Author: BRWC

The way in which we live now is in a serious state of contradiction. We want to maintain all the privacy we once held dear and have serious concerns about surveillance like media phone hacking. On the other hand, we offer so much information to people we don’t know every day and rely on these surveillances to maintain our safety. This is the society that has bred the thriller Paranoia. Now, I haven’t read the book by Joseph Finder, but this is probably for the best. We don’t want to descend into any “that wasn’t like that in the book” arguments. They aren’t legitimate complaints for a FILM review and it’s pedantic.

Paranoia tells the story of Adam Cassidy (Liam Hemsworth), a hungry young man looking to works his way up the ranks of the technology business. After a pitch gone wrong, he is fired, but that doesn’t stop him having one last night out on the company credit card. His employer (Gary Oldman) uses this leverage to get Adam to infiltrate and spy on his old mentor (Harrison Ford). With an ill father (Richard Dreyfuss) to support, Adam has no choice but to accept, but how far is he willing to go?

I’m unsure of Hemsworth as a leading man. He certainly has a charisma about him, but it’s hard to believe anything he’s going through which, for a film that prioritises character over plot, is a problem. As for the supporting cast, Amber Heard and Dreyfuss are reliable and keep a good emotional core, but the real meat is from Ford and Oldman bringing t. When they stand alone they steal the scenes, but when they’re together, sparring off each other, they are electric, making for the greatest scenes.

It isn’t a particularly interesting film visually. The director Robert Luketic comes from a strong background in rom-coms (The Ugly Truth) and chick flicks (Legally Blonde). These are two genres not famous for their visual experimentation, which may account for the craftsman way the film is assembled. There are some glimmers of great cinematography, but what else would one expect with such a budget?

As far as pacing, it’s slow starting film, but about an hour in is when Paranoia hits its atmospheric stride, carrying the small amount of tension through to the end. However, this minor atmosphere is not rewarded with a satisfying ending. It’s as though all the set-up had been forgotten and we are reminded that we are firmly in McKee territory of a formulaic 3 act structure.

By the end I was reminded of the film Network. Network was a film that truly said something about the malicious and manipulative way that media organisations can be (and often are) run. So well was it said that it is still relevant today. I’m unsure whether Paranoia just lacked the conviction to say something about big business or was just always intended not to. Either way, it lacks the balls to fuck home some of the points being made, never fully realising the film that the title implies. Instead, Paranoia is a run-of-the mill, tensionless thriller of not much consequence with far more interesting ideas laying just beneath the surface.

However, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There is a reason films are made this way; because this is what people (at large) want to see. The majority of people, myself apparently excluded, want to see everything put right and be consoled by their entertainment. Paranoia is functioning as entertainment first, not as social commentary. While cliché heavy and with a readable rhythm, it’s not one for cinephiles, but it is a film that allows the 99% temporary satisfaction in a an unjust world.

Just shy of a decade ago, Hollywood lost their shit for Frank Miller.  What ensued was a deluge of graphic novel (or comic book, if you’re comfortable with your masculinity) adaptations of his back catalogue as well as directorial endeavours.  Of all of these, 300 made the saw the majority of said shit being misplaced.  A legend steeped in history of a noble yet futile stand against an innumerable army, a king and his honour guard fight until the last to give the people of Greece a chance against this evil empire.  The graphic visual style matched with testosterone-fuelled action (and pecs bigger than my thighs) lead to a film well loved by moviegoers.

Fast-forward 8 years to today, and we’re on the verge of battle once more.  300: Rise Of An Empire tells the story of the Athenian fleet fighting against the Persian empire simultaneous to the last stand of the noble 300 Spartans.  The naval engagements set the stage for a personal dick-measuring contest between Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton) of Greece and Artemisia (Eva Green) of Persia.  Through the same graphic action of its predecessor, we wait to see if the epically outnumbered Greeks can hold off the Persian horde until the aquatic cavalry arrive (no, not seahorses, though that would’ve been awesome) or if they get dominated harder than Jim’s apple pie.

There’s always that risk with Hollywood and its studios that you’ll get a sequel that’s just a cash cow.  Sadly, that’s what leaves us feeling as empty as a Kardashian’s cranium as we watch Rise Of An Empire . It brings nothing new to the table from the original, and actually leaves with less.  The story is convoluted with flashbacks and exposition to justify the contrived plot, and the drama is diminished by having characters we don’t really root for in a world complicated by background politics.  I hate to say it, but save yourself those 100 minutes of your life you won’t get back and just watch the original.

300: Rise Of An Empire is in UK cinemas 7th March 2014.

Muirhouse is one of the many horror movies released by Monster Pictures. Made in 2012, this Australian supernatural thriller is the debut feature by director Tanzeal Rahim.

The story follows Phillip Muirhouse (Iain McDonald) as he investigates a house famed for its haunted history, the Monte Cristo. The opening informs the viewer of Phillip’s trip to the site in order to accompany his latest book. The report complements the found footage style of the film, a technique that can be attributed to titles such as Paranormal Activity, REC, V/H/S, The Last Exorcism and arguably the original, The Blair Witch Project. The list could go on and is a slight indication of the overuse of this method. It’s not that I have anything against found footage, far from it. And Muirhouse was certainly a successful film in many aspects. However, what once was a truly unique and effective way of making viewer’s jaw-clench is now slightly passé and to make up for this the plot needs to be original and the enemy insidious.

After the initial documentation, the opening scene offers probably the most intriguing of the entire film as Muirhouse is discovered by two cops stumbling bare and bloody on an open road. The following events or the “build up” are also fairly well done as Muirhouse prepares for his stay at the Monte Cristo. It is discovered the house is “the most haunted in Australia” as the viewer is shown radio interviews, advice from a paranormal expert (Steve Lynch) and a smartly placed shot showing the recording of paranormal echoes.

What is a little confusing is Muirhouse’s attitude towards the supernatural. Although he is, in the movie, releasing a book titled “The Dead Country” and is quite adamant during his radio interview on the idea that he does not scare of the dead, on knowledge he will have to spend the initial hours of the house stay alone he appears rather distressed and anxious.

The rest of the film runs a little slow. It’s everything I would have expected with this type of movie. There’s a room which is “unnaturally cold” and noises that can’t be explained. And as the apparent spirit becomes more aware of Muirhouse’s presence, the games are gradually stepped up with louder bangs, doors closing and lights mysteriously turning off. The footage is taken through the various cameras planted on arrival at the house and before the haunting occurrences have heightened, Muirhouse reveals more of the story behind the Monte Cristo which includes the death of the Crawleys, original owners of the house.

Reaching the crescendo you see actor Iain McDonald giving his best “distressed man in a haunted house” impression as he is seen backing away on the floor, shouting and swearing for the invisible threat to leave him alone. With the knowledge of the opening scene, we are aware that something has truly disturbed and morphed Muirhouse’s character but for some reason the movie still lacked tension.

With a little seasoning this movie could have gone further. McDonald’s performance over all was not terrible and the backdrop could have developed into a bowel-loosening ghost flick. As mentioned, there are still moments of interest and if you dig your paranormal flicks then it might just be for you.

A.C.O.D. (short for Adult Children Of Divorce), is a comedy with very good intentions, a film that seeks to place under the microscope the first generation to grow up with divorce, not as an exception, but as a part of life. As the credits roll we are shown various testimonials from cast, crew and members of the public recounting the state of their parents marriage. “I am an A.C.O.D,” they say one after another, clearly a significant number, a generation deserving of the focal spotlight here given. However, by the time the credits roll, ACODs will likely have little to champion as their own from this undercooked and underwhelming comedy.

Adam Scott plays Carter, a man attempting to live a life unencumbered by the fallout of a dysfunctional family, helmed by parents more at each other’s throats than pair of bacon-scarfed rottweilers. Adam Scott is himself an ACOD, as is first-time director and co-writer Stu Zicherman, and, as is to be expected from such circumstances, A.C.O.D. is well-performed and some keen observations on the effects of divorce. It also has a WONDERFUL supporting cast.

But this is where the problems start to arise. The brilliance of the supporting players actually serves to highlight how insubstantial the film is. Apart from Adam Scott, everyone feels underused. It would not seem as big a problem that Carter’s unprofessional therapist gets such little screen time and story focus if she weren’t played with relish by Jane Lynch. Ditto Amy Poehler’s conceited step-mother, Clark Duke’s sweet brother, Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s long-suffering girlfriend. Jessica Alba plays a fellow ACOD with aggressive charm. She gets two scenes.

The film hugely suffers from a lack of memorable set-pieces, or memorable anything. Until the film’s closing stretch, nothing happens beyond one conversation after another conversation after another conversation. I already can’t remember half of what happened. A wedding is mentioned, and then never properly seen. We are told that Carter’s mother and father cannot be in the same room without the world coming to an end, and we get barely a glimpse of such animosity. Perhaps this might not be such a crime, but when such parents are played by Catherine O’Hara and Peter Jenkins? A waste. A criminal waste.

It’s a sweet film, but lacking in both comedic highpoints and dramatic lowpoints. It feels boneless, limp, flat; baffling considering the elements at play. The cast deserve more. ACODs deserve more. Sorry movie, it’s not me, it’s you.

I know what you’re thinking.  Liam Neeson stars in Taken On A Plane, the hit sequel to Taken and Taken With Wolves.  And you’re not all wrong.  There are elements of Non-Stop that fit that bill, but don’t let the trailer fool you – there’s a little more to this movie than meets the eye.

Non-Stop tells the story of a down-on-his-luck US Air Marshal assigned to a flight to London who, with no uncertain terms, does not really want to be there.  Half way across the Atlantic, no safe harbour in sight on the red eye, he receives a series of messages threatening passengers’ lives unless a hefty amount of cash is put into a specified account.  The film springs forth from this, the Marshal struggling to identify the culprit as bodies Elle s’inspire également du succès des casino jeux vidéos comme Call of Duty Black Ops ou Modern Warfare, dont sont très friands les plus jeunes. start dropping and he is implicated as a hijacker to the outside world.

The film has two identities, and herein lies its problem.  If you can get past the slightly ridiculous nature of the premise, it plays well as a classic murder mystery with a nice twist on some of the conventions.  The paranoid passengers and crew, you are permanently left guessing who is really behind it all.  But there is always an attempt to ask deeper questions about the idea of safety in a time where the Western world is sacrificing its liberties in the name of security.  The movie is laced with reference to this, but when it tried to come to a conclusion it uses a sledgehammer to drive it home – and as such comes across comical rather than with the gravitas it deserves.

Overall, it’s a fun ride of a movie that, if you forgive its weaknesses, is totally sufficient – but you won”t be missing much if you wait for the TV network release in the future.  Leave your expectations at home.

Non-Stop is in cinemas across the UK tomorrow, 28th February 2014.