Category: Movie reviews

Flora & Ulysses (2021)

Rating PG
Length 1h 35
Release 19.2.2021
Director Lena Khan
About Flora, a 10-year-old girl with an imaginative mind, rescues a squirrel and names him Ulysses. She soon discovers that Ulysses is blessed with superpowers which help them embark on various adventures.

The Good

  • This is a heart-warming story about family and superheroes. It takes on an origin story, of sorts, but provides the viewer with enough charm that even those fighting the superhero fatigue will be won over.
  • Danny Purdi is excellent as the “villainous” squirrel catcher. Community fans will love that he gets to provide some excellent physical movies references throughout the film.
  • The film made the absolutely right choice when not giving Ulysses a voice. It kept him cute and Grogu-like.
  • It has a belter soundtrack. Almost GotG-lite.
  • Allyson Hannigan and Ben. Schwartz were adorable together and apart. The fact that they both reduced me to tears is a testament to them, their ability to demonstrate the hardships of a relationship, individuality and creative blocks.
  • Matilda Lawler is one to watch. She 10 year old Flora a delight to watch and her narration was perfect. She’ll bring any kid watching onboard straight away.

The Bad

  • The CGI of both Ulysses and Mr Klaus is a little disappointing. While all the actors work well with the furballs, I just found them reminiscent of the early 2000 CGI; almost too glossy and separate from the rest of the visuals.

The Ugly

  • I did not like the development of the character William. The actor did a fine job with what he had to work with, but I just really didn’t like the gimmick of him being blind. I most certainly didn’t like the usage of the outdated term “hysterical blindness”. With a film that has the charm that this does, the jokes feel forced and painfully gross.

Final Thoughts

Its definitely a film for families and one those young at heart will enjoy too. There’s some nice Easter Eggs for comic book and film fans alike. Its certainly on my list to watch again.

Airplane! (1980)

Rating PG
Length 1h 28
Release 29.8.1980
Director Jim Abrahams, David & Jerry Zucker
About Ted Striker, a former pilot who has a fear of flying, finds himself burdened with the responsibility of landing a plane safely when most of the crew and passengers fall sick due to food poisoning.

The Good

  • Unlike the spoofs of film genres in the post- Scary Movie era, this relies on good faith prods at other films. By the time Scary Movie had long past its sell by date, it became tasteless and almost painfull. This, on the other hand, has aged well and runs like a fully formed plot with nods to disaster movies like Towering Inferno and Poseidon Adventure. The point being, you do not have to watch all the disaster movies to enjoy this film.
  • Leslie Nielson is the perfect for the role of Dr Rumack. I must admit, I know him from the Naked Gun movies so I assumed this was his wheelhouse. I’d known of his “playing it straight” in 1956’s Forbidden Planet, however I thought that was the exception and not this comedy role. I was surprised how late into the proceedings he actually arrived (I I had totally misremembered him being the stare) and it was only upon reading up on the casting and production that I discovered there had been reservations about casting him. Well, that just made it all the more impressive for me.
  • I loved Otto; the Auto Pilot. It was a little nonsensicle but it made for one most excellent sight gag. Oh, and he even got his own credit on IMDB. Genius.

The Bad

  • Much like with many films of the age, there are some jokes that do not sit as well as they once did. Nothing that would make me disuade people from watching it, but it certainly made me cringe.
  • I did not like the charcter of Ted Hays. I cannot put my finger on what it is, but he irked me. I did, however, find comfort in knowing I wasn’t alone in my feelings.

The Ugly

  • As much as I chuckled and I found it likable. I am rather disappointed that I didn’t laugh more than I did. However, in the film’s defence, I do struggle with a comedy when watching alone.

Final Thoughts

I’m not rushing to watch this again, but I’d certain see it at somewhere like the Prince Charles on a Friday Night; I think it is a film you need to see under the right conditions. Seriously.

Sneakers (1992)

Rating 12
Length 2h 06
Release 13.11.1992
Director Phil Alden Robinson
About Martin Bishop heads a group of experts who specialise in testing security systems. When government agents blackmail him into stealing a top secret black box, his team is embroiled in a dangerous game.

The Good

  • The cast is incredible. Like, I can’t imagine a director getting a better cast assembled. Certainly not one that includes three generations of Oscar talent.
  • In particular, Sidney Poitier was incredible. He really had that paternal vibe down. Then he went and gave Samuel L Jackson a run for his money with the use of “motherfucker.”
  • This is perfect for those who like conspiracy thrillers and heist movies, like Enemy of the State, Lucky Number Slevin and Inside Man. It’s clever and well paced with characters I really rooted for.
  • The final scene is worth everything. Think Armageddon contract negotiation but a thousand times better.
  • Even though technology has advanced, and rendered some of what is mentioned in the plot obsolete, I doubt it impacts on the enjoyment that could be had. Unlike, The Net and perhaps Hackers that don’t fare as well.

The Bad

  • It was a slow burn, which is okay, but with ‘lockdown brain’ I have tended to stick to films under the 1h 40 mark and I did find myself drifting in those first twenty minutes or so. A little tighter editing would smooth out that introduction somewhat.
  • There was a dodgy accent or two that really sounded off. In particular director favourite Lee Garlington would have been better without the European accent.

The Ugly

  • Can someone tell me what Robert Redford used to be able to get through that hot room?! Like, seriously? 99 degrees Fahrenheit and that bastard is as dry as a bone. In a high pressure situation? Bullshit, he would be as wet as Lee Evans after the first half of a gig. Yes, I know this is a weird hang-up, but in a near perfect movie, this stands out so badly.
  • I’m not sure how I feel about David Strathairn’s presentation of a visually impaired person. Why some things that were played for laughs, like talking to someone facing the wrong way, work quite well there are others that don’t sit as well with me. I’m not going to detail it here as it’s not fair for me to say its offensive and I wouldn’t want to prejudice anyone. However, if you’re as like-minded as me; you’ll know when you get to the scene I had the problem with.

Final Thoughts

This is a good movie. Not a movie you’ll watch all the time, but it’s a movie you’ll watch and think, damn I enjoyed that. I also have a sneaking suspicion that a viewer much more familiar with Redford’s back catalogue

Stop or my Mom Will Shoot (1992)

Rating PG
Length 1h 22
Release 17.4.1992
Director Roger Spottiswoode
About When cop Joe calls-off his relationship with his girlfriend, his mom pays him a visit. She starts to interfere in everything that he does and soon gets involved in one of his important projects.

The Good

  • Estelle Getty is what makes this film as enjoyable as it is. Firstly, she’s the best Golden Girl (which I would imagine says a lot about me) and she has that dry Yankee humour. There’s no one else you could put in that role.
    Secondly, some of the characteristics of Tutti remind me so much of my own mum. For example, Tutti finding the gun and ‘cleaning’ it to actually break it. Yeah, that was my mum. Clothes, PCs, food… you name it, she’d mean well but it would always go wrong. It’s a little bittersweet, but so god damn funny.
  • The plot is rather poor, but its not the plot you’re watching this for. It’s the dynamic between Getty and Stallone. It bloody works. On some level a lot of us recognise the relationship these two people have (see above) so we not only relate, but we can laugh as it happens to someone else.

The Bad

  • I love JoBeth Williams, but the character of Lt Gwen Harper is so shit. It’s like the film gave with one hand by making her the boss, but took it away with the other by making her relationship with Joe so public and unprofessional. What’s so bad about it, is that it makes me question how she got her position in the first place.
  • Stallone does not want to be in this movie. You can feel that from his performance. Some of it can be explained away as the character’s relationship with the mother, but it’s more than that. It’s a shame, because it looks like it could have been a real laugh being on that set.

The Ugly

  • Some of the dialogue is very dated and cringe. In fact it plays like a mid 80s film, rather than one from 1992. From the stewardess purring “You looked real sexy in those diapers” to “I like wearing my underwear more than once before changing them.” Just makes me very, very grateful the 80s and 90s are far behind me.
  • The film’s score is painfully repetitive. Maybe its that I’ve been spoiled by incredible soundtracks of recent years, but this was cheap and distracting.

Final Thoughts

It’s dated, the plot is a little hit and miss, but I laughed at good few times and at 1h 23 I certainly don’t think I’ve wasted my night.

The Girl in the Photographs

Rating 18
Length 1hr 35
Release 19.10.2015 (no UK cinematic release)
Director Nick Simon
About Two psychopaths target a young woman (Claudia Lee), a photographer (Kal Penn) and a group of models at a secluded house.

The Good

  • This film takes a risk with its ending. It *almost* works. The idea of an open ending to a stand alone horror film in a way that’s not a rug pull (see I Know What You Did Last Summer, House of Wax and Saw) is rare. There’s no showdown, there’s no final girl. Now, considering the rest is formulaic as fuck, that ending really impressed me.
  • Yeah, that’s all I got folks. This film was garbage and I actually almost turned it off.

The Bad

  • By calling your ‘slashers’ psychopaths, does not free you of having a motive. Towards the back end of the film we get the idea that he has some sort of feelings for our lead, Colleen. However, where does the second guy factor in to this infatuation? There’s also the fact that we come into the film at victim 7. The film made loose connections to the photographer, Kal Penn, but just didn’t follow through. If only the film unpacked the fact that the two men were in the same year as Penn’s character, it would have made for a much more satisfying movie.
  • As much as I love Mitch Pileggi, the incorporation of the police force within the town was frustrating and of no use to the plot with how they were used. Just throwing around “No body, no crime.’ And repeatedly telling Colleen there’s nothing they can do is utter bullshit ;and the stereotype we moved away from almost two decades ago. When these photographs are popping up and they resemble the missing persons report… they would have to do something. While I do like the fact that the psychopaths are left to kill another day, if you’re also going to make the police incompetent and the reason these girls have died, at least have them as part of the body count.
  • How is the disappearance of seven people not caused commotion in this town? How is it not a much bigger thing, that’s going to make the local news at the very least? I just find so many of the things in this so illogical.
  • Did we really need the commentary of “the photographer” on consent. He actually says “permission isn’t sexy”. Which is made all the more galling by the fact that the guy is using a big ass camera with a massive flash to photograph Colleen.
    Oh, and while we’re on the topic of consent. Having a guy secretly film his casual sex is one thing. Having the girl discover it and then masterbate to the footage is very much another and absolutely not okay. Remembering, the issue is not the sex, but the violation and lack of consent. My biggest issue being who this film’s demographic is and what it might say to them.

The Ugly

  • The over-use of Wes Craven’s name in all of the publicity. He was a producer, nothing more. There is nothing in this film that can be said to be inspired by his body of work and its only made worse by the over zealous use of “This was the last film he worked on.”
  • Few things I didn’t understand: who the fuck wrote the blog? Who made the connection to the photographer, and was it every single photograph? If so, why?
  • Oh, why is the boyfriend such a dick? Like, really? Can someone explain to me? He seemed lovely and really trying to make things work, but Colleen was clearly not on the same page. When Psycho Tom tells boyfriend “you should have treated her better” all I could think was that he really should have been saying that to Colleen.
  • The blood, the gore! Jesus, I know it was an 18 and everything, but come on! Its been proven time and time again that not showing a death is much more effective. Why do we need to see all the blood?!

Final Thoughts

This film has potential behind the gore, but the editing and unresolved questions leave it being little more than garbage. Its not even clever enough to be considered an exploitation film.

Film Review: Evolution (2001)

Rating PG
Length 1h 41
Release 22.6.2001
Director Ivan Reitman
About Professor Ira and Professor Harry are called in to analyse a meteor that crashes at Arizona. Soon, they learn that the organisms found on the meteor are evolving and reproducing rapidly.

The Good

  • From the get go, it plays much like a Ghostbuster outing. The undervalued underdogs in the professional field saving the day. For me, I can never get enough of the Ghostbusters and, at the time, this was as close as I was going to get.
  • The cast is pretty perfect. David Duchovny plays on his Mulder persona, but gives him much more charm and less morbid back story. Duchovny carries the lead duties really well and I always wonder why he didn’t get more oportunities.
  • Orlando Jones gives us black-meta commentary and sleaze I never quiet caught before and Julianne Moore is trying to give us the anti-Scully. It never quite works, and it has me wishing Anderson was there playing the role, but I can’t deny that Moore does try.
  • The graphics still stand up. as good as early noughties graphics can of course.

The Bad

  • It takes a long while to really get going. Partly because of establishing Scott’s character in the opening. While this does have pay off, it does stall the proceedings somewhat.
  • I’m not sure I like the clumsiness of Moore’s character. It feels like acting clumsy and is too forced.

The Ugly

  • That sleeze of Orlando Jones. Barf! I know its college, but him trying to get it on with students and discussing showering with his all-female basketball team is just gross. I probably thought nothing of it at the time, but watching it in light of so many accusations within the industry, it makes you question the mind-set of the writer. Yeah, call me snowflake all you want, but its the normalisation of off-the-cuff remarks like this that have allowed this behaviour to go on, unchecked, for so long.

Final Thoughts

Had this been an X-Files or Ghostbusters sequel, in which we could do away with the introductions, this would be an amazing film. Tonally different I’m sure, but amazing non the less.
That said, this is a film I will watch again because it’s fun, the good guys win and we have Sean William Scott singing to a pterodactyl-type creature.

Film Review: Willy’s Wonderland (2021)

Rating 25
Length 1h 28
Release 12.2.2021
Dir Kevin Lewis
About When his car breaks down, a quiet loner agrees to clean an abandoned family fun center in exchange for repairs. He soon finds himself waging war against possessed animatronic mascots while trapped inside Willy’s Wonderland.

The Good

It’s chaotic and bonkers. It is Cabin in the Woods meets Jennifer’s Body by way of The Dead Don’t Die. It’s not going to everyone’s cup of tea but it is entertaining.

  • This film is chaotic, bonkers and the perfect vehicle for Nicolas Cage. This is gory, volatile type of horror that is more likely to make to chuckle or squirm than scream.
  • It’s not for everyone, but it feels like Cabin in the Woods (2011) meets Jennifer’s Body (2009) by way of The Dead Don’t Die (2019). So while its not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, if you like those movies this will be, at the very least, entertaining for you.
  • The lighting in this film (aside from the migraine inducing strobe) is incredible. I can’t put my finger on how it was done, but it adds light to the screen so you can see the action, without dulling the atmosphere.

The Bad

  • Nicolas Cage doesn’t speak. Now, he does a perfectly excellent job at presenting the character without words. That, I have no issue with. I just really missed Cage’s manic dialogue.
  • There are few really weird plot choices that are left unexplained. They just seem like plot devices and that’s a little disappointing.

The Ugly

  • The flashing/ strobe lighting that’s used at the beginning and partway through is nauseating. I totally understanding the artistic decision for it, however it detracts more than it adds.
  • With Nicolas Cage’s character mute, he’s not well rounded. It means we’re in the same position as the rest of the cast, but it has come at the expense of not investing in any of the characters.

Final Thoughts

It’s flawed (What Nic Cage project in the last decade isn’t), but well worth your time.

Film Review: Shocker (1989)

Rating: 18
Length: 1h 49
Release: 27.10.1989
Dir : Wes Craven
About: A serial killer uses the electricity from the electric chair in which he was executed to return from the dead. Later, he sets out to exact revenge on a football player who turned him in.

The Good

  • The music is my absolute favourite part of this late 80s gorefest. It’s rock and ‘heavy metal’, and feels really ironic. I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the intent, but it certainly works much better here than in Christine (1983).
  • The final act is amazing, rather meta and absolutely bonkers. If anything, I wish everything that came before was more like this. The final act plays out like the love child of Ghost in the Machine and Last Action Hero. It’s this section that really does open the story up to Craven’s original intent: a tv series.
  • Johnathan Parker is our ‘final girl’ in Shocker. It’s a refreshing change of pace to have a male lead in this sort of genre movie and in the role of the ‘final girl’ no less. While some of the choices for this character aren’t perfect, and I’ll look at those below, he still offers something other than what viewers might be used to.
  • Mitch Pileggi playing the mass killer is mind boggling brilliance. Anyone who has seen him in X Files would be forgiven for not recognising the actor, however those familiar with his time on Supernatural will understand upon watching this, why he got the role.

The Bad

  • It’s not a smooth plot and each of the three acts feel like they are directed by three different directors. Between the dodgy audio, lack of subtitles on Amazon Prime and what I would say are questionable editing choices, I really did struggle when it came to following at some points.
    The biggest issue of course being the connection between Pinker and Johnathan. It was something I suspected, and something revealed in the movie. However, it was only upon reading up on the plot after the fact that I’d had it confirmed.
  • The conflict between Johnathan the ‘football star’ and Johnathan the goofball who knocked himself out at practice. I don’t get why he’s so goofy. This guy is meant to be so amazing, that his ‘football status’ is in many news reports throughout the film. That doesn’t mesh with this guy who walks into things and trips up on his own feet.
  • There’s a little too much overlap with Craven’s Nightmare on Elm Street in terms of Johnathan having premonition type dreams about the killer. I’d have loved if instead these dreams revealed his past and his connection to Pinker, just to remove itself from deja vu.

The Ugly

  • The comedy element is a little in limbo for me. It’s too much and not enough at the same time. The film holds back, leaving the comedy a little lukewarm and slightly off kilter. While I welcome the comedy, I did want more.
  • Read any blurb on this movie and it boils it down to Pinker being dead and wreaking havoc. That, I must say, is the most enjoyable parts of this movie, however it ignores the fact that it takes almost half the film to get to that point. There’s so much build up and establishment of the character of Jonathan. For me, I’d have opened up at the point of execution and had more of a reveal to Johnathan.

Final Thoughts

It’s flawed, its a bit of a mess, but damn I love it. There are little bits I missed due to the quality, but that’s what a rewatch is for, right?!

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Rating: PG (aka BBC’s butchered version)
Length: 2h 23
Release: 19.7.1991
Dir: Kevin Reynolds
About: Robin decides to avenge his father who was murdered by Sheriff Nottingham. He joins forces with Little John’s band of thieves to overcome the evils of the sheriff.

First Thoughts

This film is everything about my childhood. Okay, so it’s not the film you went into school shouting about like Goonies was, but I certainly felt its presence in a similar way. From what I saw on twitter today, I wasn’t alone.
For me, this film seemed to be a staple on BBC around Easter. Now, given that I thought Back to the Future was on ITV every Christmas Day for about 5 years, I’m willing to accept that my Easter theory for the archery master isn’t correct either.
I also remember a distinct memory of watching this film in English. The TV trolly was in the hall and there were at least three classes huddled around this tiny tv. At this point (it was at least 1998) I had the whole thing memorised.
There’s problems with that sort of devotion to a film though; you notice when things no longer make the cut.

The Good

  • Alan Rickman is the scene stealing, panto villain of all of our dreams. Some may call it over-acting. I’d say it was Rickman having the best time of his life. He has all of the best lines, he has the best style and the best death. It’s not often we love the villain, but here he is, in his Slytherin finest.
  • The strength of this film does lie in its characters. The story and how its presented is a little bit garbage, but with the element of nostalgia and the characters you root for, it ensures it is less of a chore. Some of my favourites are Duncan, the servant of Robin’s father. He’s a little bit more trouble than he’s worth, but you love him none the less.
    Little John and his wife Fanny are the relationship goals of this movie, not Marian and Robin. The film is clever in how we’re introduced to the family one by one, to finally see them together in the final act. It’s perfect.
  • Morgan Freeman as the Moor, Azeem, is pure joy for me. It’s a performance and character I’ve only come to truly appreciate as I’ve gotten older. There are plenty of small things that he says and does that give people a true idea of what Islam is, but my favourite part of this movie is the interaction with the young girl who asks “Did God paint you?” The answer is as beautiful and as relevant today as it ever was. It also feels important that its Morgan Freeman, of all people, that gets to say it.

The Bad

  • It is, for me, rather on the long side. I don’t need it needs massive editing, but more a trimming of the fat. It is made very differently to films today; cramming what would, by today’s standard, be a trilogy’s worth of story.
  • The accents. Yeah, I went there. Now, I don’t mind Costner’s. I’m not so patriotic in that sense. However Slater and Mastrantonio on the other hand, they drive me mad. Both are half arsed attempts. Certain words are well pronounced, but most of it remains this weird mash up of their native accent and whatever it is they’re trying to achieve.
  • I can’t quiet put my finger on what is is about this production, but it has a Monty Python quality to it. Some of it is to do with the voices used, but it could also be the dialogue.

The Ugly

  • Marian. She bugs the fuck out of me. When we first meet her, not only is she this strong independent woman, she is able to fight in such a way that Robin believes her to be a man. It is only her scream that gives her away. So what pisses me off, is that in the final act, she becomes the stereotypical maiden. Aside from an opportune candle, she stands to the side and shrieks. Have her knocked out by the witch before she goes off on her side mission or something.
  • They cut out Pat Roach. I actually didn’t know until today that Auf Weidersien Pet alumni and part-time Harrison Ford fighting partner was in this film. That’s because his role as Celtic Chief gets a blink and you’ll miss it appearance. However, there is footage out there. I’d imagine it’s on the extended cut that also has much of Rickman’s performance restored.

Final Thoughts

This for me is an awesome, but flawed, film. I think it’s aged better than Robin Hood Men in Tights and the Prince of Thieves will be a film I watch again. However, I do accept a lot of what makes this a good film is nostalgia and that had I watched it for the first time today, my review would be much different.

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Rating: 12A
Length: 2h 31
Release: 16.12.2020
Dir: Patty Jenkins
About: Wonder Woman navigates the 1980s, meets old friends and faces off against new enemies.

The Good

  • The film gets the 80s aesthetics right. The mall sequence was rather brilliant and not only something that is iconic of the 1980s, but iconic of 80s movies. This part of the film, out of everything, felt most like a homage to the original tv series.
  • Kristen Wiig really impressed me. While meek and goofy Barbra was well within Wiig’s wheelhouse, and reminiscent of her past roles in things like Paul and Ghostbusters, it was the evolution into Cheetah that shows much more depth and range. While she may be known more for her comedy, I definitely want to see her in more serious roles.

The Bad

  • Well, Hans Zimmer most definitely phoned this one in. His soundtrack feels so recycled that if I were to close my eyes at points in this movie, I’d have sworn I’d put on Inception.
  • While we’re on music, you place a film in the 1980s and don’t utilise the amazing catalogue the decade has to offer? Believe me, in a film that gives us Jafar after his final wish and Quantum Leap’s Sam, we need some cheesy 80s electric tunes.
  • The prologue in which we see young Diana back at home and facing off against other Amazonian warriors, is utterly pointless and has no payoff. It, for me, is at odds with the rest of the story. Plus its totally wrong. Diana didn’t cheat. It was a bullshit lesson that had microscopic links to the main plot.

The Ugly

  • You know the Sentence Game? It’s similar to Mad Libs, but there’s no crib sheet. First person writes a sentence based upon a prompt, folds the paper over so you can’t see what’s written and passes it on. This keeps happening until all the prompts are used and then someone reads the mess of a story out. That was this film. Only, I didn’t find it nearly as funny.
  • Steve! What the fuck man. Okay, great we get Chris Pine gracing our screens again. Whoop! At what cost? The sacrifice and loss from the first movie is compromised and, I’ll be honest, how he’s there in the first place feels really cheap. I was also very disappointed “Oh boy” wasn’t uttered. It also pisses me off that the guy whose body gets taken over gets more closure than Wiig’s Barbra. Seriously, what the fuck is it about the 1980s doing Barb dirty. People, What about Barb?
  • Second gripe about Steve. Once Steve is in play, it feels like such a retread of the first film. His reintroduction creates a limitation. It’s boring, its done. It also means that if he ‘dies’ again, I’m not caring. To be fair, this is where Marvel gets it wrong too. When you make your character deaths meaningless (looking at you Loki), I refuse to invest. Also, what the fuck is it with these Wonder Woman films getting the strong female wrong? In the first movie she emasculates. This one she becomes physically dependent on Steve. Blurk!
  • Why was it set in the 1980s if it was going to be sanitised of all the joy the 80s had to offer. Other than Pine’s fish out of water Schtick, it had no value. To me anyway. Yes, I get that there’s the whole plot in which Pascal’s Max is trying to gain ownership of oil, but this is not a commodity that’s exclusive to that decade. For me, the Suez Crisis of the 1950s is what I immediately think of when it comes to ‘historical oil’.

Final Thoughts

There are enough people out there loving this movie for you to make up your own mind, but for me it’s too long, too pointless and left me feeling grumpy. I wish I’d rewatched Chopping Mall(1986) instead.

Blades of Glory (2007)

Rating 12A
Length 1hr 33
Release 6.4.2007
Director Josh Gordon and Will Speck
About After being stripped of their medals and banned from single-men events, two Olympics ice skaters decide to team up and compete as an all-male pair.

The Good


Pam!!! Seriously, I love that The Office’s Jenna Fischer is in this. She’s perfect as the sister, Katie.
I’m still on the fence about whether this film is trying to be super progressive or super offensive, however I do like the idea of the same-sex partners on the ice being done with sincerity.

The Bad
What’s worse than a Will Farrell movie where Will Farrell is doing his shouty shouty ‘I’m so funny routine’? When Will Farrell joins forces with Napoleon Dynamite’s Jon Heder.
It really isn’t as funny as it thinks it is. Farrell is trying way too hard and it shows. Painfully.

The Ugly
The bathroom scene is vile! The only other film that’s gotten me as close to physically vomiting like this one has is whichever Saw movie has the people drown in a vat of rotting pigs.
Incest is never funny, even if the siblings are played by a married couple. No! Just no! Gross.

Final Thoughts

It just isn’t as funny as I remember and I’m struggling to see what I ever would have found good about it.

The Mask (1994)

Rating: PG
Length: 1h 41
Release: 19.8.1994
Dir: Chuck Russell
About: Stanley, an easy-going bank employee, turns into an eccentric green-skinned being who can bend reality after wearing a wooden mask that is inhabited by Loki who is a Norse god.

First Thoughts

This isn’t a film I’d seen all the way through before today. my first experience was during a week away with school. It was put on for the whole group but when asked for people to go on the shop run, I volunteered as tribute. I was never one for film watching with the hyper and disengaged.
The next attempt at watching this came when this was THE film on Christmas Day. Completely unheard of today given how easy is to access movies, however this was my one chance to watch this film and I fell asleep. Only other film I really remember this happening with is The Bodyguard after I’d spent the day at the ITV Studios and it remains, to this day, a film I’ve yet to watch.

The Good

  • While it’s not my thing, I cannot deny that Jim Carey is a master when it comes to this over-blown comedy with a larger-than-life character. From the impersonations to what have now become iconic and quotable one-liners, Carey hits all the notes with an effective precision.
  • While the over-sexualisation of Cameron Diaz irks me somewhat, I have to accept that its part of the time in which it was made and totally a reflection of the characters that watch her walk into the bank. I couldn’t imagine anyone better in the role and she does work well with Carey.

The Bad

  • I think I’ve been spoiled by another mouthy, off the wall anti-hero in the past few years. The Mask I feel is a story much of the same ilk as the Merc with the Mouth and would have been better suited as a darker, more violent affair. As it stands it is too tame for a general audience, but there are some jokes that just don’t seem at home in a PG outing. I have found out since watching it, that the source material is much similar to Deadpool, which only reaffirms my opinion that was pitched to the wrong audience.
  • The murky landscape of the city with the day glow prominence when The Mask reminds me to much of what would become of Tim Burton’s Gotham once he leaves the franchise. While Batman Forever came long after this, the memory still taints this somewhat.
  • I’m sold on Carey as the Mask. i’m not sure he works as well as Stanley. Interestingly enough, those who I feel would have been up for portraying Stanley, I’m not sure could give a convincing The Mask.

The Ugly

  • While a lot of the effects do still stand up owing to the comic book style of the character and the narrative, there are a few that just don’t quite work. When it comes to the flattening of the Mask early in the film, it has been done better in something like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? When you’ve used a lot of Carey’s physicality to do away with some need for CGI, it’s a shame that they couldn’t embrace using some physical effects too.
  • I’m not sure how I feel about the times in which Carey/ The Mask breaks the fourth wall. The biggest problem of it being that its used quite a lot in quick succession and then it doesn’t happen again.
  • I would argue that this is also rather badly edited. From odd cuts that move characters and seem to miss out dialogue to references that don’t make sense I feel as if we’re left with a disjointed film.

Final Thoughts

Upon watching this time, it would appear I wasn’t asleep for very long. Perhaps the feeling that I’d missed something important was due to editing. As it stands, I really hadn’t missed much and I really could have done without watching it again.