A Complete Unknown (2024)

Here are the things I know about Bob Dylan. His video for Subterranean Homesick Blues is quite brilliant. A number of his songs have been covered by artists who have sometimes managed to eclipse the original. And his voice is somehow both pleasing to the ear and not unlike a musical vacuum cleaner. Those are the things I know about Bob Dylan. So I wasn't in a rush to watch A Complete Unknown, although the people involved ensured that I would get around to it eventually.

Timothée Chalamet plays Dylan, a young man we first see arriving in New York City as a talented 19-year-old on a pilgrimage to visit a hospitalised idol, Woody Guthrie (Scoot McNairy). Dylan meets Pete Seeger (Edward Norton) while visiting Guthrie, and this proves to be one of the first stepping stones on his path to great success. He also gets involved with Sylvie Russo (Elle Fanning), finds a strong connection with the fantastic Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro), and becomes more and more selfish as he commits himself to the lyrics and music that will transform him from a complete unknown to an enigmatic musical icon.

Based on a book by Elijah Wald, adapted into screenplay form by Jay Cocks and director James Mangold, A Complete Unknown manages a fine balance of showing the man behind the music while not actually showing you the man behind the music. It quickly becomes clear that Dylan wants his work to speak for him, and there's no denying that he has quite a sizeable discography from which to pull statements from. Mangold is a very capable director, able to turn his hand to a variety of genres, but this is one of his best works, although it come after a decade of him delivering one great film after another (albeit films not necessarily right in line with this one).

Everything is helped by Chalamet being so good in the lead role. Instead of delivering what could have been a clumsy impression, Chalamet really does seem to embody the spirit of the musician that he's portraying. He also convinces with the singing and guitar-playing, however that is performed onscreen. Norton is so good in the role of Seeger that it's a reminder of how good it is to watch Norton in the right role, and I feel as if we have missed some fine work from him for too long. Both Fanning and Barbaro are just as good as anyone else onscreen, and do very well to avoid being overshadowed by the man who ends up, to some degree, being the centre of the musical universe for many. McNairy doesn't get much to do, but does it well, Boyd Holbrook has fun as Johnny Cash, and many more secondary characters are played by a selection of pretty flawless supporting players.

There's not much more to say about this. It's quite standard biopic stuff, even if it is only looking at one key part of Dylan's life. The moments that are tweaked to make them more cinematic retain a core of authenticity, the many truths throughout the film are compelling and thought-provoking, and the decision to keep an air of mystery swirling around the figure being observed works for both the film and the enduring legend of Dylan.

Did I feel as if I knew a lot more about the man once the end credits rolled? Not really, and you could call that a failing. I wouldn't though. I decided that I appreciated the small amount of extra context that gave me even more appreciation for a body of work that I'm now keen to explore. Let's face it, I liked the film so much that I didn't spend this entire review trying to insert a load of Bob Dylan songs and puns. I guess the times they are a-changin'.

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Mubi Monday: Gangs Of New York (2002)

Despite owning Gangs Of New York for at least a decade, I have a strong suspicion that I haven't actually rewatched it since first seeing it on VHS back when it was first released. I believe my opinion was one shared by many other people then. Daniel Day-Lewis was brilliant as the main villain (well, sort of the main villain, I'll expand on that soon enough), Leonardo DiCaprio was good, but not great, and Cameron Diaz was the weakest of the stars onscreen. The film was typical Scorsese, forming another chapter in his ongoing series about violent people creating things that then become bigger than them. Goodfellas is about a man making himself into a mobster, and a monster. Casino is about the mob building Las Vegas. Gangs Of New York is all about the thuggery and violence that was used to shape, I'll give you two guesses, yep, New York.

DiCaprio plays Amsterdam Vallon, a man we see returning to the bosom of New York many years after watching his father be killed in a huge street battle. The man who killed him is Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting (Day-Lewis), a figure who basically runs the city. Amsterdam has to bide his time before avenging his father, which allows him to get closer and closer to Bill, but he also gets closer to a young woman named Jenny Everdeane (Diaz). It might take a village to raise a child, but it takes some rough time on the streets to make a man. Or something like that.

It's easy to see why director Martin Scorsese would have been drawn to this story/script, written by Jay Cocks, Steve Zaillian, and Kenneth Lonergan. It shows a bloody chapter in history that did just as much to help some people as it did to destroy many others. What is more surprising, especially when rewatching the film today, is just how it stealthily leads you towards an overview of a whole system that is imbalanced and riddled with injustice. People like Bill are able to hold on to their positions because they help those who are in official positions of power. Respectability is a mask, and often worn by those who can quickly call on others to do their dirty work for them, and for a ridiculously low price. And no matter where you think you are in the pecking order, your position is only there as long as those with much more money and power allow it.

Day-Lewis steals the movie, and rightly so. His character is a perfect blend of great writing matched by a flawless performance, and he's always a believable threat to those around him. While DiCaprio isn't as assured or memorable, he does enough to make his part work, and he just about manages to hold his own when sharing the screen with such a formidable co-star. Diaz isn't terrible, but she struggles to convince anyone that she was one of the best picks for the role, although she's not helped by a script that is much more confident with the many main male roles than it is with the lone woman. Elsewhere, the cast is stacked with great actors giving their best attempts at the accents (mainly Irish American). Brendan Gleeson and Gary Lewis are highlights, but you also get to enjoy John C. Reilly, Stephen Graham, Jim Broadbent, and Henry Thomas in some plum roles.

Where this succeeds is in the way it cuts into the corpses that helped to build a city, and also helped to build America, and then starts to show how even the strongest figures were so often puppeteered by those with limited patience for them. Where is falls down slightly is in the way it feels exactly like a film from the early 2000s. This comes through in the casting, it comes through in a score and soundtrack that is not up there with the best work of either composer Howard Shore or Scorsese himself (who often has a great ear for the best tunes to use), and it is there in a couple of moments that I would argue remain some of the most disappointing work from the usually flawless editor Thelma Schoonmaker. I am not a complete moron though, and there are still plenty of moments here where she shows off her consummate skill, but one or two big battle scenes are marred by editing choices - changes in the speed of the action, a lot of cross-dissolving and overlaid imagery - that feel very much from this time.

Despite these minor criticisms, and they are based on very conscious choices by the director, Gangs Of New York easily holds up as another absolute cracker from a director who has rarely put a foot wrong throughout a long and impressive career. And, despite very stiff competition, it’s quite possibly the best performance that Day-Lewis has ever given.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Strange Days (1995)

Although it may seem a bit dated now, with the action thriller cliches piled up and the focus on that Y2K sensation, Strange Days is yet another superior film from director Kathryn Bigelow. And it gets very dark indeed.

Ralph Fiennes plays Lenny Nero, an ex-cop who now makes a living selling experiences. Actual experiences. There's a gadget you can put on your head and Lenny will sell you recordings that will put you in the position of someone who has been through whatever you want to try out - sex with a gorgeous woman, breaking & entering, hardcore revelry, whatever you like. Unfortunately, someone recorded something very dangerous, which leads to people Lenny knows being killed. Lenny has to get to the bottom of things before it's decided that he'll also need taken out of the picture.

With a cast that includes Fiennes in the lead role, strong support from Angela Bassett, Tom Sizemore, Michael Wincott, and Juliette Lewis, and smaller roles for the likes of William Fichtner and Vincent D'Onofrio, Strange Days is a film not shy of talent in front of the camera. The first three mentioned there are the standouts, thanks to their positioning in the plot, but nobody lets the side down.

With Bigelow directing, and a script written by Jay Cocks and James Cameron, it's not shy of talent behind the camera either, and that translates into a slice of very slick entertainment.

The visual style of the film is remarkable, it's dark and gorgeous and cool throughout, and the pacing works well. The runtime is almost two and a half hours, but it doesn't feel as if it is ever outstaying its welcome. Graeme Revell creates an effective soundtrack to accompany the visuals, viewers are kept very much aware of the urgency of the situation, and twists and turns, although a tad easy to spot for afficianados of this kind of film, are interspersed nicely in between the set-pieces.

But what really sets this apart is the main idea being exploited. Some elements may have dated, including the tech on display, but this takes the concept of being able to experience the sensations that someone else is having and gives it an extra, VERY dark, twist. The fact that it manages to do so without making the whole thing seem too grimy and unpalatable is testament to the skills of everyone involved.

It's also worth bearing in mind, not unlike the various episodes of Black Mirror, that Strange Days shows us what can happen to technology when it can indulge the more warped whims of human nature. Something worth bearing in mind every time we try out VR, scour the internet, or just use one of the 160 apps on our smartphones. It doesn't take a huge leap in AI to turn machines against us. It just takes another human being.

8/10

UK people can get this lovely bluray here.
Americans have this DVD, for the moment.