LEGEND
Brian Helgeland’s film Legend offers a stereotypical view at 1960’s gangsters the Kray twins without bringing too many new ideas to the table. Although, Tom Hardy shines as both twins offering a dual performance that is worth the price of admission. The film opens with narration from Emily Browning’s character a sign of things to come from this film. We get our first glimpse in this moment of Tom Hardy as both Ronald and Reginald Kray; two brothers who ruled the London gang scene in the ‘60’s. Hardy has split his performance between two things he does very well: playing more charming versions of himself and playing absolute psychopaths with funny voices. The chance of playing both twins has given him the chance to put both those talents up in the spotlight to shine and Helgeland does nothing to inhibit it in any way.
The problems for the film start to arise when we meet Frances played by Browning. She is not a bad character in the film more just in the way not really allowing the gangster part to expand naturally. In fact, a lot of the gangster that was so prominent in the advertising for the film making it feel like a Scorcese picture is all but rushed along to get back to the story between Frances and Reginald. Now this part of the film would be more intriguing if the narration provided by Browning was not telling the audience everything that is happening on screen. For example, Frances decides to kill herself by taking pills. Now normally that would be it but in this particular case we have to hear about how hard popping pills is as we watch it. It is almost like an audio book only less interesting and what is being described I can just as easily look at instead of hearing about. What the final product of Browning’s narration turns out to be is nothing more than boring and cliché.
The second problem the film has while not as big as the last has to do with Hardy’s performance as the psychotic Ronald Kray. The character it seems was designed to be the evil brother, the bad brother, and the one I am supposed to be scared of and fear what he will do next. What comes across in some cases is just that a loose cannon that Hardy performs with style and extreme execution. In other cases however the character comes off as a bit of a joke. Now if the intention all along was to have these moments be not taken so seriously then kudos to the film for pulling off such a weird dichotomy. If not however then the film faces the problem of not being taken so seriously and it loses some of its punch.
The bottom line though is that this stylish look at a very stylish period in London history does have its shining moments. Mostly in its cinematography and visuals. Other actors in smaller parts also offer small wins including Paul Bettany and David Thewlis. Tom Hardy though is still definitely worth the ticket price to see him pull off whole scenes with himself.
THE PROGRAM
The Program feels exactly like the sport it is based on. Short bursts of really interesting drama that I cannot keep my eyes away from and long droughts of what seems like nothingness. The film directed by Stephen Frears tells the story of Lance Armstrong’s rise and fall in the elite world of competitive cycling. Alongside this story we are given the parallel of Chris O’Dowd’s character, journalist David Walsh, trying to find any evidence against Armstrong. Ben Foster leads an illustrious cast with an amazing performance as Lance Armstrong. The film itself however leaves much to be desired in the way of not only storytelling but of character moments.
The film starts at the first meeting of Armstrong and Walsh. Both are young hungry men eager to be the best in their field. Almost immediately however we are shown Lance Armstrong willing to do what ever it takes to win. So from the offset he is a character that is willing to be a bad man to get what he wants. Now this kind of watching the bad guy go through some pain but we want him to succeed story works great on longer formats, case in point Breaking Bad, unfortunately not so well in things like film. The character loses all sense of worth or any good will with the audience as soon as he puts that needle in his arm. Throughout the film all the character does is make bad choices in order to further his empire. At no point is the character of Armstrong given an outlet to show any other emotion other then anger or frustration because he did not get his way. It is basically like watching a toddler throw a tantrum for two hours. The only character with any actual good will is O’Dowd’s, who with charm and wit gives an actual human character. He has ups and downs and an arc all with little to no screen time. Which leads to the bigger problem of the film.
The pacing is miserable. We are flung through years like a biker changing gear going up a hill. Moments fly by like they did not even happen. In fact it almost feels like a highlight reel for Armstrong’s career and less like a movie at some points. By the time we get anywhere interesting though the film ends with Armstrong simply admitting his guilt and riding off into the sunset. Now this moment was supposed to be the emotional turnaround for the audience and characters in the film. Yet, there is no time to process it or even let the actors portray it before we are given the standard biopic cue card ending wrapping up the events.
The bottom line is that while the film offers a stylish and maybe even sometimes humorous look at the events of Lance Armstrong’s career it falls flat in bringing anything new to its genre or any new ideas to the modern biopic. This story has lost its treads.
MAN DOWN
Dito Montiel’s film Man Down opens on a post-apocalyptic landscape a single man faces down a shabby house he sees a light and two figures dance in a window. That is when our hero played by Shia LaBeouf storms the house in an attempt to rescue his son. The film then jumps in time to a moment before the apocalyptic setting to LaBeouf’s character being debriefed by Gary Oldman. The movie uses this time jumping to try and tell its story and generally it works. It is only when the big reveal of what happened that caused all this destruction and why LaBeouf’s son is kidnapped that the film unravels itself and all the work it has put in.
The reveal is that Jai Courtney’s character has been dead the entire time we have seen him in the post apocalyptic setting. It is a moment that is given its due diligence and feels like the climax to the story a moment when everything is supposed to click together and the audience should have an audible gasp as they put the final piece in the puzzle. Unfortunately, it feels more like a thing that was inevitable and when you realize that the film still has about twenty more minutes left you begin wondering if that is truly it. What is left is seeing a broken man deal with his situation as he spirals further and further into madness.
The second issue with the film is the subject matter it is trying to deal with. The film touches on the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder. LaBeouf’s character suffers from it giving him the delusion that he is stuck in some post-apocalyptic future where there are evil men trying to steal his family. The intentions are good and by that I mean that what the film is trying to say is something that is important. Films need and really any art need to deal with the fact that we have men and women returning from active warzones with these issues. Dies this film present an extreme case I would say so. The bigger problem though is that recent films have dealt with this subject matter not only in a more realistic way but also in a better way. Most notably American Sniper showed the effects of war on a soldier with a family and still had the same impact if not a better one than Man Down. This problem mostly comes from the lofty premise to begin with. When an audience has the rug removed from their eyes it just feels wrong instead of being enlightening making the impact feel more like a gut punch rather than a learning experience.
The group I saw this with enjoyed the film commending LaBeouf for his layered performance and being able to stand toe to toe with Gary Oldman. The impact that the filmmakers intended reached them more than me. The bottom line though is that the film had the talent and the opportunity to tell a unique and moving story, but ended up being a standard cookie cutter war drama.