Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Slaughterhouse Rulez (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I can sum this film up in one easy way: it's Shaun Of The Dead meets Attack The Block meets St Trinians, but nowhere near as good as that film combo should be.
To say I'm a little bit heartbroken about this would be an understatement. This was one of my top picks from the autumn cinema offerings and now I'm just sad that it made the cut.
"Slaughterhouse Rulez looks like St Trinians, mixed with the aliens from Attack The Block meets the hellmouth from Sunnydale... and what's not to love about that?!" - quote from me in pre-release excitement.
Evidently, everything.
The general premise of the story seemed like a good one, and the trio of top acting talent felt like it would carry the film even if the story turned out to be flimsy. Here's my problem, I didn't enjoy any of their characters. I didn't find The Bat or Meredith Houseman likeable, even as comic relief, and while Woody Chapman was probably the best of the three I still found him annoying.
By far the best characters were brought to life by the younger cast members. Don and Willoughby have a great dynamic throughout and along with the interactions as a group when they join up with the girls to investigate they saved this from being a complete flop for me.
I take very rough notes in the screenings while I'm watching. It's generally me vaguely pointing a pen at the page and scribbling key words down. I think that my favourite during this one was "imitation Draco".
What I did notice from my scribblings is that I made more than one note about Shaun Of The Dead. Someone gets tooled up with a cricket bat, there's a very familiar moment with the car, and at one point I'm reminded of Dylan Moran being dragged through the pub window. Oh, and he gets the group together and heads out to the cadet range.
I said at the beginning that it's like Shaun Of The Dead meets Attack The Block meets St Trinians, I'm afraid that my suggestion would be to watch those instead. The sad thing is that I think I probably would have enjoyed it more if the big three hadn't been in it. Anticipation can be a bitch sometimes.
What you should do
I think this one is better viewed at home with some friends, probably with a drinking game.
To say I'm a little bit heartbroken about this would be an understatement. This was one of my top picks from the autumn cinema offerings and now I'm just sad that it made the cut.
"Slaughterhouse Rulez looks like St Trinians, mixed with the aliens from Attack The Block meets the hellmouth from Sunnydale... and what's not to love about that?!" - quote from me in pre-release excitement.
Evidently, everything.
The general premise of the story seemed like a good one, and the trio of top acting talent felt like it would carry the film even if the story turned out to be flimsy. Here's my problem, I didn't enjoy any of their characters. I didn't find The Bat or Meredith Houseman likeable, even as comic relief, and while Woody Chapman was probably the best of the three I still found him annoying.
By far the best characters were brought to life by the younger cast members. Don and Willoughby have a great dynamic throughout and along with the interactions as a group when they join up with the girls to investigate they saved this from being a complete flop for me.
I take very rough notes in the screenings while I'm watching. It's generally me vaguely pointing a pen at the page and scribbling key words down. I think that my favourite during this one was "imitation Draco".
What I did notice from my scribblings is that I made more than one note about Shaun Of The Dead. Someone gets tooled up with a cricket bat, there's a very familiar moment with the car, and at one point I'm reminded of Dylan Moran being dragged through the pub window. Oh, and he gets the group together and heads out to the cadet range.
I said at the beginning that it's like Shaun Of The Dead meets Attack The Block meets St Trinians, I'm afraid that my suggestion would be to watch those instead. The sad thing is that I think I probably would have enjoyed it more if the big three hadn't been in it. Anticipation can be a bitch sometimes.
What you should do
I think this one is better viewed at home with some friends, probably with a drinking game.
Jade Empire™: Special Edition
Games
App
Jade Empire: Special Edition is an award-winning action RPG from the makers of Dragon Age and Mass...
FTP Manager Pro - FTP Client
Business and Utilities
App
FTP Manager is a full-featured FTP client for iOS with support of FTP and SFTP protocols as well as...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
May 26, 2020 (Updated Jun 18, 2020)
Alita: Battle Angel is great. Is there a good helping of sci-fi dumbfuckery to be found? Of course. But the positives far outweigh any negatives in this instance.
Based on a Manga series and subsequent Anime from the early nineties, Alita brings the signature Japanese comic style to life in style, as a whole heap of (mostly) decent digital effects collides with real-life.
The world of A:BA is really well realised, with the film taking place in the 26th Century, a future that sees man and cyborg live side by side. The plot takes place in The Iron City on the ground, eclipsed by the floating city of Zalem above. It's a striking aesthetic that reminded me of something from a Final Fantasy game. The main narrative follows Dr. Ido (Christoph Waltz) who finds the remains of a deactivated cyborg in a trash heap. He gives the cyborg a new body and a new life, and gives her the name Alita. She has no memory of who she was before, but as she begins to explore the world, her memories slowly return. Alita (Rosa Salazar) is a stupidly likable protagonist. She's a fiery, lethal weapon who has a child like innocence. The motion capture combined with Salazar's performance work really well. In fact, the whole cast is great. Christoph Waltz, Mahershala Ali, Jennifer Connelly, Jackie Earl-Hailey - it's a stellar line up. The only cast member I couldn't get on with was Hugo (Keean Johnson) who mainly serves as Alita's love interest. I didn't particularly like his character and as a result didn't fully buy their romance side plot.
The main issue I had was the pacing. The plot is trying to pack so much into 2 hours, that it moved forward at breakneck speed at times. Some plot points become a bit lost in the whole thing, and a few of the characters seemed inconsequential as a result.
It does go a bit CGI overload at times but that's to be expected by the very nature of what A:BA is. The effects on some of the other cyborg characters are ropey as well, but honestly, these are small gripes against a film that I found myself really enjoying.
I sincerely hope a sequel gets green lit as I for one want more of this world to be explored.
Based on a Manga series and subsequent Anime from the early nineties, Alita brings the signature Japanese comic style to life in style, as a whole heap of (mostly) decent digital effects collides with real-life.
The world of A:BA is really well realised, with the film taking place in the 26th Century, a future that sees man and cyborg live side by side. The plot takes place in The Iron City on the ground, eclipsed by the floating city of Zalem above. It's a striking aesthetic that reminded me of something from a Final Fantasy game. The main narrative follows Dr. Ido (Christoph Waltz) who finds the remains of a deactivated cyborg in a trash heap. He gives the cyborg a new body and a new life, and gives her the name Alita. She has no memory of who she was before, but as she begins to explore the world, her memories slowly return. Alita (Rosa Salazar) is a stupidly likable protagonist. She's a fiery, lethal weapon who has a child like innocence. The motion capture combined with Salazar's performance work really well. In fact, the whole cast is great. Christoph Waltz, Mahershala Ali, Jennifer Connelly, Jackie Earl-Hailey - it's a stellar line up. The only cast member I couldn't get on with was Hugo (Keean Johnson) who mainly serves as Alita's love interest. I didn't particularly like his character and as a result didn't fully buy their romance side plot.
The main issue I had was the pacing. The plot is trying to pack so much into 2 hours, that it moved forward at breakneck speed at times. Some plot points become a bit lost in the whole thing, and a few of the characters seemed inconsequential as a result.
It does go a bit CGI overload at times but that's to be expected by the very nature of what A:BA is. The effects on some of the other cyborg characters are ropey as well, but honestly, these are small gripes against a film that I found myself really enjoying.
I sincerely hope a sequel gets green lit as I for one want more of this world to be explored.
Smurfs Epic Run - Fun Platform Adventure
Games
App
Gargamel’s has casted an evil fog spell to capture all the Smurfs. The whole village is gone and...
Between the Stops: The View of My Life from the Top of the Number 12 Bus
5.0
Rate It
Book
This long-awaited memoir from one of Britain's best-loved celebrities - a writer, broadcaster,...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023) in Movies
May 6, 2023
A Return to Form for the MCU
Welcome back, MCU, we missed you.
With GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOLUME 3, the MCU has returned to the top ranks of movie-making, creating a thrilling, character-driven action/adventure that is emotionally charged and satisfying.
Directed and Written by James Gunn (as he has done with the first 2 Guardians films), Guardians 3 ties off the trilogy of this ragtag group of heroes in an appropriate, fun way by focusing on something that recent MCU films failed to do - it focuses on the characters and their relationships and how the out-of-this-world adventure that they are on will, ultimately, grow and enrich these characters and relationships.
Chris Pratt (Star-Lord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax), Pom Klementieff (Mantis) and the voice of Vin Diesel (Groot) are all back and they all slip, comfortably, into their roles and relationships and it feels good to have them back together again.
Karen Gillan (Nebula) and, especially, Bradley Cooper (the voice of Rocket Racoon) shine above the rest as the script calls for their characters to grow in smart, fulfilling ways and both actors shine in these circumstances.
This film also has something that the previous few films - especially the latest Ant-Man film - were lacking…a terrific villain. Chukwudi Iwuji is terribly scary as THE HIGH EVOLUTIONARY who is so single-minded in his mission that living beings - and planets - are expendable. It is a terrific performance (and the 2nd straight strong one from Iwuji in a comic book vehicle, following his work in the HBO-MAX DCU TV Series Peacemaker). He is a talent to keep an eye on.
Of course, credit to all of this goes to James Gunn who, after some controversy, returned to helm the end of the Guardians trilogy (at least the Guardians of the Galaxy with THESE characters) and he hits the mark, finding the right blend of action and character that makes the audience care very much what happens to this group. It is a strong exit film from the MCU for Gunn and the DCU is very lucky/smart to hire him as their artistic director going forward.
A very rewarding end to the Guardians trilogy - and a return to form (at least for 1 film) for the MCU.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
With GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOLUME 3, the MCU has returned to the top ranks of movie-making, creating a thrilling, character-driven action/adventure that is emotionally charged and satisfying.
Directed and Written by James Gunn (as he has done with the first 2 Guardians films), Guardians 3 ties off the trilogy of this ragtag group of heroes in an appropriate, fun way by focusing on something that recent MCU films failed to do - it focuses on the characters and their relationships and how the out-of-this-world adventure that they are on will, ultimately, grow and enrich these characters and relationships.
Chris Pratt (Star-Lord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax), Pom Klementieff (Mantis) and the voice of Vin Diesel (Groot) are all back and they all slip, comfortably, into their roles and relationships and it feels good to have them back together again.
Karen Gillan (Nebula) and, especially, Bradley Cooper (the voice of Rocket Racoon) shine above the rest as the script calls for their characters to grow in smart, fulfilling ways and both actors shine in these circumstances.
This film also has something that the previous few films - especially the latest Ant-Man film - were lacking…a terrific villain. Chukwudi Iwuji is terribly scary as THE HIGH EVOLUTIONARY who is so single-minded in his mission that living beings - and planets - are expendable. It is a terrific performance (and the 2nd straight strong one from Iwuji in a comic book vehicle, following his work in the HBO-MAX DCU TV Series Peacemaker). He is a talent to keep an eye on.
Of course, credit to all of this goes to James Gunn who, after some controversy, returned to helm the end of the Guardians trilogy (at least the Guardians of the Galaxy with THESE characters) and he hits the mark, finding the right blend of action and character that makes the audience care very much what happens to this group. It is a strong exit film from the MCU for Gunn and the DCU is very lucky/smart to hire him as their artistic director going forward.
A very rewarding end to the Guardians trilogy - and a return to form (at least for 1 film) for the MCU.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 11, 2022
I've taken a few days since seeing Multiverse of Madness to try and digest it as a whole, and decide how I felt about it. It's certainly wild, and leaves a hefty impression. My initial reservations stem from a couple of elements. Firstly, due to the nature of the multiverse, there are some big set pieces and character moments that feel a bit inconsequential. I hope that future projects might reveist these moments and the subsequent fallout from them, but I've got a sneaky feeling that might not happen. Secondly, there's a massive plot point that drives the entire movie that feels a little unearned, even if the execution packs a hell of a punch.
Overall though, I feel that these are minor detriments to what is a spectacular, and comic-book-as-fuck MCU entry, an entry that carries a unique signature, thanks in no small part to its director. It's no secret that I'm a big ol' Sam Raimi fan, and the entirety of MoM feels like a film straight from his mind. Sure, it has the standard Marvel Studios template, but his style shines through with little effort. There are definitely some moments that feel like a gateway horror flick, and even a bit of splatter that you might not expect from an MCU movie. There's even a few Evil Dead references chucked in for good measure.
It terms of wider connections, there's a lot goinh on here. The narrative does a lot to establish Dr Strange as a major player going forward, and introduces a great deep cut from the comics in America Chavez, another character that would fit right in with a Young Avenger film that is surely not too far off. It's also the first theater release to really feel impacted by the Disney+ shows, essentially acting as not just a sequel to Doctor Strange and No Way Home, but to WandaVision as well. On that note, Elizabeth Olsen all but steals the show here, and it's quite glorious. Elsewhere, the multiverse ensures that there are some crazy set pieces, and some fun cameos that will surely have fans talking and speculating for quite some time.
If nothing else, MoM is an incredibly fun Sam Raimi film, and a solid entry into the wider MCU, and I'm happy with that result.
Overall though, I feel that these are minor detriments to what is a spectacular, and comic-book-as-fuck MCU entry, an entry that carries a unique signature, thanks in no small part to its director. It's no secret that I'm a big ol' Sam Raimi fan, and the entirety of MoM feels like a film straight from his mind. Sure, it has the standard Marvel Studios template, but his style shines through with little effort. There are definitely some moments that feel like a gateway horror flick, and even a bit of splatter that you might not expect from an MCU movie. There's even a few Evil Dead references chucked in for good measure.
It terms of wider connections, there's a lot goinh on here. The narrative does a lot to establish Dr Strange as a major player going forward, and introduces a great deep cut from the comics in America Chavez, another character that would fit right in with a Young Avenger film that is surely not too far off. It's also the first theater release to really feel impacted by the Disney+ shows, essentially acting as not just a sequel to Doctor Strange and No Way Home, but to WandaVision as well. On that note, Elizabeth Olsen all but steals the show here, and it's quite glorious. Elsewhere, the multiverse ensures that there are some crazy set pieces, and some fun cameos that will surely have fans talking and speculating for quite some time.
If nothing else, MoM is an incredibly fun Sam Raimi film, and a solid entry into the wider MCU, and I'm happy with that result.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Apes...together...strong!
The recent revival of the Apes franchise has managed to defy all expectations by not only being a worthy entry into the franchise, but also being strong films on their own merit. Working as a kind-of-prequel-reboot of the old franchise, and ignoring the Tim Burton film completely, it is strange to realise this is only the third film since the reboot. Lesser franchises would have churned out one every year or two, and be up to part five by now, but not the Apes films. It genuinely feels like they are taking time to ensure each film is worthy. Which is where another expectation is defied – the films don’t seem to diminish in quality, nor feel repetitive. Each entry so far has had its own feel and worked to move the story along. War for the Planet of the Apes is no exception, and is one of the finest blockbuster films of this year.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
