Category: REVIEWS

Here is where you would find our film reviews on BRWC. We look at on trailers, shorts, indies and mainstream. We love movies!

Game Night: Callum’s Take

This is very different from how my game nights turn out. I saw the trailer to this a while back and thought that it looked so silly that it just might work. The story to Game Night is Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams are a married couple who share an interest in games and are equally as competitive – to an almost psychotic degree. When Bateman’s brother, who he loses to, invites them and their friends to a game night of his own, where actors will kidnap him and they must follow a trail of clues to find him, they decide to go for it. But, when he is actually kidnapped, everyone believes that they are still playing a game. Soon they are in over their heads, with crime bosses and gun men at every corner. But it’s just a game isn’t it?

A lot about this film reminded me of Horrible Bosses – and not just because Jason Bateman is in it. Both films are filmed in a similar style. They use the same colour scheme and camera work. They’re even similar in their uses of location. But, most importantly, they’re both very well structured and written films too. There’s some decent drama in here, and there are good thriller elements too. And every joke is set up and payed off. There’s no quippy jokes or random uses of comedy. Someone will say or do something earlier and then it’ll come back to bite them somehow. You know, how some great comedy’s supposed to work.

Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams are great here. They share a lot of good chemistry. While it’s not going to be seen as a showcase of their best talents, they still bring a lot to the film. From the get go we know everything that we need to about the two of them and latch on almost instantly. The side characters and supporting cast do great too. I like Kyle Chandler as the brother – this jerk who keeps landing on his feet, having all the money, looks and cars. I liked their moronic friend who keeps trying to prove that he’s smarter than he looks. The couple with jealousy issues got a few laughs out of me too. I really liked the neighbour character. He takes social awkwardness to the next level, speaking in ways nobody speaks and always carrying his dog. Normally a character like this would take me out of it, but he’s used just right and just enough for it to work for me.

I really liked Game Night, but I didn’t love it. This is mostly because I thought that it was more good than it was funny. I chuckled throughout most of the film, but there were very few laughs from me. Moments like a pretty gruesome bullet removal were great when they played, but mostly I was just lightly chuckling when something got payed off. This was my issue with the likes of Horrible Bosses too. Also, depending on who you are the ending may completely loose you. There was a point earlier on when I thought it was going to end. It was a bridge scene. It would have been odd to end there, but it would also have worked great – almost like the film was trolling its audience. But it carries on and, while not bad, the ending we get is a more generic one. This is the point when a character played by Michael C Hall enters the film. I love Dexter, so it was great seeing him again in something else. But this man had little skill for comedy here, making it feel more intense than it probably should have been.

There’s not much else to say on Game Night. It’s certainly one of the stronger American comedy films of the past few years. It’s certainly worth a watch and will be a bit of fun for date night. It’s a harmless little comedy with some very funny moments and a lot of fun sprinkled throughout. It won’t beat the competition at the box office, but it’s all fun and games all the same.

9th March 2018
The BRWC Review: You Were Never Really Here

The best things come to those who wait and, well it was worth it. You Were Never Here is a tour de force both in front and behind of the camera. In her trademark style of character examination, Lynne Ramsay gives us a short and shocking stylised film that invades all the senses. It’s been 9 years since We Need To Talk About Kevin and she’s back with You Were Never Really Here. This should have been nominated for a number of Oscars but, oh well ok. It is an incredible and relentless story and under two hours long – hurrah.

You Were Never Really Here tells the story of an army veteran, Joe (Joaquin Phoenix) who specialises in finding lost people and tying up loose ends. From the start you’re thrown right into the action, no explanation you’re just trying to figure out is why the protagonist going to kill himself, will he ever overcome his demons.

The cinematography by Thomas Townsend is luminous. It truly captures something – whilst brutal and relentless – it is beautiful to watch. The violence that is shown never feels gratuitous and that is possibly down to it being shown through a female gaze. When Joe goes on the rampage in a building used by paedophiles – the actual violence is shown through security cameras so we are watching the camera footage rather than being right directly in the rampage. This does not in any way diminish the power of the scene, strangely it enhances it. Yet there are so many tender moments as well especially between Joe and his mother when they are watching the television and then later in the film when he discovers an unspeakable horror.

Joaquin Phoenix gives one of his career best performances in this film. The script is sparse and has very little dialogue, yet the audience intuitively understands what is being shown on screen and this down to Joaquin’s performance.

The subject matter and the fragmented way in which the film is presented will stay with you long after you leave the cinema. You will question how much of it was real and what was in the mind of Joe and that is the mark of great art – it generates discussion.

You Were Never Really Here opens in cinemas across the UK on Friday 9 March.

8th March 2018
Red Sparrow: Johnathan’s Take

By Johnathan Bonham.

Wow, so this was an intense one. I was squirming in my seat through the end of the movie just hoping that it would stop. By no means is that a bad thing, it was just a little hard to watch the excruciating pain that was being dealt. I enjoyed this movie a lot. It had all the makings of a slow, Cold War, espionage thriller, just with way more sex and violence. Jennifer Lawrence does a great job at playing the ballet dancer turned seductress spy, and is joined by a few familiar faces along the way. The plot is a little hard to follow at times, but overall I would say that the ending wraps things up nicely.

The movie begins with Dominika Egorova (Lawrence) suffering a tragic ballet accident that ends her career. In order to continue supporting herself and her ailing mother, she accepts an offer from her uncle, Vanya Egorov (Matthias Schoenaerts), a known member of the government, on an intelligence mission. Before long, Egorova is sucked into the world of Russian spies where she attends their “Sparrow” school, which essentially teaches them how to be seductive agents. After showing promise she graduates early and is sent on a mission to try and figure out who a mole in their government is by getting close to a CIA agent, Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton), that pops up on their radar. Before long the two of them are entangled in a relationship, but it’s hard to tell if it’s all strictly a ploy as Egorova seems to have a hidden agenda that even her government might not know about.

That overview really leaves a lot out, but there was also a ton going on. What I left out is to be aware of the rape, violence and torture that you endure through this movie. Let me tell ya, director Francis Lawrence does NOT hold back. My god. There were a few points in the movie where I felt uneasy in my chair. Kudos to Jennifer Lawrence for giving such a very convincing performance of how brutal it all was too. Side note, I’ve got to imagine that Russians are going to hate watching this movie, because it paints them in a terrible light. They are shown as cruel, merciless people, in a shitty, cold country. I’m not saying that’s accurate in real life, but that’s the impression I got.

I think my main gripe of the movie is that when they send Lawrence to Sparrow school, all they focus on is how to overcome awkward sexual situations. I was really hoping to see a bunch of cool spy training and see how she turns into this super-agent, but that is not at all what you get. They learn how to pick a lock, watch porn, and get pimped out? I understand the concept behind that and the necessity of seduction and gaining trust, but I don’t think the movie really did justice depicting that in their training.

It’s used as an opportunity to have Lawrence strip down and hope that the audience glazes over. Nice try! It would’ve been more acceptable had they actually shown her being some wild seductress throughout the film, and then I would’ve thought “Hey, that training they gave her was pretty valuable.” Since that isn’t the case it almost felt more like cheap T&A to please the audience than something that was actually necessary to the development of the film. My other gripe is that she is done with the training in 3 months, and essentially is already a full blown secret agent ready to attempt undermining the CIA.

I don’t buy that. It’s not like she did anything major that would lead you to believe she was field ready. All-in-all, I think the insight that the audience gains in the training should be the focal point of a movie like this, similar to The Recruit or Spy Game, but it wasn’t the case. Not a huge issue to the film, probably more so something I’m being picky about.

Ok, I really didn’t mean for this to turn into me airing my gripes about a movie that I did actually enjoy. Jennifer Lawrence is fantastic. She fully dives into her character, and does a phenomenal job keeping you guessing throughout about which side she’s on. Her character is also a total badass. She’s a killer, no doubt about it, but she’s also smart and deceiving. The entire time she’s playing the game to perfection and has everyone wrapped into her web of lies. I enjoyed Joel Edgerton’s performance quite a bit as well, but I’m also a huge fan of his in general.

Truthfully, he just plays a likeable character. He’s a by the book CIA agent who falls for Lawrence, all the while protecting an asset that he was working with in Russia. The movie is clearly Lawrence’s with Edgertonas a focal point, and asides from those two you get some solid performances from Ciaran Hinds, Jeremy Irons, Schoenaerts, Bill Camp, Mary Louise Parker, and Charlotte Rampling playing the more than hate-able, Nurse Ratchett-esque, Matron.

I think the one thing that I had a deep appreciation for was how Francis Lawrence made this feel like a true Cold War, espionage thriller. The key to these types of movies, for me, is to have a slow developing plot that manages to keep the audience’s attention. The pace of the film needs to take its time introducing characters and really building the backstory. Throw in a few surprises here and there with some subtle action throughout, and then climax with a huge twist that the audience doesn’t see coming. I don’t think Red Sparrow follows that to perfection, but I thought the overall pace of the movie was pretty spot on. The movie was probably a little too long and should’ve been closer to the two hour mark, but I don’t think most people will find that overly bothersome.

I enjoyed this movie, and I don’t think it’s just because I have a general obsession with the spy genre. For instance, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy didn’t do it for me, despite having a RIDICULOUS cast. I might have to re-watch it now, but the first time I screened it I thought it was boring and hard to follow. Red Sparrow, on the other hand, kept my attention throughout. I’m not going to label this as a must see or even one that you need to see in the theatre unless you have MoviePass, but definitely watch it once it’s released on DVD.

6th March 2018
Review: Hold Me Down

Inspired by true events, Hold Me Down is the heart-breaking depiction of a day in the life of Chastity, a young single mother who is forced into stripping and prostitution in order to support her child. In this short feature, we bare witness to the abuse, degradation and humiliation that she endures in one night, only to provide her child with simple necessities such as Pampers.

We see, at the beginning of the film, Chastity fashioning a makeshift diaper out of a plastic bag for her baby. She hears about a bachelor party taking place later that night, the bachelor being an ex boyfriend of Chastity’s. Her and her friends are employed to dance at the party, wearing next to nothing, and are ogled and heckled by men all night. Things take a dark turn, and she is left feeling empty and exhausted.

Set in the Bronx, Swedish director Niclas Gillis uses only actresses who are from there, really living this life, which gives the film such a feeling of authenticity that hits right where it hurts. Whilst it may not be an easy watch, it is certainly an important one. Films about women like Chastity are scarce, but so essential, as the struggles these girls face are lost in today’s society, buried deep underneath the more publicised issues of modern America.

There is a touching conversation that takes place between two friends, Chastity and Tanisha (played by Tianna Allen), providing a short relief, all we could hope for in a film covering this particular subject matter. Tanisha comforts Chastity, telling her she doesn’t need to let her ex make her feel bad, that she is the most beautiful person in the room and that he is nothing. Apart from the touching depiction of the bond between mother and her child, the loyalty and sisterhood between these women is the only aspect of the film that encourages a feeling of hope and warmth.

The cinematography is hauntingly beautiful, with most of the shots lit by one lone, clinical light. The party scene is dizzying and disorientating, with the flashing beams creating a feeling of incredible claustrophobia. Whilst Chastity dances, a circle of men close in around her like hungry vultures, an image that will be difficult to forget.

This feature crams as much poignancy into 30 minutes as is physically possible, and it is an incredible watch. I hope there are more like it in the coming months, as these women’s stories are crying out to be told.

5th March 2018
French Thrillers Come In Threes

For a year in which I’ve decided to delve into several Alfred Hitchcock deep cuts it seems fitting that I take a detour down some dark roads with France’s own master of suspense, Henri-Georges Clouzot. Making the most of the inclement weather I settled down with Le Corbeau (1942). As a string of poison-pen letters shake a small, provincial town to its foundations. Duplicitous lies and secrets have sat malevolently beneath the bedrock and it doesn’t take much to corrupt the community with devastating effect on the lives of those it touches. Fractured relationships, wounded hearts, thieves and murderous intent permeate the town with a mystery centred on “Who is sending the malicious letters”?

I was felled by the bluntness, candour and familiarity of the characters that reside in the small town of St. Robin. Their dialogue sounds particularly modern to my ears considering the era in which this film was made. The directness and explicitness of the conversations is fresh and believable in ways that are far ahead of Clouzot’s contemporaries of the period. There’s already the sense of duality we would later see in Les Diaboliques. The use of a school at the heart of the mystery and wickedness is something we would also see again.

Pierre Fresnay (who we saw in Hitchcock’s early version of The Man Who Knew Too Much) is an interesting case. His character has a duality to him in which I’m certain his performance will be better served by repeat viewings but for the first time, I found him cold and mostly unlikable in his pessimism, which is at once at odds with the nurturing side we see slowly develop. His Doctor Rémy Germain is the antithesis of both Ginette Leclerc’s Denise and Micheline Francey’s Laura, who are both warm and inviting, both vying for Germain’s affections. The complications of these relationships are part of a fascinating interplay between this trio, subverting expectations in the final reel, which must have shocked the audience in 1942.

Having recently seen a town brought to hysteria in Lucio Fulci’s Don’t Torture a Duckling (1971), there’s a similar scene here that causes equal damage to the community and exacerbates the mayhem. The use of poison-pen letters to cause a stir in the community through accusatory means and insinuation is masterful. In an era of “Lose lips sink ships”, Le Corbeau seemingly denounces the act of whispers and collusion but 75 years on, the central message is one of greyscale and perhaps not championing the message of the Nazi regime who helped fund the picture.

With a far more comedic bent, Quai des Orfèvres (1947) passes itself off as a Whodunit, but at its core is a story of love, longing, jealousy and hope.

Suzy Delair is iridescent as a woman who knows what it takes to break into stardom. She is conflicted yet headstrong. Confident but overly so. Honestly, there are more dimensions to her character than one would usually expect from a female protagonist of the era. There are more understated performances from Bernard Blier who plays her jealous, yet meek husband, and Simone Renant. This trio are bound by an affection that complicates our emotions as an audience because we don’t want to believe that any one of them is capable of murder. Jealousies, yearning and half-truths play out among the three, with an investigative focus drawn upon them by Louis Jouvet’s Inspector Antoine who must solve the death of wealthy businessman to which the trio are linked.

Set amidst the backdrop of the music hall and brandishing a frostily crisp wit, this film over any other of Clouzot’s works, bears remarkable similarity to Hitchcock’s earlier films (The Pleasure Garden, Murder! Young & Innocent) in that a staged world inhabits the screened one. The duality of the player’s world both on and off the stage and the artifice conjured to belie the true motivations of the protagonists is something created for the on-screen audience, Inspector Antoine and those watching the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95XxrX0d088

When considering that this was Clouzot’s return to filmmaking after a 4-year ban, he lost none of the refreshing and progressive mind-set he demonstrated with Le Corbeau. The dialogue is remarkably keen, the sexuality of its lead is overt, and the lawmen are nuanced and multifaceted. Perhaps the only element that dates Quai des Orfèvres is the conclusion, which wraps itself up in a neat little bow, perhaps serving as some kind of penance for the public opinion of Clouzot’s previous feature.

Starting out very much like 50 Shades of The Secretary, La prisonnière (1968) evokes the likes of Belle de Jour, Blow Up and Peeping Tom with more than a splash of The Duke of Burgundy. It’s upsetting that this is Clouzot’s only colour film as he and cinematographer Andréas Winding make the most of the era’s vibrancy, zesty designs and “far out” visuals.

What starts as an exercise in seduction, leads to Josée (played with phenomenal poise by Élisabeth Wiener) discovering the hidden depths of her desires. Breaking through the “normalcy” of her open marriage to Gilbert (Bernard Fresson ) into what really makes her tick. Initially she seems to exchange one male driven fantasy for another as she learns the world of the submissive to the tall, dark stranger, Stanislas (Laurent Terzieff) but the film’s final act offers a more empowering, if melancholic arc for Josée and the two men in her life.

This is most certainly a romance of three acts, but even as the final reel descends into melodrama, Clouzot pulls the rug by administering a stunningly psychedelic dream sequence that gives Kubrick’s 2001 a run for its money. There’s beauty in every scene, from the art direction to the three lead performances. Fresson and Terzieff are convincing as the men that Josée must inevitably chose between, their final scene together is a palpable moment of male impotency that showcases a barrage of inner-turmoil, finally externalised.

Of the three films I have had the pleasure in viewing this week I would say La prisonnière is the most resonant for me. It’s a departure from the Hitchcockian motifs that permeate many of Clouzot’s other films but it is this raw, sensual earnestness that offers a tantalising insight into the director’s soul. This is a film about power. Each of the three leads has a fulfilling arc that satisfies fully when that power is considered for each. What makes this all the more special is the fact that it has never been released in the UK beyond its original theatrical run.

Whether it’s the man torn between the unfaithfully serene Laura and the free-wheeling Denise in Le Corbeau, the married couple and their faithful female companion in Quai des Orfèvres or Josée finding love with both Gilbert and Stanislas in La prisonnière, complicated relationships are the beating heart of each of these films. These aren’t all love triangles in the Bridget Jones sense. Each manages to bestow depth to both female and male characters, humanising them. Making us ache for their plight, wince at their misgivings and yearn for their longing. After all, these relationships in cinema are more emotionally satisfying when they come in threes.

New 4K restorations of these films are released on Blu-ray, DVD and Digital Download on 5^th March.

3rd March 2018