Tag Archives: Kirsten Wiig


With Matt Damon, Kirsten Wiig, Christoph Waltz, Hong Chau, Rolf Lassgard, Udo Kier and many others.

Given that the main quote in this film is that it’s so much better for the environment to be small, it is in itself no surprise that so many people are up for it.
The idea is that because people let themselves be shrunken down to only a few inches, they get to have a life that is richer to themselves (huge mansions including tenniscourts, swimmingpools and god knows what else), is far better for the environment and so on. It is a popular thought, but at the same time people have doubts about it. Healthy thinking, in my opinion.
When Paul and Audrey go to one of the gatherings to do the math on how their life would continue, they are more and more persuaded to go for it, even though there seems to be a downside. Their social life will simply never ever be the same again. After all, being that small means your friends have to take your size into consideration and all that comes with that. Besides, you live in a special village where you can never ever invite them, as they simply wouldn’t fit anywhere.

There is never any explanation as to why all of the bodyhairs are being shaved off, why bowels and bladders are being emptied, only why fake teeth are being removed before the shrinking down.
Also weird is that despite the fact that one of the ladies that does the math for Paul and Audrey explains how she can’t live the shrunken life due to her husband who recently got a new hip, doesn’t explain why that sort of life can’t be continued in the shrunken version.
In senses of logic, this film leaves quite a few reasonable questions unanswered.
The ‘why would you, and really ANYBODY, let themselves be shrunken forever?’ because that is also a catch: once shrunken down, you can never reverse the progress. Which means you can never life the life you once had. Not unless your friends and family do the same.

The atmosphere in the film is good though. Thanks to the music being played it feels a bit like watching Being John Malkovich. Thanks to the fact they live in a special developed place, it looks a bit like The Truman Show. Because of some things that Paul experiences, there is a hint of Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind. The film doesn’t bore, not especially, it’s just that most questions you can have, keep being unanswered.
Paul isn’t one to question life very deeply, it seems. He just lives his life, despite the odds against him at times, making you question seriously why someone like him would make this choice? And why he never develops full friendships with the people he got shrunken with simultaneously.

It is watchworthy, but more than once? No, not for me. I do that mostly with films that I like, but not in this case. Once was more than enough.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 9, 2019 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Michelle Pfeiffer, Ed Harris and others.

I’d read about Mother! being quite the spectacle, and in a way it is. Just not the type of spectacle I was hoping for, I guess.
A poet, Javier Bardem, who struggles for inspiration, and his younger wife, Jennifer Lawrence, find themselves in their massive house, in the middle of nowhere. One would expect that to be the perfect place for a writer and his supposed muse.
Then an unexpected knock on the door changes everything.

Especially since both the writer and his wife want different things. The writer wants nothing more than to be distracted, to have the element of surprise to sweep him off his feet, while the wife wants her efforts to make their house a proper home to be acknowledged. She doesn’t want unexpected visitors, she would like her husband to herself, please. No intruders.

Watching the film from that moment it becomes unclear what exactly happens and why the wife, why anyone, would put up with a partner that doesn’t even slightly respect their wishes of wanting those strange people to go home. On one hand she sort of goes with the flow by accepting the fact that her husband wants, NEEDS those people to stay, even though they completely mess up the house.
The final stages of the film were so highly unreal that the final turn of the film didn’t make up for it. Not to me. Given that the film received such high appraisal though, I’m pretty sure I’m the only one thinking that.

To me it was like watching a cross between The Passion Of The Christ and Groundhog Day and not in a good way. The addition of Kirsten Wiig to the cast is completely beyond me. I know she is considered to be a funny girl (I don’t think she is, but that’s me) and she doesn’t play a funny part here either. More like an unexpected Jack-in-a-box, or, given that she’s a woman, a Jackline-in-a-box.

SO there. I wasn’t too pleased. But see it yourself. Unless you don’t like blood, there’s quite some in those final stages and I couldn’t find a good argument for that either.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 6, 2019 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , ,


The remake version, with Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, Kirsten Wiig and Kate McKninnon.

Given that I wasn’t taken by this remake, I did decide I’d at least had to watch it. So I did.

The many bad feedback this film has received isn’t all that weird. At first I thought they had come up with sort of a new story, but no. You kind of live on the humouristic input of the cast in this case. Which is sort of bad, as only Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones are truly funny.
The first half hour is quite lovely because you see women actually making science look cool. Apart from Big Bang Theory, that simply doesn’t happen much.
The way they talk about it makes it live more. I do appreciate that. I also do recall a signing session I’ve read about, where young girls approached actress Kirsten Wiig (who I personally don’t find funny at all, not even a little bit, but that’s me) and asked for an autograph and said she wanted to become a scientist because she had seen the film. I did think that was great.

But: the storyline is a bit weird, the music is terrible, Chris Hemsworth as absolutely LOUZY secretary. He gets to keep his job because Erin can’t stop drooling over him. In that retrospect it’s kind of funny, because hello, sexist? But well, if men can pull that off, why not a cheery bunch of women, eh?

Right, onwards: I remember seeing Moulin Rouge (the Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor version) and thinking ‘geez, what a circus, filled with clownesk make up and so on!’ this film resembles that a bit. It tries to be funny about its own failures, I guess. The women have chattering and bickering about things that men think happens between women all the time. And don’t like ‘m for it. I think it was supposed to be funny that way, but to me it shows too much of a cliché. That that is why women shouldn’t do things like that. That they deserve not be heard. It bugged me, because it keeps being repeated.

The guest appearances of a part of the original ghostbusters cast Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potz sort of make a nice trip down memory lane.
Still, I wasn’t much impressed by the film. I would’ve liked a cast that is a bit more edgy. Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones carry most of the film, while I know Kirsten Wiig was actually cast for that. I just don’t find her funny. Cute, in a way, but that’s about it. I would’ve gone with Rebel Wilson and Octavia Spencer for instance. A truly funny bunch.
Because, that’s another thing: why is Leslie Jones cast to add a mixed feeling, while she is the only one who hasn’t got a scientific background? Yes, I might be too critic, but come on!

Oh well. That’s it. That’s my opinion.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 10, 2018 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: