Much praise has been lavished on the actors, director and producers of this wonderful adaptation. I agree entirely. The period setting, the acting, the mise-en-scene and the direction are all first-class, in my opinion. However, it seems to me that the script-writer has often been overlooked. She too has done an excellent job. Her script gives depth to the characters and it also provides timely moments of light relief, mainly through the characters of Mr and Mrs Bennet. I know nothing about Juliette Towhidi, but I do know that she is a script-writer of a very high calibre and I am sure that the quality of her work will be recognised in future productions.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Win Win
(2011)
Intriguing dilemmas and a splash of humour
8 June 2011
The story-line of Win Win brings difficult and realistic moral issues before us, which engage our interest and challenge our sympathies. But the film is not a ponderous work of moral theory, fortunately. Instead, it has many humorous moments which keep the tone quite light, even as the film raises some darker problems.
The first dilemma concerns the subterfuge that lawyer Mike Flaherty (Paul Giametti) employs to win the maintenance award for looking after his elderly client Leo who suffers from Alzheimers disease. The dilemma is not so much his (he needs the money too badly and he has a family to provide for), as ours - should we sympathise or not? Mike is a lawyer, yet he deceives the court and thus breaks the law. Yet, at the same time, Leo does not really lose out because the home that Mike puts him in is very comfortable. In a way, Mike's deceit is a win-win solution that solves Mike's financial problems and also provides proper care for Leo. But surely deceit cannot be condoned? Or can it? While we are still dealing with that issue, an entirely different one looms up and takes over the story. Leo's grand-son arrives, looking for his grand-father, Leo, who is now in the care home. Not only does this plot development add a lot of tension (because Mike's deceit is in danger of being exposed), it also adds further complications on the moral front. The first is, should Mike tell Kyle the truth, or is it better to try and help Kyle personally while leaving him in the dark? Should we really expect Mike to confess, when the result will be disastrous for so many people and achieve very little, apart from establishing the truth about Leo's transfer to the care home? Once again, we are just beginning to settle one problem when another arrives to add further complications, this time in the shape of Kyle's mother, Leo's daughter, who has never shown any interest in her father, but now shows a mercenary interest in his state of dependency.
I really enjoyed this film. There is a lightness in the telling of the story, which makes the whole experience a pleasure, but it is a story with some difficult issues to set before us, issues such as the care of the elderly and the rights of birth-parents over foster-parents, which give us food for thought. Above all, however, the film is very well acted and the characters are brought to life very effectively, persuading us of the reality of the issues which it raises, but also coaxing us to temper our judgment of our fellow human beings. The film reminds us that life is rarely as clear-cut as our stern guilty-or-innocent judgments would require.
The first dilemma concerns the subterfuge that lawyer Mike Flaherty (Paul Giametti) employs to win the maintenance award for looking after his elderly client Leo who suffers from Alzheimers disease. The dilemma is not so much his (he needs the money too badly and he has a family to provide for), as ours - should we sympathise or not? Mike is a lawyer, yet he deceives the court and thus breaks the law. Yet, at the same time, Leo does not really lose out because the home that Mike puts him in is very comfortable. In a way, Mike's deceit is a win-win solution that solves Mike's financial problems and also provides proper care for Leo. But surely deceit cannot be condoned? Or can it? While we are still dealing with that issue, an entirely different one looms up and takes over the story. Leo's grand-son arrives, looking for his grand-father, Leo, who is now in the care home. Not only does this plot development add a lot of tension (because Mike's deceit is in danger of being exposed), it also adds further complications on the moral front. The first is, should Mike tell Kyle the truth, or is it better to try and help Kyle personally while leaving him in the dark? Should we really expect Mike to confess, when the result will be disastrous for so many people and achieve very little, apart from establishing the truth about Leo's transfer to the care home? Once again, we are just beginning to settle one problem when another arrives to add further complications, this time in the shape of Kyle's mother, Leo's daughter, who has never shown any interest in her father, but now shows a mercenary interest in his state of dependency.
I really enjoyed this film. There is a lightness in the telling of the story, which makes the whole experience a pleasure, but it is a story with some difficult issues to set before us, issues such as the care of the elderly and the rights of birth-parents over foster-parents, which give us food for thought. Above all, however, the film is very well acted and the characters are brought to life very effectively, persuading us of the reality of the issues which it raises, but also coaxing us to temper our judgment of our fellow human beings. The film reminds us that life is rarely as clear-cut as our stern guilty-or-innocent judgments would require.
The Way
(I) (2010)
Advert for anoraks with mawkish religiosity attached
21 May 2011
I went along to this film knowing that it was probably going to be fairly religious, given the setting of a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostella, but hoping that the landscapes of Northern Spain would compensate for whatever excesses of piety occurred. Unfortunately, they didn't. Two-dimensional characters and fake profundity were all the film had to offer, eg "It's not a question of the life you choose, but the life you live." - which phoney gem of wisdom is offered by the dead son to his father in flashback. Lay it on thick, please! Instead, "Is this tripe or trite or both?" was the question that haunted me.
This film represents an attempt to cannibalise two very good films, Last Orders by Fred Schepisi and The Son's Room by Nanni Moretti. The former deals with a journey to scatter the ashes of their dead friend by a long-established but fractious group of Londoners. The latter is about the repercussions and recriminations within an Italian family after their son is killed in an accident. Both those films are convincing dramas, and both are well acted and well scripted - so they are totally unlike 'The Way', which tries to combine their central narratives.
By all means, if you feel like a challenge, go and see "The Way". But you would probably have more fun crawling to Santiago on your hands and knees, pushing a pea with your nose. And feel just as enlightened at the end of your journey. Please remember to advertise North Face anoraks as you go - that's The Way to get money.
This film represents an attempt to cannibalise two very good films, Last Orders by Fred Schepisi and The Son's Room by Nanni Moretti. The former deals with a journey to scatter the ashes of their dead friend by a long-established but fractious group of Londoners. The latter is about the repercussions and recriminations within an Italian family after their son is killed in an accident. Both those films are convincing dramas, and both are well acted and well scripted - so they are totally unlike 'The Way', which tries to combine their central narratives.
By all means, if you feel like a challenge, go and see "The Way". But you would probably have more fun crawling to Santiago on your hands and knees, pushing a pea with your nose. And feel just as enlightened at the end of your journey. Please remember to advertise North Face anoraks as you go - that's The Way to get money.
Into the Storm
(2009 TV Movie)
An impressive achievement
15 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This film explores an intriguing question: why did the people of Britain vote Labour in 1945, rejecting the man who had been their champion throughout the War? That man, Winston Churchill, is the central figure of the film and we are presented with many sides of his character and with flashbacks to his work as Prime Minister from the outbreak of war in 1939.
I was very impressed by this film. Brendan Gleeson is excellent as Churchill, as is Janet McTear as his wife, Clemmie. The whole film is very well cast and the settings and period detail are used to great effect. The script by Hugh Whitmore is very good, ranging from the quietly intimate (presenting the Churchills' marriage), to the humorous, to the grand rhetoric of his epic wartime speeches. Thaddeus O'Sullivan directs the film with great skill, at times moving the story forward with dramatic urgency, and at others bringing out the emotion of a scene skilfully and effectively. Even familiar speeches of Churchill's, which suffer from over-familiarity, come across with real power.
Britain was lucky to have had Churchill in its hour of need. He faced up to what the Nazis and the Fascists were doing and could see where appeasement policies would end up. History proved him right. After the fall of France, when Britain faced the might of Hitler's Reich alone, the rhetoric of Churchill inspired the people and urged them to fight on, despite every set-back. It would have been so easy to give in and settle for whatever terms Hitler would have offered. We owe a huge debt to Churchill for his determination and his tenacity. It is to the credit of this film that we feel warmth and sympathy for the man and gratitude for the leader.
I am glad to see that this film has won many awards. It certainly deserves them.
I was very impressed by this film. Brendan Gleeson is excellent as Churchill, as is Janet McTear as his wife, Clemmie. The whole film is very well cast and the settings and period detail are used to great effect. The script by Hugh Whitmore is very good, ranging from the quietly intimate (presenting the Churchills' marriage), to the humorous, to the grand rhetoric of his epic wartime speeches. Thaddeus O'Sullivan directs the film with great skill, at times moving the story forward with dramatic urgency, and at others bringing out the emotion of a scene skilfully and effectively. Even familiar speeches of Churchill's, which suffer from over-familiarity, come across with real power.
Britain was lucky to have had Churchill in its hour of need. He faced up to what the Nazis and the Fascists were doing and could see where appeasement policies would end up. History proved him right. After the fall of France, when Britain faced the might of Hitler's Reich alone, the rhetoric of Churchill inspired the people and urged them to fight on, despite every set-back. It would have been so easy to give in and settle for whatever terms Hitler would have offered. We owe a huge debt to Churchill for his determination and his tenacity. It is to the credit of this film that we feel warmth and sympathy for the man and gratitude for the leader.
I am glad to see that this film has won many awards. It certainly deserves them.
One Step Behind
(2005)
Henriksson does it better
18 December 2010
I have now seen three actors playing Wallander. Krister Henriksson, from the original TV series; Kenneth Branagh, from the BBC adaptation; and Rolf Lassgard, as seen in this film. In my opinion, that is the order in which they should be rated. Wallander is a middle-aged, tired cop who has given his life to his job and whose private life has suffered as a consequence. All three actors brought something of that character to the screen, but the most convincing, for me at least, was Krister Henriksson. The other two came close, but there was an 'actorly' aroma about their performances which I did not sense with him. They seemed more like old actors pretending to be old cops. Lassgard's mop of floppy hair seemed more suited to the former role than the latter. Branagh was fairly believable, but basically looked too young to carry off the persona of the weary, battered old cop. Krister Henriksson looked the part and he brought the role to life. For me, he is Wallander.
Doubt
(I) (2008)
A story loaded in favour of the abuser
5 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Paedophile crime is hard to detect. The child victims are often afraid to speak about it, or too lonely, or feeling guilty - the victims are, after all, only children. A paedophile who is a priest, by contrast, has good social position, authority, the trust of the parents and easy access to children. Such priests are even able to persuade their victims that what they did together was natural, or a sin the priest can absolve, or even put the blame on the victims.
"Doubt" presents us with a case of possible child abuse by a priest. The 'doubt' of the title arises because the two nuns who accuse him have only circumstantial evidence to go on. The basic moral point is therefore that we should give the priest the benefit of the doubt and avoid rushing to judgment. That would be a matter of simple justice, but the story goes further than that.
The story is loaded in favour of the possibly abusive priest. He is humorous, liberal in his outlook and popular with the pupils. The principal nun, by contrast, is grim, authoritarian and probably sexually frustrated. Her accusations of improper relations between the priest and a boy pupil therefore seem to us to reflect more on her own deficiencies than on any harm that the priest may have done. Given the characters involved, we are inclined to side with the priest and to dismiss the accusations against him as mere jealousy.
The story then swings entirely on to the side of the priest. The boy's mother tells the principal nun that she is glad that the priest has been so nice to her son because the boy was lonely and isolated. She seems to think that her son is lucky to have the support of the priest and that sexual relations are a small price to pay for such help. Any doubt that the film might have acknowledged about adult-child relationships is here swept aside. The conclusion offered is that we should not be worried about possible cases of paedophile crime because the parents condone it anyway. Any doubts that we may have had about a suspect priest should be dropped.
In the real world parents are not so casual about sexual predators. As an antidote to "Doubt", I recommend "Deliver Us From Evil", a documentary about Oliver O'Grady, a paedophile priest who operated in California for years until he was sent to prison. Whenever there were accusations the bishops just moved him on to a new parish to start all over again. The film includes interviews with O'Grady, his victims and the parents of his victims. The indulgent attitude of the parent in "Doubt" is nowhere to be seen in the documentary. Those parents are shocked, outraged and angry. They feel betrayed and exploited. Nor are the victims grateful to their abuser. He wrecked their lives.
"Doubt" is a gripping story, well acted. As a drama it works well, but its moral purpose is indefensible. Of that I have no doubt.
"Doubt" presents us with a case of possible child abuse by a priest. The 'doubt' of the title arises because the two nuns who accuse him have only circumstantial evidence to go on. The basic moral point is therefore that we should give the priest the benefit of the doubt and avoid rushing to judgment. That would be a matter of simple justice, but the story goes further than that.
The story is loaded in favour of the possibly abusive priest. He is humorous, liberal in his outlook and popular with the pupils. The principal nun, by contrast, is grim, authoritarian and probably sexually frustrated. Her accusations of improper relations between the priest and a boy pupil therefore seem to us to reflect more on her own deficiencies than on any harm that the priest may have done. Given the characters involved, we are inclined to side with the priest and to dismiss the accusations against him as mere jealousy.
The story then swings entirely on to the side of the priest. The boy's mother tells the principal nun that she is glad that the priest has been so nice to her son because the boy was lonely and isolated. She seems to think that her son is lucky to have the support of the priest and that sexual relations are a small price to pay for such help. Any doubt that the film might have acknowledged about adult-child relationships is here swept aside. The conclusion offered is that we should not be worried about possible cases of paedophile crime because the parents condone it anyway. Any doubts that we may have had about a suspect priest should be dropped.
In the real world parents are not so casual about sexual predators. As an antidote to "Doubt", I recommend "Deliver Us From Evil", a documentary about Oliver O'Grady, a paedophile priest who operated in California for years until he was sent to prison. Whenever there were accusations the bishops just moved him on to a new parish to start all over again. The film includes interviews with O'Grady, his victims and the parents of his victims. The indulgent attitude of the parent in "Doubt" is nowhere to be seen in the documentary. Those parents are shocked, outraged and angry. They feel betrayed and exploited. Nor are the victims grateful to their abuser. He wrecked their lives.
"Doubt" is a gripping story, well acted. As a drama it works well, but its moral purpose is indefensible. Of that I have no doubt.
This film endorses violence for political ends
6 October 2009
The key scene in this film is where Loach tries to justify siding with the Die-Hards in 1922. The Treaty had been approved by a majority in the Dail and the people of Ireland, North and South, voted 2 to 1 for the Pro-Treay candidates versus the Anti-Treay candidates. The Treaty therefore had democratic backing, but the Die-Hards decided to fight on, to take by force what they could not achieve by political means.
Most people would say that terrorists who ignore democratic decisions and inflict violence on others to impose their will on them, are fascists. Loach, however, takes their side in his incredibly selective (with the facts) and biased film. To hell with democracy, in other words, let's use murder and brute force to achieve our goal.
Loach presents the justification in the scene where the priest tells the congregation that the Treaty has been voted on and so it should be respected as the democratic decision of the people. Damien, our young hero, does not agree. "The Treaty does not express the will of the people; it shows the fear of the people." And that is it. That is all the argument that is needed to trample down a democratic decision.
Damien picks up his rifle and goes off to kill some of the Staters who support the Treaty. And we are meant to approve of that! Loach wants us to side with the fascist thugs, the Die-Hards, who would not accept the democratically agreed settlement of the Treaty and tried to murder their way to a 32-county socialist utopia. Loach does not care that the Treaty was a negotiated settlement which satisfied both ends of the island: the South got its independence and the North retained its link with Britain. He wants to bludgeon the North into acceptance. He does not acknowledge the wishes of the Northern Protestants once in his biased, narrow-minded version of events.
What is the message that Loach sends out to the fascists and terrorists of today? Clearly, he does not care that the Good Friday Agreement achieved the backing of 80% of the population of Ireland, North and South. The GFA is no better than the Treaty of 1922. It is a democratic, negotiated settlement, but fascists have no regard for such niceties. The present IRA have laid down their arms and are now pursuing constitutional politics. Loach must think that they should have fought on, planting bombs and murdering policemen, as their fanatical counterparts, the unreconstructed fascists of the Real IRA, are still doing. They are carrying on the brute-force tradition of the Die-Hards. They are trying to force the Northern Protestants into a united Catholic Ireland with terrorism. Does Ken Loach applaud their fascist atrocities? He does not disown them.
Most people would say that terrorists who ignore democratic decisions and inflict violence on others to impose their will on them, are fascists. Loach, however, takes their side in his incredibly selective (with the facts) and biased film. To hell with democracy, in other words, let's use murder and brute force to achieve our goal.
Loach presents the justification in the scene where the priest tells the congregation that the Treaty has been voted on and so it should be respected as the democratic decision of the people. Damien, our young hero, does not agree. "The Treaty does not express the will of the people; it shows the fear of the people." And that is it. That is all the argument that is needed to trample down a democratic decision.
Damien picks up his rifle and goes off to kill some of the Staters who support the Treaty. And we are meant to approve of that! Loach wants us to side with the fascist thugs, the Die-Hards, who would not accept the democratically agreed settlement of the Treaty and tried to murder their way to a 32-county socialist utopia. Loach does not care that the Treaty was a negotiated settlement which satisfied both ends of the island: the South got its independence and the North retained its link with Britain. He wants to bludgeon the North into acceptance. He does not acknowledge the wishes of the Northern Protestants once in his biased, narrow-minded version of events.
What is the message that Loach sends out to the fascists and terrorists of today? Clearly, he does not care that the Good Friday Agreement achieved the backing of 80% of the population of Ireland, North and South. The GFA is no better than the Treaty of 1922. It is a democratic, negotiated settlement, but fascists have no regard for such niceties. The present IRA have laid down their arms and are now pursuing constitutional politics. Loach must think that they should have fought on, planting bombs and murdering policemen, as their fanatical counterparts, the unreconstructed fascists of the Real IRA, are still doing. They are carrying on the brute-force tradition of the Die-Hards. They are trying to force the Northern Protestants into a united Catholic Ireland with terrorism. Does Ken Loach applaud their fascist atrocities? He does not disown them.
The Tudors
(2007–2010)
It could have been brilliant!
31 August 2009
The reign of Henry VIII is of great historical importance. Like the other major states of Europe, Britain was a Catholic country until 1530 when Henry broke the link with Rome. The sectarian conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism dominated European politics for centuries, engendering civil war in France and providing a basis for hostility between Britain and its Catholic neighbours (France, Spain and Ireland) for years to come. The effect on Britain itself was devastating - the Protestant/Catholic divide split the country and produced much political drama, from the machinations of Mary, Queen of Scots, to the Gunpowder Plot, to the Civil War, to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and including the Battle of Culloden in 1745 when Catholic Prince Charlie tried to seize the British throne.
Henry embarked on a dangerous course when he transformed Britain into a Protestant state. He was declaring himself at odds with all the Catholic states of Europe. The fate of the Cathars in France would have been well known to him - they defied the authority of Rome and were massacred wholesale in retribution. He risked a similar fate himself, if the Catholic states united to depose him.
Tantalisingly, some traces of that great historical drama do shine through in "The Tudors". We see that there is still a lot of loyalty to the Old Faith (Catholicism) long after Henry has renounced it and that it creates political instability in the country. However, the overall treatment of the sectarian struggle is rather superficial. Criticism of the corruption in the Catholic church had been common since the days of Chaucer and the spread of Wycliff's translation of the Bible gave Protestantism a strong base in British culture. "The Tudors" shows no appreciation of that historical context, presenting instead a ruthless Henry who only wants his marriage annulled and an ambitious Cromwell who advances Protestantism to line his pockets.
It is a shame that "The Tudors" has reduced a great drama of important historical events into an engaging, but unexceptional, TV series. So near, and yet so far!
Henry embarked on a dangerous course when he transformed Britain into a Protestant state. He was declaring himself at odds with all the Catholic states of Europe. The fate of the Cathars in France would have been well known to him - they defied the authority of Rome and were massacred wholesale in retribution. He risked a similar fate himself, if the Catholic states united to depose him.
Tantalisingly, some traces of that great historical drama do shine through in "The Tudors". We see that there is still a lot of loyalty to the Old Faith (Catholicism) long after Henry has renounced it and that it creates political instability in the country. However, the overall treatment of the sectarian struggle is rather superficial. Criticism of the corruption in the Catholic church had been common since the days of Chaucer and the spread of Wycliff's translation of the Bible gave Protestantism a strong base in British culture. "The Tudors" shows no appreciation of that historical context, presenting instead a ruthless Henry who only wants his marriage annulled and an ambitious Cromwell who advances Protestantism to line his pockets.
It is a shame that "The Tudors" has reduced a great drama of important historical events into an engaging, but unexceptional, TV series. So near, and yet so far!
Shamrock and Swastika
(2001 TV Movie)
Excellent documentary!
3 August 2009
The makers of this documentary have performed a valuable service. The history of IRA involvement with the Nazis is an episode that most IRA supporters today would prefer not to discuss - if they even know that it happened at all! It took courage to make this documentary, given the ruthless methods that the IRA employ with their opponents, and I salute the film-makers for that.
Sean Russell, the leader of the IRA who went to Berlin to try to persuade Hitler to attack Britain through Ireland, wanted Britain to lose the war. He instigated a terrorist bombing campaign in Britain in 1939 and killed several people in Coventry and Liverpool. He died on a Nazi submarine on his way back to Ireland.
Many leading Irish republicans were complicit in the dealings with Nazi Germany, eg Sean McBride, Francis Stuart, Seamus O'Donovan, Stephen Hayes. German agents went to Ireland to assess the practicalities of attacking Britain from there. However, the leadership decided that it preferred to keep Ireland neutral since that provided good shelter for the U-boats attacking Allied convoys.
There is a statue to Sean Russell, IRA leader and Nazi collaborator, in the centre of Dublin.
Sean Russell, the leader of the IRA who went to Berlin to try to persuade Hitler to attack Britain through Ireland, wanted Britain to lose the war. He instigated a terrorist bombing campaign in Britain in 1939 and killed several people in Coventry and Liverpool. He died on a Nazi submarine on his way back to Ireland.
Many leading Irish republicans were complicit in the dealings with Nazi Germany, eg Sean McBride, Francis Stuart, Seamus O'Donovan, Stephen Hayes. German agents went to Ireland to assess the practicalities of attacking Britain from there. However, the leadership decided that it preferred to keep Ireland neutral since that provided good shelter for the U-boats attacking Allied convoys.
There is a statue to Sean Russell, IRA leader and Nazi collaborator, in the centre of Dublin.
Children of Men
(2006)
Great film, but stupid idea
24 May 2007
I really enjoyed this film, but I found its basic premise quite mad.
The story makes a compelling narrative,Clive Owen was excellent as Theo and the dystopic world a few years ahead of us was brought to the screen with wit and intelligence. The vision of a world that has fallen into endless, violent conflict, like the current Middle East writ large, was a powerful political point in itself.
However, the initial premise of the film seems to me totally perverse. Given that planet Earth is in fact overburdened with a global population of 6,000 million humans and that we are wrecking the environment, polluting the seas, driving other species to extinction, etc, as a result, it is a lunatic idea to posit a world where human population is in critical decline. Talk about burying one's head in the sand! The only person who could fully endorse the film's crazy premise (and the implication that we should all be as prolific as possible) is the pope! (which might explain the hero's name, Theo .. as in theological ... except that the underpopulation premise is completely illogical).
The story makes a compelling narrative,Clive Owen was excellent as Theo and the dystopic world a few years ahead of us was brought to the screen with wit and intelligence. The vision of a world that has fallen into endless, violent conflict, like the current Middle East writ large, was a powerful political point in itself.
However, the initial premise of the film seems to me totally perverse. Given that planet Earth is in fact overburdened with a global population of 6,000 million humans and that we are wrecking the environment, polluting the seas, driving other species to extinction, etc, as a result, it is a lunatic idea to posit a world where human population is in critical decline. Talk about burying one's head in the sand! The only person who could fully endorse the film's crazy premise (and the implication that we should all be as prolific as possible) is the pope! (which might explain the hero's name, Theo .. as in theological ... except that the underpopulation premise is completely illogical).
Brick
(2005)
Good title
18 June 2006
The title is very apt. The film is as subtle as one. We have an expression round here, "to drop a brick", meaning "to make an awful mistake".
I liked the scene where Brendan persuades the tough guy, Tug, to take him to the Big Boss, The Pin, by letting him batter him senseless. It reminded me of Homer Simpson's bid for the world heavyweight boxing title. Pure comedy.
Genuine film noir, including the Coen brothers' versions, creates a world which is like a cynical version of the familiar world. There is a dark realism to film noir which I am sorry to say this film did not achieve. We never saw Brendan's home nor his parents. The film was set in a school and it began to feel like something the Film Studies class had made - and they were too lazy to look for settings outside school. As a Film Studies project I would give it C+.
I liked the scene where Brendan persuades the tough guy, Tug, to take him to the Big Boss, The Pin, by letting him batter him senseless. It reminded me of Homer Simpson's bid for the world heavyweight boxing title. Pure comedy.
Genuine film noir, including the Coen brothers' versions, creates a world which is like a cynical version of the familiar world. There is a dark realism to film noir which I am sorry to say this film did not achieve. We never saw Brendan's home nor his parents. The film was set in a school and it began to feel like something the Film Studies class had made - and they were too lazy to look for settings outside school. As a Film Studies project I would give it C+.
Tell Your Friends