Author: Callum Forbes

Judas Collar – I don’t mind admitting that when I finished watching this, I had no idea what I could say about it. Could my words really do justice to what I had seen? Even now, all I can do thinking about it is exhale deeply. Needless to say, this was rough – and everyone out there should watch it. Either right now or in the near future, it should be high up on your watch list.

Judas Collar follows a camel, somewhere in the Australian outback. Early on, after some Natural History-like footage of the herd in its natural habitat and glory, the camel is tranquilized and tagged with the Judas Collar. An ugly looking piece of technology that allows us to track this camel. Not long after, men in a helicopter with rifles come and fire on all the herd. Bar one that is. Alone and wondering, this camel finds another herd and is quickly accepted. Then the helicopter returns like the shark from Jaws. Not long after is the purpose of the Judas Collar realized.

This is one of those rare films where any criticism I had is mute, as it is the point. It made me angry. It offended me. Days on it has still upset me. I never, ever want to watch it again! But that’s good! I should feel this way. I can’t rightly remember when a film emotionally affected me this much. Being an animal lover, I suppose this isn’t too surprising a reaction.

The works of David Attenborough and National Geographic are typically my bread and butter. It amused me that Judas Collar, very wisely, uses such a way of filmmaking to get its story and points across. Looking back, it feels almost parodical of the type of documentary. The camels are certainly acting like they are completely in their natural element – most likely because they are. Although there are some shots that I can’t see being happy little accidents. Some coasting must have gone on at points to get the appropriate response from the camels.

When the film gets nasty – meaning when the helicopter arrives – we don’t actually see anything. We don’t see camels fall or fake, bloody puncture wounds. We don’t even see a lifeless camel corpse – well, not fully anyway, just a foot or part of a belly. We didn’t need to. The point is made, and it is made excellently. Any more would have been gratuitous and taken away from the point of the film. It would have also betrayed the cruelty free message of the video, I think. 

I appreciate the film for not treating its audience like it was looking down on them. I had no idea what a Judas Collar even was – in fact when I first saw it, I thought it was a research tool – and the film knew and respected that. It’s like they knew that if I hadn’t heard of it then I would look it up later. The film also gives us the feeling that is a bad thing that should be stopped. Now, I hate animal cruelty and believe that we should respect all the animals out there. But I also like meat and can see, in some cases, why a cull can be necessary. I am on the fence about such things, but when something like Judas Collar shows what a waste of life and what a negative affect this has on the animals in question, I can’t help but be moved.

I can’t recommend it enough. I really can’t. It’s only 15 minutes long, so you don’t have the excuse of having no time to watch it. On the basis of how well it’s made, it is flawless – with beautiful cinematography and pitch perfect sound editing. I cannot commend writer/director Alison James enough for her film. I can only hope that I have done it justice here. For all the great films I’ve seen this year – be it the entertaining Shazam! or John Wick 3, the thought provoking Joker, the mindless fun of Crawl or the genuinely amazing Doctor Sleep – it might well be this short, simple, yet powerful film, that only askes you watch, listen and think, that could be film I remember most from this entire year.

Last Blood – Callum’s Take. Rambo has certainly had a very bumpy road throughout his long running series. His first outing, First Blood, is a film that I will always hold close to my heart. It’s one of the best action films of the 80’s, but is also quite provocative and very subversive – it’s also quaint compared to pretty much everything that came out after it. But it never stops being fun, despite its body-count being only one (even then it’s accidental). Maybe it’s because I was way too young when I first saw it (I snuck out of bed at the age of six and found it on the TV), but it has always stuck with me.

First Blood Part 2 and Rambo III, on the other hand, were the same film with a different paintjob. In both, Rambo finds himself in a delicate political situation and we spend more than half of the film focusing on said situation, with slow, slow speeches and dialogue, uninteresting characters and a now hollow shell of a main character. And in both we are treated to a finale of joyfully campy, over-the-top gratuitous violence and good old 80’s action shlock. I find it hard to recommend either, but both have their moments – Rambo III in particular has one of my favourite villain deaths of cinema (the exploding man in the cave scene). Rambo, the confusingly titled fourth film, does fall victim to the same tropes, but is a better executed film and lacks the camp of the others. When the action starts it’s jaw-droppingly shocking, in keeping with the film’s tone.

Now we find our fifth, and presumably final film of the series in Rambo: Last Blood. Sylvester Stallone returns as the titular character to dish out the vengeance he seeks on the bad-guys and anyone working beneath them. With Last Blood we do get what we come to expect from Rambo. Both in a good and bad way. Before I explain the plot, I feel that I need to get into the nitty-gritty first.

Like all the films after First Blood, the direction in Last Blood is pretty flat. In a way, it works to have something told to us so matter of fact. It knows why we are hear and is quick to get to it. With a runtime of just over 80 minutes, the film is a very nuts-and-bolts experience – a definite plus for me. As Crawl earlier this year proved, there is still a place for quick, mindless popcorn fun – incidentally, go watch Crawl when you can, of the two film’s here it is the stronger one. But flat direction also means that when nothing is going on, then truly nothing is going on! The same goes for the cast. Nobody is bad in this film – Stallone mumbles a lot and is at times harder to understand than the Spanish dialogue, but he does as well as he has done with the other films. But they are not engaging. When there is no action or promise of action, we feel nothing – save for one distressing moment in the middle.

When the action does happen, it is bloody. For someone like me, who loves the grindhouse feel of films like Bone Tomahawk and over-the-top bloody violence like in Dredd, this was glorious, a terrific bit of fun. But for many, the violence might be a step too far. Even I’ll admit, at times it was unnecessary. Bloody stab wounds and gun shots are expected, but we have organs and bones being ripped out of bodies here too. The gore reminded me of slasher films. It’s a taste issue as to whether you’ll take to the violence or not.

Now, here is my main issue. The story has Rambo attempting to save his niece from a Mexican cartel that has kidnapped her into sex-slavery. That’s it, that’s the story. Because of this story, and the way it’s filmed Last Blood feels like many things – overall, it’s like Taken, it’s also like Machete, Dragged Across Concrete, Old Boy at one point, before the films starts feeling like an adult-rated Home Alone film at the end. But what it never feels like is a Rambo film. Stallone could have been playing Bob Jones and the film wouldn’t have changed at all.

I would like to say that it at least kept me mildly entertained. But it didn’t! Now, it wasn’t boring. It still felt like a quick film. But I only enjoyed the action scenes, and the preparation for those scenes. The moments involving the sex-slavery were what undid that good will. Now, this is a touchy topic. It does happen in the world, as horrid as that is to admit. Something should be done to stop it. And bringing awareness to the issue and talking about it is the only way that can happen. That doesn’t mean we should enjoy it. So, despite the dumb fun set-up and pay off – much like in Rambo – Last Blood is a mostly unpleasant watch. It’s not exactly well-handled either, occasionally coming off as unintentionally xenophobic, which many people have picked up on.

It’s a tough one. It’s a decent bit of mindless, blood-soaked fun with a strong performance from Stallone and some decent moments of emotion, which is what you’d expect from Rambo. But it’s also misguided in its political messages, is out of touch with the time it is in and, when no action is present, it’s quite tedious – which, sadly, is also what we expect from Rambo too. If I had to compare it to the rest of the series, I guess it’s the worst one. It’s less a Rambo film and more a disposable action film. If that’s what you would want, then you’ll enjoy it fine. Other than that, you might as well skip it.

An Audience of Chairs is based off of the book by Joan Clark. In it we follow the story of Maura Mackenzie, a young woman in Newfoundland. An aspiring pianist who, thanks to her husband, misses her big audition, effectively ending her career. This sends her into a depression, which develops into serious mental illness. We follow her as she works to fight for her mental state, while also trying to prove that she is still capable of caring for her children.

This is all deep and compelling stuff. It’s well timed too with mental health awareness at its height. So, I feel a bit put out saying that An Audience of Chairs was just alright.

I liked the story. I liked it a lot. It isn’t just that it works as a way to demonstrate the effects of mental illness and show audiences another perspective on the topic. Which it does. It’s also a good idea for a story, plain and simple. Very early on you understand everything that you need to. You get that the marriage is strained from the get-go, and what missing out on this big chance does to Maura. She also does something very shocking at the beginning as a result. It’s perfect for demonstrating how and why she is seen as a danger to her children and herself, while having us still sympathise with her as a person needing help.

I also have no issue with the acting either. Carolina Bartczak does a good job as Maura. She’s always sympathetic and plays the part of a mental breakdown very well, without falling into over-acting ham or desperate for praise acting which many have been tempted with before. All of the other cast members play their parts well too. The script is a little uninspired with its dialogue, but everyone comes out of it strong, making the lines feel credible at times.

But the film around them feels uninspired. I have no idea what the budget for this film was. At times it feels like a modestly budgeted drama, with nice locations and some good shots. At others, it feels very low budgets and even a little rushed. This feels most prevalent in the house, which feels too restrictive for its own good. These moments can be fine for the claustrophobic moments, but when it’s meant to feel homely, I didn’t buy it. Because it was too closed off. There are some flashback moments that I understood only because of the dialogue that came in the following scene. It’s a very tell don’t show kind of film in that way.

The time jumps caught me off guard a little too. When she leaves the mental hospital and it’s been stated that six months have past was fine. It was a little tricky to keep track of the time due to the execution but wasn’t an issue. Towards the end, however, there was a much larger time gap – and that was jarring. Not to mention a little hilarious as the aging make-up after said moment was a mixed bag. At its best it did look very convincing. At all other times it looked like the actress had dyed her hair grey and had a bad night.

I liked An Audience of Chairs fine. But I wanted to like it more than just fine. It feels like there was a great story to be told, but the film was flatly directed and simplified to sometimes cartoonish levels. The husband in particular felt like he needed a top hat and curled moustache to complete the image he was making. But I do think that the story is worth it. And the acting is strong enough to carry it along. It doesn’t have a lot of re-watchability, but it’s definitely worth a go.

Offside is a new documentary from film maker Miguel Gaudêncio. The documentary follows a group of women for the female Polish football team. During the documentary we see the grueling training that they must go through for the pre-season. Their coach puts them to the test, pushing them to their outer-most limits – making for a taxing, difficult, yet ultimately necessary and rewarding experience for these women.

Offside is not exactly something that would interest me usually. I have little to no interest in football myself – I know, a rare thing for a British man. I have never really gotten into it or even see much of the appeal of the sport myself. But then again, in my spare time I sit on my sofa and press a few buttons which makes little graphics on my TV move somehow, so who am I to judge. I do understand the passion that people can feel for it, and honestly, it’s great to see.

Here in Britain it is something that, seemingly, the whole country can get behind and feel united with. It is and always will be a huge thing and, particularly over the last few years, female football has become larger and more respected. Now it is almost as huge as male football, so I think that Offside has come out at the opportune time.

Something that I must add is that this documentary is in Polish. As such, viewers who do not speak Polish will need to turn on the CC for subtitles. This would be an essential point anyway, but considering that this is an entirely narration and on-location based documentary, I can’t express that point enough. This did have the extra issue for me that it wasn’t too nice to look at visually.

Documentaries are a whole different kettle of fish to movies and TV. There isn’t always the prep time required for TV and none of the flashy effects or top of the line equipment of Hollywood for them. It’s also quite distasteful at times to mess with what has been given. But it didn’t change the fact that this was likely filmed on the fly and felt like it.

Offside is shot in black and white. I honestly didn’t understand why. I found that it didn’t aid the film stylistically, in fact it did the opposite – throughout I was only thinking, why is this in black and white? It also made the on-location feel less authentic. It is unfortunate because I did find what these young women went through to be interesting.

On the whole it is a very inspiring film. It shows how far we can go to achieve what we want, or at least have a good shot at what we want. It shows how little status and prejudice means – not just in the feminist way, but for anybody out there. It also demonstrates well how sometimes we need a push in order to get there, and how much or how little we can take. It is grueling but can ultimately be rewarding.

I feel that this is an excellent message, and sports – especially one like football – are a fantastic way to express this kind of uplifting message. I do feel like, for me, the technical of the film got in the way – how it was shot and the unnecessary lack of colour hurt it for me. It wasn’t for me in the end, but I can see the audience and I know that this will be loved. I sincerely hope that it does go on to inspire many more along the way.