Search
Search results
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.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html