OUTLAW KING (2018)
MOVIE REVIEW
When the film Outlaw King starts, it starts with an extreme close-up of a candle, and then pulls back for a single unbroken eight minute long take. It is quite an ambitious one, and quite impressive and well done. It sets up a lot of the conflict and the drama that is to come: it sets up some of the main characters and their indivial goals and achievements, there's a sword fight that manages to gives a glimpse into the rivalry between two characters and set up the muddy and gritty realism of the film, and to top it all of, this long unbroken take ends with the firing of a large catapult at a castle in the background. Like I mentioned, this opening shot is very impressive and sets up many of the truly good things about this movie, and yet it also contains one of the films weaknesses.
Outlaw King is a medieval war epic released by Netflix, directed by David Mackenzie (Starred Up, Hell or High Water), and stars Chris Pine, Florence Pugh, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Billy Howle, Tony Curran and Stephen Dillane. The film tells the true story of Robert the Bruce (Chris Pine), a Scottish nobleman who starts a guerilla war against the English King Edward I (Stephen Dillane), and seek to claim Scotland's independence, between the years 1304-1307. If this all sounds familiar, it's because this story was partially covered in Braveheart (1995). But that film however focused on William Wallace, and Robert the Bruce was a supporting character. Now, Outlaw King is a very different film from Braveheart, in a good way. Whereas Braveheart is highly sensationalised and very historically inaccurate, Outlaw King is much more down-to-earth and more accurate (how accurate, I can't tell). And I know I prefer the latter.
Both Chris Pine and Florence Pugh deliver strong performances.
Chris Pine plays Robert the Bruce, I have to say rather convincingly, I thought. Having only seen him in the first two Star Trek movies and Tony Scott's final film Unstoppable (2010), I wasn't sure what to expect of him in this role. I think I was a little trepidatious, to be honest with you. Not that I thought he was a bad actor, but I wasn't sure of an American actor playing a Scottish nobleman in the 14th century. But I was pleasently surprised to find a very strong lead performance, and a surprisingly believable Scottish accent. He gives us the impression of a man who almost seems to be burdened by the pressure laid upon him, and seems more comfortable on the big battlefields and talking politics than spending time with his family. In one scene, immediately after their wedding ceremony, Robert is sitting with Elizabeth (Florence Pugh) on his former wife's bed, and leaves the room before anything happens. On that note, I have to say that Florence Pugh brings a strong and memorable presence to what could be seen as a rather thankless role. The rest of the cast is very good, with the actors playing the Scottish nobles feeling very well-cast and of the period, with Aaron Taylor-Johnson being the standout of the bunch.
As far as the English actors are concerned, Stephen Dillane plays King Edward I very similar to the way he plays Stannis Baratheon on Game of Thrones, very stern and angry for most of the time (that is not meant as a criticism). Even though he is a very brutal and strong man, he is not a man completely devoid of humanity (unlike Patrick McGoohan who played him in Braveheart). He knows when to be kind to the right people and can be a very diplomatic king. The same pretty much goes for Billy Howle, who plays Edward II. This is definately an improvement over Braveheart, where he was portrayed as an overtly homosexual and week coward, who couldn't do anything right. In this, he is portrayed as more of a psychotic warrior who seeks to live up to his father's brutal reputation. At one point in the film, Elizabeth begs Edward for mercy, to which he answers "Do you think of me as weak?", suggesting someone who prides his violence and masculinity and disregards any "feminine" qualitites. Although the film makes no mention of his sexuality (historians still debate weather or not the real Edward II was a closeted homosexual or just straight), I think an argument could be made that he feels the need to hide any hints of femininty within him and show that he has no qualms about murdering people from left to right.
A surprising amount of the film was shot with the camera attached to a dolly track, a tripod or mounted on a Steadicam.
The film was shot by Barry Ackroyd, and anyone familiar with his work will recognize his cinematographic style, shooting mostly on handheld cameras with long lenses giving his films a documentary-style look to them, think of his work on United 93, Captain Phillips, The Hurt Locker, The Big Short etc. Although you can spot some of that here, I was actually surprised by the amount of tracking and dolly shots that were used in this film and how many of the shots were shot using a tripod. And I think it actually works to the films benefit, although I wouldn't have complained if there was a little more handheld camerawork, but that's just me.
Another thing the film gets right is the grit and realism of the medieval times. In most movies set during that period, people are walking around in anachronistic clothing (I'm looking at you and your stupid kilts, Braveheart!), or the castles and the villages are perfectly clean. Here, there are alot of scenes where the characters are walking around in the mud (in the final battle the Scots even use the mud to their advantage), the clothing looks appropriate of the time period, and most of the light comes either from the windows or candles. It never feels like there are alot of articial lights on the set and therefore lends the film a greater sense of authenticity. This also translates into the overall color scheme, which consists mostly of earth tones, with brown and gray being the predominant colors seen in the film.
The film features some excellent battle scenes.
The battle scenes in the film are also very well-done and very realistic. They are very violent and very bloody, but it feels authentic. Weapons in medieval times were alot more violent than they were today, so naturally there would be a large amount of carnage. The battle scenes are also never drawn out to the level of insane like Bravehart, it feels constrained and keeps in line with the overall realisitic tone of the film. But it's almost impossible to not compare these battle scenes to the ones seen in Game of Thrones, especially in the episode Battle of the Bastards, where there is blood, carnage, mud and horses all over the place.
The biggest weakness of the film lies in its characterization.
So, with all these positive things said, you may ask if there are any problems with the film, to which the answer is: yes. I mentioned in my introduction of the long opening shot how it sets up some of the strenghts of the film as well as it's weaknesses, and the biggest weakness in the film by far is the characterization of Robert. In the opening shot, Robert has a duel with Edward II in the beginning, and the camera is constantly swirling around, and as impressive as the shot and the fight choreography was, I felt almost detached from the action, I never found myself involved. And that continued unfortunately for most of the film. For instance, the turning point where Robert decides to revolt against Edward I is when news come that William Wallace has been executed and he is standing in a city center where people are rallying up against the English soldiers in anger. He then immediately returns to his castle and tells his brothers "we have to start a rebellion". It felt very rushed and came out of nowhere. I think you could make the argument that Robert never truly wanted to surrender to the English and repressed any feelings of rebellion, but when he sees the anger of the people against the English, he saw an opportunity to start a revolt and overthrow the English. But if that's the case, the film doesn't do a good job of properly conveying that feeling.
Overall, Outlaw King is a mostly entertaining medieval war epic with strong performances, production values and authenticity, but not as much strong characterization as I would've preferred.
My final verdict: 7/10.
