PERRIER'S BOUNTY (2009 - Cert 15)

Here is an example of a film that just shouldn't work. It should be rubbish.



We are in an age when Lock Stock is over a decade old, there have been many attempts to recapture the success of that film, not all based within the sound of Bow Bells - Smokin' Aces was a dire attempt by some Americans that seemed to be liked by quite a few people, although I'm not sure why because it lacked humour, story and any positive attributes whatsoever. Then ten years later came In Brugges. Not exactly the same sort of film, but it had the crime, violence, witty dialogue and black, yet juvenile humour that made Guy Ritchie's break out film so appealing. It got decent reviews, had a relatively good box office return, but once it hit the DVD shelves and word of mouth got underway, that was when it really took off. It was one of those that no matter where you are, pub, work, dinner parties, round the parents', someone talked about it and quoted lines from it. It came from nowhere. I suppose it was inevitable, much in the same way as Lock Stock, that people would try to copy all that they could to try and jump on the gravy train. However, I didn't expect something to see something so similar so soon, not quite a carbon copy, but perhaps something that a child might manage with a blunt pencil and some tracing paper - It's not identical but the correlations jump out at you immediately.

Perrier's Bounty's likeness to In Brugges isn't just down to Irish accents, violence and a good looking Irish lead (Colin Farrell is replaced here with Cillian Murphy). Tonally, if it were on TV, Perrier could almost be the second episode directly following on from In Brugges. It's got the same edgy, realistic feel, gritty tourist shots of a scenic city, but with playful banter and humour between the characters. It even has Brendan Gleeson in it as well. If you're making a film that does clearly have similarities to another, having the same actors as well is only going to exacerbate the problems.

The problem is, if we are going to continue with the TV series analogy, that Perrier's Bounty feels like a second episode where the joke has worn thin, the creative pool has run dry, something that should never have got past a pilot. Despite it having the same feel and as In Brugges, the attempts at wit more often than not disappoint. The best you get is a smile and an internal single chuckle, however that is the exception to the rule and more often than not the jokes fall flat on their faces. Scenes that strive for random oddball laughs only succeed in feeling out of place and contrived. Peculiar characters come and go, I was always unsure what purpose they served, whether it was vital to the progression of the plot or just there to amuse, the truth is they failed to do either. The edgier side of the film also misses the mark. The proper drama and gangland violence struggle for credibility alongside the attempted comedic touches, it all feels cartoony, a bit caricature.

So it a comedy drama that fails on both the comedy and the drama. It's a rip off of other films and only ends up as being a pale comparison when looked at alongside those films. It's plot goes one way, then the other feels, disjointed and doesn't really make sense or convince. It's a film that should be rubbish. But it isn't rubbish, it's mediocre, not more than that, but it certainly isn't the worst film I've ever seen (Couple's Retreat, Sucker Punch - I'm looking in your direction).

The only thing that does elevate it to the lofty heights of 'just about watchable' is the cast. It really is a stellar line up - Cillian Murphy as they hero of the piece Michael McCrea, Brendan Gleeson as Perrier, the villain, Jim Broadbent as McCrea's dad, Jodie Whittaker as the love interest. When you have four people on screen like that, the glass quickly becomes half full rather than half empty. Murphy is brilliant at whatever he does and anything that he appears is all the more interesting because of him. Gleeson is his effortless self, making acting look easy, Whittaker continues to climb the ladder and once again impresses (her forthcoming appearance in One Day should only make her even hotter property) and it is always a pleasure to see Jim Broadbent in action (how different would the world be if David Sullivan went with, Broadbent, his initial choice for Delboy). The very fact that these four are playing out proceedings on screen, no matter how nonsensical and pointless the proceedings are, gives the film a bit more gravitas. Of course, the base level of the move is so low to begin with, they can only lift it so far and it's a case of too little too late. Further evidence of this is a voice over/narrator from someone (or something) that is all warbling musing and philosophies on what life and death means. In terms of the content it's dull, dull, dull and quickly becomes irritating, but the voice itself, there's something about it that reels you in. Then when the credits roll you realise it's Gabriel Byrne and you then cotton on to why you found the voice so hypnotic. It just goes to show how important a good cast are to making a film work. When it's a success, it's easy to underestimate the role the actors play, but when you see those people polishing a turd you know how valuable an expert in the craft is.