Review: Dunkirk (UK Cert 12A)

The evacuation of Allied forces from Dunkirk in 1940 is one of the best known events of the Second World War (and notably one of the few which isn't a battle or a massacre). The Allied forces were cornered on the beaches at Dunkirk, awaiting evacuation, whilst German planes took out rescue convoys heading to help. In amongst all this, civilians who owned small boats sailed across the Channel to aid in the evacuation process. This extraordinary show of determination in the face of danger, and the willingness to help each other out in times of crisis, has even led to a phrase: the Dunkirk spirit.

Now, Christopher Nolan (the Dark Knight trilogy, Interstellar) brings this story to the big screen. It's not the first film to deal with the event- there have been previous films in 1958 and 2004- but this is on a huge scale.  

Three separate storylines run through the film. On land, a young British soldier (Fionn Whitehead) must wait to be evacuated from the beach; at sea, an older man and his son (Mark Rylance and Tom Glynn-Carney) use their small craft to assist in the rescue mission; in the air, two RAF pilots (Tom Hardy and Jack Lowden) seek to stop German planes from destroying the rescue convoy. 

My advice would be, see this in the cinema and see it on the biggest screen you can. You really get a sense of the vastness of the Dunkirk beach (kudos to director of photography Hoyte Van Hoytema for some sterling work) which is just amazing. In the 2007 film Atonement, there's a beautiful eight minute unbroken tracking shot which follows Robbie round the beach. Imagine that but turned up to eleven and you've got the idea.

Performances are really solid across the board. There's been some canny casting with the soldiers- they all look very young. It's also a canny idea to give the lion's share of the action to new (or maybe less experienced) actors; both Fionn Whitehead (as Tommy) and Aneurin Barnard (as Gibson) are exception, especially Barnard whose performance- bar one very important line- is silent. Much was made of this film being Harry Styles' acting debut, and the One Direction singer acquits himself well in his role as a bolshy soldier. 

The more experienced cast are, as you would imagine, superb. Mark Rylance is great as Mr Dawson, a man who takes his own pleasure craft out to help the soldiers. He has such a magnetic quality to him, so much happens behind his eyes but you can't take your eyes off him whenever he's on screen. Kenneth Branagh is strong as the stoic Commander Bolton, determined to get his men to safety. Frequent Nolan collaborators Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy are similarly strong as a traumatised soldier and one of the RAF pilots accordingly, and there's even a lovely uncredited cameo by Michael Caine.  

This is not a film of earnest speechifying; in fact, there's not a great deal of dialogue throughout (the script itself ran to approximately 85 pages). Visuals and sound are used instead. There are some very tense moments, such as Tommy's run through the deserted town before he gets to the beach, and the struggle of one of the pilots to get out of his downed plane (which had me absolutely squirming). The sound design of the film is superb with every whistle, shot, and ricochet clear and crisp. I've already praised Van Hoytema's cinematography and Hans Zimmer's music is superb. He uses themes from Elgar's Enigma Variations (especially the famous 'Nimrod' at one pivotal moment) to stirring effect and- whilst it is unashamed emotional manipulation- you can't help but get swept up in that moment.

Because of the kind of film Dunkirk is, it's difficult to say I enjoyed it (much as in the same way, I can't say I enjoyed Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List). I very much admire the film and I think it's a film that a lot of people should see. It's still quite some months away but I would be surprised if Dunkirk doesn't get a lot of love in the 2018 awards season.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Tez

Review: The Revenant (UK Cert 15)

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's follow-up to the Oscar-winning Birdman puts him squarely back into awards territory with Western thriller drama The Revenant.

It's 1820s America. Frontiersman Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his half-Native American son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) are working on a fur trapping expedition under the command of Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson). When Glass is savagely mauled by a bear, Henry asks for two men to stay behind to tend to him. John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) and Jim Bridger (Will Poulter) stay with him, but Fitzgerald betrays them, killing Hawk and burying the severely injured Glass alive. Glass hauls himself out of the shallow grave and sets on a trek to find the man who betrayed him and killed his son.

The film is 'inspired by true events' and 'based in part' on a book by Michael Punke- the 'in part' bit no doubt being that a) there once lived a fur trapper called Hugh Glass, b) Glass did get mauled by a bear and was left for dead and c) Glass then went to find the men who left him for dead. Everything else- the son, the revenge plot- seems to be completely fabricated. For information on the historical accuracy (or otherwise), this is a good article to start with.

I'll be honest, when I saw the first trailer, I was kinda underwhelmed and thought 'looks alright-ish, might give it a punt if there's nothing else on'. And then the awards praise started coming which sealed the deal. So I sat through it. Whilst I thought it was better than The Hateful Eight (which isn't saying much), it shares a lot of the same problems. Lots of shots that take too long. Script issues. A preponderence of overindulgent extraneous bilge that detracts from what is, at heart, a strong and intriguing narrative which a damn good edit could bring to the fore.

A lot of column inches has been devoted to the relentless masculinity and brutality of the film, being severally described as 'gut-churningly brutal' and 'meaningless pain porn', which led one American critic to ham-fistedly and narrow-mindedly suggest that this was not a film for the ladies. Is it brutal? Yes, in places, but- in my opinion- not relentlessly so (this is no Saw or Hostel). There are several main 'action' sequences- the opening attack, the bear attack, the final fight- which are apt to induce winces as flesh is shredded, fingers are lopped off and skulls are caved in. The bear attack is not massively prolonged but is tough to watch (even though you can tell the bear is CGI). 

There's a lot of metaphor about the strength of trees and breath ('while you breathe, you fight') which is fine but Inarritu overeggs it with constant shots of both- DiCaprio's breath even misting the camera lens at a few points just in case you really haven't got it- and there are constant references back to both. It's heavy-handed and unnecessary. Give your audience some credit. And, whilst we're on the subject of unnecessary, the final shot of DiCaprio giving a thousand-yard stare right into the camera? Give me a break!

Much of the awards hype has been focusing on DiCaprio's performance and the fact that he's likely to finally win his Oscar; he's got the Golden Globe and Critics' Choice awards already. His performance as Glass is decent enough, hardly groundbreaking or revolutionary though. In my opinion, he's given better performances (and even been nominated for an Oscar for those performances; Howard Hughes in The Aviator, for instance). Being completely honest, of the Best Actor nominated performances I've seen so far this year, I was more impressed with the performances of Michael Fassbender and Eddie Redmayne than DiCaprio's. 

I think my main issue is less to do with his performance- which, as I said, is decent- and more to do with the fact that there isn't much of a character to start with (a direct fault of the script). Glass is a good trapper; he loves his son and loved his wife. That's it. There's not much to get behind there. There's also only so much crawling and grunting he can do before it really starts to test your patience. You also have the issue that, no matter what peril Glass is placed in on his trek for vengeance, you know he's not actually in any real danger because the final pay-off has to be a confrontation between Glass and Fitzgerald. So you can have him fall over a waterfall, have to hide from rampaging Native Americans or chuck him off a cliff and have him shelter in the gutted out remains of a horse, he's always going to survive (despite severe and almost life-ending injuries from the bear attack). 

Tom Hardy is Fitzgerald, the primary human antagonist, but confuses wide eyes and a mangled and wandering Texas accent for menace. Plus, he's written so paper thinly as an out-and-out bad guy from the very get-go that there's no nuance, no shade. He's a racist, self-centred bully. You're just waiting for him to strike. Plus he gets to deliver the most trite and platitudinous message at the end: revenge won't bring your son back. Well, no shit, Sherlock. Once again, the script lets the actors down. 

So, what's good? Well, once again, Emmanuel Lubezski's sublime cinematography serves the grandeur of the great outdoors to good effect. The supporting performances by Domhnall Gleeson and Will Poulter are strong, both good men stuck in a bad situation. The opening battle- where the trapper party is attacked by a band of maurauding Native Americans- is slickly handled and well choreographed. 

A script is a blueprint and without a strong blueprint, the house is not fit to stand. Despite some strong performances and arresting visuals, the fundamentally flawed script (lacking in any kind of nuanced characterisation) renders this bland and the overextended, overindulgent run time renders it boring. Despite this, I'm sure that it will be lauded with awards (and, in all seriousness, it should win the Oscar for Best Cinematography) and DiCaprio will almost certainly get his Oscar, thus rendering an entire raft of Internet memes completely obsolete. 

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Tez

Review: Legend (UK Cert 18)

London in the 1960s. The Kray twins are some of the most dangerous gangsters operating in the city. They're mad, bad and dangerous to know- or cross. Legend takes a look at their rise and fall, told through the prism of Reggie's relationship with Frances Shea (Emily Browning) who became his first wife.

The film, written and directed by Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential, Mystic River), starts with the Krays already established as players in London's underworld so neatly sidesteps any origin story issues. It's a decent crime drama, with absorbing performances by Tom Hardy in the dual roles of Ronnie and Reggie.

As Reggie, Hardy is suave, charismatic, persuasive- it's easy to see why Frances falls for him- but he's able to turn on a sixpence. As Ronnie (who starts the film declared insane and in an asylum), he's almost occupying a different plane of reality, but is not less dangerous. Browning is good in a role which could have just easily been a two-dimensional gangster's moll but actually has a bit of substance; Frances tries to get Reggie to go straight but the lure of that life is too much.

Supporting roles are generally strong: Tara Fitzgerald is good as Frances' disapproving mother, whilst Christopher Eccleston is impressive as police officer 'Nipper' Read who tracked the Krays down. John Sessions gets a fruity little cameo as Lord Boothby, a peer whose links to Ronnie gets him into hot water, whilst Kevin McNally is strong as British Prime Minister Harold Wilson whose own administration gets tainted by the scandal. Paul Bettany, Colin Morgan, David Thewlis and Taron Egerton also put in great performances.

As befitting a film about some of the most violent gangsters ever to operate in London, the film earns its 18 certificate with unflinching violence (and copious swearing). It's a blackly funny film as well, with a lot of the humour coming from Ronnie and his slightly skewed view of the world.

The film is well-made but it's not particularly spectacular or powerful. There's an awful lot of 'tell, don't show' through the overuse of Frances' narration which undermines things slightly and there are several liberties taken within the story from what is generally the accepted truth about the Krays which perhaps don't ring as right. All said, decent enough.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Tez

Review: Mad Max: Fury Road (UK Cert 15)

Thirty years after Mel Gibson left the Thunderdome, Mad Max is back on screen, once again directed and written by franchise creator George Miller.

The apocalypse has hit. Max (Tom Hardy) is left in the wilderness and is captured by the War Boys, servants of the warlord Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), and is used as a 'blood-bag' for the weaker War Boy Nux (Nicholas Hoult). Joe rules the wastelands, even controlling the water supply for his embattled subjects. Everything is based on trade and Joe sends a convoy of fuel out to another township. However, the convoy leader Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) has other ideas... with the War Boys in hot pursuit of Furiosa and her contraband cargo, Max is dragged into the chase.

What is essentially a two-hour car chase becomes something so much more thanks to some sumptuous visuals, some brilliant performances and a good dose of downright insanity. 

Furiosa is a brilliant character and played brilliantly by the ever-dependable Theron. She's not a damsel in distress (this is the kind of film where even the damsels in distress are not exactly your typical swooning female ciphers), she is the catalyst for the entire story and she certainly doesn't need Max to help her or save her. If anything, at the start, he's more of a hindrance. It's also refreshing that it doesn't lapse into a romantic relationship either. Furiosa is her own woman, from start to finish. The film has been accused of trying to sneak feminism in by the back door but, frankly, after the paper-thin insults that are the usual popcorn fodder idea of female characters (Michael Bay, I'm looking directly at you) I'm all for it. 

Hardy's performance as Max is decent enough, although his accent wanders something dreadful. Max is a solid, laconic figure, acted upon rather than acting. Hoult gives a great turn as War Boy Nux, desperate for Immortan Joe to notice him and praise him. He also forms a bond with one of Furiosa's associates that is oddly sweet. Keays-Byrne makes for a formidable enemy and it's not his first time at the rodeo- he played the villainouse Toecutter in the original Mad Max. 

The Namibian desert doubles for the apocalyptic wastelands of Australia and the visuals are just stunning. It's definitely worth seeing on the big screen (although not necessarily in 3D) as the desert vistas really have some scale from bleached white sunburnt sands to the cooler bluer shades of night. The convoy heading after Furiosa and her is immense and there's a really inspired (and crazy) decision to have a rig covered in drums with a guitarist- known as the Doof Warrior- to act as a kind of pace-keeper. Not only does it give rise to some of the best visuals in the entire film, it also adds a nice amount of diegetic music as the rig gets closer.

Whilst I enjoyed it a damn sight more than I expected to, I just wonder whether it needed to be a 'Mad Max' film. Max is such a peripheral character, almost a supporting character in his own film. It could have been any dystopic post-apocalyptic setting, put in a generic action hero in place of Max, retained the War Boys and the kick-ass Furiosa and had the same effect. Hell, it could have just been called 'George Miller's Fury Road'.

Despite this, it's a decent slice of entertainment with enough to satisfy the petrolheads as well as those in search of something a bit more substantial.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Tez

Review: Locke (UK Cert 15)

To be honest, this is going to be quite a short review. I think Locke is a film best seen with as little prior knowledge as possible. So, all you need to know going into the film is this: late one evening, construction foreman Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) leaves a building site in Birmingham and starts to drive. Over the course of his journey- and several phone calls- Ivan's life starts to spiral out of control.

Hardy, despite a slightly comedic Welsh accent, gives a decent performance as a fundamentally decent man in a tough situation. He's the only actor on-screen throughout- the film is virtually all set in Ivan's car, making for a claustrophobic setting- and the anguish and frustration is writ large across his face. The camera is never far from his face, threatening to erupt as the emotions come to the surface.

Other decent performances in the film are Andrew Scott as Ivan's flustered colleague Donal (now given the responsibility for the concrete pour as Ivan has taken off) and Ruth Wilson as Ivan's wife Katrina. There's also a lovely and emotional turn by Olivia Colman and these performances are made all the more remarkable for being voice only. 

The film clips along at a decent pace (it's almost real-time, covering the drive from Birmingham to London) and there's an almost Pinteresque quality to the writing, the seemingly banal conversations about football and concrete revealing hidden depths and hidden menace. The reduction of setting to the car and having all other performances as phonecalls could have come off as a gimmick but it works. Writer-director Steven Knight has created a gripping and absorbing drama which is well worth a watch.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Tez

Programme 22 - The Sweeney, Lawless and The Watchers At Home

Programme 22 is here to view!

We review The Sweeney, Lawless and discuss Avengers Assemble and the Indiana Jones saga DVDs in The Watchers At Home

In the news, we take a look at the results at the Toronto International Film Festival, the title of the X-Men: First Class sequel is announced and casting news for Red 2.

Enjoy! 

Programme 18 - Batman Special (including The Dark Knight Rises)

Programme 18 is now available! 


In our Batman Special, we take a retrospective look at the other films in the Batman franchise (going back to the 1940s black-and-white serials right up to the Nolan era, taking in the 1960s, 1980s and 1990s on the way) and finish with a review of the eagerly anticipated The Dark Knight Rises


We also round-up some movie news from this year's Comic-Con.


Podcast versions are available here and here - for our podcast subscribers, there is also an exclusive extended (and very spoiler-y) chat where we discuss The Dark Knight Rises in greater detail


Enjoy!