film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Blog

  • Duty Free: Review

    Duty Free: Review

    Sian-Pierre Regis grew up with his mother and his little brother in an apartment that was only ever meant for one. Regis’s mother worked in the hotel that was in the same building that they called home and she’d been working there for over 30 years.

    Then one day she gets fired and her life is completely torn apart. Faced with the prospect of having to find a new job at 75 years old and still having to deal with bills and payments on her home, she was starting to feel like life was not worth living.

    Sian-Pierre had always been close to his mother and the idea that the most important person in his life was feeling so low made him decide to do something special.

    Asking her to draw up a bucket list, Regis then found a way to fund his mother’s wishes as they set out to do the things that she’s always wanted to do, but never had time.

    Duty Free is a documentary from journalist Sian-Pierre Regis which is about as feel good as it is close to home. What could have been an uplifting and life changing documentary instead turns into something more substantial as Regis talks to his mother about her life, her regrets and wishes and about how America treats its senior citizens.

    Looking back on her life, Regis’s mother talks about moving from Liverpool, England to America, marrying and divorcing the love of her life and raising her two boys, the youngest one which developed schizophrenia and having to help him out emotionally as well as financially. Not to mention revealing some parts of her life that she regrets the most.

    However, for all the ups and downs that Duty Free gives, the documentary is never patronising by giving an old lady the best time that she never had, nor does it allow itself to dwell too much on how her life got to the point where we meet her. Instead, Sian-Pierre Regis has given a loving portrayal from a loving son of a mother whose life has been well lived.

  • Servants: Review

    Servants: Review

    In 1980 Czechoslovakia was under Communist rule and the state were the ones that sanctioned every little detail of people’s lives. Michael and Juraj are two young men training to be priests while the seminarians are being changed in order to fit the rules and approval of the totalitarian control.

    This forces Michael (Samuel Skyva) and Juraj (Samuel Polakovic) to make a choice, to either carry on with their studies while things change around them or to become a collaborator for the regime. This causes tensions, not only between the church and the state, but between Michael and Juraj as their relationship gets split apart when one decides to work with the state.

    Servants is a dark and oppressive film fitting of the time from director Ivan Ostrochovský, co-written by Rebecca Lenkiewicz and Marek Lescák. The black and white film and aspect ratio of Servants only serves to draw the audience in further and makes them feel like the characters must feel under the oppressive regime and it works remarkably well.

    Gone are the widescreen, 4K crystal clear visuals and in its place is a world devoid of colour, with the 4:3 aspect ratio making Servants’ audience feel the claustrophobic confinement as the characters must comply with things out of their control.

    However, not only does the state bend and manipulate its main characters, but the church is seen to be doing the same thing albeit from a different angle. The strict Catholic training that the young men must go through are shown to be nothing more than a set of rules from a different place.

    Although, one that seems to be more loving and forgiving than the government. The trouble is that when Michael and Jaraj start to realise their division and what it’s done to them, it’s all too little too late.

    Visually unique not only in its colour and size, it seems that director Ostrochovský has set out to disorientate and confuse his audience with surprising camera angles and with a script as finely formed as the strict rules of religion and politics. Servants is uncomfortable to watch, but gives the audience a sharp insight into how people living at that time must have felt.

  • Here Today: The BRWC Review

    Here Today: The BRWC Review

    Here Today Synopsis: When veteran comedy writer Charlie Burnz (Billy Crystal) meets New York singer Emma Payge (Tiffany Haddish), they form an unlikely yet touching friendship that kicks the generation gap aside and redefines the meaning of love and trust.

    Teaming a comedic icon with one of Hollywood’s brightest new voices, Here Today presents an interesting walk through memory lane for writer, director, and star Billy Crystal. It may not be in the exact vein of his 90’s rom-com staples like When Harry Met Sally and Forget Paris, but Crystal and co-star Tiffany Haddish embrace the era’s feel-good nature in a story of friendship amidst life-altering changes.

    Based on a short story about Crystal’s former SNL colleague Herb Sargent, the beloved funnyman imbues heart and soul into his long-awaited return to the director’s chair. Even when framed as an admirable passion project, Here Today’s overstuffed plotting and maudlin emotionality never rise above Hallmark-level pleasantness.

    Part buddy comedy, part dementia drama, mixed alongside shadings of workplace milieu, and finally topped with a heaping of familiar drama, Crystal and co-writer Alan Zweibel bite off far more than they can chew. The medley of narrative threads collides in an awkward tonal mishmash of conceits, dancing between plot beats without cohesive direction. Plenty of films have found insightful ways of balancing life’s painful tribulations with much-needed humor, but Crystal’s sappy direction choices create a bizarre, Frankenstein-esque melding of tonality. An over-reliance on tired score choices and a lack of narrative flow keep Crystal’s film from ever finding a succicent voice onscreen.

    Here Today has a lot to say without saying much of it very well. As a comedy, Crystal and Zweibel’s low-key playfulness is often subbed out for grand comedic plot beats that fall flat on their face (a certain scene where Charlie takes the stage lands with a nasty mean streak despite the intended laughs). Audiences will get the occasional chuckle out of Crystal and Haddish’s distinct personas, yet neither actor is given anything particularly sharp to say (most the best gags feel improvisational).

    If the comedic aspects are a mixed bag, the dramatic elements are a borderline disaster. Crystal’s handling of Charlie is far too sentimental and clean, excusing most of the character’s previous poor actions under the guise of an evolution that doesn’t really show on the screen (the familiar drama, featuring Penn Badgley and Laura Benanti, feels laughably simplistic and melodramatic). While it’s refreshing to see Haddish in a somewhat subdued role, even her character feels like a false amalgam of dated movie cliches (the “manic pixie dream girl” trope in particular). Her character only exists to service the whims of Charlie’s ailing problems, lacking the dimension or agency to have her own meaningful place in the narrative. It all builds to a finale that swings for teary-eyed emotions yet whiffs with cloying results.

    Here Today doesn’t work despite its admirable intentions. Crystal and Haddish share an agreeable-enough rapport, but the film surrounding them constantly stumbles over its good intentions.

    Here Today is in theaters nationwide.

  • My New York Year: Review

    My New York Year: Review

    My New York Year: Review. By Julius Tabel.

    Starring Margaret Qualley and a great Sigourney Weaver, this film is about an aspiring writer who finds a job in a literature agency on her stay in New York. Her job is to read letters for legendary and retired writer J.D. Salinger, and because of them, she is inspired to write, but struggles with love and ideas.

    “My New York Year” is overall very solid with a disappointing first half, but a good development that rounds up the story very well. It fails to fully convince because of some missed chances and too easy decisions. Nevertheless, in its own style, which needs getting used to, it is always entertaining, but yet not very relatable.

    First, for a film called “My New York Year” there are only few New York-moments. This is the first missed factor. A girl in her twenties in a big city struggling to find a home and a true partner; It felt like it wanted to establish a kind of “Frances Ha” atmosphere, but never quite went for it. And so, things were left unexplained and unused. Joanna ́s (Qualley) boyfriend is suddenly there without any depiction of true love. This makes her character very raw at first, and it might be already too late when things get turned around.

    Overall, the first half is very flat. Things and even feelings are explained by breaking the 4th wall with narration, and I don ́t even listen to that anymore. When will filmmakers finally learn that narration is not a good stylistic device in most cases? Nonetheless, this is also a turning aspect. When Joanna reads the letters that admire the withdrawn writer, the writers present them straight into the 4th wall. This might first be annoying, but to be honest, you will get used to this, and at the end, this writing atmosphere becomes very authentic. If you are a fan of literature or not, like me, I think that everybody will adapt to the film ́s atmosphere.

    But atmosphere isn ́t all. The movie tries to inspire without success. You can feel a depressive mood, but not the necessary melancholia. In one scene, Claude Debussy ́s “Clair de Lune” is played, and this is the only dreamy moment. Besides, “My New York Year” tries to achieve an expression on the viewer, but doesn ́t succeed. However, the story still turns out to be all right.

    Joanna gains new traits, and we discover her struggling, naïve, and envious sides. The way I see it though, it was already too late. The character became so unrelatable and her unrealistic actions in the first half even made her partly unlikable. Finally, you will be able to accept her development, but you will never fall in love with her, as the story ends in an unsatisfying way.

    But first, I have to mention Weaver ́s character. She is Joanna ́s strict boss and while she might be the typical severe and boring superior, Weaver brings much personality to the role. It is truly entertaining to watch her. This may be irritating since the viewer actually should feel with Joanna when she interacts with Weaver ́s character, but because of good dialogue and awesome deliverance, things feel very one-sided, but still authentic.

    The story will for sure never bore you. That ́s perhaps the movie ́s biggest strength. Over the course, the plot featured a kind of suspense by hiding the character of J.D. Salinger. I think that this might intrigue some people and be a very strong part. This way, you will be able to like the ending, although it basically takes off into nowhere without telling the audience a true direction.

    Nevertheless, “My New York Year” is a good film to watch. It might be a bit flat at the beginning, but if you give it time to develop, then you will enjoy it and feel the positivity.

  • Eat Wheaties! – Review

    Eat Wheaties! – Review

    Eat Wheaties! – Review. By Alif Majeed.

    It is clear from the get-go that Eat Wheaties! is gunning to be a charming, quirky movie. Right from its title, it strains hard to get you to like the movie. There are also times throughout the film that it looks like it gets close to swaying and drowning in its indie quirkiness. The movie sticks its landing because of Tony Hale, who carries the movie rather well.

    Sid Straw (Tony Hale, riffing off his stunted man-child routine) plays a marketing executive who becomes part of his high school reunion committee as the movie begins. Realizing that he needs to contact his ex-schoolmates, he signs up on Facebook after years of not being on any social media platforms. When he stumbles on a picture of him and Elizabeth Banks together as they went to the same college, he reaches out to her, not realizing that he had sent her a public message on a fan page of Banks. The situation escalates as his messages go viral, embarrassing Sid and his family. 

    What gives the movie a very familiar sense of deja vu is Tony Hale playing the protagonist, which is a character he can play in his sleep. Sid plays off as an extension of all the man-child characters he has played so far, striking very close to Buster Bluth in Arrested Development. It can sometimes get confusing whether we are amused by the character or Tony Hale, the actor. The power of stereotyping works to that extent with the movie. 

    Despite that being the case, the stereotyping is also one of the major reasons the movie works, as Tony Hale uses much of his awkward personality traits and uses it to make the character likable. He makes the scenes where he is overwhelmed by the pressures to belong, even on social media, easy to relate to. The horror of his misguided messages to Banks strikes a nerve when you realize the impact they had on his life as he loses everything bit by bit. Hale gives a face to the man whose life it has affected when his mishap goes viral. A guy nobody might think of after a few days, but would be written off as the Elizabeth Banks stalker guy. That is a scary situation to be in, and you get a wonderful sense of it watching the movie. He pulls a tremendous sleight of hand here by using his man-child persona we associate him with and make you care for what happens to him. 

    Paul Walter Hauser, as the lawyer (with an online fake university degree) who represents Hale, is also riffing off his character in Cobra Kai. But it works here as he is a perfect foil to Hale’s character. David Walton playing Sid’s well adjusted brother Tom also makes an impact. The usual practice is to portray the more handsome jock brother of the awkward character as a mean prick. But his affection for his brother shines, and you feel the genuine warmth between the two siblings.

    What dilutes the impact is that the movie is a little too sweet for its own good, as it often skirts the thin line of trying too hard. Characters are often mean to Sid, often to mitigate any notions that he might be creepy and just to make him more likable. Scott Abramovitch, the writer-director, also wants to make sure we sympathize with him by throwing everything at Sid to make him hit rock bottom. By the end, though, it looks like they are trying to tie up everything in a neat little bowtie in a rushed manner, which doesn’t feel too earned. Like they wanted him to complete his hero’s journey fast and finish things off.

    But the monologue explaining the movie’s title earns its mushiness largely because of Tony Hale, who delivers it without trying to manipulate you. This also extends to our opinion of the overall film. It is an earnest movie that pulls through from sinking under the weight of its cutesiness because of Hale’s spirited performance.