film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Author: Alton Williams

  • Review – Uwe Boll’s Rampage


    Okay,so no doubt most readers are going to be aware of director Uwe Boll. It’s not uncommon to hear him described as ‘worst director of all time’ and has sometimes been compared to the director Ed Wood who was documented in Tim Burton’s best film of the same name.

    Rampage is the latest offering from Boll and surprisingly it’s not anywhere near as awful as you may expect. It starts out by introducing us to Bill a 25 year old who had had enough of being pushed around. He is hassled by his parents, his boss and even the owner of the local coffee shop. This leads up to Bill suiting up in Kevlar armour, arming himself with automatic weapons and going on a horrific killing spree across town.

    Boll chose to shoot the film documentary style and it is extremely effective, making the kills feel all the more real. Boll also makes the wise decision to not be too graphic with the violence, often cutting to close ups of the protagonist’s eyes as we hear the violence happening off screen or just showing very quick shots. On the odd time the camera does linger on the murders it is not done in gleeful horror movie style, it is instead to show us the consequences of this kind of violence.

    Brendan Fletcher plays the lead in the film and gives a good performance in the role. In the first act he makes you care for his character which makes the killing spree all the more shocking and effective. The problem however is that the film never really makes a statement or gives a reason for tackling this horrifying subject matter. It ends admittedly in an unexpected way but it does make you wonder what Boll’s intentions were. The first two acts feel like he is trying to say something about violence and the many similar real life incidents. Instead the film leaves you feeling as though Boll may agree with the actions of his protagonist or that the film was made simply to cause a stir and earn Boll a couple of news headlines.

    The film is shot in a very realistic manner and the editing keeps the film moving and the viewer on the edge of their seat. It is just unfortunate that the film’s final act really drops the ball and leaves you scratching your head as to what exactly was being said by the filmmaker.

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Film Review with Robert Mann – She’s Out of My League


    She’s Out of My League ***

    Just like 2007 was the year of Shia Labeouf (him having starred in Transformers and Disturbia and provided his voice for animated film Surf’s Up), it seems that 2010 may the year of Jay Baruchel, or at least this is what studios are hoping anyway. In some ways mimicking the breakout of Shia Labeouf before him, he is co-starring in a big summer blockbuster with August’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, he is the lead in a low budget film hoping to break out in the form She’s Out of My League and he has already lent his voice to the main character in animated feature How to Train Your Dragon. But, just who is Jay Baruchel you’re wondering? And where did he come from? The answer is that he has been around for some time in fact. Just like other comic stars before him, Seth Rogen being a prime example, Baruchel has been playing smaller roles in other comedies for a while now and the films you may just recognise him from include the likes of Night at the Museum 2, Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist, Tropic Thunder, Knocked Up and Fanboys. Like many comedy actors Baruchel has worked his way up to the top and now with his first star vehicle She’s Out of My League he has to face the real test – will he break out like Seth Rogen did and, perhaps more importantly, will he continue to be popular for more than a year or two?

    Kirk (Jay Baruchel) works at the airport, hangs out with his friends Stainer (T.J. Miller), Jack (Mike Vogel) and Devon (Nate Torrence), and imagines getting back together with his ex-girlfriend Marnie (Lindsay Sloane). One day, Molly (Alice Eve) sashays through his security checkpoint and accidentally leaves her mobile phone behind. Molly is sophisticated, devastatingly beautiful and completely out of Kirk’s league. When Kirk returns the phone, she offers to repay the favour with tickets for a hockey game. He accepts, never thinking for one second that this dream girl is asking him on a date. The pair couldn’t seem less suited to each other, a fact that Kirk’s friends and family waste no time pointing out to him. But as the relationship suffers a series of hilarious ups and downs, Kirk becomes determined to prove that if you try hard enough, love can overcome anything…

    She’s Out of My League is a film that firmly establishes itself as a romantic comedy but unlike the majority of romcoms this is no chick flick but rather a film aimed squarely at the male moviegoer. Many guys will be able to relate to the character of Kirk and the situation he is in, the feelings of inadequacy Kirk experiences undoubtedly being shared by many men, although they may be somewhat less open about it. It is this relatability that makes the film a bit more worthwhile than other films treading similar territory, although the humour does tend to be rather predictable and a tad gross (although never too explicitly so) on occasion, the usual sexual references and innuendos that you might find in other films such as this being present, in the form of some rather crude dialogue and, most notably, a testicle shaving scene. This humour fails to provide many laugh out loud moments although the target audience should get a few kicks out of it all. This isn’t to say that the film doesn’t manage to deliver a few big laughs, however, because it does, but it is in the more tender scenes that the humour really emerges, the most notable example of this being in the scene where Kirk and Molly have their first date, which balances sweet and funny without resorting to anything crude to create its laughs. This tenderness at the heart of the film, something you might expect more from a chick flick than a film aimed at guys, is what really makes the film work. The chemistry between Jay Baruchel and Alice Eve is extremely sweet and because of this seems very believable and we really can buy the two of them being together. Individually, Baruchel is a very charming leading man – it isn’t too hard to see why a woman like Molly would fall for a guy like Kirk – and Eve is a very delightful love interest, both looking the part and having the kind of personality a guy could really fall for. The other cast members mostly amuse as well but it is the two leads that carry the film, their chemistry being what makes an otherwise unmemorable film into something very enjoyable. So, overall, while She’s Out of My League may be quite formulaic on many levels and probably isn’t the funniest film you will see this year, it has enough laughs and romantic charm to make it worth checking out. It isn’t in the same league as many great romantic comedies but it is certainly in a higher league than some of the rubbish romcoms coming out of Hollywood recently.

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

    Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

    © BRWC 2010.

  • 4.3.2.1 – Review

    4.3.2.1 – Review

    Review by Robert Mann.

    He was awarded the 2003 Laurence Olivier Theatre Award for Most Promising Newcomer of 2002 for his performance in Where Do We Live at the Royal Court Theatre and British actor/writer/director has certainly lived up to his promise in the years since, having demonstrated his acting skills in a range of British film productions and successfully breaking out into the world of screenwriting with the critically acclaimed Kidulthood and direction with that film’s follow up, Adulthood. Now, in his second attempt at both writing and directing (and, in this case, producing as well), Clarke is really upping the ante with a bigger scale and a bigger cast. 4.3.2.1 is certainly an ambitious project for Clarke but bigger isn’t always better as this film demonstrates.

    While Jo (Emma Roberts) is chained down in a dead end supermarket job, her friends are all out on their own separate adventures. Cassandra (Tamsin Egerton) is jetting off to New York to meet her internet boyfriend, Kerrys (Shanika Warren-Markland) is on a one woman crusade fighting for female liberation and Shannon (Ophelia Lovibond) is on a one-way trip to meet her maker. But a chance encounter with some diamond thieves sends their separate worlds on a collision course with not only each other, but fate itself. These four girls are about to have three days they will never forget – if they survive, that is.

    4.3.2.1 is a film based around four female friends. So far, so Sex and the City, but whereas that film is all glitz, glamour and sophistication, this one is raw, real and gritty, down and dirty. This is an edgy streetwise thriller that is presented in the form of four different but interconnecting stories that show the events of the three days from each of the girls’ own perspectives. Based on the marketing for this film you might be expecting a heist movie of sorts but the heist element is minimal, the bigger picture of the diamond theft itself only being alluded to in a series of TV news reports that appear throughout the film, each of the perspectives we see being more about the girls themselves and their personal issues than their role in the wider picture. Individually, each of the stories work pretty well. Shannon’s tale of isolation and loneliness and subsequent descent into depression following a series of traumatic events none of her friends will talk to her about is relatable and Ophelia Lovibond’s performance of her as a very troubled and vulnerable individual completely convinces, the actress capturing the character’s disturbed mental state and inner turmoil perfectly.

    Cassandra’s tale also makes a strong impact, also serving as a poignant cautionary tale, her discovery that her internet boyfriend is actually an obsessed stalker being an all too realistic, believable and sad revelation. Playing against type somewhat, Tamsin Egerton’s performance perfectly captures the shock and horror of her character at the discovery and subsequent emotional breakdown, and continues to convince as her character sets out to enact vengeance. The other stories prove somewhat less successful but still work pretty well. Kerrys’ tale is one of a desire for acceptance by her father (well played by an almost unrecognisable Alexander Siddig) as her romance with lesbian partner Jas (Sussanah Fielding) and tendency to get into trouble alienates her from her family. Shanika Warren-Markland convincingly portrays her as a tough, independent and streetwise young woman who is more than capable of holding her own in a fight. The final story, probably the least interesting of the four but also the most pertinent to the overall diamond theft plot, is that of Jo, a pushover who is growing tired of doing what everyone else wants her to do and getting nothing in return and finally aserts herself when her overnight job at a store lands her in the middle of a robbery orchesrated by corrupt store manager Tee (Noel Clarke) and diamond thief Kelly (Michelle Ryan). Emma Roberts plays the part well but the character has the least baggage of the four and consequently, Roberts has much less to work with than her co-stars.

    These stories work on their own terms (although less so the last one due to its tying into the wider plot more so) and the intricate plot unfolds well, the links between the stories tying in to each other with precision, but while the links between the stories are evident, the stories also feel rather disconnected and the result is a rather random feel to the overall film. A major problem is that the whole diamond theft element of the story hardly features for the most part, the manner in which the girls become involved being quite clever admittedly but the diamond theft aspect of the story more often than not being a distraction from the main focus of the girl’s individual stories rather than seamlessly interweaving with them. Perhaps, the whole diamond theft part of the story is actually unnecessary as, with the exception of the final story, it seems to have little significant impact on the characters themselves. This isn’t to say that the film is all bad. From a technical standpoint, it is actually pretty well made with good editing and cinematography, the handheld camera work giving the film a suitably raw, realistic and edge look and feel. Also, directors Noel Clarke (who also wrote and produced the film) and Mark Davis create a distinct air of tension at times without resorting to cheap tricks or gimmicks. The violence, sex and nudity is rather gratuitous at times but the directors do at least know not to overdo it and what we see certainly seems realistic.

    The film also gains much realism from the writing as, while the stories don’t entirely gel together, the dialogue is sharp and seems very true to life. However, as a whole, these technical proficiencies are not enough to overcome the film’s flaws, which also include the underuse of cast member Mandy Patinkin and apperances by Kevin Smith and Eve that just seem bizarre. So, overall 4.3.2.1 is not a film without a film without its merits but the mix of things that it tries to pull off just doesn’t quite work and the result is a film that is watchable but not unmisabble. My rating is 4…3…2.5.

  • Great Moments from Cinema : Jimmy Stewart in Rope (1948)

    In the finale of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope – easily his most under-rated film, we receive two and a half minutes of such powerhouse dramatic acting with a speech from the legendary Jimmy Stewart, that it would proudly stand alongside anything Brando, DeNiro or Pacino have ever done. Venting his anger at two individuals who felt they were above society and decided therefore they had the privelige to murder another human being, for no other reason but for the art of achieving it and the thrill of doing it…

    Scene Cast : Jimmy Stewart – Rupert Cadell, John Dall – Brandon Shaw, Farley Granger – Phillip Morgan.

    Rupert : “Brandon, till this very moment, this world and the people in it have always been dark and incomprehensible to me. I’ve tried to clear my way with logic and superior intellect. And you’ve thrown my own words right back in my face, Brandon. You were right, too. If nothing else, a man should stand by his words. But you’ve given my words a meaning that i never dreamed of ! And you’ve tried to twist them into a cold, logical excuse for your ugly murder ! Well, they never were that Brandon, and you cant make them that. There must of been something deep inside you from the very start that let you do this thing, but there’s always been something deep inside me, that would never let me do it – and would never let me be a party to it now.”

    Brandon : “What do you mean ?”

    Rupert : “I mean that tonight you’ve made me ashamed of every concept i ever had of superior or inferior beings. But i thank you for that shame, because now i know that we are each of us a separate human being, Brandon. With the right to live and work and think as individuals, but with an obligation to the society we live in. By what right do you dare say that there’s a superior few to which you belong ? By what right did you dare decide that, that boy in there was inferior and therefore could be killed ? Did you think you were God, Brandon ? Is that what you thought when you choked the life out of him ? Is that what you thought when you served food from his grave ? I dont know what you thought or what you are, but i know what you’ve done. You’ve murdered ! You’ve strangled the life out of another fellow human being who could live and love as you never could – and never will again.”

    Brandon : “What are you doing ?”

    Rupert : “It’s not what i’m going to do, it’s what society’s going to do. I don’t know what that will be, but i can guess. And i can help. You’re going to die, Brandon – both of you ! Youre going to die !“

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Film Review with Robert Mann – Sex and the City 2


    Sex and the City 2 **

    Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few weeks (or never go to the cinema or watch television – unlikely if you’re actually reading this review), you will be well aware that the girls of television series Sex and the City are back for a second cinematic outing after their hugely successful 2008 movie. Whether or not you will actually care though will probably depend on your gender. A chick flick in probably the purest definition of the term, Sex and the City 2 is a film that is aimed squarely at the female audience and that really has little to offer the boyfriends unfortunate enough to get dragged along to it. (But, hey guys, you can always try and talk your girlfriends into letting you see The Losers while they see this – now, that will be your kind of movie). Anyway, back to Sex and the City 2. There has been a fair amount of discussion, although surprisingly little controversy, surrounding the decision to have the girls leave New York and head to Abu Dhabi for this sequel – surprising, given that Abu Dhabi is located in the United Arab Emirates, a country known for its gross violations of the rights of women (not exactly an ideal setting for a film whose target audience is strong and independent women) and whose government actually refused the filmmaking team permission to film there after reviewing the script, forcing filming to actually take place in Morocco. One of the taglines for the film reads “You can take the girls out of the city but you can’t take the city out of the girls” but can you take girls out of the city without alienating Sex and the City‘s core audience? This critic thinks perhaps not.

    Two years have passed since Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) finally bagged John “Mr. Big” Preston (Chris Noth), the man she was always meant to be with. Just as her friend Charlotte (Kristin Davis) must deal with her young daughter’s “terrible two’s”, Carrie must deal with her relationship taking a turn for the worse – Big likes to watch old black-and-white movies on TV and eat take-out food, which prevents Carrie from feeling like the free-wheeling party girl she used to be. Meanwhile, Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) struggles to cope with a new boss that can’t handle an intelligent, powerful woman, and Samantha (Kim Cattrall) works a public relations angle that gets the fashionable foursome an all-expense-paid trip to Abu Dhabi, a trip that sees Carrie encountering an old love in the form of Aidan Shaw (John Corbett), Samantha running afoul of the law when she takes a liking to the hunky Rikard Spirit (Max Ryan), Miranda learning how to be fun once again and Charlotte rediscovering her old care free self.

    From start to finish, Sex and the City 2 is a film that is 100% pure feminine chic, so obviously I am not in the target audience. In fact, to accompanying boyfriends this film may well be akin to torture. This review will be mostly from a guy’s perspective, although I will do my very best to be objective. This film starts off strongly enough. We are swiftly reintroduced to the city of New York and our four main characters through the voiceover narration of Carrie Bradshaw – voiceover that guides us through the story of the whole film – and some brief but well done flashbacks showing how the four friends originally met one another. Everyone – girls and guys – falls right back into their roles with the greatest of ease and the performances are, without question, strong all round with Parker, Davis, Nixon and Cattrall all being superb and being ably backed up by the men – Noth, Corbett and Ryan as well as David Eigenberg and Evan Handler. There are also a couple of memorable cameo appearances, both of which could rate among some of the best cameos ever, firstly from Liza Minnelli in the film’s gay wedding scene at the start of the film where she performs a rendition of ‘Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)’, and secondly from Miley Cyrus during the scene where the four girls attend a gala film premiere, only to find that Cyrus is wearing the exact same dress as Samantha. The friendship dynamic between the four leads absolutely convinces, and the same is true of their relationships with their romantic partners. And while the story remains based in New York City, the film is very strong on many levels. There is a genuine sense of class in everything that happens, the glamour and sophistication of the first film being present once again. This is not your typical Hollywood romantic comedy with a fairy tale view of romance but rather a reflection of the cold, hard truth about marriage and having a family – there are downs as well as ups. The characters all have real life issues and problems to deal with and the manner in which the film portrays this is realistic and convincing, each of the girls essentially representing a different lifestyle and the problems that come with it. Because of this, the characters are relatable to the target audience and this is something that will enable the core audience – i.e. women – to empathise with and understand the characters and it is from this empathy and understanding that the humour (targeted exclusively at women) emerges and – based on the hysterical laughter coming from the women in the screening I was at – women will find this film hilarious, the honesty at the film’s core being truly refreshing, especially when compared with some of the rubbish in recent Hollywood romcoms. While the setting is New York City, the film is very successful. The film takes a major wrong turn, however, when events move to Abu Dhabi (it’s ‘Sex and the City’ not ‘Sex and the Desert’), the decision to have the girls go there being a very misjudged one that sucks a lot of the class right out of the film. Once the girls get there, anything resembling realism and relatability goes right out the window, in its place ridiculousness and absurdity, not to mention a strong feeling of phoney – which, technically, it is, as it not actually shot in Abu Dhabi. And things only get more ridiculous at the film progresses towards its conclusion. Additionally, when the story sees Samantha getting arrested as a result of her repeated flouting of the Abu Dhabi’s decency laws, it seems like an attempt is being made at not so subtle social commentary but rather than delve into any of the issues surrounding key issues relating to the laws of the United Arab Emirates, the situation is quickly resolved and the issues made light of. It seems that the reason Abu Dhabi was chosen as a setting is because of the glamour and sophistication that it attempts to portray, ignorant of the bad side they don’t want the world to see and that also isn’t shown here, at least not without being glamourised as well. Sex and the City really does not need to do social commentary such as what it half heartedly attempts to do here and based on the evidence it really shouldn’t do. So, while Sex and the City 2 is a film that many women will no doubt get much enjoyment out of, particularly those partial to men taking their shirts off, the overall result is a very mixed bag. The scenes set in New York City are generally very good but when the action moves to Abu Dhabi things really do not work. Unfortunately, when you in add in an overlong running time that sees the film really outstay its welcome, the bad ends up outweighing the good that there is to be found in this film. You can take the girls out of the city but based on this film you really shouldn’t.

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

    Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

    © BRWC 2010.