Seize Them!

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.

Though silly, low budget, period Brit-com "Sieze Them" hits nowhere near the Monty Python heights it aspires to, it has its moments and some nice performances. When unpopular Dark Ages queen Aimee Lou Wood (terrific - one to watch) is overthrown by Nicola Coughlan's peasant army, she's saved by servant Lolly Adefope (also good) who with poop-shoveller Nick Frost helps her escape across country (to allies (or are they?) Paul Kaye & John Macmillan). Andy Riley's screenplay is childishly daft (though is def'ly adults only with its language etc) and Curtis Vowell's direction is basic. This one certainly will not appeal to all, but it has its moments.

The worst film I've watched that I really rather enjoyed. What a strangeness this is. It felt as though the brilliant cast were making something else that didn't take all that long, so, in their lunchbreaks they made a film on the side. The budget must have been at least £12.50 (ironically the total takings for the 9 o'clock showing not including crisps and a coke) but all that aside, we quite enjoyed it. Sad to say we were the only two in the late showing at our local budget cinema, slightly shocking considering it was the opening night.

Can't see films like this being the saviour of the silver screen.

I think the unnecessary gore and swearyness could easily have been cut and the film could have been a PG rather than a 15 opening up a much larger Easter holiday audience.

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.