The Hippopotamus (2017)

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Before even realizing it I thought that this sounded like Stephen Fry with his never ending sentences, analogies and metaphors that are neither that funny or clever for that matter. It was narrated by the lead character, but might as well of been narrated by Stephen Fry and the gist was lost in endless babble. I thought the story was more based on his atheist ideologies but probably could of worked but didn't. The characters were weak and the lead character was over dramatic and unrealistic. I have noticed, that many British shows will have quirky characters or the usual cynical grump, but instead of connecting to them, they are just over the top like a children's pantomime. I have never read the book, so have no clue how close to the story the movie was.

The Best Movie you will see this year ... maybe, ever. Mystery movie, comedy, philosophy, how often does this caliber of film come along? Not a single wasted line, not a single flop character, this script has something for everyone. Intellectual Entertainment film has become a rare commodity, tight well written scripts, impeccable line direction and cast delivered lines accompanied by spot-on timing have become a thing of the past. Photography is perfect. I don't give tens ... This is a ten.

What a demonstration of Fry's weaknesses as a writer: the quasi-Evelyn Waugh story; the undergraduate reflections on life and love; the vulgarity to shock and seek a laugh. The terrible news is that this is not funny at all, not even wrily in and English with a gin and tonic bone-dry drollness funny: in fact, it's witless and boring. But it's worse than that: it is a lousy pastiche of a third rate 1930s novel written by some forgotten hack who went to a minor public school and then never published another book. Hence the cheap and common jibes about writing and publishing, mostly true too, but nonetheless dull as the proverbial ditch water to hear served up again.The film adds a voice over to give the audience the musings and assorted drunken drivel from the author protagonist, who is a crumpled forgettable middle-aged man of no discernible attributes. The plot tests the audiences' patience and good humor with its series of jokes about emissions deliberately designed to upset sensitive aunties. It wastes the talents of all involved and must be considered an elaborate tax avoidance scheme conceived in order to lose money.

A long time ago, our hero was a respected poet, but the muse has long ago abandoned him. Now he is a drunken theater critic whose high jinks, while amusing, are out of control and cost him his job.A young woman hires him to look into a miracle worker, who happens to be our hero's godson. While a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, our man needs the money and take the job. It's also a trip to his past, and he has to cross bridges that were burned decades before.While the sum of the movie is much less than the sum of its parts, the parts are often quite witty. The lead is well played by the excellent Roger Allam.The movie was taken from a book by Stephen Fry, of "Blackadder" and "Jeeves and Wooster" fame.