Thursday 27 May 2010

Heartless Review

Sometimes I hate London. £12.95 to sit in what amounts to an oversized living room at 5.00pm on a Tuesday in Leicester Square to watch Heartless. I have a Cineworld Unlimited Pass but of course Cineworld weren’t showing it so I had to stump up the cash. Also, as much as I love Mark Kermode, I think I need to get savvier to the films he likes. Heartless was his film of the week last week. Admittedly it was a pretty shabby week for films but even still. He wasn’t alone though. There were a few middling to decent reviews for this British horror film from writer/director Philip Ridley, his first film in 13 years. The link to this blog on the spankingly, awesomely refurbished Eggmag website warns readers that “I’m a hard man to please.” But honestly, I don’t LIKE being negative, I don’t ENJOY coming down on films, particularly when I’ve PAID £12.95 to sit in an oversized living room to watch them.

Enough preamble. With emphasis on the amble.

Jim Sturgess plays Jamie Morgan, a young man with a heart-shaped birthmark across his face. Jim wears his hood up constantly to shield himself from the stares and taunts he regularly receives. Jamie lives in the East End where gangs of hoodies prowl the streets. Except that in this film, hoodies may not be the young kids we’ve all come to know, but actual demons lurking in the shadows. There is a lot of are they/aren’t they demons, a family tragedy, a pact with the Devil, lots of heart ripping, a truly hilarious use of cling film and a last act that, suggests it’s offering a few conclusions and is letting you make up your own mind but, for me, was emphasising one particular interpretation in the pursuit of a twist that amounts to nothing more than a pretty lame cliché.

Which is a shame because there are points of interest in Heartless. The idea of the hooded gangs as demons is a nice one. This works best when we catch glimpses of hoods disappearing behind walls or buildings but even when we first see an actual demon beneath the hood (not actually the spoiler it appears to be, don’t worry) it’s a surprisingly convincing effect. London’s East End is shot in a suitably grimy, graffiti covered way which makes for some atmospheric shots and moments and Jim Sturgess delivers a good performance, even if his character is hampered by being somewhat one note. Apart from Sturgess, the acting is very hit and miss however with Jamie’s wayward nephew in particular managing to ruin the scenes he is in. Also watch out for Noel Clarke making a great bid for the 2010 Most Pointless Character award.

There are a couple of insurmountable problems. The first is that what we basically have here is a new take on the old Faustian story which is fine. But it takes an absolute age for the Devil, or Papa B as he is known here (I wonder if I could get people to call me Papa G?) to turn up. Papa B’s entrance and the deal he strikes with Jamie is basically the crux of the film but we spend way too long watching and following the demons first which, though a nice idea as I say, in the end becomes somewhat redundant to the narrative. It’s no great spoiler to reveal that what Jamie wants is to lose his birthmark. The way this is dealt with though is very unconvincing and kind of over the top. The birthmark has left Jamie something of a recluse, single, living with his Mum etc etc etc. The birthmark is definitely evident and, I guess you could say disfiguring, and I’m certainly not naïve enough to think that people wouldn’t have some reaction, but people stare and recoil and react as if his head had been dipped in acid and was about to fall off completely. This happens repeatedly and to the point of being kind of laughable. It would have been much more interesting if, for example, people had not reacted at all and Jamie’s self consciousness and confidence issues had still been there. This would have made it much more of a character issue, an internal issue, and made his pact with the Devil more tragic as a result. As it was, I found it difficult to believe. The aftermath of the deal, in which things go briefly right for Jamie, is thoroughly unconvincing and by the time we get to the cling film (rocketing its way into the top 5 favourite scenes of the year list) the heart ripping and the cop out ending, the film and its near two hour running time have long outstayed their welcome.

As with Alice Creed, I’m trying to give British horror and thriller a go but it’s just not happening. At least it’s not for me. A couple of nice scenes, a few moody shots and one or two good ideas do not make a film. Heartless was in need of a restructure at the script stage to focus its story and intentions but never received it. An opportunity wasted.

4.5/10

No comments:

Post a Comment