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.

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.

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.

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.