Seize Them!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.