|
|
 |
Bane
R0 - United Kingdom - Safecracker Pictures Review written by and copyright: Neil Bray (15th July 2011). |
|
The Film
 The basic story of Bane is that four unconnected women wake up to find themselves imprisoned in a room with no memory of how they got there. They are then plagued by nightly visits from a blood-soaked surgeon who likes to carve the time of their death into their pretty white skin. So far, so good, eh? Sorry, but that’s as good as it gets. I’ve often be accused by friends of liking “any old rubbish” when it comes to the horror genre, and because it’s my favourite genre I’ve been inclined to agree with them. I’ve loved films that have been universally derided, such as the remake of Day of the Dead, however, there is an exception to every rule – and here it is. The words that come to mind when trying to describe Bane are these: Trippy, hallucinogenic, padded, dull, pretentious and pointless. This film suffers from the worst mistake a horror film can make: it’s incredibly boring. The four female leads are the only good thing in the film; and even they are sorely under developed. This is due largely to the fact that they are all suffering from amnesia as a result of administered drugs, subsequently, with no back story, they are boiled down to a basic cliché: The nerdy Deirdre Barlow look-a-like, the weepy Joey from Dawson’s Creek look-a-like, the token Bad-Girl and the Supermodel/Ripley wannabe. Credit where credit is due, the actresses do the best they can with the material and, for me, they made watching this film bearable. Sadly, for these four plucky women, they are surrounded by a male cast made up of bad actors. There’s one character, who is supposed to be the enforcer/executioner type, who wears a featureless white mask; why? Who knows? I kept wondering if he had got lost on his way to the Paris Opera House. Half an hour into the film I found I was more interested in having an afternoon nap than watching further. Then, at 41 minutes, a scene was inserted that completely threw the tone of the film out the window and introduced a story element that was left totally unexplained until the end. This element also made me wonder if the marketing for this film was a mistake. I won't reveal this 'twist' on the off chance someone actually wants to watch this. The room the girls are trapped in contains a ticking clock and the director takes great pains to emphasize this fact at every opportunity in an attempt to bring tension to the proceedings. If these girls can feel their lives ticking away then surely the audience will feel the tension too, right? Wrong! All the ticking clock does is emphasize how much time is being wasted watching this drivel. The final revelation, or ‘twist’, in this tale is mildly satisfying; but, because it’s been done many times before by much more talented filmmakers it falls flat. By the time I found out what was actually going on I’d lost the will to live, much less the ability to muster any enthusiasm for the supposed cleverness of the film. A lesson in editing could have improved the film by removing at least 25 minutes of padding and repetition. To me the film simply didn't know what it wanted to be; and it's mix of genres was its biggest failing.
Video
The film is presented anamorphically in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. In the introduction, director James Eaves makes a point of saying that this was his first chance to film in digital. This actually shows in the final product. The picture is sharp with a good depth of colours and contrast. For a dvd release I was very impressed with the picture quality.
Audio
Only two sound options available here: The commentary track and a Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo track. Despite a lack of a 5.1 track the stereo track is actually pretty good within its limitations. There are no subtitles available.
Extras
I was actually quite impressed with the amount of features on this disc. Before the film starts there is a FORCED TRAILER for a film called Russia 88 – if the makers read this...please don’t send me a preview copy because the awful trailer was enough to put me off. We start with an audio commentary by Cast and Crew – I’m really NOT a fan of Commentaries; being someone who hates people talking in the cinema I can’t imagine ever enjoying someone talking over a film in my own home. To date I’ve only ever listened to one commentary and that was on a film I’d seen over four times. Nonetheless, I listened to a lot, but not all, of this commentary; and what I found is that this track was a hell of a lot more entertaining than the actual film. The participants are funny, derivative and rude and the track is full of amusing anecdotes and observations. Deleted Scene: Pre-Credits Sequence (4.30) – This scene actually forms part of the ‘twist ending’ and was originally the opening of the film; where I, personally, think it should have stayed. Interview with Composer Ronnie Doyle (5.12) – The score for this film was actually very good, so this guy is one to watch. Making Of (1.00.16) - This is a decent Making Of giving lots of background information about the process. All involved seemed genuinely enthusiastic about the project. Introduction to Movie from Director James Eaves – This guy obviously loves his film and proceeds to practically beg viewers to promote it through word of mouth, along asking us to visit him on Twitter. Sorry, James, but this viewer ain’t gonna be much use to you. We end the extras with a few standard, self-explanatory features: Outtakes (11.36) Feature Trailer (1.45) Original Promo (1.08)
Overall
What can I say? I love horror. I love bad horror. I truly believe in the overused ‘so bad it’s good’ viewpoint. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find anything about this film to love. It was overly long, tedious and uninspiring; and, if I’m honest, I can only recommend this film to someone who’s already seen it and enjoyed it, and only then because the range of extras are quite impressive.
|
|||||
|