film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Blog

  • Abrams, Spider-Man, District 10: Weekly Round Up

    Abrams, Spider-Man, District 10: Weekly Round Up

    Abrams, Spider-Man, District 10: Weekly Round Up – So, I guess the biggest story this week is that man with a box – a mystery box… ooooo – J J Abrams is, after lazily punching his way through Star Trek and Star Wars, turning his attention to Superman. Now, you might have already figured that I’m not the biggest Abrams fan, and while some of his work is just fine, I feel like I do have add a disclaimer in here that it’s my person opinion most of his films tend to center around big CG spectacle and little plot, with a hefty amount of fan pleasing thrown in for good measure.

    Of course, there is every possibility that this approach will work for old Supes, since he’s hardly been the safe bet at the box office one would imagine. Luckily, it would appear Abrams is only signed on as a producer, with the screenplay being penned by Black Panther comic-book writer Ta-Nehisi Coates. While no director has been announced for the project so far, there is speculation that the title role may be taken up by Michael B. Jordan, who was in the running for a potential Superman reboot a little while back.

    Unfortunately, there’s little more information on the film at this point, but I have no doubt we’ll be hearing more as the project progresses.

    Speaking of superheroes, there has been much speculation recently about what the title of the third Tom Holland/Marvel Spider-Man outing will be. This speculation reached fever-pitch when three of the major stars of the film, including Holland, trolled fans by each posting a still from the film along with what they claimed was the movie’s title.

    Of course, we now know that the titles shared by the actors were all fake, as the actual title of the movie was revealed to be Spider-Man: No Way Home, keeping with the motif set-up by the previous two movies, and suggesting that the plot line of the movie will likely follow on from the cliffhanger we were left with at the end of its direct predecessor, Spider-Man: Far From Home. Although there are some who have taken the title as confirmation that the film will see Holland’s wall-crawler trapped in a multiverse searching for a way to get back, which would explain the casting announcements of actors reprising characters from previous non-Marvel Cinematic Universe outings.

    This week Hollan also confirmed that Spider-Man: No Way Home is his final film as far as his current Marvel Studios contract goes, but the actor added that “if they want me back, I’ll be there in a heartbeat.” So, I doubt this will be the last we see of the actor or the character.

    Spider-Man: No Way Home wasn’t the only sequel we got news of this week though, and it arguably wasn’t even the most interesting one, since this next piece of news concerns a film many have long thought was a done deal.

    When it was released back in 2009, sci-fi actioner District 9 catapulted South African director Neill Blomkamp to super stardom. It was insanely popular with both audiences and critics, and Blomkamp was such a big hit that he even came close to directing an incredibly highly anticipated Alien movie (one that frustratingly never got beyond the pitching stage). But since District 9 Blomkamp has had a bit of a hard time recapturing the magic, with his last film – the disappointing robot action comedy Chappie – being over six years ago now.

    All of that looks set to change however, as this week we learned that the director is returning to the project that made him with a sequel to District 9 titled – inventively – District 10, which he will direct and is co-writing with the film’s star, Sharlto Copley, and Terry Tatchell.

    Interestingly, despite being the protagonist in District 9, Copley hasn’t actually been confirmed as reappearing in the sequel, although given how the first movie ends it’s not exactly a given that he will.

    Now, what I would consider the most exciting story of the week.

    When I was a young lad and I first discovered Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, the one film that I would watch over and over again was 1987’s The Running Man, a science-fiction action/thriller that saw Arnie forced to fight for his life, and prove his freedom, in a Hunger Games style reality TV show. The film was based on a short story by Stephen King (writing under the pseudonym of Richard Bachman), but while I have a certain nostalgic fondness for it – it has been recorded off the TV and so was readily available – there are many people who consider it somewhat disappointing in terms of accuracy to the source material.

    This could be about to be rectified though, as director Edgar Wright has this week signed on to direct an adaptation of the original short story that will reportedly be “more faithful to the source material”. Even as a fan of the original film I’ll admit I find this a rather tantalizing prospect. After all, who doesn’t want to see Edgar Wright give high-concept sci-fi a go?

    Abrams, Spider-Man, District 10: Weekly Round Up

  • Cherry: Another Review

    Cherry: Another Review

    Cherry: Another Review – Joe and Anthony Russo’s follow-up to the highest-grossing film of all time, Avengers: Endgame, is a dark, somber, depressing experience that will leave you on edge with its realistic portrayal of addiction throughout. Starring Tom Holland, Ciara Bravo, Jack Reynor, Jeff Wahlberg, and Michael Rispoli, the premise centers around an Army medic with PTSD, who becomes addicted to opioids and starts robbing banks to pay for the addiction.

    Similar to Malcolm & Marie, Cherry will undoubtedly go down as one of the most divisive films this year given its style and sensitive subject matter. The first hour, focusing mainly on Holland’s “Love” and “Soldier” storylines, shows you the horrors of war and how every day may be your last. The depiction of how one can change after a tragic incident from a warm friendly individual to one that’s cold and unremorseful is one that will hit audiences more than previously expected with its stance on PTSD and depression leaving a cold, lasting impact on the viewers. Yet, it’s the plot in the second half that will hit close to home for a lot of people. The way opioids affect his life, creating a lasting impact on those around him is what will truly change one’s perspectives on how they see the film.

    The Russo’s know how to cater to a young adult audience with their 6-chapter storyline working incredibly well for the story at hand. However, for me, as someone who hasn’t struggled with addiction or been to war, Cherry proved to be an insight into the world of opioids, the dangers they bring, and why one who’s addicted to them can destroy their life. This, mixed with the extensive narration, starting the film at a very late point in the story and then spending 120 minutes going “how did we get here?”, a trope many use in an attempt to show the audience what’s happened ahead of time, worked well, showing his thief stage before rewinding back and showing the watching audience how he got into this situation made me all the more impacted by his experience.

    It’s clear to see what the Russo’s were going for here. They wanted to bring awareness to the lifestyle of many young men and women who serve their country and end up worse off. From an outside perspective, this inevitably impacted me more as time progressed and for many audience members whose lives have been fortunate enough to not be in this situation, it will educate them on a subject matter many would have normally glazed over. Nevertheless, it’s the engaging and ambitious effort from Tom Holland’s tour de force performance that truly enhances the film. He does a great job at stretching his comfort zones while immersing himself in the role in such a way that not once do you ever see him as Peter Parker.

    There’s no doubt that the success of the film comes down to his performances as it’s hard to imagine anyone else in the role being able to reach the depth he goes into for this. Alongside Holland, his co-star Ciara Bravo manages to give a fantastic, devastating performance with her character adding emotional weight to the story by showing how PTSD and addiction can not only destroy the life of the sufferer, but also the lives of those closest to them. She adds to the film considerably, with her character’s development and downwards spiral proving pivotal to the story as a whole.

    However, Cherry isn’t the fantastic film many, including myself, were hoping it would be. It’s over-stylized to the point you’re left scratching your head at the choices made and sadly with a 140+ minute runtime it feels prolonged far past its need as the film would have easily benefited from ending at the exact moment you think it is, rather than going into an “epilogue” that sadly takes much of the emotional impact away in its final moments. Nevertheless, a bigger problem arises for those situated in America who may be less enlightened by the film, due to it occurring in their own back yard and adding no new information to the situation. It’s a film that, despite its dark nature, plays it all far too safe and thus those who already know about the crisis will undoubtedly be longing for a more personalized experience once it concludes.

    This is where the film will undoubtedly be a hit or miss depending on your knowledge of the situation. Many of us in the United Kingdom, especially our young adults, hold very little knowledge of the American Midwest opioid crisis, and thus our outlook on the storyline will be different from those in the United States. As someone who knew nothing about the situation, It gave me enough information to keep me hooked throughout yet plays it safe by not fully personalizing the story and instead opting for a broader outlook on things.

    There’s no doubt Joe and Anthony Russo are coming from a good, sincere place with the storyline with the message about the American Opioid pandemic proving insightful for international audiences, but it’s also one that could have been much stronger if they had spent a little more time developing the message and personalizing the story more to our characters rather than trying to give a broader look on the situation.

    Yet, thanks to Tom Holland and Ciara Bravo, who carry the whole film on their backs for the entire runtime, the film packs an emotional punch that will stay with you long after the credits roll. It may not be anything new to American audiences, but for me and many international ones, it offered a unique look into this depressing world and stayed with me long after the credits began.

  • Willy’s Wonderland: Another Review

    Willy’s Wonderland: Another Review

    Willy’s Wonderland: Another Review. by Alif Majeed.

    As an actor, Nicolas Cage had an unprecedented run in his peak 90s. It is a decade where he went from the youthful edginess of the early ’90s to prestige movie Oscar winner to bonafide action star to finally going full steam into his crazy phase towards the later part of the decade.

    It might feel like a sad state that he got himself into, but it looks like he is enjoying this part of his career. He reminds you of that old relative of yours who finally realized rather gleefully that they do not need to hesitate for a second to shoot their mouth because they are beyond reprehension.

    He has also got into a nice groove where he seems to do ten turkeys back to back and then gets out a solid movie. The makers of Willy’s Wonderland (including producer Nicolas Cage himself) must be hoping that it would turn into that one solid film and not the cold turkeys before it.

    Cage plays a mysterious drifter forced to clean the titular joint for a single night to get his damaged car repaired. Things are not as simple as it seems, as his character named The Janitor soon figures out that he is in the company of a bunch of demonic possessed animatronic dolls, all baying for his blood which would make it quite an exciting night out for him.

    The one movie that immediately came to my mind as a reference for Willy’s Wonderland was Donald Coscarelli’s charming B-Movie sendup, Bubba Ho Tep, with Bruce Campbell playing an aged Elvis, fighting ancient mummies in a retirement home. It also comes closer to two movies from the peak time Cages 90s that perfectly emulated the b-movies of yore, Evil Dead 3 (with its similar Cage-level crazed Bruce Campbell, the closest who comes as a kindred spirit to Sir Cage) and From Dusk till Dawn (with satanic ritual pacts and the ride into the sunset after everything is over).

    While the former movie had Sam Raimi and the latter had Robert Rodriguez with Quentin Tarantino, Willy’s Wonderland has. Nicolas Cage. Or that seems to be what the movie wants you to believe. But as if Kevin Lewis, the director, quickly realized, that might not be enough. The film then quickly adds five teenagers who act as stereotypical lambs for slaughter to make things better while also saving the Janitor, but end up doing more damage by just being there.

    Using the famous Rorschach line to describe The Janitor as not being trapped with the monsters, but that they are trapped with him sounds shoehorned and pretty bland when a character utters it. But Nicolas Cage owns that line the way he deals with those demonic creatures, as we have got used to seeing him do by now.

    The thing with Willy’s Wonderland is that it only feels like an utterly insane gonzo piece of entertainment in parts. A lot of credit for it goes to the man himself. And that causes a problem. Take out Cage from the equation and what you get is a typical B-Movie that is really stretching itself and trying too hard.  

    But it does have Cage, who can give playing on a pinball table his personal crazed orgasmic touch (precisely what he does in the movie) and sweep away a lot of its shortcomings. That he barely talks in the entire film as they wisely choose not to give him any lines. (as if trying to prove a point, maybe that he can pull the bat shit craziness without uttering a single word). 

    It might not be Mandy but this unusual Meet the Feebles meets Westworld universe that the makers created, a pastiche of multiple movies, will provide a lot of joy to its core target audience. If you do not take it too seriously, it is destined to end up being a cult favorite, even though a lot of it can also be chalked up to hyperbolic love.

  • Playing With Power: The Nintendo Story – The BRWC Review

    Playing With Power: The Nintendo Story – The BRWC Review

    This five part documentary series from Crackle chronicles the story of The Nintendo company, from its beginnings as a playing card producer to its present day position as a dominant figure in the video game industry. Spanning decades and covering many landmark moments in gaming history including: the early days of arcade games, the video game “crash” of the early 80’s, to the introduction of the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) a then revolutionary home console video game system, lawsuits, feuds with SEGA, Atari, PlayStation, and both the successes and failures of various product launches and technical advancements Nintendo has made over various decades from Donkey Kong all the way up to The Switch. This series tells the tale of a company that became not only an industry giant, but a cultural icon.

    It is apparent from his filmography that writer and director Jeremy Snead has a deep passion for video games and the history and culture that surrounds them. Snead has helmed such projects as Unlocked: The World of Games Revealed and Video Games: The Movie. In fact, there are many moments in the documentary where someone off-camera will make comments such as, “I remember being really frustrated by this part of a game.” It is evident when watching the series that Snead’s affinity and knowledge makes his interviewees comfortable and excited to share their knowledge as well. One former Nintendo employee even remarks that this is only the second project of its kind that she has felt comfortable speaking about Nintendo with. This evident preexisting knowledge comes through in his and his production team’s ability to assemble a series that essentially covers a company’s entire history, while also being judicious in how much time is spent on an individual time period or product so as not to hinder the pacing of the series.

    The main device that Snead and the production team use to deliver information to the audience and keep the momentum of the series going is the anecdotes and testimonials of the interviewees. The remarkable aspect of the interviewees is how diverse they are, authors and historians of Nintendo who have published books on the company and gaming industry, actors, former Nintendo employees, even corporate rivals such as the co-founder of Atari, and a former president at SEGA appear in the series. As a result of their various ages, genders, and professions, each individual has a different story when it comes to the nature of their relationship and history with Nintendo. When they became aware of them, what systems and games they first played and so on. The thread that ties all of these individuals together is that they all have an appreciation and respect for the impact that Nintendo and its properties have had on not only video game fans, but the world at large. By having such a diverse interviewee pool, Snead and the production team are able to create well-rounded pictures of how and why Nintendo did what they did and why they had the impact they did. 

    For instance when multiple interviewees talk about the mediocre reception the Wii U received upon release compared to the massive success of the original Wii console, the film cuts to former Nintendo employees talking about what the company was thinking and planning at the time, and why they think certain things both did and did not work over the company’s history. The film is able to cut between multiple interviewees to compare and contrast the explanation and perception of people within the company with those of people outside the company in order to provide a wide spectrum of opinions.

    Viewers coming into the series expecting a deep exploration into the creation and development of games may be disappointed that there are few interviews with game designers. Most Nintendo employees interviewed are former marketing and corporate heads. The central focus of the documentary is relatively restricted to Nintendo’s beginnings, its ascension to prominence in the gaming industry, corporate feuds, and the reception of Nintendo products at various times by the public rather than details on how certain games came to be. 

    The production team effectively uses archival footage in this series in order to highlight aspects of Nintendo’s impact that testimony alone can not fully encapsulate. This includes the use of home videos of kids opening Nintendo systems as gifts and the pure excitement and mania it inspired, clips from news reports covering the shortage of Nintendo gaming systems as consumers made runs on stores, commercials both by Nintendo and by their rivals showing how strong the rivalry to have dominance in the video game market was, and finally gameplay footage that helps demonstrate the evolution of video games over time, both by Nintendo and their competitors.

    Perhaps the most surprising element of this documentary is that while it is largely a tribute to what Nintendo has accomplished, the legacy of its systems, games and characters, the series also in part serves as a meditation on what it takes to succeed in corporate America. The early portion of the series is dedicated to Nintendo’s rise to dominance in the gaming industry which is colored somewhat by controversy, as there is talk about how Nintendo controlled production of cartridges and limited developers in order to maintain desired prices and gain its position of prominence amongst a relatively small amount of competition. As the series progresses however, the conversation changes when the period of rival’s such as SEGA, PlayStation, and Xbox come onto the scene. During this portion of the documentary, there are repeated references to the fact that at various points in history, other companies had better hardware and graphics than Nintendo. This resulted in occasional periods in Nintendo’s history where they were not the prominent name in video games. However, inevitably Nintendo would eventually come back into a position of domination. The interviewees and archival footage attribute these comebacks in part to the company’s strong foothold in pop culture due to the popularity of characters like Mario and Zelda, as well as the company’s emphasis on consumer experience. 

    For example, the series spends a fair amount of time on the early 2000s when competitors had consoles with better hardware, and were outselling Nintendo. However, Nintendo then introduced The Wii. The console’s simple, easy to learn and active gameplay not only helped Nintendo beat the competition in sales, but its success with whole households and elderly consumers meant Nintendo tapped into a portion of the market that video games rarely  had been able to sell to before. The interviewees and the series itself draw from stories such as these to illustrate that for companies to succeed, one must always pay mind not just to the technology available, but the experiences consumers want in  order to stay successful in a corporate environment where competition, technology and innovation are always in play. This added examination of marketing and corporate strategy may attract viewers into watching the series who otherwise may not have a strong affinity or familiarity  for  video games and their history. 

    This documentary series offers a great reflection on the history and impact of one of the world’s most influential companies. Viewers who already have a deep understanding of Nintendo’s history may not find new insights in this series, but anyone looking for a deep dive into a company that was not only successful but defined an industry and helped define modern pop culture should definitely seek this series out.

  • The Present: Review

    The Present: Review

    The Present: Review. by Alif Majeed.

    When you watch a short film, you often wonder if it would have the same impact if it were a feature-length movie. The Present worked both ways for me as I enjoyed it in its present form, but I also wished to see more of the main protagonists and their journey.

    It reminds you so much of the movies that Majid Majidi or Jafar Panahi became famous for making, ones that conveyed a lot by the time it is over, despite being as minimal as possible.

    The Present is about Yusef, a Palestine who has to navigate the West Bank region to buy a fridge as an anniversary gift for his wife, which he does with his young daughter because of the complexity of his region’s situation. Along the way, he has to get through the red tape, roadblocks, and his own messed up back, which keeps on giving out in his small quest to get the fridge back home.

    Farah Nabulsi, the director, has streamlined the story to only what is important to portray Yusef’s journey to get the fridge. There is always a temptation and the need to show more. Like other characters, they meet on the road (including some quirky characters out to teach them some life lessons). But Farah is not interested in doing any of that. Without trying to cram into the story as many issues surrounding the region as possible, she makes the movie a parable about a person’s right of movement.

    The father’s role needed an actor who shines across as a man on a mission while letting the character’s inherent decency shine, which is precisely what Saleh Bakri did. As Yasmine, Mariam Kanj is also incredibly angelic and marvelous as the daughter who has joined the father on his journey. A considerable part of why we root for them is that they come across as decent human beings who dot on each other.

    There are moments in these topical movies where you feel the protagonists are in danger. Towards the climax of The Present, there is a tense scene where you almost think they are in imminent danger. Kudos to the director for making it feel like a natural extension of everything that happened to them and not a means to shoehorn in some sense of drama.

    As I said earlier, I wondered how it would be as a full-length movie as it makes you curious to know more about the movie’s subject. The Present will make you interested in understanding the region the characters live in and their situations. That itself is a victory for the director, making her achieve what she set out to do.