Category: REVIEWS

In the darkest of times, we sometimes convince ourselves of certain impossibilities thanks to blind hope. It’s a spectacular human trait that somehow manages to surpass our inherent rationality. Rowan Athale’s new picture Strange but True deals with the trait and how sometimes just embracing the impossible is better than facing the truth. 

Strange but True begins with Melissa (Margaret Qualley), who is 36 weeks pregnant, visiting the relatives of her deceased boyfriend Ronnie (Connor Jessup), claiming it’s his child. The only issue is, he’s been dead for 5 years. From there, Ronnie’s brother Phillip (Nick Robinson) and their mother Charlene (Amy Ryan) go on separate journeys to discover their truths, embracing the impossible along the way. 

This film is a tale of two halves, with the first half being by far the worse of the two. It quickly dissolves into wild speculation about how Melissa fell pregnant. A lot of different branches are extended to find a solution to this issue, but none manage to be particularly captivating. Everything happens quite fast in the grand scheme of things, and there are plenty of twists and turns along the way.

Thanks to this, there is an inescapable sense of predictability throughout, and I don’t think the filmmakers were banking on that. It’s as if the film is talking into a pillow, and you really want to listen to what it is trying to say but you just can’t. This dampens some of the thrills, but not all of them. 

This is where the second half of the film comes in. The vast majority of Strange but True’s second half is intensely gripping. It’s hard to say too much without spoiling it, but the film well and truly overcomes its predictability and replaces it with raw thrills. It all ends abruptly but other than that this portion is massively entertaining, especially when compared to the opening. Knowing when to believe a lie is the message of this movie, and this section drives that concept. The truth is sometimes too dark to accept, so maybe it’s better to believe in something impossible. It’s a thought-provoking and touching sentiment, one the film as a whole never manages to grasp fully, but there are a few moments when it feels like the movie has something to say, and when those occur it all feels like a fully realised film.

The performances are all respectable. There is a lack of a real standout, but Amy Ryan delivers some powerful work as always, and the Robinson and Qualley make for a stirring pair. Had the script been more refined I think the actors would have found themselves with more in-depth characters to sink their teeth into.

What we get instead are tropey husks of what could have been actually interesting characters. Athale seems determined to make sure every character has a reason for being where they are now, and all the exposition adds up, and we find ourselves inundated with information we didn’t need to know. It makes characters that should have been endearing rather dull for a good part of the runtime. 

Strange but True is at its best when it builds upon the concept of subjective truth, and that happens enough for this to be worth watching. However, it almost loses itself in dull character backstories and wild conspiracy theories.

By Matt Keay.

By In the mid-nineties, long before broadband-speed pornography, the only chances of a bit of the other on telly was your mum’s VHS copy of ‘9 1/2 Weeks’, and whatever you could find late on the four (and later, five) terrestrial channels on the small colour TV you were lucky to have in your bedroom. Consequently, many boys became acutely aware of a show called ‘Red Shoe Diaries’, which for early-teens was the absolute zenith of late night furtive fumbling fodder.

It was titillating, intriguing, beguiling, and came and went in a brisk 30 minutes. ‘Enthusiastic Sinners’, however, is the ‘Red Shoe Diaries’ episode that Kevin Smith never bothered to make. It’s a fairly graphic soft-porn flick with pretty decent dialogue. It appears to be an attempt at the kind of film Burt Reynolds’ Jack Horner waxed lyrical about in ‘Boogie Nights’; a skin flick with a real story. 

The plot is ostensibly a prolonged one night stand between Bruce (Christopher Heard) and Shelby (Maggie Alexander), whose meet-cute revolves around unhappily married Bruce, in his role as a police officer, being called to recently widowed Shelby’s house after reports of gunshots being heard on her property. When the call turns out to be a false alarm (her son, banging bullets with a hammer, incredibly), the pair are overcome with lust, decide to spend the day together, and proceed to participate in increasingly passionate bouts of sex, punctuated by soul-searching conversation. We spend the 85-minute running time forced, rather than compelled, to witness the potential genesis of a relationship, however unconventional it might be.

The problem is that a reason cannot be fathomed why ‘Enthusiastic Sinners’ exists. If it was made to be sandwiched within a framing device like the raunchy David Duchovny vehicle of a bygone age, then why the lengthy witty repartee and the rural establishing shots? If the intention was to revisit in some abstract way the nostalgia of chance sexual encounters, then why drag the conceit out for an hour and a half? 

"Enthusiastic Sinners" Trailer from Mark Lewis on Vimeo.

Any enjoyment of the film rests on the chemistry of the leads, (the only characters in the picture), which is undeniable. Their performances are strong, and the dialogue is delivered convincingly and naturally. There are moments when anticipation of their next round of hanky-panky delivers disappointment, rather than excitement, as it detracts from an otherwise riveting two-handed scene of character-building back and forth.

The feeling of listening in on a couple figuring each other out, of hedging their bets even as they bare their innermost feelings and desires to each other is an aspect of the film worth exploring, but the voyeuristic haze through which director Mark Lewis frames his actors results in a strange feeling of imposition upon the tryst, as if the viewer has become complicit in the affair, and cannot appreciate on face value the thrill of the situation as presented.

‘Enthusiastic Sinners’, unfortunately, is a potentially great short film, grossly bloated into a feature. Even with a reasonably taut runtime, it drags, and leaves you with the feeling that you’ve witnessed something you shouldn’t have. Not unlike ‘Red Shoe Diaries’.

Out Of Blue: The BRWC Review. When Detective Mike Hoolihan (Patricia Clarkson) is called to investigate the shooting of leading astrophysicist and black hole expert, Jennifer Rockwell (Mamie Gummer), she is affected in ways she struggles to comprehend. Unfortunately, the audience may struggle to comprehend how exactly such a dull, lifeless and predictable movie such as Out of Blue ever got made. Even if it is taken from the Martin Amis novel, Night Train.

There are a number of things that may pull in an audience to watch Out of Blue. The promise of a cast with actors such as Toby Jones, James Caan and Jacki Weaver may be enough to make some people take notice. However, like most films of this quality, the names in the movie are generally just there to draw in said audiences.

Besides Weaver’s performance (as erratic and uneven as it is), the rest of the supporting cast are two dimensional, not knowing how to play their characters because they simply aren’t fleshed out enough. Patricia Clarkson’s performance may also be explained by the lack of characterisation. Besides her business haircut, dark leather jacket and daring tattoo there really isn’t much to say about Mike Hoolihan and unfortunately, I feel that Clarkson knows this as well, making her come across as bored and disinterested.

Having not read the source material I cannot really compare, but I would like to think that perhaps there were some more details about the characters that didn’t go from the page to the screen.

However, I fear that characters were not the only thing left behind from the novel. As the film attempts to delve into the philosophy of quantum physics, there is a sense that writer/director Carol Morley may have thought that the audience might not understand the science so for the most part this is entirely left out. There is a very surface level exploration of what it means to be human and what defines our existence, but I feel the audience may get a little sick of hearing the same thing repeated over and over again and this may make some feel like they’re being treated like idiots.

The pseudo-science in the script often feels like it is trying to sound intellectual but without really saying anything moving or profound, making the film even more drawn out and frustrating than it already was without it.

Out of Blue could have been a detective story that leant into the clichés with reckless abandon and given its audience an interesting story, great performances and enough to keep them interested. Unfortunately, it fails on all accounts. I feel that perhaps this is not what Carol Morley really wanted to do and so when the opportunity arose, she took it to tide her over until her next project. This would certainly explain the performances from the cast.

I’m not entirely sure what to say about Ladyworld. A weird, unsettling exploration of madness, division and gender roles, it plays in part like David Lynch and in part like something you’d expect from the mind of Stephen King. Pitched as an all-female retelling of Lord of the Flies, it struggles to find anything new to do with the material beyond its gender-swapping premise, and winds up descending into art-house type sequences and pure style over substance in an effort to maintain the runtime.

Truthfully, I thought I was going to enjoy it a lot more. But it seems far more interested in appearing like it is saying something than it is interested in actually saying something. Watching it became sort of like an endurance test, and in that aspect I related to the characters deeply, as they struggle with the never-ending birthday part they find themselves trapped in, shut off from the outside world after some kind of unexplained catastrophe, their frustrations and paranoia begin to seep out into their collective group, and sure enough they turn on one another.

It’s a shame, then, that the struggle of having to push through the movie is pretty much the only bit of the movie that felt like it had genuinely captured the struggles of the character. Despite so much time spent on what at first glance seems to be character building, ultimately, I know as little about these characters as I did when it all started.

I don’t know if that was the point or not, but it certainly didn’t feel much like it. In the end it just felt like I’d missed something, and maybe that’s down to me, but I’m not in any particular rush to go back and figure out if I did. That would require watching it again, and… well, man do I not want to do that.

Visually there are interesting choices being made throughout, and I have to say that there were several moments I was at least gripped by the technique on the display. Locked off shots become slow zooms, and tension and discomfort is built in equal measure. While I can’t say that I enjoyed the movie, I also honestly have to admit that I think may that is the intention. It’s a hard watch, not just in the tedium of it all, but in moments of genuine unsettling atmosphere as well. Plenty of it seems to be deliberate as well; never ending chants and constant toying with the soundscape all add together to a very uncomfortable viewing experience.

Stylistically all of this is cool. I’ll give credit where credit is due, it’s an interesting film from a stylistic standpoint. The aforementioned sound design, as well as several interesting shot compositions make this at least bearable on that front. And the cast are all pretty good, despite having very little to work with in the way of character.

Undoubtedly this one is probably destined to be as divisive as it is debatable. I may not have been able to get much from up, but I have no issues imagining that there are people out there who will. What it is, for me at least, more than anything else, is a fascinating experiment that runs out of steam before it can get anywhere meaningful. The final scenes seem to promise something deeper than what it actually manages to muster, and that winds up being, in the end, frustrating more than intriguing.

It’s muddled and uncertain and struggles to make the premise last long enough to justify the relatively short runtime. What it does do, however, is succeed in creating atmosphere and discomfort, thanks to some interesting creative choices, some exceptional sound work, some great costumes, bold make-up choices and a decent cast.

The DVD itself is underwhelming, perhaps a little like the film, offering up a pretty disappointing array of extras. There’s the theatrical trailer, which at this point should be a given, a teaser – which is basically just another trailer, and an image slideshow that had me wishing there was some sort of behind the scenes documentary or filmmakers commentary. As a filmmaker myself, I’m always eager to hear from those behind the scenes, and the fact that the film had me so baffled and frustrated meant that something delving into the process of making this would have been brilliantly insightful.

What a shame then, that much like the film itself, Ladyworld the DVD winds up looking great, and promising intrigue, but ultimately stumbling along and failing to give me anything that might help me delve a little deeper into this world.

Hate Crime is a film about two families dealing with a murder when one of their sons kills the other because he is gay. The Browns, Ginny (Amy Redford) and Tom (Kevin Bernhardt) find their marriage on the verge of breaking point as they deal with the repercussions of the murder, and the Demarcos, John (John Schneider) and Marie (Laura Cayouette) feel like they’re dealing with things the best that they can, although cracks soon start to appear as their points of view differ.

Told as a slice of life drama, the film gradually unfolds as the two sets of parents are given the time to set down their characters and to tell the audience how their relationships are affected after such a tragedy.

There could be a temptation to show one family as being less sympathetic than the other, but thankfully the script is far more nuanced and thoughtful, so the film never goes into melodrama and maintains the realism of the situation. There are a couple of twists along the way, but they are never meant to shock or surprise the audience, but rather they are there to develop the story a little more so that any preconceived ideas are challenged, making the situation more three dimensional.

Hate Crime starts out slowly, and for those who may not be familiar with the premise then they may find their attention wandering a little, especially as this kind of drama is rarely seen these days. However, the story is compelling, the characters feel real and the script is carefully and considerately crafted to show the story from as many angles as possible, but without any forced dialogue or contrived plot twists.

For a film that has such a provocative set up, it would be a dangerous task to misrepresent the situation and to pull back on the harder issues it raises. However, I’m glad to say that Hate Crime does everything it sets out to do, giving the audience a satisfying and well told story. There are times where the mournful violin and piano score may feel a bit forced in certain scenes, but this is a minor criticism.

In fact, without the distraction, the film may make its audience more uncomfortable than necessary. Hate Crime is a moving and thought-provoking drama that shows all sides to what could have been a cliched and one-sided story if handled differently. Often not a film that is easy to watch, but for the writing alone it is worth visiting the Browns and the Demarcos.