Produced by: Lee Eisenberg, p.ga, Evan Goldberg, p. g. a., Seth Rogen, p.g.a., James Weaver, p.g.a
Executive Producers: Josh Fagen, Brady Fujikawa, John Powers Middleton
Starring: Jacob Tremblay, Keith L Williams, Brady Noon, Molly Gordon, Lil Rel Howery, Midori Francis and Will Forte.
‘Beanbag boys for life.’
That’s how it is when you’re twelve.
There are tears flowing while dancing to, ‘Walking on Sunshine’ – yep, remember the enthusiasm in music class before it got embarrassing?
And Sunday cycling?
And when your mum’s your best friend??
When Max (Jacob Tremblay) gets invited by the cool kids to a kissing party, or course he’s not going without his mates, Thor (Brady Noon) and Lucas (Keith L. Williams): Beanbag Boys, for, Life!
But they don’t know how to kiss either.
So what do they do?
First, they decide it’s a good idea to type ‘PORN’ into a computer. Then decide it’s a better idea to spy on the nympho (meaning she has sex on land and the sea) next door with Max’s dad’s (Will Forte) precious, ‘Never-to-be-touched-because-it’s-not-a-toy. It’s for work’ – drone.
Only for the drone to inevitably be destroyed. Leading the boys on an adventure taking them further from home than they’ve ever been: miles.
The humour in Good Boys feels surprisingly like new territory.
It’s a comedy with some coming-of-age stuff that’s mostly about approaching teen kids’ interpretation of the adult world. Or misinterpretation.
That’s what makes the film so sweet and funny and good. It shows the innocence of kids growing up that somehow feels new.
Writing duo, Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky, state, ‘we felt like we could find kids in this age group to say outrageous things…and that could make people lean forward a bit […] The idea of an R-rated movie starring children just made us laugh.”
So the comedy is based on seeing kids cuss and misinterpret adult stuff like anal beads, sex swings and proving you’re hard by sipping beer:
One sip, you already feel it;
Two sips, you’re tough;
If you sip four, you’ve broken the record. You’re an alcoholic. Cool.
It all seems so silly written down. But seeing the kids say and do and misinterpret over and over again is hilarious because they’re so earnest.
The film really captures how kids are at that age.
Funnily enough, I drank a beer pre-screening of course prompting that dreaded, absolutely necessary toilet run. What I noticed on the way back to my seat was the smiles on everyone’s faces in the audience.
This isn’t a film that gets heavy or tries to convey any message. It’s just a funny comedy with some clever jokes played with sincerity from some well-cast kids: good fun.
Executive Producers: Tim Johnson, Frank Zhu, Li Ruigang
Starring: Chloe Bennet, Tenzing Norgay Trainor, Albert Tsai, Eddie Izzard, Sarah Paulson, Tsai Chin, Michelle Wong.
Yi (Chloe Bennet) lives in an apartment in a busy Chinese city with her mum and grandma.
She keeps herself busy; too busy to play with her neighbour, all braces and squeaky-voiced, Peng (Albert Tsai), and Jin (Tenzing Norgay Trainor) who is typically teen self-obsessed.
Because if she stops for a moment, then she’ll remember her dad is gone.
The only time Yi allows herself to remember her dad is when playing violin. And that’s when she meets Everest – up on the rooftop where the yeti is hiding from the people who had captured him and kept him in a cage.
On the run from the bug-eyed and rich explorer Burnish (Eddie Izzard) and zoologist Dr. Zara (Sarah Paulson), the trio decide to take Everest back home. Back to the Himalayas. And so the adventure begins.
The DreamWorks Animation team have outdone themselves, the trailer for Abominable not translating just how majestic the film is on the big screen. There were so many times I said, ‘Amazing’ and ‘Wow’ from watching the trio of kids and yeti ride a wave of yellow blossoms to see raindrops fall to the earth to unfurl into flowers. And not just a few times, the film is just one wonderful moment after another.
It’s the detail and captured behaviour in those details of even the small characters that delights – ‘You just darted Dave!’ from a gun-for-hire; and the grandmother captured so well with her constant, ‘that’s what I say’.
And there’s an intricate story here about family and grief but also about the magic of nature where, ‘It’s amazing how small you feel, just looking up.’
Where there are those who appreciate nature and those who want to cut it down and take it home.
‘I own that yeti,’ says the brutish Burnish.
And the yeti, Everest was not abominable but adorable with his underbite and puppy-like behaviour.
I love that furry critter!
And so did my nephews who enjoyed the film just as much as I did; one asking if I was OK at one point because I was a little teary with the sweetness of it all. I even got a hug.
Funny and sweet and beautifully realised, Abominable is a real treat.
Produced by: Mindy Kaling, Howard Klein, Jillian Apfelbaum, Ben Browning
Starring: Emma Thompson, Mindy Kaling, John Lithgow, Amy Ryan, Hugh Dancy, Denis O’Hare, Ike Barinholtz.
They say that the 1970s was the decade that fashion forgot, but I’ve always thought it was the ’80s.
With her big padded shoulders and power dressing suits Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson), television’s first ever female late show host and comedian, has become sewn into an image she should have abandoned long ago, and her show has morphed into an outfit that is gradually making its way to the back of your wardrobe. You know the one, it has to go but you can’t quite bear to part with it.
With the axe swinging and credible rumours that she is about to be replaced with a younger male comedian, Katherine is forced into crisis mode. That means sitting down with the writers of her show for the first time ever, as she tries to work out a way to reinvent herself. Despite a steady decline in the ratings over the previous decade, Katherine’s writing team are equally wedded to their worn out methods and lame humour. That is, until their cosy boys’ club is disrupted by newcomer Molly Patel (Mindy Kaling), token female writer and woman who is not afraid to take her place on an upturned bin.
To appease the head of the network, Katherine eventually accepts that her approval rating might improve if the guests she interviews were less august. Accordingly, YouTube sensation Mimi is booked and Katherine’s steady decline is brought to a spectacular halt, when the interview goes viral: ‘For all the wrong reasons.’ Overnight Katherine is dubbed, ‘America’s least favourite aunt’.
But Katherine has even further to fall.
After a brief stint performing stand-up where she manages to raise a laugh for claiming that she is losing her show because she’s, ‘a little bit old and little bit white’, Katherine becomes convinced that the way to save herself is to find a way to address her own white privilege. Appointing herself ‘White Saviour’ is a move in the right direction, and a very funny one, but it’s not enough to quell the forces ranged against her. They’re still gunning for her show.
And they are about to pull out the big artillery.
Unless she can uncover the real reason for her failing popularity, Katherine stands to lose everything, and maybe she should. She has already skipped out on telling a socially relevant joke that Molly wrote for her, baulking at the last minute when a well-meaning colleague whispered, ‘Be careful of showing who you are, once you turn that tap on you can never turn it off again.’ Katherine’s struggle between her desire to conceal herself behind the façade of her power suits and her need to reveal her authentic self is a dilemma many of us face.
In a movie without a laugh track, I found my laughter bubbling up in an unforced way to join with the rest of the audience, even though I had expected the humour to fall flat after watching the trailer. While Mindy Kaling was a delight, it says a lot about Emma Thompson’s performance that she was able to play such a prickly, unsympathetic character, with just the tiniest glimmer of vulnerability. Without that, I might have been cheering for the other side.
I’ve been thinking about writing this article since watching the thought-provoking horror, Us (2019).
Featuring doppelgängers, the film shows the horror of a reflection taking the place of our self. Scary stuff. But what I enjoyed most about this film was the humour.
The film juxtaposes normal behaviour set in a bizarre world where a copy of self is killing all the other selves.
Seeing a family fighting for their lives to compete to sit in the front seat of the car, the winner based on who has killed the most people/doppelgängers? Hilarious.
There’s also the additional delight of husband Gabe with a tissue stuck up his bloody nostril stating things like, ‘Almost looks like some kind of fucked-up art instalment.’
Director, writer and producer Jordan Peele states, “Horror and comedy are both great ways of exposing how we feel about things […] The comedy that emerges from a tense moment or scene in a horror film is necessary for cleaning the emotional palate, to release the tension. It gives your audience an opportunity to emotionally catch up and get prepared for the next run of terror.”1
Winston Duke really nailed the father character, Gabe; and I appreciated this layer of bizarre humour to lighten the strange – as Jorden states above, to, ‘clean the palate’.
But what does this ‘clean the palate’ actually mean?
And what is it about gallows humour that I find so funny?
An article published in Nature Reviews / Neuroscience, ‘The Neural Basis of Humour Processing’ (Pascal Vrticka, et al (2013)) concludes there are, ‘two core processes of humour appreciation: incongruity detection and resolution (the cognitive component); and a feeling of mirth or reward (the emotional component). Whereas the cognitive component seems to rely principally on activity in the [temporo-occipito-parietal junction] TOPJ, the emotional component appears to involve mesocorticolimbic dopaminergic pathways and the amygdala.’ 2
Yu-Chen Chan, et al summarize and further research the comprehension-elaboration theory of humour in their article, ‘Segregating the comprehension and elaboration processing of verbal jokes: An fMRI study’ (2012)3. Highlighting that ‘not all situations involving the detection and resolution of incongruities are humorous.’
They go on to quote Wyer and Collin’s comprehension-elaboration theory of humor (1992), where ‘The elaboration follows comprehension, involves the conscious generation of inferences of features not made explicit during comprehension as well as further thoughts stimulated by the newly understood situation, and elicits the unconscious or conscious feeling of amusement. These elaborations effectively involve appraising the stimulus event for their humourous content.
The amount of humour elicited is a function of the amount of elaboration of the event and its implications that occur subsequent to its reinterpretation.
The affective feeling of humor results from, and may overlap with continued elaboration of the event.’
So, humour in the setting of a horror evokes further elaboration not just because of the incongruent, it’s the nature of the incongruent: normality in a setting of the horrific.
The elaboration, further cognition of the joke makes the humour darkly funny.
In the setting of a horror film, there’s also a layering to dark humour that sparks the cognitive on the foundation of a previously evoked response, like fear.
As stated in the article, ‘The role of the amygdala in human fear: automatic detection of threat’ (Ohman. A (2005))4, ‘Behavioral data suggest that fear stimuli automatically activate fear and capture attention. This effect is likely to be mediated by a subcortical brain network centered on the amygdala […] When the stimulus conditions allow conscious processing, the amygdala response to feared stimuli is enhanced and a cortical network that includes the anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula is activated. However, the initial amygdala response to a fear-relevant but non-feared stimulus (e.g. pictures of spiders for a snake phobic) disappears with conscious processing and the cortical network is not recruited. Instead there is activation of the dorsolateral and orbitofrontal cortices that appears to inhibit the amygdala response. The data suggest that activation of the amygdala is mediated by a subcortical pathway, which passes through the superior colliculi and the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus before accessing the amygdala, and which operates on low spatial frequency information.’
This is interesting with the view that further processing of a scene in a scary film, provoked by an incongruent behaviour, will break the activation of the amygdala and be, ‘mediated by a subcortical pathway, which passes through the superior colliculi and the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus’ and would give the effect of tension relief (‘cleansing the palate’) and therefore, humour.
The article goes on to describe the activation of the fear response, like increased heart-rate and respiration (as we’ve all experienced in particularly scary movies): ‘The amygdala consists of several separate cell groups (nuclei), which receive input from many different brain areas. Highly processed sensory information from various cortical areas reaches the amygdala through its lateral and basolateral nuclei. In turn, these nuclei project to the central nucleus of the amygdala, which then projects to hypothalamic and brainstem target areas that directly mediate specific signs of fear and anxiety.’
You can imagine sitting in the cinema, immersed in a scary scene that has evoked the fear response: the rapid heart-beat, sitting on the edge-of-your-seat. That automatic response has kicked in.
So, those jumps you get in a horror are from that ingrained automatic response – like a reflex.
With conscious processing the fear is either enhanced through a clever script that gives layers to the idea of the horror (mediated through the amygdala), or is consciously processed as being, just a film (activation of the dorsolateral and orbitofrontal cortices that appears to inhibit the amygdala response): this isn’t real.
So either the data is further processed, where, ‘a cortical network that includes the anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula is activated.’
Or isn’t: ‘the initial amygdala response to a fear-relevant but non-feared stimulus (e.g. pictures of spiders for a snake phobic) disappears with conscious processing and the cortical network is not recruited.’
I think dark humour occurs somewhere in this cognition. In the further elaboration.
The fear response is already activated, through something that automatically evokes the fear-response, doppelgängers for example; then the data is further analysed when the setting is incongruent to the behaviour of the character, leading to a release of tension on the background of an already evoked fear response. With further cognition and elaboration the incongruent is resolved by processing through memories, past experiences, so the data is personally related in the context of a horror making the humour: darkly funny.
So, humour instead of a fear response including that extra processing leads to tension release and to a layered emotional response giving a fear response, mirth, therefore creating dark humour that tickles because of its complexity, its, elaboration.
But dark humour isn’t just humour in horror.
Dark humour can be satire. Dark humour can be about a cop trying to perform a dance in memory of his lost mother… At her funeral.
I recently reviewed the film, Thunder Road (2019), finding the performance and script from writer/director/lead, Jim Cummings genius. I’m still giggling about this cop falling apart because the character is so sincere and so tragic, it’s funny.
Jim was interviewed on a Podcast by Giles Alderson, and he talks about his intention to straddle both the tragic and humour of this cop having a breakdown, stating the audience will reward you when more than one lobe of the brain is engaged.5
The writing and performance of this film is brilliant because of the empathy evoked by seeing this guy grieving against the incongruity of his abnormal behaviour.
It’s the processing involved while seeing this super-nice guy, doing his absolute best in the worst of circumstances, then just lose his grip that tickles: standing, about to throw a child’s school desk, the teacher subtly pocketing the school safety-scissors included.
His mother is dead, his siblings don’t show at the funeral, his wife has left him, his daughter can’t stand him and is acting out, making statements like, ‘I hope I get mum’s boobs.’ And his job as a cop is emotionally draining and stressful.
His life is eating him alive.
But Jim continues to try to do the right thing only to end up with ripped pants.
Don’t get me wrong, the humour here is subtle and complex – like the way Jim is described, ‘Everyone grieves differently. Everyone’s unique.’
You can just see it – how the nice people describe someone losing the plot at a funeral.
I’m still giggling because the film shows how difficult life can be and how ridiculous.
So based on the same principle of processing the incongruent on the foundation of a fear response, here the emotional centre is engaged, in empathy for this guy at his mother’s funeral.
The humour is based on the incongruent because this guy is not functioning as a normal human being.
Then the nature of his behaviour is elaborated, because of the sadness and tragedy and empathy for this guy doing his absolute best.
The sadness and tragedy is modified by the incongruent behaviour, leading to further cognition, coming back as humour on a foundation of sadness that leads to elaboration creating that dark humour.
It. Just. TICKLES.
Taking the idea further: if there’s not enough tension for humour to release through incongruity, or if the difference isn’t enough; and if there’s no attachment to the character (leading to further elaboration), the attempt at humour will miss the mark.
The response will be flat: it’s just more data that flows through, marking time.
And if the humour doesn’t require further processing, and really misses that tension relief, it becomes simple. Like slapstick. And that’s if there’s a good performance from the actor.
If not, the end result will turn the audience against the storyline because the film will be a boring experience or the laughter will be directed at the film, not with it.
Watching a film that gets dark humour just right, for me, is a genuine pleasure – who can forget the gloriously funny, bad luck of, O. B Jackson (James Parks) in The Hateful Eight (2016)?!
Tarantino is definitely one of those writers and directors who knows how mix up the violent, the unexpected warmth and intellect with the incongruent.
Think about the relentless violence in John Wick 3 (2019) that saturates to the extent it’s funny.
It’s the unexpected bloody action happening to a well-liked character that absorbs with the incongruent of a deadly killer who loves his dog making John Wick a memorable and likable character adding those touches of joyful dark humour.
I acknowledge that not everyone enjoys this style of (sometimes bloody) humour – and there’s further research about the different theories of humour; think of humour used as aggression (and why people will feel superior and laugh at a movie, perhaps) and humour used in sexual selection (I found that funny too! Maybe we should go out…).
As a side note, the sexual selection theory is a concept well illustrated in the Coen Brothers’ film, Burn After Reading (2008), with the character Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) taking online matches to the movies to see if they laugh at the same joke.
A nice illustration and frankly, not a bad filtering method to find the right partner.
Whether you like dark humour or not, I’m sure all would agree that those added complicated interactions of cognition and emotion make watching a film a more rewarding experience, and one that certainly keeps me coming back for more.
2. Vrticka P, Black J. M. and Reiss A. L. 2013 ‘The Neural Basis of Humour Processing’ Nature Reviews / Neuroscience, Science and Society PERSPECTIVES 14 860 – 868.
3. Chan Y, Chou T, Chen, H and Liang Kl 2012 ‘Segregating the comprehension and elaboration processing of verbal jokes: An fMRI study’ NeuroImage Dec, 61: 899-906.
4. Ohman. A, 2005 ‘The role of the amygdala in human fear: automatic detection of threat’ Psychoneuroendocrinology, 10: 953-958.
5. Giles Alderson (2019) ‘Jim Cummings On Writing, Directing and Starring in Thunder Road’, The Filmakers Podcast May 29, available at: apple.co/2EydVIz
Written by: Susanna Fogel, Emily Halpern, Sarah Haskins, Katie Silberman
Produced by: Will Ferrell, Adam McKay, Megan Ellison, Chelsea Barnard, Jessica Elbaum
Starring: Kaitlyn Dever, Beanie Feldstien, Jessica Williams, Jason Sudeikis, Lisa Kudrow, Will Forte.
Molly (Beanie Feldstein) and Amy (Kaitlyn Dever) have been besties all through senior high, working their butts off so they can be accepted into the right college.
Not that they can talk about what college they’re going to with the other graduates; don’t want to make them feel bad about their choices and all.
Until Molly overhears a couple of the cool kids calling her personality, butter-face. She might be cute, but her personality needs a paper bag. Case-in-point, she’s just been correcting bathroom graffiti grammar.
So when Molly finds out the kids who have been partying all year have also gotten into Harvard, Stanford or jobs working for Google, she realises she’s missed out.
It’s time to party like it’s 2019 for the next twenty-four hours before graduation, to make up for all the fun times missed while studying like an idiot.
Sounds familiar, right?!
Another American graduation film.
Booksmart can’t be dressed up as anything else but graduates trying to figure out the next step: friendship, the safety of that friendship in a world of the unknown, sex and crushes and all the obsession and humiliation that goes with it. So yeah, it’s familiar but jez the humour is fun.
We get a bumper sticker on the back of a teen feminist’s car stating: Hot flushes? Power surges!
And a principle who spends his spare time driving an Uber while piecing together his detective novel featuring a pregnant woman whose baby kicks when she gets close to a clue.
The humour is off-beat and funny without trying too hard.
Even girls losing it in argument has been handled by first feature director Olivia Wilde so it’s not screeching but drama, somehow making a teen movie not annoying.
Molly (Beanie Feldstein) should have been a nerdy hard-to-take teen, but she’s adorable in her persistence and abrasive Slytherin nature. And her bestie Amy (Kaitlyn Dever), the loyal, patient, keen for her first girl-on-girl moment was believable making her sexual orientation a normal teen struggle rather than an attempt at the contemporary – it’s all the same teen stuff we’ve seen before made more relevant.
More than anything, Booksmart’s good for a giggle.
Produced by: Chris Meledadri, p.g.a., Janet Healy, p.g.a
Voices by: Kevin Hart, Tiffany Haddish, Patton Oswalt, Eric Stonestreet, Jenny Slate, Lake Bell with Harrison Ford.
‘If you pee on it, you own it’: The wisdom of Terrier Max.
We all love our pets and their shenanigans. My cat Cloud, AKA Cheeky brat, AKA Ching-Chong-Chunk is a constant source of entertainment and companionship.
The Secret Life Of Pets (2016)) managed to tap into that delight of humans and what we imagine our pets get up to when we’re not around.
Here, in The Secret Life Of Pets 2, we get Terrier Max (Patton Oswalt) returning with the loveable house-mate and mutt, Duke (Eric Stonestreet), along with pomeranian Gidget (Jenny Slate) taking a steam in the dishwasher and Chloe (Lake Bell) teaching Gidget the way of the cat.
The characteristics of animals we know and love are captured in detail making me smile in recognition, cat-meowing-in-sleeping-human-face included.
So starting out, all I could think was, Adorable.
In this next instalment, Max is coping with the introduction of another member of the family, baby Liam.
With Max stress-scratching we see the running theme of fear and rising to the challenge of life and facing fear, all cumulating when the family visit a farm.
Here we meet a wise farm dog and crazy stalker turkey.
All the birds are crazy-eyed and brainless, managing to always get me giggling.
Then there’s this side-story with an evil circus and lion and rescue mission from wolves I didn’t really get.
The humour was more slapstick as well, moving away from the cheeky pet behaviour that makes The Secret Life Of Pets so good.
Sure, this side-mission added adventure and was perhaps aimed at the youngsters in the audience; but I didn’t really sense a positive response from the kids either.
The super-hero bunny Snowball (Kevin Hart) with Daisy-the-brave (Tiffany Haddish) felt like another story from another movie. And it didn’t really gel because the attachment to Max and Co. was already made.
I just wanted to keep watching Max at the farm and Gidget and the cat Chloe back at the city apartment block – that’s what I was interested in. That’s what I found funny: the behaviour of the characters as pets, not as super-hero adventurers.
So, some of the film I adored; the rest, not so much.
Story by: Stanley Sharpiro & Paul Henning and Dale Launer
Screenplay by: Stanley Sharpiro & Paul Henning and Dale Launer and Jac Schaeffer
Produced by: Roger Birnbaum, Rebel Wilson
Starring: Anne Hathaway, Rebel Wilson, Alex Sharp.
Loosely based on, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) starring Steve Martin, Michael Caine and Glenne Headly, The Hustle features two con-women: the low-brow Lonnie (Rebel Wilson) harking from Australia, and the high-class Josephine (Anne Hathaway) who’s decided to settle in the French Riviera where all the super-rich marks are just begging to be ripped off.
After conning her way through men willing to pay for her fake sister’s boob job, the ‘big-titted Russel Crowe’ decides to head to well, bigger waters.
Much to the disgust of super-snob Josephine, this con-woman from Cootamundra is muddying the pristine hunting ground she calls home: either she brings Lonnie in for training or Lonnie brings attention to her most obvious yet effective swindles, leaving any con exposed.
Rebel Wilson and Anne Hathaway make a good team as the snobby plum-in-the-mouth, skinny-girl-in-distress cover for the heartless con artist versus the crude and rude but gets the job done Aussie.
Rebel has still managed to win me over with her, I’m a bratful big-girl getting away with it because I’m adorable.
And we get some gems in the script, like, ‘You can’t cheat an honest man’ – the Danish gambling addict obviously not honest while trying to sell his wife’s precious jewels; he’s more a cross between a Nazi and Gollum a, ‘Nazi-Gollum.’
So there’s some funny moments and fresh ideas here, more than the reversal of genders in this re-make or refresh of a classic, con trying to out-con a fellow con.
Although, Steve Martin is hard to beat. I can’t tell you how many times I watched, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels growing up.
But The Hustle is a good bit of fun even if a bit light on the drama.
Story by: Dan Hernandez & Benji Samit and Nicole Perlman
Screenplay by: Dan Hernandez & Benji Samit and Rob Letterman and Derek Connolly
Based on: the “Detective Pikachu” video game developed by Creatures Inc.
Produced by: Mary Parent and Cale Boyter
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Kathryn Newton, Suki Waterhouse, Omar Chaparro, Chris Geere, Rita Ora, Ken Watanabe and Bill Nighy.
Based on the worldwide phenomenon of, Pokémon and video game, “Detective Pikachu”, this film literally features the beloved Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds) wearing a detective hat.
Tim Goodman (Justice Smith, whom you’ll remember from, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)) lost his ambition to become a Pokémon Trainer when his mother died and his father, Detective Harry Goodman, moved away to Ryme City; a place where Howard Clifford (Bill Nighy) has created a city, not just with Pokémon living in it, but with humans and Pokémon working and living, side-by-side.
After finding out his father has gone missing, Tim travels to Ryme City to discover there’s more to his father’s past than he realised.
Junior journalist, Lucy (Kathryn Newton), with a nose for a good story, seeks the answers to Detective Goodman’s disappearance, only to find Tim without a Pokémon partner – ‘Why does everyone keep asking me that!’.
When a Pikachu appears in his father’s apartment, instead of the characteristic Pokémon stating their own name, like, “Psy-Duck. PSY-Duck?” Or in this case, “Pika Pika” – Tim can understand this mysterious Pikachu: this little guy is talkative, coffee addicted and a self-proclaimed detective.
So the somewhat lonely 21-year-old (not so much with Pikachu dancing on this shoulder), nosey journalist and talkative Pokémon investigate the mystery surrounding Tim’s father.
POKÉMON Detective Pikachu is a combination of animated puppets and live actors – the Pokémon critters brought to life so you just want to reach out and give Pikachu’s fur a scratch, setting his back-leg twitching.
The kids in the audience, ooo’d and ahh’d, particularly at the beginning and introduction into the world of Pokémon (and before the action ramped up): this is a kid movie.
I don’t know why I expected the humour to be more adult. Probably because Ryan Reynolds does the voice-over of Pikachu. And although the script doesn’t have that edgy satire I’ve grown used to from Reynold’s characters, this is brilliant casting as he voices some genuinely funny moments like Pikachu making decisions based on ‘feeling it in his jellies.’
There are many amusing moments like the Cubone baby with the bad temper reminding Tim’s best mate Jake (Karan Soni) – would have like more of this character in the film – of his mother. But the jokes were more of the PG variety: cute and sweet.
The action and effects ramp-up as the story progresses, giving the film some suspense and creating some drama with the hope Pikachu and his human, Tim, make it out of yet another scape. And we get the conflict between Tim and his father with the breakdown of their relationship after his mother died, and of course the romance between the two human investigators.
So, not the edgy clever I was hoping for, but we get the expected cuteness with some good laughs and action along the way.
Based on a Concept by: Miranda Tapsell, Joshua Tyler and Glen Condie
Produced by: Rosemary Blight, Kylie du Fresne, Kate Croser
Starring: Miranda Tapsell, Gwilym Lee, Kerry Fox and Huw Higginson.
I feel like I’m glowing after watching Top End Wedding – a blushing bride?! No, but when director Wayne Blair introduced the film he, said, ‘This is good energy.’
And I’ve got to say, I feel it.
Top End Wedding is a warm-hearted, funny movie about Lauren (Miranda Tapsell) who’s just made Associate at her law firm in Adelaide and Ned (Gwilym Lee), also a lawyer, but quits his job when he decides it’s wrong to indict a woman for stealing incontinence pads. And then offers her a tissue as she cries on the stand. Not for her incontinence but for her tears.
When Ned proposes, Lauren whole-heartedly says yes.
With only eleven days leave given by her ball-breaking, super-organised boss, Hampton (Kerry Fox), Lauren decides she wants to get married in Darwin. Her home town. Where her parents still live.
When Ned and Lauren arrive, they find:
Mum (Daffy, played by Ursula Yovich) has gone missing, leaving;
Dad (Trevor, played by Huw Higginson) a wreck and crying and hiding in the pantry, listening to music where eventually he says, ‘I can’t listen to anymore 80s chick music.’
Ned and Lauren’s relationship gets tested as the pressure of the wedding and family weighs on their shoulders. Yet, in the end. It’s all about coming home.
I didn’t expect to enjoy this film as much as I did. And writer and lead Miranda Tapsell had a lot to do with the warmth and beauty of this story.
Producer, Rosemary Blight tells of Miranda wanting to do a romantic comedy: ‘I thought there’d be a whole lot more after The Sapphires and there’d be these feisty, funny Aboriginal screenplays. It didn’t happen. So I wrote it myself.’
There’s a great partnership here, between Miranda and director, Wayne Blair, both previous collaborators on the highly successful, The Sapphires (2012). All the parts work so well.
Top End Wedding feels like a down-to-earth film but there’s a lot of sophistication going here with the timing and segue of scenes and details like all the many different tribes of Aboriginals shown on a map of Australia as the couple travel across the country.
There’s beautiful scenery shot from: Darwin to Kakadu National Park, Katherine, Nitmiluk National Park also including the people of the Tiwi Islands dancing and singing, welcoming the audience into their world, onto their land.
And the soundtrack invites you in, the score from Antony Partos using the ukulele, mandolin and acoustic guitar, and pitched down acoustic guitar so it feels like you’ve been invited to sit around a camp fire.
But it’s the humour that got me – where a lump of sugar is dropped in a cup of tea despite the indecisiveness of an Englishman: do I or don’t I want that lump of sugar? Drop.
The bumbling Brit does OK: there’s nothing wrong with his ‘gum nuts’.
One of my favourite scenes is the golden light held in the air of a white wooden hall, ceiling fans slowly rotating high overhead as an 80s love song plays by a boy she hasn’t met, yet…
Produced by: Charlize Theron, p.g.a., A.J. Dix, p.g.a., Beth Kono, p.g.a., Evan Goldberg, p.g.a., Seth Rogen, p.g.a., James Weaver, p.g.a.
Starring: Charlize Theron, Seth Rogen, O’Shea Jackson Jr., Andy Serkis, June Diane Raphael, with Bob Odenkirk, and Alexander Skarsgård.
Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) has been in love with Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) since he was twelve years old.
Before she was Secretary of State, Charlotte was Fred Flarsky’s baby sitter.
They’ve both grown up since Charlotte wanted to save the planet and become School President; now, she’s campaigning to save the planet and become President of the United States.
Fred, with his gonzo journalistic style has just lost his job. He needs cheering up. Best friend Lance (O’Shea Jackson Jr.) knows what he needs: a classy cocktail party featuring Boys To Men as the entertainment.
Suited-up in teal windbreaker (that he seems to have an attachment to) and tapered cargo pants, Fred happens to meet up with his crush, the now beautiful and powerful Charlotte.
She remembers him. She likes his writing. She decides (against the opinion of her Chief of Staff, Maggi (June Diane Raphael)) to hire Fred as her speech writer.
Long Shot is a rom-com so of course it’s the unlikely couple who fall for each other – the difference in this rom-com, the odd-couple fall for each other while on the campaign trail.
There’s this mix of Charlotte living the high life as a politician and the comedy of Seth Rogan as Fred, the goofy but still witty guy able to write a good speech while reminding Charlotte of her young self: the idealist.
‘I am not nuking a tsunami,’ she states.
Most of the time, the film’s a silly bit of fluff.
There’s some classic comedy with Fred wearing an outfit that looks like, ‘Captain Crunch’s Grindr date.’ But then the film gets romantic, the shift from comedy to romance obvious when the soundtrack starts with, ‘One way. Or another. I’m gonna git ya, git, ya, git, ya…’
It didn’t quite gel right for me.
Charlize Theron as Charlotte is gorgeous in this film – her allure, as always, cool and controlled.
Sure, Fred breaks down this barrier as part of the romance, getting the Secretary of State to chill out, get wasted and fall in love.
And we get an appearance from Alexander Skarsgård (I’m really becoming a fan of this guy) showing his comic genius as the Canadian Prime Minister.
But the mix of romance and politics wasn’t always a success.
