Genre : Comedy
Country : USA
Collette Wolfe : Amanda
Sam Huntington : Bret
Riley Shanahan : Dex
My opinion on “Second Nature”
“Behind every great woman, there is a man …
staring at her ass.”
Remember Mel Gibson in “What women want” where you could see him experimenting with cosmetics and nylons just so he could relate to the female emotional landscape? I admit it. I always watch this movie when I come across it on a tv-channel. I guess it’s one of my guilty pleasure. It’s not entirely identical to the concept of “Second nature“, but the film also tries to show how different women and men think about certain things. Mel Gibson had the privilege in this movie to capture the thoughts of women surrounding him and use it to his advantage. Well, maybe it was the concept that attracted me and the usefulness I saw in it as a man. Or perhaps it was due to the presence of the attractive actress Helen Hunt. In “Second nature“, it’s a complete community where the personalities of women and men are being exchanged. Except the main players. They are being spared and retain their typical characteristics. What makes for hilarious conditions again. At least that should be the intention. However, there’s not much hilarity to be seen in this “Switch“-like pseudo comedy.
Really? A time capsule?.
Amanda (Collette Wolfe) tells her grandmother Estelle (Carolyn Cox) about the sexist behavior of her boss Bret (Sam Huntington) and the way she’s being judged by the male community. Estelle knows a redeeming idea. Before you know it, the two are digging for a time capsule in a meadow (Who came with that idea?). To Amanda’s astonishment the capsule contains, besides a giant dildo (uncontrolable laughter), a magic mirror that apparently could change her life. Don’t expect a detailed explanation about this. No clue how Amanda’s in-earlier-days-sexually-highly-active grandmother got it and what happened to her. Better this way. Otherwise the movie would take even longer.
Women behave like men. Men behave like women.
When the ruling mayor subsequently drives of a rock (fellatio-wise), Bret and Amanda are candidates for the vacant position. Bret has the most chance of getting this privileged position as he, as future mayor, will make sure that Louisburg will have plenty of strip bars and bars where lascivious, big-breasted servants serve the always horny male population. While Amanda is being laughed at because of her safety-suggestions and other less impressive slogans. Until the darned mirror shows its force at a political meeting (apparently Amanda carries this antique trinket with her everywhere) and suddenly the chances of Amanda look quite promising. The magic mirror causes women to behave like men. While men suddenly inherit the characteristics of the women.
Caution : Woman-Hole!
What follows is a string of faint allusions to the exchange of male and female characteristics. Men are insecure, sensitive people who aren’t afraid of using make-up now and then and who are being harassed by men-hungry women. And those women are suddenly individuals who are taking a leak while standing upright, make lewd, sexist remarks and as street workers make a pass at guys who walk by (while standing next to a warning sign that says “Caution: woman-hole!”. How subtle). The used humor isn’t really rude, but after a while you know which message they are trying to convey.
I feel sorry for the opposite sex.
Indeed, it’s true that women are treated unfriendly by society. Their opinion isn’t asked for sometimes. Or even heard to. And sometimes they are simply ignored. On the other hand, I feel a little bit insulted because it’s as if all men are sexist, butt slapping, unhygienic pigs whose brain is in their pants and who treat women disrespectful. Sorry, but I don’t think I match that profile.
It’s my feminine side. I’m doubting.
Is it really such a bad movie? No, I wouldn’t call it bad. Maybe the movie isn’t really funny (maybe I don’t have a sense of humor), but the interaction between Collette Wolfe and Sam Huntington felt natural and was amusing. It’s because of their enthusiasm that I kept watching. And some situations were ludicrous because of the recognisability. Like the toilet scene, for example. And in retrospect, the transformation of Dex Gamble (Riley Shanahan) was also quite funny in a certain way. Well, I’m sure if I keep thinking about it, I’m going to say it’s a fun movie. Is it possible that the small amount of female hormones in my body, cause this indecision? One advice, watch it yourself and decide on your own!
My rating 5/10
Links : IMDB
Do Revenge Review | A Revenge Tale Through the Eyes of Gen Z
‘Do Revenge’ does a lot of things right. Maya Hawke steals the show in this Gen Z revenge tale.
I stand by the fact that Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart is not only the best high school comedy ever but the most authentic portrayal of Gen Z and the landscape of the current world. Do Revenge is an attempt at taking down the affluent and the powerful while harkening back to blasts from the past such as Clueless, Mean Girls and a dash of Promising Young Woman. Is it always firing on all cylinders? No, but the film is a blast and deserves credit for not being like other high school movies.
Do Revenge opens with Drea (Camila Mendes), who is currently sitting pretty atop the illustrious high school food chain, giving a Cher Horowitz-like monologue about the measurement of success in high school. Off rip, we are brought into the 21st century and “PC culture” at one of these enormously lavish house parties. Indeed Do Revenge is one of those high school movies. For all of the genre tropes the film tries to surpass — or, at the very least, acknowledge in a tongue-in-cheek manner — it can’t escape them all (more on this below).
But Drea’s (very expensive) bubble is burst when a video sent to and meant for her boyfriend Max (Austin Abrams) is leaked to the entire school. This leads to Drea becoming an outcast of sorts and she meets Eleanor (Maya Hawke), a fellow outcast, and the two do revenge. Furthermore, it’s nice that unlike a film such as Spider-Man: No Way Home, which had a college admissions plot that’s laughable at best, there’s weight to why what college you attend matters — at least at the beginning of the film. The plot of Do Revenge revolves around the fact that neither of the main characters can go out and seek justice on their own. Drea is on especially thin ice with her admission to Yale being put on the line. The dilemma she faces is something the live-action Spider-Man films — or comic book films with high school characters in general — but luckily, Drea doesn’t manipulate the whole world to get her way (just her entire high school!).
When dealing with such wealthy characters, it requires a suspension of disbelief from viewers (unless you are that wealthy) that watching enough Disney Channel shows will give you. That didn’t completely stop my mind from wondering: Why are the parents never around? and: How did these kids get all of this alcohol? Furthermore, there is an absurd number of kids at the various house parties. There’s more at the parties than at the school’s assemblies. You have to see the sheer juxtaposition in order to really understand what I’m saying.
Without going into detail, the second half of the film — while messier — provides the actors a chance to shine. Hawke takes this opportunity and runs with it, delivering the perfect amount of camp needed for her ridiculous monologues. The same cannot be said of the rest of the class. Mendes is a steady 1A. and serves the role well, but there’s so much untapped potential (not to the fault of Mendes). The most complex part of her character is only lightly touched upon.
Alisha Boe of 13 Reasons Why — a series known for its extremely accurate representation of high school — commits the cardinal sin of dating Brea’s ex, Max. Boe was a highlight of the aforementioned 13 Reasons Why but I can think of 13 reasons why she should’ve been in Do Revenge more. Max, the crowd-pleasing class president of his school who’s going to peak in high school is by far the worst part of the film. Hats off to Celeste Ballard, who co-wrote the script, for attempting to make Max somewhat “layered” by showing he has more interests than the ones forced on him by his parents, but it’s completely out of Ballard’s hands once the film is shooting, and Abrams plays Max like Rumplestilskin in Shrek Forever After and is only more of a threat to the slightest degree (don’t underestimate the power of a smartphone). I appreciate the effort to make him the posturing high school “activist” that he is, though.
That’s also not the only occasion of Do Revenge attempting to say something bigger than the film it is. The film often seems like a surface-level dark comedy and I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not it’s successful in delivering its messages. The themes of race, class, identity crisis and misogyny are all sitting there for the taking, yet Do Revenge doesn’t do strong politics. And hey, who am I to judge? Politics and art don’t always have to be forced together but all I’m saying is if you can’t handle the heat, why are you in the kitchen?
The final twist occurs after what seems to be the resolution of the film feels like a desperate swing back to the anti-misogyny rhetoric that’s far too black-and-white to be taken seriously. Add to the fact that none of these characters are particularly likable (I doubt any of these characters would consider themselves a “particularly ethical person,” as Patrizia Reggiani said in House of Gucci) and it makes it hard to root for anyone. And yes, I know that the characters being unlikable is partly by design, but it doesn’t work for the same reason a heel vs. heel match in professional wrestling rarely works: Who do you root for? The charisma of Mendes and Hawke makes the film watchable; that doesn’t make their characters likable.
There are also quite a few twists and turns that come into motion in the second half. Not to be that guy, but it’s about as obvious as the twist of Don’t Worry Darling and I figured it out from the first conversation between a certain two characters (you can check my notes if you don’t believe me). And I’m no genius, it just requires the slightest bit of attention in the first 20 minutes of the film. And while I’m not expecting the true-to-life realism of a documentary with a film like Do Revenge, the film goes to Promising Young Woman-levels of ridiculous contingency plans.
It’s clear that Do Revenge owes a lot to high school films that have come before such as Clueless and Mean Girls. On top of the voiceover dialogue that is sprinkled throughout, the soundtrack filled with modern pop is aided by newer artists that fit the themes of the film. There is some crossover — both Clueless and Do Revenge use “Kids in America,” but I think we could retire this one — but Do Revenge features the likes of modern-day bangers like Olivia Rodrigo’s “brutal” and MUNA’s (feat. Phoebe Bridgers) “Silk Chiffon” also make an appearance in the film (tempting me to give the film an automatic five stars). The song choices are perfect for the overly-dramatic and very sensitive Gen Z population.
To end on a positive note, Do Revenge far exceeds Bodies Bodies Bodies‘ usage of Gen Z verbiage. I love the latter even more than this film, but the duo of Jennifer Kaytin Robinson — who also directed the film — and Ballard make the dialogue work for the most part. It’s balanced and not too on the nose. Best of all, they don’t throw the word “triggered” into random sentences, and when terms like that are used, it has a cheekiness to it that you can feel — slightly healing the inevitable cringe caused by hearing Gen Z’ers speak.
I don’t want this review to sound overly negative because don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Do Revenge. I’m willing to let a lot of nitpicks go but I almost wish the film committed to its best variable: Maya Hawke and if it was a tad bit shorter. The second half picks up the pace a bit but suffers from overstuffing and trying to be one step ahead of its audience. It fails on both ends but remains one of Netflix’s better original films and is exactly that: original.
Do Revenge is streaming on Netflix.
See How They Run Review | Agatha Christie Meets Wes Anderson in Meta Whodunnit
No, The Beatles’ “Lady Madonna” is (unfortunately) not used in See How They Run — Tom George’s new film starring Sam Rockwell and Saoirse Ronan.
First things first, the greatest mystery heading into See How They Run was: Is “Lady Madonna” played in the film? Sorry, Beatles fans, but the classic single does not appear in the film at all. As disappointing as that is, See How They Run is anything but. Filled with a stellar cast, great cinematography and a screenplay that is filled with a cheekiness that not only keeps the audience guessing but keeps a smile on their face throughout.
When Leo Köpernick (Adrien Brody), a big Hollywood producer, is sojourning in London in an effort to adapt the stageplay production of The Mousetrap into a film, hijinks pursues when crew members begin dropping like flies. This puts Inspector Stoppard (Sam Rockwell) and rookie Constable Stalker (Saoirse Ronan) on the case as they try to get to the bottom of who is committing these crimes.
2022 is the year of whodunnits as the Murder on the Orient Express — a real adaptation of Christie’s novel — sequel, Death on the Nile, hit theaters earlier this year. Now we have See How They Run before Glass Onion — which I consider a spiritual sequel to See How They Run due to its Beatles-inspired title — hits theaters and Netflix this fall. I can only speak to the two I’ve seen, but even still, See How They Run blows Death on the Nile out of the, well, Nile.
You see, See How They Run is attempting to defy the genre norms — ironic coming from a Disney project (albeit under the Searchlight Pictures banner). “Agatha Christie’s The Mousetrap, in my opinion, [is a] second-rate murder mystery,” says Köpernick in the opening voiceover. He proceeds to use the classic line from Singin’ in the Rain, “seen one, seem them all” when describing the genre of whodunnits. I guess that’s why he wanted to try and create something more with his adaptation of The Mousetrap; a theme that reoccurs throughout.
And I think it’s also safe to say that director Tom George has done something different with his film. See How They Run is much like a Wes Anderson production with an Agatha Christie novel as its backdrop. From the set design to the symmetry you find in Anderson’s films to the witty dialogue, See How They Run almost feels more indebted to Anderson than to Christie. The film culminates at a luxurious mansion during the wintertime as snow falls to the ground. There’s something whimsical about its aesthetic and only comparable to a stageplay (sort of like the snow in Guillermo del Toro’s Nightmare Alley adaptation or Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel).
None of this is to say that George doesn’t leave his own impression on the film. There’s a genius use of side-by-side shots, even going up to placing four different perspectives like the boxes in the Brady Bunch intro, that show you both sides of over-the-shoulder shots. While they find their way into the film on more than one occasion, the usage feels fresh and unlike anything seen in this genre; old Westerns and some martial arts films are the only ones I can think of.
One thing that doesn’t quite buck the trends of the whodunnit is the relationship between Stoppard and Stalker. The two have the generic “veteran and the rookie” dynamic that you’ve seen repeatedly, with Ronan playing Stalker as rather clumsily a la Ana de Armas’ character in No Time to Die and Judy Hicks in Scream 4, with a hint of the wide-eyed, “happy to be here” cliché. That said, Rockwell and Ronan are both terrific actors who make a trope that’s had its mileage used up many moons ago work. We know how special Ronan is, but can we acknowledge how great Rockwell has been in two of Searchlight Pictures’ recent films (Jojo Rabbit and See How They Run)? The rest of the ensemble is fine and simply serve the roles well without doing much more to stand out. The exception of course is Brody, who’s always able to make chicken salad out of chicken crap.
And the most crucial element of a whodunnit is its ending. No need to fear, no spoilers will be shared here, but I’m pleasantly surprised to hear myself say that I didn’t see the ending coming. See How They Run throws plenty of red herrings at you — some more obvious than others — but I’ll be the first to admit that the possibility of the big reveal was dismissed in my mind the one time it even crossed it. Maybe that speaks to my own intelligence, but I thought that See How You Run does a good job of selecting its culprit.
See How They Run is an easy recommendation because of its breezy runtime and the all-star cast. The editing of the first act alone, done by the duo of Gary Dollner and Peter Lambert, brilliantly hooks the audience in while keeping the pace up at all times. It’s also important to keep in mind that this is George’s first feature-length directorial effort, and if this is any indication, he has a bright future ahead of him. See How They Run is a whodunnit minus the self-seriousness of a Poirot mystery. As great as those are, it’s always nice to have the light alternative on hand. For as much criticism as Disney can receive for its monopoly on the film business, their acquisition of Searchlight Pictures at least gives original films like See How They Run a chance to be seen by a wide audience. Even after writing this review, I remain disappointed in the fact that The Beatles’ song “Lady Madonna” isn’t featured in See How They Run. The same cannot be said about the end result of the film itself. Great stuff that I can’t wait to revisit.
Searchlight Pictures will release See How They Run in theaters on September 16.
‘Love in the Villa’ Review | A Surprisingly Enjoyable, Albeit Predictable, Romantic Comedy
“Love in the Villa” works because of Kat Graham and Tom Hopper who infuse much-needed life inside a contrived plot.
From the director of Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and Killing Season (yes, you’ve read that correctly) comes Love in the Villa, Netflix’s latest Hallmark movie. However, this one isn’t bad compared to many of Netflix’s romantic comedies. Of course, it re-treads things everyone has seen before, but the chemistry between its lead actors and some interesting aesthetic choices make for a surprisingly enjoyable time at the movies.
Now the gist is extremely formulaic: third-grade teacher Julie Hutton (Kat Graham) gets dumped by her boyfriend Brandon (Raymond Ablack) the day before she leaves on a trip to Verona. When she arrives at her villa, everything goes wrong. There seemed to have been a mix-up between Villa owner Silvio (Emilio Solfrizzi) and Julie, who has double-booked the apartment with Charlie Fletcher (Tom Hopper). So, of course, they hate their guts as the movie begins…and then…well…you can probably guess what will happen here.
Yes, they’re going to fall in love by the end. Isn’t that the point? So there are virtually no surprises here, so one will look elsewhere to find enjoyment in the movie. Thankfully, the lead performances from Kat Graham and Tom Hopper effectively save the entire thing. Their chemistry is so fun to watch that I immediately forgot about most of the film’s flaws. That’s how good they are—and even if you’re not a fan of movies with repetitive plotlines, Graham and Hopper’s chemistry may win you over. They’re genuinely funny together, especially when they go to “war” to claim their place in the villa, and some surprising amounts of physical comedy work very well.
Johnson has always been a gifted visual filmmaker and uses neat tricks throughout his filmography and in Love in the Villa. He keeps the camera moving during fast-paced car scenes or even utilizes staggering corkscrew shots to signify to the audience that Charlie’s disdain (or love?) for Julie is driving him mad. I didn’t expect Netflix’s latest Hallmark movie to be this visually sophisticated, but here we are, and it’s a pleasant surprise.
Those two elements make the movie as enjoyable as possible, even if the rest of the film leaves little to be desired. For starters, this movie contains CGI cats. Why not real cats, you ask? I don’t know, but it certainly doesn’t look good. Of course, CGI cats superimposed on digital matte paintings isn’t a match made in heaven, but they’re so noticeable it almost gives the CGI mountain lion from Netflix’s last mega-production, Me Time, a run for its money. Yeah, it looks that bad.
Secondly, this is a movie where you know exactly where it will end as soon as it starts. I’ve already summed up the plot, so it’s pointless if I write it up again, but it’s as predictable as you think it will happen. Most rom coms are precisely like that, which makes them falter at a great length, and Love in the Villa is as paint-by-numbers as you may think. There are no surprises, which makes the entire thing feel pointless. If you’re looking for safe entertainment, it’s probably the most inspired choice on Netflix right now, but if you’re looking for something more challenging, this isn’t it.
It doesn’t help that the movie is almost two hours long—there’s a lot of material here that could’ve been left on the cutting room floor, particularly a subplot in which they go to a vineyard or when the exes come back (because they always do). But they don’t necessarily matter to the main plot because you know they will end up together in the first place. So why not just cut to the chase and give the audience what they want instead of throwing in a faux subplot when you’re not fooling anyone?
Regardless of these moments, Love in the Villa still works. It’s not going to win anyone over looking for something with more depth, but Graham and Hopper are just so fun to watch together that it becomes a rather breezy film. Steven Johnson seems to be a usually maligned filmmaker, but his style works surprisingly well for a movie like this and blends itself well with its lead performances. It’s certainly not an Oscar contender, but it gets the job done. And you can’t fault it for that.
Love in the Villa is now available to stream on Netflix.
‘Return To Monkey Island’ – the beloved franchise is back!
It’s been 13 years since the last Monkey Island instalment was released in 2009. Going back even further, it’s 32...
Manchester Comic Con Returns! With A Star Studded Lineup And More
With the summer Movie, Comic Book & TV season in full swing with the likes of Stranger Things: Season 4...
PARAMOUNT+ Reveals UK Launch Date, Pricing, Distribution Partners & More
Paramount+, the global streaming service from Paramount Global, will launch in the UK and Ireland on 22 June 2022. After...
Marvel Studios’ Secret Invasion | official Trailer | Disney +
Fury and Talos try to stop the Skrulls who have infiltrated the highest spheres of the Marvel Universe.
Black Adam | Official Trailer 2 | Warner Bros. Discovery
Nearly 5,000 years after he was bestowed with the almighty powers of the Egyptian gods-and imprisoned just as quickly-Black Adam...
Nailing It — First Official Clip From Marvel Studios’ She Hulk | Disney +
Jennifer Walters navigates the complicated life of a single, 30-something attorney who also happens to be a green 6-foot-7-inch superpowered...
Cinematographers Bianca Cline and Eric Adkins Talk Bringing Marcel the Shell with Shoes On to Life | Interview
'Marcel the Shell' cinematographers Bianca Cline (live-action) and Eric Adkins (stop-motion) discuss bringing the one-inch-tall shell to life in time...
Alex Lehmann Discusses Tackling the Rom-Com Genre with Meet Cute, Filming in New York City and Working with Pete Davidson and Kaley Cuoco | Interview
The 'Meet Cute' director sheds light on bringing something new to the rom-com table.
Do Revenge Review | A Revenge Tale Through the Eyes of Gen Z
'Do Revenge' does a lot of things right. Maya Hawke steals the show in this Gen Z revenge tale.
Marvel2 weeks ago
Marvel Studios’ Secret Invasion | official Trailer | Disney +
Interviews2 weeks ago
Petr Jákl Talks About Medieval, Casting Michael Caine and Having the Film in the Can for Four Years | Interview
Entertainment2 weeks ago
‘Return To Monkey Island’ – the beloved franchise is back!
Drama2 weeks ago
The Fabelmans | Official Trailer | Steven Spielberg