film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Author: Alton Williams

  • The Week in Film by Robert Mann – Week Starting 27/3/09

    Knowing ***

    Nicolas Cage is one of those actors who always seems to be in films yet, despite the apparent popularity and success that allow him to keep doing major movies, very few people seem to actually like him, with his acting constantly being criticised and his hair style often getting more attention than his acting ability. Personally, while I rarely find Cage to be that convincing an actor, I constantly find him to be a very entertaining screen presence who is consistently watchable, if never memorable. His recent track record has been very hit and miss (when anyone does as many films as him this is inevitable), with him having appeared in some absolutely abysmal films but also some extremely entertaining ones. His latest movie Knowing looks to be in the latter category with an intriguing concept and Alex Proyas (I, Robot) as director making this one of Cage’s more promising films of late.

    In 1959, the students of an elementary school in Massachusetts bury a time capsule that is meant to be unearthed in 2009. When it is unearthed and opened, its contents consist of images drawn by the children of what they thought the future would be like. One of the things contained in the capsule is a sequence of numbers and student Caleb Koestler (Chandler Canterbury) takes it home with him, believing that the numbers hold some meaning. His father John (Nicolas Cage) is an astrophysics professor and he realises that there is some meaning to the numbers, and a very chilling one it is. Realizing that the numbers relate to every major global disaster in the last 50 years, detailing dates, locations and number of people killed, he comes to the conclusion that the numbers are intended as a warning. The remaining numbers in the sequence warn of a number of impending disasters and John sets about trying to stop them, with the reluctant help of Diana Wayland (Rose Byrne), the daughter of the girl who wrote the numbers, but soon he learns that the final disaster may threaten all of mankind and may be unstoppable. Also, a mysterious unknown force seems to be following him and his family around and its intentions are unclear.

    Knowing is very much a hit and miss affair, falling directly between the two camps of Nicolas Cage movie, being neither abysmal nor truly engaging. This is through no fault of director Alex Proyas though. Proyas, who has proven himself to be a very capable director in the past, handles the film very well, delivering a reasonably entertaining disaster thriller that features a number of very well executed disaster sequences. On occasion, his use of shaky camera technique is a bit annoying but this isn’t too big a problem. He also manages to create a sense of unease throughout the film, which aided by a decent musical score, creates a tense atmosphere. The tension is well handled with the film actually being quite scary in places, aided by suggestions that all is not going to end well. In the visual effects department, we are given effects that aren’t particularly spectacular but they do get the job done, being decent but unmemorable. Where the film goes wrong is in the storyline. The basic concept for the story is a very good one but the way it is handled in the film is very poor, with the writer’s incorporation of certain paranormal elements – I won’t give it away here but it’s not too hard to figure out – detracting from the effectiveness of the overall scenario. These elements verge on cliché and not very well done cliché at that, and lead to a climax that is unsatisfying, and that doesn’t really make sense or fit in with the tone of the film as whole. You may not see it coming but this isn’t because it is cleverly executed, just that it seems completely out of place. This is even more the case with the tacked on closing sequence which only seems to be present to ensure that the film doesn’t end on a downbeat note, and this is a very downbeat movie. Alex Proyas does his best despite such shortcomings and just about manages to overcome some of the setbacks but a potentially great film is ruined by weak, predictable and poorly written plot devices. On the acting front, Nicolas Cage doesn’t especially convince as a professor type character nor is he incredibly entertaining here but he delivers a competent performance that does the job, if not with any sense of flair. A more capable actor could have brought some real depth to the role. The other actors are also competent but none of them are really required to do that much. Essentially, the performers suffice but no one excels. All in all, Knowing is a watchable but forgettable piece of cinema that you may enjoy but you won’t leave the cinema knowing anything that you didn’t already.

    —————————————————————————————————————————————

    The Haunting In Connecticut *½

    The words ‘Based on a true story’ have been used many times in relation to horror movies. Usually though this is little more than a marketing gimmick to entice gullible moviegoers to see the film based on the pretence that it finds its inspirations in real life, with the truth that serves as inspiration for the film usually so mundane and unincidental as to render the meaning of the words completely inert. It appears that this is very much the case with The Haunting In Connecticut, the latest horror film to carry the words, and considering the numerous criticisms of the real life story it could even be said that it is more ‘loosely inspired by a fictional story’.

    Matt Campbell (Kyle Gallner) is a teenager who is suffering from cancer and his mother Sara (Virginia Madsen) is determined to help him through no matter what it takes. Forced to relocate so that they can be closer to where Matt is receiving his treatment, Sara and her family move into a house in upstate Connecticut. At first everything seems to be perfectly fine, but soon Matt begins seeing horrific things in the house. Initially, this is put down to a side effect of his medication, but soon it becomes clear that something far more sinister is at work. Apparently, the house has a very dark history and violent, supernatural events begin to occur, with not only Matt but the whole family experiencing them. Their only help comes from Reverend Popescu (Elias Koteas), a fellow cancer sufferer who believes that Matt’s closeness to death allows him to see over to the other side. With the events getting more and more severe, along with Matt’s condition, the family attempt to overcome the horrific events going on around them and also come to terms with the transformations that Matt is undergoing.

    The marketing for The Haunting In Connecticut made it look like countless other horror movies that you have probably seen, yet, considering the generally sorry state of the horror genre as of late, it actually seemed like one of the more promising horror films in some time. The film does deliver on this promise in that it is one of the better fright flicks seen in a while but this says far more about the quality of recent horror movies than it does about the quality of this film. One of the key areas in which this film is set apart from other genre entries is in the acting which is of a much higher standard than has been lately, even though it still isn’t much to speak of. The film also delivers some genuinely scary scenes with a few decent jumps, a reasonably effective sense of unease and some slightly (implied) gruesome sequences. The séance sequences are particularly well executed, managing to pretty creepy. Sadly, however, such moments are too few and far between and most of the scares are tired, predictable and not very scary at all. In fact, it you have seen any of the countless other haunted house movies you will know exactly what to expect from this film’s pitiful attempts at scaring its audience. With very little that is fresh to offer the film falls back on numerous overused horror plot devices which now just seem dull and boring, and this isn’t helped by the fact that they aren’t pulled off with any kind of flair or panache. This is really what lets the film down. A lot could have been done with regard to the hallucinations of Matt, with the audience being asked to question whether what is happening is real or in his head but any chance of this is destroyed by the revelation that everything really is happening. What could have been an interesting psychological piece is instead just yet another mediocre and forgettable fright film. The storyline is just typical horror, completely wasting a potentially thought provoking premise. It has reached a point now where films such as this have so little value that it is a wonder that they ever get made at all, and The Haunting In Connecticut does absolutely nothing to change any of this, with the only people likely to get any real appreciation out of it being those who have never seen any horror movies before whatsoever.

    —————————————————————————————————————————————

    Reviews by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Russell Crowe And His Merry Men ?

    It’s true. Set to start filming next month in the U.K., Russell Crowe will take on the role of Robin Hood in Universal’s still untitled drama about the tights-wearing hero to the poor. What makes this a promising film about a story we’ve seen many times before ? They are going to focus on retelling the story and the origins of its key characters with Ridley Scott taking the reins.
    Although we have yet to learn who will make up his band of merry men, the beauty portraying Robin Hood’s leading lady is none other than the fabulous Cate Blanchett !

    Keep your eyes peeled, and hopefully more updates to come soon !

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Traitor

    Writer/Director : Jeffrey Nachmanoff

    Starring : Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Said Taghmaoui, Neil McDonough, Alyy Khan and Jeff Daniels.

    Legendary comedic actor Steve Martin goes against type cast by writing the story (he also has an executive producer credit) for what is certainly fashionable at the moment – films surrounding the subject of terrorism. The Kingdom (2007), Rendition (2007) and Shoot On Sight (2008) are just a few of the recent movies that portray the same global issue.

    The screenplay is written by the director Jeffrey Nachmanoff – who seems to make a film every 7 or 8 years, with the highlights here being the solid performances by the cast and the striking cinematography by J. Michael Muro.

    Samir Horn (Cheadle) is an American citizen and devout Muslim who is an expert at manufacturing bombs and explosives due to being a former highly trained officer of Special Operations in the United States. He uses his talents by selling these weapons of destruction to Jihadi radicals. One of these meetings is raided by the FBI and Samir finds himself in a Yemen jail locked up with a myriad of terrorists.

    Omar (Taghmaoui) comes to the aid of Samir whilst in prison and the two men begin a friendship which leads to an escape for both of them. They relocate in France and Samir is introduced to an elite terrorist group who plan to execute an astronomical attack on the United States by bombing 50 buses simultaneously – one in each state… while trying to avoid the attention of persistent FBI agents Roy Clayton (Pearce) and Max Archer (McDonough) who are hot in pursuit.
    This film is a mixture of action, drama and spy thriller. Although this sounds exciting on paper the transfer onto celluloid is good but nothing more. It often suffers in the dialogue department with Nachmanoff not writing the conversation with anything new – we have heard the words all too often. However Steve Martin in his story is definitely displaying a strong message in this film – there are Muslims who believe Al-Qaeda and their subsidiaries use them for their faith.

    The main reason where the film fails to deliver though is the audience having to believe that Don Cheadle is a terrorist. If we can clearly see he is not a sadistic and intentional mass murderer of innocent people, we are continually asking the same question – why do the Islamic extremists not see this ??

    SUPERIOR SCENE : The first meeting between Samir and the Jihads, see him trying to sell them six crates of semtex with custom built detonators. Well shot, edited perfectly and tense… then interrupted with action – a full scale raid by the FBI. Very competent film making.

    QUALITY QUOTE : “If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” Samir Horn (Don Cheadle) quotes Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.

    RATING : 3 / 5 stars.

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Can You Dig It!!??

    In 1979 Margaret Thatcher became the UKs first female prime minister, Michael Jackson began his solo venture into music and Walter Hill got his hands on an awesome novel. From this piece of brutal literature, Hill crafted a work of unprecedented genius good enough to stand alongside its literary counterpart and not behind it; this film was of course The Warriors. A film that doesn’t care it’s a bit camp, doesn’t feel any embarrassment from its often Stilton like dialogue nor does it apologise for its frequent lessons in bad acting but despite all it’s glaring flaws it has a timeless charm. Thirty years later, it still stands up as a superlative piece of entertainment. Caaaaaan yoooooo dig iiiirrrrrrt???!!!

    Cyrus, leader of the Gramercy Riffs

    Loosely based on the tale Anabasis by the Greek soldier Xenophon, The Warriors pits a collective of Coney Island gang members against hordes of New York boppers as they try to navigate through the streets of the city and return to their home turf. It’s a simple premise, a premise probably written on the back of a napkin but everything just fits. Comic in its narrative and characterisation, there are too many elements of Hill’s landmark effort that simply stick in the mind relenting to let go. Memorable is probably the best word to describe The Warriors, and what says more about the effect of a film than the pure feeling of nostalgia? Right from the off we are submerged into a world of gangs caked in darkness; the intro is arguably the finest intro to any film setting the scene perfectly for the prologue. We are introduced to many gangs, all of many persuasions, all with very questionable evening wear. There are clowns, skaters, a baseball team and bunch of grease monkeys to name but a few. Then we have The Warriors, all kitted out in their gorgeous custom made leather waist coats (presumably crafted by their mothers) led by Cleon, the war chief of the crew and an all round nice guy. All heading to Van Cortlandt Park, each gang is represented by nine to a summit by Cyrus, the leader of the hardest of gangs; the Gramercy Riffs. After a rather rousing speech plotting a unity of all the gangs to overthrow the police, Cyrus takes a bullet in the gut from the Luther, leader of a rival gang; The Rogues. As one would expect, chaos ensues and Luther blames it on The Warriors the little bastard. During the riot, Cleon is brutally, yet somewhat amusingly, beaten to death by the Gramercy Riffs and their armour plated elbows. After escaping, The Warriors find themselves on the other side of town, a man down and fearing for their lives. Thus begins the journey for this eclectic 8 piece and their new war chief; Swan. The Warriors throws us straight in at the deep end and all the better for it. It doesn’t ever try to be over complicated, nor does it attack us with thought provoking insight or a deep political message. As soon as we hear “Nowhere To Run” play over a montage of what lies in wait for the group, we know we’re ready for fights, chases and whatever lies in-between. What you see is what you get, and pretty much all we see is awesomeness defined. Walter Hill’s brief surely said “Entertainment is key, no BS baggage”, a brief he stuck to throughout. Sure you can see the entire crew sitting on the road when the Turnbull ACs chase Swan and co down the street, sure you can hear Walter shout “Action” at the start of Luther’s now iconic bottle clinking scene, sure you can see cameramen and lighting equipment in the park, sure there are continuity errors all the way through the film but its technical prowess is not what makes this film so good. Despite all its shortcomings, and yes there are a few, there’s a distinct charm a lot of movies tend to be void of these days. For one, some of Hill’s shot selection is frankly superb countering any technical hitches we frequently see. Often the lighting exquisitely compliments Hill’s set ups, supporting the notion of fear within the group and their attempt to return to safety, i.e. the daylight. We are consistently treated to visually brilliant shots, all of which encapsulate the gritty reality of the grimy side of 70s New York perfectly. For some reason, despite its undoubted campness caused by costumes, it feels real.

    Hill’s shot selection is frequently superb

    Supporting such shots of visual panache is the near faultless soundtrack. Barry de Vorzon completes the experience attacking us with retro seventies synth and echoes of John Carpenter. And although scarce, songs from Arnold McCuller, Kenny Vallance and Joe Walsh are perfection when laid over such epic montage moments and satisfying denouements. Each character is individual, not just The Warriors, every gang and its members are unique from aesthetic looks to the way they carry themselves, and considering the sheer number of groups in the film this is an incredible achievement.

    Despite being camp, the gangs were all brilliantly varied.

    While its faults are there to see, there’s no questioning what Hill does well, he does with a brilliant consistency. He manages his cast well, and despite falling into an occasional realm of cheese, they all complete the experience. From Michael Beck as Swan, who leads the group with a cool head and a hope of redemption to James Remar as Ajax, the fist toting horndog, they all bring uniqueness with differing qualities to compliment their equally likable personas. It’s a shame no one seemed to forge a career after The Warriors. James Remar did play a lightning God and get to bone Kim Cattrall but it’s hardly spellbinding. Some of the cast careers seemed to fall by the wayside into a world of made for TV movies and serial dramas, some chose to embrace other career paths and unfortunately for Marcelino Sanchez (Rembrandt) a premature passing, he died of cancer in 1986. Other minor characters went on to semi success but The Warriors is surely the high point on their respective resumes.

    The films narrative essentially sees the posse running from one area to the next, each time stumbling upon rival gangs or the police all vying for their capture. Each scene is broken up by radio broadcasts commentating on their progression home by the sultry spoken Lynne Thigpen. It plays out like a video game, and there was no surprise when in 2005 the developing giant Rockstar added a videogame adaptation to their already impressive roster. Being one of the more successful film to game recreations, its gaming counterpart is a prequel to the films events and contains most of the original cast in events leading up to the film. It’s a stellar effort from Rockstar, and impressed the fans as much as the general gaming public.

    The Warriors game was well received,
    getting a very respectible average of 84 (metacritic.com)

    The film was never going to win awards, but in terms of cult status it has achieved the highest of accolades. Creating inspiration for fancy dress parties and churning out some of the most memorable lines ever committed to film, The Warriors is easily one of my personal favourites. It doesn’t make me think, nor does it force a message down my throat but what makes The Warriors so memorable, what makes it so good, is its timeless charm. No film gives me the same satisfaction as watching Walter Hill’s fine expression of Greek mythology. Granted I laugh at its shortcomings, but what film is perfect? I’d rather be entertained for 90 minutes cheering at the fight with the Punks, shouting out quotes from Cyrus and chuckling when Ajax offers to insert a bat into a dude’s rear orifice, I’d rather do all this than be bored senseless for 3 hours watching a movie cited as excellent for being a relevant commentary to social issues. Movies are about escapism, and who better to escape with than Swan and his merry band of leather clad men.

    Warriors come out to playyyy-eee-yayyy!!!

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Knowing


    I’ve sat in films and found myself giggling at seriousness in the face of stupidity before (Anti-Trust), I’ve sat dumbstruck by a film’s awfulness incapable of even laughing at it (The Happening) and I’ve loved films for being awful (Bride oOf The Monster); but there are times when I don’t know why I’m at odds with what I feel is the general consensus. Behind me in the screening I saw of Knowing, the new film from the director of The Crow, Dark City and I,Robot, was a man who had a laugh that sounded like someone who wants people to know he’s laughing at something, and as I stood to leave the cinema once the credits rolled he said to his friend ‘I didn’t know we’d come to see a comedy!’ Upon hearing this I was a tad confused because the film I’d just watched was actually, surprisingly entertaining.

    Perhaps it’s the problem of casting Nicolas Cage in a film after a run of just-plain-awful or unintentionally-funny misfires like Next, Ghost Rider and The Wicker Man remake; now people expect him to be making bad choices, acting terribly and sporting dodgy hair-pieces. Admittedly Cage does fudge a few emotional moments here, but generally this is the best Nicolas Cage film in a very long time. This is also the best Alex Proyas film since Dark City. This is also one of the best original sci-fi movies to come along in a while, and, boy, is this sci-fi. This is sci-fi as in pure, 1950’s Twilight Zone/The Outer Limits big-idea sci-fi and it even gets quite pulpy in its execution and these are the reasons why I feel some audience members may find themselves unsure of how to take the film and may end up laughing.

    The trailers have sold Knowing as a very straight numbers = disasters thriller in a similar vein to a lot of the big twist movies that occured as a result of Shyamalan, and yes, on one hand, it is that movie to begin with; however Proyas very quickly, and carefully, starts layering in a multitude of elements that play out over the film to help it become something quite different. To say much more would be detrimental to the film, but I must argue that it’s a shame that people can applaud the generally lazy, unimaginative writing that goes into general Hollywood popcorn fare and then deride a film-maker trying to tackle something experimental yet still entertaining. Proyas does an excellent job of cranking up the impending dread and delivers some bravura disaster sequences, hampered a little by the so-so CGI; but this is a film that was made on $50,000,000 – a quarter of most tent-pole releases. What this film retains though that the larger budget movies lack is a vision, a voice and I am quite shocked that I already feel prepared to turn around to the gigglers and vociferously defend a Nicolas Cage movie!

    4/5

    © BRWC 2010.