JIM JEFFERIES & THE NORMALISATION OF RAPE CULTURE (a review).

OPINIONS NO-ONE ASKED FOR

By Ashton Brown

The below is a Facebook post that triggered a pretty widespread online interest and a mixture of both positive and negative feedback. It was interesting how peoples biggest concern was the fear of being censored as performers - which is something I 100% DON'T condone. I just believe that as performers we can't detach ourselves from any consequences of our performances and remove ourselves from any social responsibility just because we label ourselves as "comedians". 

*Trigger warning - this post discusses rape and references to sexual violence*.

Alright. I would like this particular post to invite discussion. I know that the opinion presented here might not necessarily be popular but I would really like to encourage open discussion on this as I would genuinely like to hear people's thoughts on this as I really don't know where I stand on things regarding censorship and freedom of speech in terms of entertainment and public performance - especially after this evening.

Tonight I went and saw the first hour of JIM JEFFERIES stand up show. (I only left early due to the fact that it started late and I had a show of my own to perform at.)

To be completely and utterly blunt, I have never NOT enjoyed a comedic act as much I didn't enjoy Jefferies. I think the first thing I want to say regarding this is that I am not saying Jefferies isn't funny. I'll admit that I personally don't think he is funny but to say he wasn't funny would be a stupid thing for me to say given that he had 1500 people rolling in audible laughter for entire set he provided. I will accept that I misjudged attending his show. I misjudged thinking I thought he was clever and I misjudged thinking that he was going to appeal to me in anyway. This, going in, was my fault. I was not nor will ever be his target audience. In fact, I was even identified by Jefferies as NOT being his target audience when he made a comment that was along the lines of "anyone who came based on watching a clip of me talking about US gun control laws is going to regret coming" (i'm paraphrasing) but I was one of these people. The only thing I knew about Jefferies was the gun control segment on youtube that had gone viral - and I still think it's genius. Genius to the point that when I watched it I booked tickets immediately, poorly assuming that this was a great example of the genius I would experience at a Jim Jefferies show. I was wrong. I was disappointed. I was offended. Like, deeply offended. Like, I'm still offended. And not in the way I think a comedian should leave an audience member feeling.

Now maybe this is my fault.. Maybe it is my fault I feel offended and I should get over it. Or maybe, just maybe, what Jefferies is doing isn't as justified as he thinks it is.

Let me break this down. 10 minutes into his set, Jim Jefferies begins to talk about rape. Now I am a massive advocate of freedom of speech. I am an even bigger advocate of a comedians right to talk about whatever the fuck they want to talk about. At least, I thought I was. The topic of rape has always been a massively contentious topic.My understanding of comedy (and life) is that you CAN joke about anything. As long as the thing you are joking about is funny first and offensive second. Jim Jefferies talked about rape. A lot. In fact for at least 15 minutes. He spent a lot of time justifying his right to talk about rape. He discussed the fact that as a comic he is only ever JOKING about rape, not actually condoning it. He then went ahead and spent 15 minutes laughing at rape for being rape. Not in any clever or thought provoking way, but more because he has a right, as a comedian, to joke about whatever he sees fit.

At this point I want to remind everyone that I am certainly not a prude. In fact, many people would consider me to be in the more "not giving a fuck" side of the argument of "who give's a fuck". But tonight I witnessed a comic whose primary joke was "we should be able to laugh at rape because everything should be laughed at if I want to laugh at it." The jokes on rape were never clever. They were never creating social awareness or encouraging societal reflection on the issue. His jokes on rape were never saying "it's fucked up how we deal with or talk about rape" or "we need to get better at talking about rape." His joke was literally (for 15 -20 minutes) "I have a right to make jokes about rape that are simply jokes about rape. If you don't think they are funny then you are a prude. If you don't think they are funny then you are wrong. If you can't laugh at them then you are a pussy" And more literally he justified these jokes by saying thing like "I'm not performing a Ted Talk, I am making jokes."

In essence, Jefferies is correct in what he is saing. He IS joking. He is not actually a rapist. He is not actually intentionally condoning rape. When he says things like "Most of the time I don't condone rape" - he IS joking. But my whole approach to comedy - whether right or wrong - is that a joke should be funny FIRST and offensive second. The whole point of Jefferies was that he was being offensive SIMPLY because he could. If it happened to be funny then that appeared to be a bonus.

But looking at this issue even more intently my personal problem with his approach was the fact that although, as an intelligent individual, he COULD clarify the line between consent and rape, the line between a joke and a crime. His audience didn't necessarily have the same level of insight. So whilst he spent the evening normalising rape culture from the point of view of someone who clearly understood why rape is bad and that it can be joked about (not all men), a huge amount of his audience wouldn't necessarily understand the difference nor be able to distinguish between a man joking about normalising rape and actually normalising rape. A huge amount of his audience weren't as intelligent as him. A huge amount of his audience WOULD go home to their wives or partners and feel even more justified in regards to their degrading opinions towards them. I couldn't help but feel highly uncomfortable about the fact I was in a room where 1500 drunk men were cheering at the mention of rape without the joke having any real weight or message. What Jefferies was doing was normalising rape culture for a laugh. And the laugh, in my opinion, certainly isn't worth the societal repercussions. Nor was it overly funny. Or funny at all.

So what am I suggesting? Am I suggesting that Jim Jefferies is a rapist (since he suggests that anyone who takes issues to his material thinks he is) - no. I am not.

Am I suggesting that Jim Jefferies ISN'T funny? No. I am not. (A room of 1500 men pissing themselves with laughter would prove this thought wrong).

Am I suggesting that comedians should have to filter their material? No - I am not.

What I am suggesting is that if the point of your humour is negative to society for the sake of being negative (because you have a right to be as fucking negative to society as you wish) then what are you offering to the world as an entertainer? It concerned me that the majority of Jefferies fanbase weren't able to establish the difference between rape being a joke and rape being a massive, horrendous societal issue. I could feel this in the room. I believe I was right to feel uncomfortable when people cheered at comments that suggested a males physical empowerment over a female was funny. I believe I was right to feel uncomfortable as people cheered when it was suggested backward that woman had the right to vote and I believe I had a right to feel uncomfortable that I was in a room of 1500 people who thought it was funny to suggest that Bill Cosby fingering woman whilst they were unconscious was more light hearted than it was actually sexually offensive.

As someone who believes in freedom of speech and that art need no filter, I strongly believe that Jim Jefferies offers absolutely nothing to our industry other than being radical for the sake of being radical - and in his fight to justify this radical behaviour he normalises acts that need standing up against rather than patting on the back for the sake of a laugh.

I don't think we should celebrate people just because they are saying what awful people are thinking (Donald Trump anyone?). Based on tonights performance - I don't think Jim Jefferies is a rapist but I think he encourages a world where we laugh at issues for the sake of having a room of fuckwits validate your right to be outspoken.

No stars. No validation. No respect.

I couldn't leave quickly enough.

TICKLED

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

TICKLED
dir David Farrier & Dylan Reeve

TICKLING: NOT A LAUGHING MATTER

I went along to the gorgeous Civic Theatre in Auckland to see the New Zealand premier of Tickled with mixed expectations. I hadn't seen much of David Farriers journalism in the past, although I do remember him being pretty unique and finishing reasonably out there news segments (out there for mainstream news anyway) with his trademark "David Farrier - Three News" which went up in a humerous vocal crescendo (for mainstream news anyway). I knew a little bit about the nature of Tickled. I had heard or possibly read brief bits of information over the last couple of years and I understood that when Farrier and co-director Reeve stumbled across an advertisement for a professional tickling event, they expressed interest, interest which was met with untoward homophobic hostility, aggressive hate mail and an unnecessarily intense dialogue between the then TV3 reporter and the head of the event.

Tickled is a classic in it's documentary format, in that a good documentary is one that starts out with pretty straight forward intentions (eg - what is professional tickling and why do people do it?) and stumbles across something much more sinister and interesting for it's audience. Tickled starts simply enough - a couple of Kiwi blokes want to know what the hell professional tickling is and why it's organisers are so aggressive and homophobic when sent a pretty standard email of interest by a couple of pretty casual journalists. It then explodes into a dark story about blackmail, fraud, abuse, violence and anger - all presented with Farriers extremely accessible and appealing charm and wit. In true Kiwi style - no matter how many threats our two young journalistic heroes are receiving, they always manage to weave in a sense of humour, a sense of awkwardness and a sense of "what the fuck are we doing" that makes the journey so interesting and unique. Even when the story feels like it's getting a bit heavy, that classic Kiwi charm is utilised and what we end up with is an extremely intriguing black comedy documentary.

I don't want to go into the details of the story too much because you should watch it and enjoy the journey yourself. However I will say that the level of commitment that these two documentarians give to this project is absolutely the reason why it succeeds. Even when they were receiving threats from apparent much higher powers (US Attorneys) and their producers are even telling them to let it go - they keep following that yellow brick road until they uncover unexpectedly dark and fucked up situations that absolutely need to be shared. The difference between great journalism and good journalism is that good journalism presents the facts that are easy to find and great journalism finds a good story that could be great and doesn't sleep until the public get to experience the knowledge of the whole truth and nothing but the truth (the truth being the one sided opinion presented by said documentary). If you don't leave a documentary being 100% on the side of the people who made the film then the doco hasn't done it's job. These lads do their job.

Filming wise - Dominic Fryer does an exceptional job of making sure that even when guerrilla filmmaking tactics are undertaken we don't ever lose the cinematic quality and beauty required to make this film stand out. The music by Rodi Kirkcaldy & Florian Zwietnig is superb - always lets us know what we should be feeling at any given time and always makes sure we know that things are going to get a little more ominous - however hilarious.

Finally what makes Tickled such a success is David Farrier himself. I'm sure he hears this constantly - but he IS New Zealand's very own Louis Theroux, and this is absolutely a compliment (as someone who has a cat named Louis Theroux I like to think I'm an advocate for all things Theroux). It doesn't help that they look similar, but the ability that these two extremely talented gentleman share in getting people to talk about something that they don't necessarily want to talk about let alone on camera, is what make both these men two of the best in their field.

Tickled is an extraordinary journey. Beautifully paced, wonderfully hilarious and extremely intriguing. I hope Farrier continues to pave the way for New Zealand journalists who have gotten so caught up in selling a click bait headline that they have forgotten just how interesting the truth actually is.

4 out of 5. 

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

THE INVITATION

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

THE INVITATION
dir Karyn Kusama

A DRAMATIC THRILLER THAT LEAVES YOU WITH AN ONGOING SENSE OF UNEASE

Quite often I end up with a whole heap of films in my 'to watch list' that I have stumbled across on IMDB at some point and convinced myself that it sounded watchable. Eventually I end up watching, or attempting to watch these films, often asking myself "why did I think this would be good?" and turning it off 35 minutes in. However, occasionally I end up with a rare gem of a film, something that I haven't even heard of prior to watching, that not only exceeds my expectations, but leaves me with a sense of thought provoking fear and intrigue well after the final credits have rolled. Such a film is The Invitation.

The film starts with a couple, Will & Kira, on their way to a dinner party that they seem very reluctant to attend. We very quickly learn that this is a dinner party hosted by Wills ex - Eden and her new beau. What occurs is the worlds most awkward reunion of old friends who are getting together for the first time since Will & Edens son tragically passed away two years earlier. The evening is awkward, the wine flows, doors are locked, accusations are thrown around and grief is clearly a driving force behind a lot, if not all of the anxieties present at the dinner party. Eden and her new man are part of a cult that helps you to deal with grief and set you free. We watch an awkward video of people dying, we partake in an weird spin of the game 'have you ever' and we continue to feel a sense of dread rise in our stomachs as we begin to questions every characters motives, especially those of protagonist.

Director Karyn Kusama (Jennifers Body, Girlfight) has crafted nothing short of a thrilling masterpiece here. Despite being a fairly unknown director who's only credits are nothing to shake a stick at unless what you are trying to shake a stick at is something you hope to kill, I didn't know what to expect from her. The Invitation is a masterfully directed piece of cinema. Part drama, part thriller, all great. An absolutely sensational cast of more or less unknown actors provide a convincing, emotional and at times harrowing journey through friendship, loss and acceptance of the things we cannot change.

Whenever the films feels like it is going to walk the path of the predictable, it turns in a way that leaves a fresh lump in our throats. The films eventual climax is one that is so beautifully paved that although the ending is a suprise, when we finally arrive at the ending, the jigsaw puzzle makes sense and the film achieves a sense of accomplishment that resonates with us as audience members even after the film has ended and the lights are back on.

The musical score provided by Theodore Shapiro who's previous credits are easily the most impressive of nearly everyone involved in the film, is affecting, poignant and foreboding. Whilst never overplayed it leads our emotions and perceptions of the film perfectly down the exact road that the director intends and never gives us a full moment of comfort within 1 hour 40 run time.

Usually when we watch an unheard of thriller we end up feeling disappointed, frustrated and annoyed. Sometimes we stumble across a good script ruined by crap actors or a bad director butchering potentially good performers. The Invitation manages to take the potential for disappointment and craft something much, much more worthy of our time and discussion.

4 out of 5. 

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't.

10 CLOVERFIELD LANE

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

10 CLOVERFIELD LANE
dir Dan Trachtenberg

NOT WHAT YOU'RE EXPECTING BUT ALSO SO MUCH MORE

I have a thing for monsters, aliens and creatures. Many, many years ago when I saw JJ Abrams' shaky cam delight, Cloverfield, I was enthralled. I have always been a sucker for the shaky cam sub-genre of horror and we all know by now that Mr Abrams knows exactly what he is doing. So it was with pure excitement and high expectation that I headed along to the cinema today, solo, to see the kinda sequel, 10 Cloverfield Lane - which is not really a sequel to Cloverfield (nor is it shaky cam!). There are two reasons why I wanted to experience this alone. The first being that I hadn't been to the movies on my own before, let alone a horror, and I wanted to know if the experience was in any way enhanced by being isolated in what was pretty much a deserted theatre (Friday at midday). The second being that no-one else was free to see this movie on a Friday at Midday. I must admit I was excitedly nervous about watching a horror/thriller alone and it certainly did make the whole experience slightly more nerve wracking.

The film starts free from dialogue and continues this way throughout a large portion of it's opening moments. Our ears are introduced to an absolutely gorgeous musical score from the exceptional Bear McCreary (who's name I immediately recognised from the opening credits of The Walking Dead) and sets the tone of edge of your seat "something bad is going to happen" and holds this feeling for the entire 2 hour run time. The opening credit scene is one of my favourite opening scenes from the last year or so (up there with Deadpool but for entirely different reasons) and brilliantly merges the credits with the action without taking you out of the world of the movie, even for a second.

I watch a hell of a lot of horrors and thrillers. So I feel I have a pretty rough idea of what to expect from a film regardless of it's sub genre. Where 10 Cloverfield Lane succeeds is by frequently luring you into thinking that you have figured out the story, predicted the twists and it leads you to expect predictability but then rips the rug out from under your feet. Particularly towards the end I was feeling pretty chuffed with myself at having figured out what was going on - and was soon taken in an even more profound and interesting direction. Cloverfield Lane never quite let's you get on top of what is happening, but it also doesn't get caught up in trying to be too clever, or too twisty turny. It has the right amount of fresh plot to keep you intrigued for the entire film. Although I couldn't help but notice some similarities to the story of the more indie Hidden (2015), this was still unique and interesting in it's entirety and a stand out film within the genre. With some genuine jaw dropping moments (one in particular where I literally had my jaw drop), it's an intense and intriguing ride.
Part horror, part thriller, all great.

Newcomer director, Dan Tachtenberg, makes sure the film is so beautifully paced that we never loose interest, we never get distracted nor do we ever fully catch our breath. But the thing that really makes 10 Cloverfield Lane stand out is it's cast. With a core cast of three actors, all providing such grounded, believable and strong performances that we hang off every word they say and never doubt for a moment the reality of the world they have created. From a strong, smart, brave female lead (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) to the exceptional John Goodman in a role where he is simply flawless in pitch and delivery of his character, to relative newcomer John Gallagher Jr in the supporting seat - this cast know how to perform and oh boy do they ever. A beautifully well cast ensemble.

10 Cloverfield Lane never gets bogged down in cheap jump scares but rather crafts an environment of suspense that doesn't just have you uncomfortable on a few occasions, but rather leaves you feeling claustrophobic, unnerved and reasonably uneasy for it's entirety. Whilst it honours some classic horror tropes, it doesn't rely on them and I would highly recommend getting along to the cinema to see this beauty of a thriller. You don't need to have seen Cloverfield in the slightest to get full enjoyment out of this cinematic journey - but you should anyway.

Highly recommend.

4 out of 5. 

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't.

THE NIGHT BEFORE

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

THE NIGHT BEFORE
dir Jonathan Levine

IT'S BEGINNING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE...every other comedy ever made.

Guys! Have you been holding out, waiting for a film where Seth Rogen plays a baffonish Jewish fellow who loves taking drugs?! A film where Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a love struck fellow (and despite being ten thousand percent charismatic and handsome) is unlucky in love?! Well wait no longer - the Christmas themed, The Night Before has arrived, providing you with nothing new, fresh or overly hilarious. It's enjoyable, sure, but is sub par given the creatives involved and the fact it's 2016 (or even late 2015).

Ethan (Gordon-Levitt) is sad and understandably so - his parents died on Christmas Eve. So every year at this time he get's together with his two best pals, Isaac (Rogen) and professional, drug abusing athlete, Chris Roberts (Anthony Mackie). It's become a tradition to get messed up and seek out this super secret party that they heard about many years ago but never managed to get an invite for. These three early 30s gentlemen learn to face reality as they deal with family, babies and reality. The formula is wondrously...well...formulaic...and I didn't expect any different from a Christmas film. I have no problem with Christmas films. I'm a big fan of Love Actually. I watch it every year or so with a santa hat over the corner of the TV, having a shot of whiskey whenever someone wears it. I love that guy from The Walking Dead's unhealthy and embarrassing obsession. I love Professor Snape (RIP) and his weird affection for a woman much younger than him. I love how tragic Christmas is! The problem with The Night Before is that it DOES have heart. It DOES have jokes. But it is so wrapped up in mediocre Christmas and romantic comedy tropes that the script never really blossoms into something new and the actors are pretty much performing outtakes of every other film they have ever been in.

It's never an unenjoyable journey by any means. We always love seeing Rogen getting high on ridiculous amounts of drugs. We love seeing Gordon-Levitt being charming and tragic. We love the always exceptional Mindy Kaling being the always exceptional Mindy Kaling - and Christ knows we love Home Alone references. It's just disappointing that this is all that is happening. When the script finally allows it's actors to discover a real moment of true vulnerability or suggests that the moral is going to be something more than a really poor and last minute feeling nod to The Night Before Christmas - it too quickly rips the rug out from under the audiences feet and returns to the more simplistic ease of stupidity and predictability. I'm not suggesting I was expecting otherwise - but I did expect more.

The movies saving grace, for me, is the "ghost" that provides the premonitions to the leads. The always ridiculously amazing Michael Shannon, portrays a very restrained and hilarious drug dealer whose magical pot drives the visions that are clear references to the source material.

So did I enjoy it? Well I didn't hate it. But I watched it because of how much I like Rogen & Gorden-Levitt and how although I don't expect 50/50 from them every time (amazing film - if you haven't seen it - watch it) I don't want to feel as though they are just cashing cheques. I don't want to say that this is the Your Highness of Christmas films - because fuck, it's not THAT bad. But it was disappointing. I shouldn't have to lower my expectations further when they weren't that high to begin with. 

2 out of 5. 

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't.

 

DEADPOOL

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

DEADPOOL
dir Tim Miller

DEADPOOL: PARTY LIAISON

Firstly let me make one thing clear. I am a MASSIVE geek. I'm just not a comic book geek. I am a film geek, a gaming geek, a superhero geek. So although this review comes from the perspective of a geek, it doesn't come from a geek who is familiar with the source material.

I was really keen on seeing Deadpool. It had received great reviews. Great responses. I was looking forward to seeing a superhero film that was actually allowed to portray violence, swear, and generally just not give a fuck. After seeing it, I think two things. The first being that although Deadpool is a highly enjoyable film - it certainly doesn't live up to the hype. The second is that the film spends so much time NOT trying to be anything more than it is, that it feels like it tries too hard to be WHAT it is. Yes it has some humerous fourth wall breaking. Yes it has adult humour. Yes it has references and straight up mocking of actors, franchises, the nature of superhero films and glorious moments of being meta. But in not caring about what it is, or being defined by the traditional rules of film making, it feels like it's 'not caring' goes full circle and it turns into trying just a little too hard to prove that it doesn't care.

The story is simple. Guy loves girl. Girl loves guy. Guy gets cancer. Guy can be saved from cancer by being made into a superhero. Guy accepts. Villains happen. Girl gets taken. Guy saves girl. The End. Story-line wise there is nothing new or even overly interesting about it. What sets Deadpool apart from others like it is the way it tells the story. Through dick jokes, blood and decapitations. This is something that is hugely missed from other films in the Marvel franchise and it certainly makes Deadpool an enjoyable two hours as a result. However beyond the excitement and visceral nature of the R16 content, Deadpool doesn't really offer anything else that you couldn't get from any other film in the Marvel Universe.

The things Deadpool does well - it does do very well. Reynolds is exceptionally well cast. Despite just doing exactly what you'd expect Reynolds to do. He doesn't offer any suprises in the role but he does play it with the perfect amount of humour, bravado and emotion. Never does he get too bogged down in a single aspect of the character but instead portrays Wade Wilson with a suitably comic book 3-dimension. If I closed my eyes, it could have been a Van Wilder: Party Liaison spin off. But it works.

As far as exposition goes, the film starts with an action sequence and then cuts back to the origin story. The action in these opening 15 minutes is absolutely spectacular. Beautifully shot and directed and it makes no apologies for using a superfluous amount of slow motion to showcase how sexy and sleek the action is - and it's real great. In fact, it is so great that it's like the film peaks here and for me, this is where the film climaxed. They say as an actor you should never start a scene with the most extremes of your characters emotions being portrayed or you have nowhere to go but down and this is how I felt about Deadpool. It orgasmed in the first 15 minutes and it spent the rest of the film spooning with me. The spooning was nice, but compared to the orgasm it felt like I was just waiting for it to be ready to go again. I can't wait for the sequel. Hopefully it can last the full 2 hours next time.

Overall - Deadpool is good. It's fun. It's edgy. It's brainless and it's entertaining. But for me, it climaxes too early, the fun of it being grown up wears out pretty quickly and it tries too hard to come across as though it's not trying at all.

3 out of 5.

WHAT IF

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR

by Ashton Brown

WHAT IF dir Michael Dowse

"All this love shit's complicated."

I would post *spoiler alert* but if you actually think this rom-com is going to offer you any suprises then you are picking the wrong movie. Romantic comedy is such a predictable genre. Being a massive emotional wuss, I am not above being affected by it's charm when it has charm to offer. For me, if a rom-com is going to impress, it needs to be brave enough to move away from the predictable, try and avoid an ending we can see coming from the beginning and at least trick me into thinking that it might not work out all roses and chocolates in the end. 

What If has some lovely moments. From a comedy perspective - the first half of the film has genuinely sharp, witty writing. Think Gilmore Girls both in the style of writing and the delivery of the dialogue from the leads. What If is the story of the "friendzone" (a term I am reluctant to use as it suggests that a woman's desire to be nothing more than friends with a male is somewhat a problem). We meet broken man Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe), Wallace meets girls at party (Zoe Kazan). She is quirky. She treats guy differently than girls from his past. Girl has boyfriend. Boyfriend isn't a dick. Can they just handle being friends? Hollywood has this wonderful way of constantly trying to convince us ,that men and woman can't possibly have a platonic friendship, and even if they can, in the end they are better off being in a relationship. I hate this notion - not only because of the expectations it sets for us in reality but also because sometimes friendships between opposite genders is awesome and unique and should be appreciated and respected instead of forced to evolve to involve rooting. I spent the whole time thinking that the friendship between the leads was so genuinely good that this film would exceed my expectations if it left them that way. 

The chemistry between the leads is good enough - believable even. But for me there were two far more interesting relationships in the movie that I would have rather followed than the typical "will they, won't they" nature of the leads. Wallace and his best friend Allan (the always incredible Adam Driver) have an extremely likeable, believable and interesting bromance. Their chemistry is stronger than that of Wallace & Chantry (yeap that's her name) and I found their dialogue to be more interesting. Similarly Allans relationship with the wonderful Nicole (Mackenzie Davis) is one that begins near the start of the film and is a far more interesting and realistic look into modern relationships. The shortfall for me of What If is that the supporting characters were much, much more interesting than the leads. Having said that, the story has some genuine laughs and Radcliffe does a solid job of Wallace. 

I felt the film forced us to want Wallace and Chantry to get together despite failing to provide any reason why they should be. Yes they had chemistry. Yes they laughed at the same shit. But Chantry's chemistry with her boyfriend of 5 years was much more believable and I often found myself struggling to root for Wallace and Chantry. Why can't they just be friends? Why isn't friendship as awesome as a non-platonic relationship? Why can't Hollywood learn to provide us with stories that don't all feel the same way? Why? Why? Why?

Overall What If is great if you are at home sick, feeling sorry for yourself or it's raining outside and you have nothing better to do. It is by no means a bad film. But if you have seen a rom-com, then you have seen this. The opposite sex can be friends. Just not in film. 

2.5 out of 5.