Author: Alton Williams

  • Oliver Milburn – Fundable

    I have a mate called Oliver Milburn.

    This summer he will be directing his first feature length film, with a Dorset based production company called Multi-Story Films. It’s a micro-budget, supernatural revenge-thriller, which will be shot on high definition industry-standard digital cameras by a professional crew. All involved in the project will be paid on a deferral basis, so they can hopefully get some famous British faces in the cast too!

    For a detailed description go here:

    http://www.fundable.com/groupactions/groupaction.2009-04-16.8831901562/view?searchterm=the%20lighthouse

    Once the film is complete they will be looking to sell to distribution companies, after which it’ll appear on rental shelves and – unlikely, but just maybe – in cinemas.
    They’re looking for donations of any amount to help get the project rolling. The entire budget (including donations) will hopefully be around 10-15 thousand pounds – a minuscule budget for a feature film – so any donation is greatly appreciated. You’ll get a credit and an invite to the premiere.

    No money will be taken unless they reach their target, so if you do donate, and the money leaves you account you’ll know it’s made a significant contribution.

    Visit the following site to make a donation or for more info:

    http://www.fundable.com/groupactions/groupaction.2009-04-16.8831901562/view?searchterm=the%20lighthouse

    P.S. If anyone is interested in investing privately in the project for a little more (and for financial returns of course), please let Oliver know and he will arrange to send you a business plan for your consideration.

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Lake Tahoe

    Lake Tahoe, 2008 Dir: Fernando Eimbcke

    Lake Tahoe is an engaging, slow moving piece that simply follows a young boy who crashes his car in a small town. The small town is his life, showing a broken family unit after the death of his father. It is a lifeless place of nothingness, showing no future for any of the inhabitants.
    Being slow moving holds the film back, it needing an injection of pace to keep you involved. The editing didn’t allow any momentum with annoyingly fading to black when things did pick up. This affected the overall pacing for me.
    Some scenes were an effort to get through and if the film wasn’t so distinctively composed I would have switched off. The style made me think of the film Wristcutters: A Love Story with its subtly wry humor. The characters needed to be more engaging. They were a plain bore with aspects of dialogue creating awkward minimal exchanges. This is rife in any of the love interest scenes.
    Furthermore, there is a severe lack of soundtrack. Such an big opportunity is missed as there is a multitude of music that fits this feature like a tight, leather glove.

    Ideally, something else needed to happen within the story and you get the feeling a trick was missed. Maybe peppering more subtle comedy in key areas?

    It was tremendous to see the technical elements gel so nicely yet, the story leaves you frustrated to only get to the final outcome. (Its a memory from a Lake Tahoe bumper sticker)

    What I will say is that this cinematography is genuine class, allowing a broad colour spectrum to hit you eyes to create a stylishly defined look.

    © BRWC 2010.

  • The Week in Film by Robert Mann – Week Starting 17/4/09

    Crank 2: High Voltage ***½

    Two years ago Jason Statham starred in what is quite possibly one of the most unique and original action movies ever made. That film is Crank and while it was hardly a masterpiece nor was it a smash hit at the box office, it’s over-the-top-not-to-be-taken-seriously approach to the action made for a film that found a cult following and made enough money to justify the production of a sequel. But how do you follow one of the most ludicrously insane action movies of all time? Simple, make a film that is even more ludicrously insane. And so we have Crank 2: High Voltage, which picks up right where the first film left off with ex-hitman Chev Chelios dead, although he has apparently gotten better since then.
    Having survived both the deadly Beijing Cocktail and a deadly fall from a helicopter, ex-hitman Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) immediately finds himself thrown into another deadly life-or-death situation as bad guy Johnny Vang (Art Hsu) has stolen his heart and replaced it with a mechanical ticker that requires constant electrical power to keep it running. Escaping his captors he immediately sets out to find Vang and reclaim the heart has been taken from in, which Doc Miles (Dwight Yoakam) is reasonably sure he can put back in. However, if Chelios is to stay alive long enough to get his heart back he must constantly keep himself charged with electricity, something that girlfriend Eve (Amy Smart) is all too happy to help with. With his life literally hanging in the balance once again Chelios must find his enemy and reclaim what it is before it is too late but surely even he can’t survive all this, can he?

    If what you want from your action movies is realism then Crank 2: High Voltage is most definitely not the film for you. This film is about as ridiculous and insane as an action movie can possibly be and it is not ashamed of it either, literally cramming the ludicrousness of everything that is going on down your throat throughout, starting with a video game style recreation of the ending of the first film, which sets up what is to come for the rest of the film, as a video game is likely the only other place where a character could go through everything that Chev Chelios goes through and still be alive. And go through a lot he does with each situation being more ludicrous than the last, and in a good way. No doubt many will call this a bad film and they wouldn’t be too far from the truth, it is a bad film, but it is so bad that it is good. What this film provides is a viewing experience unlike any other where the rules of logic that often dictate what can and can’t happen in a film are thrown out completely, making for a film where anything goes and certainly does. This film is entertainment pure and simple with action sequences that provide thrills and crazy scenarios that deliver laughs by the bucket load, although most of the film’s humour is purely a matter of taste, in that some will find it to be in very bad taste. And much of it is, yet there it is impossible to deny the ingenuity of the film that, while not being nearly as inventive as its predecessor, is easily one of the most original films in quite a while and isn’t afraid to go outside the box. As you might expect though it certainly isn’t for everyone and anyone who is particularly faint of heart or weak of stomach should steer well clear. Technically, the film is a mixed bag. The shaky camera movements and fast cut editing are a perfect fit for such a hyperactive piece of cinema as this and on this front the film delivers excellently. However, as you would expect the storyline is pretty paper thin, serving merely to facilitate the numerous crazy scenarios. Writer/directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor don’t care about something as immaterial (in the case of this film at least) as plot though and get to have a lot of fun with the storyline creating some truly amusing dialogue and some terrifically humorous situations. The acting is also not of too much consequence as this film hardly needs great performances to serve its purpose. Regardless though Jason Statham is perfect as Chev Chelios, being game for the wacky things that are required of him, and there are also extremely entertaining performances from both Dwight Yoakam and David Carradine. All in all, Crank 2: High Voltage manages to outdo the first film in terms of outrageousness and it is probably the most insane and twisted movie that you will see this year. Of course, the audience for the film is likely to be somewhat limited but if you are in the film’s target demographic and don’t take anything that happens seriously, you will find this film to be one hell of a ride.

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

    I Love You, Man **½

    Everyone has heard of romance but recently a new term has been used increasingly within the comedy genre, that term being bromance. With films such as 2007’s Superbad the bromance has been gaining increasingly in popularity and the latest entry into this fledgling comedy sub-genre is I Love You, Man, the latest film from writer/director John Hamburg, who previously brought us Meet the Parents and Along Came Polly, that brings together two comedy stars who have seen their popularity on the rise over the last year. The first of these is Paul Rudd who has been a notable presence in Hollywood comedies for some time now but has only recently become a big name in his own right with this year’s Role Models. The other is Jason Segel who was propelled into the spotlight with last year’s Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Both have proven themselves to be talented performers and whatever you think of each star’s last film it is hard to deny that I Love You, Man has shown itself to be a very promising comedy in its marketing campaign. But the same can be said of many other comedies that promised so much and delivered so little. So, will you be saying “I love you I Love You, Man” or will your reaction on leaving the cinema auditorium be “I think we should see other people”? Read on to find out.

    Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) is an ambitious real estate agent on the verge of his big break. He has also just asked his girlfriend Zooey (Rashida Jones) to marry him and of course she has said yes. There is just one problem – he has no male friends and thus has no one to be his best man. So, encouraged by Zooey, he sets out on a series of man-dates in an attempt to strike up a friendship and do some male bonding. Things seem to be going nowhere until he meets slacker Sydney Fife (Jason Segel) at an open house. Sydney is both friendly and honest and it seems that he and Peter may be kindred spirits. Soon, they are spending most of their time together and a new side is brought out of Peter, initially to the happiness of Zooey but soon to her dismay as she finds herself being cast aside as Peter spends more and more time with Sydney. When crunch comes to the shove, however, what will Peter choose – his relationship with Zooey or his friendship with Sydney?

    Comedy is a very tough genre when it comes to writing film reviews and I Love You, Man demonstrates this more than most. After all, the success of the humour in any film is always a matter a personal taste. This critic found this film to be extremely underwhelming in the comedy department but judging by the reaction from the rest of the audience in the same screening as me this is not an opinion that everyone will share and there are indeed people who will find this film to be absolutely hilarious. Of course I can’t really speak for them so I will give my personal opinion on the film’s humour. As a whole, the film certainly isn’t bad with some genuinely funny moments, lots of very amusing performances and a gradual improvement in the hit rate of the gags and the success of the plot as the film progresses. There are enough decent comic moments to make the film watchable but sadly the hit rate is at best 50/50. As with a number of recent comedies there is an over reliance on crude references to achieve its humour and while there are thankfully no explicit visual gags, with everything merely being implied or referenced, most of the content just isn’t laugh out loud funny, even though some things do at least help to define the personalities of the characters. The hit and miss gag rate can largely be attributed to slapdash direction and scripting by John Hamburg who is unable to replicate his past successes and also the fact that while he manages to create a reasonably entertaining film he fails to do anything particularly ingenious or inventive with the concept, instead settling to just rehash old ideas and then not even with a sense of charm, warmth or style. There is one area where the film is virtually faultless, however, and that is its cast. Paul Rudd and Jason Segel are both very entertaining performers and both make for likeable characters, sharing an enjoyable and believable on-screen chemistry. There is a degree of charm in their friendship that many may be able to relate to but it is a real shame that they couldn’t have been in a better movie that this. They are ably backed up by most of the other key cast members with Rashida Jones making for a likeable love interest and also some very amusing turns by Thomas Lennon and Lou Ferrigno (amusingly playing himself). J.K. Simmons and Andy Samberg are also entertaining but don’t get much screen time and sadly Jon Favreau and Jaime Pressly are completely wasted. Overall, this critic certainly didn’t love I Love You, Man but given the reaction from others in the audience it is clear that there are people who just might.

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

    Reviews by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

    © BRWC 2010.

  • New Moon Casting Update

    Hot off the press, well maybe not so hot as its actually a few days old. But I’m sure you can forgive me for that. Chris Weitz, director of the highly anticipated Twilight follow up Twilight Saga: New Moon has announced who he has cast as Aro, the lead meanie in the vampire sequel. Michael Sheen will be playing the blood sucking bad guy in this November’s release.

    This is an interesting move for Sheen, who isn’t totally unfamiliar with the world of the undead by starring in 2003’s Underworld and more recently Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans. He’s a proved actor though, with great turns in The Queen and last years Frost/Nixon. But with him now playing a vampire as apposed to his previous character of Lucian in the Underworld films, how will his fan base feel about that?

    With more casting news from New Moon, it has been revealed who shall be filling the shoes of the rest of the Volturi amongst others.

    Daniel Cudmore who fans will know from the X-Men movies as Colossus will be playing Felix, a Volturi bodyguard. Christopher Heyerdahl will play Marcus, the 3rd leader of the Volturi along with Aro and Caius. Cameron Bright plays Dakota Fanning’s brother, Alec and Charlie Bewley fills the role of Demetri . Graham Greene has been signed to play Harry Clearwater who is briefly mentioned in the Twilight film. And Tinsel Korey has been cast as Emily, fiance to the character of Sam Uley and mother figure to the wolf pack.

    With the cast of Twilight now being house hold names, can we expect these names to soon be on everyone’s tongues? One thing is for sure, New Moon is going to be a juggernaut of a film and anyone associated with it is going to have fans chasing them down the street.

    Well until we meet again my evil minions.

    © BRWC 2010.

  • Questionable Weekend Viewing – 17 Again

    Questionable Weekend Viewing – 17 Again

    By Si Lewis.

    First of all, I would like to say that I have never seen any of the High School Musical, well…Musicals, nor do I want to anytime soon. I have never had any interest whatsoever in the progression of a narrative told in the form of song and/or dance. I found Grease to be an awful attempt at candy coating George Lucas’s sublime American Graffiti (a film I still view as Lucas’s best film), The Sound Of Music took a brilliant story and bastardised a wartime drama by amplifying bold colours and adding jolly (and slightly inappropriate) musical nuances at every opportunity and I see Andrew Lloyd Webber as the devil incarnate and Tim Rice his evil minion. As a result, my preconceptions of Zac Efron were a little harsh formed solely upon his musical roots. In his first genuine foray into cinema, minus the backing of Mickey Mouse, I expected him to be an absolute cheeseball coated in candy floss. What I saw however was a young man who is so damn likable, his very presence on screen can’t help but evoke a smile. The guy has charisma to the eyeballs and there is simply nothing to dislike about him, his simple yet humorous performance is an honest and worthwhile entry into acting sans the singing.

    Utterly lovable.

    Efron is Mike O’Donnell, a high school student with everything a 17 year old could ask for; the looks, the beautiful girlfriend, the sporting ability and the popularity. There’s no doubt the opening to 17 again is an obvious nod to his High School Musical persona. Everything is as schmaltzy as the character that made him a star, even down to the exaggerated mannerisms and cheese filled dancing. Things quickly turn real for Mike however, when his girlfriend tells him shes pregnant. His perfect High School Musical-esque life loses it’s gloss as he’s forced to make a tough choice. Fast forward 20 years, Mike now looks like Chandler Bing and sells Viagra for a living. It’s fair to say his life went a little downhill as his wife and kids hate him almost as much as he hates himself for sacrificing his basketball career and the chance of a perfect life. After a chance meeting with a jolly bearded janitor, O’Donnell senior rather clumsily falls into a river and returns looking as he did 20 years previous. Thus begins Mike’s second chance at being a teenager.

    There is the feeling of a teenage film checklist in full effect in 17 Again. Everything often present in characterisation is there; the popular kid, the geeky mate, the rebellious teen, the timid boy and the bully all make an appearance but what makes 17 Again different is the genuinely believable and modern interpretation of each. As mentioned, Efron is utterly lovable in the lead role. Sure he’s very camp and over enthusiastic in his 80s incarnation but it certainly seems that’s what he and Burr Steers were aiming for. Efron in the 80s is quite clearly Efron in High School Musical, so when his return in the 00s is performed with maturity in more of a reality, it seems Efron is sending a message that he is a lot more than a child actor who can dance and sing. Fair enough this message is a little suffocated amongst familiar Efron affair but you have to give him credit for trying. A lot of the humour does come from Efron himself, which is made all the more funny because it’s such a surprise.

    One particular scene where he roasts the bully with his older year intelligence is superbly delivered with a certain cockiness akin to that of the Apatow crowd. His first attempt at fitting in with the current crop of kids citing Kevin Federline as an influence is also a worthy attempt to coach out a few giggles. The humour never really breaks into adult territory using such a generic mix of characters and plot devices but hearing a child icon say the word “douche” is always funny, if a little surprising. The bulk of the laughs however, do come from Mike’s best friend Ned played with embarrassing gusto by Thomas Lennon. Their double act is simply the funniest part of the film. Despite their obvious age difference, Lennon and Efron are completely convincing as life long friends and despite the fact that the laughter never reaches the height of a Rogen and Rudd partnership, the on-screen chemistry consistently works. While occasionally immature, it is essentially a teenage film after all, the comedy level is kept at a worthy height whenever Lennon is on screen, particularly in his desperate attempts to gain the affections of the school principal. Unfortunately, the comedy begins and ends with the Lennon/Efron partnership. Everything else seems a little drab and the inclusion of both Matthew Perry and Leslie Mann (as Mike’s wife) seems like a desperate attempt to get instant comedic kudos while never actually giving them anything to be comedic about. Particularly Mann who is only in the film because of her Apatow starring roots. I never found Mann particularly likable in recent roles so sympathy for Mrs O’Donnell is completely lost when she seems like a nightmare wife. Things of course delve into the realm of awkwardness when a 17 year old Mike rekindles his love for his wife and his daughter finds an attraction to his 17 year old persona. This is all well and good but it all seems a bit contrived when no one, not even his wife, recognise him!!! Surely they have pictures around the house?!

    It’s fairly obvious where the narrative heads as the charming, if recycled, story unfolds. But I don’t think anyone should be expecting Citizen Kane or a deep exploration of social commentary, so if you leave your head at the door you’re likely to leave satisfied while never really being overwhelmed. I am not going to lie, I am not worried about losing credibility amongst my film going friends but I actually enjoyed 17 Again. I like comedies with heart, and frankly I am bored with the gross out humour that littered teenage films of the past decade such as American Pie and what it lacks in freshness, it more than makes up for in charm, wit and personality.

    It hardly brings anything new to the spring cinema picnic; Big, 13 Going On 30,Freaky Friday, Vice Versa and 17 Again have all played in the field of child/adult transformations. Big being the undoubted epitome of how to do it right, the rest are simply the same story given a new lick of paint with actors who the kids of the time are creaming over and on the surface, that’s exactly what 17 Again does. To choose Efron is an obvious choice, his boyish good looks are a good enough vehicle to shift tickets to swooning females and their boyfriends who get dragged along. But despite the rehashed and somewhat exhausted narrative, 17 Again manages to emulate the charm of Big, leaves the campness in the past and has the potential to make Zac Efron an even bigger star.