Seize Them!

I thought it was a very entertaining, cute, rough-around -the edges- crude but witty film.

EXACTLY what I expected, as it was Advertised as such!

I believe those who reviewed went in total ly dark to the type of story this was going to be... as for me, I have been waiting for Seize Them! For over a year! I knew it would be silly and crass and predictable, but I knew full well it would be vague, low budget, satirical and offer just enough laughs and smirks to keep me entertained. It's brilliant cast did exactly as they were expected to withut missing a beat, never straying from the expectation of the characters they were playing.

These low scores are disheartening, as it's clear nobody who watched and commented had ANY idea what type of film this would be. I wished for a Little more creativity myself, I admit, but I really did enjoy it and took it exactly for what it was.

Give it a chance if you need something unrelatable, historically suspicious (and not correct) with a VERY talented cast and laughd along the way (i admit, more chuckles and subtlety in the humour department as it's not laugh out loud jokes)

Good on them for making it.

It took me away, amused, for 90 minutes I don't regret. Watch it when you feel you need some levity as long as blood is not an issue for you (I find calling it GORYa bit extreme tbh) it's a comedy, lie back with your partner, appreciate the swearing (instead of counting how much they swear )and enjoy with lightheartedness the silly story to move you along for 91 minutes taking you away from the gut-wrenching reliaty-based and often depressing movies of our time as we live in a difficult period right now.

Give it a chance. You can always walk away. To me, it was exactly what I knew it would be, so i let myself get caught up and enjoyed it instesd of focus on the shortcomings. We need to laugh these days, and this was a deserving film as absurd and not deep as one might hope that gave me just that.. a break from the news with simplicity and a simple but interesting story.

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.

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.

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.

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.