No Reasons

Once we get past the inevitable "early-10" reviews (usually by members of the cast or maybe relatives of the caterers), and past the low-ball reviews that make a huge fuss about the budget (most indies have a low budget, which is why they are indies), we finally get a chance to look at the actual film. The first thing you notice is the runtime. Hawken did not set out to do a simple "filler" for cable because his final cut is well over 2 hours. This was a serious effort at a "genre-busting" riff on the now-popular "lost teen" niche. Except that, rather being a straightforward procedural, it breaks more of the genre's conventions than it follows. It is this aspect alone -- that the viewer cam never quite see around the next corner -- that makes NO REASONS more interesting than it would otherwise be. As for all the comments on the horror of the underlying story, wake up and smell the Evil. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you this film actually UNDERSTATES the reality.

I Am always one to support British Indie film making and make suitable allowances for the lack of multi-million pound budgeting but even I had profound difficulty in finding anything positive to say about this almost unbearable mess.

The premise of child sex trafficking is obviously extremely distasteful but , that aside , it had quite powerful possibilities which have been totally wasted.

It is as if the writer wanted every mundane syllable kept in the final cut and the direction to be as slowly paced as possible whilst including some of the poorest performances I've witnessed in quite some time. The ludicrous two & a quarter HOURS run time simply justify a more judicious use of a RED PEN in the hand of someone other than the writer/director. The only good points in this ridiculous , muddled mess are the decent performances of Lucinda Rhodes and the great Daniel Peacock who both deserve far better material than this convaluted , dire drivel, I've given them a mark each out of respect , but there are no reasons AT ALL to otherwise waste any time on this pile pf garbage.

You can feel a great film bubbling under the surface here. It's incredibly dark and drip feeds the narrative out brilliantly. But it's very difficult to get past the amateurish acting and awkward dialogue. For the money it cost, it is impressive. Hopefully the writers will get a bigger budget next time out to smooth over the cracks.

Having been treated to a bit of zero budget amazingness just 4 weeks earlier in Death Walks, Spencer hawken is back with No Reasons a disturbing movie weaved by the same cloth as Death Walks. To quote the character of Sally (Lucinda Rhodes) "life is not all pink fluffy clouds". Oh my goodness this is not a nice movie, truly awesome, but shocking. The first hour dawdled on by luring you into a false sense of security, the second hour grabbed you by the privates and vomited into your mouth. This is awesome to the most extreme, I cannot think of another movie that takes you quite down a dark twisted path like this one. I worry someone will let the secret out of the bag, because when it comes to twists and secrets this is the best one I've seen in a very long time. Great performances, seedy villains, female rapists... its all good family fun to the very last, somewhat shocking second.

This is the second film by director Spencer Hawken, and if you are familiar with his debut film Death Walks, you'll find that No Reasons is a completely different animal.

Death Walks is a relatively light comedy horror - a popcorn movie, if you like. With No Reasons Hawken has taken another path, and this path leads you to places that you really don't want to think about, let alone go.

Make no mistake - this is a dark movie.

I'm not just saying that for effect. No Reasons is not for the faint-hearted or sensitive viewer, as it deals with subjects that will make most people very uncomfortable.

The film begins with Paul (Marc Bannerman) and Sally (Lucinda Rhodes Thakrar), who are approaching the first anniversary of their 15-year-old daughter Jodie (Elisha Applebaum) going missing.

The story expands as we are gradually introduced to a bunch of mostly unsavoury characters including villain Julian (Roland Manookian), local journalist Kevin (an admirably creepy performance by Daniel Smales), down-on-his-luck private investigator Maurice (the wonderful Daniel Peacock), therapist Dr Spencer ('Allo 'Allo's Vicki Michelle), school teacher Mr Taylor (Jon Guerriero), pushy Simone (Lorraine Stanley) and assorted police officers (Louise Michelle, Scott Mullins, Alan Hitching, Peter James Hole).

I won't go into further details regarding the plot as you should discover it for yourself, but it won't surprise you to know that things are not as simple as they appear, and there's at least one horrible secret to be uncovered.

Following swiftly on the heels of the no-budget and mostly amateur-made Death Walks, No Reasons is a step up in quality in many regards. Hawken and his core crew appear to have learned a lot in a very short time.

Working with a budget meant that Hawken could hire some professional "name" actors (Peacock, Bannerman, Michelle, Manookian, Stanley) to work alongside Death Walks stalwarts Mullins, Guerriero, Smales and Holly Boeva, who all seem to have been inspired to new levels of performance by working alongside more experienced colleagues.

The film also looks more professional visually compared to the raw style of Death Walks, with impressive cinematography and some excellent location work.  Tom Wolfe supplies an atmospheric score which adds so much to the downbeat mood of the film.

The opening scenes are incredibly well acted and directed, and brilliantly portray the utterly devastating effect a missing child can have on the lives of the parents. This is proper drama.

Of course this is a Spencer Hawken film, so there are twists and shocks in store as the story unfolds towards the ending, which will leave you open-mouthed and lost for words. When the final scene played out and the credits rolled, there was complete silence in the cinema. One viewer eventually broke the silence with a simple "F***ing hell."

There is a lot to the story, which unfolds gradually - tortuously even. That is probably my only issue with the film - I think it could perhaps have been tightened up a bit so that it moved along at a slightly quicker pace. I don't mind a slow burning film but a few times I found myself wanting to know more, right now! Although perhaps this could actually be a positive, that the viewer starts to feel as tortured as some of the characters!

No Reasons is almost certainly going to create some controversy. It is a bold, grim and unflinching exploration of the darker side of life that rarely shows its face to the world.

Spencer Hawken was reportedly influenced to write No Reasons by reading about two horrible real-life stories in a newspaper. He is of the opinion that tales based in the reality of everyday life are far more terrifying than those featuring fantastical and fictional creatures.

Based on No Reasons, I think he's probably right.