Stootomlin Reviews

Dead to Me (2019–2022)

Good but could be better

[8/10 · 9 May 2021]

This is a really good show and well worth your time, it's funny, dark and holds your interest.

My only criticism is that at some point in every single episode someone walks into the scene, and proceeds to say something that no one on Earth would say in order to move the story along. Plus, the two kids really could do with coming to an untimely end. If any of the writers are reading this, have Shandy do it in Season 3.

The Informer (2019)

Such a wate

[2/10 · 31 August 2019]

Great cast, good idea, awful script and nonexistent character development.

I don't mind when film makers give it their all but their film is awful, at least they tried. They might not have had the budget, they might not have been able to get a talented cast, they may have had to cut corners on the locations using their own houses and cars to film in. The Informer was held back by none of these issues. It is let down by a lack of effort and care.

Without going into the details of the film (I'd hate to ruin it any more than they already have), The story is paint by numbers, it's straight out of the Hallmark playbook. If you're surprised anything that happens in this film then welcome to the made for TV thriller market, they're all like this. The characters are ridiculously stock. The wife and daughter exists only to have someone to threaten, the head of the Polish mafia is comically bad and I've seen more threatening characters on Sesame Street. We have the obligatory bent prison guard and all the normal evil yet honourable prisoners.

And as for the main three characters. Joel Kinnaman who I love in most things tries his best but he simply has no character development, you don't feel like you really know him or ultimately care what happens to him. Rosamund Pike is clearly an extremely talented actress but she suffers the same fate, you believe her struggles slightly more than Joel's but I'm not sure I cared anymore because of how weak and pathetic she is. Finally we have Common who plays the pissed off NY Cop. He's solid, but again he just feels like any other angry NY police officer, nothing at all has been done to set the character part.

There is little to no action, although his path is a crappy one everything seems to fall perfectly for our anti-hero, if the end is supposed to be a twist it was drawn with a ruler.

This is simply a waste for 113 minutes of your life. There are a litany of amazing films out there, many of them featuring these cast members, sadly this isn't one of them.

47 Meters Down (2017)

Watch something else, anything else, this is awful.

[4/10 · 18 August 2017]

At the end of last year, I did a Best 10 and Worst 10 films of the year. At least I know one of the spaces in the latter list has been taken now.

The plot.

Lisa (Mandy Moore) and Kate (Claire Holt) are sisters on holiday in Mexico. Lisa has just been left by her boyfriend who told her the reason he was leaving was that she was boring. So, Kate talks Lisa into swimming with sharks to prove that she isn't boring (although having watched this film I can really see the guys point) the idea being that they can take pictures, send them to Stuart (the boyfriend) and prove how wonderful she is, and then he'll come running back.

When the girls see the boat the following morning and the state of the rusty cage Lisa says she doesn't want to do it. Kate reminds her that Stuart will think she's boring and it takes Lisa about 5 seconds to come around.

Just before they get into the cage the same thing happens again. "Oh, Kate I don't want to do this", "I know, but, Stuart will think you're boring", "You're right, let's do it". I used quote marks but I'm not sure that the dialogue was really up to that amazing standard.

At every step, our two 'heroes' become more and more pathetic and unbelievable. Seriously if one of my dogs had written the script it would have been of a higher level. If both of my dogs had taken the two lead roles I'm pretty sure they would have delivered those lines better as well.

The thing is with shark films, they should do a couple of things. They should start light hearted and then slowly build the tension. They should make you care about the characters so you're actually bothered if they're eaten or not. Finally, they should make you jump a few times.

Failed. Failed. One jump moment is not enough.

Also, just a question. If sharks only attack from below (a point set out in the film) and you were laying on the seabed and needed to travel 5 metres to get to safety, would you A) swim/crawl to safety or B) stand up? I'm asking for a friend.

There really is no point to this film. Not caring about the 1- dimensional characters means you couldn't care less if they live or die, personally I would have preferred them to have died in the fall, then we could have all gone home and wasted far less of our time. The running out of air thing seems like a good idea at first, yet the first 80% of their tank is used in about 30 seconds and the final few percent seems to last a lifetime.

If you're anything like me you'll be sitting there saying why wouldn't you drop more air down? Well luckily that's answered in the film, apparently, it's dangerous to be down too long, and going onto the second tank of air has its perils. I'd argue it's less dangerous than not having any air, but I will admit to not being an expert.

There have been some reviews that mention the shocking final 20 minutes. If you don't see every single thing that happens from a mile away then congratulations you must be watching your first film. Trust me, whatever you watch next will be better than this.

Good luck to the people who made it. It cost $5,000,000 to make and they've taken almost 9 times that amount at the worldwide box office. Please, if you make another film spend some more money on script and story development, and try to steer clear of quite so many tropes.

Don't feed the beast. Watch something else, anything else, this is awful.

Power Rangers (2017)

A fun and silly film. It's just what you expect it will be.

[6/10 · 27 March 2017]

Remember I'm reviewing the film, not the memory of your childhood!!

I'm struggling to pick a 6 or a 7, it's somewhere between the two, so I'm going to err on the side of caution and say it hasn't quite made it to the heady heights of a 7 out of 10.

Let's start with the fact that I never watched Power Rangers. I was born in 1981 and when Power Rangers came over to the UK in about '95-'96 I was more interested in girls, and getting drunk (yes, I know how old I was). That being said, I was aware of it as a phenomenon, just not one I ever engaged with. I have a very similar relationship with Pokémon.

This film is almost exactly what you'd expect from throwing $100,000,000 at a Power Rangers movie. You have some good actors, some pretty good effects, a better quality of costumes, but, an average script and story.

The one thing I will admit, is that in not knowing Power Rangers all that well, there may be some inside jokes, or hat tips that I missed. I needed my wife to explain the little post credit scene, so I'm fully aware that my knowledge on the subject is limited.

I'm also not sure if this film is supposed to be taken seriously or not. Is it poking fun at itself? Does it think it's a 'proper' superhero movie? I've seen it, and I honestly don't know.

I will say that I loved the Blue Ranger Billy, played by RJ Cyler, he's on the autistic spectrum, and in a similar way to Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory, he's the constant flash of humour, he changed the flow of scenes in a wonderful way, he said inappropriate things at inappropriate moments, I don't know if he was like that in the series, but either way he was great, and I enjoyed the character and the performance.

As for the other Rangers, the leader Jason (Red) was a little dull, they tried to give him a bad guy image but I don't think it really worked, and if he had gone missing after an hour I'm not sure I'd have missed him all that much. Zack the Black Ranger was quirky, a bit of a loon, yet at the same time rather sweet. Then we have the two female Rangers Kimberly (Pink) and Trini (Yellow). These two probably had the best back stories. I felt their faults were real, they were interesting. Kimberly is a typical popular high school girl, but one who's hurt some of her fellow students, and is struggling with her actions. Trini's had a tough home life, moving around a lot, never being able to fit in. I liked the fact that they tried to make these characters real, tried to make them relevant.

Elizabeth Banks plays Rita Repulsa our baddie. I'm a fan of Banks in general, but this was a pretty crappy character. Saying that, from what I'm told, crappy bad guys is a consistent theme for the Power Rangers, so perhaps it was befitting. I don't think she herself was at fault, I just don't think she had a lot to work with.

This is a fun and silly film. It's not hard to follow. Don't worry if, like me, you weren't a fan of the series, or again like me, you don't really know that much about it when going in, the story isn't going to be so complex that you feel lost. If it is? I suggest that you never vote, have children, and think about taking some night classes. I'd also suggest that you don't use any sharp scissors.

If you grew up with the Power Rangers, you'll probably love this, and if that's the case I don't really feel that I can write a fair review for you guys. I guess, the people I'm writing for are people like me, who are judging this on its own merits, as a standalone film, and for you guys, it's okay. I'm not going to tell friends and family to go and see this like I have with other films, but, at the same time, if they're going to see it, I wouldn't tell them not to. It's not awful, it's just not great either. It's exactly what you'd expect a silver screen version of the Power Rangers to be like.

Get Out (I) (2017)

An absorbing psychological thriller, that's even darker than it seems

[9/10 · 23 March 2017]

I wasn't sure when I saw the trailer. It had the potential to be one of two things, either a very clever psychological thriller, or a puff piece telling us how all white people are evil.

I'm glad to report, that it's the former. This is a cracking film.

The set up; a young black guy is about to meet the family of his white girlfriend for the first time. He's a little apprehensive, but she assures him that it'll be fine, her parents are anything but racist, in fact her dad would have voted for Obama for a third term if he'd been allowed too. But, when they get there, things don't seem quite right, it's hard to explain why, but something's definitely wrong.

Daniel Kaluuya (nice to see an English guy in an American film not playing the bad guy) plays Chris, our poor unsuspecting boyfriend. He is the lynch pin to the story, everything revolves around him, and he's superb. Allison Williams plays Rose, the girlfriend.

If you've seen the trailer you'll know that Rose's family live in the whitest of white neighbourhoods, the handful of black people that do live in the area, seem to be acting very oddly indeed.

This is another film with a small budget. There have been a few recently, and I'm starting to believe that some films just spend money for the sake of it, sometimes at the expense of telling a story. Get Out cost somewhere around $5,000,000 to make. As I write this, it's apparently taken more than $130,000,000 in the USA alone. This shows just what you can do with a well written script, some good acting, and some high-quality production values, if you have all that, then you have a really good piece of work on your hands. There are also very few special effects in this film, and those that are used, are very simple, you could probably recreate them on your phone. The film relies on its astute writing, and that's a great thing.

I was just asked if this is a horror? No. I don't care what IMDb says, I don't care what anyone else tells you, Get Out is a thriller, and a good one at that. There is very little in the way of blood and guts violence, it's all about atmosphere, about a palpable creepiness factor. There are points where it's actually hard to watch. There was also one moment that springs to mind, that caused popcorn fly around the theatre, but even that wasn't a horror moment, it was a great use of sound.

The story is a good one. The production values are lovely. It's creepy, it's funny…did I mention the humour? The interactions between Chris and his best friend Rod (LilRel Howery) are wonderful. They might be a little over the top at times, but if you took this situation and transposed it into real life, then it would be pretty surreal, it would be over the top, so oddly, those moments fit in beautifully with the rest of the film.

Get Out isn't just Chris on his own, it's also filled with a litany of wonderful performances. Everyone portrays their character perfectly. Roses parents walk a fine line between seeming awkward and menacing. Her brother is an off the wall loon. The other local white people are so odd, even for rich white people. As for the few black people that Chris meets whilst he's there, wow, they would make anyone feel uncomfortable.

The score is powerful, I can't think of a better way to describe it, it adds so much to the feel, to the atmosphere. The story moves along at a good pace, there isn't time for you to switch off or get bored. In fact, the story is key here, you think you know what's going on, but things aren't quite what they seem, even in a film that is based around the concept of things not being as they seem, and the film is clever in the way that it let's go of its secrets, you find out when Chris finds out, because of that, you really feel a part of the narrative, it draws you in.

I was worried that this was going to be a film that states that all white people are racist, and this is evidence of how far they'll go. But its not, it's so much more than that.

I don't want to go into details, but there are moments when you're thinking "how are you going to get out of this one Chris?" It brings out genuine intrigue, it makes you think, it keeps you on your toes.

I really liked it. I'm not going to do what a friend of mind would do, and scream "it's the film of the year!" from the highest point I can find, but it's defiantly up there as one of the best of the year so far. At 104 minutes, it's not a very long film, but like everything else about it, it seems just right.

This is well worth watching, in fact I'd say you're an idiot if you pass up the opportunity to see it.

A wonderful film.

The Time of Their Lives (2017)

Think of your Granny and her friend on a road trip. It's sweet, sad and funny. Worth seeing.

[7/10 · 16 March 2017]

This is a really sweet film. It's like the OAP version of Thelma and Louise.

The film revolves around Helen and Pricilla, played by Joan and Pauline Collins.

Helen is a narcissistic former film star, who was huge back in the 1960's, but since then she's been forgotten, all after she fell apart, and disappeared from the public eye, some years ago. She hasn't accepted the fact that it's over for her, even though when we first meet her, she is being taken out for a trip from an old people's home.

Priscilla's very Mumsie. She is just a likable person. Sadly, her husband treats her like crap, and she is living an albeit comfortable, yet miserable life. She accidentally gets caught up in the old people's trip, and our story begins.

There is also the small, yet memorable part of Alberto, played by Franco Nero. Alberto is an Italian artist who the girls stumble upon, he is kind, and affectionate, and he shows Priscilla just what she might be missing in life.

The chemistry between Joan and Pauline Collins is great, they bounce off each other and each and every interaction feel natural, but what else would you expect from two women who have been acting for over 100 years between them?

There's a lot of talk about how older actors, and especially older actresses, don't get a lot of work anymore. Often because few good parts are written for them. Films like RED, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and the soon to be released Going in Style, should show studio execs that older actors still have something special to offer. No, scrap that, not 'still have', they have something that younger actors don't have, decades of experience. Why would we waste it? It makes no sense.

Back to our film.

Our two friends travel to France to attend the funeral of the director who cast Helen in her first big film role. Along their journey, they discover a few things both about each other, and about themselves. There is a very serious undertone that runs through this film, it has a sadness, that comes with loss, a loss we all feel at some point in our lives. Yet, it still manages to laugh, at itself, at the situation it finds itself in, at life. I've always felt that this is the best way to deal with pain and adversity, so I appreciate the message that this film puts across.

In the loosest sense, this is a road movie, and a charming one at that, with in fact very little time actually spent on the road, but it's hard to describe it as much else. It's a story of self-discovery, and although it may not be perfect, it's well worth a watch.

Free Fire (2016)

A wonderful example of a guilty pleasure movie

[8/10 · 16 March 2017]

I watched this at a Cineworld Unlimited showing. Before it played, there was a little intro from Ben Wheatley the director. He described the movie as a fun action film, with lots of violence and lots of swearing, and that it was mercifully short. I'm not sure I can characterise it much better than that. So I'm not going to try.

When I saw the trailers for this film, I turned to my wife and said "I really hope this whole film is contained in the one room, if they do that, then it will have to stand and fall on the script, the characters and the acting, rather than just rely on some special effects and the action". I am pleased to report, I got my wish.

The setup is simple. We're in 1978, a group of Irish men (presumably IRA) are trying to buy guns in American, Boston to be precise, so they ship them back to Ireland, and use them to shoot the British. The 'brains' of the outfit are Chris and Frank played by Cillian Murphy and Michael Smiley respectively. The (and I'm using this next word in the loosest possible way) 'muscle' (but in all fairness, they certainly don't seem to have any brains) are Stevo and Bernie.

On the other side, we have the sellers, headed up by Vern, played by Sharlto Copley, and Ord played by Armie Hammer.

Both parties seem to have been brought together by the only woman in the film, Justine played by Brie Larson.

So, we have a briefcase full of cash, and a van full of guns, all we have to do is swap one for the other. What could go wrong?

Let's just say that there is a disagreement over someone's actions, and things quickly spiral out of control.

I'm not going to get into details, because to be honest, there aren't very many, and if you've read any of my other reviews I don't like to spoil. We can just say that bullets start flying, left, right and centre, and we have a film.

The films hangs on the humour of the situation. The one liners, the insanely inappropriate comments, the wonderful character interactions.

The exchanges between Frank and Ord are wonderful.

Vern is hilarious, and his reactions to Chris chatting up Justine are a great running joke. It really will make you giggle, often at things you'd wish didn't make you laugh. Watching people get shot shouldn't be funny, but in this context, it just is.

This is the ultimate Mexican standoff. Luckily none of the characters have a particularly good aim, so the ridiculousness lasts exactly 90 minutes, and that feels just about right. There is only so much chaos, bursts of gunfire interlinked with witty banter that an audience can take.

This isn't a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a wonderful example of a guilty pleasure movie. Lots of action, lots of jokes, and a little more intrigue then you originally expect. Oh, didn't I say it doesn't play out quite as simply as you'd assume? No? Well it doesn't, it actually keeps you on your toes, that is when you're not rolling around on the floor.

Remember to listen carefully, because some of the best jokes come in the middle of gunshots, or are said in a ridiculously over the top South African accent.

Well worth 90 minutes of anyone's time.

Elle (I) (2016)

This is a very, VERY DARK film. But well worth watching. It will ask questions of you

[8/10 · 16 March 2017]

Movies like this, are why more people should give foreign language films a chance.

Elle is described as a Drama, a Thriller and a Black Comedy. All of them are true, although comedy is a bit of a stretch, even a black comedy. This is a very, VERY DARK film.

The film opens with a rape scene. The violent and vicious rape by a masked intruder of Michèle Leblanc, played by Isabelle Huppert, while she's in her home.

This has caused some arguments between people who believe everything sexual is part of the patriarchy, and this this film, being both written and directed by men, is therefore exploiting women. Others feel that this film empowers women, by showing their complexity and strength.

I found this film fascinating. Don't get me wrong, it's not an easy watch. Sometimes the story is a little slow, other times it's a very uncomfortable watch. None of that makes it less captivating. It's almost like a French version of a Hitchcock film.

I will admit that I worked out (educated guess) who the rapist was, but I didn't expect the film to play out as it did. Its darkness reminded me a little of Nicolas Winding Refn's Neon Demon. Not in Demon's horror aspect, but as a dark thriller that asks questions of its audience, of their morals, of the strength of their stomach.

Interestingly there isn't a character in the film you can truly like. On the face of it, Michèle is strong, almost bulletproof, when in reality, she is twisted up inside, probably due to an incident in her childhood, which the film spends a little time going into. Her son is a weak, spineless idiot, with a warped sense of responsibility. Her mother is a shameless, pleasure seeking narcissist. Everyone else seems to be cheating on their significant others. These are not good people. But, that's what makes them interesting. It's a person's weaknesses that makes them real, that makes them appealing. That allows you to see yourself in them. It's the reason why Batman will always be a better character than Superman. He has more weaknesses, more flaws, it allows you connect to him. For the same reason, you find yourself feeling slightly connected to these broken individuals.

The film revolves around Michèle, and her search for the identity of the rapist, but it doesn't simply focus on that at the cost of everything else, there are a number of sub-stories unravelling around her, making this feel more like real life, in a slightly over the top and bizarre way.

As I said, this isn't an easy film to watch, it takes an investment, in both effort and time. That being said it's worth it. This film will stay with you for a while. I'm sure this will become a film I reference. It's made me think, and I love that about it.

This is a good solid film, and if you think you can commit 2 hours and 10 minutes to a subtitled film, and you can stomach some fairly violent scenes, then I think you'll get quite a lot out of this one.

Give it a chance.

Viceroy's House (2017)

A love film, with an exceptional performance from Gillian Anderson. Well worth seeing

[8/10 · 16 March 2017]

This is a lovely film.

This is a quintessentially British film. Another piece in our seemingly unending historic jigsaw puzzle. Trying to chronicle our imperial past, without the constant need for self-flagellation.

The film is set in the Viceroy's House in 1947, during the partition of India. This was obviously shortly after the end of the second world war. When millions of Indians had stood with the British on the battlefields of Europe, in our fight against the Germans. It was now our turn to return the favour, and give India, back to the Indians. It also didn't help that we didn't have the resources to hold on to India anymore, and everyone involved knew it. This meant that the factions within India were no longer scared to make demands.

This is a strong and important story, one, which is rarely told, or taught here in the UK, and it really should be. We need to understand our mistakes, so we're less likely to repeat them again in the future. We also need to understand what we did right, and learn from those decisions as well.

There are a number of good, solid performances here. Hugh Bonneville plays Lord Mountbatten without fault. He comes across as charming, and typical of the fighting aristocracy of the time. He cared about his legacy. He cared about doing what was right. Most importantly, he cared about India, her people, and its long-term future.

Michael Gambon plays General Ismay, an archetypal, political pragmatist. He doesn't care about India. He isn't really interested in her people. He only cares about Britain, and its future.

We also have an ongoing love story between Jeet Kumar, played by Manish Dayal, who's a former policeman and a Hindu, and Aalia Noor, played by Huma Qureshi, who works at the Viceroy's House and is a Muslim.

The love story is used to help the viewer understand the deeply entrenched division between the religions at the time (although let's be honest they haven't improved much since). The film doesn't really mention the Indian cast system, but in real life that didn't help the situation either. It also gives a story, set at the highest levels of government, a more human feel.

A special mention needs to go to Gillian Anderson. Her performance as Lady Mountbatten is wonderful. Many will be shocked that Anderson actually has an English accent, but she has spent a large amount of her life this side of the pond. However, her accent here was a real surprise. The received pronunciation was perfect. It was as if she were the Queens little sister. Her character adds heart, she adds a moral core, to both Lord Mountbatten, and in my eyes, to the film in general. I was impressed to say the least how beautifully she slipped into the role.

I would also like to mention the fact that Gillian Anderson appears to be getting better looking with each passing year. It's as though she stole Dorian Gray's picture, and had it repainted with her own portrait. If she carries on this way, by the time she's 80 her beauty will be so unbelievable, it may very well start a new religion.

Not only is she becoming more beautiful, but her acting ability seems to improving with everything performance. It's getting to the point where I will watch anything she's in, just to see her. I'm just hoping someone gives her the roles she deserves to show that she can be this generations Meryl Streep, or Katherine Hepburn. I genuinely think she is capable of hitting those heights.

All in all, this is a well-cast, well-acted, well-written film with beautiful production values. Visually it's stunning. The buildings used, the props, the costumes, everything looks wonderful. There are some cleaver uses of photo-video cuts. It also uses historical footage nicely.

This has to be Gurinder Chadha's biggest film since Bend it like Beckham, and if this is the level that she's working at now, then I'm really looking forward to her next project.

If you're a fan of historical drama, or just good old fashioned colonial history, then give this film a chance. It may open your eyes to some history to weren't taught at school, and you'll also be able to enjoy a rather charming film.