Seize Them!

Most of this cast are people I really like, I didn't mind it being female led as you had 3 genuinely funny women leading the film, so couldn't see this being bad, then the showtimes came out, it was obvious the cinema saw the film as a flop, so went anyway.

Let's start with James Acaster, from a big role in the new Ghostbusters to this? I mean everything here was unprofessional and weak, if it'd have been a free tv movie on Dave you'd maybe like it more but at nearly £20 a ticket this is disgusting, it shouldn't have got to the screens, luckily I pay subscription.

The script wasn't funny, seemed to want to mimic horrible histories and ghosts kinda sense of humour but nothing landed, the acting was just weak but the script didn't help, there was more groans in the screening I was at. A few chuckles but not enough to excuse paying for this garbage.

This cast could've put together a great movie even with this idea, I'm amazed having nick frost in here, that you'd not get his advice or opinion!

The world was ok, costumes were garbage, endless unnecessary swearing, alot of stuff that didn't fit with time line, just a real mess.

Please don't waste your money on this, free stream or tv then fine but honestly you'll regret wasting a penny on this.

If you are British you will understand 'Horrible Histories' made by the BBC that educates children on world history. When it started it was funny, irreverent and informative. These days it has become insufferable catering to 'modern audiences' in terms of casting, theme and content.

I mention this because this film is starring some of those cast members and has the same production values and the same sense of humour, which makes no sense.

The film is cursed with boss babes, cowardly men, predictable humour and much childish nonsenses. So why throw in lots of violence and swearing? Do millennials really have the expectations of seven year olds in modern moviemaking? It would seem so.

Billed as a comedy , this fell flat from start to finish , you could count the laughs on one finger .

Such a shame with stars such as Nick Frost & Jessica Hynes of Spaced & Shaun of the dead fame

It had the low budget feeling of horrible history but lacked the comic genius

It's really difficult to find anything positive to say about this except that it's good to see an English film make a cinema appearance but I doubt if this will last til week 2

147 characters to fill so not sure what else I can say except that it's really not worth seeing especially if you pay for it , such a shame

New paragraph from the next day & still wondering what did I see ? I wish it had been as good as Horrible Histories as they get away with the low budget by making up with humour , it's been over 13 years since Gnomeo & Juliet which seemed ok but the laughs here were lacking

The casting was interesting and that in itself was similar to Brigerton by breaking the mould which is do often done in Shakespeare too & good to have two strong female lead characters & a number of mixed race roles which is refreshing , it's just sad it missed the comedy , I'd say it was a farce & not on a good way & relied far too much on bad language & taboo subjects such as excrement to tease out a laugh , the only funny scene & possibly a rare spoiler here was the disposing of one of the key witnesses which used repetitive action to capture a laugh but for the most part the audience was silent in the cinema where I saw it

I couldn't recommend this to anyone

Sorry cast & crew

Pad. A 3/10.

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.