Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

2 Stars (out of four)

So, I am a big fan of author Seth Grahame-Smiths books.  They are ludicrous, funny and subversive by the choice of their subject matter.  He originally wrote Pride and Prejudice and Zombies mostly as a writing exercise, taking Jane Austen's seminal work of the trials and tribulations of the five Bennet sisters trying to get married in the 19th Century while navigating the pressures of the times.  Grahame-Smith just adds the zombie apocalypse to the equation and you have a rollicking good time.

And this is precisely where the movie blows it.  Now don't misunderstand.  I did not dislike this film.  I was entertained by it.  But the problem is that the movie cannot figure out what it wants to be.  I think it is mostly a grrl power movie where men are essentially useless, stupid or mysogynous or a combination of all three.  All, of course, except for the forward-thinking father and Mr. Darcy, the romantic male lead, whom we are supposed to like anyway.  Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with movies with strong female protagonists.  Many of them are some of my favorites (Alien/Aliens, The Terminator, The Abyss, Strange Days, Mad Max: Fury Road immediately spring to mind).  Other times, approaches the T.V. show Batman level of campiness.  Other times, it feels like a post-feminist, ironic/satirical commentary on those days.  Sometimes, it even tries to be faithful to the spirit of the original text.

But what the producers did not understand is what made this story so good in the first place.  Grahame-Smith's book works precisely because it is not ironic at all.  He stays totally faithful to Austen's style and feeling, and the juxtaposition of the zombie apocalypse mixed with the stolid propriety of pre-Victorian England is what makes it funny and intriguing at the same time.  Conjuring images of young, Victorian women who are deadly practioners of martial arts using those skills in the same banality of drinking tea and biscuits is absolutely hysterical and pure fun.  This movie is a jumbled mass of trying to please as many audiences as possible without completely serving any of them.  Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is not a particularly high or difficult concept, and the writers and producers just made an incoherent botch of the whole thing.  And that was disappointing because this movie had a lot of promise.  It even ends on a tacked-on cliffhanger in the vain hope it will become another franchise series.

And incoherence is the watchword for this movie.  There appear to be a lot of inside jokes that are obvious to people who have read Pride and Prejudice.  I have never read the book and, God willing, never will.  But because of my ignorance of the source material, I think I missed out on some good jokes.  On the other hand, the movie had plot holes so large you could sail an aircraft carrier through them.  I think it also suffers from some severe post-production cutting because some storylines inexplicably end or meander down an odd path.  In the end, you really need to look at this film like a Monty Python movie.  Don't try to make sense of the zaniness.  Just turn your brain off and just go with it.

The Fifth Element---A Reconsideration

3 Stars (out of four)

So, when I saw The Fifth Element for the first time when it came out in 1997, I absolutely hated it. Since then, the film, while maybe not being a true cult classic like director Luc Besson's other offerings like La Femme Nikita (made into another horrible movie called Point of No Return and not one, but two spinoff TV series-La Femme Nikita and Nikita) and Leon: The Professional), it has gained a cult status all its own. So now that I have had some distance from it, I thought I'd give it another try.

For those of you who don't know, The Fifth Element was written by Luc Besson since he was sixteen.  In the future, a planet of literal evil is coming to destroy the Earth in some kind of apocalyptic whatever.  The only thing standing in its way is former soldier Korben Dallas (Bruce Willis) and the ultimate weapon in the universe, Leeloo (Milla Jovovich), whose ultimate power seems to be looking hot while wearing the least amount of clothes possible (not that I'm complaining mind you).

See, Leeloo is the personification of the fifth element (with fire, earth, air and water being the other four, you see) and is the most powerful being in the universe as well as the least powerful because she needs love.  Enter Bruce Willis.  Anyway, they get sent to a pleasure planet cruise ship, hosted by intergalactic TV host Ruby Rhod (played by Chris Tucker in a wonderful over-top-performance that makes his character in Rush Hour seem like a narcoleptic zombie in comparison) to retrieve some stones that will kill the evil force and stave off the end of the world.

Got all that?  Good.  If not, it doesn't particularly matter.  Remember, this was a sixteen-year-old's labor of love for over 20 years.  Coherency isn't the point or goal here.  It is a series of breathtaking images punctuated by incredible kinetic motion, even in its quieter (not that many) moments.  A small sampling of the sumptuous visual overload:

If this seems like a fever dream from a coked-up, paranoid, insomniac who hasn't slept for four and a half days, I would say you're not far off from the feeling this film puts out.  It is a joy to behold, to immerse yourself in the visual feast of images here.  But as I said, I hated it when I saw it for the first time in 1997.  Why?  I guess it was because it was the exact opposite of what I was expecting.  Luc Besson, up to this point, was known for very ultraviolent, kinetic films, and while this has elements of his earlier works, it is also very funny when you don't expect it to be.  The humor is spot on and gives this very ridiculous film a likability akin to The Princess Bride or Galaxy Quest.  When I was younger with other expectations, this juxtaposition was jarring, but now I find it quite charming in a obtrusive, but easy to take way.  Indeed, the comedy in the movie is needed to cover up story flaws or when the pace begins to drag.

The actors are clearly having fun with these roles.  Bruce Willis toning down his tough-guy persona so much he barely speaks to Chris a Tucker am ping up his gerbil metabolism energy to record heights, everything is a surprise here.   Milla Jovovich, who made me fall in love with her in this movie, is actually pretty good.  She displays several startling moments of pathos, vulnerability and strength at different points of the film.  Her expressive eyes sell it, and is her secret weapon in just about every film she does.  Gary Oldman seems to be the only one who doesn't belong here.  He seems to be sleepwalking through the film in a phoned-in performance with a God-awful southern accent that keeps slipping at the most inopportune times.  I would have expected more from him as he has unfailingly impressed me with his ability to disappear into any role.

The direction and editing are also very quirky.  The movie feels like a roller coaster with hyper-kinetic motion, and a funky soundtrack that keeps you grooving to the action.  Besson uses well-composed groupings of people using close ups with a long lens.  This combination distorts people's faces, especially curves like noses, cheeks and chins.  He also directed his actors to be a tad off-kilter, not quite right ways of emoting and reacting.  All of these elements together give the movie a somewhat "off" feel which disorients you, and heightens the style of the film.  I personally loved the feel as it makes it, in the end, a little different and stands out on its own.

So that is why I reassessed my earlier distaste for the film and give it a fairly high ranking now.  When I was younger, I may have given this 1 star (based solely on Jovovich's wardrobe).  I get what other people see in it, and I agree with those opinions of this inspired lunacy.  It is a joy to watch and I would heartily recommend you throw yourself into it and go with the flow.  Don't think about it, just experience it.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

2 Stars (out of four)

15 years ago, Blackhawk Down was released to wide critical acclaim.  It is a harrowing, exciting and ultimately very good account for an operation that ended in disaster for US policy in Somalia, very similar to the Vietnam effect.  The most infamous incident was the dragging of dead helicopter pilots through the streets of jeering crowds in Mogadishu.  It is interesting that that incident is brought up in 13 Hours, because this movie is almost a direct sequel/remake to that movie.

13 Hours tells the ground story behind the events in Benghazi, Libya that ultimately led to the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens.  It sets up the situation beforehand and the attacks on the Ambassadorial compound and nearby CIA compound.  It paints itself as a pretty straightforward action film, telling what happened without trying to politicize it, a fight still continuing at the time of this writing.

In the end, this movie, like all Michael Bay movies, is a very exciting, slick action film and it makes no apologies for being so.  Despite the criticism that Michael Bay makes nothing but audience-pleasing blockbuster crap, and therefore is a sellout hack, there is a reason he is given big movie after big movie to make.  And that reason is...

He's really good.

Yes, I said it!  Michael Bay, despite the stupid movies he makes, is a director par excellence.  (For a fascinating video article on why his style "Bayhem" is so captivating. http://www.avclub.com/article/heres-learned-analysis-why-michael-bay-movies-are--206582). Movies, by their very design, are meant to manipulate the audience into feeling a certain way.  Many people will vehemently deny it, thinking they know better and that they can't be manipulated.  But film language is very subtle and deeply ingrained into out collective psyche, and that's why they are the most effective forms of propaganda/presentation out there.  Every element is specifically chosen to make you feel a certain way from choice of actors to costuming to angles to lighting to script to choice of music.  13 Hours is a rousing actioneer that is exciting to watch.  So why am I bringing all this up?  Because 13 Hours is also a huge propaganda piece criticizing US foreign policy (specifically Bush and Clinton) and the CIA masquerading as a slick action film.

This is in no way a critique of the men that the piece was about or the events surrounding it.  It has all the Bay flag-waving trademarks so prevalent in Armageddon and other Bay films, stoking feelings of patriotic pride in the fight of the individual.  But it also critiques the US as weak and hapless with close ups of the American flag being riddled with buckets in closeup and a closing shot of the same flag floating in a pool at the film's closing shot.  But it is most egregious with the treatment of the CIA chief, "Bob."  It initially portrays him as an arrogant, dismissive, power-hungry S.O.B. at the beginning, berating and not listening to the sage advice of his more knowledgeable contractors, all former military.  As the plot moves on, he becomes obstinate, ineffectual, almost cowardly and finally, stubborn because he won't leave the compound at the end with everyone else.  But let's break this down.  It is being told by the operator, so it has a point of view, a take on events that are true and not at the same time.  While I am not defending actions of an arrogant boss, Bob has his own responsibilities to his own people. As is often pointed out in the film, everyone knows it is a shady area and was ripe for attack.  The compound held several CIA operatives and analysts, who, if captured, would certainly have been horrifically tortured for the information and propaganda value they had.  Bob's responsibility (and the operators), were ultimately to this facility.  They were not a quick reaction force, and while it was laudible what the operators did in the face of US inaction to save Ambassador Stevens, they ultimately failed to do anything to change his fate, while putting over 30 other Americans at risk.

Also, in the end of the movie, in the smoking aftermath, Bob refuses to leave because he has to keep collecting intelligence, which is painted as ludicrous and childishly petulant.  But I couldn't help but feel a little admiration for Bob.  Despite the fact he was almost killed and is in an incredibly dangerous area, he still wants to do his job, which ultimately protects Americans.  Despite all the obstacles and danger, he still wants to do what he is charged to do.  This is the type of behavior is rightfully lauded in our armed forces, but because we aren't supposed to like Bob, so it is used to deride him, which I took a little offense to.  When I came out of this movie, I was asking myself, what was the point of the film?  Despite being fun to watch, there is no context to what is happening here, no wider story.  It is a moment in time with terrible consequences.  Unlike the far superior Blackhawk Down, there is no theme, no context and ultimately no point.

But it's pretty cool to watch.

The Revenant

3 Stars (out of four)

The Revenant is more of an experience than a movie.  Movies entertain, preach, thrill, chill and sadden.  The Revenant beats you into submission with its portrait of man's inhumanity to man and cold permeates every aspect of its presentation, both physically and emotionally.

Using the five most dangerous words in cinematic history, "Based on a true story...", The Revenant tells the story (sort of) of real-life early 1800's trapper Hugh Glass (in an astonishing role for Leo DiCaprio) who was mauled by a grizzly bear, left for dead by his team including John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), and walks what would appear to be thousands of miles in the Missouri wilderness to kill Fitzgerald in righteous revenge. 

The movie bears little resemblance to actual events (admittedly sketchy since most of the exploits were not witnessed by anybody but in true frontier fashion, grow with each subsequent retelling.  For an interesting and short article on the real events read http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/the-revenant/leonardo-dicaprio-hugh-glass-true-story/), but this isn't a documentary.  It is spectacularly, yet very depressingly told.  Director Alejandro Iñárritu (last year's Oscar winner for Best Director in Birdman) is quite possibly the next Stanley Kubrick, both in his directorial prowess and black-hearted view of human nature.  This movie radiates pain and cruelty in every frame.  But everything is expertly depicted.  From his frequent Sergio Leone-esque close ups for us to read the agony on each actor's face, to his amazingly choreographed battle scenes, to his chilling landscapes (with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezski) that create an atmosphere where I actually felt the cold in the theater, Iñárritu is finally coming into his due, despite the fact of already creating several great movies already.  But he is too engaged with the craft of the making of rather than the telling of his story, which tends to make the movie drag.  It brings to mind the work of Werner Herzog, another great director who is too in love with his craft and will go to any length to show it, despite the effect on a coherent storyline.

But this movie is all DiCaprio, who for some reason, a lot of people think he can't act.  Ever since This Boy's Life and The Basketball Diaries, Leo has been churning out one great performance after another, many of which are unheralded.  Maybe because of his movie star looks combined with a lot of jealousy, most people don't want to acknowledge how good he really is.  I think he is on par with some of the greatest actors ever like DeNiro, Pacino, Brando, Penn and Stewert.  Like Castaway, this is less a movie than it is an acting exercise.  If DiCaprio didn't deliver, the movie falls apart like a house of cards.  Everything is in his expression as he says very little through the entire film.  There have been several articles published already detailing the extremes Iñárritu and DiCaprio went through to make this film that I won't repeat.  Suffice to say, it is reflected on DiCaprio's face and in his performance.  Some say his movie-star looks hold him back from greatness.  I say this movie proves it wrong and I am pretty sure he that with this fifth Oscar nomination, he will finally win a deservedly and long-overdue statue.

The comparatively low-rating I give this film is not a reflection of its quality and craftsmanship.  It is because, in the end, movies should entertain.  This is craftsmanship for its own sake.  A laudible goal, but in the end, the movie leaves one a bit unfulfilled.  Many directors fall into this trap, chief among them Terrence Malik, who eschew audience engagement in favor of art for its own sake.  They fall in love with the craft at the expense of what movies are meant to do in the first place, tell an engaging story.  It is possible to marry both art and entertainment together, which is the hallmark of a great director.  Chaplin, Ford, Wilder, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Cameron, and yes, even Michael Bay have all done it, and without necessarily showing off (with the possible exception of Scorsese).  If Iñárritu wants to be remembered in that company of greats instead of being relegated to that group of great directors who toil in relative obscurity except in art houses (Welles, Fellini, Buñel, Malik, Cimino, Lynch, Aronovsky, Van Sant), he needs to remember that.  Making great, audience-pleasing stories does not necessarily mean sell-out.

The Hateful Eight

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Anytime Quentin Tarantino decides to put out a new movie is a cause for celebration.  While his style may not be for all tastes, it cannot be denied that he is one of the most original voices of his generation and has close to a perfect record in great films.  In a time when remakes, sequels and cookie-cutter, more or less identical family-friendly fare keeps getting churned out and attended by essentially brain-dead patrons numbed with mediocrity, Tarantino is still one of the freshest and most originally vibrant voices in filmdom.  The Hateful Eight, his eighth movie he has directed (10.5 if you count movies he had a lot to do with), while not being his finest outing, is still better than most others' best.

The Hateful Eight is actually a fairly simple premise.  During a horrific blizzard in the late 1800s, eight people are trapped in a haberdashery and must wait it out.  Each of the people are not what they seem and eventually come to blows in a characteristically "Tarantino-esque" climax of blood-soaked denouement.  The movie is part whodunnit mystery, part suspense.  The best way to describe it is Key Largo meets Ten Little Indians meets Straw Dogs.

The specifics of this particular movie are less important than the journey.  Like Inglorius Basterds, this is a movie of talking, not action.  The is a sheer joy of the spoken word and dialogue that crackles and sparks in this movie.  This is a movie that lets actors act, so you can see the craft.  There is not a bad one in this bunch.  Aside from Tarantino regulars like Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, and Michael Madsen, there is also Bruce Dern, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins and Kurt Russell.  Every one of them puts on one of their most intense performances to date and all are a joy to watch.

But the real star of this film is the auteur himself, Tarantino.  Much has been made of the fact that it was shot in the largest format available, 70mm CinemaScope.  The interesting thing about this choice of format is that it is more appropriate for movies with wide vistas like Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia or The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.  And while this movie has many great shots of the expansive Wyoming landscape, most the film takes place in very intimate quarters inside a cramped cabin.  Yet somehow, Tarantino makes it work beautifully.  For a guy who never went to film school, he has enormous talent for direction.  It is amazing that such a good writer and director exist in the same guy. It makes it all the worst when he keeps threatening to quit the business with only eight movies under his belt.

A quick thought about the four-hundred-pound gorilla in the room whenever discussing Tarantino-the violence.  It is no secret that the biggest hallmark of all Tarantino films is the level of violence in them.  In this one especially, with as intimate as the quarters get, so does the level of violence.  Jennifer Jason Leigh's outlaw suffers the worst at the hands of lawman and hangman Kurt Russell.  Some have said the violence borders on mysogynistic with the level of abuse leveled on her.  But it turns out she can take it and dish it back like a vengeful harpy.  She is easily the toughest and arguably most brutal character in the film, so I think the mysogynous criticism is people trying to make a name for themselves making mountains out of molehills.  But the point I am making is that it's too bad that Tarantino feels his signature must be written in blood.  It is now expected.  When I left the theater, I heard two dim-witted twenty-somethings lamenting that the film looked like it wasn't going to have the violence level one expects from Tarantino's movies.  They, and other brain-dead specimens like them completely miss the point if that is why they are coming.  But unfortunately, Tarantino has now painted himself in a corner as people now have certain expectations of him.  I love it when directors move out of their comfort zones and do something completely unexpected.  What would be interesting would be if Tarantino did a love story (different than True Romance) or a straightforward drama.  I would love to see what he could do outside the crime/action genre.  He certainly tries to do very different movies each time, and he certainly has the talent to visually and aurally tell a compelling story.  I would love to see him do one that didn't necessarily require he fall back on extreme violence like a crutch.  He's better than that and it is long time that he demonstrated it, but that's just my opinion.  In any case, if you love great film storytelling, this is a required movie to see.  And while you're at it, try it's artistic ancestor, Key Largo.

Star Wars: Episode Seven-The Force Awakens

Four Stars (out of four)

WARNING: MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD!  Nothing you won't get out of the opening crawl in the first two minutes.  No major plot points ruined.

So, it's finally here.  The big question that most of us had, is it any good?  The definitive answer is a resounding YES!  This is the movie we've been waiting 33 years to see, since Episodes 1-3 sucked so badly.  It is new, exciting and fun, packed with just the right amount of nostalgia combined with a passing of the torch to a new generation.  But, it is not totally without problems...

The Force Awakens takes place in real time, around thirty years after Return of the Jedi.  Forget everything from the Expanded Universe of books, all of that has thankfully been thrown away.  The Empire has been smashed, but from the ashes, the First Order has arisen.  It is the remnants of the Empire's military wing and is ruthlessly trying to take back its position from the New Republic.  What was once the Rebellion is now the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa.  They try to keep the First Order in check.  For some mysterious reason, Luke Skywalker has disappeared, and both sides are looking for him.  This is where we land in the action.

So, yes, The Force Awakens is a really good, if not, great film.  There is a lot to like here. It is wonderful to see the old guard like Han Solo and Leia again.  Han and Chewbacca play big roles in this film, so their legion of fans, myself included, will not be disappointed. Harrison Ford reprising the role he loves/hates is a joy to watch.  But despite the initial reliance on old characters, the new characters of Rey (Daisy Ridley), Finn (John Boyega), and the villainous Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) are all likable in their own ways.  We get just enough information to pique our interest about them, and we are left wanting more, like all good entertainment should be.  J.J. Abrams, who directed and cowrote the movie with Lawrence Kasdan (The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi) and Michael Arndt (Toy Story 3 and the Oscar Winning Little Miss Sunshine), proves once again that it is the script that matters, not the effects. 

Expectations were incredibly high for this film, and these three talents delivered in spades.  If you don't have compelling characters with realistic motivations one can relate to, the movie will not work.  The coldness and stiltiness of Episodes 1-3 was its downfall.  In the end, you didn't care about what happens to the characters.  On top of that, since Lucas is notorious for not being able to work with actors, he doesn't get good performances out of them.  That, combined with an overreliance on admittedly dazzling effects, give Episodes 1-3 a cold, flat, lifeless feel.  Now, before this descends into a Lucas-bashing column, he IS a fantastic producer.  He sees the big picture, and is able to guide it well.  But in the end, it took the grounding of a good story and solid, interesting characters to ultimately save the franchise. In other words, it needed a new set of eyes that could say the emperor has no clothes.

Some good specifics about The Force Awakens.  I like the darker tone of the film.  The First Order has a real sense of menace.  Stormtroopers are not comical tenpins with bad marksmanship.  They are cruel, faceless and ruthless here.  There is a real sense of danger.  Added to that is the character of Kylo Ren, a very powerful Force-weilder prone to fits of rage, giving him a deliciously evil and unpredictable nature about him.  The First Order is dangerous and capable, and could not be bested by a bunch of hyperactive teddy bears.  The new droid BB8 is a joy.  I was never a fan of R2-D2, and it is nice to see a droid with a "real" personality, all the more amazing that it is a real, not CGI robot.

That said, this is not a perfect movie.  There are some problems, albeit minor ones, that hamper the movie's ultimate effectiveness.  The biggest issue I had was that there was not much exposition.  A lot of time and story has progressed since Return of the Jefi, and weare abruptly thrown into a situation we know very little about, and very little was answered as the movie progresses.  I found myself on more than one occasion scratching my head over who this character is, why is that piece of information important?  Why did Luke run off?  Why is everyone looking for him?  On and on this goes on through the whole movie.  Now, I am sure they will resolve most of this in the subsequent episodes, but it is very confusing if you take the time to think about what's happening. Next, this film is essentially a soft reboot of Episode 4: A New Hope.  The movie is not terribly original. Without getting into too many specifics, there are way too many parallels with the first Star Wars movie.  From characters to situations, the entire film has a stale, rehashed feel. I can only hope they don't double down on backward glancing references a la Star Trek: Into Darkness in the subsequent films.  Finally, I said earlier that there is a lot of nostalgia in this film, sometimes which is used to comedic effect.  My problem is that there is too much wink-and-a-nod-type humor.  It IS funny and I laughed, and I realize a bit of comic relief can be helpful, but there was too much self-referential gags.  We need to move ahead with this new generation and the humor took me out of the story at times.

Despite all of these problems, this is a really fun, crowd-pleasing movie that I would dare say is another Willy Wonka moment (a movie that sucks me into the story and totally captivates me).  I honestly felt like I was seven years old again watching Star Wars for the first time. It was thrilling, exhilarating, and an experience that had a profound impact on me, particularly for my love of movies.  Star Wars is where a lifetime love was born, and movies like The Force Awakens remind me once again why I keep going to the darkened theater for another grand adventure.

Legend (2015)

3 Stars (out of four)

I love the gangster flick.  I don't know why, considering they all end the same way, but God help me, they are a lot of fun.  From The Roaring Twenties to The Godfather to The Untouchables to Goodfellas to Scarface and New Jack City, the gangster film is an exciting genre, a dark reflection of the American Dream.  Perhaps because it is the antithesis of the Western, maybe that is the reason it resonates with Americans.  In any case, despite the fact that Legend is about Britain's arguably most famous gangsters, the twin Kray brothers, it has a very familiar feel to it.

Legend is about the infamous Kray brothers who ran gambling and protection rackets in London in the mid to late 1960s.  Tom Hardy plays both roles; the suave and debonair but tough Reggie Kray, and the mentally unstable, volatile and incredibly violent Ronnie Kray.  It tracks their careers when they were becoming a force to be reckoned with to their downfall.  In that time, the Krays worked with the American mafia to make London the Las Vegas of Europe. 

First, I loved the movie in that it was fascinating subject material.  Here in the states, we know all about Capone, Lansky and Bulger, but unless you're a true crime aficionado, our interest doesn't go far beyond our borders.  The Krays were dynamic and charismatic, even getting a mention in Keith Richards' biography, Life.  But I also had a few issues with it.  The first was the film almost needed subtitles.  I missed about a third of the dialogue because of the impenetrable East End accents.  I know they're speaking English, but I will have to watch this movie a couple more times before I get what's going on.  Another issue I had was the movie couldn't decide what it wants to be.  Its tone varies wildly from being darkly comic to avant garde to straightforward gangster.  So it is hard at times to know how to feel about the events we are watching.  Also, for a gangster movie, there is a lot of domesticity in it.  One half is Reggie's pursuit and loss of his wife.  The other half is about Ron Kray's unstable, violent nature and his homosexuality.  The movie drifts in and out of focus a lot.

That said, Tom Hardy is pretty amazing in his performances in the film.  He probably used some prosthetic work, especially with Ron Kray, but he totally disappears into each role.  It is a real tour de force.  He will be robbed if he doesn't get an Oscar nod.  He keeps putting out solid performances and elevates whatever material he appears in.  If he doesn't get the Oscar this time, he will be one of those actors to watch in the future.  He is an interesting guy and I look forward to seeing what else he can do.