Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Lovely Bones (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Life is just beginning to blossom for Suzie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) who has her first date with the boy she’s been dying to kiss, when she is unexpectedly murdered. Her mother can’t deal, her father becomes obsessed and her chain-smoking grandma becomes the most stable force in the family. But Suzie refuses to cross the border between heaven and earth with her killer still on the loose and distressingly interested in her younger sister.
“The Lovely Bones” is a prime example of a good film based on an acclaimed book that could have been great given thirty more minutes. The characters were engaging but less than ideally developed, case in point would be the mother whose sudden flee from her home only to appear picking oranges on a farm left the audience collectively confused.
Still the use of perspective and sound are undeniably captivating. From the graphically delightful and horrific imagery that is the world between heaven and our own to the use of color to establish the time period.
The heroine and villain are equally engrossing yet most of the film’s seasoned actors have performed better. The least developed characters were Suzie’s parents played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachael Weisz. But Susan Sarandon as Grandma Lynn left Wahlberg and Weisz in the dust creating a delightfully flawed character in her supporting role.
Both a drama and a thriller, there were moments during “The Lovely Bones” which captivated the entire theater making it a film that will provide great images for fans of the book. Yet while it will be a delight for those familiar with the book, the plot holes that “The Lovely Bones” leaves for the non-literary crowd are staggering.
In the end “The Lovely Bones” was a good enough film that attempted to stay true to the book but really could have been lovelier.
“The Lovely Bones” is a prime example of a good film based on an acclaimed book that could have been great given thirty more minutes. The characters were engaging but less than ideally developed, case in point would be the mother whose sudden flee from her home only to appear picking oranges on a farm left the audience collectively confused.
Still the use of perspective and sound are undeniably captivating. From the graphically delightful and horrific imagery that is the world between heaven and our own to the use of color to establish the time period.
The heroine and villain are equally engrossing yet most of the film’s seasoned actors have performed better. The least developed characters were Suzie’s parents played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachael Weisz. But Susan Sarandon as Grandma Lynn left Wahlberg and Weisz in the dust creating a delightfully flawed character in her supporting role.
Both a drama and a thriller, there were moments during “The Lovely Bones” which captivated the entire theater making it a film that will provide great images for fans of the book. Yet while it will be a delight for those familiar with the book, the plot holes that “The Lovely Bones” leaves for the non-literary crowd are staggering.
In the end “The Lovely Bones” was a good enough film that attempted to stay true to the book but really could have been lovelier.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mile 22 (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
The Movie Equivelant of a Shrug
I saw Mile 22 last night and when I got in my dad asked me how it was. I replied with a simple shrug and that is honestly the best way to sum up this movie. It's not bad and it's not great. The worst thing about that is that Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg have worked together 3 times prior to this movie and all 3 times have resulted in fantastic movies, not mediocre ones like this. I was looking forward to this going in knowing that it was Berg and Wahlberg working together again and I have really liked everything else they have made together, (especially Patriot's Day,) but this is unfortunately the worst film that they have made together so far, but it's still not awful.
The best thing about this film is definitely Iko Uwais. Whenever we get to see him doing his thing on screen, it is electrifying. The issue here though is the way that Jacques Jouffret decided to shoot these sequences is choppy and incoherent at times. Why would you cast one of the best fight choreographers in the world in your movie and then every time he get to fight onscreen, you decided to shake the camera about and make 10+ jump-cuts in the space of a few minutes?
Rhonda Rousey is in the movie too and surprisingly I didn't cringe every time she spoke and instead felt that she did a pretty decent job with what she was given. Lauren Cohen was fine too, we all know that she can do a pretty solid American accent at this point because of her work on The Walking Dead. Wahlberg is perfectly serviceable here too, he has been better in other things, but he also been far worse. It is hard to waste an actor like John Malkovich in a film and yet they manage it here, literally any actor could have played his role.
The end is also pretty rubbish. There is a flimsy twist followed by a sequel tease and then the credits abruptly appear. They are clearly aiming for a sequel, but it would have been nice if they could have tied this movie up a bit better first.
Overall, this is an okay action flick with some cool stunts that doesn't live up to what it could have been and ends too abruptly. There are some cool stunts and satisfying kills in the film, but they could have been shot a lot better.
The best thing about this film is definitely Iko Uwais. Whenever we get to see him doing his thing on screen, it is electrifying. The issue here though is the way that Jacques Jouffret decided to shoot these sequences is choppy and incoherent at times. Why would you cast one of the best fight choreographers in the world in your movie and then every time he get to fight onscreen, you decided to shake the camera about and make 10+ jump-cuts in the space of a few minutes?
Rhonda Rousey is in the movie too and surprisingly I didn't cringe every time she spoke and instead felt that she did a pretty decent job with what she was given. Lauren Cohen was fine too, we all know that she can do a pretty solid American accent at this point because of her work on The Walking Dead. Wahlberg is perfectly serviceable here too, he has been better in other things, but he also been far worse. It is hard to waste an actor like John Malkovich in a film and yet they manage it here, literally any actor could have played his role.
The end is also pretty rubbish. There is a flimsy twist followed by a sequel tease and then the credits abruptly appear. They are clearly aiming for a sequel, but it would have been nice if they could have tied this movie up a bit better first.
Overall, this is an okay action flick with some cool stunts that doesn't live up to what it could have been and ends too abruptly. There are some cool stunts and satisfying kills in the film, but they could have been shot a lot better.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
May 23, 2019
True-life disaster movie permits the audience to feel good about paying their respects to victims of a genuine tragedy while still having all the fun of watching tons of stuff blow up. Marky Mark Wahlberg, Kurt Russell and his moustache, and various other characters head off to the titular rig, where evil corporate suits in pursuit of the bottom line (boo!) force them to cut costs, imperil safety standards, and so on. Sure enough, something important eventually goes boom.
I don't mean to sound glib about events in which nearly a dozen people died, but the fact is that this is a pretty glib movie - structured like a thriller, clearly designed to entertain, and making full use of its factual basis to include stuff you just wouldn't believe in a work of fiction (one character gets an award for his safety record literally an hour before his oil rig explodes). Capably done and exciting entertainment, but at the same time you are (on some level) watching real people die - I know many people don't have an issue with that, but it makes me uncomfortable, no matter how gravely reverential the film tries to be.
I don't mean to sound glib about events in which nearly a dozen people died, but the fact is that this is a pretty glib movie - structured like a thriller, clearly designed to entertain, and making full use of its factual basis to include stuff you just wouldn't believe in a work of fiction (one character gets an award for his safety record literally an hour before his oil rig explodes). Capably done and exciting entertainment, but at the same time you are (on some level) watching real people die - I know many people don't have an issue with that, but it makes me uncomfortable, no matter how gravely reverential the film tries to be.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Max Payne (2008) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
The PG-13 verison of a M game
Ive only played the 3rd one, when it came out so like 2011 or 2012. I never finished the game idk why, i just didnt. I havent played the first one or the second one either. Alot of people hated this film, i can see why. First of all what genre is this film surpost be? A action film, a horror film, a drama film, a revenge film, a gritty film, a thriller? I dont know its a mix a genres. Second the slow mo is good/bad, cause it was in the games it has to be in film right. Third the action is bad, someone was just shaking the camera the whole time.
The plot: After the murders of his family and his partner, maverick cop Max (Mark Wahlberg) becomes hell-bent on revenge. Teamed with beautiful and deadly Russian mobster Mona Sax (Mila Kunis), Max journeys into a dark underworld to find the truth, but forces -- both worldly and supernatural -- align against him, determined to silence Max forever.
Oh lastly PG-13 why?
The plot: After the murders of his family and his partner, maverick cop Max (Mark Wahlberg) becomes hell-bent on revenge. Teamed with beautiful and deadly Russian mobster Mona Sax (Mila Kunis), Max journeys into a dark underworld to find the truth, but forces -- both worldly and supernatural -- align against him, determined to silence Max forever.
Oh lastly PG-13 why?
Lee (2222 KP) rated Daddy's Home 2 (2017) in Movies
Dec 8, 2017
Starts off great but soon veers off into not so great territory.
This year hasn't been good for the comedy movie genre. Will Ferrell in particular managed to star in one of the worst 'comedy' movies I've seen in a long time with 'The House' and even the anticipated sequel to one of the better comedies in recent years, Bad Moms, turned out to be a complete dud. So when a similar, Christmas themed sequel to what was essentially one of the more average movies in recent years came along, my hopes weren't exactly high. The original Daddys Home coasted along on the likeable pairing of Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg but did feature a handful of funny elements, obviously enough to greenlight a sequel.
As mentioned previously, Daddys Home 2 is set at Christmas time. Brad and Dusty (Ferrell and Wahlberg) have worked out their differences from the first movie and are getting along just fine as 'co-dads' to the kids. When their own dads (Mel Gibson and John Lithgow) pay a visit, they decide to have a 'together' family Christmas, and Kurt (Gibson) even manages to book a luxury cabin in the snow for them to enjoy it all in. It's a bit of a whirlwind setup, but for a while it all works surprisingly well. I found myself really laughing at some scenes, it was like watching a classic Christmas family disaster along the lines of National Lampoons Christmas Vacation.
But sadly, the momentum soon drops. Scene after scene fails to hit home, and some scenes even leave you wondering what the hell they were thinking by including them in the movie in the first place. Mel Gibsons character becomes increasingly annoying and it's all just a bit of a shame really. Things manage to get back on track towards the end of the movie but it's disappointing that it doesn't retain the high level of laughs and entertainment that kicked off the first third or so.
As mentioned previously, Daddys Home 2 is set at Christmas time. Brad and Dusty (Ferrell and Wahlberg) have worked out their differences from the first movie and are getting along just fine as 'co-dads' to the kids. When their own dads (Mel Gibson and John Lithgow) pay a visit, they decide to have a 'together' family Christmas, and Kurt (Gibson) even manages to book a luxury cabin in the snow for them to enjoy it all in. It's a bit of a whirlwind setup, but for a while it all works surprisingly well. I found myself really laughing at some scenes, it was like watching a classic Christmas family disaster along the lines of National Lampoons Christmas Vacation.
But sadly, the momentum soon drops. Scene after scene fails to hit home, and some scenes even leave you wondering what the hell they were thinking by including them in the movie in the first place. Mel Gibsons character becomes increasingly annoying and it's all just a bit of a shame really. Things manage to get back on track towards the end of the movie but it's disappointing that it doesn't retain the high level of laughs and entertainment that kicked off the first third or so.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Fighter (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Based on a true story, The Fighter tells the tale of two brother boxers. Retired and addicted to drugs, Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) lives life as the town hero while dreaming of a comeback career. Meanwhile his talented younger brother Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is reaching his fighting apex. That is, if he can choose to move past family ties that are holding him from success.
The surprising sibling chemistry of actors Bale and Wahlberg is the successful binding force in the The Fighter. The skill of these two brings relevance to the film for an audience that might otherwise step past a sports story by giving it heart.
Also leading the cast is Amy Adams as Charlene Fleming, a bartender and the love interest of Micky. Charlene threatens to challenge Micky’s already rocky relationship with his family and while this is not Adam’s most impressive role it does display a stretch from her previous body of work.
The supporting cast, consisting of the Micky and Dicky’s sisters and a number of coach and agent figures, adds a much-needed comedic element to a film. Yet it is the small character choices that create emotion in the story, from Micky’s beat-up low budget automobile to the numerous half intelligent one-liners delivered from an increasingly unstable Dicky. This instability combined with gritty shots, constantly moving camera angles, and drab colors provide the audience with a full view of the challenges faced by both brothers in the struggle to survive as boxers.
Unlike the majority of sports stories turned into film The Fighter tackles a much more realistic portrayal of both the sport and the human complexities of the characters involved. The Fighter is more a movie about being a boxer than one about the sport itself, resulting in much of the story occurring outside of the ring. However, there is no denying that The Fighter is a tried and true sports film that overcomes the overplayed story through compelling acting and quality plot.
The surprising sibling chemistry of actors Bale and Wahlberg is the successful binding force in the The Fighter. The skill of these two brings relevance to the film for an audience that might otherwise step past a sports story by giving it heart.
Also leading the cast is Amy Adams as Charlene Fleming, a bartender and the love interest of Micky. Charlene threatens to challenge Micky’s already rocky relationship with his family and while this is not Adam’s most impressive role it does display a stretch from her previous body of work.
The supporting cast, consisting of the Micky and Dicky’s sisters and a number of coach and agent figures, adds a much-needed comedic element to a film. Yet it is the small character choices that create emotion in the story, from Micky’s beat-up low budget automobile to the numerous half intelligent one-liners delivered from an increasingly unstable Dicky. This instability combined with gritty shots, constantly moving camera angles, and drab colors provide the audience with a full view of the challenges faced by both brothers in the struggle to survive as boxers.
Unlike the majority of sports stories turned into film The Fighter tackles a much more realistic portrayal of both the sport and the human complexities of the characters involved. The Fighter is more a movie about being a boxer than one about the sport itself, resulting in much of the story occurring outside of the ring. However, there is no denying that The Fighter is a tried and true sports film that overcomes the overplayed story through compelling acting and quality plot.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Lone Survivor (2014) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Gripping and intense
Based on a true story, a team of American Navy SEALS is sent to Afghanistan in pursuit of a Taliban leader they must take out by any means necessary. They must make there way to the remote village where they discover their mission will be more difficult than expected due to the surprising number of enemy soldiers.
Once the firefight begins, the SEALS band together, use their wits, cunning and brute force to try and stay alive while waiting for pick up.
I was unaware of this story before seeing the film. You are enthralled and immersed in the characters almost immediately and become quickly invested in their fate. Their heroism is incredible and we should all be proud such remarkable human being exist and that they are sworn to protect the rest of us.
The gunfire action sequences are extremely intense. I'm not usually a jumper during movies, but this one made me quiver from a sudden gunshot or explosion several times. I believe this was the first Mark Wahlberg/director Peter Berg collaboration and it was a good one. Also check out Patriot's Day and Deepwater Horizon if you are in the mood for similar quality.
Once the firefight begins, the SEALS band together, use their wits, cunning and brute force to try and stay alive while waiting for pick up.
I was unaware of this story before seeing the film. You are enthralled and immersed in the characters almost immediately and become quickly invested in their fate. Their heroism is incredible and we should all be proud such remarkable human being exist and that they are sworn to protect the rest of us.
The gunfire action sequences are extremely intense. I'm not usually a jumper during movies, but this one made me quiver from a sudden gunshot or explosion several times. I believe this was the first Mark Wahlberg/director Peter Berg collaboration and it was a good one. Also check out Patriot's Day and Deepwater Horizon if you are in the mood for similar quality.
Lenard (726 KP) rated Good Joe Bell (2020) in Movies
Aug 1, 2021
The film has a great premise. An alpha male walks from his home in La Grange, Oregon to New York to tell the story of his gay son who was bullied so badly he committed suicide. Sounds interesting until you realize that it is nearly impossible to adapt into a cinematic story. It is one man traveling on the road. He is not rich; he is stubborn; he is kind of a jerk to other people. Mark Wahlberg is good as Joe Bell, but there is not much of a character to play. So you have to give him the spirit of his son, but the son would be his version of the son and not the real son so the actor playing him would need to distinguish the two versions. This never happens. Another huge problem is the ending. It comes too quickly and is extremely shocking (and not in a way a filmmaker would want). Yes, the event is foreshadowed in the first act and it would fit with the character, but there needed to be more story in order to achieve the desired effect of the event. The whole film has a problem by staying true to life instead of adding texture to the characters and story.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Daddy's Home (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Lesson in beige comedy
We did it! After managing to get through the record-breaking year that was 2015, things in the film world shifted down a gear for 2016, well, for a month or so.
As we begin another promising year in the world of the silver screen, one of the first movies to garner the public’s attention is Daddy’s Home, but can this comedy with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell hold its own with the heavyweights in the genre?
Daddy’s Home has a simple premise, stepfather Brad (Ferrell) who lives and breathes for the adoration of his stepchildren feels threatened when their hunky, off-the-wall dad Dusty (Wahlberg) comes into town. That’s literally the plot, and this becomes the film’s major stumbling block.
Decent comedy films are ten-a-penny these days and over the last few years, director Paul Feig has charmed audiences across the globe with Bridesmaids, The Heat and the rib-achingly funny Spy. He is simply the guy everyone wants for comedy as every script that has his name attached turns to gold.
Daddy’s Home unfortunately lacks a cohesive and witty plot, instead opting for clichéd laughs that work the first few times, but fall flat afterwards. That’s not to say there isn’t anything clever here, in fact there is, but it’s in short supply.
The two lead actors are, as usual, dependable with Wahlberg being particularly memorable, not least because he spends the majority of the 96 minute running time with his shirt off, and Ferrell is a veteran in this genre, but the characters lack any real depth, and the obligatory moments were director Sean Anders wants us to feel something for the pair simply evaporate into thin air.
Elsewhere, Linda Cardellini provides a surprisingly phoned-in performance as Dusty’s ex-wife, Sara, with her two children, Megan and Dylan, played by Scarlett Estevez and Owen Vaccaro faring much better. Estevez in particular is a promising young actress.
Despite these glaring omissions, a brilliant sequence shot in a fertility clinic garners laughs from start to finish and Thomas Haden Church’s turn as Ferrell’s boss is a real joy to watch with some of the film’s best lines.
It just all lacks a little touch of Feig. There’s none of the satirical humour mixed with belly laughs that audiences come to expect in 21st Century comedy and it’s a real shame the two lead stars, heavily marketed as facing off against each other, don’t get to do more and go that bit further.
Overall, Daddy’s Home is a perfectly pleasant start to 2016. It’s no-where near the standards set by Bridesmaids or Spy, but does just about enough to warrant a watch. It’s just not as funny as its credentials would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/10/a-lesson-in-beige-comedy-daddys-home-review/
As we begin another promising year in the world of the silver screen, one of the first movies to garner the public’s attention is Daddy’s Home, but can this comedy with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell hold its own with the heavyweights in the genre?
Daddy’s Home has a simple premise, stepfather Brad (Ferrell) who lives and breathes for the adoration of his stepchildren feels threatened when their hunky, off-the-wall dad Dusty (Wahlberg) comes into town. That’s literally the plot, and this becomes the film’s major stumbling block.
Decent comedy films are ten-a-penny these days and over the last few years, director Paul Feig has charmed audiences across the globe with Bridesmaids, The Heat and the rib-achingly funny Spy. He is simply the guy everyone wants for comedy as every script that has his name attached turns to gold.
Daddy’s Home unfortunately lacks a cohesive and witty plot, instead opting for clichéd laughs that work the first few times, but fall flat afterwards. That’s not to say there isn’t anything clever here, in fact there is, but it’s in short supply.
The two lead actors are, as usual, dependable with Wahlberg being particularly memorable, not least because he spends the majority of the 96 minute running time with his shirt off, and Ferrell is a veteran in this genre, but the characters lack any real depth, and the obligatory moments were director Sean Anders wants us to feel something for the pair simply evaporate into thin air.
Elsewhere, Linda Cardellini provides a surprisingly phoned-in performance as Dusty’s ex-wife, Sara, with her two children, Megan and Dylan, played by Scarlett Estevez and Owen Vaccaro faring much better. Estevez in particular is a promising young actress.
Despite these glaring omissions, a brilliant sequence shot in a fertility clinic garners laughs from start to finish and Thomas Haden Church’s turn as Ferrell’s boss is a real joy to watch with some of the film’s best lines.
It just all lacks a little touch of Feig. There’s none of the satirical humour mixed with belly laughs that audiences come to expect in 21st Century comedy and it’s a real shame the two lead stars, heavily marketed as facing off against each other, don’t get to do more and go that bit further.
Overall, Daddy’s Home is a perfectly pleasant start to 2016. It’s no-where near the standards set by Bridesmaids or Spy, but does just about enough to warrant a watch. It’s just not as funny as its credentials would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/10/a-lesson-in-beige-comedy-daddys-home-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Going in to Instant Family I had some reservations. I'm a big fan of Rose Byrne, her performance in last year's Juliet, Naked was a delight to watch, but on the flipside Mark Wahlberg and comedy don't come high on my must see list. Thankfully those thoughts were quickly dismissed as the times I laughed out loud soared into the double digits.
This is a genuinely good film with just a couple of things that made me pause a little, I'll mention those later. The moments where I laughed it was out loud, like almost everyone else at the screening, and when I wasn't laughing I was probably crying, sometimes ugly crying.
Byrne and Wahlberg worked so well together and with Isabela Moner in the mix too we were treated to some great on screen chemistry. I'm hoping we'll see a lot more of Moner on our screens as she was able to pull her weight really well with all the fantastic actors in this.
A lot is obviously focused around Ellie, Pete and the kids, but outside of that dynamic I've got to give some love to Karen and Sharon. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are such a fun double act, although for me Spencer will always steal the show. Their dynamic running the fostering program brought a smile to my face and while the reactionary humour may be predictable it lands so well that I couldn't care less that I knew it was coming.
My negatives about the films are so minute that they hardly seem worth mentioning. Pete (Wahlberg) has a tendency to be blunt and externalise what most of us would keep as inner dialogue. His script gives you those moments where you take a sharp breath and say "you shouldn't say that!" Ellie counteracts this by being the slight voice of reason so while you're taken aback by Pete's honesty you quickly come back to the normal flow of the film.
Out of my two quibbles this one caused me the most issues. Joan Cusack. She's great, I enjoy her work, but I really don't understand her inclusion in this. She pops up as a sort of cameo role near the end and it feels a little invasive on the dramatic moment we're witnessing, it just seems awkward and forced. It does at least lead to an amusing moment for Spencer so I think that probably gets it the pass.
Instant Family is definitely chock full of laughs and feels, despite my grumbles I still feel it deserves these five stars.
What you should do
It's a very entertaining film and perhaps surprisingly based on a true story, it's well worth a watch. I really think that everyone will get some entertainment out of this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If you could send Pete and Ellie round with their renovation skills it would be much appreciated.
This is a genuinely good film with just a couple of things that made me pause a little, I'll mention those later. The moments where I laughed it was out loud, like almost everyone else at the screening, and when I wasn't laughing I was probably crying, sometimes ugly crying.
Byrne and Wahlberg worked so well together and with Isabela Moner in the mix too we were treated to some great on screen chemistry. I'm hoping we'll see a lot more of Moner on our screens as she was able to pull her weight really well with all the fantastic actors in this.
A lot is obviously focused around Ellie, Pete and the kids, but outside of that dynamic I've got to give some love to Karen and Sharon. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are such a fun double act, although for me Spencer will always steal the show. Their dynamic running the fostering program brought a smile to my face and while the reactionary humour may be predictable it lands so well that I couldn't care less that I knew it was coming.
My negatives about the films are so minute that they hardly seem worth mentioning. Pete (Wahlberg) has a tendency to be blunt and externalise what most of us would keep as inner dialogue. His script gives you those moments where you take a sharp breath and say "you shouldn't say that!" Ellie counteracts this by being the slight voice of reason so while you're taken aback by Pete's honesty you quickly come back to the normal flow of the film.
Out of my two quibbles this one caused me the most issues. Joan Cusack. She's great, I enjoy her work, but I really don't understand her inclusion in this. She pops up as a sort of cameo role near the end and it feels a little invasive on the dramatic moment we're witnessing, it just seems awkward and forced. It does at least lead to an amusing moment for Spencer so I think that probably gets it the pass.
Instant Family is definitely chock full of laughs and feels, despite my grumbles I still feel it deserves these five stars.
What you should do
It's a very entertaining film and perhaps surprisingly based on a true story, it's well worth a watch. I really think that everyone will get some entertainment out of this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If you could send Pete and Ellie round with their renovation skills it would be much appreciated.