DRAFT TEXT
Enthusiastic and captivating it is clear that feature film newbie Scott Griffiths has put All In to hit the bright lights. Exciting and ambitious the film radiates in drive and integrity as it follows the protagonist’s, Jack Shaw and Hindley on their search for financial gain through illegal means. Cleverly Griffiths has penetrated the film industry by entering into a niche genre with its only competition being films with momentary flashes of poker; such as the nauseating Casino Royale which helped to establish Daniel Craig as, ahem, an average interpretation of a so-called suave and sophisticated James Bond. However although brimming with potential and eagerness it is obvious that Scott’s lack of reputation has cost him the ability to higher the Tom Cruises, the Will Smiths and the Johnny Depps, but has instead been provided with the likes of George Remins and Craig Presley. Who? I hear you say. Exactly.
So does this poker/gangster tie-in fold under the pressure? Or does it persevere, wait for the perfect card and seize the opportunity? The initial answer is the latter but All In is not without its faults, as you’ll read later. The audience is taken on an intriguing journey of twists, turns, and sublime suspense watching the two main characters as they develop throughout. It is this that sets Griffiths story apart from others; his creative contrasting of characterisation with a juxtapose of confidence with nervousness and apprehensiveness. From the outset it seems the two characters are big money players but with high praise to unconventional director Griffiths, not everything is at it seems – particularly the stand out twist at the end. Keeping with Griffith’s early established un-conventionalism he turns what should be a slow paced and sophisticated game of poker into a fast paced and at times frantic perception on what a poker flick should be. And it works. Particularly as the game unfolds, the quick cuts integrated make for a seat clenching and mental thrill ride as the match comes to the final card flip. Also the setting of All In can only be described as perfect for the semi-legal theme that’s meant to be portrayed; by introducing working class houses as the venue for the film it is established that this would be a film of grit rather than glamour as the poker players stake their money for further gain. In contrast from a large casino to a suburban working class house it is evident that perhaps this film is aimed at those closer to the protagonists own situation, but however the classy apparel worn may appeal to those of a higher class. Coincidentally this film should appeal to all.
However, like most films, along with positives come negatives; which are mainly due to the director’s inexperience and lack of ‘materials’ i.e. acting, time and equipment. Often at times the acting seems unintentionally awkward. This is most evident when player 2 or Jack Hindley wins and clearly the director has asked the actor to portray happiness but instead receives a look of mild relief from constipation. Griffiths has clearly been dealt a bad hand in terms of actors, and the film almost suffers because of it. If it wasn’t for the clever subtleties of character design earlier mentioned then decisively the opinions of this film would have dropped considerably. A final hindrance of the film is the random changes in lighting which many critics have interpreted in several ways, ‘its his [Griffiths] inexperience’ or alternatively ‘it’s his way to again show the contrasts in characters’, either way it doesn’t affect the film greatly – unless you’re a nit-picking movie critic, (not pointing any fingers) ‘it’s his inexperience’, please?
Verdict – An extremely imaginative twist on a niche genre with little room for much character development – but this pulls it off. Thumbs up. Small little faults hinder overall quality. 4/5
No comments:
Post a Comment