Yesterday

Singing What Can’t Be Sung

My grandma died like 15 years ago but something stuck with me to this day. She was talking about the difference between my brother and I and said “Niel has a lovely singing voice! Matthew? Well…. Not so much”. She was right. I sound like an x-factor first round embarrassment or a 40 a day smoker crying into a microphone. When it comes to singing; I am the Walrus.

The fact that has stuck with me for so long either means I’m a giant man baby – totally possible – but I like to think of it as simply something I would wish I could be good at . Wouldn’t it be amazing to be a great singer? Wouldn’t it be amazing to have written a great song? Something that is permanent and brings others joy long past I’m thrown in some bushes and left to be eaten by wolves.

That desire to be great or to at least leave something great to the world is the essence of Yesterday.

Jack Malick (Himesh Patel) is a local singer who only manages to pull in crowds filled with his manager Ellie (Lily James), his four closest friends, a bunch of incomprehensible local drunks and volumes of empty space and disappointment.

All that changes when Jack gets hit by a bus and starts writing some of the greatest songs ever written. The twist is that in the moment when Jack’s face made sweet love to the front of the bus, the Beatles were erased out of existence except for in Jack’s memory. So starts a journey of fame and fortune off the back of other people’s greatness.

It’s a fun and novel concept and fits perfectly with the film’s quirky British indie comedy vibe. Small punctuations like “What are cigarettes?” continues the joke throughout the film without overstaying it’s welcome and stops it from being there only to serve the purpose of the plot.

At first I thought that this film was trying to angle Patel as a mark 2 version Karen Soni ( the taxi driver in Deadpool) but thankfully not. In fact his race is never brought up except when suggesting his album is called The White Album.

It’s really nice that diversity in this film just… exists… the filmmakers just let it be. It makes a nice change to watch something, especially in the hellscape that is everyday life, to see something so focused on appreciation of an art form because for fuck sake diversity should just be normal.

Arguably the film tries to go too far with the scale of Malick’s success as I found myself losing conviction that the levels of success he achieved could happen so quickly and dramatically. A couple of wooden cameos from Ed Sheeran and not enough moral conflict over Malick’s plagiarism diminished the impact what seemed like the film’s main purpose.

We are left with is a story of friendship and a classic “will they, won’t they” dilemma between Jack and Elie. Patel and James have wonderful on screen chemistry that as sweetness and an innocence to it that should keep you invested until the end of the film so even though this is hardly a must see film, it is an enjoyable tale of love and some say that is all you need.

The Good, The Bad and The Outcome:

+ Fun concept
+ Diversity without any conditions
+

Main character’s chemistry

– The plot is bit rushed at points
– Doesn’t make the most of its concept
–

Ed Sheeran’s wooden cameo

Bad Moms

Moms I’d Like to Forget

If I think about my mum being bad it would involve her having 2 glasses of wine, have a second helping of Jaffa Cakes or perhaps driving at 34 mph in a 30 mph zone.

She’s not exactly a badass. In fact my mum is the mumsiest of all mums so I think I found the idea of Bad Moms funnier than I found the film itself.

It’s not that the film isn’t funny – well it’s amusing – but you could replace “Moms” in the title with almost any other word and you’d still have the same film that works in exactly the same way.

Now, granted I don’t know what it’s like to squeeze a watermelon through a small hole in my body and nor do I gush with emotion when I look at one of those wiggly little crying things so perhaps I’m the wrong person to judge but this film doesn’t portray parenthood to me.

Amy (Mila Kunis) is a mum who tries to work a part time job but appears to work full time and is the only one keeping her family together. After finding Mike (David Walton), her husband, spanking the monkey over some random internet live chat hussy she figures it’s time to do what she wants for once. Along the way she drags repressed mum Kiki (Kristen Bell) and abhorrent mum Carla (Kathryn Hahn) along with her.

My mum works full time then cooks, cleans and probably wipes the arse of the lazy, retired, buffoon known as my dad. A man whose favourite past time is moaning about everything so yeah I get it; mum’s are great and deserve to let their hair down.

In Bad Moms they don’t become bad moms, they become awful, selfish humans. The comedy that unfolds from this concept is comparable to a fat-free version of The Hangover as they seemingly forget about any responsibility or even that they have kids in the first place.

The core notion of parenthood doesn’t seem to affect how they let their down nor does how they let their hair down really factor into their ability as parents but if you can overlook that, the film is OK.

The biggest laughs come from Carla who is a terrible, foul mouthed human who just want’s to get messed up and fuck everyone else. Literally and metaphorically. Kathryn Hahn is fantastic in her portrayal. Every time she was on screen was a highlight because you know that laughs are just around the corner.

Another highlight was the first scene where the mums first go rogue. It’s set in a convenience store and filmed in delightful slow motion. The mums peacock through the store, drinking and eating in the isles with careless abandon. All this is juxtaposed against everyday customers going about their business. Their confused and British-esque politely offended faces really helps to accentuate the stupidity of the situation.

Scenes like this are offset by the inclusion of a conflict with the PTA. This conflict is wedged in to flesh out what is otherwise a sparse and forgettable plotline.

The whole script and story needed a bit longer in the oven with greater clarity, focus and reliance on the very thing that this film promises: mums. In fact it’s only after the main film has finished – during the credits – that there is any sense of poignancy, reverence or focus on motherhood. If, however, you make a sharp exit as soon as the film ends I would totally understand.

The Good, The Bad and The Outcome:

+ Hahn is hilarious
+ The convenience store scene
+ Post credit scene

– They don’t seem like mums
– Not as funny as it could have been
– PTA involvement seems forced

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates

Memorable Date

And the award for worst film title goes to… Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates. 

It’s not the first time we have seen ironically “functional” titles. Most of the time it seems to come from a lack of imagination such as Mr. Smith goes to Washington or perhaps We Bought a Zoo. Sometimes it’s used for comic effect such as Dude, where’s my car? or Freddie Got Fingered.

Thankfully, it was a lot funnier than both of the above films and was actually one of the best comedies I’ve seen in a long time.

You are probably wondering how in the name of sweaty balls is this the best comedy in a long time especially since the buzz for this film has been as loud as a single wasp slowly dying in the halls of Hugh Hefner’s mansion and the director (Jake Szymanski) is not even famous enough to get a shot at Celebrity Big Brother.

Don’t let that put you off though because there is talent behind this film. On the writing credits is Andrew Jay Cohen and Brendan O’Brien who wrote Bad Neighbours and it’s sequel earlier this year.

Anyway, back to it, I thought that Bad Neighbours 2 had its problems, particularly around how it attempted to portray women as man’s equal. That isn’t the case here. All of the main characters are as dysfunctional, as vulnerable and/or as vulgar as each other.

Thanks to some careful writing the film rises manages to be more than “just another crude, generic comedy” even if that is what it is at its core. As an example the “inspired by true events” plot follows a very unsurprising arc.

Two brothers haven’t grown up and are always causing accidental mischief. They are asked to bring two nice girls as dates to their sister’s wedding in Hawaii. The ad goes viral and are inundated with requests. Things go well. Things go bad. People show their vulnerabilities. Stuff gets fixed. There are no real surprises here.

Both Zac Efron and Adam Devine are excellent as the brothers. They’re two sides of the same coin and their chemistry demonstrates a clear off-screen friendship as well as on. They don’t however seem close enough to be Brothers. I mean they look as similar as me and my brother. Wait, does that mean… ?

Anyway, whilst I mull over whether I was secretly adopted, Aubrey Plaza and Anna Kendrick are also excellent as the dates. They manage to down cocktails, smoke a cheeky doob or shove cheese puffs into their faces with ease and avoiding and sense of trying too hard. They are normal, terrible excuses for adults just like you and I… or perhaps just myself.

I found that despite the wedding having some of the funniest moments in the film (Kate MicKinnon propositioning people in a sauna and a hilarious tantric massage from Kumail Nanjiani) this is where the film really loses steam.

We see the film try to develop all of the characters in a manner that befits a feel good comedy but also unsuspecting wedding members getting smashed on drugs like a gross out comedy and the weeding not really going to plan in a sort of comedy of errors. All this brings confusion to what the film is trying to be.

So, should you see it? Well, as ever, all comedy is subjective. I loved it, others won’t. I would suggest that you make your decision based on the trailer or your feelings towards Bad Neighbours. Don’t decide to see it solely based on Mike and Dave Really Need a Better Movie Title.

The Good, The Bad and The Outcome:

+ Decent writing
+ Great female characters
+ Decent on-screen chemistry

– Brothers don’t seem like brothers
– Film loses steam as it goes on
– No real theme

Suicide Squad

The Best of the Worst

Suicide Squad. If you listen to some DC super fans this was an incredible achievement that is only paralleled by unicorns shooting rainbows out of their horn and pooping skittles. On the other hand if you listen to a lot of critics they will claim it’s an affront on film as a medium and something that is so bad that your eyes will crust over and your brain will dissolve and leak out of your ear.

In reality it’s somewhere between the two. There are absolutely worse films than this. There are absolutely worse superhero films than this. You only have to re-wind a few months to the drab BVS or a few months further to have the Fantastic Four confirm this.

Suicide squad is structured a bit like Craptastic Four in that it starts quite strongly but then gives up half way through, hides at the bottom of a well and gently sobs itself to sleep.

The initial recruitment montage is pretty good. It holds that fun, fast paced bubblegum hyper-violence that the trailers promised and apart from a rather awkward and forced cameo from the Bat it’s exactly the sort of thing we were looking for.

Very quickly we are introduced to the best of the worst of humanity and characters that you’ve probably never heard of unless you read DC’s fiction. Diablo (Jay Hernandez)? Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney)? How about the commander in chief Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman) anyone? No?!

These quick introductions are great because it provides a surprisingly good basis from which to build the characters whilst keeping it fun and fresh. However, equal screen time and story is given to everyone and as a result exactly none of our anti-heroes ever truly feel whole. In fact those who do get less screen time such as Katana (Karen Fukuhara) feel as deep as a PowerPoint presentation. “Name: Katana. Japanese. She traps souls in her sword and cries. This graph shows our cumulative growth patterns and here’s a motivational quote.”

On the flip side is Deadshot (Will Smith) who is incredibly likeable and how could he not be? This is the most “Will Smith” performance from Will Smith in a long time.

Thankfully it’s not overpowering. This isn’t Will Smith and a bunch of other losers because we also have Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) who is almost certainly the best thing in the movie.

Not only because of her skimpy outfits, but man… them outfits!

Harley Quinn injects fun into the film even when it’s plummets into a pool of sewage towards the end. I just wish that her loud and kooky attitude was included as part of the squads background noise and not just that the comic-relief countdown timer has hit zero.

This is symptomatic of a film not really knowing what it wants to be. Guardians of the Galaxy had an unlikely cool team spirit but then again it should be grim and grizzly like BvS but then again… Deadpool was great. “Add in some comedy… and whilst you are at it you may as well add a world threatening enemy. X-Men did.”

Towards the end of the film the script needed to be tightened, the slow mo needed to be removed and most importantly the villain needed to be low-key, not all powerful. Strong enough to need superheroes but not powerful enough to need Batman and company. A perfect excuse to put the leashes on the squad and give them an introductory test run.

Instead, we get Enchantress (Cara Delavinge). The worst, overpowered, super villain who is defeated too easily ever depicted on film. She is a bullet proof, belly dancing, young/old smoke lady spirit thing with a swooshy whirlpool of death who can turn anyone (except the suicide squad apparently?!) into half granite, half blackberry people. And why? Because fuck you that’s why! Brilliant. Cheers for the explanation Warner Bros.

Suicide Squad is, however, worth a watch. Just set your expectations accordingly. I did, and when I left the cinema I felt entertained enough to not be disappointed. I am very much looking forward to a solo Harley Quinn film yet at the same time sceptical of any future DC film.

Has the DCEU thrown itself off a bridge? Not quite, but it is starting to feel like it’s hanging by a thread.

The Good, The Bad and The Outcome:

+ Will Smith
+ Cool recruitment montage
+ Harley Quinn

– Abysmal villain
– Some terrible scripting
– Doesn’t know what it want’s to be

Central Intelligence

Biggie & Smalls

I’ve spent much of my life being more of a chubby little porker than I needed to be and in fact it’s only been this year that I have been taking my eating habits seriously.

I consider myself to be a 20 stone, alcoholic, cake addict that’s waiting to eat himself free of the shackles that binds me to a normal life!

You wouldn’t know from talking to me but I am shy and lacking in self confidence yet like Bob Stone (Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson) in Central Intelligence I put on a show to hide all that.

Central Intelligence is full of brief but often poignant moments that show either writer Ike Barinholtz or director Rawson Marshall Thurber faced similar issues because they are too honest to be solely for comic effect.

Thankfully moments such as the Rock glancing into a mirror and seeing his younger, fatter, self also serve as comic effect. Seeing the Rock with jiggly bits is as funny (and disturbing) as seeing Belgium Blue breeds of muscular cows.

But these subtle nods to psychological issues isn’t what the film is about; it’s all about the chemistry between Bob and Calvin Joyner (Kevin Hart) and let’s face it that’s a winning formula.

You can expect Hart to inject his normal brand of humour whilst the Rock plays an overly energetic and playful yet naïve adonis and in this respect is much more willing to play the fool.

This almost works but the Rock just seems a little unnatural in the role to fully pull it off.

Weirdly – considering the film stars a wrestler – the action scenes are remarkably bad and is only slightly more exhilarating than slowly crying yourself to sleep.

But like I said, it’s all about chemistry and given that Central Intelligence stars Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson that alone makes it worth a watch in my book even if it isn’t quite the plus sized comedy you were hoping for.

The Good, The Bad and The Outcome:

+ Great chimstry
+ Overall a good fun film
+ Tries to deliver more than just a comedy

– Could have been funnier
– The Rock doesn’t quite nail it
– Pretty awful action scenes

The Nice Guys

Nice Guys Finish First

My mum’s lovely but if I’m honest she can be incredibly dopey. In fact she once tried to boil a pan full of vegetables on the highest heat possible the promptly forgot about the pan… and to add the veg… and to add the water.

When our house wasn’t fragrantly smelling like noxious burning metal she used to talk about breaking news like some sort of soothsayer: “You know, I went to bed and I had a funny feeling something bad would happen to Princess Diana”. Of course you did!?

Anyway, that leads me on to The Nice Guys because throughout this film I couldn’t help but think that this was like a modern day version of Lethal Weapon.

It’s not a radical line of thought; two dudes doing some detective stuff, neither really wants to work with each other, ones a bit more straight laced, the other a bit more “shoot from the hip” but as it turns out, writer-director Shane Black also wrote Lethal Weapon.

Even though Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe) and Holland March (Ryan Gosling) aren’t cops this is very much a buddy cop movie and a spiritual successor to Lethal Weapon.

I realise that might initially turn you off but The Nice guys is extremely clever in its writing and manages to feel extremely modern. Case in point are both Healy and March.

Healy is a metaphor for the our modern condition. He thinks everything is bad and it’s getting worse, yet under all the grizzle he just wants to be noticed in a character that is like your Facebook profile come to life.

March on the other hand is a metaphor for the modern man. He is a single father, fumbling his way through parenthood, accepting that the women in his life – his daughter – are equally as strong as him whilst still clinging on to that 17 year old desire to go get fucked up and party.

Both characters hold nuance and a degree of social realism that makes them both instantly likeable. It’s a key aspect that you don’t get from watching the trailer so even when you are fully expecting the scenes from the trailer they still feel hilariously fresh thanks to the context behind them.

Again, credit has to go to Shane Black for creating a genuinely funny script that provides an injection of humour at exactly the right points whilst still making space for moments of poignancy.

In fact, my only real criticism is the actual story line which felt convoluted and at times thin. However, the focus is so clearly on the relationship between Crowe and Gosling that it becomes apparent that the story is simply there to provide a basic framework in which to hang these portrayals.

Every once in a while a film just resonates with you, whether it be through character, story, mise-en-scene or just where your head is at right now. This film certainly did that for me and hopefully it will resonate with you because when that happens it’s nice, you guys!

The Good, The Bad and The Outcome:

+ Funny
+ Ryan Gosling was excellent
+ Excellent writing

– Rather convoluted plot
– Buddy movie is perhaps not that original

Bad Neighbours 2

The Girls Next Door

In case you haven’t been paying attention Hollywood is having a crisis of identity right now.

It seems like every major blockbuster opens up this patriarchal industry to criticism of systemic white-washing and disparities in gender representation.

It’s a very real problem: Marvel changed Iron Man 3’s villain from a woman to a man over fears that toys wouldn’t sell and the likes of Gods of Egypt may as well have been called Gods of Eurasians.

Bad Neighbours 2 is a clear attempt to better represent women by shunning the misogyny that swills around bro culture like a turd that won’t flush. There’s even a line in the script where Seth Rogen even states, in no uncertain terms, “I’m not fist-bumping that!” after a derogatory comment is made about the fairer gender.

Whilst Bad Neighbours 2 should be applauded for essentially not being a dickhead it still feels like something written by men, for men, whilst trying to sidestep the sexism row.

The film shows a group of young women who want to set up their own sorority to do what they want and party how they want but we don’t spend enough time with the girls to believe that they are a close knit sisterhood. Therefore proclamations about how the girls can’t live without their sorority fails to resonate.

The sorority parties seem almost exactly the same as the frat parties – only with less idiots painting smiley faces on their johnson. That said; I’m a big dumb man so I can’t judge what women want but to me the odd pyjama party didn’t feel overly convincing.

Don’t let that put you off though because Bad Neighbours 2 does everything Bad Neighbours did with equal aptitude. There are enough outrageous moments to keep you chuckling which is the most important part of a comedy.

The cast also look like they are enjoying themselves whilst filming which makes the synergy between the characters feel natural. This is most notable between Rose Byrne, Zac Efron and Seth Rogen.

The chemistry between the sorority members is not so convincing and in fact it’s only thanks to Zac Efron that the sorority can gel together in the hollow way that they do which only lends credence to my previous concerns.

I didn’t enjoy this as much as the original but it is still an enjoyable watch with another brilliant airbag scene. One word of caution though: if you are expecting a show of girl power from the ladies next door you might want to check if the spice girls are still touring instead!

The Good, The Bad and The Outcome:

+ Outrageous comedy moments
+ Good cast
+ Airbags!

– Feminist agenda feels tacked on
– Sorority don’t feel like sisters

Eddie the Eagle

White Men Can Jump

Eddie the Eagle focuses on the story of Britain’s first Olympic ski-jumper. It’s an enduring legend because he only qualified for the 1988 Olympics due to technicalities in the entry requirement.

In this respect it’s almost like if your cat qualified for the pole vault because Eddie (Taron Egerton) proceeded to come last in all his events by a comfortable margin.

British people love an underdog story. My late aunt would always root for the least likely of heroes and I somehow have hazy memories of Eddie even though I was barely “house trained” when he competed.

If there is one thing that British people love more than an underdog it is an eccentric underdog and Eddie is just this. Taron Egerton manages to enliven Eddie Edwards as a character by some fantastic facial expressions and mannerisms.

As an audience we are given every reason to get behind him. His dad constantly tells him he is not good enough. The same happens with the Olympics committee. He stands out for drinking milk instead of alcohol in bars, he’s not well off and sometimes dresses like he crashed into a 1980’s charity shop.

Eddie has to face a lot of personal criticism and his answer comes from his unwavering determination and dedication to his sport. In an age of cyber bullying where those who don’t fit in are irrationally and relentlessly shunned someone who overcomes this in such a positive way is instantly adorable.

What isn’t quite so adorable is Bronson Peary (Hugh Jackman) who, in real life, is just words on paper. Apparently he is an approximation of both of Eddie’s coaches and whilst Jackman is enjoyable to watch his role felt obviously staged.

There are attempts to push character progression for Peary but all of it feels too convenient and too staged when compared to bizarre nature of Eddie’s ascension to fame.

One of the unexpected benefits of writing reviews such as this piece of nonsense is that I get to learn things too. Reading up on “true stories” often leads me down a Wikipedia hole that can sometimes turn up facts that can be more interesting than the actual film.

It would be remiss of me to omit Matti Nykanan who was considered to be the best in world at the time. Edvin Endre plays the rather sane and wisely Finnish ski-jumper but after the 90’s he became more famous for drink, drugs, womanising and pop music… oh, he also stabbed someone after losing at a finger pulling contest! Holy shitballs!

Anyway, whilst Jackman’s character may feel like a failure by writers Sean Macaulay and Simon Kelton to produce more than “generic fictional male” the inter-character dialogue is smart and witty, especially since it’s their first writing credits.

Eddie the Eagle, for better or worse, comes with all the expectations of a sports underdog story and is comparable to the likes of Cool Runnings. At times it’s genuinely funny and at others it’s genuinely touching. I think it’s well worth a watch but then again; I am British.

The Good, The Bad and The Outcome:

+ Great underdog story
+ Taron Egerton
+ Funny

– Bronson Peary as coach
– Exactly what you’d expect from an underdog story

 

Hail, Caesar!

Blacklisted

Have you ever heard of something called GlowBowl? No? Well it’s a gadget that makes your toilet bowl error… glow.

Seems pretty pointless to me unless you want people to think that your rectum is being haunted by Casper or if, after a heavy night out, you find it difficult to locate ‘Chinatown’ before bringing your drink back up.

At the same time though I weirdly like the idea of a ‘toilight’. This is how I felt about the Coen brothers latest film Hail Caesar! It’s really enjoyable but totally pointless.

The plot focuses on the kidnap of Hollywood star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) by a group called The Future and Eddie Mannix’s (Josh Brolin) hardship in keeping up appearances and handling the stress of managing a film studio in 50’s Hollywood.

I’m going to spoil what little there is to spoil in the next two paragraphs so be warned.

The Future is a group of ex writers who sympathise with communism. Whitlock becomes indoctrinated to the cause but eventually returns to the studio of his own accord.

So let’s recap on events. Kidnap. Guy returns on his own decision. Life goes on. As plots go, this is as thin as my ever receding hair and as hollow as cheap Easter eggs.

Hail Caesar! is a Coen brothers film though, which means is that you will be treated to some fantastic dialogue, most notably the criminally short and under-utilised scene where Mannix tries to gain approval for the titular Hail Caesar film from priests and rabbis. This scene is both beautifully worked and hilarious.

The humour is helped by some fantastic characters that carry the Coen brand of being whimsical, bordering on absurd, yet untrustworthy and bordering on menacing. There is something inexplicably fascinating about the characters that the Coen brothers create in all their films.

Some excellent performances by Brolin, Alden Ehrenreich, Ralph Fiennes… In fact everyone only serve to promote this aesthetic.

One thing I was impressed by was the way is very reminiscent of old Hollywood musicals without it ever feeling like a musical itself. The times we are let in back stage to see Scarlett Johansson synchronised swimming as a mermaid or Channing Tatum dancing as a sailor (complete with permanent cheesey smile) were the most enjoyable for me personally due to the behind-the-scenes glimpses of Hollywood in that era.

I am ready to concede this last point because I have a degree in film and I’m boring. Tip of the cap moments to the old studio system and Hollywood blacklisting that was prevalent in the fifties is fascinating to me, no matter how subtle. Others might not care at all.

Hail Caesar! is a film for the film buffs, the film students or the Hollywood insider and not necessarily for Joe public because simply saying: “here are some things that Hollywood used to do” is not enough to keep it from feeling ultimately pointless. Yet through it all it is still a Coen brothers film and it is still indescribably watchable even if it’s not their best.

The Good, The Bad and The Outcome:

+ Some great Coen-esque dialogue
+ Some great Coen-esque characters
+ Some great 50’s-esque film scenes

– Pointless
– Hollow
– Built for film students and insiders

Grimsby

The Brothers Grim

Sacha Baron Cohen made a name for himself as Ali G. He was ferociously clever whilst sounding incredibly stupid. This meant he managed to do what other interviewees could not; he made unsuspecting politicians drop their guard and say what they really thought of youth culture and policy making.

Amazingly he reproduced this success with Borat; another heavily stereotyped creation who drew out xenophobic ire and mirth in equal measure of those he came into contact with. Cohen also had lesser success with Bruno but followed the theme of provoking peoples inert prejudices through ever increasing shock tactics.

Grimsby is another iteration of Cohen-ness. It features another highly stereotyped  and shocking character. Given his career trajectory, this isn’t surprising, just don’t expect any pseudo-real life comedy like Borat as Grimsby is firmly planted in fiction.

Nobby (Cohen) is a beer swilling football lad living in a poor part of Grimsby; a rather undesirable town in central England. He is looking for his long lost brother Sebastian (Mark Strong) who just happens to be a super spy. Paths inevitably cross and Nobby becomes entwined with the spy game.

What surprised me about this film was how good the action scenes were even if they were few and far between. The first scene in particular – all shot in first person – was amazing with Sebastian kicking people downstairs and shooting them in mid air.

I would have liked to see more of this but I guess I’ll have to wait for Hardcore Henry – trailer can be found here.

Nobby, as a character, isn’t as good. This is definitely one of Cohen’s least nuanced characters and feels almost cheap to stereotype working class people as lazy football lads with 11 kids and sofas on their driveway.

There aren’t many attempts to redeem this stereotype but at least the humour isn’t meant to be at the expense of working class nor at Grimsby itself because that would definitely be cheap.

Instead Cohen tries to out-gross himself and utilises situational comedy to flesh out Nobby as a a bit of character.

Now, if your mum said “Oh, he’s a bit of a character” she probably means he wears sandals with socks, shouts poetry when drunk and once went to a fancy dress party as a ballerina. What she wouldn’t expect is the kind of grim humour that is on show here.

Without wanting to give anything away you can expect testicles, Donald Trump (I know; pretty much the same thing, right?!), a face full of pubes and some good old fashioned lols regarding AIDS.

That all pales in comparison to one specific encounter with elephants. It’s actually a cleverly worked joke if you pay attention before it turns horrific. The few moments that I caught my breath between laughing were soon taken over by the vomit that I was projecting over the people in the next 3 rows. It’s a scene that, ironically, I will never forget.

Outside of these moments there will undoubtedly be parts of the humour that will be lost on those outside the UK, particularly with stereotypes of council estate life complete with some of the hilariously abusive kids.

Grimsby is at times hilarious and for the most part a pretty entertaining watch but it’s not something that will appeal to everyone and in fact is something that might not make complete sense to unless you are in the UK. However, if you like gross humour then don’t be a dumbo: check it out.

The Good, The Bad and The Outcome:

+ Action scenes
+ Elephants. Never forget
+ Abusive kids

– Cohen’s least clever character
– Really gross
– Non-Brits will miss part of the humour