The Revenant Review

Leonardo DiCaprio is a phenomenal actor who puts forth extraordinary effort in his acting and ends up delivering a particularly high-quality performance. It's no secret he's striving for an Oscar award, and remarkable as many of his performances have been, he has yet to earn that particular award. In his latest film, The Revenant (2015), the whole movie is anchored in DiCaprio's 200% commitment to his performance. It's a good movie with a stellar cast, but not something that's going to stick with you very long afterwards.

While exploring the uncharted wilderness in 1823, legendary frontiersman Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) sustains injuries from a brutal bear attack. When his hunting team leaves him for dead, Glass must utilize his survival skills to find a way back home, guided by sheer will and the love of his family. Grief-stricken and fueled by vengeance, Glass treks through the wintry terrain to track down John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), the former confidant who betrayed and abandoned him.

For a movie set in the uncharted American frontier, there were a number of British and Irish actors portraying American characters. Tom Hardy, Will Poulter, and Domhnall Gleeson all played prominent roles in The Revenant with remarkably spot on accents. Of these three actors, I thought Tom Hardy was most impressive. I didn't even realize it was Tom Hardy until the end credits started rolling. He has this thick accent that I can only describe as being "southern," nebulous as that term might be to describe an accent. He also had a thick mop of hair and a scraggly beard hiding most of his face. His acting and makeup was so well done that I did not realize it was Tom Hardy at all. Domhnall Gleeson is becoming a favorite of mine. He's known for playing Bill Weasley in the Harry Potter movies, Phil in Unbroken, and recently General Hux in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. He's a solid a actor who delivers great performances. Will Poulter has appeared in The Maze Runner and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. He's still fairly new to the big screen, but does a fine job here juxtaposed with some big name talents.

Leonardo DiCaprio's skill and passion for acting is very much evident here. He depicts intense emotions as he portrays Hugh Glass enduring trial after trial and struggling to keep alive in a harsh, unforgiving frozen wilderness. He's grief-stricken and fueled by vengeance, and it shows in every little thing Glass does, from begging a Native American he encounters for some food to stave off starvation, to rescuing a girl from being raped by frontiersmen. DiCaprio imbues his character with an intensity that is simply remarkable to watch.

Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu takes DiCaprio's performance and makes it even better with some truly magnificent camera work. This is the first Iñárritu film I've  ever seen, and his mastery of capturing beautiful imagery is beyond compare. Even with some of the grotesque scenes, it still looks beautifully done. The Revenant captures some truly gorgeous shots of the wilderness, forests, and frozen tundra. The way shots were set up was very artistic without a sense of self-importance. There weren't many shots that didn't look like a work of art. The Revenant was a beautiful movie to watch.

Having said all that, it took me a while to determine if I actually liked it. The story within the movie was pretty simple. There's a set up which was interesting, a remarkably long middle full of Hugh Glass trying to not die, and a conclusion that wasn't very straightforward. I daresay The Revenant could have been much shorter and still achieved the story it set out to tell. There were many moments where Glass was simply walking or staring off wistfully into the distance. Yes, these moments looked good, but made the movie drag significantly in terms of story. I don't want to say it was slow moving, because there was so much to visually take in. But the story progressed at a snail's pace at times, even if it was beautiful to watch. It wasn't until well after the movie ended that it occurred to me that The Revenant was more about the experience than the narrative. It was about the experience Hugh Glass had trying to survive after being mauled by a bear and left for dead, not the story of how he survived. It's also about our experience of witnessing this beautifully constructed film, not the film telling us a deep or meaningful story. It's likely the movie won't appeal to some audiences because of how drawn out the story ends up being, but that by no means is to suggest that it is a poor movie.

The Revenant is a starkly beautiful as it is uncompromisingly harsh. There is a phenomenal cast delivering well made characters, and a highly skilled director showing us some remarkably beautiful scenery and capturing it in the most visually stunning way. The story here is not the point, and is in fact a very simple story. The Revenant is about the experience, not the story. I do think that The Revenant is worth seeing if you are not too put off by the violent and occasionally gory images and the aforementioned sexual assault that give it its R rating. There is a chance you may find it too "artistic" if you value story over visual delivery. I'm glad I saw it, but it's not something I'd go out of my way to see a second time.

Is there a role that you think Leonardo DiCaprio deserved an Oscar for? Comment below and tell me about it!

Inception Movie Review

There is an adage called Sturgeon's Law which states that, "ninety percent of everything is crap." This is how we end up with awful movies. There is that glorious ten percent that is something completely unique, original, and stands above the rest. These movies are few and far between and they blow your mind. Inception (2010) is an example of this from within the last five years.

Dominick Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the science of "extraction" - inserting oneself into a subject's dreams to obtain hidden information without the subject knowing. Cobb has given up being the dream architect for reasons he won't disclose. Cobb's primary associate, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), believes it has something to do with Cobb's deceased wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who often figures prominently and violently in those dreams. Cobb's work is generally in corporate espionage and since the subjects don't want the information to get into the wrong hands, the clients have zero tolerance for failure. Cobb is also a wanted man as some of his past subjects have learned what Cobb has done to them. One of these subjects, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe), offers Cobb a job he can't refuse; to take the concept one step further into "inception." Planting thoughts into the subject's dream without them knowing. Inception can fundamentally alter that person as a being. Saito's target is Robert Michael Fischer (Cillian Murphy), the heir to an energy business empire, which has the potential to rule the world if continued on the current trajectory. Beyond the complex logistics of the dream architecture of the case and some unknowns concerning Fischer himself, the biggest obstacles in success for the team is worrying about one aspect of inception which Cobb fails to disclose to the other team members prior to the job. Additionally, Cobb's new associate Ariadne (Ellen Page) believes that Cobb's own subconscious, especially as it relates to Mal, may be taking over what happens in the dream.

Inception is pretty much a perfect movie for my preferences. Let's make an amazing action movie, that is also very cerebral and forces you to think. It should be written and directed by Christopher Nolan who also wrote and directed Memento and The Dark Knight trilogy. It should keep viewers on the edge of their seat, and keep them engaged with every little plot twist. We should use some outstanding actors like Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, Ellen Page, and Michael Caine. It must have state-of-the-art mind blowing special effects, as well as some inconceivable practical effects. It also needs an amazing score by Hans Zimmer since he's among the best in the industry. It should be specific enough to follow and understand the unique setting, yet abstract enough to prompt discussion and personal interpretation. Boom! Inception.

While there are few people I know who did not enjoy Inception, I occasionally hear complaints about how it was confusing, or that Nolan has mistaken needless complexity for good writing. I don't agree with this at all. I loved Inception right from the first time I saw it in theaters, but it took at least two more viewings before I pieced it all together in my mind. Even then, I still argue and discuss the cryptic way the movie ends and what it means with other fans of the movie. Even Nolan himself has said he's read some very off-the-wall interpretation. It's not so much confusing as it is detailed; it's much more complicated than your average movie and forces you to think about what you're seeing. It is confusing if you only watch it once and take it at face value, but Inception is much more complicated than that. There is just a whole lot to take in, and it's not likely you'll take in all of it with one viewing. I can think of few examples of movies that are so specific in story development and yet still so open to interpretation. That is a strong indication of high quality art.

Inception is an excellent piece of writing. Since there is so many rules unique to this world setting, there is a whole lot of exposition required to explain everything. Inception has this continuous exposition explaining how things work almost right up to the end. Yet it's interwoven into the action so remarkably well that we are never bored by the dialogue. We get just enough of an understanding to carry us over into the next scene. The dialogue is detailed and intelligently written, the pacing is fast but even, and the intricate story unfolds in such a way to keep us engaged and interested the whole time.

Inception is simply incredible. It has a stellar cast, an amazing story, astonishing special effects, and an incredible writer and director. Nolan has cemented himself among the great filmmakers of our time, not only with Inception but with most of his other works as well. Like any movie, Inception has it's weak points, but it's mostly miniscule nit-picky things; I don't think cognitive psychology was consulted much in the development of this film, for example. That's unimportant since the particular rules of this unique world setting are so meticulously explained to us. There is a lot to like about Inception and Nolan keeps his eye on the ball throughout, offering up a lush treat of a thriller with nerve and wit. The Inception Blu-Ray is already sitting on my shelf next to other favorites of mine. I highly recommend this movie; it's worth owning and seeing multiple times. It only becomes more interesting when you know the end from the beginning.

What is your favorite Christopher Nolan movie? Comment below and tell me why!

The Great Gatsby Movie Review

Hollywood is notorious for making movies based on classic and bestselling novels and jazzing them up and twisting them around to appeal to audiences. The Great Gatsby (2013) looks pretty flashy for a movie based on a character driven story which a lot of people dreaded reading in high school. That aspect alone made me leery, but I was enticed by the visuals in the trailer so I saw it anyway.

In the spring of 1922, an era of loosening morals, glittering jazz, bootleg kings, and sky-rocketing stocks, would-be writer Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) leaves his Midwest town and moves to New York City. Chasing his own American Dream, Nick lands next door to a mysterious, party-giving millionaire, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Within eyesight across the bay lives Nick's cousin, Daisy (Carey Mulligan), and her unfaithful, blue-blooded husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). It is thus that Nick is drawn into the captivating world of the super rich, their illusions, loves, and deceits. As Nick bears witness, within and without the world he inhabits, he pens a tale of impossible love, incorruptible dreams, and high-octane tragedy.

The Great Gatsby is a character driven story. There's a lot of scenes that are dialogue driven, and they are well written. The script really is great and the dialogue for each character seems believable, sounds contemporary to the time period, and moves the story forward. These dialogue driven scenes are set against some phenomenal sets and costumes. It's not necessarily distracting, but it seems odd to have such rich visual detail in scenes that do little more than have characters talk with one another. Similar to my odd complaint about Funny Girl, the sets were huge, elaborate, and detailed, even if they were mostly digital. There are tons of sweeping camera shots and wide angles that capture a lot of background motion and detail. It seems gratuitous and "visually loud." I'm not sure how else to describe it. It looks amazing, no doubt about it, yet superfluous.

Look at this guy! How can you not love this guy?

Leonardo DiCaprio was an excellent choice for Jay Gatsby. Gatsby is supposed to be a likable character and I can't think of a role I've seen DiCaprio in where you didn't want to root for him. Nick describes Gatsby this way: "He had one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced, or seemed to face, the whole external world for an instant and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor. It understood you just as far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself." When we see Gatsby for the first time he gushes with charm and likeableness. DiCaprio plays to that character description astoundingly well. Also, he say "old sport" perfectly. Most everyone else's acting seemed overly dramatic and even silly at times. These are good actors, so I blame the director, Baz Luhrmann, for making them act that way.

I would have liked to hear music that was more in times with the 1920's. 20's swing and jazz music captivated the feel of the era. Instead, the music that was used was something called "Electro Swing." It combines old big band swing style music with some techno sounds and beats using synthesizers and electronic drum machines. I've only recently started hearing this niche music genre, and some of it isn't half bad. Unfortunately several of the specific songs used in Gatsby are half bad. I understand wanting to use a sound track that is both marketable to teenage movie goers and wanting to use music from the time period. Electro Swing is a logical choice. But the modern rap vocals used in several songs seem so painfully out of place for a movie set in the 20's that it made me wish they had simply stuck with actual 1920's music.

It's no secret that Hollywood butchers literature in the interest of ticket sales. The end result is a movie with the title of a good piece of literature which, more often than not, has little to do with said good literature. Once in a while we're thrown a curveball and we get a movie that actually holds true to the book it's based on. I have not read The Great Gatsby, but from what I understand, the movie manages to get the books' symbolism and themes across very well. It acts as a cautionary tale about the decadent downside of the American dream. There are themes of aspiring to start over again, social politics and the brutality and betrayal that comes with it, the perception of our own ideals and of those of other people. It comments on the excess of the rich, the recklessness of youth, and materialism and worldliness. With these themes well incorporated, The Great Gatsby does a splendid job of causing us to reflect on our own modern times and struggles.

The Great Gatsby was a good movie. The visuals were incredible, even if they were excessive. DiCaprio was excellent, as usual, and outshines the rest of the cast. The music could have been better if other songs within the same sub-genre had been used. The themes were beautifully incorporated, and should cause us to reflect upon our modern society. I saw The Great Gatsby in 2D, but there were several scenes that made me stop and think, "You know, that would probably look really cool in 3D." I'm glad I saw The Great Gatsby, but I didn't really enjoy it enough to want to own a copy. It's worth catching in theaters, possibly in 3D. Even if you don't catch it in theaters, it's worth the price to rent.

What's a classic piece of literature you would love to see made into a good quality movie? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Gangs of New York Movie Review

Historical films can be really interesting when they show you an obscure bit of history that typically isn’t covered in the usual history class. These films are especially interesting when the historical events are still affecting modern society. Gangs of New York (2002) showed us how gang warfare was prevalent even in mid-1800 and how even in those days Americans were leery and unwelcoming of immigrants.

In 1846, as waves of Irish immigrants poured into the New York neighborhood of Five Points, a number of citizens of British and Dutch heritage who were born in the United States began making an open display of their resentment toward the new arrivals. William Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), better known as “Bill the Butcher” for his deadly skill with a knife, bands his fellow “Native Americans” into a gang to take on the Irish immigrants. The immigrants in turn form a gang of their own, “The Dead Rabbits,” organized by Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson). After an especially bloody clash between the Natives and the Rabbits which leaves Vallon dead, his son goes missing; the boy ends up in a brutal reform school before returning to the Five Points in 1862 by the name Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio). Now a strapping adult who has learned how to fight, Amsterdam has come to seek vengeance against Bill the Butcher, whose underworld control of the Five Points through violence and intimidation has merged with the open corruption of New York politician William “Boss” Tweed (Jim Broadbent). Amsterdam gradually penetrates Bill the Butcher’s inner circle, and soon becomes his trusted assistant. Amsterdam also finds himself falling for Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful street-smart thief who was once involved with Bill. Amsterdam learns a great deal from Bill, but before he can turn the tables on the man who killed his father, his true identity is exposed even though he has concealed it from nearly everyone, including Jenny. With more Irish immigrants pouring in by the day, Amsterdam soon has an army to overthrow the rival gang. Before long, an all out turf war breaks out in all areas of New York City.

Honestly, I didn’t realize that gangs and street warfare were around in the mid-1800’s. I guess I (and presumably others) have this idea of relatively quaint and peaceful times until the Civil War broke out. That’s probably because history classes talk about politics and wars and less about social issues, culture, and other interesting things. No wonder these true events tend to fall through the cracks in our history books.

Gangs of New York is an interesting crime drama. Usually crime dramas are reserved for gangsters of the prohibition era of the 1920’s or modern underworld dealings. The fact that Gangs of New York challenges our notion of a crime drama makes it all the more interesting. It still has all the basic components that a crime story would have; gangs fighting, backstabbing one another, gaining power through intimidation and murder, and loose women as part of their spoils after victory. It will still remind you of modern underworld dealings that you see in contemporary movies or even in the news.

As a film, I wasn’t all that impressed with it. The movie makes some great political statements and commentary on the culture of its day that is still applicable to our day, such as how we treat immigrants. We might welcome them to our country but only give them the worst that our country has to offer; Irish immigrants were promised citizenship on the condition that they sign up to fight in the Civil War on the front lines.

One of the better parts of Gangs of New York was the colorful characters, which included a hired club named Monk (Brendan Gleeson) and a shopkeeper named Happy Jack (John C. Reilly). But easily the best character was Bill the Butcher, one of the best villains in modern film. He has strangely elaborate diction, a choked accent, and a tendency to combine ruthlessness with philosophy. He is disturbing with this uncanny use of blades and meat cleavers. While the cast was impressive, Daniel Day-Lewis really stole the show and made the movie worth seeing.

Gangs of New York is not one of Martin Scorsese’s greatest films, but even so it’s a good movie. There are a couple of scenes that are truly impressive and the tension is palpable. There’s amazing camera work with long moving camera shots. The sets and costumes are amazingly convincing. The movie seems longer than what I thought was necessary; there were a few times I was starting to get bored, but you will not be disappointed if you stick with the film. I recommend seeing it, but I personally wasn’t so taken with the movie as to go out and get my own copy to watch again and again. It’s an above average renter that I think should be watched at least once.

Is there an obscure bit of history that you would love to see made into a movie? I think a movie about the story of Alan Turing would be fascinating, but tragic. Comment below and tell me what kind of obscure historical event or figure you'd like to see a movie made about.