"Cousin Marv" is a dive bar where the locals frequent to get a beer from the seemingly naive bartender, Bob (Tom Hardy). Bob is underfoot of his belligerent cousin Marv (James Gandolfini), who's ruled by a psychotic gang of Chechens who use his pub to collect and launder their illegal income. Bob tends to keep his distance from all the illicit dealings, and lives a humdrum life with a recently acquired dog and girlfriend. However the bar is a hub for all sorts of shady dealings, and Bob gets drawn into its dark shadow.
This film is a mess, the two major plot lines are clunky and don't flow together as one. Firstly the robbery plot line is convoluted; the reason for the robbery is to establish how the Chechens reaction. And they come down on the robbers like a ton of bricks, yet this intense reaction is ignored by the other characters for their future plans. Then Hardy's love story is patronised and contrived, having a puppy for the audience to immediately connect to is like that sleazy guy who only has a dog to pick up chicks. Then shoving in an antagonist to allow for a resolution of this plot line feels abrupt. There is also the subplot of the cop's investigation; which goes nowhere, and just serves to remind us things we already know.
Character motivation is completely contradictory. Marv is shown in the introductory scene as hard and money-wise, this is contradicted by debts from a previous life, his reaction to an extreme violence and his relationship with his sister. Bob is shown in first 5 minutes to be a soft heart, but immediately after when he has to adopt the dog, he seems reluctant, I ask what was the point of showing he treated the old lady at the bar well (a really weak excuse was given later, and still didn't make much sense.)
Editing is god awful, each scene has perhaps 10 cuts, Michael Reynders clearly doesn't trust his actors. There are also a handful of re-shoots, and they are poorly inserted. Visually the film is also boring, and at times awkward; hand-held shots inserted for no real reason, and bad lighting with shoddy angles makes it hard to distinguish how the scene is progressing.
This is not a completely negative review; there are two things that save this film from failing. The resolution of the 2 main plot lines is actually well done, the revelations when they come are satisfying and were foreshadowed well. Which makes me think that the ending of the film was written first, and the rest of the film was sculpted around that. Also the actors in this film really sell their performances, Tom Hardy once again dominated the film with a superb performance. Gadolfini played Gadolfini, and the supporting cast added flavour to Hardy and Gadolfini's performances.
This type of film has been done a few dozen times before, look to David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" if you want to watch a competent version of this film.
This film is a mess, the two major plot lines are clunky and don't flow together as one. Firstly the robbery plot line is convoluted; the reason for the robbery is to establish how the Chechens reaction. And they come down on the robbers like a ton of bricks, yet this intense reaction is ignored by the other characters for their future plans. Then Hardy's love story is patronised and contrived, having a puppy for the audience to immediately connect to is like that sleazy guy who only has a dog to pick up chicks. Then shoving in an antagonist to allow for a resolution of this plot line feels abrupt. There is also the subplot of the cop's investigation; which goes nowhere, and just serves to remind us things we already know.
Character motivation is completely contradictory. Marv is shown in the introductory scene as hard and money-wise, this is contradicted by debts from a previous life, his reaction to an extreme violence and his relationship with his sister. Bob is shown in first 5 minutes to be a soft heart, but immediately after when he has to adopt the dog, he seems reluctant, I ask what was the point of showing he treated the old lady at the bar well (a really weak excuse was given later, and still didn't make much sense.)
Editing is god awful, each scene has perhaps 10 cuts, Michael Reynders clearly doesn't trust his actors. There are also a handful of re-shoots, and they are poorly inserted. Visually the film is also boring, and at times awkward; hand-held shots inserted for no real reason, and bad lighting with shoddy angles makes it hard to distinguish how the scene is progressing.
This is not a completely negative review; there are two things that save this film from failing. The resolution of the 2 main plot lines is actually well done, the revelations when they come are satisfying and were foreshadowed well. Which makes me think that the ending of the film was written first, and the rest of the film was sculpted around that. Also the actors in this film really sell their performances, Tom Hardy once again dominated the film with a superb performance. Gadolfini played Gadolfini, and the supporting cast added flavour to Hardy and Gadolfini's performances.
This type of film has been done a few dozen times before, look to David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" if you want to watch a competent version of this film.