Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Nov 29, 2019
Verdict: Poor Film
Story: Peter Rabbit starts as we see how Peter Rabbit and his family and friends had a battle with old Mr McGregor (Neill) after they continued to steal from his garden, until he passes away. The next-door neighbour Bea (Byrne) does try to keep them safe the best she can.
When Thomas McGregor (Gleeson) moves into the house with plans to sell it, which sees the war coming back for Peter and his family, this time it might become deadlier.
Thoughts on Peter Rabbit
Characters – Peter Rabbit is the mischievous little rabbit that always gets his siblings into trouble as they always seem to terrorise the McGregor family, that does seem to be the only thing he does each day, making him out to be a horrible little rabbit. Thomas McGregor is a completely by the book toy store employee wanting to get to management, when he loses his job, he ends up following in his uncle footsteps, getting into a battle with the rabbits. Bea is the nice neighbour that has always tried to look after the animals, loves nature and is an artist.
Performances – Domhnall Gleeson is great along with Rose Byrne are the two main live action stars that both work well with how they act towards the animals. Most of the voice acting is mixed, with the three sisters working well, but James Corden not suiting the character.
Story – The story follows the adventures of Peter Rabbit against the McGregor’s, which just seems to keep escalating. The story is strange because it doesn’t make Peter likeable at all, he just seems to annoy McGregor and never do anything else, surely there would have been another food supply for him. Most of the story revolves around pop culture jokes, which have dated quickly, but by the end the story just becomes boring more than anything else.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure is just the troubles Peter gets himself in, we don’t seem to go any further, while the comedy is a miss already.
Settings – The film keeps the action in the country, which does seem to have only show how close the war between the two was.
Animation – The animated animals looks solid for the most part, but some of the moments seem weird.
Scene of the Movie – Harrods break down.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Peter Rabbit.
Final Thoughts – This is a big disappointment because the characters used are loveable for the most part, while this movie just makes them horrible.
Overall: Boring.
Story: Peter Rabbit starts as we see how Peter Rabbit and his family and friends had a battle with old Mr McGregor (Neill) after they continued to steal from his garden, until he passes away. The next-door neighbour Bea (Byrne) does try to keep them safe the best she can.
When Thomas McGregor (Gleeson) moves into the house with plans to sell it, which sees the war coming back for Peter and his family, this time it might become deadlier.
Thoughts on Peter Rabbit
Characters – Peter Rabbit is the mischievous little rabbit that always gets his siblings into trouble as they always seem to terrorise the McGregor family, that does seem to be the only thing he does each day, making him out to be a horrible little rabbit. Thomas McGregor is a completely by the book toy store employee wanting to get to management, when he loses his job, he ends up following in his uncle footsteps, getting into a battle with the rabbits. Bea is the nice neighbour that has always tried to look after the animals, loves nature and is an artist.
Performances – Domhnall Gleeson is great along with Rose Byrne are the two main live action stars that both work well with how they act towards the animals. Most of the voice acting is mixed, with the three sisters working well, but James Corden not suiting the character.
Story – The story follows the adventures of Peter Rabbit against the McGregor’s, which just seems to keep escalating. The story is strange because it doesn’t make Peter likeable at all, he just seems to annoy McGregor and never do anything else, surely there would have been another food supply for him. Most of the story revolves around pop culture jokes, which have dated quickly, but by the end the story just becomes boring more than anything else.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure is just the troubles Peter gets himself in, we don’t seem to go any further, while the comedy is a miss already.
Settings – The film keeps the action in the country, which does seem to have only show how close the war between the two was.
Animation – The animated animals looks solid for the most part, but some of the moments seem weird.
Scene of the Movie – Harrods break down.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Peter Rabbit.
Final Thoughts – This is a big disappointment because the characters used are loveable for the most part, while this movie just makes them horrible.
Overall: Boring.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jul 25, 2021
Script this time appeals to both Kids and Adults (1 more)
Gleeson, Byrne and Oyelowo are great together
This bunny has legs
I appreciate I'm over 2 months late in seeing "Peter Rabbit 2". But the grandkids were staying for the weekend and wanted to see it again!
Positives:
- This time the movie manages - "Paddington 2" style - to find a good balance between slapstick jokes that appeal to the target younger audience (my grandkids were roaring at certain bits) and the 'dragalong' adult audience. Some of these are gorgeously surreal - like the skiing badger in the Alps as a "university prank". It certainly passes the "6 laugh" test for a comedy, and generated a couple of good guffaws (the Austin Powers landing in the Aston Martin and the subsequent take-off was one for me).
- In the first movie, James Corden's voicing of Peter Rabbit tended to grate with me enormously. Here he gamely plays up to that, accepting that he is a bit of a "marmite" character with a lot of people. It's a fine comic moment.
- Rose Byrne and Domnhall Gleeson make a cute and watchable couple. (Rose Byrne could read the phone directory for me). They are well supported here by David Oyelowo ("Don't look into his eyes") who is the least villainous villain in any movie in recent memory! Also fun are trying to spot the guest voice artistes who include Margot Robbie, Sia, Elizabeth Debicki, Sam Neill, Lennie James and Hayley Atwell.
Negatives:
- A few of the jokes don't quite land (a one-note cockeral story, for example, is overplayed).
- As I've been doing some Supporting Artist work recently, I've become obsessed with observing Extras and the continuity of Extras in shots. There are a few inconsistencies in the mix on this one!
Summary Thoughts: It's fair to say (although I never actually wrote a full review for it) that I was NOT a fan of the original Peter Rabbit movie from 2018. Corden grated; there was not enough for adult viewers and some of the included scenes were highly questionable: try explaining to a three-year-old why Peter was stabbing a dead old man in the eye with his finger! I've avoided watching it again on the TV like the plague.
This sequel was, I thought, much better, being entertaining for both kids and adults. I wonder if I now watched the first movie I might find it, in hindsight, more palatable? Perhaps I will give it a try sometime.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- This time the movie manages - "Paddington 2" style - to find a good balance between slapstick jokes that appeal to the target younger audience (my grandkids were roaring at certain bits) and the 'dragalong' adult audience. Some of these are gorgeously surreal - like the skiing badger in the Alps as a "university prank". It certainly passes the "6 laugh" test for a comedy, and generated a couple of good guffaws (the Austin Powers landing in the Aston Martin and the subsequent take-off was one for me).
- In the first movie, James Corden's voicing of Peter Rabbit tended to grate with me enormously. Here he gamely plays up to that, accepting that he is a bit of a "marmite" character with a lot of people. It's a fine comic moment.
- Rose Byrne and Domnhall Gleeson make a cute and watchable couple. (Rose Byrne could read the phone directory for me). They are well supported here by David Oyelowo ("Don't look into his eyes") who is the least villainous villain in any movie in recent memory! Also fun are trying to spot the guest voice artistes who include Margot Robbie, Sia, Elizabeth Debicki, Sam Neill, Lennie James and Hayley Atwell.
Negatives:
- A few of the jokes don't quite land (a one-note cockeral story, for example, is overplayed).
- As I've been doing some Supporting Artist work recently, I've become obsessed with observing Extras and the continuity of Extras in shots. There are a few inconsistencies in the mix on this one!
Summary Thoughts: It's fair to say (although I never actually wrote a full review for it) that I was NOT a fan of the original Peter Rabbit movie from 2018. Corden grated; there was not enough for adult viewers and some of the included scenes were highly questionable: try explaining to a three-year-old why Peter was stabbing a dead old man in the eye with his finger! I've avoided watching it again on the TV like the plague.
This sequel was, I thought, much better, being entertaining for both kids and adults. I wonder if I now watched the first movie I might find it, in hindsight, more palatable? Perhaps I will give it a try sometime.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Erika (17789 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2018
Disclaimer: I saw this movie on accident. I went to see Early Man, but the projectionist put the wrong movie in, then left. So, no one was able to change it over. Now, I just get to see Early Man for free tonight.
So, this movie is based solely on the illustrations of Peter Rabbit and his various friends from Beatrix Potter's children's books. The movie was amusing, and I laughed at it, as an adult, so I figure that's fairly impressive. The voice acting for all of the animals was great. I did think the difference in age between Rose Byrne and Domhnall Gleeson was a little off, I know there's only a 4 year difference, but it was just a little weird.
So, this movie is based solely on the illustrations of Peter Rabbit and his various friends from Beatrix Potter's children's books. The movie was amusing, and I laughed at it, as an adult, so I figure that's fairly impressive. The voice acting for all of the animals was great. I did think the difference in age between Rose Byrne and Domhnall Gleeson was a little off, I know there's only a 4 year difference, but it was just a little weird.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Mar 19, 2018 (Updated Mar 23, 2018)
Almost wholly ghastly bastardisation of Beatrix Potter's charming, gentle tales. Starts off with Peter Rabbit essentially killing Mr McGregor (not before contemplating sticking a carrot up his rectum) and goes on from there. 'Hilarious' jokes about Asbestos poisoning and anaphylactic shock ensue, plus a sight gag where Mrs Tiggy-Winkle walks into an electric fence.
Made all the more indefensible by a lovely fully-animated segment which completely captures the style of the original stories. Film-makers clearly not interested in that, though: not nearly 'contemporary' or 'irreverent' enough for them. Often resembles a mean-spirited parody of Beatrix Potter, twisted so it can make knowing jokes about rom-coms and so on. Very nearly completely horrible; scrapes one point for the animation sequence, another for Rose Byrne (what can I say, I'm sentimental).
Made all the more indefensible by a lovely fully-animated segment which completely captures the style of the original stories. Film-makers clearly not interested in that, though: not nearly 'contemporary' or 'irreverent' enough for them. Often resembles a mean-spirited parody of Beatrix Potter, twisted so it can make knowing jokes about rom-coms and so on. Very nearly completely horrible; scrapes one point for the animation sequence, another for Rose Byrne (what can I say, I'm sentimental).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Had they not attempt to make a movie based off a beloved children’s book
classic by Beatrix Potter, this film would be exceptional. Unfortunately,
they chose to deviate from the innocent storytelling and put a slapstick
comical spin on it. Peter Rabbit (James Corden) and his sisters, Flopsy,
Mopsy, Cottontail, and their cousin Benjamin are constantly trying to steal
vegetables from the unpleasant and always grumpy Mr. MacGregor’s garden.
Fortunately, the rabbits have one human on their side, MacGregor’s
neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne), who reminds MacGregor, the animals were on the
land first and everyone should share.
One morning Mr. MacGregor (SamNeill) keels over after trying to save his garden from those pesky
rabbits. His straight-laced city boy grandnephew Thomas MacGregor (Dohmnall
Gleason) inherits the property and is left with trying to maintain the
“rodent” problem. An all-out war ensues between Peter and Thomas!
What made Beatrix Potter’s books so appealing, was her ability to show a
vulnerability to where the reader could sympathize with such
mischievous rabbits.
This film was chalked full of naughty behavior, jealousy, and entitlement
within the story line characters. As a film, it’s hilarious—Home Alone
type shenanigans with a little Dennis the Menace antics peppered in. Live
action mixed in with CGI effects is quite impressive—too good, you almost
think the rabbits were real. If you can deviate from the stories we’ve all
grown to love, this film is excellent, entertaining, and for the intended
audience-kids under the age of 10……… which all thought it was
“totally awesome!”
classic by Beatrix Potter, this film would be exceptional. Unfortunately,
they chose to deviate from the innocent storytelling and put a slapstick
comical spin on it. Peter Rabbit (James Corden) and his sisters, Flopsy,
Mopsy, Cottontail, and their cousin Benjamin are constantly trying to steal
vegetables from the unpleasant and always grumpy Mr. MacGregor’s garden.
Fortunately, the rabbits have one human on their side, MacGregor’s
neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne), who reminds MacGregor, the animals were on the
land first and everyone should share.
One morning Mr. MacGregor (SamNeill) keels over after trying to save his garden from those pesky
rabbits. His straight-laced city boy grandnephew Thomas MacGregor (Dohmnall
Gleason) inherits the property and is left with trying to maintain the
“rodent” problem. An all-out war ensues between Peter and Thomas!
What made Beatrix Potter’s books so appealing, was her ability to show a
vulnerability to where the reader could sympathize with such
mischievous rabbits.
This film was chalked full of naughty behavior, jealousy, and entitlement
within the story line characters. As a film, it’s hilarious—Home Alone
type shenanigans with a little Dennis the Menace antics peppered in. Live
action mixed in with CGI effects is quite impressive—too good, you almost
think the rabbits were real. If you can deviate from the stories we’ve all
grown to love, this film is excellent, entertaining, and for the intended
audience-kids under the age of 10……… which all thought it was
“totally awesome!”
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hereditary (2018) in Movies
Jun 28, 2018
Laughable
For me, the hardest genre of film to get right is horror. In short order the filmmaker needs to set up the premise and "rules of engagement" of the world that is being presented and then execute incredulous situations and predicaments in such a way that are plausible and tense.
Only a small amount (let's say 10% to be generous) gets this balance right. 80% of the time, they fall short and either the film is boring or (more often) turns into a "gore-fest". And...in the bottom 10% are the films where they miss so spectacularly that you are entertained by how ridiculous and over-the-top things are.
Such is the case with Ari Aster's HEREDITARY, a film that was billed as a "tense, thriller with unthinkable family tragedy that veers into the realm of the Supernatural".
I would bill it as "stupid".
Starring the usually reliable Toni Collette as Annie, a miniature-model artist (people in these types of films usually have occupations that make no sense) who's relationship with her mother is strained - at best. She is married to Steve (Gabriel Byrne - far removed from his USUAL SUSPECTS days), and has 2 children, Peter (Alex Wolff) and Charlie (Milly Shapiro). They had another child who has passed away. When Annie's mother dies, Annie starts to discover disturbing secrets about her mother and her family's heritage.
I won't say more - for I would spoil things - but the film starts promisingly enough - and there's an unexpected, tragic death that I thought was handled interestingly enough and I had positive hopes for the rest of the film - but the scenarios and escalating events of this film build on each other from there, one more ridiculous than the other. I kept wanting to scream to the screen - "call the authorities", which would have ended things right there, but this being a film, no one ever does.
As I stated, Toni Collette is, usually, a sign of quality in a movie...but not here. She (and Byrne) are listed as Executive Producers of this film (which means, I think, they gave up parts of their salaries for % points in this film - good luck getting any money out of that). Her Annie is melodramatic and over-the-top - and CRAZY - almost from the start, so when she starts getting REALLY melodramatic and C-R-A-Z-Y, it is laughable. Gabriel Byrne walks through this film looking like he is wondering where the Craft Services truck is, giving a "minimalist" performance (read: he mailed it in). And the two kids are haunting...in their blankness and blandness.
But...it is the ever increasing bizarre events that had me howling with laughter in my seat (as opposed to squirming in terror). I would spoil things if I mentioned them, but I didn't buy any of it. Writer/Director Aster just kept throwing one event even more "weird" and bizarre than preceding one. I actually said to my buddy sitting next to me at one point, "who is that old, fat, naked guy, and where did he come from"?
I think that says it all.
I'm sure there was probably a good movie in here someplace, this wasn't it.
Letter Grade: C (for the opening 1/2 hour or so and the "unexpected death" that was executed well).
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take it - or leave it - to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Only a small amount (let's say 10% to be generous) gets this balance right. 80% of the time, they fall short and either the film is boring or (more often) turns into a "gore-fest". And...in the bottom 10% are the films where they miss so spectacularly that you are entertained by how ridiculous and over-the-top things are.
Such is the case with Ari Aster's HEREDITARY, a film that was billed as a "tense, thriller with unthinkable family tragedy that veers into the realm of the Supernatural".
I would bill it as "stupid".
Starring the usually reliable Toni Collette as Annie, a miniature-model artist (people in these types of films usually have occupations that make no sense) who's relationship with her mother is strained - at best. She is married to Steve (Gabriel Byrne - far removed from his USUAL SUSPECTS days), and has 2 children, Peter (Alex Wolff) and Charlie (Milly Shapiro). They had another child who has passed away. When Annie's mother dies, Annie starts to discover disturbing secrets about her mother and her family's heritage.
I won't say more - for I would spoil things - but the film starts promisingly enough - and there's an unexpected, tragic death that I thought was handled interestingly enough and I had positive hopes for the rest of the film - but the scenarios and escalating events of this film build on each other from there, one more ridiculous than the other. I kept wanting to scream to the screen - "call the authorities", which would have ended things right there, but this being a film, no one ever does.
As I stated, Toni Collette is, usually, a sign of quality in a movie...but not here. She (and Byrne) are listed as Executive Producers of this film (which means, I think, they gave up parts of their salaries for % points in this film - good luck getting any money out of that). Her Annie is melodramatic and over-the-top - and CRAZY - almost from the start, so when she starts getting REALLY melodramatic and C-R-A-Z-Y, it is laughable. Gabriel Byrne walks through this film looking like he is wondering where the Craft Services truck is, giving a "minimalist" performance (read: he mailed it in). And the two kids are haunting...in their blankness and blandness.
But...it is the ever increasing bizarre events that had me howling with laughter in my seat (as opposed to squirming in terror). I would spoil things if I mentioned them, but I didn't buy any of it. Writer/Director Aster just kept throwing one event even more "weird" and bizarre than preceding one. I actually said to my buddy sitting next to me at one point, "who is that old, fat, naked guy, and where did he come from"?
I think that says it all.
I'm sure there was probably a good movie in here someplace, this wasn't it.
Letter Grade: C (for the opening 1/2 hour or so and the "unexpected death" that was executed well).
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take it - or leave it - to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.