For It Is Man's Number: paul walter hauser

Showing posts with label paul walter hauser. Show all posts

Wednesday, 27 May 2026

Prime Time: Balls Up (2026)

If you want to know the level of care and thought that went into writing and directing Balls Up then you should know that it's set during a football world cup tournament in Brazil. In 2025. I'm no great follower of sports, and certainly no football expert, but even I know that the World Cup has taken place every four years since it began back in 1930 (with the exception of a couple of tournaments that were not played due to a little historical event known as WWII).

Directed by Peter "How Far The Mighty Can Fall" Farrelly, and written by Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese (two men who have proven that they could be funny on past projects), this tall tale concerns Brad (Mark Wahlberg) and Elijah (Paul Walter Hauser), two men who are aiming to make their latest prophylactic (one that covers both testicles as well as the shaft of the penis) the only one to be features in the World Cup final. Things don't go to plan though, and Brad and Elijah soon end up stumbling from one mess to another, seemingly pursued by every Brazilian football fan.

I never thought I would say this, but I think Mark Wahlberg needs a Ted 3 to save him before he hits any new lows that he won't be able to come back from. It's almost as if he's become so enslaved by the streaming services, and their paychecks (of course), that he has forgotten how the movie business works when it comes to stars maintaining their value. I could be very wrong, but right now . . . if Wahlberg was a stock market commodity then people would be selling their shares before the inevitable spiral and crash. Hauser is also devaluing himself, but he at least has a fairly varied selection of features that offer him a chance to hold on to enough goodwill until another upswing saves him from potential obscurity.

It's not just the leads who dive into this bog of eternal stench, however, and both Benjamin Bratt and Sacha Baron Cohen should have a stern word with their agents. At least Bratt isn't onscreen for much of the runtime. Cohen is a big presence in the middle third, sadly, and does nothing to stop it from being a fairly laugh-free zone. Molly Shannon made me smile a few times, there's an amusing voice cameo from Larry David, but Eric André, Chelsey Crisp, Jackson Tozer, Daniela Melchior, and Eva De Dominici are sorely mistreated by a screenplay that's stinkier than Pepe Le Pew in self-defence mode.

If you're after some simple laughs then the opening scenes may give you some hope. There's nothing smart or gut-busting there, but at least one or two moments are entertainingly silly without having to feel connected to a whole wide world outwith the workplace environment. I'd advise you not to let that sense of hope fool you though. Sometimes, yes, hope can set you free, but it can just as easily set you up for a plunge into mirth-free darkness and pain. And that is what you get here.

I was going to rate this a 2/10 for the opening scenes, but I decided to generously bump it up by one because I admit that I chuckled when Wahlberg and Hauser were shown performing a karaoke version of "Somebody That I Used To Know". Others may not be so easily amused, although there's a chance that my reaction was akin to someone being given a sip of water after three days wandering through a desert. Consider yourself duly warned.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Wednesday, 25 February 2026

Prime Time: Playdate (2025)

Another week, another action comedy movie made specifically for a streaming service. While the action comedy would seem like an easy enough thing to get right, the many lesser examples that have appeared over the past few years prove just how hard it can be. Playdate is another one that doesn't work. In fact, I would say it's almost a complete failure, with very few decent laughs and not enough competent action.

Kevin James plays Brian, stepfather to Lucas (Benjamin Pajak). Trying the usual father-son bonding activities that he knows, which seems to amount to playing catch and trying to present himself as some kind of shining example of manly strenth and reliability, Brian finds himself slightly at a loss as Lucas prefers more artistic activities, such as choreographed dance routines. While at a local park, Brian and Lucas encounter Jeff (Alan Ritchson) and his son, CJ (Banks Pierce). They seem to be the exact opposites of Brian and Lucas, but Jeff immediately claims Brian as a new BFF, which leads to all four of our main characters dragged into a situation that involves a secret science facility, a load of mercs, and one or two completely unsurprising revelations about Jeff and CJ.

This is easily the worst film that I've seen from director Luke Greenfield, and that is saying something, especially when you consider that his first feature was The Animal. As has happened many times before, he's a director who has too much faith in his writer, Neil Goldman, and his leads. Goldman, having done some great work on TV shows over the years, completely misses the mark here, although I have to wonder if he was trying to craft something around two stars who just weren't a good fit for this.

James does what James usually does, which makes him the less problematic of the two leads. It's Ritchson who never feels quite right in his role, forced to make his character silly and over the top in a way that drags down the whole film. Obviously aiming to emulate the kind of mismatched pairing that worked so well for the likes of Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson, especially with the latter being quirky and daft in Central Intelligence, nobody seems to have figured out that you need to find a way to still show some heart and humanity if you want viewers to root for your leads. Both Pajak and Pierce are much better, enjoyably contrasting against one another, but also managing to become fast friends in a way that is believable and sweet, just because of them being kids . . . and that is what kids do. Sarah Chalke gets screentime that adds up to about a minute, Alan Tudyk likewise, and there are mildly amusing moments for Isla Fisher, Stephen Root, and Paul Walter Hauser.

I may have chuckled once or twice, maybe (the memory is already hazy as my brain tries to protect me from the pain). I enjoyed some of the fight choreography. That's about all I can say. James was on auto-pilot, Ritchson sorely misjudged his approach to the material, and I spent most of the runtime (which was, thankfully, just about the 90-minute mark) wishing for it to just end.

3/10

Tuesday, 5 August 2025

The Naked Gun (2025)

I've seen a lot of love for The Naked Gun. I've seen people mention how they were pleasantly surprised by it. Some have laughed harder than they've laughed in years. Some say it's a perfect blend of homage and something a bit new.

I didn't love it, although I will say that a few moments surprised a big laugh out of me. It was certainly a bit better than I expected, considering my apprehension at the poor trailers.

Liam Neeson is Frank Drebin Jr. He ends up investigating some crimes that seem to incriminate the rich and powerful Richard Cane (Danny Huston). He also ends up connecting with Beth Davenport (Pamela Anderson), the sister of someone who recently died in mysterious circumstances.

Directed by Akiva Schaffer, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Dan Gregor and Doug Mand, it soon becomes clear that this is something made with the right intentions. While a couple of moments play with the action comedy style I was worried it would focus on, the rest of the film has the expected barrage of visual gags and wordplay, and there's an attempt to maintain an impressive gag rate for every part of the 85-minute runtime.

Highlights include a wild montage sequence showing a whirlwind romance and a snowman being built, a gunfight with Drebin Jr. trying to keep things non-fatal, a running gag about coffee being supplied to our leads, and a genuinely fantastic twist on the standard "pretty boy in prison" speech. But you also get gags that inevitably repeat things that were better the first time around, a really weak sequence showing body-cam footage of Drebin Jr. searching for a toilet after poor diet choices, and a thermal imaging set-piece that reminded me of sillier, and more fun, shadowplay gags in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. It's also really disappointing to see them not do more with a character named as Not Nordberg Jr., when more laughs could have been mined from him denying his parentage (but maybe that's just me, and I don't blame the film-makers for staying away from what would have been a potential minefield).

Neeson and co. all do a good job, generally playing it straight, which was always the secret to making these films even funnier. It's just a shame that they make Drebin Jr. capable enough to fend off some villains on purpose, considering how often the original character would stumble his way into his main victories, but the combination of ineptitude and capability works for Neeson. Anderson is also a lot of fun, particularly when performing some jazz. Huston is amusingly suave and cocky, and there are strong supporting turns from Paul Walter Hauser (Ed Hocken Jr.), Kevin Durand (a henchman named Sig Gustafson), and CCH Pounder as the angry and exasperated Chief Davis.

It all could have been much worse, but I'm not sure if I enjoyed this more because of my apprehension and low expectations or if I am just one of the few not drinking the kool-aid. While I didn't hate it, I laughed much more at a few other comedies released in the past few years. In fact, I laughed more at every episode of Angie Tribeca when that used to be on TV.

5/10

Tuesday, 1 June 2021

Cruella (2021)

It's very much the norm now. After milking most of their properties with multiple sequels and spin-offs, and those constant "live-action" remakes, Disney have now figured out another way to sell product. They retell a story from a different angle, which mainly allows them to turn classic villains into strong anti-heroes. This approach didn't really work for me when they gave us Maleficent, mainly due to the fact that I felt the central character was reshaped too much to fit in with the new spin they wanted to give her, but it delivers a better result here, thanks mainly to the central cast and the fun spirit of the main set-pieces.

Starting with a sequence that shows a young girl named Estella (a wonderful turn from Tipper Seifert-Cleveland) being a bit troublesome for her mother, Catherine (Emily Beecham), viewers soon learn a few important details. When her troublesome side comes out, Estella refers to herself as Cruella. And one particularly lively escapade ends with her mother dying. We then move swiftly on to a montage that shows Estella meeting Jasper and Horace, living a life of opportunistic thievery, and then *voila* it's time to join the characters as young adults. Estella (now played by Emma Stone) wants nothing more than a chance to become a great fashion designer. Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser) may be able to help her achieve that dream, or they may just muck things up as they plan everything with an angle for an easy payday. Everything seems to be looking up, however, when Estella is noticed by The Baroness (Emma Thompson), and her eye for design gets her some rare praise. But some details soon come to light that make Estella realise she has been living a lie for some time, and the best person to set things right is . . . Cruella.

There's a lot to like in Cruella and, despite the overlong runtime (why must every major movie lately be over two hours long?), it's one that should keep many viewers happy. There's a fun, punk-lite, approach to the material that gives it an energy and vibe I cannot recall in any other Disney movie. It also manages to make the central character likeable without changing her completely, mainly because the events depicted here feel as if they take place quite some time before the events depicted in 101 Dalmations. As predictable as the plotting is, the actual character interactions and dialogue make things feel fresh and fun throughout.

That's also down to the cast. Stone is clearly having a ball for every minute that she's onscreen, and she gets to showcase a number of different looks and fashion styles (all of them pretty stunning and cool). Alongside everyone else onscreen, she pitches her performance perfectly, showing both the monstrous personality that will come to the fore in a few decades time and the twitchy girl quick to survey any situation to size up the potential loot and escape routes. Although more one note, Thompson is absolutely wonderful as The Baroness, a woman with a villainous manner who inadvertently helps Estella to put more of her faith in Cruella. Fry and Hauser are both fun as Jasper and Horace, although it's fair to say that both are also outshone by a small dog named Wink in any scenes that feature him. No slight on their performances, it's just that very few people could manage not to be outshone by Wink. John McCrea also gets to have a lot of fun, and costume changes, as Artie, a Bowie-esque young man who takes a liking to the style of both Estella and Cruella. As much as I love him, and I do, the only cast member who feels out of place is Mark Strong, maintaining his usual level of earnestness and gravitas in a film that wants to be a bright and funky cartoon.

Director Craig Gillespie was a good choice for directing this, based on his track record, but I'm less sure about the pairing of Dana Fox and Tony McNamara in the writing department. Fox has a number of so-so romantic comedies to her credit, but McNamara has the likes of The Favourite, "The Great", and the excellent (you should check it out) The Rage In Placid Lake to his credit, all of which seem more suited to writing a script about the formative years of Cruella de Vil. At least someone saw the working script for Birds Of Prey, but I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing.

What is a bad thing is the excessive use of music throughout. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the intrusive needle drops are on a par with Suicide Squad. The songs here may feel more relevant for every main scene, but I can only assume that music supervisor Susan Jacobs was told "get a song for every single scene . . . we'll decide the ones we don't need later". It spoils a lot of the movie, especially when you hear just enough of the score from Nicholas Britell to appreciate his work, and want more of it.

I personally liked most of the set-pieces, mainly a couple of heists and the big finale, but the aesthetic throughout works both for and against the material. What works one minute can grate the next, simply because of the unrelenting cacophony of music and camera moves. There's also the problem, inherent in most Disney movies, of knowing exactly how things will turn out. That's highlighted here with a sentence delivered in the opening scenes that you know cannot be taken as literal truth, which immediately undermines the ways in which the script tries to be a bit more clever and subversive.

You'll have a fun time watching Cruella, and almost any scene involving both Stone and Thompson is a pure delight. It's nothing great though. Maybe cinematic greatness is almost impossible when Disney keep raiding their own history, as opposed to creating some entirely new heroes/villains/anti-heroes to take us on pathways we haven't already walked over at some point.

6/10

Friday, 16 February 2018

I, Tonya (2017)

I am quite an inactive person. Well, right now I am training to run for a marathon (click and show support here, feel free to share and/or donate), but I am generally not a sporty type. Never have been. I try to do enough to stop my body from seizing up, that's all. I don't even watch any sporting events, certainly not with advance planning. But I do admire those who are physically capable of great sporting feats. And I do recognise that those performing in competitions, and those trying to become good enough to represent their country at the Olympic level, are individuals who have sacrificed a lot in order to get the smallest chance at achieving greatness.

And I think that's really worth bearing in mind when you think of the story of Nancy Kerrigan. This film may be about Tonya Harding but it's Kerrigan who was the victim, an ice skater who could have been irreparably harmed in a vicious attack that was for no other reasons than to let someone else (Harding) slip into their place. If you don't know the full story then I recommend you look into it. I vaguely remember being gobsmacked as I saw the trial unfold.

This film has been made because of that shocking event, and that's really what it's all about. But on the lead up to that event we get to see what a horrible life has been led by Harding (played by Margot Robbie), suffering a lot of grief at the hands of her nasty mother (Allison Janney) before rushing into a turbulent relationship, to put it mildly, with her first husband (Sebastian Stan). Her constant pleasure is ice skating, something she was very talented at, and something that led to her fame and infamy.

Written by Steven Rogers, who has previously given audiences a bundle of tear-jerking dramas, and one Christmas movie, this is a zippy, entertaining biopic that seems to take Harding's own perspective of events over any conflicting views. That's not a terrible thing, especially when the film states at the very start that a lot of the events are being depicted as they were described in different interviews, but it does lead to a number of moments that have had left some viewers feeling rather unhappy with how things are depicted.

Director Craig Gillespie does good work, despite the obvious soundtrack choices and the execution of certain scenes feeling very much like moments lifted from better films in this mould. I'm not going to namecheck the directors that Gillespie seems to be emulating because a) so many other people have already done that, and b) it's obvious to most film fans as soon as things start to play out.

But it's the cast really making this worth your time. Robbie is superb in the lead role, perfectly portraying both rebel and victim. Stan and Janney both do well as the main people in her life who excel at, well, treating her like shit, and Paul Walter Hauser is amusing as someone creating a fantasy life in his mind that eventually turns into something life-altering for everyone involved in The Incident.

Despite being too flattering to Tonya Harding (well, the title is a clue to where it will stand), and despite slipping here and there, this still makes for a decent show. Even if, unlike the main character, it never comes close to landing its own triple axel.

7/10

Fans of the film may enjoy this book.
Over in the USofA you can order the disc here.