No synopsis available.
AIが作品の魅力を深く読み解いています
映画化された原作や関連書籍を読んで、映像との違いや独自の世界観を楽しみましょう。
監督: John Miller
脚本: John Miller / Jeremy Sheldon / Nick Knowles
音楽: Neil Athale
制作: Andrea Coates / Stephen Coates / Rowan Constable
撮影監督: Adam Lincoln
**Sometimes, 'fightback' is the only option.** This film quite reminded me the Korean film I saw a few years ago called 'Grandma Gangsters'. That film was about a vacation, though money involves and here it was about the pension. That's a serious thing, could have been another 'I, Daniel Blake', but that's not how it goes. A very interesting and comical take on the pension crisis. What could the old people can do about it? Well, that's the point, they use an opportunity that comes their way to tackle the issue. I love films involving aged people. Not for amusement, but to see them struggle, emotionally I break down. Only those on the realistic portrayals. This title looked okay, but when I read the synopsis, I desperately wanted to see it. I knew it was a comedy, so I did not expect greater, except some good laughs. It did delivered, but I felt a few scenes were very unrealistic, even for a cinematic. Like the ending was not convincing enough. Though the rest of the film was fine. The story centres on the character Arthur played by Bernard Hill, which I first time noticed his character, particularly being in the lead since as Theodon, the King of Rohan from 'The Lord of the Rings'. So, like any film, it all begins with a simple introduction of his life and people around him. Unlike his friends, he is much able to do the stuffs at his age. Some way or the other, they are all depending on him, including his wife. Then one day he comes to know that he's not eligible anymore for his pension benefits. After thinking a lot, the heartbroken Arthur decides to take an extreme step. So begins his new adventure, and the following, his gang joins him. > ❝They may take our pensions, but they will never take our lives.❞ Does it not sound cool! Brilliant performances by all. For a theme like this, the characters have to be fit which is a stereotype that this film breaks. But there were some sacrifices like the screenplay was altered to balance between the physically weak characters and the contents that's usually fast and furious and sometimes rough handling requires. It all worked though. A crime film, yet there's no violence or the action sequences. Involves some nervous scenes and like I said earlier, the end twist should have been better. Considering how everything was developed, that was not a bad ending at all, especially keeping in mind audience point of view of what they would be expecting. It was not entirely about the old guys. The cops have a small part, including one of them was old who leads the robbery case. At some point, it looked like 'Bonnie and Clyde', which was mentioned in the storyline as well. Like a cat-and-mouse game, the events in the tale stretches as much as it can possible, providing entertainment for us. The narration could have ended in very early, though the cops were not all Sherlocks. Everything in the interest of the film to develop in the right way with little silly and more funny. Not an average film or a classic. Made with a decent budget and the fine casting, I think the film is good to try once, but I suggest not to anticipate like any outstanding heist films you have seen in your life. Learn about the film, like its storyline and its characters. If you do that you will understand its limitations, except less fun while watching the film. _7/10_
<em>'Golden Years'</em> is hit-and-miss in a few areas, but overall it's all a good laugh with an entertaining premise. Logically a lot of it is flawed and/or undercooked, most of the characters act strangely and the plot is kinda choppy in parts; especially across the final act. They try to force things together, whilst seemingly believing they're being much more clever and funny than they actually are. However, taking out all of that, it does produce entertainment I can't lie. The cast are very good, with Bernard Hill (Athur) and Simon Callow (Royston) standing out. Brad Moore's Stringer is a terrible character though, he adds nothing despite being a key part to the plot. It's silly and averagely written, particularly the dialogue. I can't, though, deny I did enjoy myself watching this. If you don't take it seriously, which is admittedly difficult as it sometimes comes across as if they are trying to be smart, then you'll have a good time viewing.
