave it a 6/10, you'll understand why in the next paragraph) but when I review bad movies, I always start with the positives. I was intrigued by London Fields for around the first 10 minutes. The dialogue by our narrator Samson Young (Billy Bob Thorton) is heavy handed but they know how to setup a mystery. Its obvious that the story will have a different kind of slant to it (both by the beginning flash-forward and the bizarre notes about the current global climate within the story) and it caught my attention. The movie very quickly went off the rails with the introduction of Keith Talent (Jim Sturgess) and Guy Clinch (Theo James) but I have to admit, I was interested for a short period of time. The other note I'll make is that Amber Heard was appropriately cast as Nicola Six and she was trying so hard in this. She couldn't save this train wreck of a movie and I felt bad for her because of how desperate the team behind the camera are to remind you of how hot she is in every single moment she is on screen (I appreciated how beautiful she is but a lot of her steamy scenes border on porn and I doubt she consented to that). I wouldn't define this as an award-worthy performance but when the rest of the cast is so out of whack, she's at least playing in the appropriate area and she fits the part.

Some movies are made for the uninitiated and some are made for the fans. The plot in London Fields must require you to be familiar with the source material because it is so scatterbrained, I don't know if I could have wrapped my mind around it with a second viewing. London is in crisis, people have fled the city, are we offered a detailed explanation why? Nope, just go along with it. Our narrator Samson (a terminally ill writer) is dying of an unspecified illness but he's resigned and almost nonchalant about it. Why is he dying? Why is he okay with it? Never mind that. Why is he interacting with all the fictional characters in his new book? Why is he seen by some and ignored by others? How is Nicola able to see the future? If she's aware of what will happen, why doesn't she try to protect herself? There were answers offered to some of these questions but none were satisfying or made much sense. Compounding on this is the ridiculous dialogue which is okay at best and at worst just awful. I got plenty of laughs from this movie but I don't think any of them were on purpose.

The supporting cast is either at one end of the spectrum or the other. They're either underplaying it so badly that you can imagine them asking for their lines after every take or they're chewing the scenery with such an over-the-top bravado that it left me howling. On the under-performing side, we have Billy Bob Thorton, Theo James, Jaimie Alexander and Cara Delevigne (who is only in the movie for about 5-10 minutes). Thorton is a good actor when he's committed and while I'm almost certain he was directed to be this way, boredom radiates off his performance. He's sleepwalking through this and I don't think there was much he could do. Theo isn't a terrible actor but he's normally a little bland and this is definitely more of that. On the other side, we have Jim Sturgess, Jason Isaacs and Johnny Depp who are all swinging for the fences. Sturgess is overdoing his character in an epic sense here, I was laughing at him every time he was on screen. Between how ridiculously sleazy his character looks to his mind-blowing delivery, he was hitting Sean Penn from Gangster Squad levels in scenery chewing. We also have Depp in a pretty small role, he's at least fun in his small bits but its a lot like his shtick in Mortdecai where its too cartoony to even be in the same ballpark as reality. We also have Isaacs in voice over, he's so sly and scummy in this that his voice is the embodiment of the cat who ate the canary. There's only 1 other movie that I can think of that features such a wide range of laughable stuff from the cast (I'll be talking about it in the closing paragraph to this review).

I started out laughing, then I slipped into being dumbfounded and by the end, I was a mix of being in awe and snickering under my breath. The twists and character motivations in this movie are so hard to determine even though if you diagrammed the plot, it would be so simple. Through the perspective of Samson, there was a lot of potential to really play with the style the movie was being filmed with (e.g. the movie Limitless where we see the effects of the drug) with Samson drifting in an out of sanity or "the real world." But while the movie isn't without any style, there's very little here that's going to be memorable or that's going to catch your eye. I know the budget was modest but if you don't have the material to carry the movie, do something else that's going to elevate it.

The behind-the-scenes notes about London Fields paint an accurate picture of how much of a misfire this is. But I couldn't turn away from the screen or even stop giggling at the gigantic mess London Fields is. I think this would make a great so-bonkers-its-good double feature with the 2018 release Terminal. Both feature a stylized attempt at noir with some Guy Ritchie style sprinkled in and they both miss the boat completely. Both feature a gorgeous and talented lead actress who are trying their best but the movie drags them down like anchor tied around their ankles. Both feature a supporting cast that is so all-over-the-place that you can't pin them down as disinterested or way too committed. Lastly, they also both have an ending twist that attempts to shock the viewer and doesn't quite get there (admittedly though Terminal wins this category hands down). Terminal is the better movie but London Heights made me laugh more. I'm sorry that Heard and Depp were fighting constantly while this was going on but London Fields falls into the so-bad-its-entertaining category for me. If I were a real critic and I had to grade this seriously, this is a 3/10 but I'm bumping it up to a 6/10 for the entertainment value I got out of it.
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You couldn't pay me enough to watch this again
Jxsbee21 November 2020
How this movie ever got made is beyond me. Absolutely terrible. Amber Heard couldn't act to save her life and had me cringing throughout. The storytelling is also Labourious. Best part of this movie is the whole ten seconds Johnny Depp has a scene and even he can't save this horror.
50 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I wish you could give minus stars as a rating
servilan42-847-18175512 March 2019
This movie is a real stinker and that's the best thing I can say about it. If Jim Stugess' does not win an award for most dreadful, horrible performance in a movie for London Fields, there is no God.
70 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible acting
alexisruttley27 September 2021
How is Amber Heard an actress her acting is horrendous.
26 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
London Wasteland
tigerfish5014 January 2022
'London Fields' begins with two fiction writers embarking on an apartment swap. Struggling scribbler Samson Young vacates his squalid Hell's Kitchen den to stay at the opulent Notting Hill residence of successful Mark Asprey, who departs for New York City. The duo's names give the game away - the swap signifies a personality split rather than any geographical re-location. This impression is reinforced by Asprey's initials echoing those of London Fields' novelist Martin Amis, while the symbolism of Young's moniker and his home base are fairly obvious.

The film follows Young as he slots seamlessly into Asprey's social milieu. He focuses on documenting the anticipated murder of his upstairs neighbor, a movie star called Nicki Six, who has predicted her own death at the hands of an unknown killer. The prime suspects for this future homicide are a darts player and a city wheeler-dealer - soon to be joined by Young himself. Nicki has affairs with all three, goading them to kill her through jealousy, so that her prediction will prove correct.

This extravagant plot might be manufactured by Asprey's fevered imagination, but unfortunately the film itself also looks like the product of a fevered imagination. The movie shows why it's a bad idea to get a music video director to film the adaptation of a fairly sophisticated novel - the end-result is always likely to be garish visuals at the expense of coherence and substance. It utterly fails to conjure up the the novel's background or characters' personalities. Compounding the catastrophe, the actors deliver theatrical performances which destroy any chance of taking the proceedings seriously. By the time the climax arrives with its predictable twist, it's hard to believe anybody still cares about the fate of these cornball caricatures.
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Non sensical
onestopconcepts30 October 2018
This movie made no sense. Transitions were non existent, the character development was poor except for the main character who only seemed to make her appearance known by sleeping with all the male actors for no apparent reason. This was waste of money.
85 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
London Fields
JoBloTheMovieCritic20 July 2019
1/10 - absolutely terrible - for some reason I didn't believe all the horrid reviews, but they were speaking the absolute truth
31 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unintentionally comical! You need to be high to get through this...
Tommy-Iceman16 October 2019
Stylish with some surreal touches, but lost all the complexities of the book. It falls into the: 'so-bad-it's-entertaining' category. A vacuous, one-dimensional performance from Amber Heard adds nothing to an incoherent plot. Jim Sturgess epically over-acts to hilarious levels! What was the director thinking? No wonder Johnny Depp wanted to remain un-credited
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Boy oh boy
rjfromtoronto14 May 2022
Opening scene made it look like it was going to be a neo noir, femme fatale cinema lovers long awaited dream, the cast should have been good enough, but it failed, much like The Terminal with Margot Robbie, though that did have a nice twist ending to make it at least palatable. This dog of a film? Waste of $5 in the Wal-Mart discount bin, it was weird and you could tell a book was written and only those who read it knew what the F was going on, the pills and calendar, throwing out her stuff, the holes in the ceiling, the dinosaur kid and that simp married guy, why did anyone want her dead, being jealous and played? Pfft, at least she looked good in that white dress and other scenes, that was all it was good for, seeing a sexy looking lady doing wooden acting looking so good doing nothing. Otherwise WaTch Atomic Blonde, Ava, Miss Bala, Salt or Anna or Hanna if you want to see strong female well acted leads with decent plots and themes. Or just watch a real Noir. White Heat, The Killing, The Killers, Criss Cross, The Postman Always Rings Twice, Double Indemnity, The Blue Dahlia, The Glass Key among others, there's nothing like the old school stuff and the beautiful starlets of yesterday.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Who is that the actress?
dipsyhasgone8 November 2020
She just bad, idk kinda bringing down the entire movie
51 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
See the Director's cut!
pconnor12 November 2018
See the Director's cut! I've seen both versions, and the Director's cut is the one that gets this rating. The director's cut is so much more layered and well crafted. The music choices, the color, the differences in how the characters are introduced, and how we are made to care for the characters, and how the story unfolds is just so much better. You can feel the attention, care, and skill involved in the director's version.

It was truly interesting to see the difference. The whole experience is just better.
36 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Amber Heards best
christianstephens29 October 2018
Amber Heard is talented , great cast, solid directing and decent writing. Long run time and a lot of dialogue but such interesting characters and Billy Bob is great.
21 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lead Actress cannot act
random-7077813 March 2019
Apparently the lead actress was a looker ten years ago and this made up for a complete absence of acting talent. she is not a looker unless one means her own blank stare, and she just destroys the film with unbelievably bad acting.

FYI for the one person who posted four reviews under different names saying "get the directors cut" -- all of us giving this one or two stars did see the directors cut. It IS the directors cut streaming. It is just as bad only more nonsense. More garbage does not make the garbage better.
95 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed