Seize Them!

When I see a comedy with the names Nick Frost and Jessica Hynes I think I'm in for a good time. Don't be fooled, this is a truly awful film which I gave three stars simply because of the aforementioned duo. Enough good actors to make this work but the script is shocking, the jokes don't work and some of the characters are stupid beyond belief (the Scandi Kings). As for the 'good actors'; Lolly Adefope didn't look interested -possibly realising once filming started what she'd let herself in for- Nicola Coughlan continues to baffle me, Aimee Lou Wood looked like she was trying to summon the spirit of Miranda Richardson's wonderful Queen Elizabeth in Blackadder II and failing miserably and the less said about Paul Kaye the better. I've never even been close to walking out of a film in a cinema I was so close today.

A film watched for no other reason that its starting time fit in with my leaving a previous screening, the trailers for "Seize Them!" weren't particularly inspiring though were a fair guide to a film that I didn't particularly enjoy, but also wouldn't go as far as saying that I hated.

Dagan (Aimee Lou Wood), the unpopular and spoiled Queen of medieval Britain is overthrown in a people's rebellion led by Humble Joan (Nicola Coughlan). Dagan is spirited away from the castle by a servant Shulmay (Lolly Adefope) and, along with a peasant they meet, Bobik (Nick Frost) heads towards the East Coast where her Scandinavian family will restore her to power. Along the way she learns an appreciation for life outside the castle but is pursued by Leofwine (Jessica Hynes) who was formally in Dagan's court, but has switched sides and looks to prove herself.

It's definitely not good. Let's get the clear now. It's just not funny, despite all the talent involved on screen. There were only a few laughs and almost all of them were a) from Nick Frost and b) based on his delivery rather than the joke itself. There's nothing wrong with the performances from any of the lead characters though, the recreation is .. cheap, but works well enough. But the fact it's not that funny is perhaps the only one that really matters.

I would also say, and this might just have been my particular screening, but the final act, that takes place on a beach looked very odd. The colour kept bleeding out of the images in a way that reminded me of old cassette-based video recording. Like the saturation levels were wrong. Again, I'm not marking the film down for this as it might have been a problem in my screening only but I felt I'd mention it.

Writer Andy Riley wrote the series "Year of the Rabbit" a few years back, which I enjoyed and, perhaps not unsurprisingly, given the subject matter here, wrote on "Horrible Histories". I'd say it's "inoffensively not funny" by which I mean that whilst I didn't laugh at it, I never came to resent it that much for not being so.

Putting aside the fact that someone in the decision making process has a foot fetish and a facination with Aimee lou woods dogs.

This movie was what it says on the tin, great cast for a comedy movie, solid acting from supporting cast, special shoutout to Nicola Coughlan, probably the best performance out of the lot, she really had fun with the role. If you're older then 15, the humour will most likely be rather juvinile, but still makes sure you'll chuckle throughout, Its a great option if you're looking for a movie for 11-15 year olds to past the time, or a family movie night option to enjoy.

Why?

This would have been a fun film for youg (ish) kids, so why add swearing - there really was no need and it's not the sort of film that would appeal to an older audience - although, because of the swearing, it's rated 15. Having said that I laughed twice.

I can confirm that there was a plot, there was acting and, possibly, some direction. It felt like a prolonged TV sketch - put in the rack and tortured, until it was mistakenly let go.

I am mystified why this was released into cinemas - maybe to test its commercial viability, but as I was the only person in the cinema the answer to that is clear.

Take it for what it is.

It's silly, it has some funny jokes, it evolves at good pace, the story-line is only slightly bonkers, ...

You can see the budget was not big. But it doesn't need it.

It's well crafted and it keeps you entertained the whole time.

It doesn't drag, and you get a funny joke now and then. Only one or two laugh out loud ones, but plenty chuckles.

That's the kind of movie it is.

No idea why some people seem focused on trying to compare every movie to Citizen Kane.

They don't seem to understand that different movies have different purposes, and they all can be good as long as they fulfil their purpose.

You don't know what to watch, you want something light and entertaining. You are quite happy to watch three adorable actors for a while.

This is it.

This one will work for you.