I have to admit, my expectations weren’t high for Hardcore: Bare Naked Talent. A British mockumentary with an inexperienced cast, first time director and which was made in 2005 but only coming to DVD now; it didn’t exact fill me with confidence. Even the fact it’s about the making of a porn movie suggests lowest common denominator trash, but I’m very pleased to report the film is a lot better than you’d expect.

The reason for that is that Hardcore takes the time to surround its tit and bum gags with a plot and characters you can actually empathise with. The core of the film is the journey of ‘Jack Innov’ (Alex Constantine), the pseudonym that a young wannabe filmmaker comes up with when he decides to direct a porn epic called Assanova, in the hope it will allow him to eventually make proper movies. As you might have guessed, making a porn movie turns out to be a bit of a nightmare, from Jack throwing up when he first has to direct people shagging, to his lead actor, Thom Cruz, having a rather painful penile injury.

It could have all been rather tedious if the mockumentary form wasn’t used so well, allowing you to actually care about Jack, who’s essentially a sweet guy with a dream who gets in way over his head. He ensures there’s an emotional core to the movie, while the other characters manage to amuse with their often bizarre antics. It’s rather odd that while you’d expect a set-up about making a porn movie to feel like it’s just trying for cheap laughs, Hardcore makes it work. Indeed the main thing that does feel cheap has nothing to do with sex, and is the fact they randomly give Jack’s brother Tourette’s Syndrome.

Hardcore is by no means a masterpiece but it is rather fun. However if you’re hoping this is going to be cheaply titillating and prurient, you’re out of luck, as for a film about making a porn flick, it’s oddly prudish, censoring out genitals (I suspect that’s because many of the cast and crew weren’t really naked on set). It’s rather distracting, but it doesn’t affect that fact that Hardcore is a lot more amusing than you might expect.

Overall Verdict: A surprisingly fun mockumentary that may be lowbrow, but has a good sense of humour and by bothering to create characters you like, becomes surprisingly involving.

Special Features:
Commentary with Jack Innov and Mark Withers
Circumcised Scenes
Bunty Shades Audition
Garden Scene Rehearsal
Jack Innov Promo

Reviewer: Tim Isaac

It’s very rare that something actually makes me angry, but Four Horsemen did. The documentary tries to deflect criticism by saying during the voiceover that some will dismiss it as socialist when it isn’t, but my problem with it wasn’t with its viewpoint, but that as an argument it’s absolutely hideously constructed and an altogether frustrating experience.

Made in the wake of the banking collapse and economic crisis, Four Horsemen attempts to explain what happened, why we haven’t learned any lessons from it, and why western society is on the brink of collapse and unable to come to terms with the fact its version of civilisation may have peaked. Much of it is stuff many will have heard before, especially as the economic collapse has been picked apart in detail by numerous different voices. It doesn’t help that Four Horsemen has little new to add, and most of what it does have to say has been said better by others – the wonderful The Shock Doctrine and Inside Job spring to mind.

However it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing to say it again, even with a rather ‘we’re all doomed and isn’t western civilisation an ass?’ mantra added on top. The problem I had with it though is the way its puts its point across, which is to constantly use conclusions as evidence. For example, the film has decided western civilisation as we know it is over, so rather than arguing that point from the ground up, it extrapolates backward, so that everything about the modern day becomes evidence for its imminent end. For example, perhaps idolising chefs is something that happens just before civilisations end, but rather than providing evidence, the film presents it as an odd but indisputable fact.

It’s not even that what Four Horsemen say is necessarily untrue, it’s just horribly argued. It results in the film becoming a complete house of cards that can be blown over ridiculously easily, not because it’s wrong but because it’s not structured in a way that builds towards a conclusion, but instead decides the end result and then finds the evidence for it. It means that if you generally agree with its ‘Occupy Wall Street’-style philosophy, you’ll lap up, but if you’re on the other side of the argument, Four Horsemen makes itself way too easy to dismiss.

It’s a shame as the film has a lot of very knowledgeable interview subjects who have a lot of interesting stuff to say, but then the voiceover chimes in and presents something as an absolute which is nothing of the sort, and I for one just wanted to scream at the screen, ‘Why is that necessarily true?’ But rather than bothering to explain, it moves onto the next reason we’re all doomed. It’s a rather condescending way to make a documentary and very frustrating.

It might have helped if the documentary was more focussed, but it’s so keen to cover every ill of the West it can find, even if it’s only tangentially linked to its core subject – from what it sees as the self-interest of foreign aid to the flaws of democracy – that it doesn’t present a truly convincing argument for any of it.

Four Horsemen has a lot of important questions to ask. Why have we allowed the financial system – something that doesn’t actually ‘produce’ anything – hold so much power? How can so much of the world’s wealth be based on debt? Why has the enormous growth in sheer amount of money in the past 60 years not resulted in a fairer distribution of wealth? With its interview subjects it has the potential to say a lot of fascinating things about it, but the structure and voiceover is so busy putting the cart before the horse that it will ultimately only be of interest to those who already believe everything it’s got to say and want something that feels like it’s backing them up.

Overall Verdict: A bit of a missed opportunity. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with polemic, but Four Horsemen could have done with studying the art of rhetoric in order to make its arguments stronger. Actually, that’s the one thing about the West it doesn’t criticise but perhaps should– that generally the quality of argument has gone completely down the tubes.

Special Features:
Trailers
‘The Making Of Four Horsemen’ Featurette
Billion Dollar Bill Animation
Scott Carver – The World’s Best Banker
The Washed Up World Bank Banker

Reviewer: Tim Isaac

in the real world are quite popular at the moment, with Griff The Invisible being Australia’s entry. True Blood’s Ryan Kwanten stars as Griff, a meek, quiet man trapped in a dull office job by day, but by night he hits the streets as a costumed hero.

Griff is fascinated by the possibility of becoming invisible (literally rather than just metaphorically, which is how he is for most of his life), and is hard at work on a suit he hopes will make him completely see-through. Griff’s brother starts seeing a woman called Melody, although it quickly becomes apparent that she’s really more of Griff’s kind of girl, not least because she’s working on a scientific project she hopes will allow her to pass through walls. Slowly Melody and Griff get closer together, which ends up causing others to question Griff’s sanity, when his superhero dreams begin causing problems.

The film is essentially an indie romance dressed up in superhero clothes, with the requisite quirky misfit characters who fall for one another. Indeed to call it a superhero movie is slightly misleading, as it’s more a love story that questions why we should have to accept that reality is fantasy that better. On that last score the film is slightly confused, as the movie glosses over some aspects of Griff’s superhero ambitions – not least the danger if reality doesn’t quite match the fantasy – in favour of playing up the romance of two out-of-the-ordinary people coming together, whose quirks happen to perfectly complement one another. It would have been nice if it could have been clearer on how much Griff truly believes in his superhero alter-ego, but it still works.

It’s quite a sweet film, although even at 92 minutes it feels a tad slow. And if you’re expecting an all action superhero movie you’ll definitely be disappointed, as this is much more character romance than traditional superhero flick. While it plays with ideas about the type of people who would want to be a superhero, it’s not entirely convincing on this point and its romantic viewpoint is debatable, especially when you realise quite how much of a man-child Griff is. The performances are good though, especially from Maeve Dermordy as Melody and it’s clear this is a bit of a labour of love for all involved. That’s underlined in the interviews, where Kwanten and co. suggest the film means a lot to them. It may not be a complete success, but Griff The Invisible is rather charming.

Overall Verdict: A sweet, quirky romance in superhero clothes. As long as you go into it expecting more small-scale sweetness than big scale action, it should satisfy.

Special Features:
Trailer
Interview

Reviewer: Tim Isaac