Technically great but lacks substance. Also, Hardy > DiCaprio???

Rating: 7/10 (16 January 2016)

Given that virtually all the pre-awards hype since September has been about DiCaprio's performance and potential first Oscar, I'm going to split this review into two parts: DiCaprio & the film.
The film: A beautiful film with insanely good cinematography and camera-work, an excellent score and superb acting all round. From the films I've seen so far it should definitely win Best Cinematography. The scenery and backdrops are epic in scale and totally immersive. The camera-work also helps really place the viewer in the film and has some different and quirky ways of shooting which I definitely respected. The score (as with Bridge of Spies) is also excellent and matches the film perfectly. I'm very surprised it didn't get a nod for Best Score. Finally as mentioned, the acting across the board. Tom Hardy in particular is fantastic and absolutely nails his character. In fact I'd argue his is the most memorable character and best performance in the film. Whatever the case I'd certainly place him above Bale (The Big Short) and probably Rylance (Bridge of Spies) too, in terms of the films I've seen so far, and would love to see him win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.
However... a film can't stand up on its sound, acting and cinematography alone. The story needs to be of a top calibre as well if you are to be considered for Best Picture. And it is here where I feel the film falls down a little bit. Don't get me wrong, I've given it a 7 and thought it was good. I certainly respect Iñárritu for what he's achieved. But did it blow me away? Was I wholly immersed and engaged in the story? Did I find myself empathising with the characters? Unfortunately the answer to all these questions is no. I can't really say I was gripped by the film, I thought it started well but actually got worse as it went on and by the end I find myself looking at my watch as it began to drag. Additionally there were a few scenes which got my back up... firstly on two occasions Iñárritu filmed scenes which I found myself thinking were totally unrealistic, which was odd given how expertly most of the scenes were shot and set out. one where French soldiers don't see what's happening to one of their men 20 feet away and in plain view... and the other where horseback native-Americans fail to shoot him from mere metres away. Additionally I thought the final scene felt a bit cliché and was far too 'James Bond' style for a film like this. It felt a bit obvious and a somewhat of a cop out.
So in summary, technically it's great but as a story, there's better. Iñárritu should certainly be considered for Best Director given what he's managed to achieve here but the film in my opinion should not win Best Picture.
DiCaprio: First off let me say that yes Leonardo Dicaprio should win an Oscar. Should he win one this year, for this performance however? I'm not so sure. Let's analyse what a performance worthy of Best Actor should be... The actor should create a memorable character, a character that stands out as the best thing in the film, they should put in a performance that has you mesmerised from start to finish. Take Eddie Redmayne last year... What he pulled off was nothing short of spectacular. He became Stephen Hawking... by the end of the film you forgot you were watching Eddie Redmayne as he had totally transformed himself, not only physically but mentally, verbally, in fact in everything he did in that performance. It was well and truly worthy of a Best Actor win. I wasn't too fussed about There Will be Blood as a film but Daniel Day-Lewis' performance and the character he created still lives in my memory even though the film itself has been long forgotten. Ask yourself, what's the first thing you think of when you think about The Dark Knight? It's Heath Ledger... that's how good his performance was!
Now going back to DiCaprio. Can those of you who've seen it really say he's the thing you will remember about the film in years to come? As I stated earlier, in my opinion it was Tom Hardy's character and portrayal that is the one which sticks out for me, not DiCaprio's. Don't get me wrong, he is excellent and doesn't put a foot wrong. But did it excel? Did it do what other actors haven't done this year? No. The film studio has spent lots of time and money hyping up his performance this year, long before the film had been seen. We were told how he'd slept in carcasses, been subject to extreme conditions and generally put through his paces. DiCaprio himself has told us that it's the hardest film he's ever had to make. But do these things mean he should win Best Actor? Just because your director makes you sleep in an animal carcass or subjects you to horrible conditions and filming hours, does not mean you yourself have done an incredible job with your character. It simply means your committed to your job and the role. I'm not saying I'd fancy it, I totally respect him for what he's done and he did an excellent job with the character, but realistically he spent a good 3/4 of the film crawling/walking and breathing heavily. I'm not convinced another actor wouldn't have played the character just as well. And for that reason I question whether he deserves an Oscar specifically for this role, despite how difficult it may have been to do. I honestly went into this, wanting it to be one of the best performances I've ever seen. But when you strip back all the hype and all the pre-awards material that's been pressed upon us and just judge the performance itself, I don't think it's a stand-out.