Author: BRWC

By Catherine Kennedy.

In early 20th century Britain, the cause of equality for women was ignored by media and politicians.

Desperate to get their voices heard, the ‘suffragettes’, a movement of women fighting for the right for women to have the vote, decided that as peaceful protests were not working, enough was enough and they would turn to militant tactics, which quickly escalated to violence such as window breaking, bomb making and arson.

Womens fight for equality, in 1912 and 1913, is depicted in the recently released movie Suffragette.

I greatly anticipated going to see Suffragette the movie and was disappointed that in the first few days of release there were only 4 people including me in the theatre. I tried to justify this by reminding myself that it was a week day, but still felt bemused that the public were not flocking to see a movie that portrays such an important event in British history.

In just over a century of cinema, the film promises to be the most significant account of the movement for suffrage released to a wide audience.

Suffragette is the first ever movie to have been allowed to film inside the Houses of Parliament.

The story of the suffragettes is told in a way that even those who know very little about their history, will by the end of the movie have an understanding of the desperation and suffering endured by those brave women in the name of equality.

The torture and abuse scenes are enough to shock and make you squirm in your seat, however muted enough to realise why the movie has been rated a 12A and not 16.

It was a particularly painful family scene, that for me was the most poignant and difficult to watch causing a wave of emotion that comes flooding back, when I think of the suffragettes and what they endured.

Carey Mulligan played the fictional character Maud and her initial hesitation to join the suffragette movement only added to her believability and the feeling of sympathy for the tragic circumstances she finds herself in.

Even the pivotal moment, that anyone who knows anything about the suffragettes is expecting, when Emily Wilding Davison throws herself in front of the King’s racehorse, though enough to make me draw breath and exclaim out loud, did not stir up the raw emotion I felt when Maud the key character suffers a devastating situation due to her involvement with the suffragettes.

The set, the costumes and the quality acting brought each character to life. I felt akin to the suffragettes, angry at their opponents and wished I could have lived in those times and had the opportunity to fight alongside them.

Brendan Gleeson plays Inspector Steed who kept me on tenterhooks as to his potential empathy for the suffragettes and his views on the severity of the punishments

I was struck how few early suffragettes there actually were and that they were not just fighting for the right to vote, but for the right not to be abused, the right for equal pay and the right to not be considered the property of their husbands.

Meryl Streep was perfectly cast as Emmeline Pankhurst and despite her brief few minute appearance brought Emmeline’s character to life with her commanding, charismatic portrayal of the role.

Helena Bonham Carter’s husband supported the cause of the suffragettes and reminded me of today’s ‘White Ribbon Ambassadors’ men who are not afraid of standing up for the rights of women and the right to equality for all people, whoever and wherever they are from.

Late in the film we are treated to scenes of the original suffragettes. I would have liked to have seen more , they were emotive and added to the depth of feeling I already felt for the suffragettes.

Missing were the famous scenes of the suffragettes chaining themselves to the railings outside the Houses of Parliament, however the scenes of force feeding, abuse and desperation, fuelled a personal desire, a passion to continue the fight for equality and a longing to know that in my life I have made a difference, however, small that may be.

Suffragette – a must see for everyone.

Personally, I think 12 is a little too young to take children, a few of the scenes are quite disturbing and as much as I would like to take my children and I most certainly will, I plan to wait until they are 15 and more able to deal with these kind of scenes.

Catherine Kennedy is from http://mothernaturesworld.wordpress.com

UNBRANDED is a documentary about 4 young American men who all went to school together and have just graduated. They’ve set themselves a challenge, to ride from Mexico to Canada on wild Mustang horses. They’ll work to tame the wild horses for 4 months before their journey.

Their parents have mixed emotions about the adventure. They’re scared for their son’s safety but at the same time they are excited for them. Experienced horse trainer Val Geissler joins them for an early stage of their journey which takes them through Arizona. He drives ahead with water for the horses and gives the men advice. They don’t always listen to his advice, which on occasion proves detrimental to the horses.

The men read books as they ride to keep themselves entertained. As the journey progresses the horses become more comfortable with the men. They ride through all kinds of terrain. They lose a couple of horses to the trip (don’t panic, they are injured but not lost completely). Those horses are replaced. They are tough animals. We see this when one of the horses falls down a steep rocky hill. When it reaches the bottom it swiftly gets up and walks away. They give it a chance to catch it’s breath and the 2nd attempt at the hill is successful.

Their aim isn’t just to experience this epic journey. They want to show the importance of the Mustangs and how thousands are dying needlessly.

There’s action, facts from scientists, humour, anger and even emotional moments to enjoy. Can all the men and all of their wild horses make it to Canada? What other issues will they encounter along the way? You’ll have to watch UNBRANDED to find out.

By Robert Andrews.

Expectation as franchises have demonstrated time and time again, has proven to be the lingering enemy of reality. After the flop that was Quantum of Solace, it would have been a difficult task for Sam Mendes to create anything more irrelevant and void when Skyfall came to cinemas worldwide. The outcome however surpassed those greatly lowered expectations. Audiences got a Bond move brimming with outstanding performances, a subtle, yet effective use of comedy and a plot which asked us to invest in the character of Bond more than ever before. A Bond movie with brains so to speak, and arguably the best Bond movie made to date. Naturally expectations would be somewhat higher when following on from such a cinematic achievement, heighted by an intelligent marketing effort from those involved with advertising of this Bond movie, clouding the plot in a sense of mystery which audiences were dying to uncover. With an actor in the form of Waltz, who seemed destined to master the role of Bond villain at some stage in his career, all the signs seemed to indicate that this Bond movie could be even greater than Skyfall, which would serve as a continuation of a more personal Bond storyline that had been established in the previous outing. High expectations? No doubt. To think that with all these indications and assurances of quality gave way to a shambolic romp through a narrative with no intention of doing anything creative or ambitious is not only puzzling, but deeply disturbing. Spectre could have been the continuation of a new Bond era, one which continued to invest in the personal and intimate side of Bond as a character as opposed to action hero. Instead Spectre turned out to be just another cash cow, a flavour of the week story with no ambition, no innovation with just enough explosions and action to conceal the fact from most viewers that Spectre is a slow burning, lifeless subversion of high expectations.

Casting can often make or break a film. Waltz inclusion in Spectre, with his character concealed in a manner which heighted audience expectation in terms of demanding answers, indicated that audiences would be getting another strong Bond villain, the likes of which made Skyfall as great as it was. So where did it all go wrong? Waltz’s character had arguably one of the weakest and incoherent motivations for his villainous motives than any other Bond villain, void of any real personality. This Bond villain is just a remedy formed from the need to create enough action to prevent audiences from disengaging. How are audiences supposed to care about someone they don’t understand? The character on the page was ridiculously weak and one dimensional, and the character on the screen is only bearable to watch due to the fact that Waltz is a fine actor whose potential was thrown in the trash along with those long forgotten DVD copies of Quantum of Solace. When it occurred to me that the opening title sequence credited four different screenwriters for Spectre, it all began to make sense. Too many cooks spoil the broth as the saying goes. And what a way to spoil a film than by stripping a character of any real motivation and personality. No amount of action and explosions or helicopter rides can salvage that.

Even the comedic side of Bond is somewhat off. The comedic punch lines to Bond’s sassiness and defiance were met with silence and not laughter. I felt as if the comedy was being forced on me, that at one stage I had to laugh, which I did, but not for the right reasons. Credit where credit is due however for the execution of the action sequences. The opening action sequence in Mexico during the Day of the Dead set the tone for several ambitious and exciting action sequences, qualities largely absent in almost all other areas of the film’s production. Even Dave Bautista contributes well in this regard. He doesn’t speak, and nor does he need to do. He’s proven himself to be quite the Hollywood hotshot now and in a film riddled with problems, Bautista is actually a shining light, an excellent source of physical and muscular conflict to test Bond’s violent character.

Credit should also be given to the marketing team behind Spectre. They advertised a film that looked to have such a Bond worthy narrative at its core with a sense of mystery which drove audiences like myself to the cinema. Where they deserve credit, commiserations must be granted to the filmmakers, writers and producers for delivering a product with a flat, overstretched narrative that romped on towards a trope filled finale which emulated the disappointment of the entire film. Even the character of Bond himself is tiresome. It is difficult to be content with his womanising when there has been little else to uphold by engagement with the narrative whilst he wines and dines women at his convenience. The mystery element of the film, arguably its unique selling point leads to revelation which led to a thought in my head which can only be described as ‘is that it?’ The point of a mystery is to provide audiences with a revelation intended to shock and awe them into extended engagement. I wasn’t left shocked and awed, but rather bored and frustrated. The narrative falls into the trap of being nothing more than a soap opera flavour of the weak scenario, and proves to be nothing more than a cash cow, which is the only thing the film really succeeded in based on its recording breaking box office returns so far.

When the title sequence rolled I remembered all of which I loved about Bond and all that I missed about it, and why I was excited to be watching Spectre. To my utter disappointment, Spectre proved to be just another blockbuster with no brains. What is so frustrating is the fact that this film will succeed immensely despite being so flat and void of quality. The desire to execute anything ambitious seems to have disappeared, buried beneath the millions of box office dollars it is amassing as this review is being written. But then again, in a capitalist intensive industry like film, why should a film like Spectre bother being ambitious in an industry which measures it success in box office statistics as opposed to real cinematic quality and merit. Underneath the sound of all those explosions and gun fights, you can just about make out the distant sound of audiences like myself asking “where did it all go wrong?”

By Robert Andrews.

Providing audiences with 103 minutes that oozes with cynicism, violence and drug-fuelled schemes, Kill Your Friends certainly had the potential to establish itself as this British generation’s equivalent of American Pyscho. Whilst the stylistic components and tone of Kill Your Friends prove reminiscent of other products of the black comedy genre, the film very much felt like a fresh product, a product which displayed to a large degree an exciting sense of sinister potential, offering audiences the rare opportunity to invest in the journey of a protagonist who we would usually be prompted to despise and disregard as pure evil. Unfortunately most of this potential is left unfulfilled, not necessarily due to the film’s content, but rather the manner in which it is executed. Never the less Kill Your Friends certainly provides audiences with a not so uninteresting story line, a somewhat interesting lead performance from Nicholas Hoult, and enough controversy for those audience members fed up of looking on the bright side of life.

Nothing quite establishes the film’s sinister and psychopathic tone quite like the opening image of Hoult’s character Stelfox urinating on a drugged up James Corden, all in the name of jealousy and discontent. As Stelfox takes the fourth wall breaking from American Psycho to a whole new level, more on levels with Belfort’s narration in The Wolf of Wall Street, we are very much happy to go along with Stelfox on his sinister journey, as he betrays all who stand in his way of finding his next big music hit. As Stelfox goes from pillar to post in order to do so, the barometers of the British music industry and its workings become comprehendible on a simplistic level, whereby we never lose ourselves in the narrative or question where Stelfox takes us, even if these places fail to provide any conflict varying from previous encounters.

The narrative in itself is not entirely immersive in the sense that it is Stelfox’s controversial and evil mindset that acts as the binding mechanism which holds the narrative in place. Whilst Hoult’s performance prevents audiences from nodding off, those vital moments of twists and turns in the narrative rarely provide the desired effect. If the title of the film had any bearing on the decision made by certain viewers to watch Kill Your Friends, then the prospect of disappointment may creep into the mindset of those very same viewers due to the literal lack of the killing of Stelfox’s friends. Around three quarters of the way through the film, this point dawned on me and very much coincided with a deterioration of interest in Stelfox’s mounting problems. Whereby the metaphorical killing of Stelfox’s friends forms the real basis of the story, which certainly aired a sense of intelligence in relation to the film’s title, a little more bloodshed wouldn’t have gone amiss, which in relation to Stelfox’s problems in the narrative would have made a substantial amount of sense.

That connection which Stelfox establishes with the audience from the film’s opening, talking directly to us, informing us of every personal thought no matter how sinister, is very much what binds all the narrative components together in relation to audience interest. Hoult’s performance is certainly indicative of a role not usually associated with Hoult’s typical acting choices, and it certainly did his acting portfolio no harm at all. Hoult is one of those extremely likable actors whereby even in a morally challenging role such as this, we are happy enough to go along the journey with him.

Much like many of the film’s set pieces, a lot of Hoult’s dialogue didn’t appear to be executed with the desired effect. As Hoult’s disturbing analogies and monologues reached my ears, I felt I should be laughing, but found myself rarely doing so. As the narrative went on and his cynicism continued, it became very apparent that Stelfox’s character was never going to be presented with an opportunity to change. That is not to say I wanted Stelfox to transform into a law abiding A&R man with a good set of morals. Rather, the opportunity for Stelfox to change was certainly something that could have improved the perception of the character, as after a while his cynicism fails to alter our perception of the character. As a result Stelfox appears more and more one dimensional as the story continues towards a mostly underwhelming resolution and rushed ending.

Having not read the novel of the same name, I can make no attempt to determine whether the adaptation lived up to the quality of the original novel, but in the modern age of adaptation this argument has proven to be not worth the time or effort. Whilst Kill Your Friends may not have lived up to the potential it presented in its theatrical trailers, it certainly isn’t a film that will force you question what possessed you to watch it in the first place. Hoult’s performance will uphold audience engagement for a good while, and his schemes in the narrative do certainly prompt a similar level of engagement from audience members. Essentially execution proves to be the killing blow in terms of this film’s critical success, whereby a lot of the film’s early potential becomes lost in the film’s lack of multidimensional character development.