Review: Midsommar (UK Cert 18)

Ari Aster's second film (after the gutwrenching Hereditary) ventures into Wicker Man territory with a nasty but guiltily pleasurable folk horror. 

Dani (Florence Pugh) and Christian's (Jack Reynor) relationship is foundering, but- just as Christian gets the nerve to end it- Dani suffers a horrific family tragedy. Lost and grieving, Dani goes with Christian and two of his friends- Josh (William Jackson Harper) and Mark (Will Poulter)- to Sweden, along with their friend Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) for his home village's once-in-a-lifetime midsummer festival. But what should be a summer of fun soon descends into a nightmare as the festivities reveal a darker motive...

This isn't a traditional horror movie. There are several shocking moments of gore and intense violence, but if you're looking for a more jump-scary film, this might not be for you. The film is also slow, deliberate, and takes a long time to get going (which sounds like a criticism, but it isn't). We spend a long time with the characters before they get transplanted into Sweden, which is good- it establishes the characters effectively so, when they do get to Pelle's village and things really start to kick off, the audience has got a sense of who they are and- more crucially- what they may do. 

Florence Pugh's performance is visceral, authentic, and intense. She bears the emotional heavy lifting of the piece, if you will, and is utterly compelling. As tragedy piles on tragedy, she is undoubtedly the one character you're meant to root for and her emotional arc (whilst somewhat predictable) is still satisfying. By the utterly batshit bonkers finale (which again, sounds like a criticism but isn't), Dani isn't the same girl who entered the village at the start and you can't help but have a little twinge of pleasure seeing her change. I believe the word I'm looking for is schadenfreude...

Christian could easily have just come across as an unfeeling douchebag, so it's to Reynor's credit that the character isn't just an absolute tool (which could easily have been the case). True, he's emotionally distant and there are times you wonder how the hell this relationship ever got as far as it did (it's telling that there's no scenes of intimacy between the two; not even a kiss). But in a hamfisted and desultory way, he's trying to be there for Dani. It's just not enough. Again, there's a perverse kind of pleasure seeing what happens to Christian: even if it does involve one of the most bizarre and- frankly- unerotic sex scenes I've seen in a while.

Will Poulter plays Mark as an abrasive asshole who totally disrespects the village, and does it well; such is the performance that you're just waiting for Mark to get his comeuppance (which, of course, does come). If you're used to seeing William Jackson Harper as the nervy Chidi in the frankly brilliant The Good Place, you'll see a different side to him here: Josh is much more laidback, although even he can't resist crossing some lines (for which he duly pays the price). Blomgren's nice-guy Pelle is a lovely contrast to the Americans and never comes off as creepy or deranged. He also seems to genuinely care for Dani, although there's never a hint of impropriety. Whilst the outsiders see barbarity in the festival, he sees it as natural, what they do. There's also some strong performances by Henrik Norlén and Gunnel Fred as village elders Ulf and Siv, who lead the festivities. 

The cinematography by Pawel Pogorzelski is sublime. The village and its environs look beautiful and it's interesting to have events that (in traditional horror) would take place in dark places out in the bright sunshine. The script also does something that I like; when the villagers are speaking Swedish to one another, it's not subtitled. We, like the outside characters, are left to intuit what's being said. 

I think I've said more than once on the blog that The Wicker Man (1973) is one of my favourite films, and there's a definite vibe of that film in Midsommar. Outsiders to an otherwise insular community who have their own ways of doing things which seem unusual to those not from there, charismatic leaders, seductive maidens, and a striking ending where things go up in flames... but Midsommar has a style of its own and isn't just a pale rip-off of a superior film. Yes, there are moments where the plot gets predictable but that doesn't really matter as the performances carry those moments. 

A cerebral and visceral horror film, perfect for Halloween. 

Rating: 4 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