15 / 2012 / Thriller
Cast: Danny Dyer, Anna Walton
Screenplay: J.K. Amalou
Director: J.K. Amalou
Release Dates:
February 24th, 2012 (Theatrical)
February 27th, 2012 (DVD)
——————————————————————————————
Plot: While on her way home from work, Amber (Anna Walton), a young nurse, is car-jacked by Frankie Norton (Danny Dyer). Frankie is a vicious psychopath recently escaped from prison and is looking to flee the country. He takes Amber prisoner in her own car, as they drive around London over the course of one night, while Frankie tries to piece together his next move.
——————————————————————————————
This reviewer seldom ever gets the opportunity to review a film before it’s general release, so when the opportunity came along, it was enthusiastically grabbed with both hands! All well and good you might think, until the realisation suddenly hits as to what has come through the letterbox. The preview DVD is accompanied by some PR gumpf that has none other than Danny Dyer’s name written all over it. That feeling of excitement was tragically all too brief…
Anyone who thinks that’s a little unfair should have a go at sitting through Deviation first: because it’s a mess. Credit where it’s due though; it’s not all Mr. Dyer’s fault. From the get-go, we are treated to some very questionable cinematography which, for the first 5 minutes or so, simply gives us a view of Amber (Walton), from the back, talking on her mobile phone, whilst walking along a London street. This might have been acceptable, had the camera decided to survey her clothing or the phone she was using just to give us some indication of what this character is about. But no. It’s just her, from a fixed angle, having three simultaneous conversations – one of which is from her work, who can’t decide if they need her to come back or not – thus making her walk back on herself twice. By the end of the sequence, you’ve lost all care for the character and she hasn’t even been abducted yet!
Once she is though, the whole film then plummets to depths of absurdity that you didn’t think were possible! Frankie is less of a raving psychopath and more of a confused and love-starved man-child. If his criminal activities are as well renowned as the highly contrived breaking-news-on-all-radio-stations would have you believe, why does he only restrain his victim with a single cable tie attached to the join of a headrest; and why doesn’t she then simply pull it off!? There also appears to be a severe lack of a police presence searching for this supposed mad man…
These and many other questions are likely to annoy and plague you as the running time creeps along like a clock working at half-speed. That and the performances, which are bland at best; although Anna Walton’s final scene does manage to breathe some much-needed genuine emotion. But by that point, your senses will have become too dulled to notice.
Rating:
What a silly review! The opening shot giving a view of the back of Anna is an homage to Jean-Luc Godard (does this reviewer know this director? Or even the film referred to?). Same type of shot was used for the opening of THE WRESTLER. And by the way, a shot description is “camerawork”, not “cinematography”.
Then this review goes bad from worse: Frankie IS a confused love-starved psychopath. Or does the reviewer, probably fed on countless low-rate psycho movies, think that all real life psychopaths are loud, raving loons? If so, he should maybe take a look at Norman Bates in Hitchcock’s PSYCHO (a film largely accepted as a realistic depiction of psychopathy.
Has this reviewer ever tried to free himself of a plastic bind? The likes used by the police and easily purchased in any DIY shop? Probably not.
“A severe lack of police presence searching for this supposed mad man” states this reviewer. 8 millions people live in London which also happens to be 607 sq. miles. What did this reviewer think? That police roadblocks would be set up at every street corners? Doesn’t this reviewer read about the number of criminals hiding out of London, precisely because it’s a large, populous town?
I have seen this film at a preview. Contrary to what this reviewer would have you believe, DEVIATION is a taut, tense, terrifying thriller, well acted and directed.
Perhaps Ipswich 24 would do well looking for another film reviewer. Ipswich movie buffs deserve better!
Rating for this review: 1/5
Nick,
Thanks you for your comments. Yours is the first direct feedback I have ever had from a review and therefore I appreciate your honesty. You are absolutely right – cinematography and camera work are entirely different facets of the film-making process and that is my mistake. I apologise for my glaring oversight.
That said, I stand by what I have written in the rest of this review. Many different films use the same shooting techniques as those seen at the start of this film. I don’t deny that it may work well for ‘The Wrestler’ or the films of Jean-Luc Godard, but then, I can’t comment on those, as I haven’t seen them (so I wouldn’t dare!). However, I believe that each film must be judged independently, and in the context of who and what is being portrayed. In the context of ‘Deviation’, I do not consider it to be effective in getting the audience to sympathise with the character’s point of view.
There is nothing taut *or* tense about this film at all. The performances are terribly one-dimensional. Despite the fact that Danny Dyer is clearly giving it his all, it just falls flat; and Anna Walton doesn’t fair much better, save for the final scene that I already make mention of in my review. There is nothing here to root for, as it clear from very early on that Frankie lacks the conviction to carry out any of his threats on Amber. She defies him so many times and yet he does nothing to reprimand her, as one might expect from a supposed psychopath! Once you realise that, all you’re left with is a very bland film that is simply going through the motions for 90 minutes. My pulse never once left it’s resting rate (except maybe when I took the disc out of the DVD player!).
I’m sorry, but no amount of prior film knowledge can detract from the fact that this film is senseless drivel.
Nick, your film knowledge seems to far out-strip my own, and you sound like a very intelligent guy. That being the case, I really would welcome your opinion on any (or all!) of my other reviews located on this blog, so that I might be able to use your feedback to improve my writing. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
[...] Extended commentary for this review can be found here. [...]