Change Your Image
supertaz80
Reviews
Terror by Night (1946)
Enjoyable 'closed room' style mystery.
I found this to be an enjoyable little mystery and loved that it was only 60 minutes - straight to point, focused mystery. It bring set on a train also makes it more 'cosy' and narrows the mystery down quite well. There are a couple of 'holes' or 'hmm' moments but nothing overly major.
The main 'problem' was in the characterisation of Holmes and Watson. Not very faithful to their characters in the novels. Holmes is more personable and Watson more a bumbling fool: not the impression you're left with in the novels.
Still, if you aren't hung up on the original material this is a good short mystery flick to enjoy.
Ms Fisher's Modern Murder Mysteries (2019)
Fun enough but plot problematic
Most people will enjoy this - a fun enjoyable fluff of a mystery show - brightly coloured and amusing.
Upfront, as a fan of the original shows novels, I still enjoyed this series 'for what it is'. But it loses stars and cred for grievous retroactive rewriting of the core narrative.
Phryne Fisher had two adopted daughters. Why did they not inherit, and some unknown niece did? We could assume they died but they are just not mentioned. They have been eliminated from the Phryne narrative / timeline. Rude.
There's also the absence of mention of Dot, Hugh and Jack, Bert and Cec etc. I mean sure, maybe some of them 'died' by the 60s but all of them? And no mention at all of them. Nah. Disrespectful.
Peregrine being a long lost niece was not necessarily a problem. And it was a fun realisation of Phrynes legacy with the club etc ; but it irks me the continuity issues (not errors, it was deliberate).
For most, this won't be a problem - they'll enjoy the show as is.
But, they could have just created a 60s mod show on it's own.
Instead they tied it to an existing narrative and characters, developed over 3 decades, and rewrote the core of the story which at the very least is annoying, if not entirely rude.
Fuller House (2016)
quirky retro nostalgia - some character probs
A fun revisit to an old favourite sitcom. It's a different style - a little bit silly, musicals, poking fun at itself /and the Netflix associations.
Some of the issues I have are below BUT I emphasise i generally like this show and have watched it 2-3 times - so it's a decent sitcom.
And I'm biased in favour of Steph - she was always my favourite!
The main let down for me is that some of the characters are different and/or not nice.
- DJ was sometimes quite unlikeable - she has moments of bring just mean - and that's not mentioning the controlling aspects she exhibits. There are several scenes where IMO she's nasty (Eg at the French cooking class, to the basketball player leaving the house). Also where she ruined CJs wedding, 'stole' the groom and then kept inserting herself in the brides life trying to be friends was arrogant and completely self centred. This was so unreasonable and were supposed to find her likeable I suppose but really, I found it made DJ unlikeable.
- Steve - for the first season or so he was effectively a stalker. He was also obviously utilised as humour puts plot device -and while he later develops into a sensible kind character, early on he was frustratingly unreasonably not sympathetic and problematic. It was hard to be sympathetic.
- Fernando - similar to Steve - he was awfully rude and demanding given the circumstances of his character. For the first two seasons or so he was unlikeable, persistently encroaching on the womens lives.
Having said all that , Kimmy was somewhat better developed, including family background, and Steph was a consistent, generally good character. I think it's hilarious she marries a Gibbler; if only young Steph knew her future hahaha
Obviously the absence of Michelle was glaring - but
- totally understandable. The Olsen twins are retired from acting and stated they didn't have the same memories and nostalgia of the show because it ended while they were young.
- it was made awkward by the characters breaking the fourth wall , talking to the camera, and basically exerting pressure on 'Michelle' to return. This happened in the first episode and a holiday episode. Like get over it and leave them alone.
- overall the show worked well without Michelle as Kimmy was a great third parent in this version.
- should they have recast Michelle? Maybe. It did seem weird that Michelle who's on NY didn't ever visit her family in holiday episodes, the weddings, the engagements, the birth of Dani. Like, it makes her seem an awfully bad sister.
Overall, although the original show was obviously not fully realistic in storyline's, this is even less so - but that is seemingly purposeful. It's tongue in cheek, it pokes fun at sitcoms. It pokes fun at itself (Eg CCB mentioning she didn't get the fuss about Kirk Cameron (her brother in real life) lol). It does musicals. It's over the top.
But that's also part of it's retro nostalgic charm.
The Twelve (2022)
A compelling Aussie court drama with a difference
I thought this was very interesting and compelling - I liked that the difference in this court style drama was that the lives of the jurors were also a key focus - although it was a little unbalanced - making it NOT just another court drama.
With so many jurors obviously it would be difficult to explore all characters equally - it was very humanising to see how subjective and emotionally the court snd jury process is.
It is quite disturbing seeing that though - the flawed nature of the court system in many aspects - and overall it doesn't exactly inspire faith in the system.
Unlike some other reviewers, I didn't think it dragged - I thought the10 eps were paced well and engaging. However, I did think the ending /last episode was a bit rushed. After all that had happened I was slightly disappointed and not necessarily convinced of the pacing of the resolution.
The Stand (2020)
It's ok, fine even ; but the original is better ;)
As a person who loves the original but hadn't read the book, this was ok but not great. What's disappointing is that it had great potential / with time frame, casting etc.
The biggest problem IMO is it's a bit jumpy in sequencing the story. It flips past to present in a disjointed way. I think newcomers to the story might find the plot a bit confusing because of it.
And then it dragged towards the end.
Character development was weak. I felt there was less love for, hate for, empathy with, characters. Possibly because of the jumpiness in narrative.
Eg the bad guy is THE bad guy - but Flagg doesn't appear til mid season, and as much as Skarsgard is awesome as an actor, he wasn't very menacing?
I think the cast was well chosen, I just don't think they were given much to work with.
I'd recommend the 90s mini series over this version. It was definitely not perfect and a bit dated, but narrative wise, better.
Nancy Drew (2019)
A decent supernatural mystery but NOT Nancy Drew
This is another revival of an old (novel) series about a teen detective.
It's a fine modernised mystery series but it's NOT Nancy Drew for several reasons
- she's a little older and not as innocent
- her friends have different backstories quite different from the book and they aren't as close
- it's a much darker, morbid and supernatural approach
- her relationship with her father is strained and tense which is the opposite of the stories.
They could easily have made a modernised mystery series without co-opting a classic story and characters.
Although I quite enjoy the series, this fact significantly irks me.
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
Good but not great - mirrors Matrix 1
I was looking forward to this new movie, loving the first Matrix, and it was good, but not great.
If you like the Matrix, you'll probably like this.
Reeves is quite good at playing nervous wreck Thomas struggling with 'reality'.
The plot setup basically mirrors M1 - lots of parallels and lacking any substantial new ground. Not a deal breaker - it certainly fits with the 'world' of the matrix.
One bug bear i have, and hill I'll die on, is that Agent Smith is the biggest weakness (through no fault of the actor). Hugo Weaving did not return and it is felt. The new guy played Smith fine - but did not OWN the role like HW did. HW pulled off robotic menace, this agent smith did not.
Morpheus was not Morpheus. Although its kind of explained. As another reviewer said, it was kind of a mockery of OG Morpheus.
The film was good. The effects were good. Reeves was good. It was all enjoyable - it was just not groundbreaking like the original series.
We Have Always Lived in the Castle (2018)
An engaging film; beautifully shot
Having just read the book I followed with watching the film, I found it a relatively faithful adaptation* which was beautifully shot and acted. The actors portrayed the characters as they were in the book. The scenes, setting and filmic approach is commendable.
Parts of the house, itself integral to the Blackwood image, was in some parts in my opinion, not as I envisioned. But that's a small point.
In many ways I felt this was better than the book: the book was slow and entirely from the perspective and in the head of Merricat. This was a bit more open and better paced, though still narrated by Merricat.
The film made it a little less obvious from the start what had happened six years prior- which added a little to the tragedy and mystery. But only a little.
*There are two key changes to the plot and characterisation of one character. I won't spoil here. If you've read the book you'll know. If you haven't you won't care. Some reviewers find this unacceptable and I get it but I didn't mind. It was just a bit of a 21C approach I suppose for a more 'rounded off' /explanatory film.
As a 'gothic' style story, it's not to be confused as a horror or thriller. It's mostly dramatic, with tragedy and despair, some mystery.
A Discovery of Witches (2018)
Season 1 was ok. Season 2 meh
I have reviewed this previously based on season 1 which was 'ok' except that it had some very cringe dialogue, Palmer is not the best (in this role?), and there's a lack of chemistry.
Season 2 I've seen two episodes. I have little interest to see the rest. In fact I gave up the streaming service that I signed up for just to watch season 2.
I don't know why people are rating excessively highly. I guess they have more imagination than me at putting dots together (Eg chemistry between the leads, that Palmer 'acts' in this role).
I totally understand how many would prefer the TV show to the books - I don't - but I understand the books are wordy and to some too dense. I like that as it have more depth to the characters backgrounds, perspectives and chemistry.
All of which I can't see no matter how desperately I look for them in the Tv version
I no longer have a way to watch S2 and I'm not bothered.
Honestly I love the books and this story so I probably WILL eventually.
Some POSITIVES before I leave
- the sets and costumes are awesome
- there's some fabulous casting and acting. The characters of Knox, Gerbert, Emily and Ysabeau are fantastically portrayed by class actors.
- it does do quite well at bringing the 'magic' to life via effects
- it is quite good at speeding up the density of the books - although shouldn't stop times be so speedy.
It's a fine romp. It's not high class television. It's not going to win Emmys etc.
But you can't love this and diss Twilight.
Cinderella (2021)
doesnt deserve the hate. A fun modern version.
I'm not sure why many are picking on this film.
It does NOT deserve the hate in these comments.
It is definitely NOT the 4. Something star rating on IMDb at the moment.
Look it's not my favourite rendition of Cinderella (all hail Ever After) - and I wouldn't 'buy' it, but I can imagine kids might find the colourful Musical elements fun.
However, this is a decent film that I think would suit families/children.
It is a revamped modernised version - still set 'in the past' - but with modern values and social representation. It is not a traditional retelling and the ending is different in at least three ways.
I liked that there was some more empathy shown to the stepmother - given that women in her situation /time would not have had it easy.
It's a musical. I'm not overly fond of these, but it was fine. And I did like the use of modern pop songs to present thoughts and perspective - especially the Stepmother singing Material Girl LMAO.
Some are criticising the 'feminist' take but to be fair that started at least 20 years ago with Ever After and we aren't in the 1950s anymore (Disney version), so of course it should be more representative of modern values. Do we really want to have our kids watching films with archaic values and roles???
I think young kids would love it.
Adults would probably like it once or twice. It felt longer than it was :/
Ever After is still the best version in my opinion. :-)
And shout out to A Cinderella Story with Hilary Duff - for a fun modern take.
Moxie (2021)
An important and inspiring film for all genders
A great film. Good cast, well acted, good storyline appropriate to issues today.
It's focused on teenagers but adults, particularly females would enjoy this. There are some 90s throwbacks references.
The film covers a LOT of territory including intersectional feminism. At times it did feel tokenistic (don't hate: I'm a feminist) , but only because it felt certain characters and issues were rushed through for the film and to be representative.
Nevertheless- I feel it achieved it's aim: to raise the issues facing female teens, to give a voice, to encourage them to use that voice.
I (as a teacher) honestly loved how annoyed, angry and defiant these students got and only hope my own students - all genders - can feel confident enough to stand up and speak up - which was the message of this film : stand up, speak up.
If I had a teenage daughter, I'd want her to watch a film like this and be inspired to speak up and put against the double standards and issues faced.
I, Tonya (2017)
Fantastic engaging story incorporating multiple accounts
I love this film having watched it several times. It is a great 'story', that integrates multiple perspectives, with an excellent cast and acting. The breaking of the fourth wall (where the characters talk to the audience through the camera) made this more engaging and effective.
Portraying real events is difficult due to the multitude of human perspectives (which they gained from real interviews) and the lack of one 'true' account. This film overcomes that inability to 'know what really happened' by integrating the different accounts all at the one time to create a complicated (but easy to follow!) narrative. It's thoroughly engaging.
Robbie is fantastic at playing Tonya as is Stan as her husband Jeff. Even the actor portraying Jeff's friend is great as the pathetically delusional 'bodyguard'.
Obviously the lack of Kerrigan's perspective (the victim) is a gap but also understandable. Why on earth would she want to be involved in this project?
One thing I did get from watching this is that the ice skating world is prejudiced and harsh. It does seem like Tonya had an uphill battle from the start due to her disadvantaged and 'non wholesome' lifestyle for which she appeared to be punished in scoring despite her talent.
While Kerrigan was the victim in this, so too was Tonya - at least in her life and career - this film makes me sad at the tragedy of her life circumstances that shaped her experiences.
I Care a Lot (2020)
Sociopathic con artist abuses system for profit - intense drama with some comic moments
Great story - fairly original idea for a con movie- great acting- horrible characters - an indictment on society and the legal system.
I really enjoyed this film. It has some fierce and determined characters who use whatever type of power they can (financial, social, legal) to play the game of life.
The main character Marla narrates at parts about being the lion or the lamb in life - and she has determined to be a lioness. That is, she relays how life is brutal and playing fair doesn't get anyone anywhere.
So you know from the start this film is going to be about brutal, callous behaviours. It's about a sociopathic woman who has determined to be a lioness in life, to play the system of society, and will take our nearly anyone to achieve her goal of financial power. Not just rich. Really stinking rich.
I wouldn't say it's a comedy but it has funny moments. Like when Marla realises her latest conquest was not the easy mark she was hoping. Or when that easy mark laughs in her face (no spoilers).
The acting was great. Pike convincingly plays a conniving, manipulative, sociopathic horror of a person. The cons she pulls, the tactics- are awful. Those that help her? Unbelievable. Dinklage was also awesome as the mafia boss who hates that someone is messing with his curated life. Wiest is fiesty as but is pretty much marginalised in the film. I agree with a review I read that said it would've been great to see her play a larger part, though her disempowerment at being made a ward, was perhaps central to the story of systemic flaws and the fear of being deprived of independence when you're older.
I'm not sure the extent that such practices happen in real life, but, obviously the treatment of elderly persons and the aged care systems are highly questionable. This just adds a level of scare really. Is this what awaits us? The guardianship processes depicted in the film (I have no idea if they're realistic) but omg I hope it's not that easy to con people.
The Haunting (1999)
Not a faithful adaptation but a fun scary film nevertheless
A satisfactory b grade thriller.
This film is based on the Shirley Jackson book Haunting of Hill House. However, this film, while utilising characters, settings and some plot from the original, takes great artistic license, adding plot, backstory, relationships that weren't on the original book/film.
You do need to take this as a stand alone thriller though as this is only loosely based on the Jackson novel, and if that is your benchmark, this may disappoint.
Review of Film on it's own merit
***************************************
The story, plot and acting are all fine. The premise probably wouldn't happen in real life (is the premise that gets them to the house...). The 'house' is magnificent in scale and features, much more so than the original house concept (possibly too much so really). But there are parts with 'effects' that are a bit much- almost circus like. It uses more overt terror, scares and incidents which are typical of the modern style of horror film, than the original. This will probably suit many audiences today.
In terms of acting Lili Taylor is great and the others are fine.
Personally, the ending was contrived, a bit silly and a let down. I deducted a point for the ending.
There are better scary films like The Conjuring (also with Taylor), but this one is a fine 'B grade' lark.
Review as an adaption
****************************
This is absolutely not Jackson's story.
It is loosely based on her characters and story, but takes great creative license to change everything up. Luke is not the owner. The doctor is not investigating the paranormal as such. The house is ridiculously embellished with quirky rooms that are a bit clownish.
The backstory of Crain to add 'depth' and 'fill blanks' is new and macabre. The paranormal incidents are overt and visible - very 'modern' unlike the Gothic style of Jackson which relied on the unseen. In fact this version is more of a haunting of ghosts rather than the original concept of a house being bad 'not sane'. Also, the ending is vastly different and problematic and kind of ridiculous. Although I was a little let down by Jackson's ending, this one is laughable.
This film lacks the subtlety of the original story which relied on what you could not see. This film uses CGI to 'show you'. Which is not necessarily a bad thing in general, although at times here it's a bit silly.
Do not approach viewing this film as an adaptation. If you want a filmic version of SJs story - there's the 1960s film.
or my preference the Netflix series which also takes license but is more interesting, believable and in tune with original notions.
Simply Irresistible (1999)
A basic, occasionally cringe fantasy romcom
Accept that it's a fantasy rom com and it's likeable enough.
I like this movie despite it's flaws.
Yes it has supernatural fantasy elements. So what? Not a /the problem.
The story is formulaic - boy and girl meet, hit it off, connect, problems, guess the rest. The twist: not so twisty destiny element. Fairy god-crab? LOL. Ok I can roll with it. The crab was cute. Magical food. Sure. Mystical fog. Ok. It's a movie, so if one can suspend reality for other fantasy films, you can for this.
I felt there was potential to be more and better. But the occasional cringe lines couldn't be saved by the decent actors.
The two main characters , plus the three main supporting characters, are all likeable and fun. There were moments of great connection between them all.
But there was some dodgy script and dialogue. It really let it down. There were some plot holes but it's clearly not intended for the Oscars.
Verdict: There's better rom coms out there for your time. But if you are a SMG fan, or a diehard for rom coms, go for it.
The Long, Hot Summer (1958)
Engaging film - some elements don't age well.
I have conflicted feelings on this film. I did really like the small town / family drama and peek into a different time and culture. I loved the character of Clara who was independently minded and had no problem standing up for herself.
Generally I liked the story although as others mentioned it was particularly rushed at end. It seemed like they were in a hurry to wrap it up, so dramas, tensions, conflicts and misunderstandings were neatly wrapped in about ten minutes, and some unconvincingly so.
As a character study it's interesting although some of the characters don't have much to redeem them. The patriarch was particularly infuriating and unlikeable for a 21st C person! probably even for a person in the 30s-50s.
There are elements that don't age well and are problematic today but clearly reflect values and views of their time. The dialogue that, when women say no they don't mean it? Whoa. That a woman is incomplete without a man? That it is duty of children to give parents grandchildren. Hmmm.
The biggest weakness though was the incredibly quick and thus unconvincing wrap up of the tensions between characters which may have been more believable with further run time.
Secrets of the Saqqara Tomb (2020)
Very popularised 'set up', not great archaeological method
It's a Netflix show so we should probably expect entertainment over rigorous archaeology, however.... this show was problematic.
To start with, it's a highly interesting discovery and site. Theres a lot of interesting finds that are significant for history of Egypt especially in the tomb of Wahtye. As another reviewer said, the excavators seem very enthusiastic and keen- and as Egyptians, so they should be. I liked that Egyptians were involved in this dig, and that it was filmed largely in Arabic. This is their nations history, so that's important and refreshing.
However!
There were so many elements that were questionable in terms of history and archaeology.
* the forced 'conspiracy' theory is a stretch. Trying not to add a spoiler- the 'conspiracy' around the scene of the man and woman at the offering table- their conclusions are weird. The logical conclusion is it is his dad? But their first and second conclusion seem very unfounded. it made me question their credentials, their logical capability, and/or the highly constructed nature of the doco. Are they playing up conspiracy for viewers?
* they kept touching things without gloves. Like what? Archaeology 101 is wear gloves - our hands have oils which can be destructive to artefacts. My high school archaeology students know this....
* they opened a sarcophagus /exposed a mummy, in the middle of the desert / sunlight, compromising preservation. Oh and its 'discovery' seemed highly staged along with the nicely placed ushabtis in the background.
* there appeared to be little record keeping and site photography. I know they were filming, but archaeological records and reports require mappings, site surveys, diagrams and photos. I can concede some of this *may* have been edited for audience 'interest', but given everything else, I'm not betting a lot on it.
The narrative and conclusions of a conspiracy are dodgy, or at least, not well formed in the doco. The structure, 'script'/dialogue and editing is highly popularised for the non academic.
The final WTH, was at the end, when archaeologists were thanking Wahtye for a lifetime discovery, and saying he'd be happy you dug him up and made him famous? Um no.
Wahtye and his fellow citizens spent a long time putting effort into their tombs and burials for a reason. They needed to be well stocked, appropriately decorated, mummy contained and preserved, in order for their spirits (ka,ba,akh) to survive. Archaeology disrupts that. Wahtye would probably be furious. You disturbed his tomb. You dug up and dumped his, and his families bones in crates, before playing with them to assemble them. I find it interesting an Egyptologist would claim he'd be happy with it.
In all, it's an interesting discovery, and if you aren't an historian/archaeologist/or interested in those professions, you'll probably find this fabulous. If you have any knowledge or experience in these fields, you'll probably be face palming a lot.
But still, you should probably watch it for the fabulous footage of the tomb and some amazing finds there (no spoilers!).
Charlie's Angels (2019)
A fun, glossy, fem action film.
The low ratings are misleading. This is a decent film. It's not a complex plot, but films of this genre rarely are - so what?
Was a remake needed? Probably not? (I am biased - I do love and prefer the Liu, Diaz, Barrymore versions). But...
So what. Remakes happen. Take it for what it is.
one very small criticism I have is that it is a bit heavy on the girl power side at some points - and that's coming from a feminist. LOL.
I did enjoy seeing Stewart in this role - she was so different to her other characters/ portrayals - in this one she played a more fun, flippant, upbeat, optimistic, expressive woman. She looked like she had great fun in this role.
I'd probably rate it 6/10, but the ratings are so harsh I was flexible to a 7 for the lightheartedness.
If you want a fun light romp with kick arse women, give it a go.
The Spy Who Dumped Me (2018)
Less about espionage/ more about friend. A fun frolic.
A fun romp of a film, which while somewhat predictable and not ground breaking - it's great laughs.
The main strength of this film is probably the focus on the friendship of the two girls with the adventure serving to highlight their friendship/sense of family.
Kunis and McKinnon are great as yin/yang friends, and play their characters well: Kunis's unassuming, reserved character vs McKinnons bombastic displays masking esteem issues.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)
A fun, fantastical rendition of P&P- when taken as is, is highly enjoyable.
While I generally like Austen stories, I struggle to read her (tedious) writing style, which gets me into all sorts of arguments with my Austen loving friends.
Having said that, I like the BBC P&P and the film with Keira knightly.
But this is my favourite. LOL
If you're not into fantasy or supernatural stylings, this is definitely not for you.
It is creative how the author and film writers, overlaid a zombie apocalypse on 18-19C England. The original issues of class remain (the wealthy train in Japan, the less wealthy in China etc).
There were some changes to narrative sequence, at least in the film version, Eg Lizzie doesn't visit long at Pemberley etc. And the plot regarding Lydia altered.
The actors seemed to have fun with their roles and the new world, and the spirited nature of Lizzie remained. James and Riley were great as Bennett and Darcy.
Frankly, her rejection of Darcy's first proposal in this is the best rejection ever. I won't spoil it. Suffice to say, if you feel you and you're family have been slighted, all manners of polite regency society are aside. LOL
Do not take this film seriously as an adaptation of Austen. Take it for what it is: a fun, reimagining of a much loved story.
The Gentlemen (2019)
All the makings and potential... sapped
Look crime world films are not my thing - if they're your fave genre you'll probably love this.
Pro's
______
Great director and excellent lineup of cast.
It was a great film in its appearance: sets, scenes, costumes, cinematography. All awesome.
That's it.
Con's
_______
It's quite boring, long winded and filled with generally unlikeable characters.
You aren't left cheering for any of them really.
It's not to say it isn't well acted because the cast is fantastic.
It was my friends turn to pick for the cinema. So I didn't want to leave since I thought she was into it. Nope. She wasn't. We have to stop being polite with each other.
Into the Woods (2014)
Don't believe the hype. Avoid.
The critics loved it I believe.
It has a fantastic, quality cast!
A subversive, dark, reimagining of a collection of fairytales in the one world.
Sounds perfect.
But no. This was painful. Too much singing. And yes, I know it is a musical, but still, too much, unnecessary singing.
And it dragged on.
I saw it with a friend and didn't want to leave the cinema presuming she was enjoying it. Turns out, she disliked it too and was sticking it out for me. Cue: face palm. Other patrons did walk out.
The care factor for characters and their plight is zilch.
Such potential, over hyped, very disappointing.
The Heartbreak Kid (2007)
Unlikeable character.
I thought this would be a light funny movie.
It wasn't.
It's hard to recommend a film if the character/s are unlikeable. I suppose we are theoretically meant to support the main character (Stiller), and be annoyed by his wife (Ackerman). But in the end, if you consider character actions and qualities overall, one should come out of the film disgusted by Stillers character, and at least ambivalent about Ackermans.
Romanticising deception, outright lies, stalking and persistent self righteous actions, needs to stop.
Do yourself a favour. Don't watch this.
3 Idiots (2009)
Fun, funny, heartbreaking film.
This is one of my favourite films ever.
It follows the lives of three friends from university, their struggles with family, class, societal expectations, and educational demands in Indian culture. It was based on a book I think.
It's a comedy and a drama and a bromance film. It has a message, but it is also uplifting.
The songs are on point, and the musical numbers add to the story, add some zest, without being annoying or distracting (as in some musicals I've seen).
There are some intense, sad scenes, and hilarious ones. The friendship of the three guys is the heart of the story, with messages of following your dreams, hope, loyalty.
TW suicide.
LOL: Last One Laughing Australia (2020)
Good concept, overall lacking in comedy- not representative of Australian comedy.
I like the concept and feel it could work well with a better cast selection based on willingness to try, and understanding that the goal is to laugh, not cringe or vomit.
I found a couple of the comedians great; love Woodley who is generally able to turn most things funny in his calm, serious, sometimes deadpan style. Anne was funny at times from her unexpectedness and character play. They are why it gets 6 and not 4.
I'm overall disappointed and embarrassed that this might be what foreigners think is the nature of Australian comedy.
* There were quite a few people there that weren't comedic. Whilst it might be intimidating for green comedians against veterans, or extroverts, the lack of activity and effort from at least four, was disappointing. They were either too focused on not laughing, or they need to change careers because they don't know how to do comedy. Also despite advertising, this wasn't Australia's best comedians. This is, as expected, the best they could expect to get, with one or two exceptions.
- while people have different senses of humour there is a general agreement that we'd be laughing right? There's physical comedy, slapstick, puns, character driven etc. it's all kind of represented here. But there was a predominance of what some called 'absurdist' humour, mainly from one persons tour de force of gross out activities. Msybe people legit found this funny. I don't get it. It's barely physical humour. It's not slapstick. It seemed that one trick pony's entire approach was, make them gag or cringe. For 6 hours. Not precisely the goal of Comedy.
- there was general unfunnyness from several people. Being centre stage and trying to throw up? Dumping flour on your head with no follow up? Pointing out all the dogs in this book are probably dead now?
* it's a disappointing showcase and representation of Australian comedy. You don't need big names or experience. You just need quality. or effort. There was a LOT of mediocre and a dash of non attempt at comedy.
A couple of bright spots and a good concept that will only be realised if they get quality comedians with more diversity in their comedic toolkit
Dear World This is not typical of Australian humour. We do have quality comedians. We can be funny. Seriously. Regards.