film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Author: Callum Forbes

  • The BRWC Review: Tomb Raider

    The BRWC Review: Tomb Raider

    The tragic story of videogame adaptations continues with Tomb Raider. Not that anyone was really expecting much from this film. We’ve all heard of the games, even though I’ve not played a single one all the way through – they’re not bad, but I’m more of an Uncharted player. We’ve all heard of the two previous films starring Angelina Jolie – I’ve seen them. The second one, Cradle of Life was just trash. It was boring and not engaging in the slightest; typical of a videogame adaptation. But the first one is a pretty big guilty pleasure of mine. It’s stupid and not particularly good, but it goes about it with such fun and dedication that it has an irresistibly enjoyable charm to it. So, no the bar is not high for this one. But I will give it credit, it was better than expected.

    Lara Croft is a fun loving, yet hard working young woman with little money and no real ambition for anything. Her father left and disappeared seven years ago and she never really recovered from it. Suddenly, clues to her father’s whereabouts pop up, and she decides to follow the trail and see where it leads. This lands her on an island surrounded by perpetual rough seas and home to a band of mercenaries and a cursed treasure. The thrill of adventure and hope of finding her father once again push her on, as Lara changes from the girl she is to the woman we all know her to be.

    So far so generic. And that’s the film’s major problem. It is so basic that you can tell what will happen in it almost beat for beat. Even those moments that kind of stand out feel as if they were picked from another film. There’s a death-trap to the treasure that was clearly ripped from Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade; there’s a fun cycle chance that reminded me of Premium Rush; even a bit when the front is falling off of a rusted plane felt like the breaking glass scene in The Lost World: Jurassic Park. The only moment in the film that felt like its own was the pretty intense ship-wreck moment. This means that in the end, the story, characters and action are just basic. Not bad, but basic.

    What does stand out, however, are the performances. For what it is, this is a weirdly well-acted film. Alicia Vikander fits the role like a glove. She’s a great actress who has a good number of great roles under her belt, and this is a role that she could have easily decided to slum – but no, she approached it with the same dedication as every other performance that she has taken. You feel for Lara in this one. Jolie engaged you with Lara’s sense of joy and the love of the thrill, which was intoxicating – but Vikander goes at it from the other direction. She engages you by bringing out Lara’s more human side, and succeeds in making what is ultimately a larger than life character feel relatable. Dominic West does well as her father, a man who loves his daughter very much, but is always off finding these treasures. Not to uncover them but to block them off even further, because he now struggles to separate myth from reality. Okay, that’s an interesting angle. I also liked Walton Goggins as this villain who is just tired of everything. He hates this island, he’s sick of looking for this treasure and he misses his family – so he’s going to let nothing stop him from achieving his goal. It makes him a weirdly fun and relatable villain.

    The thing is that, outside of some story issues, most of which stemming from the film’s relatively short length and fast pace, there’s not much to really complain about. Yes, Lara’s sudden turn from young woman who is lost, scared and horrified after he first kill, to basically Rambo is very sudden and distracting. Some of the effects are great, some are bad, and there are a number of awful effects here and there too. It also has some pretty bad sequel baiting. It’s so obvious that they’re holding out for a sequel, and it feels a little premature and very silly. I’ll also say that, while this didn’t bother me, in-fact it helped me enjoy it more, this film may be rated 12 (or PG-13, in the US) but it is pretty violent and gruesome. This is stuff I’d see in a 15. But if Temple of Doom can get a PG with people ripping hearts out then what do I know.

    In the end, Tomb Raider is a set in the right direction for videogame adaptations – even if it is a baby step. Being a mostly generic film does hold it higher than most in the genre. But that first Tomb Raider film with Jolie, while certainly a worse film, had much more personality to it that made it more enjoyable and overall memorable. Don’t get me wrong, there is enjoyment to be had here. At its core it’s a playing it safe, but competently made action film. Maybe not worth paying out for a cinema ticket, but certainly worth a go on a DVD or streaming release.

  • Annihilation: The BRWC Review

    Annihilation: The BRWC Review

    Annihilation, what a sad story it is. Oh, not the film’s story, although that’s not something to perk you up either, I mean the film itself. It’s a mid-budget sci-fi horror film with acclaimed writer/director Alex Garland at the helm. It carries deep themes, is incredibly smart, features a great all-female and very diverse cast and is based off of the cult-classic Southern Reach Trilogy. And the studio had no faith in it what-so-ever. It was horribly marketed and then, after an extremely limited cinema run, was handed over to Netflix. So, the good news is that, if you own Netflix then you can watch this film anytime you want. The bad part is that it’s infuriating because this feels like a film that should be in the cinema.

    The story is a little strange and heavily focused on twists and turns, so it’s pretty hard to describe. The basics is that a group of five woman are sent into the Shimmer. A meteor had hit the everglades and this wall of twisted light has been spreading outwards ever since. But the wall is not the problem – within the wall all DNA becomes the same in structure. This means that anything, people, animals, plants and fungi can mix with each other, causing huge mutations. The group wishes only to find answers as to what’s happening. But they soon find that they may follow the path of the previous team.

    Alex Garland is one of my favourite writers working today. Having written films like 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Dredd and Never Let Me Go and directing Ex Machina, this is a man who has mastered the sci-fi genre. Annihilation keeps up his trend. Everything that made you love those previous films is here in full form. Garland has a good habit of making films that are smart and thought provoking, but also very entertaining. Annihilation is beautiful to look at, even at its most grotesque. And I don’t mean the effects, although they were great, with the exception of two quick but noticeable moments. It’s shot very well and the colours are used perfectly. It feels alien, yet familiar to us. At times like a fairy-tale, at others an unrelenting body-horror. Normally this might be a clash of tones, but it really works here.

    This is because among the films many themes are the danger of beauty and the beauty of danger. There is a lot to debate about it thematically – yes, it’s one of those ones. But unlike, say Arrival or Interstella where you are asked to think about what you had seen and what you took from it, but it doesn’t really make you care enough to think on it anymore (or at least they didn’t with me), Annihilation does make me want to talk about it. One thing I definitely took from it was a theme of cancer. I’m sure not many would agree with me, but cancer does get brought up in passing at three moments in the film and the Shimmer itself does feel and in some ways act like a tumour to me. A tumour that’s affecting the planet.

    So, yes it does get philosophical at times, but before it starts to feel boring and school-like it entertains you with a dramatic scene or an action or horror moment. There’s a bit involving a bear in this film – I’m not going to go too far into it, but I will just say that it will be my nightmare fuel for a long time. It was easily the most horrifying and haunting thing I have seen in a film in years. There are moments in this film that I can see as being off putting to a few people. The ending is bold and deliberately challenging, which does mean that some will just find it weird. There’s a pretty grim body-horror moment involving a dissection. But, for the most part I’d say it’s very accessible.

    In terms of performances, all the cast do a great job. Natalie Portman is sympathetic as our hero. She’s very every-man like, but she she’s also smart and skilled with weapons, so it’s never unbelievable that she can do these things. Jennifer Jason Leigh did bother me at first with this very withdrawn, bizarre performance. But then we got the explanation as to why she’s playing it the way she is and it makes complete sense after that. The other women and Oscar Isaacs do very well too. They are all perfectly playing human, relatable and compelling characters. This is the feminist film that the public is asking for, forget Wonder Woman – a dumb, if entertaining action film with a woman in the lead. A challenging and subtle film that has a point beyond its cast. Which is even more infuriating considering that this film has been side-lined!

    My only regret with Annihilation is that I never got to see it in the cinema. This is one of the best sci-fi horror films in years. I’m tempted to say that it’s the best since Garland wrote Sunshine back in 2007. I’ll be thinking about this one for a long time and watching it again and again. It’s a slow burn at times, and very graphic in moments, not to mention out right terrifying in others – but it’s more than worth it. It is at least on Netflix, so I’d say give it a watch, at least once. If anything, Annihilation deserves the views.

  • The BRWC Review: Lady Bird

    The BRWC Review: Lady Bird

    Lady Bird has got to be one of the most relatable films I’ve seen in years. There’s no big adventure, there’s no explosions, no life changing romances and mysteries needing to be solved. It’s just a simple, real, down-to-earth story. Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson is a teenage girl living her last year of high school out. The future seems uncertain. She’s an aspiring arts student who’s still looking for her niche. Her family is poor and therefore cannot afford the universities that she wishes to go to. She’s wanting to get in with the popular crowd, despite her friend being happy where they are in life. She’s discovering love for the first time. And while all of this is happening, Lady Bird is constantly at odds with her mother.

    Lady Bird is one of those films that clearly came from a place of passion. You could even argue that it could be biographical in a way. While I’m sure that not everything happened in real life, the film’s writer/director, actress Greta Gerwig clearly has taken elements from her own experiences and brought them into this film. To say that this is Gerwig’s first film – well, okay she co-directed a couple things before hand – it’s all very impressive.

    I don’t know what I’d call Lady Bird. It’s funny, but not a comedy. It’s very dramatic, but also has a reliance on said humour. It’s light-hearted, but it tackles some complex and dark issues. But, unlike some of these genre defying films, this one feels like it’ll speak to everyone on some level. Even if we take out the dialogue entirely – which is exceptionally well-written and natural sounding – the actions that these characters do alone are very reminiscent of what we have all done. Nearer the end, when Lady Bird turns eighteen she buys scratch cards, a porno mag and cigarettes – I remember when I turned eighteen I bought the goriest thing in my local DVD shop and downed the first pint I’d bought. It’s small and somewhat inconsequential to the over all story, but the moments like these are what stand out and make Lady Bird really special.

    There’s something very artful about the way that Lady Bird was shot. It doesn’t exactly feel dreamlike – I’d say it feels more nostalgic. It’s set in the years 2002 and 2003 and it feels like it. It doesn’t slap you around the head with that fact, there’s no “remember this” moment. It just plays like it’s 2002. Terrorism was still on the mind and mobile phones were very brick-like and were a point of paranoia and confusion. It does also feel nostalgic in that “remember high school” way. Again, it’s all matter of fact. There’s no scary teacher, soft tutor or over-the-top bully. It’s just school and the kids in it doing what we all as kids did. It does bring you back to, maybe not better (I know I hated my school years) but simpler times.

    But I’ve just been avoiding the best part of Lady Bird, and that is the performances. Saoirse Ronan has almost constantly been the best part of any film that she has been a part of. Even if it’s been bad – like with Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones – she has always been great. Not good, great! This could easily be the best performance that she’s ever given to this day. Playing her mother is Laurie Metcalf, who most will recognise as Sheldon’s mother in The Big Bang Theory, but I’ll always remember as the killer in Scream 2. Again, this is the best performance that Metcalf has ever given. She and Ronan are on par with each other. The acting is great all around – it’s too early to say but I think we’ll struggle to see a better acted film all year – but it’s these two who deserve the most attention.

    A lot happens in the film, but it’s heart is exactly where it should be, with Lady Bird and her mother. Theirs is a strong relationship, but not happy one. Most of the time they spend together ends with an argument. This is usually brought on by one of them saying the wrong thing in a passive aggressive manner, the other taking it to heart and then both being brought to the defensive. Lady Bird sees her mother as restrictive and her mother sees her as spoiled. It doesn’t get uncomfortable or pandering to the audience because we constantly see both sides of the argument. Neither of them is wrong with each point they bring up, but both go about it the wrong way constantly. It’s tragic, but never unwatchable or to the point of being unpleasant. It all builds up to an ending that did throw me at first. But the more I look back at it the more satisfying it becomes.

    It’s safe to say that I loved Lady Bird. And not just because it’s a nice break before I get back to dinosaurs on an exploding island, Lara Croft jumping another great height and the Avengers beating another drone army. It’s an exceptionally well-written, superbly acted, bitter-sweet story about family. I can’t imagine that they’ll keep it in cinemas much longer, they never do with films like this, so the sooner you get to see it the better. I think it’ll be a crowdpleaser, even if the ending might throw people for a minute or two. It says something when, in a world of superheroes and action and comedy sequels and remakes, such a little film stands taller than them all.

  • Lock In: Review

    Lock In: Review

    It’s always interesting seeing actors play against type. Sure, it doesn’t always work out; Hugh Grant as that cannibal in Cloud Atlas and whatever Jim Carey was doing in The Number 23 stand out as bad examples. But there is always that sense of ‘well at least they tried’ about it. Not many actors can break type, and even fewer can change into a vast amount of characters like a chameleon does with its skin. Very evidently, Tim McInnerny is one such actor. It was bizarre seeing a man who I grew up watching on BlackAdder staring in something like Lock In. But, like the short itself, he did not disappoint.

    The eleven-minute-long Lock In follows the story of a landlord and his pregnant daughter, who are forced to deal with a possibly dangerous stranger who enters their pub after hours. From the very first minute, the man proves himself to be hostile and vindictive towards the pair of them. They cannot leave, as he makes them aware that his friends are waiting for them outside. What the stranger says to them and about them is unthinkable, monstrous and could be nothing but a lie. Or could it be true?

    The acting alone was enough to carry this short along. It’s superb. Every emotion known to anyone is displayed within such a short amount of time, all in one location and seemingly in only one scene. McInnerny, Nicholas Pinnock and Lucy Boynton were all perfectly cast can gave their all. It’s not that obvious going for attention acting either. It’s all very subtle, the emotions of the characters are used to carry the film along – this is how it should be, and the actors and director were fully aware of this.

    Huge praise must be given to director Neville Pierce, director of the short Bricks. Not only did he have great working relations with his actors, he also had a good eye for shot and sound execution. Everything fits together perfectly. The shots are perfect and are edited together at the perfect moments. The sound is loud when it needs to be and quiet when it needs to be. The music did everything it needed to, to suck me into the film. Everything is used exactly how it needs to be. It’s even the perfect length. Just half a minute longer would have spoilt it, as would half a minute shorter.

    The story itself does take some dark turns, bringing up such sensitive subjects as child abuse and molestation. This is usually a topic that gets under my skin very easily – it’s why I will never watch films like Spotlight or shows like the apparently excellent National Treasure (which I’m aware also starred McInnerny). But here it didn’t bother me. That’s partially because it’s all handled with respect, but mostly because, while it’s a central part to the story, it’s not the theme of the film. The theme of the film is perception, and the power of perception.

    The whole short provides many great examples of this, the most obvious being the film’s start and end. Where we believe that a man has come to harm two innocents, but then becomes a more twisted tale, where our views on characters change. This point does make it interesting to watch twice for certain. But what I loved most was that the film opens and closes on a framed photo – the very first shot and the very last shot are of this photo. This was masterful. It feels like a simple establishing shot at first but come the end it’s true purpose is made clear, and you will never look at it the same way again, having viewed it from a different perception.

    There really is nothing to fault with Lock In. It’s a simple story, but a great idea. It has a great theme and executes it in a very unique way. It’s one I’d recommend, provided that people were aware that it is a dark tale. Being so short does make it an easy watch. It’s perfect for what it is, and what it is is thought provoking and thrilling all at once.

  • Game Night: Callum’s Take

    Game Night: Callum’s Take

    This is very different from how my game nights turn out. I saw the trailer to this a while back and thought that it looked so silly that it just might work. The story to Game Night is Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams are a married couple who share an interest in games and are equally as competitive – to an almost psychotic degree. When Bateman’s brother, who he loses to, invites them and their friends to a game night of his own, where actors will kidnap him and they must follow a trail of clues to find him, they decide to go for it. But, when he is actually kidnapped, everyone believes that they are still playing a game. Soon they are in over their heads, with crime bosses and gun men at every corner. But it’s just a game isn’t it?

    A lot about this film reminded me of Horrible Bosses – and not just because Jason Bateman is in it. Both films are filmed in a similar style. They use the same colour scheme and camera work. They’re even similar in their uses of location. But, most importantly, they’re both very well structured and written films too. There’s some decent drama in here, and there are good thriller elements too. And every joke is set up and payed off. There’s no quippy jokes or random uses of comedy. Someone will say or do something earlier and then it’ll come back to bite them somehow. You know, how some great comedy’s supposed to work.

    Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams are great here. They share a lot of good chemistry. While it’s not going to be seen as a showcase of their best talents, they still bring a lot to the film. From the get go we know everything that we need to about the two of them and latch on almost instantly. The side characters and supporting cast do great too. I like Kyle Chandler as the brother – this jerk who keeps landing on his feet, having all the money, looks and cars. I liked their moronic friend who keeps trying to prove that he’s smarter than he looks. The couple with jealousy issues got a few laughs out of me too. I really liked the neighbour character. He takes social awkwardness to the next level, speaking in ways nobody speaks and always carrying his dog. Normally a character like this would take me out of it, but he’s used just right and just enough for it to work for me.

    I really liked Game Night, but I didn’t love it. This is mostly because I thought that it was more good than it was funny. I chuckled throughout most of the film, but there were very few laughs from me. Moments like a pretty gruesome bullet removal were great when they played, but mostly I was just lightly chuckling when something got payed off. This was my issue with the likes of Horrible Bosses too. Also, depending on who you are the ending may completely loose you. There was a point earlier on when I thought it was going to end. It was a bridge scene. It would have been odd to end there, but it would also have worked great – almost like the film was trolling its audience. But it carries on and, while not bad, the ending we get is a more generic one. This is the point when a character played by Michael C Hall enters the film. I love Dexter, so it was great seeing him again in something else. But this man had little skill for comedy here, making it feel more intense than it probably should have been.

    There’s not much else to say on Game Night. It’s certainly one of the stronger American comedy films of the past few years. It’s certainly worth a watch and will be a bit of fun for date night. It’s a harmless little comedy with some very funny moments and a lot of fun sprinkled throughout. It won’t beat the competition at the box office, but it’s all fun and games all the same.