Director: Giles Borg
Writer: Stephen Leslie
Cast: Joe Anderson, Anna Anissimova, Luke Evans, Billy Zane
Running Time: 1hr 25 min
Rated: Unrated (language, violence)
On VOD on November 17th
John (Joe Anderson, The Crazies) is a gambling addict. He doesn’t want to get a real job, and for some reason his wife Helen (Laura Fraser, Breaking Bad) sticks around. After going to the dentist (Billy Zane, Zoolander 2) they strike up a conversation about the dog track, which is where he meets new bookie “Stan” (Anna Anissimova). Stan is quick witted, pretty and American. After a huge win, John thinks his life is starting to turn around, but the addiction is still there. Stan seems to see something in John to which she can exploit. She proposes several strange bets that are more and more extreme. Pulling a tooth out without anesthetic, growing an ear on his torso, siting in his bathroom for a week, wearing his wife’s dress, no big deal. It’s when his wife finally gets fed up with his crap and decides to leave him, he becomes desperate to win her back. He approaches Stan for one last score and has nothing else to put up, until Stan suggests his soul. What’s the bet? Murdering someone close to him. What’s a soul really worth?
The Good: A decent cautionary tale about compulsive gambling. To those affected with this disorder, would you grow body parts on your body for a load of cash? Hell, I don’t even have an addictive personality and if the price was right I might.
The Bad: Billy Zane playing an American dentist in Britain. Aren’t dentists like 7-11’s over there? They’re like on every corner. They couldn’t get a reasonably known British actor to play this throw-away part? Ana Anissimova’s hair looked like they dyed Johnny Depp’s wig from Alice in Wonderland blonde. If they wanted her to be considered a femme-fatale character, they should’ve done better with her hair, that was ridiculous. The chemistry between John and Helen wasn’t there. I was barely paying attention to their storyline because they were so boring. The film mostly focused on the silly bets John had to do, and not much attention was spent on character development or much anything else. Don’t build a film around the funny bits. That’s not good storytelling.
I had to look up “Flutter” on urban dictionary in order to find out it’s a Britishism that means “placing a small bet.” Hey, I learned something new.
This film sat on the shelf since 2011, what’s up with that? If distributors aren’t confident it’s going to make money, release it anyway. Quietly slip it on a shelf and be done with it.
Flutter is a cautionary tale, although doesn’t go into much depth about how it effects others around him. The high stakes were silly, but the story was rather weak.
Total Rating: C
Reviewed by: JM Willis