Search
Search results
5 Minute Clinical Consult
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
** Features New 2018 Update ** ABOUT 5-MINUTE CLINICAL CONSULT The latest update of 5-Minute...
History of Artists' Film and Video in Britain
Book
In recent years the use of film and video by British artists has come to widespread public...
Vulnerability and Adaptation to Drought on the Canadian Prairies
Harry Diaz, Jim Warren, Margot A. Hurlbert and Samantha Kerr
Book
Although there is considerable historical literature describing the social and economic impact of...
The Complete Short Stories: Volume One: Volume one
Book
The Complete Short Stories of Roald Dahl in the first of two unsettling and sinister volumes. 'They...
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated You're the One - Single by Big Gigantic in Music
Jun 25, 2019
Big Gigantic is an electronic outfit based in Boulder, Colorado. Not too long ago, they released a melodic electronic tune, entitled, “You’re the One”, featuring topline sensation Nevve.
“‘You’re the One’ is about reminding yourself that you’re unique and special in your own way and that the path to something greater lies within you. Loving one another is important, but it all begins with loving yourself. It’s not always easy, but it’s always worth it. We are so inspired by each and every one of you and the stories of resilience, grace, and strength you have shared with us are truly moving. You are ALL the ones.” – Big Gigantic
‘You’re the One’ tells an interesting tale of a young guy who is on a mission to succeed. In the dead of the night, he gets a feeling inside telling him that he’s the one.
‘You’re the One’ contains a relatable storyline, ear-welcoming vocals, and horn-filled instrumentation flavored with a positive vibe.
“We’re so excited to start this next phase of Big Gigantic. We’re starting the process of looking directly inward with our song ‘You’re The One’. The theme of the song is loving yourself, which in this day is something we could all do more of. We put so much pressure on ourselves to succeed, do the best we can, be the best we can, and keep up with others around us. That pressure can easily turn from something positive and motivating, into something negative and uninspiring. It can lead to some dark places so it’s important to take a step back and remember to take time to love yourself.” – Big Gigantic
Big Gigantic consists of Dominic Lalli (saxophonist, producer) and Jeremy Salken (drummer).
They are known for their epic live show, which has been showcased at major festivals such as Coachella, Lollapalooza, Bonnaroo, ACL, Ultra, Outside Lands, Hangout, HARD, Governors Ball, Electric Forest and more.
Also, they’ve sold out their own headlining festival, Rowdytown, at Red Rocks Amphitheatre, with (10k+ tickets) every year since 2012.
“‘You’re the One’ is about reminding yourself that you’re unique and special in your own way and that the path to something greater lies within you. Loving one another is important, but it all begins with loving yourself. It’s not always easy, but it’s always worth it. We are so inspired by each and every one of you and the stories of resilience, grace, and strength you have shared with us are truly moving. You are ALL the ones.” – Big Gigantic
‘You’re the One’ tells an interesting tale of a young guy who is on a mission to succeed. In the dead of the night, he gets a feeling inside telling him that he’s the one.
‘You’re the One’ contains a relatable storyline, ear-welcoming vocals, and horn-filled instrumentation flavored with a positive vibe.
“We’re so excited to start this next phase of Big Gigantic. We’re starting the process of looking directly inward with our song ‘You’re The One’. The theme of the song is loving yourself, which in this day is something we could all do more of. We put so much pressure on ourselves to succeed, do the best we can, be the best we can, and keep up with others around us. That pressure can easily turn from something positive and motivating, into something negative and uninspiring. It can lead to some dark places so it’s important to take a step back and remember to take time to love yourself.” – Big Gigantic
Big Gigantic consists of Dominic Lalli (saxophonist, producer) and Jeremy Salken (drummer).
They are known for their epic live show, which has been showcased at major festivals such as Coachella, Lollapalooza, Bonnaroo, ACL, Ultra, Outside Lands, Hangout, HARD, Governors Ball, Electric Forest and more.
Also, they’ve sold out their own headlining festival, Rowdytown, at Red Rocks Amphitheatre, with (10k+ tickets) every year since 2012.
A War of Whispers
Tabletop Game
A War of Whispers is a competitive board game for 2 to 4 players. Five mighty empires are at war for...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
2013 is the year of the fairy-tale and the year of the witch, or so it looks that way from what seems to be a never-ending bombardment of films related to the two age-old topics. This year sees the release of Bryan Singer’s Jack the Giant Slayer as well as Sam Raimi’s Oz: The Great & the Powerful and whilst the latter has opened to mixed reviews, it is Bryan Singer’s effort which really looks like it’ll sparkle.
Sat between these two behemoths is the critical and somewhat commercial failure, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, but is it as bad as the reviews would have you believe? Let’s find out.
The fairy-tale of Hansel & Gretel is as well-known as Jack & the Beanstalk and to some extent the story in the Wizard of Oz, but films of this classic have been limited to low-budget television movies because finding the audience for such a difficult genre is not to be underestimated.
Here however, Tommy Wirkola directs his first English-language film with some degrees of success, though, a few niggling factors stop it from being the success it could’ve been. In a darker tale than perhaps we’re used to with a story such as this, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star as Hansel & Gretel respectively and for the most part, fulfil their roles well as they battle numerous dark witches in a plot which never really gets to grips with the genre it is trying to be.
Herein lays the problem, do you direct the fairy-tale genre as a family comedy or as something a little darker? Clearly director Wirkola has had his work cut out to find the balance between the two and the result is confusing, he has ended up with a 15 certificate which mixes comedy with a bloodbath that wouldn’t look out of place in a Quentin Tarantino picture; it really is that over-the-top. The use of swear-words also feels out of place, like they’re there just to shock rather than add anything to the film’s narrative.
Hansel & Gretel have grown up deciding to kill witches after they were left abandoned in the woods by their father. To cut a long story short, they are captured by a witch and forced to work for her; whilst doing this, Hansel develops ‘sugar sickness’ (diabetes) from all the candy he is forced to consume and must inject himself often. After killing said witch, they flee and the story begins; with them being hired to kill witches who have stolen children from a small town to allow them to become immune to fire; their major weakness.
It’s an interesting take on the story and Famke Janssen plays the wicked grand witch brilliantly, she manages to be both endearing and rightly terrifying in the same scene, though this is helped with the prosthetics used to alter her face. The other actors, including the main two are a little uninspired, especially Arterton who looks positively bored with the work she’s been given. In saying that, Renner isn’t much better and the majority of the film suffers as a result. In fact, you’ll probably be rooting for Janssen’s Muriel to succeed in her evil plot.
Thankfully, the special effects are very good, although I was expecting a little more witch-on-witch action, a la Harry Potter. Atli Orvarsson’s score is excellent and a real highlight of the film. The music in the brilliant opening credits is fantastic.
Overall, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a solid but uninspiring adaptation of a fairy-tale which was never meant for the big screen. Director Tommy Wirkola has obviously tried very hard to create a film which caters for most palates and whilst the score, special effects and acting from Famke Janssen are all top notch, the confusing mish-mash of genres and hammy acting from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton stop it being anything more than a forgettable action flick. After all, when your lead characters look like they can’t be bothered, you’ve got a serious problem.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/03/02/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-review-2013/
Sat between these two behemoths is the critical and somewhat commercial failure, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, but is it as bad as the reviews would have you believe? Let’s find out.
The fairy-tale of Hansel & Gretel is as well-known as Jack & the Beanstalk and to some extent the story in the Wizard of Oz, but films of this classic have been limited to low-budget television movies because finding the audience for such a difficult genre is not to be underestimated.
Here however, Tommy Wirkola directs his first English-language film with some degrees of success, though, a few niggling factors stop it from being the success it could’ve been. In a darker tale than perhaps we’re used to with a story such as this, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star as Hansel & Gretel respectively and for the most part, fulfil their roles well as they battle numerous dark witches in a plot which never really gets to grips with the genre it is trying to be.
Herein lays the problem, do you direct the fairy-tale genre as a family comedy or as something a little darker? Clearly director Wirkola has had his work cut out to find the balance between the two and the result is confusing, he has ended up with a 15 certificate which mixes comedy with a bloodbath that wouldn’t look out of place in a Quentin Tarantino picture; it really is that over-the-top. The use of swear-words also feels out of place, like they’re there just to shock rather than add anything to the film’s narrative.
Hansel & Gretel have grown up deciding to kill witches after they were left abandoned in the woods by their father. To cut a long story short, they are captured by a witch and forced to work for her; whilst doing this, Hansel develops ‘sugar sickness’ (diabetes) from all the candy he is forced to consume and must inject himself often. After killing said witch, they flee and the story begins; with them being hired to kill witches who have stolen children from a small town to allow them to become immune to fire; their major weakness.
It’s an interesting take on the story and Famke Janssen plays the wicked grand witch brilliantly, she manages to be both endearing and rightly terrifying in the same scene, though this is helped with the prosthetics used to alter her face. The other actors, including the main two are a little uninspired, especially Arterton who looks positively bored with the work she’s been given. In saying that, Renner isn’t much better and the majority of the film suffers as a result. In fact, you’ll probably be rooting for Janssen’s Muriel to succeed in her evil plot.
Thankfully, the special effects are very good, although I was expecting a little more witch-on-witch action, a la Harry Potter. Atli Orvarsson’s score is excellent and a real highlight of the film. The music in the brilliant opening credits is fantastic.
Overall, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a solid but uninspiring adaptation of a fairy-tale which was never meant for the big screen. Director Tommy Wirkola has obviously tried very hard to create a film which caters for most palates and whilst the score, special effects and acting from Famke Janssen are all top notch, the confusing mish-mash of genres and hammy acting from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton stop it being anything more than a forgettable action flick. After all, when your lead characters look like they can’t be bothered, you’ve got a serious problem.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/03/02/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-review-2013/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 28 Weeks Later... (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 28 Weeks Later starts by having a group of survivors in a boarded up farm house with tension rising a shock visit from a young boy leads to the infected attack the house and lone survivor Don (Carlyle) escaping leaving his wife behind. We are then lead into a flash-forward telling us how Britain is attempting to rebuild after the rage virus 28 Weeks Later. With Britain still being rebuilt Don’s children Tammy (Poots) and Andy (Muggleton) are the first children to return, even though the safety zone is still run by the military.
We find out that bringing kids back was a bad idea as the two go running off into the city outside the safety zone which leads to them discovering their infected but not turned mother. The mother locked up in quarantine Don goes to visit but this only leads to the virus taking over the safety zone and all hell letting lose. We follow solider Doyle (Renner) and scientist Scarlet (Byrne) as they try to save the children from the infected.
28 Weeks Later does what many sequels fail to do, creates a fresh look at the aftermath of the epidemic without dragging our characters from the original back even though their story is complete. It also takes the idea that the outbreak is over and focusing on the rebuilding works really well too. On its down side it does fall into the same old survivors running from infected because of a stupid mistake. It doesn’t manage to bring the characters into the interesting zone because it goes into the idea of the children needing saving which takes away what was created. It is enjoy action horror but not to the same level as the original. (7/10)
Actor Review
Robert Carlyle: Don the husband who abandons his wife then brings his kids to London to help rebuild the city from within the safe zone. Robert does a solid job and everyone will remember that opening sequence. (7/10)
don
Rose Byrne: Scarlet scientist who is trying to help figure out the virus, she isn’t happy they have bought kids back because they don’t fully understand the virus and once the outbreak happens again she goes out her way to save them. Rose gives a solid performance but doesn’t shine as much as she could. (6/10)
Jeremy Renner: Doyle slick sniper who is one of the protectors of the city but once the outbreak happens he joins in the rescue attempts while the virus ends up with a shoot on site policy that orders demand. Jeremy does a good job and we get early ideas of what he will be like as Hawkeye. (7/10)
renner
Imogen Poots: Tammy daughter of Don who keeps looking after her brother and together they go into the restricted zone which ends up causing all the problems. Imogen does a good job in the early role. (7/10)
poots
Support Cast: 28 Weeks Later has a bigger supporting cast but in the end they all make the typical errors in an infected outbreak.
Director Review: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo – Juan does take the film in a slightly different direction which is good but he loses the suspense the first one had. (7/10)
Horror: 28 Weeks Later continues to use infected as its horror using survivor horror elements. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Weeks Later uses London as its setting well using the more iconic locations for the audience. (8/10)
Special Effects: 28 Weeks Later does take the effects to the next level with the helicopter scene showing how far they have come. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Weeks Later is one for all the horror fans to enjoy, it doesn’t quite reach the same levels as its predecessor but is still a good watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Opening sequences is very intense.
Worst Part: typical supporting characters.
Action Scene Of The Film: Opening sequences
Kill Of The Film: Helicopter
Scariest Scene: Locked in the basement.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one but we haven’t had one yet.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $64 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: The Threat Is Everywhere
Overall: Solid Sequel
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/15/28-weeks-later-2007/
We find out that bringing kids back was a bad idea as the two go running off into the city outside the safety zone which leads to them discovering their infected but not turned mother. The mother locked up in quarantine Don goes to visit but this only leads to the virus taking over the safety zone and all hell letting lose. We follow solider Doyle (Renner) and scientist Scarlet (Byrne) as they try to save the children from the infected.
28 Weeks Later does what many sequels fail to do, creates a fresh look at the aftermath of the epidemic without dragging our characters from the original back even though their story is complete. It also takes the idea that the outbreak is over and focusing on the rebuilding works really well too. On its down side it does fall into the same old survivors running from infected because of a stupid mistake. It doesn’t manage to bring the characters into the interesting zone because it goes into the idea of the children needing saving which takes away what was created. It is enjoy action horror but not to the same level as the original. (7/10)
Actor Review
Robert Carlyle: Don the husband who abandons his wife then brings his kids to London to help rebuild the city from within the safe zone. Robert does a solid job and everyone will remember that opening sequence. (7/10)
don
Rose Byrne: Scarlet scientist who is trying to help figure out the virus, she isn’t happy they have bought kids back because they don’t fully understand the virus and once the outbreak happens again she goes out her way to save them. Rose gives a solid performance but doesn’t shine as much as she could. (6/10)
Jeremy Renner: Doyle slick sniper who is one of the protectors of the city but once the outbreak happens he joins in the rescue attempts while the virus ends up with a shoot on site policy that orders demand. Jeremy does a good job and we get early ideas of what he will be like as Hawkeye. (7/10)
renner
Imogen Poots: Tammy daughter of Don who keeps looking after her brother and together they go into the restricted zone which ends up causing all the problems. Imogen does a good job in the early role. (7/10)
poots
Support Cast: 28 Weeks Later has a bigger supporting cast but in the end they all make the typical errors in an infected outbreak.
Director Review: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo – Juan does take the film in a slightly different direction which is good but he loses the suspense the first one had. (7/10)
Horror: 28 Weeks Later continues to use infected as its horror using survivor horror elements. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Weeks Later uses London as its setting well using the more iconic locations for the audience. (8/10)
Special Effects: 28 Weeks Later does take the effects to the next level with the helicopter scene showing how far they have come. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Weeks Later is one for all the horror fans to enjoy, it doesn’t quite reach the same levels as its predecessor but is still a good watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Opening sequences is very intense.
Worst Part: typical supporting characters.
Action Scene Of The Film: Opening sequences
Kill Of The Film: Helicopter
Scariest Scene: Locked in the basement.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one but we haven’t had one yet.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $64 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: The Threat Is Everywhere
Overall: Solid Sequel
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/15/28-weeks-later-2007/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Tag (2018) in Movies
Jul 28, 2018
Pretty Funny
A group of friends' have relied on a monthly game of Tag to stay in contact with each other. The friends must come together to take down Jerry (Jeremy Renner), the only one in their circle who has never been tagged. Sound stupid? Sure. However it's a lot less cornier and a lot funnier than you might imagine.
Acting: 10
This star-studded cast really came to play, pun-intended. I can only imagine how challenging it would be to take a role like this so seriously while trying to have fun at the same time, but each of the actors/actresses managed their roles perfectly and brought their own style to the game. Isla Fisher was my personal favorite playing the role of Anna Malloy who desperately wants to be initiated into the Tag group but has to settle for (aggressively) helping her husband win. Her intensity cracks me up in every scene she plays in.
Beginning: 8
Characters: 10
I loved that these characters weren't flat, but fleshed out, which made for even better comedy in the longrun. Aside from Anna, you've got Susan Crosby (Leslie Bibb), a perfectionist who wants to keep the Tag game away from her perfect wedding. Jerry's character is a flat-out masterpiece, a bit of Pink Panther meets Sherlock Holmes. Every character brings their own uniqueness to the game.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes, I loved the Holmes-esque cinematics used when capturing Jerry's aversion tactics. Straight out of an action film, watching him duck and dive without breaking a sweat while all the other players destroy themselves is hilarious. The slo-mo captures are perfect, something akin to a Michael Bay or John Woo film.
Conflict: 5
Genre: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 8
Resolution: 8
Somewhat cheesy, it still manages to get the job done. Considering how preposterous the rest of the film is, the ending works just fine.
Overall: 84
The comedy is up and down, but overall, Tag is solidly funny. With a unique concept and a great cast, this is a film that will definitely keep you entertained.
Acting: 10
This star-studded cast really came to play, pun-intended. I can only imagine how challenging it would be to take a role like this so seriously while trying to have fun at the same time, but each of the actors/actresses managed their roles perfectly and brought their own style to the game. Isla Fisher was my personal favorite playing the role of Anna Malloy who desperately wants to be initiated into the Tag group but has to settle for (aggressively) helping her husband win. Her intensity cracks me up in every scene she plays in.
Beginning: 8
Characters: 10
I loved that these characters weren't flat, but fleshed out, which made for even better comedy in the longrun. Aside from Anna, you've got Susan Crosby (Leslie Bibb), a perfectionist who wants to keep the Tag game away from her perfect wedding. Jerry's character is a flat-out masterpiece, a bit of Pink Panther meets Sherlock Holmes. Every character brings their own uniqueness to the game.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes, I loved the Holmes-esque cinematics used when capturing Jerry's aversion tactics. Straight out of an action film, watching him duck and dive without breaking a sweat while all the other players destroy themselves is hilarious. The slo-mo captures are perfect, something akin to a Michael Bay or John Woo film.
Conflict: 5
Genre: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 8
Resolution: 8
Somewhat cheesy, it still manages to get the job done. Considering how preposterous the rest of the film is, the ending works just fine.
Overall: 84
The comedy is up and down, but overall, Tag is solidly funny. With a unique concept and a great cast, this is a film that will definitely keep you entertained.