Why do I feel that someone gave Robert Eggers a little too much money and a little too much fake blood?
I hate to be writing this review, I'm sorry, I really am. I know that The Northman is important in terms of an original blockbuster that isn't some flicks superhero thing in a world when we sorely need them. But I highly doubt that this is the way to go about it.
This film has been lauded a lot for its raw violence and its gritty edge, but honestly, I wasn't a big fan of that. Maybe this is a personal choice, but this film felt very primal and I couldn't say I loved that. I suppose it's the thing where they try to shock you with weird stuff to try and take your mind off the film's storyline problems (something that I found Midsommar particularly guilty of). I don't like that. But hey, if you want to see Ethan Hawke drinking blood, have fun with that.
In a lot of ways, this film reminds me of The Revenant. Now, I enjoyed The Revenant (more than this, might I add), but it suffers a lot of the same problems. Beautiful visuals, but for no meaning, really. The storyline of this is flat, which makes me confused over how you can mess up the story of Hamlet, and the fact that this isn't my first time saying this (see my review of that horrible 2000 version for more). To quote a very particular internet adage - if I had a quarter for every time someone messed up a film adaptation of Hamlet, I'd have two quarters, which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice. Back to the film, the shaky story, which drags soooooo much in the second act, really did end up showing through when you weren't being blinded by pretty cinematography.
This film is really aimless. That is my main critique, which is weird to say for a film that seems to have so much gusto and force - or, at least, you think it does, until you realise it's all a facade. The character development doesn't go anywhere, the characters themselves felt flat, Anya Taylor-Joy looked like she had walked onto the wrong set the entire time, I could go on.
I mean, you know what's going to happen from the start. It's literally the main character's catchphrase - avenge his father, save his mother, kill his uncle. Great. And that's exactly what he does. Amazing. Am I supposed to care that the thing that was drilled into my brain to anticipate from the start was going to happen? Wait, no - the second act is full of dumb plot choices that just kind of delay what you ALREADY KNOW IS GOING TO HAPPEN. And that's just annoying, man.
Of course, the cinematography is great, et cetera et cetera, and there's good production design and stuff. But again, no matter how nicely and fancily you present a plain piece of chicken breast, it's still going to be a wet lump of meat with no seasoning and no point. And that's what this film felt like to me - pointless.
I haven't see Egger's other films but I might check them out to have an apt comparison. In the meantime, I'd like my money back.
-Sasha.
I hate to be writing this review, I'm sorry, I really am. I know that The Northman is important in terms of an original blockbuster that isn't some flicks superhero thing in a world when we sorely need them. But I highly doubt that this is the way to go about it.
This film has been lauded a lot for its raw violence and its gritty edge, but honestly, I wasn't a big fan of that. Maybe this is a personal choice, but this film felt very primal and I couldn't say I loved that. I suppose it's the thing where they try to shock you with weird stuff to try and take your mind off the film's storyline problems (something that I found Midsommar particularly guilty of). I don't like that. But hey, if you want to see Ethan Hawke drinking blood, have fun with that.
In a lot of ways, this film reminds me of The Revenant. Now, I enjoyed The Revenant (more than this, might I add), but it suffers a lot of the same problems. Beautiful visuals, but for no meaning, really. The storyline of this is flat, which makes me confused over how you can mess up the story of Hamlet, and the fact that this isn't my first time saying this (see my review of that horrible 2000 version for more). To quote a very particular internet adage - if I had a quarter for every time someone messed up a film adaptation of Hamlet, I'd have two quarters, which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice. Back to the film, the shaky story, which drags soooooo much in the second act, really did end up showing through when you weren't being blinded by pretty cinematography.
This film is really aimless. That is my main critique, which is weird to say for a film that seems to have so much gusto and force - or, at least, you think it does, until you realise it's all a facade. The character development doesn't go anywhere, the characters themselves felt flat, Anya Taylor-Joy looked like she had walked onto the wrong set the entire time, I could go on.
I mean, you know what's going to happen from the start. It's literally the main character's catchphrase - avenge his father, save his mother, kill his uncle. Great. And that's exactly what he does. Amazing. Am I supposed to care that the thing that was drilled into my brain to anticipate from the start was going to happen? Wait, no - the second act is full of dumb plot choices that just kind of delay what you ALREADY KNOW IS GOING TO HAPPEN. And that's just annoying, man.
Of course, the cinematography is great, et cetera et cetera, and there's good production design and stuff. But again, no matter how nicely and fancily you present a plain piece of chicken breast, it's still going to be a wet lump of meat with no seasoning and no point. And that's what this film felt like to me - pointless.
I haven't see Egger's other films but I might check them out to have an apt comparison. In the meantime, I'd like my money back.
-Sasha.