THE REVENANT Is a Visually Stunning But Thematically Hollow Adventure

 THE REVENANT Review:

- The trailer for THE REVENANT was straight-up awesome. In the span of a few minutes, it was clear that, if nothing else, this would be a film filled with jaw-dropping visuals and visceral action. As it turns out, the trailer didn't lie. THE REVENANT is a visual stunner - with scene after scene of immense beauty, and several brutal, vertigo-inducing, brilliantly-filmed action sequences. But I have to say ... I'm starting to wonder a bit about director Alejandro G. Iñárritu. The guy is clearly an immensely talented visual stylist. And I give him credit for working on out-of-the-box, narratively-ambitious movies. But what I keep seeing from him are films that feel ever-so-slightly hollow, as if the director isn't quite sure what point, exactly, he's trying to make with his stories. I felt this about last year's Birdman - a movie that received widespread critical acclaim, but to me was sort of thematically vacant. THE REVENANT is similar. It's a revenge movie and a survival movie, but it's got little of interest to say about either revenge or survival. Instead, there's a lot of star Leonardo DiCaprio crawling through the wilderness hand-over-foot, caked with some quasi-spiritual moments. The movie features such great acting and such incredible visuals - so why did it leave me feeling sort of empty as the credits rolled?

Based on a purported true story, the film - set in the 1820's - follows a group of frontiersmen on a hunting expedition, collecting pelts that they will later sell off. The group includes DiCaprio's Hugh Glass, an expert when it comes to the local terrain. We don't get a ton of Hugh's backstory, but we do know that he was married to a Native American woman (very taboo at the time), who was ultimately killed in a military raid on her village. But not before she gave birth to a son, Hawk, now a teenager. Hawk accompanies his father on the hunting expedition, where he's got to deal with the prejudices of the other hunters. Chief among those who look down on him is Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), a short-fused Texan who bares the disfiguring scars of a Native American attack - in which he was nearly scalped. He wears an ever-present bandanna to cover his head, and he holds a long-simmering hatred for Native Americans. Fitzgerald's hatred only burns brighter when the expedition is ransacked by a roaming Pawnee tribe, on the warpath after their tribe-leader's daughter is kidnapped. The attack leaves the group in disarray, but things only get worse from there. Following the attack, a further series of unfortunate events occurs - leaving Glass separated from the group and near death. The group thinks he has died, and abandons him in the wild. I won't spoil what happens from there. Suffice it to say that a severely wounded but still-breathing Glass makes it his mission to track down certain parties that he holds responsible for the ills that have befallen him and seek bloody vengeance for the wrongs that have been committed.

DiCaprio is put into a difficult position as Glass. For much of the film, the character is unable to speak, but is in severe pain. And so DiCaprio spends much of the film grunting, wheezing, and breathing heavily as he slowly claws his way across the wilderness. I think DiCaprio is pretty fantastic here, but the script sometimes fails him a bit. It's not the no-talking thing, it's that the film oftentimes seems to lose some of its narrative drive. This is at its core a revenge film, but Glass' burning desire for that dish best served cold seems to come and go. The film becomes so in love with giving us these serene, sweeping, ponderous shots of nature that it sometimes seems to forget what kind of movie it actually is. With its at times glacial pacing, the sense of urgency is occasionally lost. And that waters down DiCaprio's performance a bit. But he's great overall, and he certainly makes us feel every cut and abrasion and pain-point that Glass must suffer through during his long journey.

Meanwhile, Tom Hardy nearly steals the film as Fitzgerald. Hardy is a complete badass here - a grizzled hunter who does what he has to to get by in life. Fitzgerald harbors a perpetual mad-on, resentful of their group's leader, Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson - always great, apparently in every other big movie of 2015) for his privileged background, annoyed by Glass' half-Native American son, and just generally looking for a fight. Fitzgerald gets all of the movie's best lines, and Hardy seems to really relish playing the loose-cannon antagonist. He's got such a great physicality and sense of menace to him. Plus, the dude is quite simply one the best actors working today. Hardy pretty much owns this one.

Gleeson is also very good, as mentioned (he's once again playing the virtuous leader here, following his flirtation with the Dark Side in The Force Awakens). There's also a really great supporting turn from Will Poulter - who I've been a fan of since Son of Rambow - as the junior member of the group, who becomes a bit of a protege to Fitzgerald.

THE REVENANT has a great cast, and it also benefits hugely from Iñárritu's unmatched ability to shoot both chaotic action scenes and quieter scenes of the untamed wilderness with an immersive, eye-melting, you-are-there style. The single-take style of some of the big action set-pieces reminded me of the work of Fukunaga on True Detective and the recent Beasts of No Nation. And the more serene scenes of nature call to mind the work of Terence Malick. The movie oftentimes feels, quite simply, epic as hell from a visual standpoint. If ever they were to make a Skyrim movie, THE REVENANT's snowy expanses, rocky mountain stretches, and out-of-nowhere spurts of shocking violence make a strong argument that Iñárritu would be the right guy to direct it.

But as memorable as scenes like the film's holy-$%#&-this-is-insane bear attack are in and of themselves, the thematic linkage between them often seems not-quite-fully-formed. And that's a sizable problem in a two-and-a-half-hour movie. The film never expends the energy to make Glass into a great character, and that hurts it. I think of the great revenge films, and what makes them great is, in large part, that their protagonists are iconic. Glass ... well, he's just a guy. At least as far as we know. What's odd is that Hardy's Fitzgerald seems much more well-defined. The film gets a jolt of life whenever it shifts its focus to Hardy. As good as DiCaprio is here, his character is sort of blah. And by extension, the film's message feels muddled and ill-defined. The movie ends with a really intense, amazingly-shot action scene. But then, after a brief coda, the credits roll, and you're left wondering what it all means. Again, there's that hollowness to the story that keeps it from being great. A movie about an epic journey across the wilderness by an injured/dying man seeking revenge? That is a story that should leave us with some sort of profound takeaways -- right? In this case, we're left kind of scratching our heads.

THE REVENANT is well worth checking out for its top-notch performances and absolutely stunning visuals. But I also hesitate to say that it's the Oscar-worthy masterpiece that some may proclaim it to be.

My Grade: B

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD Is an Unforgettable Ride

 MAD MAX: FURY ROAD Review:

- What is it about the classic genre films of the 80's that made them so iconic - still able to captivate our collective imagination today? I think the answer lies with the visionary directors who brought us those films. Thirty years ago, directors like Spielberg, Lucas, Donner, Carpenter, Verhoeven, Cameron, Scott, Milius, and Miller gave us memorable, iconoclastic films that felt like triumphs of the imagination. Today, most big-budget blockbusters feel assembled by committee. They're designed to be, above all, four-quadrant crowd-pleasers. Rarely are today's biggest movies allowed to get extreme, or weird, or to be disturbing and challenging. But MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is a welcome anomaly. Here we have the legendary George Miller returning to his iconic Road Warrior universe - not just for a victory lap or a nostalgia-driven cash-in, but for a movie that feels as vital, as urgent, and as singular as anything the director has yet produced in his storied career. The movie is in many ways a minor miracle - a blast of adrenaline-fueled badassery that absolutely refuses to conform to modern blockbuster convention. Ironically, that rebellious, rock n' roll mentality makes FURY ROAD feel fresher and more avant-garde than any mainstream action movie in years. It's a must-see new classic. A movie that at once feels like a throwback to the glory days of badass 80's genre films and like something we've never quite seen before.

What's so incredible about FURY ROAD is how Miller effortlessly tells a story, gives us memorable characters, and gives us a fully-fleshed-out post-apocalyptic universe despite the film essentially being one giant, action-packed chase scene. So many genre films tend to be over-expository. But FURY ROAD masterfully gives us exactly what we need via some brilliantly economical storytelling. This is an exaggerated, larger-than-life world. And so must its characters be mythical and iconic. And such is Max. Tom Hardy brings the character to stoic life. He is this film's Man With No Name. At the start of the movie, he's literally been stripped of his humanity; captured by the feral minions of the tyrannical Immortan Joe - his "warboys" - and made into a human plasma-source, a "blood-bank." As the film progresses and Max eventually frees himself of his shackles, he slowly begins to regain a sense of identity. Hardy makes for a great Max. His gruff stoicism and survival-mode brutality slowly give way to some semblance of empathy and sense of purpose. Hardy continues to be one of the best actors around, and Max is a natural fit for him. He truly gives him the sort of mythical icon status befitting of Miller's vision.

But really, this isn't Max's movie. For in truth, the film belongs to Charlize Theron's grit-filled, can't-stop/won't-stop, badass-for-the-ages Imperator Furiosa. Furiosa, a lieutenant of Joe, has been secretly smuggling slaves out of his fortress-like city, The Citadel. Now, she's on a desperate escape mission, making off with one of Joe's big-rigs, transporting a cargo of Joe's "wives" - female sex slaves meant to carry Joe's unholy offspring. Headed through the barren Wasteland in hopes of reaching a mythical Green Place, Furiosa is pursued by a battalion of Joe's ravenous warboys, as well as Joe himself. That's when she crosses paths with Max, who's been chained to one of Joe's souped-up battle-vehicles and finds himself unwillingly along on the hunt for Furiosa. Theron kills it. Seemingly channeling the spirit of Sigourney Weaver in the Alien films, Theron as Furiosa is bald, one-armed (she's got a metal prosthetic), steely-eyed, and certifiably awesome-sauce. She gives the character a quietly desperate intensity and inner rage that makes her downright scary at times. And in the few quiet moments allowed to her, we also see the long-simmering pain. We know she's witnessed atrocities and likely participated in some as well. Now, she seeks some measure of redemption. No question though - Furiosa is a cinematic icon for the ages.

What makes Max and Furiosa's adventure so harrowing is the fact that Miller crafts an army of unrelenting antagonists that is the stuff of pure sci-fi nightmares. Immortan Joe - played by Hugh Keays-Byrne - is instantly the stuff of villainous legend. A hulking figure clad in imposing body-armor and a skull-shaped, tusk-lined mantle, Joe is a grotesque Big Bad who will stop at nothing to retrieve his stolen "wives" and destroy those who dared oppose his will. His army is also suitably over-the-top: a motley crew of murderers and would-be martyrs. His warboys are convinced that dying for Joe will mean an eternity in Valhalla. And so they throw themselves into danger with animalistic abandon. Most intriguing of Joe's warriors is
Nicholas Hoult's Nux - an overeager foot soldier who begins to have a crisis of conscience, when he realizes that his great leader may not be quite as worthy of fighting and dying for as he'd believed.

All of FURY ROAD's relentless action is filmed with absolutely gorgeous flair by Miller. Though things unfold with fast and furious intensity, Miller never falls prey to the sort of disruptive quick-cutting and shaky visuals that make other blockbusters feel visually incomprehensible. What strikes me about the film is just how painterly the whole thing feels. Amidst the chaotic action and nonstop adrenaline-rush, there are countless individual moments of near awe-inspiring beauty and jaw-dropping imagination. Oh, Miller's vision is often cartoonishly over-the-top, to be sure. But what glorious over-the-topness it is. One of my favorite recurring visuals was that of the awesomely absurd musical section of Joe's battalion - a multi-story vehicle carrying war-drummers followed by a mobile stage on which a suspended, seemingly rabid warboy plays a continuous electric guitar-solo - a heavy metal symphony of destruction if ever there was one. It's an apt visual, as Miller's vehicular action plays like a post-apocalyptic symphony - the action orchestrated via choreography that's downright musical in the way it elegantly unfolds. In the film's climactic battle - as warboys pole-vault between vehicles while Furiosa and Max make a desperate last-stand, the sheer chaotic beauty of the action is just overwhelmingly awesome. There are smaller, quieter moments sprinkled throughout the movie in which Miller will pause on a particularly striking visual. But even when the action is at its most intense, Miller still takes care to give us consistently beautiful brutality.

Amidst all of the nonstop action, Miller infuses FURY ROAD with a simple but effective tale of finding hope and redemption - of the triumph of the human spirit when things look bleakest. There is a feminist undercurrent as well, as Miller's story is largely about women fighting against a patriarchy that treats them as a resource to be exploited as opposed to equals to be respected. In many ways, the film reminded me of "journey" movies like Gravity - a deceptively simple but thematically complex parable about the human spirit's ability to overcome even the most seemingly hopeless of situations. I could go on, but suffice it to say that FURY ROAD has a lot going on between the lines, and a lot of substance to unpack and discuss. Miller clearly has a lot on his mind with this movie. In many ways, it feels like he finally struck at the heart of what he's wanted to say since the first Mad Max film. As such, while this film feels like something new, like something not tied or bound to Mad Max or The Road Warrior or Beyond Thunderdome, it also feels like a fitting conclusion to this universe and a fitting goodbye for Max. Miller takes us into the abyss, but here, finally, we can see some light at the end of the tunnel. Max was never a savior, only a victim of (and sometime hero because of) circumstance. But here, Furiosa steps in as the woman the world needs. Max just gives her the final nudge to do what needs to be done.

Oftentimes even the best modern blockbusters succeed by hitting various pleasure centers in the brain, checking off boxes and generally presenting us with a fun roller-coaster ride. MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is one hell of a roller-coaster ride. But it's also the kind of blockbuster you don't see much of anymore - the kind that seeps deep into the recesses of your brain and fires up the synapses and sparks the imagination and really *sticks*. It's the kind of movie that isn't trying to please everyone, that dares to be weird and gross and dark and sort of insane. And man, we could use more like it. We could use more directors like George Miller. We could use more movies like FURY ROAD. 

My Grade: A

LOCKE Is a Trumph for Tom Hardy

 

LOCKE Review:

- I knew Tom Hardy was good. But his work in LOCKE is next-level stuff. LOCKE is a film that could have been very gimmicky, and very hard to watch. But thanks to sharp writing, hypnotic direction, and an off-the-charts great performance from Hardy, it turns out that this is an absolute must-watch.

LOCKE takes place almost entirely inside the car of Ivan Locke - played by Hardy - as he drives down the M6 freeway in England. No other actors appear in the film. But we do hear many of Locke's conversations, conducted over his car's speaker phone. To say too much would be spoiling, but I will say that the plot of LOCKE may not be what you think. Locke isn't driving to save a hostage or stop a bomb from going off. But that's not to say that he doesn't have problems. As we learn over the course of the film, Locke is a good man who's messed up his life. And through an accident of bad timing and bad luck, a mistake that Ivan Locke made in his personal life is about to, potentially, cost him everything.

At first, there's a strange sort of disorientation that happens as the movie starts. We see Hardy as Locke leave his job at a cement farm, enter his car, and drive off into the night. As he drives, he struggles to maintain his composure as he makes desperate phone calls to family and colleagues. What's happening? Who is this guy, and what did he do? Who are the people he's talking to?

Writer/director Steven Knight masterfully unravels the mystery as the movie progresses. But even as we get caught up on Locke's situation, we become increasingly riveted by the question of how events will unfold. We get caught up in the web of Locke's life, and we are made to feel his palpable desperation right alongside him. Credit Knight with never letting the film's single setting limit his direction. He makes Locke's car a claustrophobic vessel that's one part prison and one part mobile command unit. And he imbues the film with a hypnotic sort of rhythm that leaves you hanging on every word, every phone call, every gloriously horrifying instance in which we hear "You Have a Call Waiting" drone over Locke's phone speaker, like some sort of digital car-crash pileup unfolding before us.

Credit also Tom Hardy, for making each moment of the film so captivating. Hardy plays Locke in a theatrical manner - in fact, there's a lot about the film that could lend itself to being a hell of a one-man stage play. But Hardy's acting here - reminding me almost of Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood (with his confident affectation giving way to madness) - is just superlative. Seated and driving for the film's duration, Hardy acts with his voice and with his eyes. And man, does he ever run the gamut of emotions - steely determination, desperation, heartbreak, regret, love. Ivan Locke is a good guy, respected, hyper-competent at his job, and admired by his kids. And we see Hardy, as Locke, try his best to hold on to all of that, even as his world comes crashing down. It's an award-worthy performance.

Hardy's performance, coupled with sleek and mesmerizing visuals and a great score, gives the movie a gripping intensity.  This is a small and personal story, but somehow - despite that and despite the entire film taking place in a guy's car - Knight makes it feel big, theatrical, and in its own way, epic. The movie seems a film designed for our times - an era where communication is omnipresent, but not necessarily in a way that's empowering. Like Ivan Locke, we strive to be in control. But life is fragile, and it doesn't take much to topple our carefully-constructed realities. And so we find ourselves in the in-between, hoping for light at the end of the tunnel. LOCKE is about the moments between moments - about being stuck in traffic on the freeway of life. A great film, highly recommended.

My Grade: A-