Archive

Tag Archives: Deaf guy

Angry Boys: Australian comedy mockumentary (12 Episodes) that follows 6 people – Identical troublesome teenage twins Nathan and Daniel; a kid’s hip-hop star S.Mouse; mother & manager of American-Japanese skateboarder Jen Okazaki; veteran juvenile prison officer Gran; and former surfing world champion, Blake Oakfield. There’s a 50-50 split between the better and more believable stories/characters (the twins and Gran) and the ridiculous stereotypes of Okazaki and S.Mouse – Blake just feels like filler. Six comedy characters is a large remit for shape-shifting Lilley, but he throws himself into the roles well. Not unlike his previous outings smut and shock provide the most laughs – although every episode only has about one or two proper laughs, and the rest is just ‘funny enough’. It’s also just as politically incorrect, and with a the Asian and Black characters there’s some line-treading racial stereotypes. There’s no real story convergence until the very end and the ‘big finale’ is quite the let down; although would have been almost impossible to execute. Angry boys is entertaining enough to push through the season, but not by much more. The scope of 6 characters and 12 episodes diluted and hid some of great material and characters in the script.

Score: 5.5/10

The Next Three Days: When his wife is sent to prison for a murder she didn’t commit, an everyman embarks on a long-winded jailbreak from the county’s most secure prison. The brunt of the film is Crowe scoping out the prison and dealing with Pittsburgh’s criminal underbelly – making it essentially the Russell Crowe show; which is great because he’s Russell Crowe, but bad because he’s one of those superb actors that manages to elevate otherwise average films above their natural place (see State of Play). The tone jumps up and down, with up to 30 minutes of slow-moving planning, then Crowe getting his action on for a minute or two. When you’re watching it, most of it seems plausible at a stretch, then you think back to everything that a sleepy English lecturer actually did… and feel violated! Also, unless I’m an idiot, they didn’t reveal one question: how did the blood get on to the back of her jacket?!  Despite being pretty well made you get the sense that everyone here’s underachieving, and that it’s a film for the sake of being a film, with some big names… for the sake of having the big names (Neeson is in one scene, yet gets 3rd billing.) It’s also more about The First Three Years than The Next Three Days!!

Score: 4/10