Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated X-Men Origins - Wolverine (2009) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
A low point for the X-Men franchise
X-Men Origins: Wolverine is an awful awful film, for many reasons.
Firstly - no one really seems to be too enthusiastic about what they're doing. Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, and Danny Huston do the best with the piss-poor script, but everyone else just seems to be going through the motions.
Secondly - the characters. This movie contains not one, but two fan favourite X-Men characters, making their big screen debut, just to be thrown under the bus. Gambit for starters, is a shadow of the character he is in the comic - Taylor Kitsch just being himself, whilst getting one very brief action scene that hardly shows off his powers.
The other character is of course Deadpool - Ryan Reynolds is entertaining enough throughout the opening scene - but when we're introduced to the proper Deadpool near the climax of the film... Words truly fail me, it's just embarrassing.
Thirdly - what the hell on Earth is going on with the CGI in this movie? This is the fourth X-Men film and the effects are worse than ever. Wolverines claws look like a child had just drawn over the film.
It's just terrible from start to finish. The fact that the following X-Men Origins: Magneto got cancelled almost immediately after this was released is a example of just how much of a misstep this film was.
There are a few positives though - the opening montage of Logan fighting in different wars throughout history was pretty cool, Liev Schreiber is a welcome addition as Sabretooth after Tyler Mane in the original X-Men movie, and the best thing about this film? The adaption of Deadpool was so abysmal that Ryan Reynolds took it upon himself to eventually get a proper Deadpool movie rolling.
Final thought - please don't let Will.I.Am near anymore movie sets, thanks.
Firstly - no one really seems to be too enthusiastic about what they're doing. Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, and Danny Huston do the best with the piss-poor script, but everyone else just seems to be going through the motions.
Secondly - the characters. This movie contains not one, but two fan favourite X-Men characters, making their big screen debut, just to be thrown under the bus. Gambit for starters, is a shadow of the character he is in the comic - Taylor Kitsch just being himself, whilst getting one very brief action scene that hardly shows off his powers.
The other character is of course Deadpool - Ryan Reynolds is entertaining enough throughout the opening scene - but when we're introduced to the proper Deadpool near the climax of the film... Words truly fail me, it's just embarrassing.
Thirdly - what the hell on Earth is going on with the CGI in this movie? This is the fourth X-Men film and the effects are worse than ever. Wolverines claws look like a child had just drawn over the film.
It's just terrible from start to finish. The fact that the following X-Men Origins: Magneto got cancelled almost immediately after this was released is a example of just how much of a misstep this film was.
There are a few positives though - the opening montage of Logan fighting in different wars throughout history was pretty cool, Liev Schreiber is a welcome addition as Sabretooth after Tyler Mane in the original X-Men movie, and the best thing about this film? The adaption of Deadpool was so abysmal that Ryan Reynolds took it upon himself to eventually get a proper Deadpool movie rolling.
Final thought - please don't let Will.I.Am near anymore movie sets, thanks.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Bride of Chucky (1998) in Movies
Nov 6, 2019
One of those 'guilty pleasures' you here so much about
Bride of Chucky is a prime example of what Horror films were like in the aftermath of Scream.
Ditching the straight up horror path of the first couple of movies for a silly, self aware, and often humorous movie.
Quite simply, Bride of Chucky is trashy nonsense. It knows it too, and just about walks into 'so bad , it's good' territory.
Chucky has been promoted from villain to main character, and for the most part, it's pretty enjoyable. Brad Dourif works wonders with a cheesy script, dragging Chucky into a post Scream horror landscape, and creating more of an antihero that gained propularity pretty quickly.
Props to Jennifer Tilly as well for going along with the silliness with enthusiasm.
The main issue with Bride of Chucky is the protagonists were supposed to be rooting for. Nick Stabile and a young Katherine Heigl play a young couple taken hostage by Chucky, and I think they are definitely in the running for the most brain dead characters I've ever seen in a horror.
Most importantly, there is not a single atom within my being that gives the slightest shit about them, or their completely uninteresting eloping side story.
It very nearly stops the movie dead in it's tracks, but thankfully, any scenes that involve Chucky and Tiffany (which is often) is entertaining enough to make the film watchable.
The story is nonsense though, make no mistake.
The animatronic work on Chucky and Tiffany is genuinely impressive, and an obvious step up from the first trilogy. Chucky's design is also genuinely horrific.
Overall, Bride of Chucky is an un-scary, silly and cheesy experience, but it has some fun moments and is one of those horror films that I will probably watch until the end every time I see it on TV đ
Ditching the straight up horror path of the first couple of movies for a silly, self aware, and often humorous movie.
Quite simply, Bride of Chucky is trashy nonsense. It knows it too, and just about walks into 'so bad , it's good' territory.
Chucky has been promoted from villain to main character, and for the most part, it's pretty enjoyable. Brad Dourif works wonders with a cheesy script, dragging Chucky into a post Scream horror landscape, and creating more of an antihero that gained propularity pretty quickly.
Props to Jennifer Tilly as well for going along with the silliness with enthusiasm.
The main issue with Bride of Chucky is the protagonists were supposed to be rooting for. Nick Stabile and a young Katherine Heigl play a young couple taken hostage by Chucky, and I think they are definitely in the running for the most brain dead characters I've ever seen in a horror.
Most importantly, there is not a single atom within my being that gives the slightest shit about them, or their completely uninteresting eloping side story.
It very nearly stops the movie dead in it's tracks, but thankfully, any scenes that involve Chucky and Tiffany (which is often) is entertaining enough to make the film watchable.
The story is nonsense though, make no mistake.
The animatronic work on Chucky and Tiffany is genuinely impressive, and an obvious step up from the first trilogy. Chucky's design is also genuinely horrific.
Overall, Bride of Chucky is an un-scary, silly and cheesy experience, but it has some fun moments and is one of those horror films that I will probably watch until the end every time I see it on TV đ
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Nov 12, 2019 (Updated Nov 12, 2019)
Nahhhh
Assassin's Creed is a series of (mostly) decent games that I personally enjoy. It's got a simple yet solid premise that has a story running in a select time in history, whilst simultaneously having another story running in modern day. It's full of parkour action, and flashy combat, and lends itself nicely to a movie adaption format?
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Rampage (2018) in Movies
Dec 11, 2019 (Updated Dec 11, 2019)
A stupidly fun pile of nonsense
Rampage is a big old pile of dumb fun, teeming with mostly passable CGI, and featuring The Rock fighting giant monsters.
The plot is something along the lines of - big shady corporation is practicing illegal genetic tinkering (in space, because Hollywood), they lose control, space ship crashes, experimental lab must infects a few animals, including a Gorilla that is looked after and raised by The Rock (an ex military badass zookeeper helicopter pilot, because Hollywood), the animals become big and aggressive, blah blah blah, BIG MONSTERS FIGHTING EACH OTHER AND DWAYNE JOHNSON AND DESTROYING CHICAGO.
It's absolutely absurd from start to finish, but it knows what kind of film it is.
The Rock is hugely likable as always, Jeffery Dean Morgan is likable as always, everyone else I can kind of give it take.
The script is pretty standard for this kind of film, but does verge into laughable at times, especially when the films 'villains' are on screen. Played by Malin Akerman and Jake Lacy, they go just a bit too overboard with the whole evil CEO schtick, to the point of annoyance.
Also, Naomie Harris is in it for some reason, but doesn't really serve much of a purpose, and therefore, is a waste of her talent.
The CGI is pretty decent for the most part, but make no mistake, Ramage is a CGI orgy, and as such, it does fall apart here and there (that parachuting scene is just haunting).
Rampage is stupid, loud, obnoxious, but it's entertaining enough to be a good time.
The Rock holds it all together, and it could have been a lot worse had it been lead by someone else, and as far as video game movies go, it's not half bad.
The plot is something along the lines of - big shady corporation is practicing illegal genetic tinkering (in space, because Hollywood), they lose control, space ship crashes, experimental lab must infects a few animals, including a Gorilla that is looked after and raised by The Rock (an ex military badass zookeeper helicopter pilot, because Hollywood), the animals become big and aggressive, blah blah blah, BIG MONSTERS FIGHTING EACH OTHER AND DWAYNE JOHNSON AND DESTROYING CHICAGO.
It's absolutely absurd from start to finish, but it knows what kind of film it is.
The Rock is hugely likable as always, Jeffery Dean Morgan is likable as always, everyone else I can kind of give it take.
The script is pretty standard for this kind of film, but does verge into laughable at times, especially when the films 'villains' are on screen. Played by Malin Akerman and Jake Lacy, they go just a bit too overboard with the whole evil CEO schtick, to the point of annoyance.
Also, Naomie Harris is in it for some reason, but doesn't really serve much of a purpose, and therefore, is a waste of her talent.
The CGI is pretty decent for the most part, but make no mistake, Ramage is a CGI orgy, and as such, it does fall apart here and there (that parachuting scene is just haunting).
Rampage is stupid, loud, obnoxious, but it's entertaining enough to be a good time.
The Rock holds it all together, and it could have been a lot worse had it been lead by someone else, and as far as video game movies go, it's not half bad.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Black Christmas (2019) in Movies
Dec 19, 2019
Horrendous
There are a lot of films that are so bad they're good, but unfortunately Black Christmas is so bad it's terrible. There is nothing redeemable about this film at all. I came out of the cinema after watching this feeling frustrated, exasperated and bored as hell.
This is the worst example of a horror film I've seen in a long time. The scares arent scary and despite the fact that it's a 15 certificate there's no blood or gore either. There's no tension, no suspense - there is literally nothing in this film that makes it an even halfway decent horror. It starts off slowly and doesn't get any better, and the acting and script are truly awful. Even Imogen Poots who I've previously thought was good in other films is terrible in this too. 30 minutes into this film I would've happily walked out and not cared about the outcome. And the worst thing about this is the plot and the completely irrational actions of the characters. The men vs women plot is trying to be modern and relevant, but actually comes across as preachy and beyond stupid. And some of the actions and decisions by characters in this film had me nearly shouting at the screen in exasperation.
This film was only 100 minutes long but it felt more like 100 hours. I went to see this purely because I was intrigued as to whether it turns out exactly like the trailer, and sadly I wasn't wrong. Don't waste a couple of hours of your life watching this, just watch the 2 minute trailer instead - it sums up the entire thing and is actually a lot more exciting! This is without a doubt the worst film I've seen at the cinema all year.
This is the worst example of a horror film I've seen in a long time. The scares arent scary and despite the fact that it's a 15 certificate there's no blood or gore either. There's no tension, no suspense - there is literally nothing in this film that makes it an even halfway decent horror. It starts off slowly and doesn't get any better, and the acting and script are truly awful. Even Imogen Poots who I've previously thought was good in other films is terrible in this too. 30 minutes into this film I would've happily walked out and not cared about the outcome. And the worst thing about this is the plot and the completely irrational actions of the characters. The men vs women plot is trying to be modern and relevant, but actually comes across as preachy and beyond stupid. And some of the actions and decisions by characters in this film had me nearly shouting at the screen in exasperation.
This film was only 100 minutes long but it felt more like 100 hours. I went to see this purely because I was intrigued as to whether it turns out exactly like the trailer, and sadly I wasn't wrong. Don't waste a couple of hours of your life watching this, just watch the 2 minute trailer instead - it sums up the entire thing and is actually a lot more exciting! This is without a doubt the worst film I've seen at the cinema all year.
JT (287 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020 (Updated Mar 10, 2020)
Godzilla rises from the deep once again, this time to stand side by side with part of the human race to fend off monsters summoned by the crypto-zoological agency Monarch. Monarch has been able to devise a way to control the giant creatures using a sonar device called the Orca, in the hope that they will be able to live together in perfect harmony.
âSometimes⌠the only way to heal our wounds is to make peace with the demons who created them,â says Ken Watanabeâs Dr Ishiro Serizawa. That theory is short-lived when eco-terrorist Alan Jonah (Charles Dance) threatens to unleash hell, all for the greater good.
Itâs one big mess. I donât know how else to describe it other than that. I lost interest halfway through and only raised an eyebrow when Godzilla arrived on-screen to pummel the shit out of the three-headed Ghidorah and Rodan. In 2014 Godzilla was rarely seen, albeit for the odd glimpse of a whipping tail. Here that is rectified and heâs placed front and centre as he smashes everything to smithereens.
The human element is just as bad. With a cast that boasted the likes of Vera Farmiga, Kyle Chandler, Charles Dance and Strangers Things starlet Millie Bobby Brown I would have expected more from the experienced group. I blame the script which falls by the wayside. Loud, thundering action set pieces do offer a little bit of satisfaction but itâs not enough to carry the film home. Plenty of scenes could have been cut which might have made it bearable.
There are suggestions that we could be getting a Kong Vs Godzilla film at some point which would loosely tie into a Kaiju styled universe but after this load of tripe, they will have their work cut out.
âSometimes⌠the only way to heal our wounds is to make peace with the demons who created them,â says Ken Watanabeâs Dr Ishiro Serizawa. That theory is short-lived when eco-terrorist Alan Jonah (Charles Dance) threatens to unleash hell, all for the greater good.
Itâs one big mess. I donât know how else to describe it other than that. I lost interest halfway through and only raised an eyebrow when Godzilla arrived on-screen to pummel the shit out of the three-headed Ghidorah and Rodan. In 2014 Godzilla was rarely seen, albeit for the odd glimpse of a whipping tail. Here that is rectified and heâs placed front and centre as he smashes everything to smithereens.
The human element is just as bad. With a cast that boasted the likes of Vera Farmiga, Kyle Chandler, Charles Dance and Strangers Things starlet Millie Bobby Brown I would have expected more from the experienced group. I blame the script which falls by the wayside. Loud, thundering action set pieces do offer a little bit of satisfaction but itâs not enough to carry the film home. Plenty of scenes could have been cut which might have made it bearable.
There are suggestions that we could be getting a Kong Vs Godzilla film at some point which would loosely tie into a Kaiju styled universe but after this load of tripe, they will have their work cut out.
JT (287 KP) rated Moon (2009) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
The first few shots of Moon feel like any normal run of the mill sci-fi. Thereâs shots of the space station with the earth off in the distance, shots of computers and consoles and of course shots of a lone astronaut.
Shot in just 33 days Moon is one of the more eye opening sci-fi films for 2009. It has a Space Odyssey feel about it as the camera pans its way through white crisp interiors and what are seemingly chunky and dated equipment.
Even though this is set in 2024 youâd be forgiven it might have been set years earlier.
Astronaut Sam Bell has a quintessentially personal encounter toward the end of his three-year stint on the Moon, where he, working alongside his computer, GERTY, sends back to Earth parcels of a resource that has helped diminish our planetâs power problems.
What starts out as seemingly inauspicious hallucinations, after Sam is involved in a crash in his rover turn into something much more. As we donât ask ourselves what might be wrong with Sam but who the hell he is?
The script is tight and seeing as Sam is really the only major star alongside talking computer GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey) director Duncan Jones does well to build dramatic, emotional and thought provoking moments.
If a 33 day shoot seems small then it has a budget too match as it only cost around $5 million to make, and when you see the shots of the space rover trundling over the Moonâs rough surface you can see exactly what that money might have been used for.
It might not have been up there with many of the biggest blockbusters in 2009 but one thing is for sure, Moon is an enjoyable trip into the unknown.
Shot in just 33 days Moon is one of the more eye opening sci-fi films for 2009. It has a Space Odyssey feel about it as the camera pans its way through white crisp interiors and what are seemingly chunky and dated equipment.
Even though this is set in 2024 youâd be forgiven it might have been set years earlier.
Astronaut Sam Bell has a quintessentially personal encounter toward the end of his three-year stint on the Moon, where he, working alongside his computer, GERTY, sends back to Earth parcels of a resource that has helped diminish our planetâs power problems.
What starts out as seemingly inauspicious hallucinations, after Sam is involved in a crash in his rover turn into something much more. As we donât ask ourselves what might be wrong with Sam but who the hell he is?
The script is tight and seeing as Sam is really the only major star alongside talking computer GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey) director Duncan Jones does well to build dramatic, emotional and thought provoking moments.
If a 33 day shoot seems small then it has a budget too match as it only cost around $5 million to make, and when you see the shots of the space rover trundling over the Moonâs rough surface you can see exactly what that money might have been used for.
It might not have been up there with many of the biggest blockbusters in 2009 but one thing is for sure, Moon is an enjoyable trip into the unknown.
JT (287 KP) rated Bridesmaids (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
This was quite a nice change of pace from the regular rom-coms we have seen. The dull and somewhat boring 27 Dresses, Runaway Bride and Bride Wars as examples all try to leave you feeling fluffy and emotionally satisfied.
Bridesmaids is simply The Hangover for females. With brilliant ad-libbing and standout scenes it only lets itself down by trying to fill the humour gaps with a genuine romance for Kristen Wiigâs Annie. Beneficial to the film is producer Judd Apatow who has brought us some fantastic comedies such as The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up to name a few. Each with a collection of colourful and extremely funny characters â Bridesmaids is not a lot different.
Here he almost certainly lends a helping hand in making sure this misfit group of women can cause as much havoc as possible, and they do. Laugh out loud moments such as a trip to the bridal shop after some rather dodgy food is a disgusting but hilarious highlight, as is the plane trip to Vegas in which a nervous Annie mixes pills and scotch and tries to slip into first class.
One of the highlights was the supporting role of Melissa McCarthy as Megan, almost a female version of the loveable Zach Galifianakisâ character Alan in The Hangover . She nearly steals the show, but if not for a great performance from Wig. Given the filmâs high budget it did very well to profit such a huge sum worldwide so it must have hit the right notes with film goers.
Overall I enjoyed Bridesmaids a lot. The actresses not following the the script and add-libbing takes a lot of skill, more so to make the scene funny, so hats off to that.
Bridesmaids is simply The Hangover for females. With brilliant ad-libbing and standout scenes it only lets itself down by trying to fill the humour gaps with a genuine romance for Kristen Wiigâs Annie. Beneficial to the film is producer Judd Apatow who has brought us some fantastic comedies such as The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up to name a few. Each with a collection of colourful and extremely funny characters â Bridesmaids is not a lot different.
Here he almost certainly lends a helping hand in making sure this misfit group of women can cause as much havoc as possible, and they do. Laugh out loud moments such as a trip to the bridal shop after some rather dodgy food is a disgusting but hilarious highlight, as is the plane trip to Vegas in which a nervous Annie mixes pills and scotch and tries to slip into first class.
One of the highlights was the supporting role of Melissa McCarthy as Megan, almost a female version of the loveable Zach Galifianakisâ character Alan in The Hangover . She nearly steals the show, but if not for a great performance from Wig. Given the filmâs high budget it did very well to profit such a huge sum worldwide so it must have hit the right notes with film goers.
Overall I enjoyed Bridesmaids a lot. The actresses not following the the script and add-libbing takes a lot of skill, more so to make the scene funny, so hats off to that.
JT (287 KP) rated Beverly Hills Cop (1984) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Strange to think that if things had been different Sly Stallone could have taken the role of Axel Foley in Beverly Hills Cop, thankfully he didnât! As much as I am a fan of Stallone he wouldnât have had the charisma to pull off this role with the wise-cracking appeal that Eddie Murphy had.
Fresh from a successful stint on Saturday Night live Eddie Murphy was approached for the lead role and he snapped it up and at least two out of the three films in this trilogy were an instant hit. There are rumours of a fourth which streaming giant Netflix may well get involved with but weâll have to wait and see on that one.
Murphy uses the film as a blank canvas to display his comedic genius and thrives in front of the camera. Axel Foley is a quick-witted Detroit detective who lets his mouth do all the talking. Heâs adored by his superior, Inspector Todd but at the same time, Todd feels as though Foleyâs talents are wasted.
When his childhood friend is murdered he heads to Beverly Hills to hunt down the killers. He is supported by an accomplished cast including Judge Reinhold, Ronny Cox and John Ashton.
The on-screen chemistry is hilarious between Foley, Billy Rosewood (Judge Reinhold) and his long-suffering partner John Taggart (John Ashton). They bounce off each other well and I am sure most of the script was ad-libbed. If you look at one scene during the âsuper copâ bit John Ashton finds it very hard to keep it together.
There are some great action sequences including the final shoot out and director Martin Brest injects a cool suave persona into the film â this is 80s action nostalgia at its best.
Fresh from a successful stint on Saturday Night live Eddie Murphy was approached for the lead role and he snapped it up and at least two out of the three films in this trilogy were an instant hit. There are rumours of a fourth which streaming giant Netflix may well get involved with but weâll have to wait and see on that one.
Murphy uses the film as a blank canvas to display his comedic genius and thrives in front of the camera. Axel Foley is a quick-witted Detroit detective who lets his mouth do all the talking. Heâs adored by his superior, Inspector Todd but at the same time, Todd feels as though Foleyâs talents are wasted.
When his childhood friend is murdered he heads to Beverly Hills to hunt down the killers. He is supported by an accomplished cast including Judge Reinhold, Ronny Cox and John Ashton.
The on-screen chemistry is hilarious between Foley, Billy Rosewood (Judge Reinhold) and his long-suffering partner John Taggart (John Ashton). They bounce off each other well and I am sure most of the script was ad-libbed. If you look at one scene during the âsuper copâ bit John Ashton finds it very hard to keep it together.
There are some great action sequences including the final shoot out and director Martin Brest injects a cool suave persona into the film â this is 80s action nostalgia at its best.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jeff, Who Lives at Home (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Everyone knows a guy like Jeff (Jason Segel). Someone who never really left home, opting instead to sit around waiting for a sign. Jeffâs family is not much better. His daft, unaware brother, Pat (Ed Helms), has his life centered on a marriage that is devoid of connection or even much conversation. Jeffâs mother, Sharon (Susan Sarandon), spends her days de-stressing by staring at a waterfall picture in a drab office environment. But today a change is going to come in a big way to the people in Jeffâs life.
In âJeff, Who Lives at Homeâ both Segel and Helms have taken on roles that are slightly more serious than the comedic standards that these actors are known for. Still the film is not so far removed as to alienate the fans who diligently follow these two actors to the theater time and time again.
The filmâs plot is full of unexpected yet mildly realistic twists and turns. There are no big explosions or giant leaps of faith. This serpentine story is much more subtle. Many of the standout moments are realistically bizarre yet prove relevant, sweeping the audience into lives that have hit the final dregs of acceptability.
Visually the film is lack-luster. More than once viewers experience uncomfortable close-up shots of the less than attractively decorated characters. Still the script is well composed and crafted with such care that every word seems to naturally flow from the actorsâ mouths. The story delves into so many facets of the human experience, from marriage to the building of a brotherly bond, that the tale itself is engrossing.
The characters are nervous, inexperienced, and closed off but the tale that defines âJeff, Who Lives at Homeâ is entirely relatable. The film is not exactly enchanting but it was significantly better than I had originally anticipated.
In âJeff, Who Lives at Homeâ both Segel and Helms have taken on roles that are slightly more serious than the comedic standards that these actors are known for. Still the film is not so far removed as to alienate the fans who diligently follow these two actors to the theater time and time again.
The filmâs plot is full of unexpected yet mildly realistic twists and turns. There are no big explosions or giant leaps of faith. This serpentine story is much more subtle. Many of the standout moments are realistically bizarre yet prove relevant, sweeping the audience into lives that have hit the final dregs of acceptability.
Visually the film is lack-luster. More than once viewers experience uncomfortable close-up shots of the less than attractively decorated characters. Still the script is well composed and crafted with such care that every word seems to naturally flow from the actorsâ mouths. The story delves into so many facets of the human experience, from marriage to the building of a brotherly bond, that the tale itself is engrossing.
The characters are nervous, inexperienced, and closed off but the tale that defines âJeff, Who Lives at Homeâ is entirely relatable. The film is not exactly enchanting but it was significantly better than I had originally anticipated.