Son of Rambow
Movie Review
I have begun to become aware that a lot of the movies I review for my blog receive high scores. With the exception of last month's Public Enemies, I generally haven't disliked too many of the film's featured. This is not necessarily because I am a soft reviewer, but more a function of the fact that I generally don't go to see flicks starring talking chihuahuas. Maybe if I were a paid critic (hint hint, any major publications out there) I would be required to watch whatever was voided from Hollywood's bowel in any given week. But until that day arrives, I see what I want. With this in mind, and in the interests of broadening my range of synonyms for the word mediocre, I thought I would review a movie which I have seen recently, one that didn't necessarily line up all the cherries in my mental slot machine.
Son of Rambow is a movie which received positive reviews upon release in 2007, but for one reason or another, I never saw during it's theatrical run. Directed by Garth Jennings (who also helmed the rather spiffing Hitchhiker's Guide), it seemed – not to sound too similar to a film poster - like a good natured romp. The story centres around two boys growing up in the eighties, one a little too bad, one a bit too good. Will's a timid young boy. His father is dead and his family is part of the Plymouth Brethren (which the film portrays as though it were the British branch of the Amish religion). Lee's absentee parents live outside the UK, leaving him and his self-obsessed brother alone most of the year. With no parental controls Lee has devolved into, for want of nicer language, an over-confident little shit. When he decides that he needs a stuntman for an amateur film he is trying to produce (based on Rambo: First Blood), he emotionally blackmails Will into taking a few for the team, and, in time-honoured movie fashion, an unlikely friendship begins to flower.
I almost wish I hated this film, then I would have some feelings towards it. As it is, indifference is the only emotion I feel for this middle of the road, coming of age comedy. Son of Rambow is innocuous, sometimes entertaining screen-filler, but measured against the film's of the late great John Hughes – in the genre which he defined – it doesn't even reach ankle height.
Why so downbeat? Well, film's of this nature aren't too hard to get right. You start off with two archetypal characters, the nerd and the cool kid. Throw them at each other for what audiences like best – conflict. Somewhere in the course of the second act, the nerd begins to become popular, whether through association or his own strength of character – and the cool kid gets jealous. Cool kid causes large event (X) which puts their friendship in jeopardy, in the course of which he learns a little nerdish humility. Throw in a third act resolution of situation X, during which our bespectacled youth gets to show off his new found worldliness and bish bash bosh, you're out. So far Son of Rambow has all the boxes ticked. Oh, but there is one more thing; your film needs to different enough from what has come before to avoid boring an audience to death.
It is at this last hurdle which Son of Rambow not only falls, but suffers a fontanelle-busting arse over head tumble. The story is pure dullsville. There is nothing noxious here to ruin a mildly good time, but similarly no flashes of brilliance to lift the film above mid-table mediocrity. The strict-religion-ruining-a-good-time story line was done a lot better in Footloose and that was over twenty years ago. Here it is trotted out as a faded copy. Most annoyingly though, I have seen the unlikely friends plot strand played out in every film from Fox and the Hound to Rain Man, so if I'm to sit up and take notice of a new entry in the log book, it had better be damn good. That was decidedly not the case here. Lee's hard exterior buckle's under the weight of Will's good natured innocence all too forgettably. I have had more impression left upon my mind by a late-night trip to the bathroom.
The lack of laughs in Son of Rambow is it's next problem and is confusing, as the story provides ample berth for a much sharper, more contemporary sense of humour (even given it's temporal setting). Instead, the film sets up the characters and begins to plough an obvious and unchanging comedy furrow with each. The worst example of this is with the French foreign exchange student character, a good concept, the execution of which is wasted on a plethora of similar gags which quickly become boring, and eventually mind numbing.
Finally, and most damningly, there comes the unengaging plot. This robs the movie of all but a watch-it-out-of-the-corner-of-your-eye-while-doing-the-ironing appeal. The best of this genre of film have a sort of last day of term feel to them, and leave an audience with a palpable sense of relief when the main characters achieve their objective. The third act of Son of Rambow does not steadily build towards a endorphin-releasing crescendo, but instead changes the parameters of the leading character's needs in an unsatisfying way, robbing the audience of their long-awaited payoff.
There is a saving grace of sorts though. The movie's heart is in the right place. The relationship between the boys, while trite, does seem emotionally real. The two young actors playing Will and Lee (Bill Milner and Will Poulter), are to thank for this. They spark off each other to provide some life at the centre of an otherwise barren story.
You could do worse than perhaps catching Son of Rambow on satellite or terrestrial TV when it eventually wends it's way that far, but for now find yourself a dark room, the collected works of John Hughes, and experience the real thing.
4/10
I enjoyed the film much more than you did but de gustibus etc. What I really object to is your indiscriminate use of apostrophes. Those poor little chaps only want to be helpful but are so regularly abused by ignorant writers that they need some sort of protective service. (Sorry to call you ignorant but in this matter alas you are. Let me educate you: Wikipedia says:
ReplyDeleteIn English, it serves three purposes:
The marking of the omission of one or more letters (as in the contraction of do not to don't).
The marking of possessive case (as in the eagle's feathers, or in one month's time).
>> The use of the apostrophe to form plurals of proper words, as in apple's, banana's, etc., is universally considered incorrect <<