X-Men: Apocalypse

I won’t lie to you humans, this film wasn’t half bad. Which I guess also says that it wasn’t half good either. The third instalment of the X-Men prequel film series saw disposable villain En Sabah Nur, attempt to flatten the Earth and begin sowing anew with the strongest seeds. Roped into a bid to save the earth is Professor Xavier and his band O’ Merry Mutants which included some younger but familiar faces.

The opening scenes served as an introduction to En Sabah Nur; who he was, where he came from and what he wanted etc. However although I found it fitting that the events took place in Ancient Egypt – as opposed to say the Prehistoric Era or something – it foretold the antagonists storyline, ultimately making the film too predictability.

It’s been roughly ten years since X-Men: Day’s of Future Past, and Mystique has become a beacon of hope and self identification for the new generation of mutants – not that she wants the responsibility, instead she chooses to go on a one woman mission across the globe to save vulnerable mutants from peril… Even though by doing that she is actually reconfirming and strengthening herself as a symbol of hope…. but that’s none of my business.

Okay so long story short, En Sabah Nur is supposed to possess a great wealth of power absorbed from aeons of essence transference, however I only noticed one power; the ability to turn people and things into dust, and use this dust to build pyramids, and clothing etc. Anyway, En Sabah Nur (henceforth known as Particle Accelerator) can’t do anything without his Squad, who he replaces and recruits throughout the ages. In 1983 he has blindly put his faith in an impressionable Egyptian who can control the weather, a drunk angel, a man who has nothing left to live for and a woman who is a little tooeager for the taste of destruction.

I mean sure they look great standing there, in their dust made outfits and I suppose Squad Goals are 80% about the aesthetics, but my issue comes from the fact that for someone who talked so much about wanting the best, he sort of just picked the first four mutants he stumbled across. Searching for the strongest henchmen could have been another (and more interesting) story arc.

They were really grasping at straws it seems for this film, as they brought back the complete liability that was Moira MacTaggert – Charles’ love interest from the first film, that nobody even thought to miss in the second film.

I liked that the fashion was subtle, no one was trying to force us to “really believe” it was the eighties, it was just background noise. The art department may have been on point, but whoever was in charge of the blue paint really messed up. Mystique and Beast looked distractingly awful in this movie, their costumes looking like…. well, costumes. An obvious change from previous films.

*Shudders*

Olivia Munn did a great and heavily underrated job as the unquestioning soldier Psylocke, and looked fierce in dust couture . Although there were a dozen hints too many about the eventual fate of the characters, it was interesting getting the chance to observe the ‘new class’ if you will, noting traits and decisions that will make them who they will become in another twenty years. Finally, despite the studio basically pimping out Sophie Turner as Jean Grey to us; she did a very convincing job of playing the simultaneously unhinged and powerful Phoenix, and I begrudgingly look forward to her being in the sequel.

The film as a whole was pretty meh, the plot was thin and the characters weren’t particularly endearing. I watched it with a detached interest nodding with approval during the odd fight scene, and laughing at a one liner here and there. To be honest X-Men: Apocalypse was just a reconfiguration of its predecessors, and as such bubbled just below average for the entire length of the film. Quicksilver had his funny slow motion scene, Erik, Raven and Charles were still Frenemies stuck having the same, Us vs Them issues, and there was a comfortingly predictable Wolverine cameo.

They say good things happen in threes. The X-men First Class trilogy thus far is a clear exception to that rule.

The Jungle Book (2016)

When I was younger I had the Jungle Book on VHS, (not that this fact makes me particularly special or anything having grown up in the 90's and all) but from what I can remember, we didn't have any other Disney movies on Video, just a whole lot of Kids Praise. But I digress. I would stare intently at the TV singing and dancing along, then when it was over I would rewind the tape and take it from the top at least half a dozen times in a day.

Fast forward to the present, where I have the personality of an 85 year old man; as soon as I heard about the live action remake of The Jungle Book I was immediately against it (we old men hate change). However after watching the trailer my age came down sixty years and I was intrigued and dare I say even slightly excited about the revival of one of my favourite Disney movies.

Not an obvious place to start, but well deserved nonetheless; The Soundtrack. What worked so well, wasn't just the more obvious renditions of the familiar songs, but the background music that after a beat of two, you realised were tasteful instrumentals of the songs you thought they had missed.  Here's a taster of a revamped, Trust In Me

However that being said - and still not disputing the beauty of the soundtrack - my question would be; Could you call this live action version a musical? Sometimes the singing felt natural within the world that had been created, and at other times it left you perplexed as you tried to understand why a Gorilla spontaneously burst into song.

The whole band got back together for this film; Baloo, Bagheera, Raksha and Kaa etc. and yet their stories felt fragmented as certain characters paths never crossed, and others appeared for their scene and were never seen again. To a certain extent you could say it worked like a book; a different chapter introduced for a short while a new character, before the protagonist continued on their journey, circling back to meet their antagonist for the final battle. And yet I still ask myself what happened to those characters once we've turned the page, their story never having come to a close.  

I'm a little bias on the subject but Ibris Elba slayed as Shere Khan.

The brutality in Khan's British accent gave you a pleasurably wicked chill, as the tiger managed to display authoritative traits of a Kingpin; decisive, short tempered, and in it for the long game. Whereas the animated Khan held a sense of calm and charisma, his upgrade went straight for the kill, never for a second letting anybody forget to fear him.

Our little frog was played by twelve year old Neel Sethi, The Jungle Book being his debut film, and oh my god they chose the cutest kid to play Mowgli?!

Admittedly it was a little hard at first to buy into his character, as he just seemed like a little kid playing make believe in his back 'jungle like' garden, where Bagheera is a black cat and Baloo is teddy bear. However I warmed up to his tricks, attitude and the honesty in his childlike behaviour. The relationship that he formed with Baloo, and his reliance on Bagheera were inspirational and did nothing but make me a little jealous that I didn't have a talking Panther to protect me from the ways of the concrete jungle. Finally it was great to have more emphasis on Raksha and the wolfpack, as they were his family, they raised him and we watched as they struggled in determining how to deal with the threat of Shere Khan and the man Mowgli would eventually grow up to become. 

As you know from my nostalgic opening I've seen the 1967 animated version of The Jungle Book countless times - however more recently I had the pleasure of reading the book of the same name of which it was based, written by Rudyard Kipling. Once you walk down the literary route of adaptation, there's no going back, and so you will have to excuse me for my next typically pretentious sentence; The film was nothing like the movie. I'm not stating that one was better than the other - considering I have only read the first book - it's just interesting and probably a little on the side of egotistical, that Disney chose to remake the classic based on their own adaptation which has since become a classic. Trippy right? 

Will it ever be as cherished as the original animated tale of a misunderstood jungle kid with an identity crisis that we all related to on some level?

Of course not.

But with Disney un-animating Princesses, Puppets and Pooh, The Jungle Book now sits at the helm of classics for a new generation.

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice

Eighteen months ago Superman’s battle with General Zod kills hundreds, and destroys countless of buildings in the City of Metropolis, including one owned by Wayne Enterprises. Witnessing the disaster first hand and being unable to stop it – Wayne decides in this moment that Superman is a threat to humanity. Presently, Clark Kent attempts to use the Daily Prophet to put an end to Batman’s vigilantisms – and when that doesn’t quite go as planned; the glasses come off and the cape goes on. Blinded by their mutual distrust, they don’t notice the storm that is brewing, until it’s on their doorstep.

Where to start, and once I do; how to stop, as there seems to be a never ending list in my head of points that I’m dying to make. The majority of which are negative and since that is the case, I am going to put a cap on the number of cynical comments I make; Ten seems reasonable don’t you think? So without any further ado – as none is deserved – let’s begin.

1.So. Gotham City and Metropolis are just a stones throw away from one another then?
Perhaps this has always been the case (I’ve never read the comic books) but it just seemed a little too easy. If Superman can see the Bat-symbol from Metropolis, why does he never go and help? Heck forget waiting for the symbol – it’s a well known fact that city is dangerous.

2.Flying Bat Child.
In the opening scene little Bruce Wayne falls down a boarded up well in the forest that surrounds his home. One of the stories goes that whilst there he is attacked by bats and develops a Bat-phobia. As an adult, he chooses to use his biggest fear as a weapon by becoming Batman. In this version however, it seems that little Bruce Wayne makes friends with the Bats as they whirl around him, essentially flying him out of the well.
I kid you not I lost my shit and burst into uncontrollable fits of laughter and we weren’t even 10 mins in.

3.Batman’s Fight Scene
They were all so unbelievably slow that I felt I was counting along with Ben Affleck in my head; One, Two Punch, Kick, Three, Four, Duck, Twist, Stab Kick, Five, Six. Yawn!  

4. Lex Luthor.
He seemed too much like a child compared to Clark and Bruce and as such his personality was more on the side of child psychopath, as opposed the opportunist business man with a love interest in Lois Lane. I didn’t quite understand his goals either; he wanted Batman and Superman to go to war so he could create a monster he couldn’t even control? His characterisation was clearly only half thought through, it’s no wonder he looked like a crazy person.

5. Zod LuthorDo not even get me started on the Human-Kryptonian hybrid made from Zod’s corpse and Lex Luthor’s DNA. For the life of me I cannot fathom why it looked the way it did, what it was trying to do and why it had such power. It was like reaching the final level of a video game, where they give the final Boss every power imaginable, and it’s only by luck and persistence you defeat it.

6. Superman Doesn’t Use Guns.
He has super strength, speed, laser eyes, x-ray vision, and good looks – and yet it was so easy for the world to believe that he massacred people in an African Village….With guns? Okay.

7. So Lux Luther Knows Everything?
He knows about Metahumans, he knows the true identity of both Batman and Superman, he knows how to control the Kryptonian Ship, he knows exactly which buttons to press with people. The governmentgave him both Zod’s body and intergalactic technology, and he single handedly salvaged Kryptonite – and yet nobody seemed to point to him as the bad guy? Shocking.

8. But. What’s the plot?
Why any of this? Sure Superman destroyed Metropolis, but it wasn’t on purpose. Superman doesn’t like Batman because of his rouge man tactics, and thus rudely and ironically tells him to stop (Which did annoy me – mate did you forget you aren’t actually human) but all of this didn’t warrant a big enough excuse for Batman to go on a kill mission…. only to change his mind half way through! Oyvey!

9. Batman’s Nightmare/Dream sequence/Flash Forward/Inception.
Batman went all desert warrior on us as he went in search of Kryptonite, only to be betrayed by his team, and killed by Superman.  Not only that, but he was then visited by what I denoted as a figure from the future trying to give him a grave warning – but it was all in his head.
This scene lasted way to long and only helped to amp up the confusion levels. You were looking for clues in that segment, and still pondering over it’s significance when the film moved on and it was never talked about again. Part of me began to doubt that it had even happened.

10. Spoiler Alert much?
Are DC that afraid of not having an audience for their films that they just decided to spoil any chance of anticipating scenes from their upcoming movies.

(Apologies for the poor quality – this was the only picture I could find!)

This would have been more than enough; at this point I was actually pretty gassed. That gas then developed a strange and pungent smell when I then basically got a mini trailer of all that’s too come. Sure I knew they were coming, as I happily peruse upcoming films for the next ten years or so, however my cinema companion didn’t know what half the symbols meant, and her interest was piqued. However giving the audience all the information in the film, means they have no reason to keep being interested once they’ve left.

That was more difficult than I expected… whittling it down to ten, that is. So what did I like about the film you wonder; well like is an incredibly strong word, but nevertheless, there was one thing I did enjoy, and a few things I found tolerable.

Alfred (Jeremy Irons), at first annoyed the heck out of me, as I was used to seeing a more tender but firm “Grandfather” figure. However the dirty uncle that everyone hopes doesn’t get too drunk at the Christmas table characteristic they went for instead turned out to work and was even at parts – dare I say – a little funny.

Batman being older and wiser, I believe he stated “I’ve been doing this for twenty years” or something to that effect. He decided he was a vigilante, and he was okay with that. Thankfully there was no struggling teenage angst moment about him deciding the kind of man he wants to be and the sacrifices he must make, blah blah blah.

The look of Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman fighting side by side actually looked pretty amazing. 

I mentioned that there was one thing that I did like, it was the only thing that did not disappoint, and thankfully so, as it happened to be the only reason I allowed myself to be dragged to see this movie, and that was Wonder Woman.

From the only trailer I watched (which was sometime last year) it made it seem that she was barely in the film, but she got a lot more screen time than I expected. It also confirmed my belief that Wonder Woman will be an epic film when it is finally released in 2017… Although her skirt is a little too short – Sorry! I can’t help myself.

At the end of the day, this film wasn’t bad, (in the Hallmark Movie that we all pretend to hate but love, kind of way), it was worse than that; the film was boring. A bad film you can sit and laugh and cringe about. But a boring film? It leaves you empty and angry, and in the case of my cinema companion; asleep. And yet despite all of this and the fact that I have yet to hear a single person express genuine enjoyment for the film, it has almost tripled its $250 million budget in Box Office intake.

(One of this Unicorns is solely for Wonder Woman) 

Deadpool

Deadpool stars Ryan Reynolds as a potty mouthed anti-hero in a role he can actually be proud of since his days on Two Guys and Girl (and A Pizza Place).

I’m going to break this film into three parts, entitled: The Good, The Bad and The Other, as that was pretty much how I surmised the film after I watched it and discussed it with my buddy.

The Good 
This film was crude and ballsy (pun intended) but not in a cringing way which can be very difficult to do. The effects gave an adult level of humour to the movie and allowed us to connect with a character whose face was concealed half the time. The jokes, the gestures and the antics helped build a persona for the masked man, so much so that he seemed almost separate from the person under it.

Away from characterisation, something that I thought was pure genius was the opening scene. It consisted of a frozen moment in time; Inside a car that was in the middle of crashing. The camera then took us through the scene as the opening credits appeared and instead of using the actors/casts real names, they were cited as funny stereotypes.

Within the first 5 seconds of this scene I turned to my friend and said;This movie is going to be sick.

The Bad
With a slightly more than average running time of 108minutes and a plot I could explain in three short sentences, I cannot fathom why the film actually took so long. It is quite cleverly done, confusing you with time jumps, witty lines and fourth wall narration, but at the end of the day, the plot was pretty thin. Most of these superhero films start with an origin story, and although that was implemented in Deadpool, I thought it was pretty weak and rushed. I know you comic book fans are preparing to tell me; but that’s how it happened in #23 Deadpool Risesor whatever, but from a film point of view it was ultimately a cop out. This was something they could have spent a lot more time crafting in order to give the film another dimension as opposed to it being a plot point to get through.

The OtherWe have already gathered that I am a fan of Deadpool as a character; he’s funny, unconventional, looks great in red, and really involves the viewer in the story through his forth wall narration. However the line of acceptable absurdity starts to disintegrate when one constantly admits the false reality of the universe in which they reside. This isn’t the matrix so when lines such as this crop up.

Colossus: You will come talk with professor Xavier.
Deadpool: McAvoy or Stewart? These timelines can get so confusing.

You have caused the viewer to stop believing in the world you have created and jerked them back into reality. It works if you are subtle with the ‘outside jokes’

But throwing in pictures like this;

On a constant level doesn’t put you in the same state of mental concentration. Don’t get me wrong every, joke and jibe was thigh slappingly comical, but there is an art to doing such things well, and it’s an art that Deadpool was unable to master.

As a whole the film worked for what it was, but I don’t know what the Marvel Cinematic Universe has in store for Deadpool as a character. Everything was tied up with a nice big red bow so it’s hard to imagine where the storyline of a potential Deadpool 2 would go. As well as that the character is unique in that I can’t see him fitting in with the PG13 crew of all the other Marvel Movies. That being said, I would be more than happy to see Deadpool in the future.

(A quick shout out to Ed Skrein who played Ajax; Deadpool’s nemesis. Although there was no real understanding of his ability, his mission or his cruelty, he was one good looking adversary and that was enough for me.)

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie, in possession of brains, must be in want of more brains." 

If that isn't an enticing enough line to draw in audience in the masses, then I don't know what is. Based on the parody novel of the same name by Seth Grahame-Smith, which uses the narrative structure or Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice with an undead twist - this film is everything you hoped it would be and more.

This is the third time Lily James has appeared on this blog, and I have to say that I definitely took her more seriously with the brown locks... and sword. Playing the well known protagonist Elizabeth Bennet, James does a fantastic job of being the proud, independent and less than demure Zombie slayer. Despite the on going plague of Zombies, her nemesis comes in the brooding and unfeeling form of Mr Darcy (Sam Riley). An equally skilled Zombie slayer who goes nowhere without his Van Helsing and Neo inspired leather coat.

Sam Riley would not have been my first choice to play the lovable robot that is Fitzwilliam Darcy, neither would he have been my second, third or probably forth choice, however as the film went on I warmed to his stoic nature and enjoyed the dry humoured dynamic between his Darcy and James' Bennet. Their inevitable relationship was certainly more believable than that between Elizabeth and the devilishly handsome Mr Wickham (Jack Huston) who has even more sinister in this rendition than I could have ever imagined. He was transformed into a real villain, out for more than just money which added depth to his character, that will never allow me to see him the same way ever again.

The film was laid against the plot of the Jane Austen's original but what was so great is that although we did have the vague courtship of Jane Bennet and the sexy Mr Bingley (Douglas Booth), the rules of social etiquette are secondary to the fight against the undead.

One thing that did stick out, was the complete irrelevance of the entire Bennet family. Whereas they normally each have their own unique and distinctive personalities, in this film their role was simply to support Elizabeth Bennet. Seriously I don't think Kitty Bennet even spoke, and it was a miracle that Mary Bennet managed to snag herself a few lines. Even Lydia who is supposed to have her own plot and a strong character fell flat. It would have been better to get rid of a few of the Bennet sisters and rename the film; Elizabeth Bennet Zombie Slayer.
But then again, tell me the five of them together does not look so cool.

#SquadGoals

In terms of the films style, it did seem as though the director was unsure what he wanted to go for - which is completely understandable as there was so much choice. There was the graceful possibility of the 1800's, the war torn theme of Good vs Evil, and the bad-assness of female empowerment. However it seemed that instead of making a resolute decision, he just stuck a different instagram filter over random scenes and called it a day.

As a final note I have to give a standing ovation to Matt Smith who played the Bennet's cousin Mr Collins. Normally portrayed as an annoying, self absorbed try-hard, Smith did the impossible and turned this unlikeable character into a loveable one. His mannerisms and lines brought a comic element to the film that was otherwise missing. It was an unexpected but pleasurable twist in the tale that brought life to a character that is otherwise seen as nothing more than the gum on your shoe. Kudos to you Matt Smith, kudos to you.

If you are a fan of the book, or the original of which the book was based, then by all means waste your money and have a good laugh. If however you care nothing for Pride or Prejudice or Zombies, then pick another film... That being said; as this is the sometimes subjective view of an objective film reviewer I am going to personally give this film a rating higher than it would probably get elsewhere. Not as good as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter but a blast nevertheless.

TV Drama: War and Peace

As it's been a while since my last film review - namely due to my decision not to watch certain films I was previously anticipating in cinema - and so I thought  I would just insert a random TV Drama Review for you. The BBC's 6 part adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace. Get Excited.

War and Peace is an avid readers 'white whale', in that it is over 1,200 pages of dense text, translated from its original language of Russian. Stunning visuals aside, this adaptation should help provide some context and help in ease of read should you one day attempt the novel.

Set amidst a brooding war between Russia and France between 1805 and 1813, War and Peace focuses around the lives of three main characters belonging to Russia's Elite.

Count Pierre Bezukhov (Paul Dano) - Although Pierre grew up around the likes of Counts and Princes, he was never expected to reach their ranks. Educated, kind and a little awkward, he suddenly has to navigate the customs and delicacies of society when he inherits his title. Count after his father names him as heir - despite him being a bastard child. Paul Dano's depiction of Pierre Bezukhov was a work of art. He was an inspiring and determined character and my favourite.

What I liked so much about Pierre is that he probably grew the most, in thoughts, in practice, and in understanding. Despite his initial childishness and naivety, he comes into his own, doing what he can to better his life and help others do the same.

Countess Natasha Rostova (Lily James) - I think one of the fundamental issues of this characters depiction, is that she is supposed to be very young when the book starts off; Twelve to be exact. Lily James on the other hand is Twenty-Six, and although she does look young for her age - she doesn't look that young. I think because of that reason it was hard to really relate to her character in the early stages of the show.

Natasha Rostova is an untouched flower, unsullied by the manipulations and scandals of the elite, close to her family and lover of all things. She is constantly jubilant, a believer in true love and blissfully ignorant of real life. It is only in the second half of the series that it becomes easier to relate to her, and although Lily James did a good enough job of prancing around pretending to be twelve, it wasn't until Natasha Rostova grew up both in age and mind, that Lily James was able to deliver a convincing performance.

Prince Andrei Bolkonsky (James Norton) - Despite having a wife with a child on the way, Bolkonsky has used the war with France as a means of escape. In conversation with his close (and seemingly only) friend Pierre Buzukhov he talks about how he is disgusted with the shackles of society life; the luxuries, the dances, the clothes, and his wife whom he no longer loves. Bolkonsky is essentially on a suicide mission, deciding that the only way to escape the life he was born into is to die at war.

Andrei Bolkonsky is a selfish character  he mostly cannot see beyond his own self loathing to think about anybody else, despite how many chances God has given him to live. James Norton played him well, seeming to add a Mr Darcy air to the character in his stiffness, manner of speaking, and resolute judgement. The character of Andrei Bolkonsky had the least amount of development in my opinion, (of course I can only comment on the TV Adaptation) as it seemed that by the end of his journey he had learnt nothing and had scarcely changed at all.

I think the war created a good backdrop as it almost ebbed and flowed with the characters emotions and journey's, like slowly watching the tide come in not realising you were in any danger until your back hits the wall. The first two episodes moved very slowly, it was still a good watch especially as you had a subconscious awareness that it was essentially necessary in order to grasp the who's who of the extensive number of players that came and went. Episodes three to five was where the core of the story took place (and were probably the best episodes), and episode six deserves to be judged in it's own right as it was 82 minutes - as opposed to the standard 60 minutes of its predecessors. It made of a good round up of all events, yet despite the length of the episode, certain aspects still felt rushed.

I won't deny it; I love a good period drama, and I really enjoyed this series. The idea of taking thick literary works of art and adapting it for the small screen for all to enjoy is something I hope to see more of from the BBC, and from any other TV production company that can rise to the artistic and financial challenge. I will still attempt to read the book one day, but for now this was a great experience, almost like watching an illustration of Neoclassical artwork dance around your screen.

The Revenant

Revenant; (noun)
               a person who has returned, especially supposedly from the dead.

If I was a little more literate, and had known the definition whilst watching the trailer, I may have been slightly more intrigued to watch this film. As it was, I wasn't, and was dragged along by a friend. In fact the trailer inspired nothing within me and I was in fact slightly more disturbed that Leonardo needed professional help to sort out that clear breathing problem he was having. (Watch the trailer if you want to understand the joke, or don't if you enjoy being slightly confused.)

The film begins in some unknown wilderness where a group of hunters sourcing animal pelts, are on edge about being out in the open, and as it turns out they are right to be. Less than five minutes into the film and we are exposed to a gruesome scene where Native Americans begin killing without mercy or explanation, with the Americans only barley managing to hold their own. The violent scene is equalled in it's beauty by the long shot that allows us to watch it all unfold.

Only a quarter of the men manage to escape with their lives and must now take a treacherous route to an outpost where they can regroup, without being caught by the Native Americans who are on their own mission to find the chiefs missing daughter Powaqa.

The Americans are being led by Henry Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) a man shrouded in mystery. Able to speak the language of the Natives, and with a son who has their colouring, John Fitzgerald questions him at every turn. With only his own well-being on his mind, when Glass' life if put in Fitzgerald's hands by a crewel twist of fate, it doesn't take him long to turn the situation to his favour.

Where to start with this unnecessarily long film?

I guess I have to comment first on a theme that really annoyed me, and that was the unnecessarily long "artsy" shots of the moon, the sunrise, frozen plants and mostly forest trees. I was unsure what reaction they were trying pull from the audience, as these shots lasted anywhere between six and twelve seconds and seemed neither plot driven or emotional. And the same in a way can be said for the sub-plots. It seemed that they existed for the sole purpose of giving validation to the finale, as opposed to existing as a separate entity that happened to cross paths with the main arch. This made the film feel disjointed, when we strayed away from Henry's journey, it felt as if someone had changed the channel without asking,

What was nice is that there is no sense of anything but the present, it felt like the barren wasteland was the entire world it helped you feel part of the film, trapped with the characters under the bell jar. However the illusion of living in the present with an absence of time can only stay intact if the existence of the fact is never acknowledged, once it is, you find yourself involuntarily thinking back through the entire film in order to have a mental timeline. A distracting thought that can leave you missing a number of scenic shots of trees.

The cultural elements added another dimension to the film. Henry Glass speaking soothingly in the language of the Native Americans to his son, and in his dream sequences felt melodic. In fact I have to admit that Leonardo DiCaprio's acting in this film was phenomenal. It was only in retrospect as the credits began to roll, that I was overcome with only a fraction of the mental exhaustion he must have felt playing Henry Glass. Hat's off to your sir.

It took me a long time to realise that I really did enjoy this film. When it comes to the Award Season Elite, I analyse and over think to make sure it was I who decided that I liked the film, and not my subconscious being conditioned to think it will be amazing because of its nominations.
After all, did you know that although The Revenant had a nationwide release of January 8th 2016, it was released in selected cinemas in the USA on December 25th 2015 in order to make itself eligible for the 88th Academy Awards?

Sometime you have to ask yourself, if it's for the audience or if it's for the nomination.

Stay safe this award season.