Movie Review: "The Revenant"

The Revenant (2015)

R

4.5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu

Writer                                   Mark Smith, Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu (s'play); Michael Punke (book)
Cinematography                 Emmanuel Lubezki
Music                                    Carsten Nicolai, Ryuichi Sakamoto

Leonardo DiCaprio             Hugh Glass
Tom Hardy                          John Fitzgerald
Domhnall Gleeson             Captain Andrew Henry
Will Poulter                         Jim Bridger
Forrest Goodluck               Hawk
Arthur Redcloud                Hikuc

 

A person could watch Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu’s “The Revenant” just to enjoy his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki’s vision of the Rocky Mountains in winter. Lubezki’s eye and hand produce such a work of cinematic art it is simply awe-inspiring. Alternatively, one could watch this film for the writers’ visions (Iñárritu and Mark Smith): a man’s war of survival against the elements and that man’s single-minded purpose in staying alive long enough to wreck his vengeance on his enemy. Yet another viewer might want to seize the opportunity to watch an outstanding actor, Leonardo DiCaprio at the top of his game; watch him portray the man just alluded to in the writers’ visions as he struggles to stay alive; or as this character states, “as long as you can grab a breath, you fight”. All of these are compelling reasons to watch this movie. Taken together, these different means of appreciating “The Revenant” combine in my mind to produce a convincing example of why anyone would be driven to consider Iñárritu as one of the best directors at work today.

It is my opinion that Iñárritu has produced a movie that has deep parallels with Alfonso Cuarón’s 2013 movie, “Gravity”. Both use Lubezki as their cinematographer, and the two movies are mesmerizing in similar ways: “Gravity” opens with Sandra Bulloch flying through space in a dizzying spin following a collision with space debris, while “The Revenant starts with an attack of Ariakara warriors on a group of white trappers. Both movies employ state of the art camera work that takes the audience straight into the middle of the action. However as good and as similar as the cinematography is in both films, it is the screenplays that make me think of the parallels more than anything else. While both films require expert physical acting by the two leading stars, it is the trip to “salvation” that both take that is the most definitive of their resemblance. Bulloch’s character will race from one life-threatening situation to another, while DiCaprio’s will do exactly the same. One might be in space, the other in the mountains, but there is a strong likeness of dramatic tension and relief; each movie will do it yet one more time, again and again. One big difference is their final destination: Bulloch’s character is “saved”, not necessarily so with DiCaprio’s.

Just as the title suggests, “The Revenant” tells the story of one who returns from the dead: in this case, the story of Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) in 1823 North America after a bear attack. Glass had travelled up the Missouri River under the command of Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson) with a group of roughly 50 men. They were there to trap beaver and to return the pelts for their payoff. As they broke camp, all the while packing their beaver pelts, they are beset by a tribe of the Ariakara. Most of the white men were killed; those few that survived included Henry, Glass, his half-Pawnee son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck), and about 10 others. Amongst the other survivors was young Jim Bridger (Will Poulter) and a particularly evil-tempered John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy).

The group flees the Ariakara on their boat but only for a short distance down the river. Glass quickly advised that they must abandon the boat for a hike across the mountains to their ultimate refuge, Fort Kiowa. It is on this journey that Glass while out hunting will find himself between two grizzly cubs and their mother. The ensuing scene as the mother bear seeks to "protect" her cubs is one of the most riveting and technically perfect scenes of special effects I have ever seen. It may haunt your dreams for some time to come. Glass will survive but only just. Unable to carry him to Fort Kiowa, Captain Henry offers to pay any volunteer willing to stay with Glass $300. Fitzgerald, Hawk and Bridger agree to stand watch over Glass and then to bury him when he dies. Fitzgerald’s betrayal of this duty as well as his duty to Hawk and Bridger will bring on the story’s major arc.

 

After leaving Glass for dead, Fitzgerald makes his way back to Fort Kiowa with a tall tale quite at odds with reality. Meanwhile, Glass has recovered enough to begin an arduous journey back from where he was left; his personal journey back from the dead. His desire to return is fueled with passion; he wants justice against Fitzgerald for his crimes against Glass and the others, and he will overcome every obstacle nature or man may put in front of him. Nothing is going to stop Glass; like the unchanging mountains that surround him, his will is equally fixed, absolutely adamantine in its lack of changeability.

Glass will first crawl as his body is too broken to support its own weight. He will gain some strength, painfully gain his feet, and begin to walk in time.  After several days of this near death hike, he will meet a sympathetic Pawnee who will provide some much needed outside, though still largely indifferent help. It is at this point that the movie stumbles a bit. Up to the point where Hikuc (Arthur Redcloud), the helpful Pawnee comes onto the scene, it is Glass alone against the world; now he has help. This deviation of one man alone against nature is not my primary complaint. Instead, it is the introduction of fantasy story elements that show up at this point in the story. They are dressed up as fever-induced delusions, and perhaps they could have happened; but they are a big change in the story’s tone and story-telling method.

In the first reel, “The Revenant” is a film based in reality; a hard reality of life on the frontier battling the elements, Native-Americans and the wildlife. In these early parts of the movie, Iñárritu spins his story in a manner where all three, the elements, Native-Americans and wildlife all seem more like forces of nature. There is no particular animus in any of them towards Glass or his companions. It simply snows in winter, a mother bear protects her cubs, or a group of Indians attack white men. There seems to be little or no personal passion in these acts; they simply are. The bear and the Indians might be thought to be driven by passions, and yet in the early parts of this movie they really do not seem to have such. The Indian attacks with his bow and arrow, the white man falls, and the Indian moves to the next victim. No emotion, it’s just a simple act, like falling from a cliff. Gravity and the cliff mean you no particular ill will; you die nevertheless.

The stumble in the movie occurs as Glass’ reserves, as vast as they must be, start to wane. He hallucinates about his dead loved ones: one will hug him, another hover above him in the air. These scenes are emotional and they carry impact for Glass and the viewer: one scene in an abandoned church is especially heart-rending. As good as these scenes might be in a different movie, they feel very much out of place in a movie as grounded in hard reality as most of “The Revenant” is. If Iñárritu truly wanted to create a cinematic vision of the unfeeling nature of death when it comes in whatever form it might come in, it is a mistake to switch from such a hard vision of life to one based on a hallucinatory view of life.

Iñárritu will turn back to reality in the final reel of “The Revenant” as Glass seeks his long delayed justice for the wrongs committed by Fitzgerald. The movie will end with a close up on DiCaprio’s face that will, like the bear attack live in my mind for a considerable length of time. The look on DiCaprio’s face says so much about what he has gone through and hints at what may become of him. By this point in his character’s life, he has gained some measure of vengeance but has lost virtually everything else. In this cinematic world, one must wonder “what does Glass have left to live for”? And if that is true for Glass, one could surely imagine, this is one of Iñárritu’s core themes in “The Revenant”: finding the will to put one foot in front of the other, or to quote Glass once again: “You breathe…keep breathing”. This is what I believe is Iñárritu’s actual desire for this movie’s effect on his audience.

DiCaprio’s acting is absolutely the best of the year: his 2016 Oscar for Best Actor was not a “gimme” for his years of unrewarded excellence; years that largely began in 2004 with the “The Aviator”, 2006 with “Blood Diamond” and “The Departed”, and continues up through this movie with too many more to list. He earned the award long before “The Revenant” and could have been given it for either of the 2006 films. That being said, he more than earned it with his bravura performance in “The Revenant”. And I must say, as much as I regard DiCaprio’s acting, I have on multiple occasions derided Tom Hardy’s; not this time. Hardy’s performance as the evil Fitzgerald is quite noteworthy and is part of why this movie is as good as it is.

Great acting, great cinematography, an excellent score and a brilliant script that works with concepts as deep as “the will to live when all feels lost” make this movie one for the ages. It is a violent movie at times, there is no way to soft peddle that concept. However, “The Revenant” like a few other works of art that use violence (e.g. Cormac McCarthy’s novel, “Blood Meridian”), makes violence a powerful story tool, almost a movie character; an essential character to properly tell this story of survival, of love, of vengeance. This story is worth knowing and Iñárritu’s vision of the story is one worth experiencing. Even if you abhor movies with violence, consider seeing this film. It is a movie that brings so much to the screen, it simply must be seen.

 

Movie Review: "Legend"

Legend (2015)

R

1.5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Brian Helgeland
Writer                                   Brian Helgeland (screenplay), John Pearson (book)

Tom Hardy                           Reggie Kray/Ron Kray
Emily Browning                   Frances Shea
Colin Morgan                      Frank Shea
Paul Anderson                    Albert Donoghue
Christopher Eccleston       Leonard “Nipper” Read
David Thewlis                      Leslie Payne

 

Is there anywhere an actor that uses fewer words with more than one syllable than Tom Hardy; or for that matter uses more words that sound like little more than grunts? Perhaps it is his choice of recent movie roles: Bane in “The Dark Knight Rises”, Max Rockatansky in “Mad Max: Fury Road”, and now the Kray twins in “Legend” (the first movie was in 2013, the latter two in 2015). One even wonders if his grunting in these three features played a role in getting him the role of the belligerent John Fitzgerald in his Oscar nominated performance in “Revenant” (2015). Hardy can talk, he proved it in his earlier roles: as the English spy Ricki Tarr in “Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy” (2011), or even more appropriately as Eames in “Inception” (2010) – a role where he played someone known for his sarcastic tongue. Somehow though around 2012 when Hardy appeared in “Lawless” and started taking on roles as various tough guys, he dumbed down his vocabulary and comprehensibility so much, close captioning is almost always a requirement. It is really no surprise then in “Legend” when he chose to play both roles of the violent mobster twins, Reggie and Ron Shea. It is an even smaller surprise with respect to the manner in which he plays the psychotic twin, Ron – grunts and grimaces galore. No, the big surprise is when he channels his earlier roles to play someone who actually talks, appears fairly intelligent and actually tries to win a woman based on his personality; the “normal” twin, Reggie.

In London during the 50’s the Kray twins were building a reputation as gangsters. However, Reggie wanted to branch out and become a club owner, albeit a club owner that employed threats and intimidation to get his way. The twins differ physically only in the use of a set of horn rim glasses used by Ron, but in terms of deportment, there were enormous differences. Reggie was not just the more sophisticated in demeanor and appearance; he was also quite functional in society. Ron on the other hand was so disturbed and delusional; he was placed in a psychiatric facility for the criminally insane. His release via the use of third party threats initiated by the nominally sane twin, Reggie is a great introduction to the twins and their methods. It was also an opportunity to see that while Reggie could function in society far better than Ron, he was at heart also quite capable, in fact, seemed to prefer to use violence to obtain his goals.

Following the release of Ron, Reggie decided to move forward in his pursuit of a club. Sadly the owner did not want to sell; well sadly for him, Reggie really wanted that club. A little physical intimidation and voila, Ron and Reggie are now club owners. Oddly, the club becomes quite a success as Reggie runs with the marketing concept that the “swells” want to associate with the criminal element in some kind of thrill/clubbing experience. At about this time, Reggie also meets the woman he will marry, Francis Shea (Emily Browning). She is the brother of Reggie’s driver Frank Shea (Colin Morgan). These early scenes were largely predictable enough in their direction and outcome, but were surprising in the sense that Tom Hardy in the form of Reggie Kray actually appears to be somewhat human and verbal as he pursues Francis. She is unfortunately enough both for the movie and for poor Ms. Browning’s efforts a weakly defined character. She loves Reggie, she tries to change him from a life of crime, she fails and turns to drink, and she has an unhappy outcome. The simplistic nature of her scenes is one of the worst written aspects in the movie, and possibly the reason the movie is a failure – not due to Ms Browning, solely due to the writing.

Francis is little more than the mob moll archetype, but even that is really not the chief problem with her character. She also acts as the film’s narrator. The use of an over-voiced narrator is often a sign of troubles in the writing department, and it most certainly is in this movie. Her seemingly God-like knowledge of the actions and motivations of the Kray problems, her ridiculous portentous statements (“It was time for the Krays to enter the secret history of the 1960’s” and others) are enough to cause the average movie goer to cringe. When her big reveal comes near the end of the movie, the explanation of her omniscience completely obscures the actual tragedy of the situation. This then is the movie’s core thematic problem: there is no grasp whatever of normal human emotion. We see the Krays (crazy one and not so crazy one) portrayed as people that solve all problems with their fists, and bats, and guns, and whatever implement of mayhem is at hand. This animalistic worldview is bad enough on its own, but its effects on the movie are worse as it seems to influence writer/director Brian Helgeland into coloring and distorting the entire movie in a patina of gratuitous violence; every real human situation that might otherwise be explored, isn’t. Francis is just a stick figure accessory to Ron, not a character as a human being that can be related to any better than the monstrous twins.

Even the twins are ridiculous in their actions with one another, let alone the outside world. The best example of this is the scene that follows Reggie’s incarceration. Not long after obtaining the club, Reggie had to leave the now popular venue to go into prison for a short spell. Under crazy Ron’s tutelage, the club begins to fail. When Reggie returns, a violent confrontation between the two brothers over the club’s mismanagement by Ron (and in front of what few guests remain) takes place. They beat each other senseless, by the fight’s end they can hardly stand, but (ahh…) they still love each other, and the problem is solved. Really, in what world do such scenes take place; in Martin Scorcese’s world of cinematic mobster behavior? This may be Helgeland’s muse, but if so, he is focusing on the surface and failing to see beneath it. Scorcese’s characters are violent to be sure, but as bad as they are, the average viewer can live in the various characters’  persona for the duration of the movie and come away from it with a sense of understanding about each character, flawed human or not. This is so not true in “Legend”, it could easily be classed with the endless rain of comic book movies coming from Hollywood these days – or maybe not, many of them have a better grasp on human feelings and behavior than the characters in “Legend”. There is plenty of violence in “Legend” but it is solely a superficial examination of the world in which that violence dominates .

There is virtually no reason to see “Legend” that I can think of. If you like Tom Hardy in his earlier years as an actor and you would like to see him utter poly-syllabic words once again, then you might, maybe like the parts of this movie where he woos Francis; then again maybe not.

Movie Review: Mad Max: Fury Road

Mad Max: Fury Road (2014)

R

4.5 Stars out of 5

Director                                            George Miller
Writer                                               George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, Nick Lathouris
Cinematography                             John Seale
Music                                                Junkie XL

Max Rockatansky                            Tom Hardy
Imperator Furiosa                           Charlize Theron
Nux                                                    Nicholas Hoult
Immortan Joe                                  Hugh Keays-Byrne          

The Wives:
Toast the Knowning                       Zoe Kravitz
The Splendid Angharad                 Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
The Dag                                            Abbey Lee
Cheedo the Fragile                         Courtney Eaton
Capable                                            Riley Keough

Mad Max: Fury Road is the fourth installment in the Mad Max series. However, on many levels it stands by itself, improved in almost every aspect from the first three: stunts, cinematography, art design, acting (by Charlize Theron, anyway). But how does one review a movie like any of the Mad Max films? Is there anything beyond technique; is there some value to this movie, or any from the genre of action films (Chris Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy comes immediately to mind) where the highest praise that one could award a movie such as “Mad Max: Fury Road” is that the stunt scenes (which comprise virtually the entire movie) were artfully and skillfully directed. I could find no value beneath the skin, so to speak, but be that as it may, it is a superbly well-made action movie.

“Mad Max: Fury Road” begins with a beautifully shot opening scene of Max (Tom Hardy) standing by his “upgraded” car. This scene is so iconic of the movie and the series; it is no surprise that this scene is often shown as the poster for the new movie. We see a lone man standing by his car/steed staring into the desolate distance. It is beautifully emblematic of the series (of Westerns) and of the man, Mad Max. But it is also curiously misleading as it begins a film wherein Max is almost immediately captured and will quite frankly spend almost the entire movie playing a role secondary to the events that surround him, and even more so to the superbly acted role of Furiosa (Charlene Theron). Theron will show via slight and subtle facial expressions the deep despair and loss her character has endured. There is very little need to explore her back story; it is written on her face. Tom Hardy on the other hand continues his version of acting via grunts and other mono-syllabic comments that he began in the aforementioned Dark Knight trilogy (“The Dark Knight Rises”). There must be something to his acting that appeals to Christopher Nolan and George Miller, but it is invisible to me. I hear only the grunts and see only the stone face.

Max is captured very early in the film and is taken to the mesa-like fortress of Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne). Joe has captured a water monopoly in this post-apocalypse waste land. His subjects are destitute and live in awe of his god-like power over them. Joe also has at his command a small army of young soldiers that live to die for him. Joe rules in league with two other nearby centers of power: one for fuel, the other for ammunition. Joe sends out his top lieutenant Imperator Furiosa with her war rig (a hugely modified semi-tractor trailer) for fuel. Little does Joe know that Furiosa has a plan to smuggle out Joe’s harem of super model breeding wives in order to take them to safety at the “Green Place” and out of Joe’s reach forever. Thus begins the movie: a prolonged journey into the wasteland by Furiosa and her charges, chased by Joe and his allies. It goes without question that many bullets are fired, many cars are crashed, and much gasoline-fueled explosions take place.

The viewer knows that Max will join the chase and ally himself in time with Furiosa. How can he not? Despite her outward appearance, it is clear she is pure of thought, or at least of intent. Max does join up with her and his path in doing so is very amusingly told with him chained to Nux (Nicholas Hoult). Nux is a warboy, one of Joe’s aforementioned minions serving only to die in Joe’s defense. Nux needs a supply of blood for reasons not in the least clear to me, but he gets it from Max, and thus Max is chained to him. I found the early scenes from the chase where Nux and Max are chained to one another but somehow must ultimately survive and to ally themselves to Furiosa to be the best part of the chase. It is clever in the sense that the viewer knows this is going to happen, but how director/writer George Miller will bring it about is the fun part. Unlike many parts of the movie (which has plot holes big enough to drive a war rig or two through), Max’s alliance with Furiosa is fairly believable; Nux’ addition to the team is less so, but I can accept it.

The illogic of so much of the movie lies in the subordinate characters. First up are the five wives that Furiosa is trying to save: Toast the Knowning (Zoe Kravitz), The Splendid Angharad (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), The Dag (Abbey Lee), Cheedo the Fragile (Courtney Eaton), and Capable (Riley Keough). It is perhaps a staple of such films that the meek and mild will ultimately rise up to challenge the well-armed bully, but it stretches my imagination too much to watch an third-term pregnant woman wildly swinging from the war rig’s doorway shooting at bad guys. But what really blows me away is the idea of the aged remnants of Furiosa’s original clan (the Vuvalini) living in a wasteland so barren that not a speck of green, let alone of any water can be seen. Or add to that, their elaborate ruse of placing a naked woman atop a three story structure screaming for help. Really, how often does a potential enemy come along this particular waste land that such a ruse could prove of any value? This example of “bait” is my primary problem with the movie. It is a movie admittedly set in the future, but not theoretically in fantasy land. People still need realistic means of surviving and simply having wildly designed vehicles with machine guns strapped on to them is not a viable means of survival. The story line has elements of value (primarily the wives’ desire to raise their children out of harm’s way), but it seems to exist to solely provide opportunities for the amazing car and motor cycle stunts.

I do love the art work (see for a great view of the various cars) set design, and cinematography. I even am fairly fond of the non-stop kinetics of breathtaking stunts and action sequences; and hats off to George Miller for re-booting the Mad Max series with an overt nod to women and their very non-Mad Max way of looking at the world. But ultimately, if this movie is viewed in any manner other than as an action flick, is there anything unique (the woman’s POV notwithstanding) about the writing, about the ludicrous plot holes and non-existent science; no, in my opinion. So, let’s drop any of the pretensions one can find in the reviews about this movie being a woman’s movie, and consider this movie solely as an action flick. There are admirable elements that offer acknowledgment to women’s physical prowess and their desire for a safe place to raise their children, but this movie cannot be seriously be considered as anything but an action flick.