Cast: Sally Hawkins, Eddie Marsan

Director: Mike Leigh

Screenplay: Mike Leigh

Running time: 1 hr 58 mins

Genre: Comedy/Drama



CRITIQUE:


In the contemporary comedy arena of Hollywood, anything that comes out gold is either a quirky indie or a Judd-Apatow-baby. All the rest are either crappy remakes or misfired slapstick. However a step outside the borderlines and you’ll find gems in the British soil (Stateside shithole spoofs should learn from HOT FUZZ). And so far this year, there is SON OF RAMBOW, one of the best indies to have emerged the ring yet. Another is a much smaller, nevertheless quirky, film of smiles, Mike Leigh’s HAPPY-GO-LUCKY. To greater effect, Sally Hawkins, the main lead, already snared the Best Actress nod from Berlin Film Festival.


Like most character films, plot is sidestepped to make way for the development of the central character. Leigh focuses his storyline angle to this London schoolteacher Poppy, whose attitude in everyday life is so jolly and bubbly that would make the rest of us look miserable and suicidal. As the title goes, she faces life’s foibles with a smile and an amusing comment, may it be a patronising bookshop retailer, a difficult flamenco dance, a school kid bully, and an all-hating, diatribe-spitting driving instructor – and even when she discovers her bike stolen, all she sighed was “I didn’t even get the chance to say goodbye.”


Yet with the character’s stance (Sally Hawkins with a remarkable performance), it stays in the realm of realism. Except that odd encounter with a vagrant, that is. We think of Poppy as a misinformed, undereducated tart roaming the London streets with an innocent sunshine-like grin, who has probably never discovered the evils of the world. But as soon as the film goes deeper into her psyche, most especially in the scenes where she helps one of the kids in her class from family problems, and her driving lessons scenes (where dialogue of the characters plays like a ball in a tennis court, being rapidly fired back and forth), we learn there’s an emotional depth somewhere. She knew what was it like being bullied, misunderstood and ill-judged, and yet she grows up and look at them with a smile. If I’d be near Poppy, I’d give her a great hug.



VERDICT:

This is an offbeat, uplifting comedy from a filmmaker whose movies are about depressing human situations. Once you peer through the absence of plot, you’ll see a blast of energy in the central character that would challenge a gallon of Lucozade. We wish we could face tribulations with a smile, Poppy-style.



RATING: B+

Cast: Brendan Fraser, Maria Bello, Michelle Yeoh, Jet Li

Director: Rob Cohen

Screenplay: Alfred Gough

Running time: 1 hr 51 mins

Genre: Action/Adventure



CRITIQUE:



Summer blockbuster movies, most of them, require us to be dumbed-down idiots who can’t distinguish plot from blot. Only a lucky handful of few escape the tangles unscathed. This is why we have movies like this, a stretch of never-ending sequels, inundates the big screens – executive cows cashing in for the bucks, overlooking their brain-dead merchandise. And this, ladies and gentlemen, signals us to defend our rationalities that we are no morons without any cinematic reason. Why in the name of Zeus’s butthole would call a movie THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR when there’s not a single trace of a mummified corpse somewhere? Alright, there is an army of terracotta warriors and Jet Li’s titular Emperor in stark solid clay – but technically, they are not mummified but cursed. Or perhaps the deserts of Egypt had become too dry for a plot already that this franchise had to migrate to China for a thirst of quest.


Rob Cohen, who directing CV includes THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, XXX, and STEALTH (yes, that “Stealth” film), knows his actioners and his want for spectacle, but his promise of a franchise reboot falls flat hard on its nose. From the rapid opening, Chinese history lessons fired like bullets, to the recent day caper of obvious-Indiana Jones incarnations, it’s all formulaic, only that the scripting is much worse. Anyone who could remember that boy Alex in THE MUMMY RETURNS and find him amusing, well don’t hold your hopes for this one. A fully grown-up Alex, played boringly by Luke Ford, has no tick compared to his child counterpart in the predecessor, absent of any personality. Moreover, as 20-year old son to Brendan Fraser’s Rick O’Connell and Maria Bello’s Evelyn, there is no sense of connection distinguishable. Fraser as his old self plays it straightforwardly, but the massive hole in the franchise is left by amorous Rachel Weisz and filled by Maria Bello. Sad to say, this is not Bello’s film, and she is a miscast. Sporting an inauthentic-sounding Brit-accent, she may be a talented thespian that ruled the indie scene, she certainly looks like a performer here in desperate need for a mainstream affair. And there is no spark between her and Fraser, both summoning humour in their scenes, but in result, all are misplaced rather than spot-on.


And we have the plot. A witch-slash-swordswoman (conventional Michelle Yeoh) embarks on a vengeance journey against evil, immortality-hungry Emperor (underused Jet Li), and culminating in a rousing battle-in-the-field (yes, this is the time to wake up from your seat), terracotta army versus vengeful murdered warriors (who all apparently haven’t rotted to their bones in centuries’ worth of being buried) – but friendly white Yetis? And an omnipotent transfiguring Emperor? Don’t make us laugh. Certainly, this is the extent of a creature-feature than even THE MUMMY and THE MUMMY RETURNS did not prod a finger on.



VERDICT:

It is undoubtedly the time for this franchise to go back to the deserts of Egypt and bury itself completely. Instead of a reboot, what we get is a shut-down. An incompetent cast, a clichéd plot, a been-there-done-that approach – what else is there to like. Oh, by the way, THE MUMMY 3 has the most ridiculous CGI work so far this year.



RATING: D

Cast: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Ben Foster

Director: James Mangold

Screenplay: Halstead Wells

Running time: 2 hrs 2 mins

Genre: Western/Action/Drama



CRITIQUE:


2007 was a year of not only good but great Westerns. The humanisation of the usually harsh panoramas of the West was at its most superlatives with the Oscar-seizing NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, the staggeringly complex THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and the achingly exquisite THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD. An addition to that list is a less-feted, nevertheless good, remake of a 1957 Western of the same title. Like most Western tales, this surrounds the outlaw picture and adding in a dash of moral complexity to its characters. Since BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, these types of films have never been the same again, as we learn to sympathise for the ones who got away with the money, rather than the ones who had been robbed. It works quite noticeably in James Mangold’s remake. He draws a handsome vista of the West, mechanically devising action and awe together, and painting intricate strokes of humanity on the sheer brutality of his canvas.


Of course, we get the A-list stars to bolster this picture, and quite fortunately so. Christian Bale and Russell Crowe’s impressive performances keep the film retain its class. As an outlaw film, we get the insurgents and the pure embodiment of this is Ben Wade (Crowe); a merciless gunman who could blast heads in a matter of seconds. However, as this is the humanisation of the genre, we have character twists lying underneath. In his free time, when he doesn’t shoot men, he either draws on his sketchpad or respects women, and that somehow, somewhere deep within – there’s an artiste coming out and that there is actually a heart buried beneath his black, evildoer mask. His complete opposite is a man of principles Dan Evans, a more moving portrayal by Bale, a local rancher whose stand in life is raising his family through good deeds. In his protagonist, there’s also a father who wanted prove to his son that there are no heroes but only brave men. These two actors working together is the best thing about this movie, each serving as a foil to the other. And at the end, after that whirlwind of shoot-out, there’s a cinematic firework – and that’s because of these two actors giving notable performances. On the meantime, the acting promise lies somewhere else in the presence of Ben Foster’s demented gunslinger. This actor is destined to go far indeed.


And like great Westerns, it revolves around the morally complex threads that connect good and evil together. There is the study of that here in 3:10 TO YUMA. But aside from racing through the nick of time aboard the titular prison train, there is a tad dry middle part that could do away with some shedding, but Mangold keeps the story moving with his actioner wants.



VERDICT:

The onion-layered performances of the moving Bale and the arresting Crowe are glorious to behold, at the same time covering some weaknesses of the film. This is a very good Western rather than extraordinary.



RATING: B+

Cast: Robert Kerman, Carl Yorke

Director: Ruggero Deodato

Screenplay: Gianfranco Clerici

Running time: 1 hr 35 mins

Genre: Horror/Exploitation



CRITIQUE:


If you happen to come across CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, what you have in your hand is rare. One that they don’t make ‘em these days. For what unfolds before you is what the Motion Picture censor boards have been frantically banning from appearing on screens. Human carnage, check. Live animal slaughter, check. Gratuitous sex, check. Primitive abortion, check. A woman impaled on a wooden stick, check. Welcome to celluloid history’s most controversial movie ever made. The most disgusting, gut-wrenching, vomit-inducing film you’ll ever see in your entire life. Now if that didn’t warn you enough, the Italian terrormeister Ruggero Deodato had made several trips to the law court for his cinematic antics, and wholly in result, making this the most banned film ever. Yes, the one which could make the Pope faint of heart attack.


This infamous 80s exploitation film, considered a snuff film by some, a Grindhouse flick, has a lot to answer for violence portrayed in cinema. It employs cinema verité, using hand-held cameras to emulate a pseudo-documentary style, which influenced THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT’s approach. The plot is easy enough to follow: a New York University professor is sent to the Amazonian jungles to uncover the lost team of documentarians, and soon recovers a videotape instead, showing the team’s unfortunate fate in the hands of the cannibal tribe of Amazon. And a lot indeed is shown: a literal disembowelment of a live turtle, killing a forest monkey and shooting of a pig (all animal killings in the film were in fact real). We also have the images of a tribal woman being punished with a rather enormous wooden dildo due to adultery, a pregnant woman involving an on-screen abortion, countless of rape scenes, and cannibals beating the life out of the intruders and eating their flesh for lunch. It’s all a horrific watch, and no doubt would cause walk-outs from audience who lack the guts to watch.


This is a blazingly brilliant effort, set aside the aversion and protest. To come up with a film that shows what other films couldn’t have possibly done is a daring act. And to forcefully compel the audience to stomach its most unbearable scenes (albeit quite unsuccessfully for audiences) while not expecting for flurry of praises in return requires a bolshy, if not silly, attitude. You have to give Deodato some praise for his almost foolish bravery. But for the hellish scenes he conjured on screen, despite the gore, he tries to thrust a political and social message as to who are really the real savages, and raises question on the ethical debates on what extent can the media show to the public. His work here is an irony itself, showing what’s not meant to shown while pointing a finger to somebody else.

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

Screenplay; M. Night Shyamalan

Running time: 1 hr 31 mins

Genre: Thriller



CRITIQUE:



From the director whose visionary flair is attached to that of a modern-day Hitchcock, the one that gave us works such as the extraordinarily unforgettable THE SIXTH SENSE, the suspenseful SIGNS, the brilliant UNBREAKABLE, and the fascinating but overlooked THE VILLAGE – comes up with something that his aforementioned efforts never dared to do: a massive inkblot on his otherwise clean and spotless CV. This is THE HAPPENING, and this might be Shyamalan’s greatest downfall to date and perhaps threaten his directing and, even more so, his writing duties. Okay, we knew he did that odd THE LADY IN THE WATER, but it felt like there was a kid somewhere behind the lens wanting to share a mermaid-lore and that’s forgivable. But this, a film with a plot that seems to lose its stride, each pieces falling down like domino effect, or perhaps the falling of dominoes are more appealing to watch.


It has a promising premise, commencing with some chilly scenes at Central Park but soon as Mark Wahlberg’s high school teacher arrives in the scene, there is a succinct certainty that this is such a wooden affair. His character has an unbelievable absence of depth, and judging from that classroom scene and from then on, his expressions and dialogues felt more like scripted rather than spontaneous as a human in panic and beleaguered of the befalling events. There’s a work of miscasting here, and Zooey Deschanel, playing the wife, gives a wide-eyed performance that is just simply appalling. These two actors look as though there’s no chemistry or whatsoever between them, or that they’re plainly running out of employment.


And it all goes down to Shyamalan, whose striking name evokes tingles and chills, usually appearing before the screen plate “written, produced and directed by” at every end of his film. There is no denying that he is a director with a skill, proven in his former works, and a harbinger of excellent twisteroos. Although he couldn’t carry on bending twists forever, to which this film is absent from, at least he should differentiate a good plot from a terrible one. Or perhaps he might be endorsing environmentalism. There isn’t just a good movie happening here.


VERDICT:

Monstrously disappointing littered with a preposterous plot, uninspired directing, and appalling performances. If M. Night Shyamalan decides to do another film, he better stay far away from science-fiction as much as possible.



RATING: D

Cast: Brad Pitt, Casey Affleck, Mary Louise-Parker, Sam Shepard

Director: Andrew Dominik

Screenplay: Andrew Dominik

Running time: 2 hrs 40 mins

Genre: Western/Drama



CRITIQUE:


This is an odd beast – a Western without rollicking action, an outlaw movie without the hot-on-the-heels chase, a cowboy film without the outback adventure. Instead this is a Western drama (no worries, this is no BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN), a territorial genre only a few ever traverse, that callously suggests to some as tedious, long-drawn and heavy-lidded. The last film of the sort was THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and no matter how magisterial it was, surely it made aplenty fall asleep in cinemas. This, precisely, is Andrew Dominik’s greatest challenge: to make his film engrossing and keeping his audience wide awake, providing cinematic caffeine to this tale. The result is impressive and breathtaking. This sophomore effort by one Australian director, whose debut was the low-key CHOPPER, is promising. He has the keen scope of a Terrence Malick and the virtuosity of a Clint Eastwood. And what he enlivened here, just like the two aforementioned recent Western films, is the humanisation of the genre. Here, every bullet fired has a reason, every mischief has depth, every swagger has an arc, and every act of betrayal is a sign of tragedy. This is what makes this film great; a truly unique Western drama that could deservedly be given the label as a contemporary classic.


The title says it all pretty much with regards to plot, that by the time you say it (in one long articulation that could leave you gasping for air) you’ll know what it’s all about. And by this, you’ll know how it’s going to end, too. But rest assured, the tale’s much deeper than what the title suggests. Another thing’s for certain, just like its title, this film is bordering on the longeur your granddad warned you about, these Westerns. What could have been a dose of sleeping pills is a highly absorbing study of human frailties, a complex weave of psychological despairs, and an analysis of hero worship. Jesse James, one of America’s fabled figures, whose name was bigger than the President’s in the late 19th century, here is examined during his last days. In an unmaking of a hero, from a petty robber to a Robin Hood figure, he was both marvelled and despised, local tabloid crucifixion ensues. Hidden under his shadow is one Robert Ford, a 19-year old sensationalist, whose ambition and admiration turns into bitter retribution.


Brad Pitt gives starpower to this cinematic affair, lending impeccable feet and gravitas to Jesse James’s boots. His talent never fluctuates as an actor here, masking a tormented soul beneath the almost soulless exterior. His Jesse James don’t linger the screen for long, as his figure drifts around like the character himself, one that is from a legendary lore. His intimidating laughs are fronts, and surprisingly, his emotions are its best at his quietest, in which there is a raw anxiety when he shakes with anguish. From a family-loving man, there is a deranged, desolate person underneath. We are reminded that this is, after all, the actor who made the role of Tyler Durden in FIGHT CLUB iconic.


His sidekick, in the interim, Casey Affleck is a talent to be reckoned with. Mr Ben Affleck’s small-brother has come a long way, and that Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor last year was without a question. It’s a hateful character he played, yet with his panache, there’s a hint of sympathy, a disappointed follower in his role. This trembling, feeble young man is after all, still a child in his mentality. So when Robert Ford sees his idol’s flaws, losing faith in his being human, he becomes a tragedy himself. “I wonder whether you want to be like me, or be me”, as James uttered – and the stupendous final act, where the assassination event had befallen (cue Mary Louise-Parker’s small yet effective role as James’s considerate wife), there is an extended epilogue where Affleck pulls out a stunning character depth, as his act of courageousness became his downfall. Soon he could differentiate the difference between bravery and cowardice.


These characters’ inner turmoil is captured by the employment of Roger Deakins’ lens-perfect cinematography, where his sepia-tinged landscapes mirror the desolation of its living humans. No screen angle is a misstep here, framing either the windswept Western pastures or the barrenness of wintry grounds with such finesse that this could be an ultimately fine work of photography. The effect is dreamlike, the sort of a distant whisper of a memory, and rather beautiful. Even how this story is told, with the unmentioned narrator, is fastidious: like those tales told in a campfire, of heroes and villains, of tragedies and fate.



VERDICT:

If you’re looking for slam-bang action entertainment you’d expect in a Western, run away from this. But if a sense of character study is right on your alley, ignore the length, for this is hugely rewarding, an arthouse filmmaking. Magnificently shot and directed with elegance, this is cinematic poetry at its finest with terrific, unforgettable performances by Pitt and Affleck. By the time you finish watching this, you’ll never regret having seen it.



RATING: A+

Cast: Tang Wei, Tony Leung

Director: Ang Lee

Screenplay: Hui Ling Wang, James Schamus

Running time: 2 hrs 39 mins

Genre: Drama/Thriller/Foreign



CRITIQUE:


If there ever was a memento given to directors with a Midas touch, one of them would have to be Ang Lee, the purveyor of short-stories turned cinematic-gold. This short and reserved Taiwanese director has got nothing short and reserved with his films whatsoever, for most of them were epics and bound for Oscar attention. See the glory of martial arts sweep CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON and the ravishing virtuosity of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN – now he has picked up another short story, this time from his own alley, written by Eileen Chang. This is LUST, CAUTION, and in Lee’s more-than-capable elegance, he has, once again, turned a rather straightforward story of betrayal and conceit into a deeper study of the human psyche. And it’s so gorgeously preserved in screen celluloid.


Just like Lee’s films, there’s no sacrifice of mental and psychological exploration for the bigger want of spectacle (even his disastrous HULK version sees an arty character study). Here the two elements are gracefully combined: we have characters with depth, a good story to tell, and a luscious and exquisite cinematography that’s so beautiful to behold. Set in the Japanese-occupied Shanghai circa 1942, this tale sees the transformation of a local commoner Wong (newcomer Tang Wei) from a quiet university student and a theatre actress to the spy Mrs Mak, tasked to assassinate Mr Yee (Tony Leung). This is all told in a slow-burner, in no hurries to get to the end, where Lee eschews running time and concentrates of details and character arcs. Even when we behold the steamy sex scenes between Wong and Yee that might suggest Kama Sutra-like tutoring, the sex-and-spies undercurrents are overshadowed by the lies, betrayal, the power of obsession and the cruelty of lust, more than these characters could ever confess. What we see is just the strawberry on the top, but there are more burning matters beneath.


While Lee deserves a magnetic kudos, it’s the presence of Tang Wei that holds the threads of this tale together. What a central performance it is. She glows the charm of Ziyi Zhang, but more dramatic in gravitas. Witness her transformation from being her own self Wong to Mrs Mak, it’s wonderfully characterised that it is sometimes emotional betrayal at its finest. That Golden Globe nomination was deserved indeed. Tony Leung, meanwhile, brings ferocity to Mr Yee yet draws a twist to his humanity at the end, learning the boundaries between lust and love.


The main gripe at this film, however, is its overlong whole. Audience might find themselves sighing when will it ever end, for it consist of a longeur that will challenge those THERE WILL BE BLOOD’s. Nevertheless this is still a film to complexly behold.



VERDICT:

The main falter lies on the film’s protracted half but never on Ang Lee’s attention-spanning atmospheric storytelling. Patience required, LUST, CAUTION is something that will drain you out: visually and psychologically. This marvellously shot film will engross you with its characters learning about the complexity of love, the dangers of lust, and the power of obsession.



RATING: A-

Cast: Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider

Director: Dennis Dugan

Screenplay: Robert Smigel, Judd Apatow

Running time: 1 hr 26 mins

Genre: Comedies



CRITIQUE:


We, the human species of rational minds, are more than capable to distinguish a movie that is so-good-because- it’s-funny from a movie that is so-funny-because-it’s-so-bad. This Adam Sandler’s latest outing, bringing you the news unapologetically, belongs to the latter disaster. From its title that seems to have been picked up straight from a park playground, this is nothing short of ridiculous. It has the features of a typical Sandler movie – sex gags, fart jokes, slapstick antics – but this time, a lot weaker and brow-raising rather than face-smiling. For what supposed to be a hilarious film, with a material that emanated from the outrageousness of culture clashes of the Middle East and America, it falls flat on its face, hardly picking itself up from the pointlessly unfunny opening montage (the titular Zohan strutting like a Baywatch hero) to the development of its plot (cue hair-stylis- cum-shagging-machine Zohan zooming to America, fisticuffs down, scissors up and a whole lot of noise). One could easily judge this as Sandler’s frailest movie affair.


Shockingly, the name Judd Apatow, the comedic panache behind the gems THE 40-YEAR OLD VIRGIN and KNOCKED UP, is attached with the co-writing duties when everything that seems to come out from Zohan’s mouth is dull. This cataclysm can perhaps be blamed to Sandler himself, an obsessor of comedy formula that sheds off its fun factor along the years. For what is presented here looked rather like Sandler’s answer to BORAT and the shenanigans at the Lakeside, with added contemporary political subtext of terrorism and the neverending issues between Israel and Palestine. The result is an uneven film that tries very hard to be funny, as aimless as what it’s trying to say, whether to adore the diva-esque Mariah Carey (here appears as cameo) or fight rednecks and do a Harlem brawl. And those sexual innuendoes in a hair salon are not funny at all.


VERDICT:

No apologies needed Sandler – but this tosh has got to be stopped. A film that’s meant to deliver humour ends up gross, turgid, and downright daft for the dull-brained.



RATING: F

Cast: Matt Damon, Robin Williams, Ben Affleck, Minnie Driver, Casey Affleck

Director: Gus Van Sant

Screenplay: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck

Running time: 2 hrs 6 mins

Genre: Dramas



CRITIQUE:


Psychological dramas are fiddly beasts – either they end up too muddled for the common man, or harbinger of intellectual wonders that could pave ways to Oscar glory. Such was the case of GOOD WILL HUNTING, the shot-to-fame story of the 90’s, and inculcated any thick-skulled judge to concede to its gravitas. This, after all, is a film worthy of its praises. From its humble scriptwriting origins to its unpretentious direction and genuine performances, it seemed like the faerie tale story of the past decade by which two then unknown, unheard, unseen actors – namely Matt and Ben – who believed in the power of the pen and scribed a career-changing script that bolstered their names to what we now know as Damon and Affleck, two of Hollywood’s biggest man-stars. Accepting that Oscar for Best Original Screenplay must be memorable for them for the rest of their lives.


For these two fledgling writers writing about a tale of a local Bostonian bloke, realism is at its finest for they grew up in Boston themselves. The story is somewhat basic: a Harvard janitor solves the unanswered mathematical theories that riddled countless of Harvard professors. This reluctant genius is Will Hunting (a superb performance by Damon), and soon he realises about the important lessons in life, love, and choice. For a material that can be easily flooded with too much sentimentality, no-nonsense director Van Sant steers it all clear from drenched emotions, but rather gives us raw and straightforward humans in crises. In a scene where Will verbally pushes his girlfriend played by the lovely Minnie Driver, it’s a scene of pure performances by these two actors; him, psychotically disturbed by his past that he pushes people away from him before a sense of abandonment; her, fighting for what she believe in and holding on to it. As he receives sessions from a shrink, from a Psychology professor (the best performance you’ll ever see in Robin Williams, who won Best Supporting Actor nod for this), there’s a cinematic fire flaring in front of you. You’ll believe if you put two right actors on the screen together, they can both make wonders. See the scene where Will confront his demons, and the character of Robin Williams pours his pain – it’s amazingly moving.


Yet a cynic would certainly ask how a shoddy janitor could answer mathematical riddles in the level of the ancient Greek mathematicians, overshadowing the works of other great Harvard minds. That, however, is the film’s only falter. Plot device as that can be, this is a film about its characters and their complexity. And so is this film, complex and lingering: giving us that immortal lesson that academia is not everything. The real lessons we learn are in life itself.



VERDICT:

Post debates may flare up whether geniuses are born not made, there’s no argument that this is a solid film of fine performances and confident direction. You’d wish Damon and Affleck would scribble more scripts. That Oscar is wonderfully deserved.



RATING: A-

Cast: Will Poulter, Bill Milner, Jessica Stevenson

Director: Garth Jennings

Screenplay: Garth Jennings

Running time: 1 hr 36 mins

Genre: Indie/Drama/Comedy



CRITIQUE:


A moment of consideration takes place within SON OF RAMBOW, so far 2008’s quirkiest, most charming indie, that we have all been kids, at least once. Pictures of childhood tales usually cause a blast of nostalgia, enlivening the embarrassments, the dreamy-shaded memories and of course, the adventures. This is the era of our lives where silliness rules and the weak are bullied and the nastiest are sent off to detentions. Familiarity is natural for a film like SON OF RAMBOW, and in this tale of childhood friendship between two almost-opposite school boys, there’s nary a scintilla of storyline originality. But how it’s handled is surprisingly fresh. From a predictable plot and a glossy sheen wrapping (including its Rambo’s FIRST BLOOD origins), it evolves into a whimsical but deeply affecting movie about the power of imagination and childhood emancipation. And if you’re a kid once, grubby or neat-faced, this is definitely relatable.


As the title suggests, Rambo is a figure taken into the context of the film: an innately shy, isolated boy Will Proudfoot, whose punitive family belongs to a rigorous religion with Spartan codes, is befriended by a local school bully Lee Carter. The two are fatherless, yet the movie does not exemplify this too much, and rather embodies it to the society and school that they move about. This is England in the 80s and Thatcher’s children are on the streets. Riotous as schools can be, the story focuses on these two boys’ share of bonding; Will, an imaginative child, who turned his personal Holy Bible into a colouring book, and commenced on rampage as inspired by Rambo from a VHS – fisticuffs on the forests, diving lakes, climbing trees and fighting invisible assailants. It’s all captured by Lee on his videocam, as they try to come up with their own FIRST BLOOD version.


There’s a heart hidden beneath the political, religious and social undercurrents of this film. From Will’s strict household upbringing, denying the child the influence of television, to Lee’s detached family as he’s taken care by an irreverent brother – the major characters are social victims of their parents. The latter is an easy target for being bullied but he’s more psychologically persecuted, like a child whose imagination and childhood has been forced to be locked up away from him. The latter, a bully, also a delusion to a bullied character himself. Yet the power of friendship is there, as their childhood imagination heals both of their wounds in a quiet, compelling manner. In a crucial scene where these two boys slash their palms and clasp for a blood bond, even with these little-known actors, the friendship is genuine, and found patriarchal sentiment from Rambo as their adopted father – a rather violent one.


It stumbles slightly as the character Didier, the French-exchange student, infuses the latter scenes, probably for more comical intentions. But picks up its own weight for a sweet, affecting, wonderful ending that would – for anyone who had some similar childhood adventures – make one cry. And it’s all nailed by a self-assured direction by Garth Jennings, and the two lead child actors, Poulter and Milner as Will and Lee respectively, whose remarkable performances are as natural, as substantial as they could be.


VERDICT:

You wouldn’t take a poo on Rambo, but SON OF RAMBOW does, rather nonchalantly – and triumphs with its charming tale of childhood, friendship and family. A winning indie with a poignant heart and imagination at its core.



RATING: A-