Picking Up the Pieces 2000 by AverageMansReviews

Picking Up the Pieces 2000 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flattering effects/colourful effects/decapitation/religion/burning/transformation/cutting/drugs/reference to capital punishment. There will be some censored adult language references in this content.

I really do hate this film: briefly; we meet Tex and Candy Cowley [Woody Allen and Sharon Stone:] this husband-and-wife magical act, where he saws her in half consequently killing her and cutting her body into pieces and then burying her, by this local village, but this one part gets left out and it has the power to grant wishes.

Generally speaking: from the outset this movie is complete dog manure on every single level, in theory the storyline would have been good, but in practice it is anything but good, in reality; the script is insufferably boring, let me state for here

and now as I am British we know something about having a dark sense of humour, but the comedy level in conjunction with the framework and pacing of this 95 minute film, is just garbage, it just dribbled on and on and on, like for example a character wanting bigger breasts and them coming out like being blown up like balloons, then consequently we have these religious characters wanting to discuss the situation, including this male character getting really close up with a camera to to her chest and her liking the attention [ only if they knew roughly 27 years later this would be the norm thanks to adult websites,] but I digress; a female religious character punishes the male religious character; this is just the rough outline of the sequence of events.

Character development, performances and voice performance; well if this is what they were going for in this movie; they absolutely struck gold, the character types are monotone or/and depressing versions, mixed with performances that echo their character types or/and incredibly poor performances and what was the point of the voice-over at the end of this insufferable movie.

This film receives: 1/10, this film is poor; this film is completely avoidable in fact even though I have done this I suggest you don't if like me you found a copy of it for 50 P/$.25 roughly... just do yourself a favour and save the money, but somehow this film has some positive awards accredited to its name and absolutely no negatives which I am absolutely shocked by; so this film has 2 Nominees to its name in the form of; ALMA Awards 2001 ALMA Award Outstanding Made-for-Television Movie or Mini-Series and Outstanding Latino Cast in a Made-for-Television Movie or Mini-Series

 

Confessions of a Shopaholic 2009 by AverageMansReviews

Confessions of a Shopaholic 2009 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/addiction/reference to harassment/there will be some censored adult language reference in this content

Well this is just horse manure!: Briefly; we meet Rebecca Bloomwood/other name [Younger: Madeleine Rockwitz/Older: Isla Fisher:] as she provides narrations/storyteller about her younger self and where her obsession/addiction to clothing and accessories began fast-forward many years she is a journalist and as the title may suggest a full blown shopaholic, she loses her job in thousands upon thousands of debt and yet somehow end up Successful Savings; in the world of finance and all of that.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script is both predictable and beyond awful which basically makes it predictably beyond awful, I mean come on people this film roughly goes on for 112 minutes and for the vast, vast like miners may be the last 25 minutes where she basically does this hitting rock bottom coming-of-age thing where on top of that she gets a person back or/and really wants in her life, so in essence let me get this right should completely screwed up and in my opinion doesn't the basics to grow but nowhere enough and yet she ends up better off without facing any major consequences; honestly this is fudgin' stupid storyline/scrip and character developments.

I mean as I have already referenced minus say the last 25 minutes of this movie [then it just gets into the routine/flow of having some purpose about it with good pacing; but I digress;] the framework and pacing including the comedy is by far heavily insufferable; as there isn't much happening or/and the framework and pacing is very slow; the point where you will feel every second pass, because the comedy outlay is skit scene either verbally or physically or both or other there is no major punch to them, they come off either incredibly goofy or incredibly clumsy or either way it is not funny; the only comedy that was of high quality and imaginative with by far the best character developments that this movie has the author; is where from in Rebecca's psyche these mannequin can move and talk; the first time it is marvellous all the way around including artistically, but right towards the end of the movie bringing back the mannequins; this time feels like self-indulgent congratulations to your own psyche which definitely comes off as a hot steaming pile of manure as at this time; from me; she is not a likeable character whatsoever, so what you were able to give up shopping but for you to learn you had to constantly lie and your own life first, now you are relying on ourselves to basically give yourself a pat on the back using your own psyche... you are aware that makes you sound like a psychopath right?....

Character developments and performances; on both counts all I can say is this; if this is what they wanted they absolutely struck gold here? So based this I would say broadly speaking performances are a good representation of their character types and regardless of how insufferable they actually come off as.

This film receives: 1/10, this film is poor; to be brutally honest with you this film is completely and utterly missable, the only reason I watched it; is because it was on one of my stacks of content to watch, at the beginning of the closing credits there is extra sequence. Yet somehow this film has some awards accredited to its name such as 1 Winner ASCAP Film and Television Music Awards ASCAP Award Top Box Office Films James Newton Howard Shared with: Duplicity and 3 Nominees which includes but not limited to Teen Choice Awards 2009 Choice Movie Actress: Comedy Isla Fisher

 

The Return of the Pink Panther 1975 by AverageMansReviews

The Return of the Pink Panther 1975 by AverageMansReviews

Previous instalment: Inspector Clouseau 1968 Link https://averagemansreviews2017.blogspot.com/2026/08/inspector-clouseau-1968-by.html

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful/drugs/shooting/rainbow rainbow community element/animal cruelty/animal waste/medical

He is back!: Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus [Herbert Lom:] he is the individual that Clouseau reports to as he is his senior, but he despises Clouseau with such passion it gives him twitchy eyes, but not only that he has been told by his senior to basically promote Clouseau back to his original rank of Inspector, so Police Officer/Inspector/other Jacques Clouseau/other characters [Peter Sellers:] is our clumsy French person of the law, but yet again has to solve the case of a stolen The Pink Panther diamond, and yes at some point or another we have Cato Fong [Burt Kwouk:] as a martial arts training; but highly skilled martial artist anyway/training partner and servant to Clouseau.

Generally speaking: the art in the opening credits of this film are lots of fun as for an example we have The Pink Panther tap-dancing with a cane and top hat and the animated those in of Inspector Clouseau is in this opening sequence as well, the storyline/script in theory makes sense as in it is pretty much as I have already said it; but in practice I have to be completely honest in its execution; it is so ugly to the point where I was falling asleep for a little in sections and the person that I watch some of this content with; basically asked me; what is going on? The problem here is or the problems are; there are some sections of this film that I really elongated, so as it relates to the framework; you will experience just long scenes/sequences were you will feel there are things going on, but accompanied with this weird silence; I quick side note at some points we get storyteller or a Clouseau breaking-the-fourth-wall or/and for Chief Inspector Dreyfus or other a bit of comedy [in a restaurant,] but I digress; which coinciding in this is the pacing reflects that also be it separately or together; so has found that this nicely when everything is in sync it is good, but when it isn't; it makes this film really hard work to watch and it goes on for 113 minutes which on watching this film it feels slightly longer than that and I will be discussing this component again at some points, as it really impacts this title on various levels.

Comedy, action and art; I can't tell too much about this skit; Police Officer gets into this somewhat difficult conversation with his individual playing his instrument on the street for money with a monkey; basically he enquires to have you got a licence to do that on the street? The man said no, it escalates to the point where the man has no control over the monkey as they lived together and this man is actually blind [meanwhile there are things happening in this building behind this conversation in this scene which Clouseau misses until it is too late,] strangely enough this is not the only animal Clouseau has problems with in this film as much later on we have one of the flying variety, Clouseau vs. Fong is always a good source of fun as they now and again in this instalment go head-to-head and it has to be said the slow motion effects are strangely they really high-quality as they really show care and detail of when these effects are used; it really does put the late 90s, 2000 and early 2010s usage of slow motion effects to shame really as these decades just used this effect to death and of a very low quality, in this point in history as I said, they really took time and effort to use the special effect properly and consequently the outcome is much of a better quality even though it is much older and the art; such as set designs, wardrobe and accessories; such as for this one locations; we are in this disco; it is a vibrant and I pointed out that Clouseau looked like one of The Beatles; the person that I watch some of this content with; said Ringo Starr; so I will go with that assessment.

Character developments and performances; the returning characters in the plot section of this content have been nicely progressed and really beginning to find their feet in particular Inspector Clouseau as they have all returned; these performances in particular are an asset to this title in a big way; to be a little bit more specific Sellers; but in a masterclass of just trying to keep everything going; being highly highly skilled and fluent performer that he is; in a nutshell making being clumsy and clueless from time to time seem fluently natural and effortlessly, don't get me wrong the rest of the cast did a solid job; but this title really needed a driving force behind it and the returning characters, yet again predominately Sellers did that with seemingly I hasten to add very little effort.

This film receives: 5/10, is mixed; it was somewhat difficult to mark this project on its clearly long-term issues which I have already discussed, but at the same time I needed to work out that mark that would reflect Sellers or predominantly Sellers hard work [because all the names I have mentioned in the opening section contribute something positive,] but predominantly it down to Sellers hard work, grit and determination to essentially put this film on his back and carry it, because without him this film would have absolutely collapsed and any awards he got accredited he truly did earn them and there is an ongoing sequence in the closing credits; this film also has some awards accredited to its name; such as 2 Winners Evening Standard British Film Awards 1977 Evening Standard British Film Award Best Comedy Blake Edwards and Best Actor Peter Sellers and 5 Nominees which includes but not limited to Grammy Awards 1976 Grammy Album of Best Original Score Written for a Motion Picture or a Television Special Henry Mancini and Writers Guild of America, USA WGA Award (Screen) Best Comedy Written Directly for the Screen Frank Waldman Blake Edwards

 

George and Mildred 1980 by AverageMansReviews

George and Mildred 1980 by AverageMansReviews

Background and journey of: George & Mildred Roper [Brian Murphy and Mildred Roper:] began life in the British sitcom known as Man About the House; 1973-1976; 6 Series; 39 Episodes, then spin-off George & Mildred get their own TV show entitled George & Mildred: 1976-1979; 5 Series; 38 Episodes and then we have this movie in 1980.

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/shooting/vehicle crashing

Anniversary: briefly; we meet husband-and-wife George/another character's name & Mildred Roper [Brian Murphy and Yootha Joyce:] in a nutshell it turns out that George had forgotten it was their anniversary, so Mildred has decided that they are going to spend some time at a expensive hotel for some time and George is paying and this is what happened on their anniversary.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script is excellently designed to incorporate; the comedy style of; George accidentally getting trapped in his own car, consequently bringing the character developments of; mistaken identity into play and without giving too much away eventually going home blissfully unaware of the situation/situations going on around them and right at the end Mildred breaking-the-fourth-wall; to indicate; see you around and we will be fine, so based on everything I have just said; the framework and pacing of this 93 minutes film is good as there is always something happening somewhere.

Character developments, comedy and action; because of George's mistaken identity with the wrong sort of people, they rig the roulette wheel so he can't lose, but on finding out they had been talking to the wrong guy; they switch off and let the roulette wheel as normal; consequently George loses everything or much later on this hitman eventually exhausts trying to shoot at his targets.

Character developments and performances; these are either very good and reliable character types and consequently performances or really defined as it relates to George & Mildred; because as I made reference to earlier Murphy and/or Joyce have been working together for some years at this point and it shows as their chemistry and fluency comes across as very natural; as if they had been married for years themselves; but there is good cameraderie throughout this cast to get this project done in a enthusiastic manner.

This film receives: 8/10, this film is excellent; eventually I decided to award this mark, based on the fact it doesn't claim to be anything other than what it is... which is a long-term married couple leaning towards the old section of life, trying to celebrate their anniversary with either individually things happen or in some way or another consequently things happen around.

 

Inspector Clouseau 1968 by AverageMansReviews

Inspector Clouseau 1968 by AverageMansReviews

Previously instalment: A Shot in the Dark 1964/1965 Link https://averagemansreviews2017.blogspot.com/2026/08/a-shot-in-dark-19641965-by.html

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/shooting/drugs/impaling/sinking

The British need the French detective: briefly; the British bring in Inspector Jacques Clouseau [Alan Arkin/other characters and performers:] he is a clumsy French detective that has been brought in, because of this serious crime and trying to prevent this potential even bigger crime

Generally speaking: the art in the opening credits is always pleasant to see and experience and this doesn't change in this instalment, the storyline/script is something safe and reliable, but the framework and pacing of this project feels really slow and stretched out to the point where two things happen; 1. This film feels much longer like 120 minutes easily, when in reality it is just 96 minutes long and 2. Predominately the comedy sometimes doesn't have a certain punch or snap or enthusiasm consequently that leaves our Inspector/Arkin carrying or/and making this film work as best as he can.

Comedy, action and art; well to start off when we have these two characters in this room [office] sharing this dialogue exchange and simultaneously slowly moving around this room; a piece of dialogue and move and repeat the cycle throughout this scene; is a mess for me, I mean I get it, I understand the concept and the partial elegance of this; but it is extremely dry which as I have already eluded to this really doesn't help the framework and pacing of this movie, but at least we get a type of James Bond 007 interpretation where our Inspector gets all of these gadgets, where he accidentally but with great purpose shoot somebody is meant to shoot kind of as in they were about to shoot him, so he got there first even though it was by accident or/and this slightly long, but with a massive difference of being enthusiastic; where our Inspector runs into this location wanting to defuse the bomb, but as always with the Inspector things don't always work out or go according to plan as they should do, the set designs, wardrobe and accessories are of very good quality.

Character developments and performances; to begin with broadly speaking; the character types and subsequently performances were/are solid versions of what they were going for here; I generally felt a little bit sorry Alan Arkin as Inspector Jacques Clouseau, he did a good job as the Inspector on both counts; be it character developments or/and performance... he just wasn't Peter Sellers and as Sellers had very clearly made this role is very own, to anyone good carrying the mantle [at this time Sellers was off filming another film; The Party 1968.]

This film receives: 3/10, this film is poor; don't get me wrong as you can read it does have good things about it, but I don't know what went wrong with this movie, but everything it ran off as I have already indicated just went so badly and what really made my mind up to assign this film this mark is I didn't fall asleep once... but twice, so after that including the fact that the person I watch some of this content with also struggled to stay awake and it really became a chore for me; it is really the only mark I could give after everything is said and done.

 

A Shot in the Dark 1964/1965 by AverageMansReviews

A Shot in the Dark 1964/1965 by AverageMansReviews

Previously instalment: The Pink Panther 1963 Link https://averagemansreviews2017.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-pink-panther-1963-by.html

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/shooting/drugs/stabbing/impaling/animal cruelty/medical/references to sexual assault

You are on the case... You are off case... You are on the case...: briefly; accidentally Inspector Jacques Clouseau [Peter Sellers:] a bumbling French inspector gets assigned this murder case, but the number one suspect is innocent her name is Maria Gambrelli [Elke Sommer:] but okay it doesn't look like when someone sees her with the smoking gun literally in hand at the time of the murder and we meet Cato [Burt Kwouk:] he is a martial arts training; but highly skilled martial artist anyway/training partner and servant to the Inspector where he can spring up at anytime or anywhere.

Generally speaking: the art in the opening credits is of Inspector Jacques Clouseau; trying to solve this case and at one point we see the Can-can; this is really priceless animation; you can't replace hand drawn art; it has a timeless quarterly to it as with broadly speaking computer animation; depending on how it looks when it first goes out has by and large a tougher time being timeless, because computer animation and computer technology is always changing and updating. The storyline/script is excellent; it is a murder mystery obviously including comedy as well and because the script is excellently written you can place fluent and consequently natural skit scenes, which are plentiful and we even get one breaking-the-fourth-wall; where we have our Inspector looking directly at the camera for a split second, as we have these many characters arguing behind him, so conversely the framework and pacing of this 102 minutes film is good, but it also moves with purpose and a lively nature

Action, comedy and art; we have some elements of usual action with various weapons being used, with our Inspector sluicing around various locations or trying to without being sent directly to Cato training from out of anywhere at anytime or/and with this individual missing their intended target. The Inspector is still very clumsy be it falling out of somewhere or sets his coat on fire and trying to synchronise his watch with someone else's watch and for taste of the art amongst other things we have Spanish, Hawaiian/Persian and/or Russian dancing; but broadly speaking throughout the set designs, landscapes and/or wardrobe and accessories are of the highest quality; so there is always something to look and fresh or experience.

Character developments and performances; the character developments are good versions of what they are meant to be; based on towards the closing stages of this movie, they did this whole; getting the suspects into one room with the Inspector and do the whole finger pointing thing; which is always an excellent or should be an excellent crescendo to a mystery movie, so the character developments have to follow a good yet reliable character type for this kind of styles work properly in the closing stages. The cast of performers are also defined in their characters, which gives them an element of excellent chemistry and sharpness to live performances, for Sellers as Inspector Jacques Clouseau; you can see and feel that as this is the second time in this role, he has more of an understanding as this character, consequently he makes this role is very own, he also has spot on chemistry with Burt Kwouk as Cato and vice versa; they really do get each other's character and performer even though they spend only a little time on screen now and again in this movie

This film receives: 10/10, this film is top-notch entertainment; for its lively and enthusiastic nature of fluently being able to live alone, moving on to essentially the next skit in conjunction with as I have already alluded to character developments that were and are good versions, but so much more importantly enthusiastic performances from the cast for a willingness to have an excellent sense of camaraderie to make this project the very best they can, if you're into old school comedy crime caper, you need to see this film once-in-a-lifetime, for a moment there is an ongoing seen underneath the closing credits and yes it does have some awards accredited to its name such as; 3 Nominees which include but not limited to BAFTA Awards 1966 BAFTA Film Award Best British Costume (Colour) Margaret Furse

 

The Pink Panther 1963 by AverageMansReviews

The Pink Panther 1963 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/drugs/shooting/animal cruelty/vehicle crash

Meanwhile, meanwhile, meanwhile eventually: briefly; Inspector Jacques Clouseau [Peter Sellers:] he is a very clumsy French detective, is on the case to find out the identity of the individual known as The Phantom, all we know is whoever this individual is they are going for The Pink Panther diamond, oh yes he has brought his wife belonged to.

Generally speaking: the art; we get to meet the animated Pink Panther in the opening credits and right at the end where he appears in this real-life location; but he is still the animated version of himself; this is fantastic art for back in the day of 1963 and let's be honest; it is still holding up excellently in 2026 and it will be that way until the end of time; you see this kind of art and vision has a timeless quality to it and at some point we get a musical number this is also good.

The storyline/script holds well together, I can say the same for the framework and pacing of this 113 minutes film; where at the beginning we have this recurring joke of Meanwhile [then we go somewhere] repeat the cycle or much later on we had a split-screen of two characters dressed up in monkey costumes; looking inside this safe [one from the top end and the other from the bottom end hence split-screen and as things are not going too well at one point they break-the-fourth-wall and for a brief second or less they look right at the camera.] But there is a good section of this film where our lead lead character/lead role Inspector Clouseau/Sellers is not in this film and because of that; this film definitely suffers because of that, I mean don't get me wrong we have a staged fight and then a skiing mishap; but it just doesn't have the same kind of punch and on top of that when Inspector Clouseau/Sellers is back it does take some time to warm up again.

Character developments, comedy and action; Inspector Clouseau/Sellers; like I said earlier he is incredibly clumsy for some examples; in one scene we have one of these majestic very expensive looking globes that has its kind of standing nest to sit in; well it must have been greasy or something because our Inspector slides off it, falls to the floor and does this whole quickly get up and carry on as if there is nothing to see here thing, later on he breaks his violin and sometime later he has back repaired and he is under the great illusion he can play the violin expertly, which he can't; he plays it and it sounds like a squealing female cat in heat.

Somewhere around the final quarter; brief description of the next sequence; I believe that this old man is trying to cross the road or whatever it is; he gets stuck now and again between different vehicles and different characters dressed up in different costumes including may be walking as well; it is something like out of Mario Kart on an extreme budget; so this old man, decides to go back to where you once came from sit down on this chair and see some of the carnage/air some of the carnage until we have this massive crash and then this old man tried again to cross over to where he wants to go.

Character developments and performances; broadly speaking the character developments minus what I have already indicated are good versions of their character types, the performances are also a good reflection of those character types and finally for Inspector Clouseau/Sellers; we can already start to see and experience why Sellers was and is crucial to this role as this character, because you have to be really smart, to make this level of clumsiness this natural.

This film receives: 6/10, this film is good; as I have already made reference to it; this film wasn't quite the same even though Inspector Clouseau/Sellers came back I mean it obviously got better and better, but it is most definitely something they could have done without doing. This film also has some awards accredited to its name such as 5 Winners which include but not limited to Online Film & Television Association 2024 OFTA Film Hall of Fame Character Peter Sellers (Inspector Jacques Clouseau) and 9 Nominees which also include but not limited to Academy Awards, USA Oscar 1965 Best Music, Substantially Original Score Henry Mancini

 

 

Once Upon a Crime... 1992 by AverageMansReviews

Once Upon a Crime... 1992 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/decomposing/animal cruelty/drugs/medical

Someone capture that dog! Oh now we are in line for a murder case of a person: briefly; we need some characters such as Neil and Marilyn Schwary [James/Jim Belushi and Cybill Shepherd:] a husband and wife that have been together for 10 years; Neil twice a year makes this journey to basically look at the latest fashion and then make cheaper knockoffs and he also has a system for the roulette wheel, his wife is quite submissive in the early stages anyway, they/we meet Augie Morosco [John Candy:] a retired/recovering addiction to gambling specifically the roulette wheel after he lost everything including but not limited to businesses, he is just purchased this dog from another pair of characters, all of these characters will eventually be suspects in the murder [and at some points we will meet our Director for this film; Eugene Levy as Casino Cashier.]

Generally speaking: the storyline/script is to begin with somewhat fragmented as we meet different characters in their own storyline and with the framework and pacing being I'm going to go with slightly eccentric as in you never know where you are going to go off next, so the comedy likewise has that eccentric feeling to things, I mean things at some point do have or find themselves in a better order of things which gives the comedy space to breathe a little bit before the next one coming element of it; in hindsight I get it with what they were trying to do; I believe that they were trying to make things disorganised for then later on so it could be verbally reconstructed in this investigation; which feeds back into the character developments of these suspects in the future so as I said earlier I get it; but at the time you may be thinking; what the hell are we doing? So broadly speaking I would say the framework and pacing of this; 94 minutes is good

Comedy and action; as I have already referenced; the comedy can be seen as eccentric but good fun, be it gambling at the casino; be it the ups and downs, medical situation and attempt of a fight or/and at one point or another dealing with a dead body and consequently this dog [which I should just point out the dog is absolutely fine he just gets placed on a bus] or/and this ongoing lighter situation or/and having to re-enact this escape; but clearly being too big to pull it off [because I am fully aware of the world we live in 2026; I am not body shaming, but at the same time that is the whole point of this particular skit/sequence of events.]

Character developments and performances; other than what I have already referenced; we have the old yet reliable outlay of at the heart of this film all these characters have their issues or/and needs hence why they are all involved in one way or another in this complicated adventure/crime and this is very much a cast performance all working off one another and being the biggest asset to this film by some distance, because without them this film would have absolutely fallen on its face.

This film receives: 8/10, this film is excellent; I think after all is said and done even though for a little while we have a very rocky beginning, the comedy, the enthusiastic nature and the chemistry of the cast really do hold this entire project together, there is an ongoing sequence underneath the ending credits and yes this film has 1 accredited award to its name, but unfortunately it is negative; Razzie Awards 1993 Worst Supporting Actress Sean Young: as Phoebe: she is another individual that participates in this wacky adventure/crime.

 

 

Porridge 1979 by AverageMansReviews

Porridge 1979 by AverageMansReviews

Related content: Animal Farm 2025/2026 Link https://averagemansreviews2017.blogspot.com/2026/07/animal-farm-20252026-by.html

Background and journey of: Norman Stanley Fletcher known as Fletch and sometime later for some time Lennie Godber better known as Godber [Ronnie Barker & Richard Beckinsale:] they began life on the British sitcom known as Porridge; 1974-1977; 3 Series; altogether 21 Episodes, then a continuation/spin-off; Going Straight 1978; 1 Series; 6 Episodes and then this movie in 1979

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/rainbow community elements/medical/references to racism

Convicts vs. Celebrities: Norman Stanley Fletcher known as Fletch [Ronnie Barker:] is an experienced convict the is the head coach of the Convicts Team,  Lennie Godber better known as Godber [Richard Beckinsale/yes for the younger generations; he is the father of Samantha and Kate Beckinsale:] he is the cellmate of Fletch; they very much have a father and son relationship and he is a defender football/soccer player.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script and the framework and pacing of this 93 minutes film is good; there isn't much really to report here; all these components are very much solid and sound.

Comedy and action; the comedy is quick-witted as for an example of Fletch gets asked by a new addition to the prison officer staff something to the effect of why are you hear? As in what crime did you commit? Which Fletch responds with, because I got caught; as in I am here because I got caught committing a crime. So Fletch will slightly turned things to have a joke or to win an argument or frame or phrase things differently depending to suit what need such as playing a game of Draughts; because the situation has come to the attention that he needs to address, when he is playing this game and it is inevitable he is going to lose, you will call it a draw.

Godber will make a hat disappearing in today's food; as he gently patted down with a wooden accessory to make sure that it sinks down into days batch of food and much later on we have some football/soccer; where we have some really hard challenges/tackle going in, a sloppy goal and unfortunately Gober gives himself a concussion consequently a little time later he gives some Scottish football results; in the style of an individual that is re-capping an entire afternoon of football/soccer results in one sitting.

Character developments and performances; on both counts they are excellent versions of what they are meant to be; because they have an authentic presence to them; be it a convict has committed a crime hence why they are here or highlighting the the prison officers are serving time just like the criminals; in the context of you may have that choice to go home, but serving your time in a work sense, isn't much different. So it brings annulment of a symbiotic relationship between both prison officer and criminal and vice versa, and on top of that you have all the different levels of criminals and also the different levels of prison officers as well; that may go from let's try and talk to these criminals all the way to a strict hand; so broadly speaking you have this melting pot of a little society within HMP Slade Prison; so these performances regardless of role size had to slot into this environment and run with it; which in turn creates excellent chemistry and camaraderie which is priceless to the success of this universe; obviously a special mention has to go to the nucleus of characters/performers such as Barker and Beckinsale; because without this nucleus it struggles to work as the Porridge remake of 2017 has shown us; 1 Series; 6 Episodes; full disclosure I have never seen it, I mean I have never seen it fully but I have come across it channel hopping, but that is about it; you couldn't or shouldn't remake a project which has a legacy behind it and trying to re-create the time and tone of its place in history doesn't work which just to finish off Animal Farm 2025/2026 is now finding out the hard way.

This film receives: 8/10, this film is excellent; on reflection I have decided to award another extra mark based on; it is just a little pleasant film that is of the highest quality and most definitely has a timeless quality to it, this film also has some extra bits and pieces going on underneath the closing credits and it even has 1 Winning award to its name; Evening Standard British Film Awards 1980 Evening us Standard British Film Award Best Comedy Dick Clement

 

Little Brother 2026 by AverageMansReviews

Little Brother 2026 by AverageMansReviews

Related content: Average Extra of: Little Brother 2026: My Reaction: Released on Netflix 26/06/2026 Link https://averagemansreviews2017.blogspot.com/2026/05/average-extra-of-little-brother-2026-my.html

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/bodily functions/vehicle hit/drugs/mental illness/medical. Now at some point or another I will be using adult censored language references

I am going to see my big brother: briefly; we meet Marcus Pinchel [Younger:

Christopher Woodley/Older: Eric André:] that have had it rough throughout his life in fact he escaped from a psychiatric facility, he believes he has been corresponding via e-mail with as he sees his big brother [but isn't as basically when they were younger it was a big brother program;] Rudd Landy [Younger: Maximo Salas/Older: John Cena:] in comparison his life has/is going to the typical script of a suburban family with roughly the four family unit, becoming a bigger name in real estate, in fact he already has a biological bigger brother to begin with, so he doesn't need anyone screwing up his life.

Generally speaking: Everything about this film is generic from the storyline/script to the exposition character developments/character developments, consequently performances that are formulaic but do their job and more importantly don't really discuss any of the major issues raised in this film other than a quick conclusion, but at least the framework and pacing of this 102 minutes film is straightforward in every sense of the word.

Action and comedy; we have Pinchel going up through the air vents to escape from this location, but not everything always goes according to plan and broadly speaking the comedy outlay is predominantly not everything goes according to plan or/and when Pinchel is involved things do tend to go wrong such as falling for the ceiling or/and discovering a meat version of him in his bed as a decoy or having to go to the bathroom through this small gap in this car's window and I should just point out there is mature to adult themes in the comedy, but at least at one point Jim Henson gets a reference and his other gem of Fraggle Rock [or Jim Henson's Fraggle Rock or other name references:] for 5 Seasons; 95 Episodes; in a very basic description you had these characters living underground and we would visit their environment and witness their adventures on top of that and not forgetting they would be living underneath this man and his dog.]

But I digress; I did find this movie on the rare occasion comical, but this is one of those occasions where by and large the novelty of how far were they going to go? Quickly evaporated especially when I/you will realise that they are not really going to cover the hard-hitting stuff on any rate significant level and this is where this film last more marks, to be more precise it lost 50% of its marks heading into the final section or there or thereabouts.

Character developments and performances are let's be honest with one another perfectly designed to follow their character types, which in turn produces performances and on-screen chemistry which as I have already referenced will do the job to a solidly good standard; if you know what I mean of; if that is what they wanted they struck gold

This film receives: 2/10, this film is poor; straight off the bat I would like to tell Cena after seeing this film, don't give up your day job... Oh sorry you have already done that. This film is horse manure, because in a nutshell it glosses over these really in-depth subject matters; such as genuine abandonment issues and consequently other topics such as mental health and yet again I am talking about the real deal of mental health, not any of this I feel depressed today horse manure. I mean toward the later, much later stages of this project we get this realisation hollocks and relatively speaking quick resolution, I mean this film is released in 2026 and yet we still have projects coming out with this kind of ball-manure and I want to make myself crystal clear, I am not just outraged because of my mental health illness; depression myself, I am absolutely furious of the lack of awareness of how this film treats, someone with quite clearly mentally damaged; so I am talking about or/and all mental impact and not just my own here. Because I'm not speaking for anyone here, but I think we can all agree we wish that perhaps having a 10 to 15 minute conversation about our mental health completely resolved our mental health illness or/and disability and this film also has a mixture of extra scenes and bloopers mixed all in together.

 

Ladies First 2026 by AverageMansReviews

Ladies First 2026 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is going to be flashing effects/colourful effects/misogyny/misandry/sexism/rainbow community/sexual harassment/self harming/burning/shooting/animal waste/medical

Well this is woke: briefly; we have narrating from this homeless guy known as Pidgeon Man [Richard E Grant:] that tells us a little bit about Damien Sachs [Sacha Baron Cohen:] let's be honest he is a bit of a pig and a misogynist as well, he is in line for this big promotion at Atlas Agency [that deals with the world of advertising;] because of circumstances he has to promote a woman to a big decision and that unfortunate individual is Alex Fox [Rosamund Pike:] she is a highly talented and skilled individual that in this world; gets to run point leader/manage this advertising project by name only as this responsibility will go to someone else. But let's see how Sachs likes the roles been reversed after he bangs his head and wakes up in the female dominated society.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script is to begin with very problematic as their sexism on either side regardless of gender is really quite off-putting; because it isn't authentically real; I mean I know it happens and I hasten to add I know it shouldn't happen, but the level of it and let me just say this again on both sides has been put on maximum output and for large amount of time/times it isn't funny and it also feels like it has been loosely kind of adapted from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol; from the perspective of this horrible man goes through this experience and comes back to set everything right or try to set everything right. The framework and pacing of this 93 minute films is very much depending on if it is being suffocated by the misogyny or the misandry; it does feel like this film really does struggle to move because it is either being weighed down by one or the other; I mean if this film's purpose was to highlight the toxic nature of these two mindsets/attitudes/beliefs then mission accomplished and they can try use montages now and again; but it still feels weighed down. But having said all this; some point things they begin to lighten up; don't get me wrong everything is still there, but it is very much lightened up, so everything can actually believe and come through and it elements of being toxic, but no way as much as it originally was.

Comedy, Art, character developments and performances; there was only one comical moment at its height of the toxic nature and that is when Sachs has provided an adult dance dressed of the cowboy and things don't exactly go to plan or his family member passing wind, much later on we have this changing of a tyre as it relates to a car and our lead partnership and for the art; there is this little butterfly making an appearance.

The character developments and performances; the character developments are safe and reliable versions of what they are clearly going for here and based on that they smashed it out of the park; I should just highlights again when I said if this is what they were going for; meaning subtext again regardless of one world or the other; his character types can be quite annoying, the vast majority of the cast put in good performances; however in this alternative world between Sachs/Baron Cohen and/or Fox/Pike or Man/E. Grant really do save this film as they are sometime comical or bitey or one-upsmanship or trying to creep out on the situation is precisely why this film gets the marking it does and without these three putting in a shift they do be it limited role from E. Grant or main partnership from Sachs/Baron Cohen and Fox/Pike; this film would have completely collapsed as they this trio carry this project on their back.

This film receives: 6/10, this film is good; I was struggling with what mark to give this film, so I have decided to meet it half way in this sense of a needed to recognise this trio and I feel I have done that with this mark, but it also now gives me the leeway to say this; now I have seen this film, I probably if I have the choice never want to see it again.

 

Who is Harry Crumb? 1989 by AverageMansReviews

Who is Harry Crumb? 1989 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/drugs/racism/sexual harassment is less animal cruelty/electrocution/rainbow community/vehicle crash

Who is Harry Crumb?: Briefly; Private Detective Harry Crumb [John Candy:] he is a third-generation of well-respected private investigators that has their own agency, but Harry is not highly respected, but when he gets put on this case of this missing person, where he meets Nikki Downing [Shawnee Smith:] she is the young sister of the kidnapped party and she helps Harry with this case.

Generally speaking: the framework and pacing of this 94 minutes film is very good; as it has been designed to always be progressive and to step up for the next oncoming thing; be it comedy or action or simultaneously both at the same time

Comedy and action; we have an excellent selection; starting with at some point or another falling fruit; at minimum I think it may be something of the Orange family of fruits, likewise at one point or another this oncoming comedy reference of this fossilised egg and we even get an NFL reference about it at some point as well. We have our partnership in his vehicle which has had its breaks tempered with, so we have Private Detective Crumb reading the manual whilst they are in this runaway situation or months later we have our partnership back, but Private Detective Crumb getting really cold in the vent and then quickly being pushed through them, to then knocking out security waiting and hoping it is continues to be his lucky day as the vent has already gave him some money out of Private Detective Crumb's pockets.

Character developments and performances; our lead partnership; is vitally important as Private Detective Crumb/Candy is doing his comedy shtick, providing she is on screen now and again someone like Nikki/Smith just to be that person to bounce off and move on the storyline and more importantly they do understand one another: from the aspect of having certain pressures placed on them from their legacy or family relations even though it may not be coming from the sister [I was thinking I would just mention that; because we don't actually see it in this film, but at minimum; fair enough if your sister is the model and the younger sister implies in one conversation that she feels under pressure obviously I am paraphrasing, then I have to go with that.] Jeffrey Jones as Eliot Draisen: he is in control of Crumb and Crumb/Crumb Detective Agency that puts Harry on this case and Annie Potts as Helen Downing: she is the stepmother to both daughters and she has a high sex drive: character throughout this cast are like their on-screen chemistry and camaraderie as well: what is needed for these characters to be at every stage through this movie with spot on performances and chemistry to match: so behind this pairing they have an excellent cast and camaraderie to support them.

This film receives: 10/10, this film is top-notch entertainment; providing your family is at minimum 13 years old at home, it is suitable for all the family and without a shadow of doubt it is a film that you have to see at least once in a lifetime or before you die that is for sure, at minimum this film should have them positive nominations for some awards, but as of this content in first dictated, it doesn’t which is a travesty of justice.

 

The Whole Nine Yards 2000 by AverageMansReviews

The Whole Nine Yards 2000 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/shooting/transformation/bodily functions/torture/burning/references to suicide, under age and homosexuality.

There goes the neighbourhood: briefly;  Dr. Nicholas "Oz" Oseransky [Matthew Perry:] is a dentist, that is stuck in a complicated marriage and then Jimmy "The Tulip" Tudeski [Bruce Willis:] he moves in next door, he is an ex-hitman, that Oz clearly is terrified by this turn of events on realising who is now living next door to them. Franklin "Frankie Figs" Figueroa [Michael Duncan Clark:] is also a hitman which is trying to track down Tudeski.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script and the framework and pacing of this 99 minutes is; on reflection wow I had no idea that this film was this short; this opinion/outlook is based on 2026 respective of on average film is being closer or/and over 120 minutes long nowadays; but my point being somehow this film feeling much longer than 99 minutes; I have a feeling that this has something to do with the fact that for something the opening section and slightly beyond kind of doodle through the film and it is only a little time later after that were this movie wakes up and makes the effort to make things good.

Comedy, character developments and action; we have this furious Tudeski dialogue/monologue about a strong hatred for Mayo in beefburgers, then to be honest with you the biggest asset to this project by some miles would be any form of the physical comedy of Oz; be it taking a punch from or running into Figueroa or separately the old classic yet reliable running into a see through entrance door that you think is open, but it is very much closed or Oz sitting down on something and he is making a meal out of it, with it also deflating; basically all of the physical comedy is entertaining and we have some usage of guns.

Character developments and performances; for most parts they are on both counts all good, on reflection I would have to say that because of the framework and pacing; this cast are left exposed; as in the vast majority of them either trying to start and/or keep this film going; but this really slow pacing becomes a very big elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore until it isn't there anymore

This film receives: 5/10, this film is mixed; as I have already indicated it does take some time to get going and on top of that, when it leans into its assets as I have already spoken about including the performances then after everything is said and done this mark is a fair and reasonable outcome, there is also some ongoing sequences underneath the ending credits. This film also has some awards accredited to its name such as 6 Nominees which include but not limited to; Positive; Blockbuster Entertainment Awards 2001 Favorite Supporting Actor -  Comedy/Romance Michael Clarke Duncan, Teen Choice Awards 2000 Teen Choice Award Film - Choice Hissy Fit Rosanna Arquette and Negative; which also include but not limited to The Stinkers Bad Movie Awards 2000 Stinker Award Worst Supporting Actress Rosanna Arquette as Sophie Oseransky: as Oz's wife and I think quite possibly this is the first time I have ever indicated this within 15 years of content creating, but let me put this as nicely as I can I can completely understand why she got nominated for this negative award.

I am going to dedicate this content to Matthew Perry and Michael Duncan Clark; RIP Matthew Perry 1969-2023: you may have gone but you will always be a friend we can see and RIP Michael Duncan Clark 1957-2012: you will always be remembered as this larger-than-life character and person; which on-screen can be intimidating, but in reality soft and gentle.