Change Your Image
donuts_69
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Ghost in the Shell (2017)
Keep your hands off Akira, Hollywood! Disaster!!
After waiting 20+ years since I first saw the original anime cult classic, I was equally excited/terrified that Ghost in the Shell was finally getting a big western studio refresh. Obviously the full gamut of the Ghost story would be impossible to recapture in one feature length film, but if the essence of the original 1995 movie could be maintained I felt as though many existing fans as well as a new audience would be able to enjoy what is a difficult sell for mainstream fans of film.
The thought provoking and philosophical approach to the original sci-fi was the pillar of it's appeal. A detailed and fleshed out background into the world of GitS complimented the deeper themes in the movie and it was all tied together through some of the most iconic action scenes ever animated supported by a haunting soundtrack. The modern Hollywood action movie owes a lot to the 1995 original (see: The Matrix and its derivatives) so with a major Hollywood studio/star behind the wheel, there was plenty of potential for another leap forward in the action genre. Unfortunately for all involved this remake is a clunky, soulless mess that neither delivers on the morality of project 2571/Section 9 or the cyber action contained within the unfolding story. For a screenplay supposedly based on Shirow Masamune's Manga, there is an alarming lack of soul from a story basically questioning the souls' very existence in a world where technology has replaced/enhanced human capabilities. A character like the Major whose internal dialogue with her conflicting thoughts about what existence is, has been totally glossed over – possibly due to the fact that casting Johansen in the role leaves producers pushing for "style" over "substance". Johansen is afforded plenty of opportunity to showcase the vulnerability and conflict she is experiencing in trying to piece her memory back together while carrying out an investigation into a string of cyber hack related corporate assassinations, but unfortunately her character is not provided with any context that permits the viewer to fully understand her motives.
It is a problem for all main characters in the film. Batou chaperones Kusanagi as she stumbles through the plot, but he cannot provide her with the back and forth dialogue that opens the themes of the original to poignant levels. The glossy visuals, too, are neither ground-breaking nor original, with "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" and "Blade Runner" the obvious inspirations. Key action sequences such as the Garbage Truck chase and Tank battle are both sorely under cooked. Even a scene where the Major lies at the bottom of the harbor before "rebirthing" herself is not allowed to find its way to the heart of the source material.
The attempt to wedge the Majors' past into proceedings only serve to confuse the underlying concepts of the story and come off as an afterthought and confusing. Kusanagis' quest is not to find her past but to discover what it means to be human after the transplant of her only surviving organ into her robotic body.
Back in 1995, GitS was a movie offering a question that led to a deeper understanding of reality through its combination of biology with technology. For a movie based on the fundamental question of what makes us human and asking the question of where does the line between reality and technology come into play, this is a desperately shallow showing and one that will not inspire audiences into shelling out for future Anime re-boots.
I fear for Akira
Dunkirk (2017)
Steals pure cinema back from the grave dug by Marvel/DC
World War II movies are a genre that until very recently, with 2016's Hacksaw Ridge, had found its way to the back shelves of big budget productions. Since the last re-imagining of the segment back in the late 90's (Thin Red Line/Private Ryan) the ultra-intense and graphically violent content has worn most epic war stories into tired reheats that have lacked the inspiration that rekindled audience interest with those earlier releases. There has been no shortage of stories to tell, but with the explosion of the super-hero movie and re-booting of classic franchises, many major studios have let the War movie fall by the wayside.
On its surface, the story of Dunkirk from an Allied perspective would seem to be a difficult sell to said production companies. More evacuation zone than battleground, neither bloody defeat nor heroic victory and a technical aspect that would guarantee a difficult shoot – it's no wonder someone like Chris Nolan had to be behind the camera to get this one off the ground.
The film itself drops the viewer straight into the thick of it. We have all seen our share of WW2 movies, we don't need to establish who the heroes and villains are – this is a simple survival story told in a way not seen before. This is not about finding one specific protagonist and their struggle to escape the beach at Dunkirk, this is an all-encompassing vision that rather focuses on the duty of those involved. Organising the Evacuation of Dunkirk required steadfast dedication from all involved in the face of impending doom. The outcome of the European campaign would be determined by this events success/failure.
There are 3 perspectives used for building the story – Land, Sea and Air. A typical but original Nolan twist involving time-lines across the 3 aspects allow for key scenes to be viewed from each perspective at slightly different times during the film. The movie shines through its pure film making rather than relying on a strong leading performance or stand out battle sequences. In saying that though, the performances on screen are exceptional just the same. Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy and Kenneth Branagh take nuance to lofty levels and provide moments that stay with you long after they play out on screen. The subtlety of stout British earnestness (read: Keep Calm & Carry On) is the hero here and represented to perfection, especially in Hardy's case given he wears his flight mask/goggles for the entire movie and barely has a dozen lines of dialogue. These are three men going to heroic lengths in order to do what they all knew needed to happen for the greater good. Where other movies show soldiers smothering grenades or running a gauntlet of gunfire to take ground, here again the viewer is treated with enough intelligence to know what each mans' actions mean in the bigger picture.
The scarcity of dialogue from the film is not restricted to Hardy and where some may find the lack of conversation in the movie a bit distracting or crippling towards development between characters that may take the story onto more familiar ground, this is where the film real strength comes through. By allowing various elements (Weather, Colour, Sound and actions of the characters) the spaces of silence allow the viewer to interpret the unfolding drama in their own way, thus creating a far more powerful build in tension and emotion. Of course the cinematic elements of the production are delivered to the highest possible standard, Zimmers score soars, Van Hoytema utilizes cutting edge IMAX technology to bring new levels of detail and scope to screen (I saw this in 4K IMAX Laser @ Melb) while Nolans' direction and writing is as clean and concise as ever.
With over 70% of the film shot in full IMAX scope, this is cinema at its finest. I was completely won over by the Aerial dogfights and amazing sound design of the classic Spitfire warplanes. The number of extras stacked up in columns on the beach or the practical set pieces where entire Destroyers are sunk. Take your pick of any of these or scores of other memorable moments from what will surely develop into a future classic for the WW2 film canon.
Blair Witch (2016)
Stays true to the original while expanding on the legend
When the original "Blair Witch Project" hit the screens in '99 I was as scared as I'd ever been in a movie theatre. And while it divided opinion as to being truly frightening or just shaky nonsense, there was little denying its impact on the Horror movie genre - spawning the "found footage" craze that still exists today.
No one movie since has ever really affected audiences in a similar way, bar the original "Paranormal Activity" film and the genre has descended into banality and unoriginality, where studios look to cash in on audiences looking for similar thrills.
I was surprised and the skeptical when I heard about the "Blair Witch" given how the follow up to the original (Book of Shadows) was a pure cash grab by the producers and subsequent nose dive of the quality within the genre. The interesting trailer and buzz surrounding its release was enough to get me in on opening day, however.
This is "Blair Witch Project" for the next generation and more than a sequel it really serves to modernize the original as well as expand on the mythology. You don't have to have seen the original in order for this movie to work, but if you have seen the original then you will also be kept interested by the further exploration of the legend.
Apart from a relatively awkward, fragmented opening act, the film takes a very similar course to the original. Protagonist "James" (the younger brother of "Projects" Heather) comes across found footage online of what he believes to be his missing Sister, whom he has tried to find closure on ever since her disappearance. He and a group of high school documentarians then make plans to contact the person who posted the footage and enter the legendary Burkittsville woodland.
Upon meeting with the slightly off putting couple (Lane & Talia) who found the tape in the woodland, they negotiate to join up with the main group and hike into the woods where they will search for the fabled house in hopes of finding clues as to Heather's disappearance.
The film closely follows the course of its predecessor. With the background of the urban legend and local histories explained the group sets camp for the night and promptly things become eerie. Once inside the forest the atmosphere of the film darkens and the claustrophobic camera work moves you ever closer to the edge of your seat in anticipation of the first sound/sighting of something lurking in the trees.
I found that the ever growing feeling of dread was sometimes needlessly broken by the use of cheap jump scares and thought that the film would work just as well, if not more so without so many of them.
The experience of becoming lost in the forest and unable to return to civilization puts pressure on the group and they are quickly fighting amongst themselves, eventually splitting off into their original groups and going their separate ways.
There are familiar noises and calls coming from the darkness which recall the original, but more than that there's also the inclusion of more detail in the way of audio which points to something much more menacing than the original could achieve (mostly due to budget restraints) For the most part, I found the expanded mythology and more detailed experiences the characters go through on screen refreshing and blended well with those of the '99 edition.
The final scenes come with a nice little twist and the ending is abrupt as it it terrifying.
Not perfect by any means but still a shot in the arm for the genre and a film strong enough to function on its own as a good scary movie!
Friend Request (2016)
Friend Request........Denied
There are a few blindingly obvious questions raised while watching Friend Request: Why does the cop ask Laura if she knows where Marina committed suicide? They already found her body and informed the school/public, right?
If Marina has no records on file, no ID etc, how do the cops know the person who committed suicide is actually Marina right away? (She turned her self into a flaming pinata, so how did they ID her so quickly?)
How does a non family member get access to see a medical report on a person who died in suspicious circumstances?
Why are the police only interested in Laura's activity on Facebook, not finding out why Marina has no public records or details linking her to the school etc, or why Laura's friends are dying in such strange circumstances, or how she could possibly access CCTV footage to post on her TL????
While this is a film made for the entertainment of Millennial p2p streamers (let's face it, no one saw this at the multiplex) and it may serve to highlight the sometimes dangerous obsession we have with social media and how it can impact on real lives; "Friend Request" treats its characters (and therefore in this case, its intended audience) with disdain and laziness. There's no hero to root for, no one character arcs (no one learns a lesson) and all of them are stereotypical mish-mashes of modern teenage caricatures.
Perfect for Netflix and Chill night, but lacking anything more meaningful than that.
Friend Request.....denied
Morgan (2016)
Underwhelming, predictable debut from Luke Scott
Heading into the cinema for the screening of Morgan, my expectations were fairly modest. I knew little about the movie itself other than the basic premise put forward in the trailer.
In the opening 5 mins, I was immediately reminded of recent Sci-Fi sleeper, "Ex Machina". Set in a remote forest research facility, our protagonist "Lee Weathers" (Mara) is sent in with a brief to assess a recent incident involving a secret biological experiment and the viability of the project continuing. Isolated at the facility for the duration of the project (7 years) she is also given details that the team may be further involved in the incident than first glance would have her believe. Weathers is warned that "another Helsinki" would be harmful to the company and she should act to prevent any further incidents.
We are introduced to the research team, Toby Jones as senior lead doctor and Michelle Yeoh as the overseer, and survivor of the Helsinki incident are familiar faces. Rose Leslie and Jen Jason Leigh are also involved, though only Leslie is given enough material to be anything more than a sketched out character. The rest of the group are cutouts, involved in someway but entirely unremarkable or memorable in any way.
Anya Taylor-Joy, who broke out earlier this year with her performance in "The Witch", is "Morgan" - the biologically engineered experiment whose DNA was synthesized in the lab in a way that would also allow Nano-bots to be introduced in order to expedite her development and heighten her abilities/intelligence.
With the stage set and me having bought into the premise, "Morgan" then failed to deliver anything surprising, suspenseful or dramatic. I did enjoy seeing Paul Giamatti roll in (just in time) to liven things up a bit by interrogating "Morgan" to assess her on a psychological level and the scene does stand out as the best in the movie. Taylor-Joy more than holds her own as she bubbles to life under Giamatti's needling approach and the climax sees the movie into its second act. Still, I had to question why a known violent biological experiment, whose psychological state was unknown, would be completely unrestrained during a face to face with Giamatti's character.
The second act of the movie involves the team, supposedly intelligent and reliable individuals, making dumb decisions in order to "protect their work" which just grates and sees the film descend into a last man standing affair.
Toby Jones hangs himself when he thinks Morgan has been euthanised, but as an audience we cant feel any loss because he is never afforded any depth or decent screen time.
Jen Jason Leigh sleeps the entire movie then shows up in order to add to the body count.
Michelle Yeoh mumbles her way through her role before trying to deliver some kind of poignant video log farewell during which Morgan interrupts and kills her.
Token African American characters, who are given so little to work with I cant even remember their names or why they were in the film, are killed off without a second glance.
After the fodder has been dealt with, the third act has Weathers (Mara) and the facilities hunky chef, Skip (Boyd Holbrook) chasing Morgan (Taylor-Joy) and Dr. Amy (Leslie) through the forest. Fortunately, Skip "knows where they're headed" and the chase doesn't last long.
The final scenes of the film, where the "big twist" is revealed comes far too late and without any emotional punch or "whoa" factor. The lack of subtlety throughout the film gives the game away which is why the rest of the film falls flat, we know what's coming so just hurry up and get there.
The ending plays out far too safely and I was left wondering what the movie actually wanted to be defined as. It only scratched the surface of any moral issues surrounding the concepts within the film (Biological engineering the obvious one). It was also unable to deliver on being any one of Action/Sci-Fi/Thriller/Horror purely through a lack of any major elements that contribute to owning those genres.
The main thing for me was Mara's character, I never once bought into her role and I think she really struggled with the complexities of her character and bringing what was required to the screen.
Given the meagre budget of the film and being the directorial debut for Son of a Gun, Luke Scott, I guess it is unsurprising that not every note was hit (or even played) in Morgan.
I do however, believe that Anya Taylor-Joy's star is rising and we should see more of her in future.
Oh, special mention - Brian Cox is such a great actor, I love most of his on screen roles, but I will never understand why he is continually under utilized. Great talent (Jones and Giamatti too for that matter) but wasted here for this.
Better luck next time - 4/10
Lights Out (2016)
A great premise ruined by pathetic scripting/writing
When I saw David F. Sandberg's original short "Lights Out" I was, like many others, impressed by the simple yet entirely effective and atmospheric take on the short horror film. The idea that something horrible and terrifying could be lurking in front of your eyes only to become visible as a shadowy figure when the light was switched off brings the viewers imagination into play, prompting childhood memories of hiding from shadows under the safety of blankets and sheets. That terror manifests in the mind as well as on the screen makes even a three minute film feel personal and enveloping.
Unfortunately for the feature studio film of the same name, and by the same director, that personal and enveloping feeling of terror is washed away by shonky writing, laughable dialogue, wooden delivery and confusing plot building.
It's a real shame, if not totally unsurprising, that something which so many of us could relate to was buried with as many Hollywood horror clichés as could be squeezed into 80mins.
For a movie to be truly scary, the audience needs to feel some kind of connection to the characters portrayed within it, so that when they are threatened or conveying emotion, we feel or relate to them. The movie starts off with young boy (Martin) chatting to his late working Dad about coming home to stop Mummy (Sophie) from talking to herself. The fact that Daddy never makes it home due to a horrifying and tragic demise seems to make no impact on this little family and serve only to introduce us to the entity known as "Diana". Not only are Martin/Sophie shown to be more or less unaffected by the loss, but there is no relevance to having the father in the movie at all(the assistant could have just been killed off and had the same impact). Estranged early 20s daughter, Rebecca and bf, Bret, are then introduced and due to the fact she wont let Bret stay over or even keep any of his personal items in her apartment, there's a feeling that she may have more to hide than it first appears. But it never eventuates. The opening exchange between them is awkward and lacking any real chemistry and never really grows from there.
He remains the unquestioning, supportive figure throughout and may or may not only exist as body fodder for later. Either way, we don't care.
Rebecca barely cracks a smile, furrows a brow or even blinks during her entire screen time and delivers her dialogue in a flat unaffected way that never translates the horror/terror/insert adj here that should stem from the events surrounding her.
Martin is the standard borderline mistreated kid. He's shown no affection during what would be, for any other 8yo, the most emotional part of his life. Nor does he seek it.
Sophie is Crazy/Not crazy Mum in denial. Perhaps shes emotionally suffocated by Diana but we never really know for sure. Her final part in the film makes sure there's no chance at reconciliation for either of her kids.
The main part of the story is so unfocused that I can't even put it down into a couple of sentences. I wanted to say that Martin and Rebecca are trying to figure out how to stop their inattentive Mum from descending into madness, driven by her conversations with the shadowy Diana. But, to help her they really don't do anything. There's some half arsed detective work by the wooden Rebecca, who is as unaffected by the events surrounding her and Martin as Martin was over the death of his Father. Piece by piece she uncovers tidbits of info that point to "mental health care" "experimental treatments gone wrong", "rare skin condition accounting for light aversion" and an entity that exists because "she gets in your head". It's all a bit pointless in its delivery because it's never expanded on any further than that. At 80 mins it's not like we couldn't squeeze it in somewhere and build the back story a little more.
What there is a dearth of is gimmicky, uninspired jump scares at almost every scene commencement. The house is squeakier than an alvin and the chipmunks movie marathon. The repetitive nature of the scares is tiresome after the first three times, while the decisions of each and every character to "investigate that noise" or "Check basement/upstairs/any darkened room" is just plain lazy writing. There's so many cliché moments here that it almost becomes an in game movie to see which ones you can notice. Call it Cliché Bingo.
How many "it's behind you!" moments can you seriously write into 1hr 20m?? The movie doesn't even follow it's own rules! For most of the film, Diana is unaffected when the lights come on. She cant enter the light and simply disappears when a light comes on. Fine. But In the final scenes, when Diana suddenly becomes susceptible to light (gets burnt) and no longer vanishes in its presence we are left scratching our heads.
It's never even clear what Diana is. If she's dead then why isn't she a ghost or specter linked to some kind of trauma relating to the asylum? If she's not a ghost then why can Sophie project her as a physical entity who she can impact on the ones she loves most? For a premise that held so much potential as an original movie idea, this feature debut is left flailing and faltering all the way to its merciful end, which, by the way, flickers (literally) at showing that there may still be more to come (is Diana really gone?) before answering with a flat "yeh, that's it".
Suicide Squad (2016)
Think "X-Men: Apocalypse", by DC
Where did it all go wrong? It's a question I've asked myself after seeing all the recent Super Hero movies, bar the sassy Deadpool.
In a world where studios are constantly trying to outdo each other in the superhero movie wars, a few major things seem to be being left behind (or on the cutting room floor).
The marketing/publicity surrounding Suicide Squad in the build up to its release, pointed to a movie based heavily around Jared Leto's "Joker" and a band of new (in screen format at least) characters from the DC universe. It looked fun, the way Deadpool was fun. And that's where I found the most disappointment during the actual watching of Suicide Squad.
It's basically a complete reheat of the recent and equally dire, X-Men: Apocalypse. Government rounds up super heroes (supposedly the most evil on the planet) for use as a defence force against the possibility of a super power based terror event. It just so happens that within moments of the team being brought into custody by one of DC's main money earners, that such an event transpires and they are thrown into action. The villain in question is so similar to the last Xmen outing, its hard to believe. For reasons beyond logic, the only way this demi-god plans the destruction of the human race, is by building a weapon that will take long enough for our Squad to battle their way in and save the day. Never mind that this villain can already destroy large city blocks and structures without needing to build anything......
The movie, after giving us 30mins of backstory and reasons why the Squad are "oh-so-evil", then goes into a mish mash of action/dialogue sequences that require your brain to left on standby.
Some of the questions raised include; If the demi god has already enslaved so many locals into becoming hybrid monsters that can battle through head shots then isn't that another effective way to destroy humans without wasting time building something to blow everything up??? How many helicopter crashes can one team survive??? Why do we keep getting backstory to give heart to characters that are intentionally presented initially to be evil? We don't care about these characters anyway. Apart from Will Smith, who does what he can with the movies most fleshed out character, there's no one in this film you really care about or even want to see killed off. The quips and jokes are almost always off target, mistimed or misdelivered leaving characters feeling unnatural and "forced crazy". The normal humans are probably more evil than the actual Squad....
The biggest question; Why is Joker even in this film? It's obvious that DC have a cash cow in Joker and obviously being at the heart of the marketing campaign, everyone was buzzing about how Jared Leto would pick up the character brought to colorful life by Ledger, Nicholson and the cartoonish Romero. You have to say, Leto's interpretation is closely aligned with the comic version of the Joker and that's great. But why is he in THIS film? He has no more purpose in the plot, than Deadshots Daughter has. Being that Harley Quinn/Deadshot are emotionally tied to their mirror characters and that being the only reason for their appearances in the film.
So, as far as similarities with "Apocalypse" goes, DC follows suit with this effort - right down to cameo appearance of their respective universe's most iconic character.
It's a shame that something promoted with such color and fun was delivered in the now tiring, uninspiring fashion that has seen the super hero genre descend into the realms of the now obsolete "Found Footage" category.
The BFG (2016)
Thoroughly enjoyable!! Why all the hate?!?
Firstly, I just wanted to touch on some of the harsh negative reviews that seem to be dominating the top of the page for The BFG. In recent times where the movie going public have been subjected to such mediocrity including; Ghostbusters,Star Trek: Beyond, X-men: Apocalypse, Kung Fu Panda 3, Jungle Book etc it strikes me that when a half decent movie does indeed come out, so many of us are conditioned to these average movies we forget what a real movie experience actually is. A movie that can take you on a journey to the heady days of falling into Roald Dahls world and forgetting about the travails and stresses of everyday life. Where imagination and wonder plays as much apart of the experience as anything presented on the screen. The cinema should be more than just a two hour baby sitter when it comes to taking the kids and The BFG allows for real engagement between parents and kids with its simple, yet masterful approach in presenting the subject material to its audience (who else but Spielberg and co).
The plot is simple, Orphan girl and outcast giant try to find a way to protect the children of the world from the horrible "Bean" eating giants that come from giant country. The story is motivated by the developing connection between a young girl with no parents who finds a paternal relationship and way to escape her reality, in the form of the beautifully realized, whimsical and mostly silly (the way your Grandpa would be) BFG. The BFG instills some pretty big ideals both in the book and on screen. Eg; Sticking to your principles - The BFG refuses to eat children because he knows it's wrong & so subjects himself to eating Snozzcumbers and bullying by the other giants. He also has experienced loss/grief in the form of the first child that he befriended who was killed by the giants. His relationship with Sophie provides him with the possibility of moving on from that grief and allowing himself to be happy again by making choices that may not have worked out for the best previously. Our protagonist, Sophie is presented as the - literally- little girl lost trying to find her dreams. The world of Giant Country, in particular BFG's home, is beautifully realized. While primarily a CGI enhanced environment, the set design for Sophie to interact with creates a seamless whole which is never distracting past the point of wonder. While there are one or two issues with pacing (the introduction to the Queen is distinctly drab and the final scene too brief), there's enough within the main set pieces to ensure we are never left dwelling on earlier moments as the highlight in proceedings. The entry into giant country/BFG's lair, dream catching sequence, opening exchange between BFG and Fleshlumpeater as well as the fantastically silly "Breakfast with the Queen" should have kids and parents alike giggling and cooing throughout.
In a summer (or year, depending how you look at it) lacking any real family access to a decent movie going experience, The BFG is a pleasant relief. The best way to judge, is to find out for yourself. It'd be a shame to be put off by some of the poor reviews that, while completely acceptable opinions, may not reflect your own thoughts.
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Please, make it stop!
I went to the latest cash grab in the Xmen franchise with pretty low expectations, but I never thought after "Days of Future Past" that things would sink so low.
What a complete mess! From the multiple megastars phoning in their crappy lines ( see Fassbenders genuine tears as he contemplates the damage this film will have on his reputation during the appallingly cringe worthy "IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT FROM ME" scene), to the unnecessary and drawn out back stories on characters that have already been introduced in previous films.
Apocalypse is a villain who spends so much of the movie taking crappy rejects and making them his "horsemen" before spouting drivel about building new worlds as the one true god, that by the time it comes to the show down, no one really cares anymore.
The real villain in this movie is not the green lantern-esque "Apocalypse" but rather the writers of this trash who subject us to line after line of grating dialogue not even fit to make it into an episode of power rangers.
It's a big fall for the franchise that not even the contracted appearance of Wolverine can save.
No one, bar the enthusiastic Quicksilver, gets out of this one with much credibility intact.
Absolute rubbish!!
Grimsby (2016)
Little setup, no payoff.
I approached viewing Grimsby with the same outlook as I did for most of Cohens other character comedies, even though his most recent solo outings have never reached the same heights (or depths) of comedy gold that Ali G, Borat and The Dictator managed to hit.
Grimsby not only fails to work on the same level story wise as any of SBC's previous efforts, but the gags and comedy within the movie - while funny enough on their own - are barely sketched together with any of the craft that had us all reliving and quoting with our mates long after we had vacated the cinema. Sure, you will probably talk later about some of the more outrageous moments from Grimsby, but there's not one moment that you will quote next week and chuckle over again with those same mates.
It's almost like 99% of the elements of Grimbsy were allocated a single page each.
Plot development - 1 page, Character dialogue (bar Cohen and Strong) - 1 page, Gag setups - 1 page, Gag variations - 1 page.......
Without decent setups for any of the comedy within Grimsby, there is never any real payoff and all you are left with are repeating ass/firecracker jokes, jizzing wildlife, Mark Strong's tea bag commentary and a criminally under used Rebel Wilson reduced to quipping that she "wasn't pregnant, just f*cking fat".
At barely 80mins running time, it's not like there wasn't room to add 15 mins worth of additional dialogue or background to create a richer tapestry of characters to bounce off one another. There is talent in the cast - Rebel Wilson is well known in Australia for her comedy work with Fat Pizza, et al and Ian McShane was devastatingly funny at times while on his Deadwood run. Sadly, neither of these two have anything to work with and are hardly afforded any screen time at all, let alone dialogue, which makes them seem barely caricatures of "secret agent boss" and "main characters gf".
Grimsby's best moments (for me) actually came through the flash backs to the brothers as kids, there's a flicker of a story there and along with it, the potential for shenanigans. The hooligan kids in present day Grimsby also offer a small lashing of genuine laughs - but, like everything else, it is skimmed over far too hastily and it gets lost among the mire.
SBC's best moments on screen in recent times have come in character parts that have shown him to be not only a one dimensional gross out gag master, but also one who can command the finer points of comedy (physically and through delivery). Think of his roles in Sweeney Todd and Hugo as two examples. Perhaps his future lies within roles written by people more attuned to those finer points than he is, because his latest effort, in Grimsby, is a giant elephants d*ck along side the golden chalices of his former glories.