The Revenant

“Pain is temporary, film is forever.” That quote is from Leonardo DiCaprio in a recent interview. The viewer witnesses in the new film The Revannt just how much DiCaprio apparently believes in this. You could argue that after more than 20 years, he truly wants that Oscar, a prize that has shockingly been denied from him over and over again. DiCaprio earns it here—there's no question about that. In The Revenant, directed by Aalejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, who won three Oscars for Birdman, he plays real-life figure Hugh Glass, who, in 1823, was attached by a bear and left for dead yet crawled back and survived.

This movie is simultaneously a story of survival and a story of revenge. The revenge elements are unfortunately fairly uninspiring. The survival scenes, however, are unlike just about any other you've ever seen. Film critic Patrick Bromley mentioned on his podcast how he sometimes wakes up with neck pain if he sleeps incorrectly on his Swedish mattress. His point was that compared to most people of the mid-19^th century, most of us from the present would be long gone if we had to survive in the wilderness of what was then the Dakota Territory. Everyone back then appeared to be horribly malicious, at least from what occurs in this film, and Glass' colleague John Fitzgerald, who was scalped by Indians and therefore deeply hates Glass partly because of his half-Indian son (Forrest Goodluck), particularly so. Fitzgerald is played by Tom Hardy, who had quite a year, having also appeared in the acclaimed Mad Max: Fury Road. Watching Hardy throughout his career, I usually am annoyed by his accents, regardless of what it is; whatever role he plays, it tends to require subtitles. Here, however, he's quite good. It's an intimidating performance; with one single, slow turn of his head, he says more than he needs to throughout the rest of the film.


I'm a product of American culture and history, so I know next to nothing about the American Indian tribes depicted here. I can't say how accurate its depictions are, but the days of Anthony Quinn are long gone; there are American Indians cast here, like Melaw Nakehk'o as a young Arikara woman captured by French fur trappers, and Arthur Redcloud as a Pawnee man who assists Glass in his journey home. The other actors are pretty good, too. Domhnall Gleeson (who may be the actor of the year, having also starred in Star Wars--The Force Awakens, Ex Machina, and Brooklyn) is the captain of the party. Will Poulter is also here as a young member of the trappers. who is conflicted about his complacency in what the crew (particularly Fitzgerald) has done to Glass.

 
But DiCaprio is the one everyone is talking about. DiCaprio, it should be noted, does overdo it in a scene or two, but find me a movie in which he doesn't. He almost never relies on his voice for this performance; it's like something from a silent film. Having serious damage to his larynx from the bear attack, he's mostly left to communicate in a tactile manner. This helps DiCaprio, because accents are not his thing. Watch Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed, and Blood Diamond and tell me those are good accents.

Inarritu is not my favorite director, but this is eons better than Birdman. He has taken his cast and crew into the deep, dangerous (and cold) wilderness of the U.S. and Canada to film some absolutely gorgeous locations. There hasn't really been a movie like this in a while, and not since The Grey in 2012 has there been a shoot that has looked so painful. Indeed, the production has come under criticism for the dangerous filming, with one member calling it a "living hell." That being said, Glass escapes death so many times that it's hard not to role one's eyes. He's clinging to death when I think most of us (well, at least me) would easily give up, but why doesn't he? Revenge. When we are pricked, do we not bleed? And when we're left for dead after a bear nearly kills us, do we not really, really want to hurt the jerks who left us?

Read More →

Mad Max: Fury Road

1979 seemed like such a peaceful time. In that universe, Australia didn't seem so hot and sandy, and Max wasn't all that mad. Things have changed so much. In the fourth installment of the "Mad Max" franchise, "Fury Road," Max is indeed very mad, and things are very chaotic. George Miller returns Mad Max to the screen after a thirty-year hiatus. Miller had quite the challenge in revitalizing his famous character: 9/11, Mel Gibson's controversies, and the death of Heath Ledger all stalled the release of a fourth "Mad Max" film. I have to tip my hat to Miller. I was completely bored by his first "Mad Max" film, released in 1979. I'm willing to acknowledge its importance and influence, especially in the action/sci-fi genre, but that doesn't erase my boredom from it. I didn't think that the sequel, "The Road Warrior," was much better. I did, though, enjoy the third film, "Beyond Thunderdome," which I feel is about tied with "Fury Road." These two are good but not great films, in my mind.

The two most recent films in the saga are vastly different. "Beyond Thunderdome" has a fairy tale-like feel, as if Max is the leader of the Lost Boys (and girls). Here in "Fury Road," Max is haunted by illusions of dead people, including children, who believe he could have saved them but failed. Max is a haunted man, and at the beginning of the film he is kidnapped by henchmen to be used as a blood donor for road warriors. The leader of the citadel where Max is taken to is a frightening figure named Immortan Joe. Joe is a complete despot, and he sends his band out to fetch some oil. The team is led by a one-armed lady named Furiosa (played by Charlize Theron), but things go awry when she takes a detour. Joe discovers that Furiosa has taken his five beautiful young wives, one of whom is pregnant with his child, in an attempt to escape to a land of (literally) greener pastures. From here, the movie is a non-stop chase scene, featuring some of the most impressive stunts and visual effects in recent memory. The only problem is that Miller and his team once and a while show little subtlety when more is needed. One scene in particular takes place in a sandstorm and is completely unnecessary; brace yourself for a massive headache. But still, Miller and his team have done a good job with their loaded budget. I firmly believe that there should be a category for stunts at the Academy Awards, and if there were one, "Fury Road" would certainly be nominated and probably would win. The stunt coordinator, Guy Norris, apparently commanded over 150 stunt performers. As for the visual effects, Miller has claimed that 90 percent of the effects were practical ones. Compare that to the dreadful "Avengers: Age of Ultron," in which the performances prance around in front of a green screen while fighting an enemy who's not really there.

In "Fury Road," however, the villain makes quite a show. Hugh Keays-Byrne appeared in the original "Mad Max" as the antagonist. He does here, too, but in a much more frightening performance. His role in the first film was pretty minimalist, and his most recognizable feature probably remains that giant blond maim. Here, he plays a different character, Immortan Joe, and the role is unlike virtually any previous villain we've ever seen. He's pasty white with darkness completely surrounding his eyes; he apparently needs some kind of breathing machine, which is decorated with the teeth of a demonic skull. He has complete control over the people, and showers them only briefly with water for them to fight over. Keays-Byrne does a fine job portraying this tyrant. Nicholas Hoult is one of Joe's warriors who is so much a believer of Joe's propaganda that he's willing to die and ascend to Valhalla. If you know your Norse mythology or at least watch "Vikings," you'll know that the warriors of Scandinavia believed that the toughest and most righteous fighters gained access to Valhalla. Hoult's character, Nux, really wants to die in a glorious battle, but he becomes disillusioned with it all. Hoult is pretty good here, intense and fiery, almost humorously so, and has again demonstrated his ability to play almost any kind of character. It's so radically different from his performances in "About a Boy," "A Single Man," "Warm Bodies," and the "X-Men" movies that he's becoming a young Lon Chaney.

As for the other actors, I was less impressed. The performance of Hardy as Max is something that I had mixed feelings about. By now, Max is so destroyed that I imagine his suffering inspired Hardy to grunt and talk in a manner that likely was frying his vocal chords and probably left his larynx in a lot of pain by the end of the day. Hardy's choices have also revealed a wish to do just about anything, whether it's playing a villain (in "The Dark Knight Rises") or doing essentially a one-man show ("Locke") or appearing in grittier films ("Lawless" and "Warrior"). But it seems it's always his vocal decisions that turn me off of his acting. Similarly, Furiosa is an interesting character, but Theron gives a pretty uninspired performance. But again, it's Mr. Miller and his production team who deserve a lot of credit for helping to tame the love affair the movies have had with CGI. That being said, this doesn't mean that I really think there should be another "Mad Max" movie. 1979-2015 is a pretty long run. Leave Max be.

Read More →