Like A Boss: Promoting A Female Friendship

Like A Boss is a comedy film directed by Miguel Arteta. The plot sees two best friends have their friendship tested after a businesswoman invests in their business. Mel (Rose Byrne) sees the buy out as a good thing and wants to learn from makeup mogul Claire Luna (Selma Hayek), whereas Mia (Tiffany Haddish), doesn’t like the outside control and worries they will become just another corporate cog. The friendship tears, but can they come back together again?

I enjoyed this film more than I thought I would. The humour was hit and miss for me, I found myself laughing when I didn’t expect to. I thought when the comedy went blue it was less funny, at least to me personally, but like I often say comedy is subjective.

I liked how this film just focused on the friendship, there was no romance subplot or anything else; it is really just a film dedicated to celebrating friendship. I think the fact it also highlight and lifts up female friendship is also really nice to see, the relationship between the two actors seems genuine and they’re believable as friends/ business partners.

I thought the plot was very by the numbers, most of the things that happen I have seen a hundred times before, so it wins to prizes for being novel or inventive.

Overall a surprisingly enjoyable, watchable comedy.

Pros.

Showing female friendship

No forced romance subplot

Byrne and Haddish

Cons.

Not all the jokes land

The plot is nothing new

The weak side characters

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Maleficent, Mistress Of Evil: Hang Up The Horns

Maleficent 2 is a family fantasy film directed by Joachim Ronning. The plot follows an evil ruler go to war, wanting to wipe out supernatural creatures using a misunderstanding as justification to do so. Wait a minute, I am getting déjà vu, isn’t that basically the same premise as the first film?

If there was ever a needless sequel this is it. The plot rethreads most of the same beats of the first film, very little of substance is established and overall it feels hollow and made for the money. That would be my two-sentence description of this film.

The main issue with this film is its tone. The first half and hour and the last fifteen minutes of this film seem to think it is a light breezy affair where nothing it taken too seriously, however the rest of the film seems to be direly serious and bleak; did someone not get the memo? This tonal mismatch makes the film feel very jarring and hard to watch.

A lot of the new elements introduced to this film leave you feeling meh. This film introduces a lot of things to this world and this story and a lot of these things you’re supposed to care about, but the film in no way makes you care about them and makes most of them appear flat and boring which is a bafflingly stupid decision.

Jolie is okay here, she is a lot better than in the previous film and actually has some funny lines, sadly however she is kept away from the action for the most part and underused in her own film. Michelle Pfeiffer gets a lot of screen time as the new evil queen, but she is so one note and cartoonishly evil that her character sticks out for all the wrong reasons; clearly the writers don’t understand subtly or nuance.

Overall, this is generic, it adds nothing to the first film and might even undone some of the good things about the first film. Hopefully Disney doesn’t curse us with a third film.

Pros.

Jolie is better

Cons

The one note villain

The weird tone

Nothing new of substance added

Doesn’t justify its own existence.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Rhythm Section: A New Low

The Rhythm Section is an action thriller film directed by Reed Monaro. The plot follows Stephanie (Blake Lively), a woman whose whole life fell apart after the death of her parents. When she learns that the circumstances around her family’s death are more malicious then they first appeared she sets out to find those responsible and kill them.

This film was one of the biggest box office bombs of all time and for good reason. It is god awful. Let’s take it apart.

The worst thing about this film is how familiar it feels, it has been there done that written on every frame there is nothing new to it. It reminded me in many ways of something like American Assassin and had a wannbe John Wick vibe to it, it was so keen to try and replicate those films that it failed to do anything to set itself apart.

Another major problem is the cast. Lively is miscast badly, she isn’t convincing as an action star, even when the film makes a point to highlight her lack of fighting ability; she is still unconvincing. She struggles to sell the dramatic scenes either and I felt nothing for her character, I just didn’t care. Furthermore, this film casts Jude Law to play Stephanie’s mentor/ trainer, which in and of itself isn’t a bad move, the issue comes from the fact that they give him nothing to do and waste him at every available opportunity.

Overall, this film is worse than bad it is boring and generic, that is all that needs to be said.

Pros.

They play into the fact that she can’t fight well

Cons.

You’ve seen it done better before

The characters are awful

It is boring

The action is weak

0.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs: Eat It Up

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs is an animated family film directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. The film follows Flint (Bill Hader), an inventor who dreams of becoming a famous scientist. One day Flint invents a machine that can make food rain from the sky, everything seems to be going well, until the machine starts to malfunction.

I have been meaning to watch this for some time and a few nights ago I did, I have to say for the most part I enjoyed it, but there were a few issues that kept it from being great.

Firstly the imagination is commendable, I thought it was wonderfully unique and I have never seen anything else like this. The animation is also great, I thought it looked distinctive and well proportioned; the food also looked really appetising.

Secondly, this film has a lot of heart. I thought it handled the theme of fathers and sons really well and the final scene between Flint and his father was moving and brought a tear to my eye. However, the same flair for emotion wasn’t carried over into the other characters and Flint’s relationship with the other characters particularly Sam (Anna Faris), was weak and unconvincing.

My main issue with this film was the humour, it really didn’t land for me. Humour is subjective I know, but the humour in this film skewed towards kids and I didn’t find any layers to the comedy that might have appealed to me or other age groups.

Overall, a good effort with a lot heart, but the childish humour and the poor character development stop this film from being as good as it could be.

Pros.

The father son relation between Flint and his dad

The animation

The imagination

Cons.

The comedy

The poor side characters and weak interpersonal relationships

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Gnomeo & Juliet: The Cracks Are Showing

Gnomeo and Juliet is an animated family film directed by Kelly Asbury. The plot is basically a retelling of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, but with garden gnomes and a huge amount of dated references.

You know a film is going to be good when it opens by slagging off Shakespeare. This is one of the most mind-numbing films I have ever seen; it is so dumb I can’t see how anyone would be entertained by this.

It is not funny or charming in any way, at least bad kids’ movies like Peter Rabbit have a so bad it’s good factor to them, this one is just aggressively average. Not a single one of the actors seems to be trying. I don’t blame them for just taking the cheque on this one though to be fair, but it will hardly be the highlight of their resumé.

Another thing that I found off-putting was how often the film tried to ram the music of Elton John down your throat. Yes, I like Elton John, Yes he has good songs, do I want to hear them bastardised and put on repeat? No, no I don’t. What makes this more egregious is that it forces in songs when they don’t even need them just for the hell of it, almost as though they’re trying to torture the audience.

Overall, this is incredibly low effort and it shows. There are plenty of animated family films that standout for their storytelling or for their animation or their message, but this just seems corporate, cynical and cheap. Don’t waste your time.

Pros.

One good unintentional laugh

Cons

It is so dumb

It’s lazy

None of the actors are trying

It is boring

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

Smallfoot: Bring Back Channing Tatum!

Smallfoot is an animated family fantasy film directed by Karey Kirkpatrick and Jason Reisig. The plot follows Migo (Channing Tatum), a young yeti who dares to think differently. Migo believes that creatures called Smallfoots (Humans), exist, a view that gets him banished from his village. So, he sets out into our world to capture and bring back a live Smallfoot to prove himself right.

This film is made good by the never-ending charm of Channing Tatum. Tatum hasn’t been in anything for a while, so I had forgotten what a fabulous on-screen presence he has. I kid you not, if a lesser actor has the role in his stead then the film would never have been able to rise above average. This film owes a lot to Tatum.

What I really enjoyed about this film is its heart. The inter character relationships are particularly strong amongst the main cast, with the bond between Migo and Percy (James Corden), perhaps being the most heartfelt of all. This is furthered by the fact that Corden is playing a toned-down version of his usual ‘character’, which really helps the character to be likeable and not grating.

The one area where the film falls down is in it’s supporting cast. There are plenty of talented names amongst this films’ supporting cast, but most of them have little more than one or two lines and leave no impression on you at all. It is an insult to the craft to even call a lot of these minor characters and they’re so paper thin that they might as well be non-existent.

Overall, a happy family film that will leave you feeling good.

Pros.

Tatum

Character relationships

A toned down Corden

Feel good message

Cons.

The side characters aren’t even characters

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Let Me In: Fresh Blood

Let Me In is a horror film directed by Matt Reeves. The plot follows a young abused boy Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), who befriends a reclusive neighbour girl Abby (Chole Grace-Moretz). The two form a bond, and then it is revealed she is a vampire. It is an American remake of the Swedish film Let The Right One In.

I think this film is genuinely quite creepy and well done. Vampire films have been done to death, so they need to be novel and inventive to stick out to me and this did. Yes, there are some elements of it that seem a little familiar, but the idea of a vampire who is trapped in the body of a 12-year-old girl falling in love with a 12 year of boy who then becomes her familiar is something I have never seen before. It is horror romance done right, take notes Twilight.

There are some pretty gnarly scenes and some of the gore is wince inducing, that is a pro in my book. The scenes where we see Abby hunting and killing are also well done and Moretz does a hell of a job making us scared of a tween.

My one complaint would be that the runtime was too long and that at almost two hours the film feels oppressive, there is no reason this couldn’t have been an hour and a half. Films need to be tighter.

Overall, a great vampire film that proves that there is still fresh blood in the subgenre

Pros.

Moretz

The gore

A unique spin on the genre

An intriguing ending

Cons.

It is way too long

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Gentlemen: Ritchie Is Back

The Gentlemen is a crime film directed by Guy Ritchie. The plot details the British criminal underworld and one man’s fight to stay on top of it against rising factions.

I enjoyed Ritchie’s foray into blockbusters, they were enjoyable enough, but I am glad that he has returned to his roots in the crime genre. No one and I mean no one makes a stylised crime drama film like Guy Ritchie and this film proves that.

My one issue with the film is the way it is structured, there is a lot of jumping around in the timeline and a lot of the film is set to a conversation between gangster Ray (Charlie Hunnam) and tabloid creep Fletcher (Hugh Grant). Now all this jumping around does have a great pay off at the end that brings everything together nicely, the time jumping is not my issue. What I think the problem is, is that the interacts between Ray and Fletcher get boring after a point and feel repetitive, they weigh the film down.

Fletcher is by all means the worst character in the film, incredibly one note and annoying and Grant is given the least to work with of all the cast.

However, this is offset by the fact that most of the other characters are great and leap off the screen at you. Hunnam is magnificent and has a few very memorable scenes, but the two that really steal the show here are Matthew McConaughey as the man who has it all Michael and Colin Farrell as Coach. Farrell’s performance is easily the highlight of the film and he is the most interesting and intriguing character by far; his fight scene in the kabab shop is also fantastic.

Overall, this is a return to form for Ritchie in a big way. The pay off makes the film and solid performances from most of the cast back it up. A must watch for genre fans!

Pros

Farrell, Hunnam, McConaughey

The style of it

The pay off

The kebab shop scene

Cons.

It doesn’t make the most of all of its characters as Grant and Golding’s characters are cut short.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Downhill: Never Has A Title Been More Accurate

Downhill is a black comedy film directed by Nat Faxon and Jim Rash. The plot sees a dysfunctional family head to a ski resort to try and reconnect, things slowly descend. It is an American remake of the Swedish film Force Majeure.

The words an ‘American remake’ should have been a red flag. This film is not terrible, but it is pretty bad. I found it very hard to finish.

The key issue with this film is that it is trying to do two things. Firstly it is trying to replicate the darker Swedish sense of humour, but crucially it does not understand it and so fails. Secondly, it is also trying to appeal to a more mainstream audience and have some more obvious jokes, this also fails. So the issue this creates both of these failures serve to make the other worse and more blatantly off-putting.

Furthermore, this film has a very talented cast with Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell as co-leads. Sadly it wastes them, it does not just waste them it also makes them incredibly unlikable and irritating; Dreyfus especially. Dreyfus’ character becomes so neurotic and annoying that you just want to mute her when she comes on screen, she is no way likeable, was that the point? Ferrell isn’t much better, but we have come to expect bad things from him.

Overall, this film fails on multiple levels and has no redeemable qualities. Don’t watch it.

Pros.

The brief scene with Kristofer Hivju

Cons.

The tone doesn’t work

It is not funny

The characters are hateable

It is a waste of time

0.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Princess Diaries 2: Formulaic Isn’t A Good Thing

The Princess Diaries 2 is a fantasy romance family film directed by Garry Marshall. The plot sees Mia (Anne Hathaway), searching out someone to marry so that she can become Queen, once her Grandmother (Julie Andrews), steps down from the throne or dies.

So this is just more of the same from the first film, if you liked that you will like this, that’s it.

However, I didn’t like this very much, in fact I thought it was painfully average. I thought that the jokes and charm of the first film are gone and the gimmick of the American girl who is not like everyone else in a foreign country gimmick gets old fast. This film really needed some new material, but fatally it doesn’t have any and sticks too closely to the first film.

The romance plotline doesn’t help matters as it feels a bit too mushy and sickly sweet, I rolled my eyes more than a few times. Usually, I believe a good romance side plot or main plot can save any film, but here it proves to be its undoing.

The actors Hathaway, Andrews and Pine are trying their best, but sadly they have nothing to work with from a script the feels cobbled together from a child’s fairy princess tea party material.

Ultimately this film can’t shake the feeling that it was solely made for the money and no one on the creative side really cared about it; those two things are painfully apparent.

Pros.

The actors try

It is more of the same

Cons.

The romance is too cheesy

The script is a train wreck

It is one of the most cynically made for the money type films I have ever seen

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke