streaming movies comedy free

Directed by : Michael Kaplan, John Morris, Debra Hill, Donald B. Woodruff, Janet Hirshenson, Jane Jenkins, Peter Guber, Jon Peters, John Landis, John Landis

Produced by : Michael Kaplan, John Morris, Debra Hill, Donald B. Woodruff, Janet Hirshenson, Jane Jenkins, Peter Guber, Jon Peters, John Landis, John Landis

Starring : Eileen Brennan, Tim Curry, Madeline Kahn, Christopher Lloyd, Michael McKean, Martin Mull, Lesley Ann Warren, Colleen Camp, Lee Ving, Bill Henderson

Company : Debra Hill Productions, Paramount, The Guber-Peters Company, PolyGram Filmed Entertainment

Release date(s) : 1985-12-13

Running time :94 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :Français, English

Budget :  $15,000,000

Storyline : An amusing take on “And Then There Were None” and “Murder by Death”

RELEASED IN 1985 and directed by Jonathan Lynn, "Clue" is a comedic murder mystery based on the board game featuring an “all-star” cast (Tim Curry, Madeline Kahn, Christopher Lloyd, Eileen Brennan, Lesley Ann Warren, etc.).

This is a good movie if you’re in the mood for an amusing mystery that takes place during the McCarthy era (1954) almost entirely within a vast gothic mansion on a stormy night. It combines movies like “Ten Little Indians” (1965) and “The Beast Must Die” (1974) with the goofiness of “The Private Eyes” (1980).

I was skeptical at how Lynn & the cast could pull off the challenge of making such a confined story entertaining, but I have to admit that I busted out laughing several times (e.g. the scenes of making out with corpses). And the cast is a pleasure to behold with Colleen Camp a highlight as the stereotypical (hot) French maid. The climax with its several murder scenarios is kinda tedious, however.

THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 34 minutes and was shot in Paramount Studios, Hollywood, and Max Busch House, Pasadena, California. WRITERS: Jonathan Lynn and John Landis.

GRADE: B-/C+
Cluedo Chaos.

Clue is directed by Jonathan Lynn and he co-writes with John Landis and Anthony E. Pratt. It stars Eileen Brennan, Tim Curry, Christopher Lloyd, Madeline Kahn, Michael McKean, Martin Mull, Lesley Ann Warren, Colleen Camp and Lee Ving. Music is by John Morris and cinematography by Victor J. Kemper.

Based on the board game Cluedo, plot finds six guests anonymously invited to a large mansion for dinner. All of them have something in common and when their host is killed, they must work with the household staff to identify the murderer because the bodies are starting to pile up.

A sort of madcap "And Then There Were None", Clue has ebullience in spades and a cast revelling in the nutty play. The mystery element is actually secondary to the interactions of this splendid array of characters, where physical and vocal humour is the twin driving force. The shifts between pure mania and deadpannery ensure the pace, even during close quarter chattings in the group, never sags.

It's on the surface silly but taking a closer look it's rejoicing in its own humility, the class distinctions shredded for comedic worth. It's definitely a mood piece, I mean you have to be in a good move to go with its flow. For to be down and blue it's more likely to irritate than to cheer one up. The makers are on form, in front of and behind the camera, while Morris' musical score is proper perky.

A flop on release, and mauled in serious critic circles, Clue has garnered a cult fanbase over the decades. So much so it sits with a healthy rating on the main movie data base. It's hard to recommend with great confidence, for it is an acquired taste. But it's a one of a kind from the 1980s, a pic that you should try just in case you do become a fan for life. 7/10
Those three alternate endings were still very confusing.
But it was still humorous nonetheless.

Directed by : Francine Maisler, Rupert Gregson-Williams, Jennifer Aniston, Renée April, Charlize Theron, Kathy Driscoll, Michele Laliberte, Beau Flynn, Barry Bernardi, John Stoneham Jr.

Produced by : Francine Maisler, Rupert Gregson-Williams, Jennifer Aniston, Renée April, Charlize Theron, Kathy Driscoll, Michele Laliberte, Beau Flynn, Barry Bernardi, John Stoneham Jr.

Starring : Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston, Luke Evans, Terence Stamp, Gemma Arterton, David Walliams, Dany Boon, John Kani, Adeel Akhtar, Ólafur Darri Ólafsson

Company : Vinson Films, Endgame Entertainment, Tower Hill Entertainment, Happy Madison Productions, Denver and Delilah Productions

Release date(s) : 2019-05-25

Running time :97 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $24,000,000

Storyline :

Directed by : Charles Roven, Raja Gosnell, Mary Vernieu, David Newman, David Newman, Andrew Mason, Lisa Brennan, Alan Glazer, Frank Welker, Erwin H. Kupitz

Produced by : Charles Roven, Raja Gosnell, Mary Vernieu, David Newman, David Newman, Andrew Mason, Lisa Brennan, Alan Glazer, Frank Welker, Erwin H. Kupitz

Starring : Freddie Prinze Jr., Sarah Michelle Gellar, Matthew Lillard, Linda Cardellini, Rowan Atkinson, Neil Fanning, Isla Fisher, Miguel A. Núñez, Jr., Pamela Anderson, Scott Innes

Company : Atlas Entertainment, Mosaic Media Group, Warner Bros. Pictures

Release date(s) : 2002-06-14

Running time :88 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $84,000,000

Storyline :

Directed by : Brian Tyler, Andrew M. Stearn, James Vanderbilt, Brad Fischer, Tripp Vinson, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, William Sherak, Brett Jutkiewicz, Tyler Gillett, Chad Villella

Produced by : Brian Tyler, Andrew M. Stearn, James Vanderbilt, Brad Fischer, Tripp Vinson, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, William Sherak, Brett Jutkiewicz, Tyler Gillett, Chad Villella

Starring : Samara Weaving, Adam Brody, Henry Czerny, Andie MacDowell, Melanie Scrofano, Elyse Levesque, Kristian Bruun, John Ralston, Mark O'Brien, Nicky Guadagni

Company : Mythology Entertainment, Vinson Films, Fox Searchlight Pictures

Release date(s) : 2019-08-21

Running time :95 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $6,000,000

Storyline : If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

Once again, I didn’t know anything going into the theater regarding this movie. In fact, Ready or Not wasn’t even on my watchlist until the beginning of this week. I thought it was just going to be a passable and cheap horror flick, but the tremendously positive feedback from everyone around the world convinced me to give it a go. Fortunately, I wasn’t disappointed! Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett deliver a dumb yet entertaining film with a childish yet fun concept never really explored in the gruesome and bloody way they do.

It’s one of those movies which the only flaw they might have has to do with the viewer’s expectations. You’ll only dislike this story if you don’t accept its lighthearted tone. If you go in expecting a film filled with truly terrifying and scary sequences, you won’t get that. If you go in expecting a movie with a dark vibe and tonally heavy scenes, you won’t get that. It’s one of the most common issues that audiences have all over the world: unrealistic expectations. After watching the trailers, it’s clear that Ready or Not was always marketed as a horror-comedy with more emphasis on the dumb fun that the concept inevitably provides, so don’t expect something the producers didn’t even think of doing.

Having that in mind, the film definitely delivers what it promises. It’s a fast-paced hide-and-seek game, filled with suspenseful scenes and genuinely funny moments. Its short runtime doesn’t really let us care about every character, but to be fair, it’s not like it truly matters in this case. Samara Weaving plays the bride who has to hide while the rest of the family tries to find her. Overall, everyone gives good performances, but Weaving completely steals the show with fantastic reactions to different situations, always making space for an extra laugh.

Despite the unique exploration of a strange premise, it has a pretty generic and even formulaic development, which is a bit of a letdown. Granted, the ending is, well, unexpected in the way that it is executed, but its final result is still very predictable. There’s a lot of cheesy moments, some do work, but others aren’t near as effective. The score is actually one of the surprises since it’s not usual for this feature to have such an impact in a rather simple movie. It provides a few chuckles with some witty lyrics, and it helps with elevating the suspense in the more tense sequences. It’s also mostly well-shot and set in one-location, something I always deeply appreciate.

All in all, Ready or Not accomplishes exactly what it set out to do. It delivers a fun and entertaining 90-minute hide-and-seek game like we’ve never seen before. Its R rating lets its makers do whatever they please with the amount of blood and goriness present in a scene, which ultimately culminates in a jaw-dropping, hilarious ending. Samara Weaving is brilliant as the main character, carrying the whole film on her shoulders. Is it cliche? Yes. Is it formulaic and predictable? Yes. Is it cheesy? Hell, yes. However, this movie never intended to be a groundbreaking achievement in the genre. It just wants to deliver good fun. And it does.

Rating: B-
**_An entertaining horror-comedy that takes aim at the decadence and insularity of the 1%_**

>_So distribution should undo excess,/And each man have enough._

- William Shakespeare; _His True Chronicle Historie of the life and death of King Lear, and his three Daughters. With the vnfortunate life of Edgar, sonne and heire to the Earle of Gloster, and his sullen and assumed humour of Tom of Bedlam_, 4.i.73-74 (1605-1606)

>_In the long run, men inevitably become the victims of their wealth. They adapt their lives and habits to their money, not their money to their lives. It preoccupies t__heir thoughts, creates artificial needs, and draws a curtain between them and the world._

- Herbert Croly; _The Promise of American Life_ (1909)

>_I don't want to be married just to be married. I can't think of anything lonelier than spending the rest of my life with someone I can't talk to, or worse, someone I can't be silent with._

- Mary Ann Shaffer; _The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society_ (2008)

On August 3, 2018, Patrick Crusius murdered 22 people and injured 24 in a mass shooting in El Paso, TX. Just over 12 hours later, Connor Betts murdered nine people and injured 17 in a mass shooting in Dayton, OH. On August 10, Universal Pictures announced they had pulled Craig Zobel's eagerly awaited film _The Hunt_ from its scheduled release date on September 27. Telling the story of 12 strangers who are hunted for the amusement of a group of wealthy elites, in the wake of the shootings, the film had been accused by hysterical conservatives of portraying liberal elites hunting Donald Trump supporters. On August 7, for example, Matt Margolis of _PJ Media_ wrote,

>_in the past few days we've been hearing a lot about how Donald Trump's rhetoric is apparently to blame for the El Paso shooting, yet Hollywood apparently lacked the foresight to think that a movie promoting violence against "deplorables" might be in bad taste until after the shootings in El Paso and Dayton._

He also claimed, incorrectly, that the film was originally called _Red State Vs. Blue State_, before concluding,

>_apparently, some in Hollywood are more than willing to promote violence against Trump supporters. Meanwhile, Democrats and liberals in the media want us to believe that it's Trump's rhetoric that needs to be toned down._

On August 9, Trump himself tweeted, "_the movie coming out is made in order to inflame and cause chaos_" (as opposed to his own balm-like rhetoric, which is renowned for bringing people together), saying of Hollywood in general, "_they create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and are very bad for our Country!_" (because responding to a mass shooting by condemning a film you haven't seen makes way more sense than, oh, I don't know, tightening gun laws and outlawing the indefensible sale of automatic weaponry to the public. Way more sense).

So, what does any of this have to do with _Ready or Not_? Well, it's just curious that _Ready or Not_ has a very similar plot (elites hunting common folk), yet it has arrived in theatres without the slightest hint of controversy. Of course, despite what right-wing commentators would have us think about _The Hunt_, the theme of elites hunting the less privileged is nothing new. As far as I'm aware, it was first explored in Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game" (1924). And now in _Ready or Not_, except with tongue firmly in cheek. Written by Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy (aka Ryan Murphy), and directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, _Ready or Not_ is a horror-comedy and a social satire that comically exaggerates the anxieties attendant with marrying into a wealthy family and mocks the insular nature of such families, so obsessed with their wealth that they've become disconnected from the real world. And whilst it can be a tad episodic at times, and the manner in which it presents some of its violence is somewhat problematic, this is a very enjoyable and funny film that's well worth checking out.

After a brief prologue, the film cuts to the wedding day of Grace (an exceptional Samara Weaving) and Alex Le Domas (Mark O'Brien). The Le Domas family started out printing playing cards but earned its fortune making board games, and the family has now become decadently wealthy, owning several sports franchises (when Grace asks Alex if they refer to themselves as an "empire", he half-jokingly says they prefer the term "dominion"). Several years previously, Alex turned his back on the family, even though he's in line to inherit the business, and it's only since he met Grace (a foster child eager to have a family to call her own) that he has started to rebuild bridges. His return to the fold has made his mother Becky (Andie McDowell) especially happy, and she makes sure Grace knows how appreciative she is. Alex's father, Tony (a barely sane Henry Czerny) is more ambivalent; he's polite and respectful to Grace, but she's convinced he doesn't like her. There's no such ambiguity with Helene (a hilariously acerbic Nicky Guadagni), Tony's sister, who makes no bones about the fact that she hates Grace. Elsewhere there's Alex's brother Daniel (Adam Brody), an alcoholic locked in a loveless marriage to Charity (Elyse Levesque), but who is deeply thankful that he has Alex back in his life. Offering Grace a get-out-of-jail card just prior to the wedding, Alex tells her if she wants to leave, he will let her go. She dismisses the offer, however, and the two are wed. Shortly thereafter, Alex and Daniel's cocaine-addicted sister Emilie (a wonderfully hapless Melanie Scrofano) and her husband Fitch Bradley (a scene-stealing Kristian Bruun) arrive at the estate, apologising for missing the ceremony. It's at this point that Alex explains a strange family tradition to Grace – whenever someone new marries into the clan, they must participate in a game, chosen at random by a mechanised box using a deck of cards (Charity got checkers when she married Daniel). Alex is worried that Grace might get the hide and seek card, but Tony assures him that's highly unlikely – stating that in his lifetime, only one person has ever gotten that card; Helene's husband (something of which we saw in the prologue). At a disturbingly austere ceremony, Grace is asked to operate the box and so the game can commence…and she receives the hide and seek card, with Tony explaining that the only way for her to win is to stay hidden until dawn. And so, Grace hides in the mansion, unaware that the family (_sans_ Alex) are arming themselves with crossbows, axes, hunting rifles, and assorted antique weaponry. This is no ordinary game of hide and seek.

The film's various psychoanalytical/satirical subtexts are fairly obvious – a lampooning of blue blood families clueless as to how the real world works, a savage deconstruction of the institution of marriage, and a gynocentric/fempowerment celebration of a woman fighting back against old-world patriarchy. In relation to these last two themes, nowhere are they more apparent than in Grace's wedding dress, that most classic symbol of marriage, which becomes dirtier and more damaged as the film progresses, with costume designer Avery Plewes using the dress to show the stages of Grace's symbolic dismantling of the institution of marriage (to survive the night, she must make the dress more conducive to running and hiding, which involves a lot of ripping and tearing). In this sense, each time Grace evades capture or strikes back against her pursuers, she is chipping away at the foundation of everything in which the Le Domas family believe, quite literally deconstructing the very concepts of marriage and old-world patriarchy.

Concerning the film's engagement with wealth, essentially it suggests that, yes, as we all know, the rich are very different from you and I, but could it be that not only are they different, maybe they're actually evil? Maybe their wealth is built on the suffering of others in a very literal sense and maybe the difficulty they have accepting it when someone who they see as their social inferior marries into their circle manifests itself in actual violence. Of course, it's not suggesting this with anything even approaching realism, and much of the film's humour comes from the Le Domas family itself; sure, they're wealthy, evil, violent, and powerful. But so too are they hilariously incompetent. For example, it's been so long since anyone has got the hide and seek card that everyone is a little fuzzy on the rules, and they spend a good chunk of the film arguing with one another about the hunt – people like Fitch and Charity want to use modern weapons, but Tony maintains they have to use antique weaponry, nor are they allowed to use the castle's security cameras to track Grace.

This all goes back to a century-old deal made between the family's original patriarch Victor and a mysterious traveller named Mr Le Bail, who may, or may not, be Satan. Le Bail promised Victor that the family would become hugely wealthy, but only if they maintained the tradition of having new family members play a game on their wedding night, laying out the rules for what was to happen if they got the hide and seek card. Tony argues that the rules can be no different from those originally established by Le Bail, but, really, his argument never amounts to much more than "_tradition...reasons_". The film makes no bones about the fact that the family is comically inept, and it gets a lot of laughs out of showing characters trying to get to grips with their weapon – from Fitch taking time out from the hunt to look up "how to use a crossbow" videos on YouTube to Emilie accidentally dispatching several maids due to her inability to handle her weapon (more on this in a moment).

Another theme, although one not developed to the extent of the above, is religion. Le Bail, for example, is believed by the family to be a demonic figure, and his name, obviously enough, is an anagram of Belial, the demon from the Tanakh, who is described in _The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness_, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as the "King of Evil" and the "Prince of Darkness", and who would later form the basis for the Christian and Jewish depiction of Satan. On the other hand, Grace's name most likely references the idea of Divine grace, which is defined by _ChristianEducation.org_ as,

>_a sharing in the divine life. It is the infused presence of God, a presence that is supernatural, not merely natural. Human persons are not born in a state of grace. And there is nothing we can do ourselves to earn grace. Rather, divine grace is favour, and it is freely bestowed._

Elsewhere, the film depicts a pit of slaughtered goats, alluding to ritual animal sacrifice, which is a pre-Christian practice. Goats are also important in Christianity, especially in the practice of scapegoating, whereby a goat takes upon them the sins of the community and is cast into the desert, symbolically removing the taint of those sins (as per Leviticus 16:8-10; "_Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the LORD's lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness._") Along the same lines, Grace injures her hand on a nail, in a veiled reference to the Stigmata. However, whether or not we're supposed to interpret her as a Christ figure is hard to say as, although these references are interesting in isolation, they never really coalesce into anything concrete.

Looking at some other problems, despite its themes, the film is, generally speaking, very slight; it's short and it's silly, and it's not going to change your life or lead you down the road of esoteric revolution. The violence is also (somewhat) problematic. The film maintains the stance that the rich are insane and the violence they mete out is contemptible. However, some of the biggest laughs are reserved for Emilie's accidental killing of the maids. And I have to admit, I found the way she haplessly dispatches two of them exceptionally funny (especially her comment after the second one, "_why does this keep happening to me_"). Also funny is that after one of the kills, the family are trying to have a conversation, which is continually interrupted by the gurgling of a mortally wounded maid; until Helene takes an axe to her head. And again, I have to admit, I laughed a lot at that scene, even though I recognised that the film was essentially asking the audience to see this violence as funny but some of the violence elsewhere as not so much.

In this sense, it kind of wants to have its cake and eat it. In _Natural Born Killers_ (1994), Oliver Stone gets away with asking the audience to laugh at horrific violence because he's fairly consistent in depicting all violence as funny (whether it's being shot by a bullet that stops in mid-air, getting drowned in a fish tank and simultaneously beaten with a tire-iron, having a perfectly circular hole shot through your hand, or having your head literally ripped off by rioting inmates). Here, the film picks and chooses when the audience should laugh; it takes Grace's stakes seriously but also encourages us to laugh at some (and only some) of the violence, which is problematically inconsistent.

Nevertheless, as I said, these scenes did make me laugh, so make of that what you will (it may say more about me than the film). Although _Ready or Not_ is slight, its satirical ire is focused, even if the tendency towards irreverence doesn't always chime with the tone of the socio-political agenda. Is it the greatest horror-comedy of all time? Good Lord, no. Indeed, it doesn't have much in the way of scares at all. But it sure is funny, allegorically skewering inherited wealth, marriage, tradition, even religion on occasion. With atavistic rules and sense of entitlement, the Le Domas family embody the concept that old-money can lead to an insularity from modernity, preventing the work-a-day world from entering their gated estates. Offering us a match, the film suggests that perhaps the only way to deal with such irrelevancies and their sense of self-importance is to burn them to the ground. And it has a blast showing us why.
‘Ready or Not’ doesn’t sport as many laughs as you'd want for this ridiculous story, nor is it dark enough to be a true horror; it's just gory and violent with the occasional jump scare and anxiety-ridden scene. So while it doesn’t meet expectations or desires, it’s still a fun, thrilling, wicked romp through the blood-soaked mansion and goat barn.

So prepare yourself for squeals of fear, squeals of delight, squeals of patriotism and the occasional giggled “WTF!?”... because here it comes!
- Jess Fenton

Read Jess' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-ready-or-not-not-quite-horror-not-quite-comedy-but-a-wickedly-good-time
Fun little horror-thriller-(dark)comedy that was entertaining enough and features a great performance from Samara Weaving, who has similar command of the scene like her uncle. Story-wise, not groundbreaking but as someone who generally doesn't enjoy dark comedies, this one worked for me. **3.5/5**
I've never kept it secret that I have a personal issue with Samara Weaving, but I try to keep things like that out of my mind, and, even though I know it's impossible to be truly objective about something as subjective as art, at least attempt to be **impartial**. And bearing that in mind, _Ready or Not_ is... Okay. Pretty good even. Disappointing, if I'm honest, given the hype and the trailer, but still. Pretty good.

_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
Fantastic watch, will watch again, and do recommend.

This is such a great crazy, survivalist premise: an average lady that just wants to marry her man gets served up into a human hunting game, and she's a bad ass. Samara Weaving nails every aspect of this role. I did recognize a couple other actors: Melanie Scrofano (Wyanna Earp), Adam Brody, and Andie MacDowell, but none of the family really stands out other than Melanie, and that is more of circumstance, but they put the right person in that role at least.

The setting is limited to the estate grounds, but even if they built the sets for that place, it is bloody amazing and lends to the visuals both when they're displaying the house as being expansion and when they're showing it as a trap.

I'm actually short on words to why it is as good as it is, the writing is top notch and the set it great, but the acting is only good (other than Samara), and there aren't huge effects. Maybe it's the subtly of the effects they do show, and the details they go into in both presentation of the scene and the chosen dialogue. This movie definitely creates a permeable atmosphere for the audience.

If you're okay with blood / gore / violence, then give it a go, it should be a good time.

Directed by : Charles Roven, Ruth Lambert, Chris Columbus, Tony Cervone, Allison Abbate, Junkie XL, Richard Suckle, Eyal Podell, Pam Coats, Adam Sztykiel

Produced by : Charles Roven, Ruth Lambert, Chris Columbus, Tony Cervone, Allison Abbate, Junkie XL, Richard Suckle, Eyal Podell, Pam Coats, Adam Sztykiel

Starring : Don Messick, Frank Welker, Will Forte, Amanda Seyfried, Mark Wahlberg, Jason Isaacs, Gina Rodriguez, Zac Efron, Kiersey Clemons, Ken Jeong

Company : Warner Animation Group, Warner Bros. Pictures, Hanna-Barbera Productions

Release date(s) : 2020-07-08

Running time :94 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget : 

Storyline : I guess I can commend Warner Bros. for attempting to revitalise their Scooby-Doo brand and give parents something to show their kids while they've been stuck at home, but when there's a plethora of new and old (much, much better) kid's films, the best thing would be to Scooby-Dooby-do your kids a favour and skip this one.
- Ashley Teresa

Read Ashley's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-scoob-mystery-swapped-for-money-hungry-mayhem
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

I was never the biggest fan of Scooby-Doo's animated cartoon when I was young. I enjoyed it like any other kid who enjoys almost everything, but it was never a show that made me nervously excited during the day, waiting for it to come on TV. I vividly remember getting pumped, knowing that a new episode of Dragon Ball Z or Timon & Pumba would broadcast on that particular day. I never felt that way with Scooby-Doo, and honestly, I don't know why. I was always curious about sci-fi and "what lies beyond", so maybe the fact that the goal of the show was to justify every single paranormal activity with some "guy in a mask" didn't really appeal to the kid in me...

Either way, I still liked the series, and my memory is filled with all of the show's classic signatures: the (double or even triple) un-masking of the villains, Scooby jumping to Shaggy's arms because they both got scared, the ridiculously large sandwiches, you name it. Ironically, the biggest compliment I can give the film also relates to its major flaw. For any fan of the show, these classic moments will provide high levels of nostalgia and entertainment, so anyone who comes looking for that will definitely get what they desire.

However, even though Scoob! is far from feeling like a corporate flick packed with product placement (looking at you, Sonic the Hedgehog), I can't help but feel that the studio was embarrassed by its own property. They try so hard to make this movie belong to 2020 that they completely forgot about what makes the show special for so many people. From the weirdly confusing song selection to the way too modern plot points, Scoob! 's narrative distinctly follows an Avengers-style plot (including an obvious allusion to Captain America holding his shield) focusing strongly on the superhero theme.

They didn't believe that Mystery Inc. and the (successful) formulaic story were enough to hold the target audience's attention, so they decided to borrow from one of the most entertaining and financially impactful genres of today, losing the essence of their own IP. Therefore, despite Scoob! having almost all of the cartoon's classic scenes, it still feels detached from the source material. In addition to this, if you're not a fan of Scooby-Doo and if you don't know anything about it, then don't expect this film to explain anything to you.

Fred, Velma, and Daphne get separated from Shaggy and Scooby early on (due to a hilariously dumb scene that only kids will accept), so almost no character development occurs within the first group of people. This movie focuses more on the pair's adventure and their relationship dynamics (which are explored in a cliche yet efficient manner), leaving 3/5 of the Mystery Inc. feeling left off. Actually, now that I think about it, Scoob! doesn't even have a mystery to solve!

In the cartoons, every episode is about discovering what or who's causing a specific paranormal event. This film basically follows that formula for the first fifteen minutes (which serve as an origin story of the gang) and then takes an entirely different path story-wise. I'm not going to complain about the plot's absurdity because it's undeniably a kids' movie, but these forced attempts to adapt Scooby-Doo to 2020 are what ruin the whole thing for me. The voice acting is great, though, and hearing Frank Welker interpret Scooby again is incredibly joyful.

All in all, Scoob! possesses almost all of the classic moments from the original cartoon, which will surely leave fans of the series satisfied and feeling that heartwarming nostalgia. In addition to this, the voice work is really good for the most part, especially from the legend, Frank Welker as Scooby. However, the studio hurts the film with countless attempts to adapt the formulaic yet successful screenplay that the show employed for decades into 2020. From the superhero-like plot to the lack of a central mystery, Tony Cervone finds himself in a writing mess (four screenwriters and three "story by" credits) from a company ashamed of its own product. If you're a hardcore fan of the animated show, this movie might leave you satisfied. But if you don't share a special connection with these characters and their classic adventures, or if you don't know anything about this franchise at all, Scoob! not only doesn't care to introduce or develop its characters, but it definitely isn't going to convert you.

Rating: C-
It was an okay Scooby-Doo movie for the kids. The animation looks great and for the most part the voice talents were good, especially Zac Efron as Fred was great, as were Gina Rodriguez and Amanda Seyfried as Velma and Daphne respectively. However, wasn't that thrilled with Will Forte's Shaggy (still think Matthew Lillard has been perfect thus far, I know they wanted a name, but doubt star power sells movies nowadays).

Anyway, it was a serviceable enough animated flick, personally I'm not a fan of the supernatural plots when it comes to the Scooby-Doo franchise, but fine for the family, so long as you're not an entrenched fan, I can see why some may hate this iteration. **3.25/5**

Directed by : Andrew Dickler, Allison Jones, Matt Friedman, Paul C. Warschilka, Akiva Schaffer, Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, Dylan Sellers, Quyen Tran, Colin Wilkes

Produced by : Andrew Dickler, Allison Jones, Matt Friedman, Paul C. Warschilka, Akiva Schaffer, Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, Dylan Sellers, Quyen Tran, Colin Wilkes

Starring : Andy Samberg, Cristin Milioti, J.K. Simmons, Peter Gallagher, Meredith Hagner, Camila Mendes, Tyler Hoechlin, Chris Pang, Jacqueline Obradors, June Squibb

Company : Limelight, Party Over Here, Neon, The Lonely Island, Culmination Productions

Release date(s) : 2020-08-20

Running time :90 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget : 

Storyline : If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

If you've been following me for a while, you know I'm not the biggest fan of rom-coms. It's not that I don't like the genre (I appreciate and enjoy every single one), but I find its movies tremendously difficult to *really* love. The massive majority follow the genre's formulas and cliches to such an extent that I rarely end up truly loving one of these films. Some are way too cheesy. Others are way too unrealistic and dream-like. But the aspect that throws me off the most is the lack of originality. I can't remember the last rom-com I watched that didn't borrow from countless other installments. I didn't know a thing about Palm Springs: no trailers, no knowledge of critics/audience's opinion, nothing... And I'm extremely happy about that!

I usually watch the main trailer for every film I review *after* I've seen the actual movie. I ignore all other trailers, clips, images, and so on. I do this so I can have some sort of knowledge regarding how far I can take my spoiler-free reviews. This way, I'm sure that I don't write about something I shouldn't. The official trailer for this film doesn't ruin the experience in any way, but it does tell its viewers the most relevant aspect of its screenplay. So, I could address it in this review, but I won't... because I enjoyed this movie a lot more, not knowing a thing about it than if I knew how it developed its story.

Therefore, I'll keep it really vague, and just write that Andy Siara's first feature-film screenplay can easily snatch a couple of nominations when the awards season comes around. This is a rom-com like no other due to its refreshingly unique concept. It's true that it's not an entirely new method of storytelling. Many other movies also employ this idea, but Siara holds so many surprises within his narrative and so few of the genre's common traits that the whole film is elevated by his outstanding writing.

It's one of the most entertaining movies of the year. With a short runtime and a fast pace, Palm Springs is constantly being genuinely fun, engaging, and even mysteriously intriguing. Its original plot makes the viewer think and remember previous lines that take a whole different meaning a few minutes later. There are no predictably dumb narrative decisions, and its characters escape the cheesy and forced relationships that these films usually insert them in. The dialogues are hilariously captivating. Almost every single plot point packs an emotional punch, a jaw-dropping revelation that never crossed the viewer's mind.

Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti share such great chemistry. Their characters are exceptionally developed, and their relationship feels incredibly real. I'm rarely that viewer who requires the main characters to be together, kiss, fall in love, and all that, but Nyles and Sarah are two wonderful protagonists I can definitely root for. Both carry an interesting "baggage", which is also explored at a deep level. They deal very differently with the "situation" that the story puts them in, and it's so much fun to watch them go through it and evolve as characters. Oh, and J.K. Simmons (Roy)... this man doesn't know how not to be utterly remarkable!

Max Barbakow (directorial debut) demonstrates his talents as well, by allowing Siara's screenplay to shine under impeccable direction. Tonally, it never loses its balance. It keeps its comedy pretty grounded, considering the craziness of its premise. It never relies on the genre's formulas, cliches, and cheesy outcomes. It really separates itself from the majority of modern rom-coms. I don't really have any flaws to point out... The ending does have a "just accept it" narrative component, and there are a couple of unnecessary scenes, but I'm nitpicking here.

I can't believe I'm going to write this, but Palm Springs is not only one of the best rom-coms I've ever seen, but it's also one of the best (if not *the* best) movies of 2020, so far. With the help of their first-time director (Max Barbakow), Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti spread their extraordinary chemistry all over the innovative, original narrative, written by the also debutant, Andy Siara. The latter is undoubtedly the main responsible for such an entertaining film. Siara takes an imaginative concept and develops it in the most captivating, fun, hilarious, and even intriguing way possible. A surprising screenplay packed with emotionally impactful plot points, revelations, and twists that keep the enjoyment levels extremely high. The two protagonists are exceptionally developed, as well as their compelling relationship. With a fast pace and a perfect balance of its tone, Palm Springs sets itself apart from the other movies of the genre, staying away from all of the cliches, formulas, and stereotypes associated with it. J.K. Simmons also lends his awesomeness because why not? Whether you're a fan of rom-coms or not, I definitely suggest giving this one a look. You won't be disappointed!

Rating: A
If you're looking for a wholesome heartwarming movie, This is the movie you're looking for.
Great watch, will watch again, and can recommend, especially for fans of "time shifting" tropes.

Time shifting is where your mind goes back in time, but not your body. Essentially everything resets like a save point, except your have all this knowledge.

"Time shifting" was made popular by "Groundhog's Day" and there have been several movies that mainly consist of dying / sleeping and repeating like a video game, and this isn't THAT different with a few exceptions that make all the difference in the experience.

Andy Samberg (Brooklyn Nine-Nine) finally steps up and shows everyone that he can do a somewhat serious role, and not just a straight man. Cristin Milioti (How I Met Your Mother) does an excellent job in her lead role, with a great supporting cast, to include J.K. Simmons (Cave Johnson) leading a wonderful supporting cast, except for Tyler Hoechlin (CW Superman: "Supergirl", "Flash", etc.), who I might just not like because he was Superman, but it's supposed to be an disliked character...so....good job?

The medium of the transfer being shown is an interesting option as we saw in the "Happy Death Day" movies, but it does allow for a reasoning of how it works, can it be broken / manipulated as opposed to divine will. Most importantly, it allows for more than just one subject being affected, which is really where it gets set apart.

The trope bleeds a little when you have multiple people trapped in the loop: you have multiple people trapped in a thing: you have multiple people trapped in a prison. When multiple people are trapped in a environment together, they tend to get a little strange, and we get that sort of thing a plenty. Because we have multiple story threads to follow, we're almost seeing 3 stories all overlapping, and the movie does a great job of showing those, whether or not their in chronological order, or happening at the same time.

Whether you see it as a prison break movie, or a time loop movie, this movie has a lot of fun in it, along with deep metaphysical philosophy, so there is something for everyone.

Directed by : Mary Vernieu, Tom Karnowski, Tom Karnowski, Ren Klyce, Bob Ducsay, Rian Johnson, Rian Johnson, Rian Johnson, Ram Bergman, Nathan Johnson

Produced by : Mary Vernieu, Tom Karnowski, Tom Karnowski, Ren Klyce, Bob Ducsay, Rian Johnson, Rian Johnson, Rian Johnson, Ram Bergman, Nathan Johnson

Starring : Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson, Toni Collette, Lakeith Stanfield, Christopher Plummer, Katherine Langford

Company : Lionsgate, MRC, T-Street

Release date(s) : 2019-11-27

Running time :131 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :Español, English

Budget :  $40,000,000

Storyline : This is a crime thriller that’s been a long time in the making. Mystery fans rejoice: ‘Knives Out’ is an impeccable cinematic achievement, laced with sardonic wit, division and conflict, and of course a perplexing puzzle. This is easily one of the most fun films of 2019 - it’s both a brilliant piece of entertainment and beautifully crafted enigma. Sit back, relax, and try to crack the code.
- Charlie David Page

Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-knives-out-a-whodunnit-worthy-of-agatha-christies-hercule-poirot
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

Knives Out has been shown in numerous festivals, and it received massive acclaim in literally every single one of them. Therefore, its hype grew more and more until its wide release date. Before the film, I can’t deny that I was indeed affected by the whole “a whodunnit like you haven’t seen in years.” I went into the theater with high expectations, not only due to the festival praise but due to its jaw-dropping cast. It’s uncommon to possess such a renowned ensemble and deliver a “bad” movie, especially when Rian Johnson is writing and directing it (yes, I like The Last Jedi, and even if I didn’t, he did other stuff, you know?). It’s one of those films everyone knows it’s going to be appreciated by a considerable part of the world.

Even the genre itself is a very welcome type of cinema entertainment in regards to both critics and the general public. So, does it live up to its hype, or it fails to reach such high expectations? Knives Out is one of the best movies of the year, as well as one of the best mystery-suspense stories of the millennium (everyone is doing the whole “best X of the decade,” I’m going one step beyond). This is a film I know I’m going to rewatch countless times throughout the next years. Usually, when it comes to whodunnits, people are misled into thinking that from the moment they know who “did it,” the movie loses its interest. This is rarely true, and Rian Johnson succeeds because he doesn’t need the ultimate reveal to deliver a great story.

This screenplay is definitely getting tons of nominations and wins during the awards season. Every little line of dialogue means something. Every single character says or does something impactful to the narrative (except for Jaeden Martell’s). It’s been half-a-day since I’ve seen it, and for every question that my brain comes up with, there’s an answer lying on someone’s words or actions. It’s such an intricate, complex, extremely subtle script. One with so many tiny, little details that it’s impossible to catch them all on a first viewing.

I genuinely love the first act, even if it’s the one where I have a minor issue. Rian Johnson doesn’t waste time and puts us directly in the crime scene, interviewing each and every member of the family. It’s through these interrogatories that he cleverly introduces the suspects, developing them solely through masterfully written dialogue, and outstanding performances. For example, with a single sentence and a particular body/face expression, Toni Collette instantly creates a profile of Joni, her character. Rian plays with character-types and cliches in such an intelligent manner. He makes us think a particular character follows a specific cliche, then it doesn’t, then it does again…

That’s one of the reasons I couldn’t figure out the mystery until the last act reveal. Every time I was close to indeed follow the right path, new developments arise, meant to mislead, confuse, and create doubts. Some people feel better with themselves if they solve the case before the film. They feel “intellectually superior” just because they found out before everyone else. First of all, I prefer being fooled and end up blown away by an unexpected conclusion than solving the whole thing way before time’s up and end up disappointed and bored. Then, honestly, anyone who says, “I guessed it,” there’s a 99% chance that they’re either lying or not answering correctly to the question “who killed Harlan?” If you’ve seen the movie, you’ll understand what I’m trying to express.

(I don’t want to sound presumptuous or hypocritical. I’m not trying to say, “I couldn’t figure it out, so no one can.” Please, if you haven’t seen the film, judge the previous paragraph after your viewing.)

Throughout the second and third acts, loose ends start to tie up, ending up with a brilliantly delivered reveal. From the marvelous cinematography (with those classic close-ups when a character is about to say something meaningful or tell a story through their imagination or memory) to the remarkable editing, the team behind Rian Johnson did a phenomenal job. The suspense is held at high levels, and it reaches limit-breaking points with Marta Cabrera’s (Ana de Armas) narrative. Armas and Daniel Craig deliver the standout performances, with Chris Evans (Ransom) following right behind. Literally, everyone else offers excellent displays, and help carry a story filled with mystery, but also with a lot of humor.

However, I have to emphasize how astonishing Ana de Armas and Daniel Craig are. Ana might be a bit unknown to most people. I’ve been supporting her ever since Blade Runner 2049, so I’m ecstatic that she finally got a major role in a big movie, especially within an ensemble of actors with legendary careers. Craig, who could have just delivered a slight variation of the character he’s been playing for years, instead offers a unique take on the Detective role. Just like Evans, both have been playing iconic characters for years, so it’s sort of an extra joke to everyone who watched Captain America and James Bond for the past decade or so.

My only minor issue has nothing to do with the political undertone and the social messages Rian Johnson puts in this film. Honestly, I love that aspect of it. It’s like Rian knew some people would complain about it, so he made sure to have a couple of characters (Jaeden Martell’s Jacob and Katherine Langford’s Meg) somewhat resembling the so-called snowflakes and all that. No, my issue is related to some excessive exposition regarding the first act’s interrogatories. It’s great that every character gets their own motivations, but it feels like each confrontation with the detectives went on for a bit too long. Some pieces of the mystery might be a bit hard to believe that they would occur, but these are all nitpicks in a remarkable movie.

In the end, Rian Johnson is able to bounce back from the divisive The Last Jedi with one of the best whodunnits I’ve ever seen, Knives Out. Rian proves that not only he’s a talented filmmaker but also a phenomenal screenwriter. With a renowned and impressive ensemble cast, Daniel Craig and Ana de Armas are standouts within all of the other outstanding performances, Chris Evans being right behind. With one of the best screenplays of the year, the mystery at its center keeps everyone extremely captivated until the very end, even if you guess “who did it” beforehand. Masterfully written dialogue, remarkable editing, and great use of classic cinematography techniques. It’s an entertaining story with tremendous replay value and significant political/social layers that only elevate the already complex yet subtle narrative. Don’t miss it!

Rating: A
I did not think that _Last Jedi_ was a very good movie, but I have always been a fan of Rian Johnson. And honestly? _Knives Out_ is a strong contender for his best work yet. I have never seen a whodunnit like this before. Seeing this in a theatre was the poppy-poppy-paper of movie-going experiences, because I so enjoyed that.

_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._
“This case is like a donut
with a hole
in the middle of a donut hole.
Actually,
it's a donut within a donut's hole.”

‘Knives Out’ subverted my expectations...in a good way. A smartly written whodunit movie that manages to be both humorous and classy. The kind of murder mystery that never fails to entertain. Pleasing both cinephiles and mainstream audiences. Perfectly balance, as all things should be. It basically pulls a Hitchcock on us.

Rian Johnson is a great director, but at times has silly ideas. On the other hand, when given the right material I think he’s a great director and writer. He’s also a clever man, but never came off as annoying. The dialogue was so sharply written that I could tell the cast loved every minute of soaking up and delivering these lines. The cinematography was nothing short but beautiful and will often linger in rooms of the house which helps the audience immerse in the overall setting.

One of the tightest scripts of the year with raw humor and a satisfying mystery/comedy.

The cast is stellar, but the main stand outs for me were Daniel Craig, Ana de Armas, and Chris Evans. I loved Daniel Craig’s Southern drawl which I didn’t expect at first, but I was amazed of how far he went for it. Often times it reminded me of Frank Underwood from ‘House of Cards’. He plays detective Benoit Blanc, AKA CSI: KFC. At one point during the movie he delivers one of the funniest monologues in the entire movie, which was brilliantly delivered by Craig. He should seriously try out more comedy roles.

Dose anyone remember when Ana de Armas starred in Eli Roth’s ‘Knock Knock’? Well look at her now. She was absolutely excellent in this movie. The running joke throughout the entire movie is her character can’t lie and whenever she dose, she vomits on the spot. How ironic, yet I love the comedic irony behind it.

Chris Evans plays a spoiled child with a slimy grin during the worst situations. The over privilege black sheep of the family. This is very against type for Evans, especially when his character hates dogs, which I would imagine being difficult for Evans since he’s a dog lover in real life. Also the different sweaters he wears in every scenes was impeccable.

The rest of the cast manage to shine individually in this crowded movie. Although at times some of them felt like background wall paper compared to others. However that never takes away from what else ‘Knives Out’ has to offer.

Toni Collette dose a great impression of Gwyneth Paltrow. Michael Shannon plays a wimpy son to a crime-writer Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer). Despite the small screen time, Plummer is still charming as always. While Jamie Lee Curtis and her character brings the dramatic elements into play. She’s uninterested in the humorous quarrel during the grim situation, as early on she reminds everyone that her father just died.

Judging it as a whodunit mystery, the pay off itself is slick. The events leading to the death are revealed early into the movie, and instead Johnson remains steps ahead from the audience. There’s an underlining social commentary beneath the foul play. The themes of privilege and underprivileged with the sour taste of bitterness throughout. Nothing deep or new, but at least is trying to say something rather than being one thing.

Overall rating: My House. My Rules. My Coffee!!!
"That certainly not what I was expecting."

- Whodunit?
- Rian Johnson.
- Why?
- To subvert the tropes of yet another sub-genre... properly!

As divisive as it was, I neither loved nor hated the love-it-or-hate-it The Last Jedi. Maybe because I'm not a huge fan of the much-beloved saga. But I can give you a quick opinion of what I thought about it anyway. The first half almost turned me off completely: tons of lame jokes and out-of-character moments that indicate that Johnson's biggest concern was to subvert expectations and nothing but. The second half of the film was way better. It proved to me that Johnson is actually very capable of adding fresh blood to the saga, so effortlessly to such an extent that I wondered why he struggled so much in the first half.

In Knives Out, Johnson didn't add a new spin on the 'whodunit' sub-genre of detective fiction; he took it and turned it on its head. He did so not only by playing with the tropes and mechanisms of this sub-genre -and boy, he did that so exquisitely and gracefully- but he also by using a new and very effective building block: Drama. It doesn't sound new, isn't it? But, actually, relying on it here, in this kind of a story, is nothing short of revolutionary, and that's simply lies in the fact it's unprecedented to build upon it here. The result is nothing but marvellous. And although that, at some point, the main concern of the plot wasn't the murder mystery per se, the mystery didn't lose its sharpness even a tiny bit. And that's a strong proof that everything worked, and integrated, seamlessly. I said integrated because the film has a plethora of comedic bits throughout its runtime -which flies by- and, to be honest, I think every single joke landed perfectly. The film also suggest a political agenda that's exquisitely woven into the plot, and provides a sharp social commentary that's impressively subtle.

Not only did Rian Johnson reinvigorate this seemingly outmoded and unfruitful sub-genre, but he also did the same thing with a couple of members of the star-studded cast: I didn't know that Chris Evans, Captain America himself, would be better as, well, an "Anti-Captain America "; Craig as Blanc is absolutely phenomenal, with his southern accent and caricature detective character; and Jaeden Martell (IT) is very interesting as the weirdo Jacob Thrombey. As for Curtis, Langford, Plummer, Collette and Shannon, Johnson makes an excellent use of their incredible acting abilities, and of their facial expressions and features, especially Shannon with his remarkable menacing countenance. The real standout, though, is Ana de Armas. I mean, she was good in Blade Runner 2049, but here, as she plays my new favourite version of Pinocchio, she proves she's an exceptionally talented actress who is capable of expressing emotions, and changing them readily, only with her eyes. Honestly, I think she should have been nominated for an Oscar!

Overall, I'm really surprised how much I loved this film. With Johnson superb and clever direction and meticulously-nuanced and witty -albeit slightly too-structured- screenplay, I think this is my favourite - even if it's not my highest-rated - film of 2019. You know what, this film is actually terrible: it's very pretentious; its puzzle is too convoluted for its own good; it has an overabundance of plot twists; it underutilized its stellar ensemble; and it has a lot of plot holes, or -in this case- donut holes! Excuse me, I gotta leave right now!

(9.5/10)
Fun little murder-mystery starts off great, kind of loses a little steam in the middle, before rebounding nicely at the end. Fine performances all around, though especially Daniel Craig (reminded me why he was also great in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo even with a starkly different tone). Also makes me remember Rian Johnson is a fine filmmaker (loved Brick). **4.0/5**
This film had quite the rewatch value, keeping a consistent, yet entertaining thrill ride. Rian Johnson's original tale is strikingly filled with a talented ensemble, old-school-mystery-thrills and a sharp envisioning. Knives Out keeps the audience on their toes and brings a surprising delight towards it’s conclusion.
Best way to watch is on big screen
Caving to popular opinion and seeing this was a bad decision; Daniel Craig's accent is the only interesting aspect, and you can get that from the trailer.

Directed by : John Schwartzman, Theodore Shapiro, Renee Ehrlich Kalfus, Renee Ehrlich Kalfus, Brandt Gordon, Brent White, Allison Jones, Jefferson Sage, Stefan Sonnenfeld, Jessica Sharzer

Produced by : John Schwartzman, Theodore Shapiro, Renee Ehrlich Kalfus, Renee Ehrlich Kalfus, Brandt Gordon, Brent White, Allison Jones, Jefferson Sage, Stefan Sonnenfeld, Jessica Sharzer

Starring : Anna Kendrick, Blake Lively, Henry Golding, Rupert Friend, Linda Cardellini, Bashir Salahuddin, Danielle Bourgon, Kelly McCormack, Andrew Rannells, Ian Ho

Company : Feigco Entertainment, Bron Studios

Release date(s) : 2018-08-29

Running time :117 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $20,000,000

Storyline : First and foremost, this film feels like someone went to their local grocery store, grabbed a random three-dollar mystery novel off the checkout shelf, and decided to make it a movie with some extremely popular and attractive people. In other words, it's a silly mystery movie with crazy, zany twists and turns.

Some of those twists and turns were easy enough to see coming, but some of them were straight out of left field. In addition to the entertaining twists, the film does a decent job of not taking itself seriously. The humor in the movie is peppered in during great moments. Some of it is cheesy, but if you're going to this film for a deep, thought-provoking film, don't.

The characters themselves are all extremely exaggerated. Lively's Emily is over-the-top sophisticated, crass, and private to the point where she won't allow pictures or even paintings of her face. Kendrick's Stephanie is bubbly, eager, awkward, and overly friendly. The rest of the cast fills in the needs around them, and while the cast is filled with one-note characters, they fulfill the needs well. Golding's Sean was my least favorite, but mainly because he doesn't have a defined archetype in a film filled with single-aspect characters.

The biggest issue with the film is the plot itself. Emily contradicts herself with the motive for her faking her own death. She tells Sean that she did it for him and for Nicky. Then she says she did it for her. On top of it all, she doesn't appear to have a plan to get the insurance money after it comes through. The film could have easily alleviated all of these issues with a quick scene or a line about fake passports for Emily and Nicky.

All in all, A Simple Favor is a fun romp filled with crazy twists and turns, humor, and great acting. Don't think too much about the film itself, and just go have some fun. It's definitely worth a getaway matinee.
I **really** don't know what vibe _A Simple Favor_ was going for, but I know I kinda liked it.

_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
_**Stylish, self-aware, and hilarious - a (mostly) enjoyable parody**_

>_My mother used to say: Everyone has secrets. That's why you can never really know anyone else. Or trust anyone. It's why you can never know yourself. Sometimes we even keep secrets from ourselves. Growing up, I thought that was good advice, although I didn't completely understand it. Or maybe I did, a little. Kids have secrets. The imaginary friends, the things they'd get in trouble for if a grown-up ever found out._

>_Later I discovered that Mom was speaking from personal experience. And I wonder if she was not jus__t preparing me but programming me for secrecy and mistrust. Did she sense that I would grow up to have darker and more shameful secrets than anyone else's? Secrets I mostly manage to keep - even from myself?_

- Darcey Bell; _A Simple Favour_ (2017)

Examining the rotten core beneath the surface urbanity of suburbia is something that has attracted filmmakers as diverse as Alfred Hitchcock (_Shadow of a Doubt_), David Lynch (_Blue Velvet_ and _Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me_), Joe Dante (_The 'Burbs)_, Gus Van Sant (_To Die For_), and Frank Oz (_The Stepford Wives_). More recently, novels such as Gillian Flynn's 2012 novel, _Gone Girl_ (and David Fincher's 2014 filmic adaptation), have expanded and popularised the suburban noir genre; the very genre that _A Simple Favour_'s satirical excesses primarily target. A comedic look at the lives of two young mothers in an affluent American suburb, coupled with a mystery plot, the film has an undeniable identity crisis due to its genre mash-up characteristics (it's a comic/satirical suburban noir murder mystery thriller). Although director Paul Feig proves adept at handling the parodic side of things, in the latter stages, he seems to be trying to ensure the film can exist (relatively) un-ironically within the very genre it's attempting to lampoon. And he doesn't particularly succeed. Despite this schizophrenic quality, however, the interplay between the two leads, the heavy stylisation, the playfully self-aware nature of the aesthetic, and the success of the burlesque elements all serve to make the film undeniably entertaining.

Adapted by Jessica Sharzer from Darcey Bell's 2017 novel, _A Simple Favour_ tells the story of Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick), a widowed single-mum who runs a life hacks vlog with minimal viewership. Overzealous in her desire to be liked, to the point where she's deeply unlikable, Stephanie is the kind of person who signs up for every volunteer project at her son's school, and then feigns surprise when she's told she can only work on one at a time. Enter Emily Nelson (Blake Lively), a public relations executive for a major fashion label. When Miles (Joshua Satine) and Nicky (Ian Ho), Stephanie and Emily's sons, respectively, ask for a playdate, Emily is initially unenthusiastic. However, she acquiesces, and she and Stephanie are soon bonding over increasingly strong martinis and girl chats, with Stephanie in awe of Emily, who seems to have it all; a good-looking novelist/lecturer husband, Sean (Henry Golding), a gorgeous house, a successful career, a great kid, and an acerbic attitude that Stephanie would kill for. However, all is not as perfect as it first seems; there are not insignificant financial problems; when Stephanie takes a photograph of Emily, Emily reacts angrily, demanding Stephanie delete it; although she and Sean have a great physical relationship, there isn't much else there, with Emily frustrated that his only successful novel was published over ten years ago. Several weeks later, with Emily held up at work, she asks Stephanie to pick up Nicky, and she'll collect him later. Except she doesn't collect him. As a few days go by, and no one seems to know where Emily is, Stephanie and Sean report her missing. However, unsatisfied with the direction the investigation is taking, Stephanie is soon amateur sleuthing her way across the country in an effort to track down her friend.

Obviously taking inspiration from suburban-based "mommy murder mysteries" such as _Gone Girl_ and Paula Hawkins's 2012 _The Girl on the Train_, as well as films such as Stanley Donen's _Charade_ (1963), _A Simple Favour_ is at its best when working as a parody/satire of such narratives, its own source material included. From what little I know of the book, it seems as if everything is played straight, with little discernible sense of sarcasm, even as the plot twists become ever more ludicrous. With this in mind, it makes sense that the filmmakers have elected to adapt such un-ironically thrashy material in a more self-reflexive manner, as this facilitates the gentle (and often not so gentle) ribbing of the genre, exposing some of its more ill-conceived and unrealistic tropes to ridicule. For example, the three main characters are all standard generic templates to the point of cliché; the _ingénue_ who feels honour-bound to do everything she can to find the truth, no matter the cost, ultimately learning as much about herself as anything else; the sardonic, caustic, and utterly shady plot catalyst, who always seems to have an ace up her sleeve and always seems to know more than anyone else; and, the brilliant but frustrated spouse who may, or may not, be in on the crime at the narrative's centre. However, their archetypal characteristics are dialled up to such a degree (Stephanie is the definition of innocence, Emily is the type of person that simply doesn't exist in the real world, Sean is impossibly attractive, funny, intelligent, and kind), that they can't help but seem caricatures. Similarly, everything is presented in such a nonchalant and laid back manner that the twists, which in a more self-serious film would occupy centre stage, are often rendered absurd. However, and this is the key point, _A Simple Favour_ is very much in on the joke. Most of the time.

Opening with a late 1960s Europop-influenced Saul Bass-esque title sequence complete with sliding split-screens and pastel colours, scored to Jean Paul Keller's 1967 "Ca s'est arrange", the film signals its playful tone right from the off. This emphasis on stylisation is perhaps seen most clearly upon Emily's introduction. As Stephanie, Miles, and Nicky shelter from the rain, Emily emerges from a car in slow motion, with the camera starting on her feet before slowly moving up to her head as she raises an umbrella. Cutting to a mid-shot, she then begins to walk across the carpark (still in slow motion), as a broken umbrella blows past her, replacing the tumbleweed of a classic western shootout. Apart from being a memorable introduction to the character, the visual design of the scene is predicated on cine-literacy, showing that the filmmakers are more than aware of standard genre tropes, and, more importantly, how to employ them for comedic effect.

Indeed, the entire film revels in its own intertextual awareness, with later references to such defining noir texts as George Cukor's _Gaslight_ (1944), Alfred Hitchcock's _Spellbound_ (1945), and Henri-Georges Clouzet's _Les diaboliques_ (1955). Another element of this awareness is the use of a fractured narrative structure, so beloved of classic noir mysteries. Large portions of the film feature narration within narration (and oftentimes narration within narration within narration), as well as making use of another classic noir staple; the unreliable narrator. The film gets significant mileage out of scenes where the aural narration doesn't even come close to matching the visuals; i.e., the narrator is lying, and both the narratee and the audience are aware of such. An especially funny example of this is when Stephanie tells Emily about kissing her step-brother after their father's funeral, and Emily immediately knows she is lying that she only kissed him (leading to her new nickname for Stephanie, "_brotherfucker_"). Whilst the narrator (Stephanie) flat-out denies she slept with him, the audience sees them having sex, confirming the narratee's (Emily) suspicions. This technique is used several times in the film, and it's an extremely well-handled narrative device.

The film's main target for satire, however, is not really a specific genre (suburban noir) or even the tropes that define that genre – it's the _milieu_ that enables the existence of that genre in the first place. Together, Stephanie, Emily, and Sean represent everything that's rotten with the sterilised, emotionally deadening middle-class suburban sphere in which they're (seemingly) trapped. However, the film doesn't condemn them for being horrible people, rather it exults in their awfulness, deftly directing, redirecting, and misdirecting the audience's sympathies, to the point where it becomes difficult to say who is screwing over whom. Every time the film seems to settle on who the villains are, it does something to disrupt the audience's perceptions, and oftentimes, so as to achieve maximum satirical impact, precisely when the character we are now being asked to empathise with is up to something somewhat less than moral. This is the very essence of black comedy – the film presents a hideous world populated by hideous people who do hideous things to one another, but it does so in such a cheerful and uplifting manner that you simply can't help but laugh at the shenanigans.

In relation to this, the film works especially well when jauntily charting the friendship between Stephanie and Emily, two women who have no businesses co-existing. I don't particularly understand Anna Kendrick's popularity. Although she seems perfectly amiable in real-life, she plays the exact same character in every film, and that character is Anna Kendrick. However, it works here because, a) it's the perfect foil to the "screw-you" persona of Emily, and b) Kendrick and Lively have such effortless chemistry (it's one of those films that, as you watch, you know they had a blast making). The two women are just so fundamentally different that it wouldn't take much to make their early scenes together work, but everything is in place to amplify the comedy – the lively script, the great acting, the unintrusive direction, the brightly-lit and garish interiors, the clashing wardrobes. Lively plays Emily as a mischievous, experienced charmer, the kind of person who acts like they know your secrets ten seconds after meeting you, whilst Kendrick's Stephanie is all self-deprecating intellectualism, trailed-off sentences, and statements phrased like questions. Frankly, I could have watched two hours of just the two of them trading good-natured barbs, pushing each other's buttons, and swapping sex stories.

If there was one element of the film that didn't work, however, it was the mystery plot. Yes, I get that it's all a satire of the multi-twist-for-twist's-sake suburban murder mystery, with the preposterousness of such plots played for maximum farcicality. However, the satirical underpinning doesn't change the fact that the entire mystery at the film's centre is insipid, uninteresting, and predictable, whilst Feig seems patently unable to bridge the tone of the frothier comic moments and the darker ones which become increasingly prevalent towards the end. Granted, the film is not a spoof, à la something like Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker's _Airplane!_ (1980), so we can't expect absurdist humour throughout, but nevertheless, rather than choosing to employ a relatively even tone, Feig seems to have made the decision to mix scenes of outright comedy with predominantly serious scenes devoid of laughter. And it doesn't work. For example, the film features a scene in which someone who has just been ploughed by a car and is trying to crawl away is nonchalantly told if they don't stop, they're going to hurt their knees. That's pretty dark, but it's also pretty funny. However, it comes only a short while after a scene in which a drug-addict is held under the water and drowned. Not a huge amount to laugh at there. If scenes of this nature are supposed to be satiric, and hence feed into the film's engagement with the suburban noir, I couldn't see any evidence of it, and as a result, the tonal disparity becomes very jarring towards the end.

For all that, however, I found _A Simple Favour_ enjoyable. The purely-satirical early scenes earn enough goodwill so that the less successful more plot-heavy later scenes don't completely tear the whole thing down. The film as a whole shines a not unwelcome light on the increasingly self-important suburban noir, and for the most part, the parody is very well-judged. When the comedy is forced to retreat in the service of more serious material, the tonal balance is definitely knocked off, as the film comes dangerously close to valorising that which it has set out to mock. Despite this, however, _A Simple Favour_ remains entertaining. Distractingly attractive people wear ridiculously stylish clothes in a stylised cine-literate parody – it won't change your life, but it's a very rewarding couple of hours.

Directed by : Cliff Martinez, John Davis, Marc S. Fischer, Marc S. Fischer, Michael Corenblith, Catherine Harper, Tami Treadwell, Toby Emmerich, Jason Bateman, James Garavente

Produced by : Cliff Martinez, John Davis, Marc S. Fischer, Marc S. Fischer, Michael Corenblith, Catherine Harper, Tami Treadwell, Toby Emmerich, Jason Bateman, James Garavente

Starring : Jason Bateman, Rachel McAdams, Kyle Chandler, Sharon Horgan, Billy Magnussen, Lamorne Morris, Kylie Bunbury, Danny Huston, Jesse Plemons, Michael C. Hall

Company : New Line Cinema, Aggregate Films, Davis Entertainment, Access Entertainment, Access Industries, Dune Entertainment

Release date(s) : 2018-02-22

Running time :100 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $37,000,000

Storyline : Massive win from _Game Night_, had no expectations going in, but it ended up totally thrilling not just me, but the whole group I watched it with. One of 2018's stronger entries thus far. Always a pleasure to get that sort of a feeling, but especially happy that it came from a non-franchise movie.

_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._