Death of a Unicorn

Director: Alex Scharfman
Starring: Paul Rudd, Jenna Ortega,Will Poulter, Anthony Carrigan, Sunita Mani, Stephen Park, Jessica Hynes, Téa Leoni, Richard E. Grant, Kathryn Erbe
Running Time: 107 min.
Rating: R

★★½ (out of ★★★★)  

For better or worse, Death of a Unicorn is both everything its title suggests and also somehow a lot less. Making his directorial debut, writer Alex Scharfman immediately gets down to business when a unicorn is struck by a car in what might be the film's most compelling scene, if only because that premise carries so much potential. But after creating an air of mystery surrounding where this story's headed, it unfortunately goes downhill from there.   

Accurately described as a mix of drama, fantasy and action, it's all of those at once, yet plays as a single, irritatingly long joke that runs out of gas before the conclusion. Sure, it's messy, but the repetitiveness makes it feel more like a slog, testing viewers patience with how often one character is continuously ignored and dismissed. That even actors as talented as the film's co-leads can't save this speaks volumes, even if they fare better than expected given the circumstances. 

Widowed lawyer Elliot Kintner (Paul Rudd) takes teenage daughter Ridley (Jenna Ortega) with him to spend the weekend at the estate of his wealthy boss Odell Leopold (Richard E. Grant), also meeting his wife Belinda (Téa Leoni) and son Shepard (Will Poulter). But on the drive over, Elliot accidently hits and severely injures what appears to be a white unicorn with his car. Laying on the road near death, Elliot seemingly puts it out of its misery with a tire iron, though not before Ridley experiences strange visions and halucinations after touching its horn. 

When Elliot and Ridley arrive at the mansion with a unicorn in their trunk, Leopold sees an opportunity to use the creature's magical healing properties to cure his cancer and monetize the treatment, enlisting his family, butler (Anthony Carrigan), assisstant (Jessica Hynes) and a pair of scientists (Sunita Mani and Stephen Park) to help. But while Ridley's research uncovers the true danger of what they're doing, larger, more vicious unicorns look to reclaim their young. With Ridely's warnings falling on deaf ears, Elliot will have to choose between his own daughter and an obsessively greedy boss.  

Scharfman takes the increasingly popular route of satirizing the ultra wealthy, with all their bizarre habits, rituals and obliviousness to how normal people live or behave. This is taken to the extreme once the eccentric Leopolds uncover the potential windfall that awaits from replicating and distributing the unicorn's healing powers. But despite their makeshift lab and the reluctant support of a spineless Elliot, the consequences turn predictably dire.

Up to this point, seeds are planted for what should be an exciting mystery-adventure, until the script starts hitting the same notes. Feigning interest in Ridley, the Leopold clan do their best to shun the only character with a brain, writing her off as a clueless, angsty teen. But that gag's run into the ground when these affluent manipulators are bombarded with evidence that harvesting mystical unicorns isn't the safest idea. 

The gory, chaotic unicorn attacks are accompanied by poor digitized effects, but considering how movies twice this budget often look worse, that's actually not the dealbreaker here. Neither is Rudd, who fares decently in a thankless role, his charisma partially shelved as the uptight Elliot spends most of the picture dutifully following the family's marching orders. 

Ortega is the undeniable star of this, and while she can play moody teens in her sleep by now, she holds the film together as a still grieving Ridley, whose pain is only compounded by a father she can't connect with. Poulter's performance as the spoiled, patronizing nepo baby is also a highlight, but by the time Sheperd gets his, the plot's already preoccupied with redeeming Elliot, who treats his own daughter as badly as the Leopolds. 

Rather than settling on a tone, the story's all over the map, squeezing what it can into a run time that feels longer than its 107 minutes. Luckily, the zany acting turns and occasional flashes of creativity do help keep everything afloat once Scharfman's script flies off the rails in the last two acts. While not quite funny enough to qualify as a comedy, but containing too few scares to pass as horror, its closing minutes feel unearned, leaving us to wonder how much better this could have been with a more consistent vision.

The Revenant

 
Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson, Will Poulter, Forrest Goodluck, Arthur Redcloud, Grace Dove
Running Time: 156 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

It's rare that the reputation and mystique of a film so firmly rests on a single scene's reception the way it does in Alejandro G. Iñárritu's Oscar-nominated The Revenant. By now, everyone knows the scene, or at least knows of it, regardless of whether they've actually seen the movie. Before the public conversation inexplicably morphed it into an animal-on-human rape punchline, the scene could be viewed for what it is and how it plays out on screen. Bears don't sexually assault humans. They maul them to protect their young. And it's scary as hell. I feel like an idiot even typing that, and while always counting myself as good for a laugh at the expense of serious material, it's a testament to how far the joke went that this actually warrants explanation. 

There's no confusion as to what's happening but it's hard not to wonder if Academy members marking their ballots thought there was and unfortunately decided against honoring a film that was turned into a national joke by the media. It's likely few have ever seen a grizzly attack before, onscreen or otherwise. And whatever idea we had of one in our minds certainly wouldn't match the close approximation of reality that occurs in the film.

The details of the scene is one of the many surprises that makes The Revenant special, and the inciting incident that starts Leonardo DiCaprio on the path to giving a performance that's easily the most physical, yet verbally sparse, of his career. Bu the most surprising thing about it is that his character somehow survives it, only to face further  insurmountable odds that test his will to live, and perhaps eventually, extract revenge. It's a man vs. nature survival story and historical adventure epic all wrapped into one, and despite my minor issues with how it culminates, there's little fault to be found.

It's 1823 when the Arikara Native American tribe launch a surprise attack on a crew of American trappers hunting for pelts in the Northern Plains. After what ends up being a particularly brutal battle with many casualties, the surviving trappers escape on a boat lead by Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson) and their guide, Hugh Glass (DiCaprio). When the latter suggests they abandon the boat to travel on foot, it raises the ire of John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), a mealy-mouthed bully who not only directs his outrage at Glass, but also his mixed race son, Hawk (Forrest Goodluck). Tensions further escalate after a savage grizzly bear attack leaves Glass maimed and unable to continue the journey, prompting Fitzgerald to suggest they kill him so they can all promptly move along.

What happens next is a catastrophic series of events that leave Glass, crippled and clinging to life, alone in the wilderness, fighting the elements as the Arikara tribe continuing to trail the Americans they believe abducted the Chief's daughter. But Glass has only thing on his mind: Revenge. He needs to survive, if only to get his hands on Fitzgerald, who committed the ultimate crime against his family, and one he'll pay dearly for if Glass can live long enough to catch up to him.

Partially based on Michael Punke's novel of the same name, the opening half hour of The Revenant isn't entirely dissimilar to Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, before settling into a rhythm and tone more closely resembling Dances with Wolves. It's an odd comparison to make but one the picture earns by starting with a shockingly brutal battle that doesn't hold back in either gore or psychological implications for the men involved. There's very little dialogue both before and after the trappers escape to the boat, and whatever talk there is, serves to briefly establish their personalities and formulate a travel plan. Fitzgerald, who was scalped by natives years ago, harbors almost unrelenting resentment toward Glass and his son from the get-go, establishing himself as an arrogant jerk with little regard for anyone else. And of course, Hardy, playing the baddie with an unintelligible redneck drawl, is just perfect at eliciting this extreme hatred and disgust.

What we do know of Glass comes in brief, almost Malickian flashbacks to his life with his late wife and then infant son. But most of what's revealed about the frontiersman comes following the horrifying grizzly attack (partially accomplished with some really impressive CGI) that eventually separates him from his party, fighting for survival. And it's here where the film hits its stride, as Glass must withstand sub-zero temperatures, life-threatening injury, wild animals and angry natives to eventually arrive at his showdown with Fitzgerald. For most of this, the character is incapacitated in some way and can barely talk.

While it's completely true that good acting involves much more than just performing under brutal conditions, what makes DiCaprio's work so remarkable is how little he must rely on dialogue, instead transcribing every thought, feeling and emotion through sheer physical distress. Despite the minimal speaking, it's nonetheless an engrossing journey thanks to Emmanuel Lubezki's Oscar-winning cinematography and sound, costume and production design that fully brings to life the 1800's in the Dakotas.

Those looking for a revenge-oriented ending out of The Revenant will probably be disappointed, and if it's plot seems as thin as the paper its screenplay (by Iñárritu and Mark L. Smith) was written on, that hardly matters. The film seems to be building to this epic confrontation between Glass and Fitzgerald, and while I'm being coy in revealing details, the route the film takes to arrive at that conclusion will undoubtedly frustrate those weened on more dramatic finishes. Then again, it might be advantageous to ask whether this story really was about vengeance to begin with.

With themes drenched in familial loyalty, spirituality and a bond with nature, this was always a mood piece that wouldn't ever be mistaken for something like The Hateful Eight. But it still is, in very different way, a full blown assault on the senses, technically towering above most films released in the past year in terms of visuals and sound. Iñárritu makes good on fully immersing us in this unfamiliar world. It's DiCaprio's performance that takes care of the rest.
    

Son of Rambow

Director: Garth Jennings
Starring: Bill Milner, Will Poulter, Jules Sitruk, Jessica Stevenson, Neil Dudgeon, Jules Sitruk, Anna Wing, Ed Westwick
Running Time: 96 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** (out of ****)

There’s this trend that’s been going on for a while now, but lately it seems to be happening a lot more. A little independent movie debuts on the festival circuit, earns rave reviews then after it gets a wide release audiences can’t figure out what all that massive hype was about. Remember 1996’s The Spitfire Grill? Neither do I. We just saw it happen recently with the release of Hamlet 2, a movie many have complained wasn’t nearly as good as they were led to believe.

Do Canadians and The French have worse taste than us? Are we just dumb? Is Robert Redford serving Kool-Aid in Park City? These questions may remain unanswered but as I watched Garth Jennings’ retro coming-of-age comedy, Son of Rambow I found myself mentally name-checking all the films it contained traces of, all of which are vastly superior; The Breakfast Club, Chariots of Fire, Donnie Darko, Bridge to Terabithia, Be Kind, Rewind. Well, okay, maybe that last one isn’t vastly superior.

On the surface it seems strange that such a small, personal work comes from the director of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (a film I’m in the minority for loving), but upon closer examination it makes perfect sense. This doesn’t have the creative punch of that misunderstood movie but it has the same quirky, off beat sense of humor, a kind of humor I’m starting to think fewer and fewer audiences appreciate. The drawback of seeing too many movies is that it can make you cynical and more resistant to letting a film take you the places it wants to. Son of Rambow is somewhat of a mess and not nearly as good as I was expecting, but it’s one made with a lot of heart and it hits the important notes well enough that I have to at least give it a recommendation. The filmmakers’ love not only for movies, but also growing up, shine through in just about every nostalgic frame of this admittedly uneven picture.
In 1980’s Britain, quiet, reserved youngster Will (Bill Milner) is forbidden to watch films or television as a member of the Plymouth Brethren religious sect. Since the death of his father, His mother (Jessica Stevenson) has a new man in her life (Neil Digeon), a pompous, judgmental do-gooder for whom he has no respect. At school Will has a chance encounter with Lee (Will Poulter), a school bully who worships his older brother Lawrence (Gossip Girl’s Ed Westwick), waiting on him hand and foot despite the fact he’s treated like garbage for his efforts. A reluctant friendship begins between the two boys when Lee introduces Will to his first feature film, a pirated VHS copy of First Blood. Soon they’re making their own home video, “Son of Rambow” in hopes of entering it into a young filmmaker competition. Their attempts to keep this a secret from Will’s strict family as well as prevent other outside forces from hampering their creativity lead to a special friendship that is tested in occasionally surprising ways.

Besides just being set in the 1980’s, Son of Rambow is a film that looks and feels like it was actually MADE in the 1980’s, recalling the innocence and intelligence of some of those classic John Hughes comedies. Whether you find an approach like that subversively funny or pretentious will likely dictate your feelings on the movie. For the first 15 minutes I didn’t know what Jennings had on his mind (if anything) and was sure I’d hate it. But almost halfway through it won me over. Despite starting sluggishly and being tough to warm up to, the film eventually finds its voice and introduce some intelligent ideas, specifically concerning the boys’ relationships with their families. Nearly all of its success can be attributed to the performances given by the two young actors who have never even acted in a major motion picture before. Milner and especially Poulter make their transformations throughout the course of their home video adventure believable and I ended up really caring what happened to both of them.

This is primarily Will’s story, as he must come to terms with his strict religious upbringing and I liked how his mother and her boyfriend weren’t portrayed as disconnected lunatics but as people who truly believe they’re doing the right thing. It seems Jennings actually took their stance into account rather than just portraying them as cartoonish oafs out to punish the kid, or even worse, as deranged cult members. Lee’s story is handled equally well and his emotionally distant and at times psychologically abusive brother turns from being an afterthought to a key player by the end of the film. And it’s a good thing Westwick can stare coldly with the best of them because that’s his primary job here.

The film also benefits from a hilarious sub-plot involving French foreign exchange student Didier (Jules Sitruk) who captivates his classmates and tries to wrestle control of the boys’ production. Jennings uses the character a chance to throw in some classic music and fashions of the times and generally poke fun at the ‘80’s in a loving way. There was also an interesting payoff to it, proving that coolness really is in the eye of the beholder. You’re either on board with something like this or you’re not, which is pretty much the story with the entire picture. It doesn't reinvent the wheel but it does what it needs to in a workmanlike manner despite dragging at points and featuring very few surprises. It’s the kind of movie that doesn’t quite deserve the label of “independent gem” but is far from a waste of time.

Jennings, in addition to directing, wrote the script based partially on his own experiences as a youth and co-produced it with Nick Goldsmith (a team known collectively under the moniker of “Hammer and Tongs”). It’s worth noting that while the film falls way short of the hype surrounding it and doesn’t contain anywhere close to the imaginative vision of Hitchhikers (nor does it need to), this is only Jennings second feature. He’s already proven he’s a great storyteller and has a unique sense of humor even when dealing with run-of-the-mill material. In that sense, his films are kind of reminiscent of other quirky former music video directors like Michel Gondry or Spike Jonze and it wouldn’t surprise me if he has a really great film in him somewhere. His first two weren’t it, but he’s definitely someone to keep an eye on. Son of Rambow may only just be a sweet, predictable coming of age tale, but that ends up being enough.