Category: REVIEWS

Braveheart makes a myth of a real man and real events; in that respect, it’s a heavily flawed film. Yet, in my eyes, Mel Gibson’s epic will always be one of the finest films ever made. No film has struck me emotionally quite like Braveheart. William Wallace (Mel Gibson) was the first freedom fighter I ever truly knew, and his trials and tribulations against the British awed me for every second of its vast 3-hour runtime. When I first saw the film, I was struck hard by the ending. Watching those men charge the fields of Bannockburn, I realised I had unwittingly become attached to this film forever. So, 25 years after its initial release, I thought I would write on what makes this best picture winner my personal favourite movie.

For those who don’t know, Braveheart loosely follows the story of William Wallace and the Scottish revolt he led against King Edward I of England (AKA Longshanks). It tells of his courage and his love, and while there’s more fiction than fact, Braveheart is a powerful and captivating example of how to glorify an individual from a bygone era.

We see the battles of Stirling and Falkirk with all their intense rebel vigour and inspirational message of independence. Those battles and all the others are brutal. The infantry swings their weapons with reckless abandon resulting in plenty of bloody impalements and crushings. The combat sequences were so ambitious in scale they required 1600 extras to film, and the final result is breath-taking. Indeed, they are engrossing and memorable in their execution, but Braveheart offers so much more. 

We also witness love in a time where hatred ruled. From his tragic relationship with his wife Murron (Catherine McCormack), the death of whom acts as a catalyst for the rebellion. To the unrequited dedication, Wallace receives from Princess Isabell (Sophie Marceau), the incredibly brave daughter in law of Longshanks (Patrick McGoohan). We experience a depth and emotional development that few epics ever get close to by comparison.

There are many other complexities to the narrative; betrayal and internal Scottish politics to name a couple, but the film is only bettered by them and never gets bogged down in over-explaining specific points. Rather than exploring the dry world of politics, Braveheart opts to grow its massive heart ever larger. In the process, Mel Gibson proved, as he did with Hacksaw Ridge, that he can endear you to lost causes from the past, ones many of his audience cannot relate to, but they nonetheless feel for and champion. And that’s precisely why this film redefined what an epic was to me. I’m an Australian of English and Irish descent, and Scotland’s independence becomes my number one issue every time I sit down to watch, just purely because of the overwhelming emotion that washes over me from beginning to end. 

To that point, despite the monumental amount of work which went into the film, I would label it effortlessly epic. For all it’s false depictions, some of which are brazenly obvious, Braveheart feels real. Maybe because Randall Wallace wrote with his feelings more so than his mind; generating an atmosphere which emphasises the mythical nature of everything, earning the film forgiveness for all the falsehoods. William Wallace is an all-time movie hero, whose cry of freedom is known worldwide as the ultimate piece of melodrama, and he is what makes this film the epic. Writing him with rigorous historical fact and via the means of meticulous recreation would only serve to distort Braveheart into a much lesser film.

Mel Gibson became a deserving Academy Award winner in the wake of Braveheart and there’s little to say to discredit his win. The way he captures both love and war will always be utterly evocative and mesmerising. He couldn’t have done it without his Academy Award-winning Cinematographer John Toll who stuns with his lens. And yet one person, who the Academy tragically failed to honour in 1996, adds more to this experience than maybe even Mel himself.

The late great James Horner is known first and foremost for composing Titanic, a monumental piece of work to be sure. But his efforts composing Braveheart with the London Symphony Orchestra is the stuff of dreams. From his “Outlawed Tunes on Outlawed Pipes” to “The Execution Bannockburn” Horner’s score is a cinematic achievement of the highest order. As the film comes to its conclusion, he hypnotises and escorts you to one of cinemas most magnificent crescendos both musically and narratively. His loss is irreparably tragic, and we should be forever thankful for the magic he skilfully made for us while he was alive. 

Braveheart is a masterpiece, and remains as irresistibly epic as it always has.

Susan (Numa Perrier) let her love go back to Mexico. He told her that one day she should come and find him so that they can pick up right where they left off and that’s just what she did.

Travelling to a country she’s never been to before to find a man who may or may not have moved on with his life, Susan starts to wonder if she’ll ever find true love or even if her life has any direction at all. That’s the premise of Zoe’s script anyway.

Zoe (JoNell Kennedy) is an aspiring screenwriter, an artist whose stories have gone untold because of producers (mainly white men), other writers and industry ‘experts’ all telling her what she needs to do to make a great movie. Although Zoe is adamant that her story be told her way, the need to survive starts to become greater and as Susan’s story changes, Zoe’s own insecurities about her life and what the film industry needs to sell a movie start to blend to the point where Zoe doesn’t even recognise her own script anymore.

Una Great Movie is a film that is mostly true. Written and directed by Jennifer Sharp, the film is a humorous and satirical look at what an African American woman may need to do to make her career a success in the film industry.

Taking a lot of material from what is surely first hand experience, Sharp’s script excellently details all aspects of life as a struggling film maker. This experience makes the scenes of Zoe’s imaginary movie more understandable as Sharp’s observations are obvious to anyone who’s ever been to the cinema.

A passion project of Sharp’s for 18 years, Una Great Movie is perhaps not the film she intended to make all those years ago, but through experience and exposure to probably some of the worst people in the industry, it makes Una Great Movie stand out as something more. Diversity in cinema may not have been something that Sharp would have hoped she would still need to talk about when she first thought about her movie, but unfortunately it is as relevant now then it ever was.

Una Great Movie is something all people should see, because even if you don’t think there is a diversity problem in cinema, one movie might be all it takes to change your mind.

The Personal History Of David Copperfield: The BRWC Review. I’m sure that everyone has come across David Copperfield at some point in their lives. The Dickensian story is, like most novels by the famed author, truly timeless and ever relevant. I myself haven’t read the book personally – it being over 600 pages long being my main put off – I have seen the 1999 BBC mini-series adaptation, staring Bob Hoskins, Maggie Smith and Ian McKellen among others. So, I was fairly excited to hear of this film’s release.

Adding more excitement to the mix was the announcement that Armando Iannucci would be writing and directing The Personal History of David Copperfield. I am a fan of Iannucci’s work, from Alan Partridge and The Thick of It, to what I consider to be one of the best films of the last decade, The Death of Stalin. It was all falling well for me.

We all know the story. David Copperfield is born without a father and is very close to his mother. Then he gets a cruel stepfather, makes his own way in life, comes across his aunt and a cast of other colourful characters. He lives a life both mundane and extraordinary. The story is, of course, almost biographical of Dickens’ own life, so expect many similarities.

My reaction to this film, when all was said and done was this – I liked it, but… And that followed the film throughout. There was so much I loved about this film. But! I will say that I was impressed with how well the film came across. Iannucci’s past filmography is cynical, so it was nice to have him successfully deliver something wholesome. It was also his most stylish film. It plays out like a stage play. Outside of some establishing shots, every set feels nice and close. Actor’s literally walk on and off like they are entering and exiting stage and it is edited in such a way that the film feels like it is continually flowing.

What really got me down on this film was its pacing. The film just thunders through its story. I understand that there is only so much that can be done when you are telling a 600 page story in roughly two hours. Combining his time at school and the blacking factory and other such choices are more than fair. But still, we go from his birth, to the whole ordeal with his stepfather, to his mother’s death and the blacking factory and then his introduction to his aunt and Mr Dick, not to mention the entire Mr Micawber ordeal all within the first half hour. There doesn’t feel to be room to breathe with this film. And this is a story where this room to breathe is essential for making it work.

I found Iannucci’s script to be surprisingly weak, with some bizarre choices here and there. A prime example for me is the announcement of Copperfield’s mother passing on. In the story, this news is given to him by the abusive and comically indifferent headmaster (factory owner in this version) Mr Creakle as he is the only figure of authority there. In this version his stepfather is present to the news breaking. But it’s still Creakle who tells him. Little things like that make little sense and feel sloppy in a way. It also falls for the same trap that many adaptations have fallen for lately – Harry Potter, DC films and even those Disney Remakes on a technical level are included in this. If you haven’t read the source material, or watched the original film, then you will be lost. Taking away previous material, these films feel incoherent. I’m sad to say this about The Personal History of David Copperfield, but I doubt I’d know what was going on just by watching this version.

As for the cast, it’s colourblind casting. Meaning that the actors were hired for their talent and what they brough to their roles, regardless of ethnicity. Honestly the actors all do good jobs. Dev Patel is a wonderful choice as Copperfield, bringing a delightful energy to the film. Tilda Swinton, Benedict Wong and Ben Whishaw are also equally up to the task. The stand out to me was the ever fantastic Hugh Laurie as Mr Dick. Peter Capaldi as Mr Micawber however fell hollow, I don’t know what it was, but I found his performance to be subpar. The colourblind casting, while definitely a nice way of casting that I hope to see a bit more in the future, does feel strange when we have parents with pale skin raising a biological child with darker skin. But you get used to it quickly.

I liked it, but. That is the only way I can describe this film. It looks lovely, it’s well acted and it’s genuinely funny. It’s also very rushed, has a weak script and loses most of the original stories heart. I recommend it to fans of British cinema and of Iannucci, or to those looking for a quirky period comedy. But for fans of the source material, you may find it wanting.

Hollywood legend almost isn’t enough to describe Clint Eastwood. He is the perfect example of someone who’s given their life to the art of movie-making. And he’s not faultless, “The 15:17 to Paris” proved that.

To put it nicely that particular endeavour was a nonsensical mess, but he followed it up with the dubiously charming film “The Mule” which saved him some face. Now he reminds just how good he really is by curtailing last decade with his best effort in many years.

Richard Jewell tells the true story of the man who inspired the title. Richard (Paul Walter Hauser) was a security guard based in Centennial Park on July 26, 1996, during the Atlanta Olympics. He was the very security guard who found the bomb which went off in the park that day and saved countless lives by ensuring as many people as possible were out of harm’s way before it went off. Without a doubt, Richard was a hero. A hero America ridiculed when the FBI leaked to a journalist that he was the prime suspect in the hunt for the terrorist. 

The film follows both the event itself and the fruitless and frankly pathetic investigation that followed. With the relationship between Richard, his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) and his lawyer Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell) being the focal point. Throughout they combat the naïve duo of FBI investigator Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm) and journalist Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde).

All the while Richard Jewell becomes the punchline to a nation’s jokes, a nation unwittingly insulting someone who was only doing his job and saving people in the process. 

There is a lot to love and respect about this film, but there is one breathtaking aspect that rises above all others, the performance of Paul Walter Hauser in the title role. He starts off simmering as the goofy and frankly strange man Jewell was and manages to evolve that into a commanding and downright engrossing depiction of a man who refuses to be anyone he’s not. It becomes staggeringly clear he will do whatever he can to get his situation resolved and go back to living life the way he always did. This performance shows Hauser is so much more than the hilarity inducing roles in “I, Tonya” and “BlackKklansmen” he’s a Hollywood leading man with all the potential to take the stage during any future awards season as a winner.

Sam Rockwell and the Oscar-nominated Kathy Bates are also spectacular and serve to highlight the intense toll something like this takes on people. Bobi Jewell is a particularly endearing character, she loves her son with every fibre of her being, and to label her reaction to the scandal as utter devastation would be an understatement. That’s what makes this an essential film, a film that had to be made. Clint Eastwood has a knack for highlighting the stories of hero’s who don’t or didn’t get their due while they were alive, and Richard Jewell is the epitome of that.

Not only did he not get his due, but he was also torn apart by the media when he had done nothing wrong, this film highlights that and spreads the truth to the world one last time. 

Eastwood doesn’t spare much time for certain complexities that amount to the truth here, but the basics are spot on, and when it comes down to it, I am totally fine with that. Yes, the depiction of Scruggs is harsh, and at times blatantly untrue, but she still wrote the articles she wrote, and they were horrible and wrong; history must not forget that, even if she is unfairly treated in this film. The FBI also come off as utterly incompetent, but all things considered, this wasn’t their finest hour, and they didn’t deserve anything more than they got from this film. 

Paul Walter Hauser’s powerhouse performance firms this tale of an American hero robbed of his glory as one of Clint Eastwood’s most exceptional efforts from the last decade.