Review: The Revenant

The Revenant
Cert: 15 / 156 mins / Dir. Alejandro Iñárritu / Trailer



Already generating more than its share of awards-buzz is Alejandro Iñárritu's The Revenant, the tale of a US frontier trapper who gets separated from his hunting party, attacked by a bear, attacked by a tribe of Native Americans and attacked by his own hunting party. It like a fairly arduous journey, and indeed it is. I've seen the trailer a lot recently, and I have to admit that it didn't really push any buttons for me other than the names involved. But the trailer only hints at the setting and the story, and its duration can't properly show off what the film is. Which is fantastic.

Credit where it's due (and the awards-panels of the media industry will no doubt observe this), Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy are on quite, quite magnificent form (even if Hardy goes Full Jeff Bridges™ and mumbles much of his dialogue). Both have become immensely talented actors, and I think we've still to see the best work from each of them. But what really makes the film so enjoyable*¹ is the collaboration between director Iñárritu and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. While it's not at the level of their previous outing Birdman's seamless-take presentation, The Revenant features some of the lengthiest and most complex continuous shots I've probably ever seen. Neither Iñárritu or Lubezki are afraid to use a single camera for a single take, while often showing the audience the full 360° of the surrounding landscape. This alone meant I sat grinning like an idiot for much of the film.

Although I really don't enjoy making the distinction, I think there's more in The Revenant for the film-fan than the movie-fan. The main narrative itself is well structured and relatively linear, but it's occasionally interwoven with dreams. hallucinations, and symbolism. While it's not exactly art-house, even the main thrust of The Revenant has a ponderous, often hypnotic quality that could well disappoint anyone sitting down hoping for a punchily-paced revenge tale of the Tarantino-school*².

But rest assured, the film's got the physicality when it needs it, too. Large stretches of the story are (necessarily) combat-based, and while Iñárritu doesn't revel in the gore of projectile and blade weapons, he certainly doesn't recoil from it, either. I've never known a collective audience audibly wince as much as they did during the film's climactic showdown.

An outstanding, if exhausting, piece of cinema, The Revenant is a hauntng and relentlessly bleak survival horror. A bit like an olden-days version of The Walking Dead but without any zombies, yet just as fraught with danger. Fantastic.

Django Unchained, The Hateful Eight, Birdman.



For the cinematography alone, yes.



Undoubtedly.



No, but it's up there…



Probably not.



There's not, even though the number of arrows and horses in use means it's the perfect movie for one.



Level 1: The Revenant stars none other than General Hux himself, Domnhall Gleeson.

Oh, and let's just say there's "a Taun-Taun scene" in it, as well :P







*¹ Okay, maybe not enjoyable… satisfying?

*² Although I didn't rush out to question their reasons, there were a couple of walk-outs at my screening. On one hand, this was an Unlimited Card preview, so the patrons in question hadn't necessarily paid anything extra to be there and would feel less aggrieved at giving up on a movie. But on the other, I find card-holders to be generally more receptive to different genres and styles, since they've bought the subscription precisely because they love the cinema. Maybe it was just Tom's mumbling?

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Legend (second-pass)

Legend (second-pass)
Cert: 18 / 131 mins / Dir. Brian Helgeland / Trailer



A second-pass is a chance to re-evaluate a film without waiting for it to hit the domestic-release market. A chance to put the narrative on the back-burner and focus on the details; be it in the set, the costumes, the script or the editing. A chance to really focus on the character development, to see events through the storyteller's eyes. A second-pass is a chance to enjoy the film again.

And while I still stick steadfastly by the hesitant praise I laid upon Legend after my first viewing, I have to say that watching it again to study Tom Hardy's performance really underlined (what I perceive to be) the film's weaker-points...

It seems that any dialogue which isn't crafted to be eminently quotable in pubs and offices (most of which lines are delivered by Hardy in his Ronnie persona) is distinctly average at best, and quite often falls below that line. The worst affected examples of this involve characters speaking to anyone other than the Kray twins, and a worryingly high percentage of Frances' narration.

The twins' much loved mother, Violet Kray, doesn't appear on-screen until the second hour of the film (which seems inconceivable given the awe and respect she commanded from them), and their older brother Charlie doesn't even warrant a mention. Even allowing for skewed narrative viewpoints, this seems at odds with the story of two brothers who value family above all else.

The film's hyperactive soundtrack gatecrashes nearly every scene, often playing less than thirty seconds of each song as if the sound-editor is trying to get away with not paying royalties for their use (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain films don't work like that, even if TV does). Many of the tracks indicate the rising popularity of Americana at the time, but feel out of place in a movie about London's East End. The most startling example of this is the use of The Meters' Cissy Strut in an early scene of the film. Already associated with movie-goers as part of Tarantino's Jackie Brown collection, it's a track which wasn't even recorded until 1969, one year after the Krays' arrest at the end of the film.

Hardy is magnificent, which is what I wanted to get out of seeing the movie again. But what I'd also like is an alternate cut of the film (as a bonus-feature, not a replacement) with the brightness and colour-saturation turned down a notch, with the soundtrack excised completely other than the in-scene songs which are actually heard by the characters, and with the narration removed. Don't ask a lot, do I?

And despite everything I've just said there, yeah I enjoyed the film again ;)

See it on a big-screen while you can, because once it's on DVD, it's on DVD forever…



If you're not rushing to see this at the cinema, then a rental will probably do you.



Hardy is great; Browning is held back by the part that's been written for her.



Not enough.



Nope.



Nope.



In addition to the somewhat extensive list I made last time, Legend also stars Mr. John Sessions, who appeared in 1991's The Pope Must Die with William 'Jek Porkins' Hootkins; 1984's The Bounty and 2002's Gangs Of New York with Liam 'Qui-Gon Jinn' Neeson; 2000's Gormenghast series with Christopher 'Count Dooku' Lee and Celia 'Bravo Five' Imrie; not to mention 2012's The Domino Effect with Tiya 'Sabine Wren' Sircar.

Sessions is kinda connected himself....







DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Legend

Legend (SPOILERS)
Cert: 18 / 131 mins / Dir. Brian Helgeland / Trailer

legend (noun | leg-end | \ˈle-jənd\)
1) a story coming down from the past; especially: one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary

As a general rule I don't read reviews of films before I see them, mainly because I'll pick up on any points they raise and that will shape the prism I watch through. However, I didn't see Legend until it'd been out for a few days, so I browsed over a couple to get the reaction to Tom Hardy's dual-roles as the Kray Brothers. Whilst generally favourable, I noticed that more than one writer had questioned the veracity of the tale, namely the events that are narrated by Reggie Kray's wife Frances, of which she'd have no knowledge. [Spoilers: Highlight-to-read] Well, since it's revealed mid-way through the film that she's narrating everything from the afterlife, Legend can hardly be taken as a documentary, now can it? [/spoilers]. The clue is in the title, heavily insinuating that the story which unfolds is every bit as subject to hearsay and interpretation in 2015 as it would have been in 1967, particularly since so many of the main players are no longer around to either dispute or verify the facts. Maybe treat it the same way you would any other London gangster movie?

And with that off my chest, onto the movie itself. A suspiciously clean-looking 1960s East End is the backdrop for this tale of London's notorious criminals, and most audiences will be aware that neither the style, setting nor characters themselves are new to the big screen. This would be an easy film to get wrong for a number of reasons, but I really enjoyed it, with reservations. Director Brian Helgeland is trying very hard to resist turning it into a Guy Ritchie flick (particularly since Ritchie doesn't really work in that genre at the moment), but the only other weapon it has in its arsenal is being a moody melodrama; and it's hard to tell an emotional story when pretty much every single character on-screen is repellent in one way or another. So claw-hammers and quotable-dialogue it is, then. Running parallel to all this is a slightly patronising and intrusive soundtrack, which feels like a generic 1960s compilation album rather than any meaningful accompaniment to the film.

But you don't sit down to watch Legend for the soundtrack, or the 1960s clichés, or the underdeveloped secondary characters. You're here for Tom Hardy; and he's magnificent as both Ronnie and Reggie Kray. Wardrobe and thick-rimmed glasses separates the characters on a superficial level, but Hardy's love of affected voice-work and extremely physical acting completes the job, to the point where you pretty much forget you're watching the same actor in two different places at once (although a couple of scenes feature fairly shonky effects-work which will remind you again). In fact, it's not too unfair to say that Tom Hardy is so much better than the rest of the film it's untrue. Without his performance (and without the script's frequent foul language), this would be a late-night ITV costume drama.

I get the feeling (from the title alone) that the film wishes it had spread its wings more and pushed a little harder at either end, rather than trying to deliver a movie which doesn't offend those who remember that the Krays were a couple of murderers, but also doesn't disappoint everyone who's watching on the promise of the killings. What we get is something noncommittally in-between. Interesting and entertaining, but not bringing anything new to the table other than its central performance.

Does Legend glamourise the Krays? Yes, a little, although it certainly won't change your mind on them.
Should it glamourise them? No, not really.

Does that make it a worse film? No, not really.

Oh, and why does Reggie Kray's tie-pin keep moving about throughout the film? A man finds his personal 'right level' for a tie-pin and then ensures maintains it. That wouldn't happen in a Guy Ritchie flick…



Yes, although that might be £10 better spent by buying it on DVD.



If you love Tom Hardy and you love swearing gangsters, it'll be a buy-er.



It's a film young Tom can add firmly to his CV, yes.



Despite my enjoyment, I don't think it does.



Not at all.



Not at all.



Well, there are no one-step links, but the film stars:
• Tom Hardy, who appeared in Warrior alongside Joel Edgerton (Uncle Owen in the Prequel Trilogy).

• Emily Browning, who appeared in 2011's Suckerpunch alongside Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron in The Force Awakens).

• Taron Egerton, who appeared in 2015's Kingsmen, alongside Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker in the Original and Sequel trilogies) and Sam Jackson (Mace Windu in the Prequel Trilogy)

• Paul Bettany, who appeared in 2006's Firewall, alongside Harrison Ford (Han Solo in the Original and Sequel Trilogies).

• David Thewlis, who appeared in The Theory of Everything, alongside Felicity Jones (due to star in Star Wars: Rogue One).

• Christopher Ecclestone, who appeared in Shallow Grave, alongside Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi in the Prequel Trilogy).

• Colin Morgan, who appeared in the BBC series Merlin, two episodes of which featured Linsday Duncan (the voice of TC-14 in The Phantom Menace).

• Paul Anderson, who appears in 2015's The Revenant, alongside Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux in The Force Awakens).

• Sam Spruell, who appeared in 2015's Taken 3, alongside Liam Neeson (Qui-Gon Jinn in The Phantom Menace).

• Kevin McNally, who appeared in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, alongside Keira Knightley (Sabé in The Phantom Menace).

• Tara Fitzgerald, who appeared in Exodus: Gods And Kings alongside Ben Mendelsohn (due to star in Star Wars: Rogue One).

• Adam Fogerty, who appeared in Mean Machine alongside Ralph Brown (Ric Olié in The Phantom Menace)…

…it's well-connected.







DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: '71

'71
Cert: 15 / 99 mins / Dir. Yann Demange




Every so often, a film comes along which is in equal parts compelling and harrowing, which enthralls you utterly but also beats you into submission. By no means a film which you'll want to watch on a weekly basis, but a one which will stay with you and that you know will require another viewing. When you've got the strength. Requiem For A Dream is one of those films, as is Harry Brown. This year, it's '71.

The story of a young relatively inexperienced British soldier, Gary Hook, deployed to Belfast in 1971, when violent tensions between Irish unionist and nationalist factions were at a critical head. Separated from his unit on a routine callout, Hook finds himself seemingly abandoned in the heartland of an area which doesn't take kindly to the sight of a British army uniform, and it will take all of his resources just to stay alive…

Actually, I've made that sound far more Hollywood than it actually is. Despite Jack O'Connell clearly being the film's protagonist, the film focuses as much on the events surrounding him as it does his continued survival, and this is a war story without heroes (but plenty of victims - on all sides). I don't pretend to know anything about the troubles, and if anything the film only makes the situation clearer by illustrating that it's much more complicated than having two sides at each other's throats. While I'm sure there'll be differing opinions on this, the film I saw tells its story without taking sides, instead focusing on the bleakness of the whole situation.

That's not to say the war is depicted as pointless, but the end-goal of the conflict certainly seems as unreachable as any happy ending would be. '71 is one of the few films I've seen where the use of handheld cameras feels like a natural choice, as it only intensifies the sense of general noise, confusion and desperation. The desolate streets, pubs and houses*¹ are filmed with a yellowing wash which evokes the past without nostalgia, and the film's wardrobe and makeup departments capture the era perfectly without going full Life On Mars*². The only thing which struck me as odd was the lack of bite in the gunfire sound effects (of which there are plenty), considering how many of them occur in 'close quarters'. This could be an artistic choice to help the audience focus on the narrative, or to demonstrate how desensitised the characters are to the sound of gunfire, but the guns then become one of the least provocative aspects in the film. Like I said, odd.

In terms of performance, everyone brings their A-game here, with Jack O'Connell leading as only he can, bringing a sort of hardened-naivety to his role. It's essential that the audience is rooting for Hook, but not to the point where the other characters don't matter, and the cast pull this off fantastically under Yann Demange's direction. As great as he is in this, I think O'Connell's best work is still to come, and I look forward to seeing which roles he chooses after films like '71 and Starred Up. Also singling themselves out for praise among the ensemble are Corey McKinley as the funniest, sweariest 12 yr old loyalist you'll see on film this year (probably ever), and Barry Keoghan as the emotionally turbulent, but blank-faced nationalist-in-training, Sean. Both actors bring an intensity to their roles which, like O'Connell's, are bolstered by a level of innocence which the older members of the cast don't have at their disposal.

While I can't personally vouch for the historical detail or thematic accuracy of '71, the film moved me like few others have done recently, and has a violent urgency which demands a viewer's attention without being needlessly provocative. While I'd recommend the film to anyone, I know that it's not intended to be universally loved, even though it asks its questions without judging or moralising.

'71 is a bleak powerhouse of a film. Film-of-the-year material, and I don't say that lightly.

Yes. Nails it in one.



I did. Mostly gasping and crying, to be fair.



From where I'm sitting, undoubtedly.



The cinema release for this film is small, but catch it as and where you can.



I won't, largely because some people will find it too much, and for various reasons.



I will.



There isn't. Which is okay as despite the amount of screaming in the film, it would feel a little out of place.

In the bit where Private Hook is hiding in the outside toilet for several hours to evade being shot, how come none of the householders needed the loo? There's washing on the line in the yard remember, so people are living at the house, and toilet paper on the holder so the alfresco cubicle is in use.

*¹ If the film's Wiki page is anything to go by, the streets used in the film are in Blackburn rather than Belfast. And I don't know if it's commendable that the production crew didn't want to stir tensions in Belfast by re-creating traumatic times-past, or more worrying that the streets of Blackburn are so easily transformable into a 20th century war-zone.
*² Not that I'm slagging off Life On Mars, but if the TV series' "do you remember" rhetoric of flared trousers and wide-collar shirts is akin to the act of Peter Kay, then '71 is closer to the tone of Doug Stanhope or Jerry Sadowitz.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.