NOT SO MUCH A "LEGEND" AS A CHANCE MISSED...

I approached this film about the infamous Kray twins with a lot of caution. Reviews about it has been mixed at best. Still I entered the film armed with a love of gangster movies and a deep appreciation of Tom Hardy’s acting talent. It cannot be that bad, I thought, probably a bit too violent or something. I love true stories – and it doesn’t come much gorier than the Krays – so all in all it should be a good watch. It very soon turned out that Tom Hardys acting was literally the only thing that was going to get me through to the end of the film. I have been flipping through some reviews of the film and it turns out that I (along with the film as it turns out) suffer a great deal from lack of knowledge of the Kray story. Well it just goes to show doesn’t it, if you don’t have a really good story, all the rest of the talent involved can only get the film so far…

Basically the film tells the story of notorious London gangsters and identical twins Ronnie and Reggie Kray. Told from the perspective of Frances, the wife of Reggie, the story charts the rise to power of the twins and their ultimate fall from it – the latter due in no small part to Ronnie Krays mental health issues…

Now, like I said I only know bits and pieces about the Kray story. But I do have a sense of why people would say that. Because watching the film, from a completely outside perspective as it were, I could feel bits and pieces missing although I did not know what they were. I mean, to put it in a nutshell, the film does give some small detail of the twins dealings with other gangs, their ownership of various nightclubs and casinos and hints at dealings with the police but in all honesty it shows absolutely and categorically nothing that would warrant them being accuse of having a criminal empire. I mean wheeler dealers yes. Not an empire though. Don’t get me wrong, when the time comes the film doesn’t shirk from showing violence. In fact the violence contains, in my humble opinion, some of the best bits of the film (I am the type of girl who a day later is still smiling at the line – I have a joke for you. Paranoid schizophrenic walks into a pub…- ).  Instead, the film centralizes by and large on (what else) the relationship between Reggie and Frances with Ronnie as something cross between comic relief and the impending doom that will ultimately be the undoing of them all (ultimately he is both). Again, this is a sensible choice in a way – Reggie was the more charismatic twin who was better at… Well better at being alive to be honest. But he wasn’t exactly boy scout of the year either. It enhances his struggle with his increasingly unhinged brother to have a positive light shone on him through the eyes of Frances. It harks back to that age old story of the gangster, trying to be good but ultimately being unable to avoid his past. Which would be all very well and good if we had a clearer, more grim and dire picture of what this evil empire the twins lived in was all about. Cue the complaints about how unfaithful to actual events the film is. I can sense what they left out. A couple of hinted talks with American mafia bosses and a few drunken brawls really don’t cut it.

And if the real Kray twins are left underdeveloped by the script, poor Frances definitely is. She is slightly reduced as your typical Mol. Your typical East End girl. There is clearly more to her than that, which is evident by how her story ends, but the film doesn’t do a very good job into going into detail about her. She mainly seems to exist to cast the positive light of love onto Reggie Kray. Now Reggie Kray is also, to be fair, a bit of an offshoot of a certain type – or at least in this film he is portrayed as such. He is the lovable rogue with street smarts and a flair for business. Every other British gangster film has one of them in it. The difference here of course is that Tom Hardy plays him perfectly, to an absolute T. What every other British gangster film doesn’t have, it needs to be said, is Ronnie Kray. Ronnie Kray is a paranoid schizophrenic who is left at the head of the family business when Reggie has to go into jail to serve out the tail end of a sentence. Already both eccentric and highly suspicious (all this despite medication, which he takes sporadically) I will leave you to discover how Ronnie unravels and how he brings the downfall of most if not all around him. Hardy portrays both twins with fluidity and conviction, so much so that you positively cringe at Ronnie’s antics for Reggie’s sake, completely forgetting that they are in actual fact the same person. Boy is this film a showcase of acting talent!

Violence is a strange one isn’t it… I honestly think at the end of the day it’s about striking a balance. I mean if you check out my review of The Revenant on Film Debate, you will find me complaining there was far too much violence. Now I have sort of ended up saying there is not enough. I think the problem here is that the story is in fact a well-known story of two very violent gangsters. They are almost part of the fabric of London. Turning their story into one they could have been cut out of and replaced with any gangster type from any British gangster film anywhere really, really takes something essential and important away from the films potential. We are left to the talent of Hardy, who uses these two characters a lot better in delivering the lines given to him and giving us a hint of what the film could have been… 

A STUDY OF OBSESSION AND MADNESS... FOXCATCHER...

Oh boy, I have been wanting to catch up with this bad boy for a while. This got chins wagging back in the Oscar season, remember… First it was Steve Carells unbelievable performance as the archetypal (real life ) crazy millionaire John Du Pont. Carell, by and large known for his comic performances shot right to the top of the Oscar nominations list with his performance, and incidentally with his make-up. Or rather his make-up shot to the top of nominations without him, it is after all a different category. Then there was the whole scandal about Channing Tatum getting snubbed in the best supporting actor category. You know shit just got awkward when even Mark Ruffalo who got nominated instead of him openly says Tatum has been snubbed. And then, then there was the whole matter with the real life Mark Schultz who withdrew his support from the film shortly after its release. Having seen the film he was warned that the film could potentially portray him as gay and strongly opposed to any such thing being the case. Though to be honest everyone also noticed that Schultz was rather opportunely pointing towards his own interviews and books he had contributed to as an alternative source… Mmm… Anyway, you will recall it definitely made its own fair share of ripples, not least because it actually is – that old favorite of mine – a true story.  A story of madness and murder – a favorite of the general public too now you mention it! Oh and yeah, there is the odd bit of wrestling thrown in…

David and Mark Schultz are a brother team of great renown in the wrestling world. Both are Olympic gold medal winners but David (Mark Ruffalo) is generally seen as the superior talent and definitely a much better coach and trainer than Mark (Channing Tatum) who is more hot-headed and definitely full of resentment at not being able to escape his brothers shadow. It is for this reason that when, seemingly quite out of the blue, he is approached by eccentric millionaire John du pont (Steve Carell) he sees in his proposition an opportunity to finally strike out on his own and succeed. The stakes are high- du pont wants to be the coach of the American wrestling team that is sent to the 1988 Olympic games. He wants David to be a part of it and to help coach the team. He will spare absolutely no expense in doing so. For David, living alone in a tiny flat and living off the American equivalent of pot noodles, it’s a whole new world… But it is also the beginning of a relationship tinged with drug abuse, obsession and ambition that will prove extremely destructive in more ways than one…

First of all, let us get the most obvious bit out of the way. The wrestling. I cannot stress enough that this is not a sports film. The wrestling is, in fact, almost incidental – although goodness knows du pont himself would be very displeased with that. This is a very insightful and fascinating look at obsession and how it pushes people to react. Carell must have jumped for joy as an actor when he got the part of Du pont – what a character! Basically a real life Norman Bates (only with added millions of dollars and gigantic estate), Du pont – well into middle age – is ruled by his mother Jean (played rather superbly by Vanessa Redgrave) and deep down wants nothing more than to rebel against her. In his quest, he has come up with a sport she would definitely disapprove of, and that would set him apart from her (she breeds prize racehorses) and becomes completely obsessed with becoming the best in the world at it – so he is not only rebelling but in fact overshadowing her as he does it… And he has the resources that enable him to not stop at anything to achieve this goal…

Then of course there is the whole dynamic between Mark and David, the eternal story of sibling rivalry. Both actors do a superb job of their parts. And I really don’t care how much stick you give Tatum about the Magic Mike franchise – the man can act. And boy can he move. I am not just talking about how good looking he is (and let’s face it ladies and gents he is DAMN good looking) he just has a talent of moving fluidly and looking damn good while he does it. The one piece of criticism I will put across however is that the character of David is a little too perfect. He seems to be the archetypal benign older brother, perfect coach and father. I mean, I never knew the guy, maybe he actually was like that. But I have a nasty suspicion that there is some level of whitewashing – so to speak – going on in the light of, not to give out too many spoilers, what happens next…

Foxcatcher sustains a very robust level of tension throughout. It had me on the edge of my seat throughout and the successful way it sustained the psychological tension between this extraordinary and larger than life characters was a large part of it. It is a wonderful study of the human  mind set against one of the most competitive strands of an already competitive industry (professional sport). I personally found it both hair-raising and thought provoking. And I promise you, you will, at the very least, get what all the fuss is about…  

A STORY OF SAVAGE GRACE CUT SHORT...

Regular readers of this blog will have noticed at some point that I do a lot of viewing on BBC Iplayer. I would strongly recommend it to the uninitiated; it is often brimming with interesting if rather under advertised propositions. I only clicked on Savage Grace because I thought I recognized Julianne Moore in the thumbnail and only then realized what a relevant film it was to this Oscar season as it co-stars this seasons other favorite, Eddie Redmayne. Savage Grace is a disturbing true story and a true acting masterclass by the two stars. And with controversial director Tom Kalin (of Swoon fame) at the helm, we would not be wrong to expect big things from this one. Which is why I was profoundly disappointed when it ended up not quite coming together in the end…

This is the story of the American actress and socialite Barbara Daly Bakeland (Julianne Moore) and her murder at the hands of her son Anthony ( Eddie Redmayne). Barbara is the epitome of the histrionic actress, driving her husband away relatively early in the marriage and being left to raise their son Anthony alone, with the help of various family friends and relatives. Barbara being obsessed with getting her old position with society back, Anthony is pretty much left to his own devices to experiment and find his own way in life. And his mother’s reaction to these experiments is, shall we say, not exactly conventional… Thus swimming through a strange, fluid atmosphere quite devoid of boundaries, the pair arrives at the ultimate tragedy that will end Barbara’s life.

The film has one heck of a lot of potential. But what looks like has happened is that Kalin has tried to take a formula that worked incredibly well for him in the early nineties with Swoon – namely a murder with sexual motivations laced with madness and a strange sort of folie a deux and re-adapt it. The problem is, while this works well for Swoon, it falls strangely flat for Savage Grace. The acting was superb and the direction very atmospheric if in places a little old fashioned but throughout, I felt as if there was something missing. The last half-hour or so came together a lot better, with Anthony finally making it quite clear that the – something is not quite right – feeling we had been harboring for a while now was bona fide insanity and having a magnificent breakdown on screen. In fact I finished the film wishing that there had been more of the last half hour and less of the first hour – if that makes sense as a sentence. Then I went online to see what I could find out about the story and promptly discovered what was missing. Basically it was a whole chunk of the real story

.

WARNING.THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IS BASICALLY SPOILER CITY. BUT THE MURDER IS IN THE Public DOMAIN SO… EHM. YEAH. Don’t get me wrong I am ALL for artistic license and – within reason – playing around with real life stories a tiny bit to suit a vision. And I also see that cinematically speaking what Kalin was trying to do was have a tense but understated first two thirds with subtle hints at the underlying incest with a dramatic reveal and “descent into madness” type finale. The problem for me was that the hinting was a little too subtle and didn’t quite get one on the same emotional level. In real life, it transpires, Anthony had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia years before the murder had occurred (in the film there is no mention of it) but his father wouldn’t allow him to be treated by psychiatrists. The incestuous relationship with his mother had also been going on for years (in the film this is hinted at but never elaborated – I got the impression the scene in the final half hour is the culmination, not one in many if you get what I mean). The incest had its roots in the fact that Barbara could never quite accept Anthony being gay and was “trying to fix him”. In this attempt he had also been coerced to have sex with prostitutes. Again, none of this had been mentioned. In fact Anthony and Barbara had had numerous violent quarrels involving knives and a previous attempted murder, all of which is overlooked in the film.

But then again, there is no great dramatic reveal in a young man with previous mental health issues tipping over the edge I suppose, so all of that is abandoned in lieu of a dramatic reveal at the end that leaves us gagging for more. Grand reveals are all very well and good in their place. But especially when it comes to mental illness the slow and steady descent into madness can be just as dramatic, not least because it usually corresponds more to the real experience people have of mental illness. And I mean it is not as if there weren’t plenty of dramatic events for this to lead off from – not least since the concept of “fixing” gay people is sadly still an actual topic today. Between that and the incest – the fact that technically his mother raped him – just sticking to the facts and doing much less in the way of editing and contributing would have made a completely sensational story. Especially with actors as brilliant as Moore and Redmayne.

 I would, in short, class Savage Grace as a missed opportunity more than anything else. It has some wonderfully dramatic glimmers but it never quite opens its wings and soars. Still it is well worth the watch if only for the wonderful performances and one of the most terrifying depictions of madness I have seen on screen for a while.

AN EXTRAORDINARY DOUBLE FEATURE ABOUT AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN : "MESRINE (PARTS 1 AND 2)"

I have a bit of a confession to make. I have a bit of a thing about French films. And not in a good way. I mean don`t get me wrong, I love French cinema. But I spent my ENTIRE education with the exception of primary school in French establishment. So the prospect of reading something in French or watching a French film… Feels like homework. I mean no, once I get into it I do love it (sometimes). One doesn`t read the entire works of Emile Zola in French merely out of a sense of duty for God`s sake. But so, yeah, if I hear a film is in French, something in my brain cringes and goes ``can`t we do this later?``  And Mesrine especially, I  mean not only is it a French gangster film (and Alain Delon really didn`t make enough of those, right?) there are two of them. The whole story is almost 4 hours long. I am aware I have prejudices and do tend to make an effort to push past them, that said, I didn`t expect to feel compelled to suddenly sit down and do a `Mesrine marathon` either. Then again, maybe I shouldn`t be that surprised. Mesrine was quite a piece of work. One time France`s public enemy number one, he was as charismatic and funny as he was ruthless. And love him or hate him (you rarely did anything in between) you found it hard to take your eyes off him.

Back from special duties in Algiers in the 1960`s, the young Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) is at a bit of a loss. He tries a ``good honest job`` in a shop, but after the life in Algiers it doesn`t really suit him, neither in pace nor in economics – if you see what I mean. He starts off by making a few ``bad friends`` and petty crime. But soon his ``talents`` have him rising through the ranks, making connections in the then notorious OAS… Mesrine is well on the way of becoming a truly international name in the world of crime. These two films tell the story of his career spanning 20 years and 2 continents…

First of all let us stop for a second and just praise Vincent Cassell for his magnificent portrayal of Mesrine. Mesrine is a complex character and he is so violent, so cruel and such a ruthless gangster it must have been hard to put the effort in to make him likable. Because likable he was. As the film progresses we get the impression of Mesrine as being a lot more immature than one might initially think. I mean, definitely more immature than you would expect a bank robber and kidnapper to be. The films portrays him at virtually delighting in seeing his face in the papers and bursting with pride at becoming public enemy ``number one``. And while he can often bulldoze his way out of most situations – because it would seem if you have a specific brand of courage bordering on stupidity you can bulldoze your way out of most things in the crime world – his overconfidence in his own talents is what lets him down. And his bigheadedness is what loses him countless business partners. It is this childlike quality that makes him think he can throw a bagful of money across a river, fail and lose millions of franks. It is also this childlike quality that enables him to have the audacity and tenacity to escape from maximum security prisons multiple times. But try as he might to present himself as a charming thief who only steals from the big banks, Mesrine is not above threatening the mother of his children at gun point in front of his son who is barely a toddler. Nor is he above kidnapping and mistreating the elderly and the infirm. In short Mesrine is, maybe not in body but in mind, a rather bright teenager brandishing a gun. AWESOME combo and brilliantly depicted – one swings between thinking him hilarious and promptly feeling guilty about your laughter all through the film.

The film itself is a first class example of its genre. If you were ever even remotely afraid it may prove too ``arty`` or some such, you really do not need to worry.  Car chases, tense stake-outs and bloody gun battles are a-plenty all through the film. In fact at several points the tension mounts so much I almost found it hard to watch -  oh no, this film does not lack anything in adrenaline.

Nor indeed does it lack in testosterone. I mean I do realize this is the thing with the time depicted and the genre. I`d hazard a guess and say that there weren`t that many female main players in the ganglands of 1960`s and `70s France. Any women we see are either prostitutes (and to be fair we see quite a few of those) or Mesrine`s partners (sometimes also prostitutes) who invariable end up getting threatened, chased and knocked around by him but staying with him nevertheless. I mean I don`t blame anyone on this last bit. When he pulled a bank robbery off he used to lavish himself and his ``flavor of the month`` in extraordinarily expensive gifts. Common sense dictates you stick with it. But then again I don`t want to be overly cynical - like he said Mesrine was an incredibly complex man, maybe there was real love there, we`ll never know I guess. The point I want to make is that the only women we see are the `molls` in one sense or another.  I mean you know that has never bothered me. But for some reason I noticed it more than usual. Possibly because I ended up watching the entire 4 hour saga in one sitting.

In short, not only is this a shining example of the gangster film in general it is a fascinating true story of a rather complicated man. Like many films that stick strictly to their genre, you probably may want to give it a miss if you absolutely loath gangster movies. But if you don`t, you`re in for a treat. 

DARKNESS YOU NEVER KNEW HE HAD... "ALL GOOD THINGS"

Oooh I love a good crime story. Especially a true story. As you know, the ghoulish side of me relishes in a good true crime story. Now don’t tut or roll your eyes (that means you Mom) –it’s just a side of me that hasn’t quite grown up. You know, when we were kids we loved to sit in the dark, around a campfire if you grew up in that kind of environment or in a fort made of duvets with torches and tell each other scary stories. It grew up a bit that’s all. But its basic tastes didn’t change. Oh come on. You remember how we all swore those “legends” we told each other “really happened” and the thrill that went down our spines when we thought about it. Now, in the 21^st century the world is “disenchanted” as it were, there is no more magic or mystery. Except, perhaps, that of the human mind and human nature. Which is why, I think, those of us who never wanted to stop believing in monsters and magic have sort of transferred our interests to true crime. A world where the monsters really and truly      are real…

Ryan Gosling and Kirsten Dunst star in the tale of David Marks and his wife Katie. They tell the story of a murder (well, at least one murder, shall we say) and a disappearance. To this day, the film informs us, the case remains open, but there are strong suspicions as to what happened… This is the story of those suspicions…

When they first got married, David and Katie Marks really looked like archetypal star-crossed lovers. He was a senator’s son looking for his place in life, she was a small town girl. They met by sheer coincidence, love blossomed young and strong. Her family was  surprised by their new son in law that hailed from almost a different dimension from them – but not unfriendly. David’s father however, was very quick to point out that “Katie would never be one of them”.  This tension is, as you can imagine, the ignition point for a crisis. A crisis that had been, it might be argued, brewing in the soul of David Marks for a long while… The marriage starts off happily enough, but very soon the veneer begins to crack. The fact that David returns to the family business  - a business that is decidedly on the shadier side of the law – is definitely part of the problem. But it has to be admitted that (thankfully) not all of us react to stress at work the way David did… Under stress, David begins to show his “true colours”… The colours are surprisingly dark…

This film does a very spookily successful job of telling the story of what seems to be a true psychopath – or a man with serious psychopathic tendencies at any rate. I was especially struck by the way the progression of the situation is shown. At the  beginning of the film David seems determined to run away from “it all” – although, it needs to be said, we do not quite understand what “it all” is until much later. One can even imagine – although this is as much my speculation as anything else – David trying  to live a simple life open a store away from the city, marry a small town girl and be a simple man. But who knows, even without the obvious trigger of his “work life” with his family , his deadly tendencies may have crept to the surface…

And I can’t help but feel deeply for poor Kate. Imagine starting off on what seems to be a fairy tale life only to find out that your “other half” is a psychopath… Mind you, violence within marriages that get “kept” from the outside world are by no means few or far between of course. But that is possibly a topic deserving of its own post, not something to be tagged onto the end of a film review.

All good things is a “build the tension slowly and creepily” type of work of film. Not too  gory so ideal for the weak of stomach. Definitely not for the weak of heart though…