Skip to main content

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.


Outlaw/King arrives on Netflix with the not-quite ignominy of its reception at the Toronto Film Festival, after which the director cut 23 minutes. The picture’s still two hours though, and that's with Mackenzie's decision going in not to tell a birth-to-death yarn but rather focus on Bruce's rise to claim the throne, pretty much from around the point Wallace exited the proceedings. Being selective with what to cover in a biopic is usually a smart move, so avoiding episodic highlight reels or greatest hits moments, but Outlaw/King's nevertheless unable to escape that rote effect. 


It's a movie desperately in need of inspiration, requiring us to trudge drearily and muddily from one battle to the next (I believe Mackenzie cut a couple) as Pine martials his fighting spirit following the death of dad James Cosmo (decidedly more sympathetic than Ian Bannen in Braveheart, which Cosmo also featured in), leading his brothers and an assortment of familiar faces including Tony Curran and Aaron Taylor-Johnson in a massive beard. 


Pine is… well, I usually rate the guy, but he's at best okay here. Not helping matters is that he's about as modern American looking as it gets, so even with a serviceable accent he seems out of place. But more than that, he just doesn't exude a leader of men vibe; he's fine when he's in charge of a gang of mates (Kirk), but playing a king, he's lacking. We're also rather bludgeoned with what an all-round good egg he is, sympathising with the serfs and making time for the kids (he even grieves for a dying lad on the battlefield, such is his big heartedness). It's the sort of role Costner would have drafted in Bryan Adams to give him a soundtrack for.


Then there's Mrs the Bruce, Florence Pugh, again bring a decidedly modern flavour to a period piece (see also Lady Macbeth). Very little seems to be known about Elizabeth Burgh, so I guess it's just possible Robert really was a highly respectful husband to her from the off, and that Elizabeth was a decidedly liberated lady, and that they had the kind of give-and-take relationship that might easily be mistaken for a twentieth century one, give or take the odd banishment from the room when engaging in war talk (but hubby then apologising afterwards). Really, though, it just seems like the usual revisionist nonsense Hollywood – and the BBC of late – habitually indulges. It's only a surprise Robert's most trusted advisor didn't turn out to be Morgan Freeman.


Apparently, there was more of their relationship that ended on the cutting room floor, as it isn't long before she’s been kidnapped and left in a cage hanging from a castle's walls. This by rotter Edward Prince of Wales (Billy Howle), the future Edward II, who also rather gruesomely hangs, draws and quarters Robert's brother Neil. Edward is not the mincing queen of Mad Mel’s fourteenth century Britain, but equally caricatured as a rash fool desperate to prove himself worthy of daddy, his behaviour culminating in his making a spectacle of himself at the Battle of Bannockburn Loudoun Hill. 


Edward I: The great danger of dying of natural causes is that one may be lying in one's bed chamber, thinking of all the things that remain left undone.

Daddy is played by Stephen Dillane, who adopts weariness as the king's pose over the crafty, malevolent mockery of Patrick McGoohan. I initially thought this was a mistake, but the character ends up becoming one of the more memorable ones here, even if the father-son relationship is desperately unoriginal. Howle quickly grows tiresome, which rather means there’s a big worthy antagonist hole in the picture once Edward I exits; Sam Spruell might have filled the gap, but he's underwritten.


Robert the Bruce: I know you as men, but today we are beasts!

Taylor-Johnson meanwhile, ought to be laughed off the movie for treating it so obviously in serious actor mode (so full method, there's even a shot of him whole-heartedly snotting, back in the days before tissues), but his commitment wins you over. I might have been more interested to see the adventures of James Douglas, Lord of Douglas than Brucey winning his Scotland bonus, particularly when the detour of his mission to reclaim his land is one of the more engaging parts of the picture (he and his men go on the attack in a church).


But aside from Douglas in full roar, the copious battle scenes fail to engage. Mackenzie mounts them with due conviction, but he should know that for a battle count, they have to have mini-narratives of their own, with objectives and geography the audience can understand. Otherwise, the spectacle of muddy, bloody mayhem soon gives way to lethargy. During the big one, we are treated to a particularly ridiculous moment where Bruce punches out Edward II, but that's exactly the wrong kind of memorable.


If you go over to the Wiki page for Outlaw/King, it will tell you the film cost $120m, which is a crazy amount of money for a movie that never feels very epic or even one indulging in the occasional awesome vista (The Independent cites $90m and that still seems like a huge amount). Netflix's approach to moviemaking, like Annapurna before it started belt tightening, seems to be about pissing money down the drain, throwing cash at projects that would never have a hope of making their money back if they had to rely on cinema attendance (which makes one wonder how many streaming viewers that will add up to). It's the sort of profligacy that habitually did for studios in the past, but right now they appear to be impregnable. I'd be cautiously approving if this approach was turning out great movies, but it seems to be taking the edge off the talents involved. With no pressures involved, they can deliver exactly what they want, it seems, and what they want may be rather forgettable. Outlaw/King isn't destined for an illustrious shelf life, any more than the other Scottish historical epic from 1995, Rob Roy.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.