Said this on twitter but how did y'all collectively forget Matthew Lillard played Stu Macher. If he's bringing that Stu energy, he's going to make one fine ass William
This is the second part of my review of Locke. This one focuses on Tom Hardy. Part one is [here].
Well. It seems obvious to write that Tom Hardy is good in this movie. That’s like saying Jurassic Park is a good dinosaur movie. Both are offensive understatements.
5. Ivan’s accent. I can’t place it. It’s part Welsh. Part Fireman Sam (because his son likes it). It was Tom’s decision to adopt this strange hybrid for Ivan in an attempt to create a mellow and soothing voice that anchors the movie when things begin to circle the drain. To use his own accent and voice would’ve been a mistake. The movie highlights that we all create characters and stereotypes of people based on their accents. Kind of like how we all think Colin Firth is mega posh and take high tea with the Queen. Tom’s regular voice paints him as a slightly feminine guy (which he is) from a well to do family (which he is). You don’t associate his accent with construction workers or rough male labourers. That welsh-hybrid accent does the job. Before his story reveals itself, you already think he is a tough and hard working but also tough and hard on himself. He’s a bloke with strong morals and is logical and pragmatic during times of chaos. You know what this tells me? That Tom Hardy is fucking Skynet. He is self aware and knows what a role and movie needs.
6. There is no Tom Hardy. Tom Hardy’s life is interesting, more interesting than Ivan Locke’s but one of the most impressive things about Tom’s performance is that you’re actually more interested in Ivan here. The words (which he sometimes read via an autocue, such was the immediacy of the filming process) just come out his mouth so naturally that you might see a face that looks like Tom Hardy but the person speaking is definitely not Tom Hardy. In the past it has been Tommy Conlon or Handsome Bob or Forrest Bondurrant. Right now, it is definitely Ivan Locke. It’s an understated and minimalistic performance. It’s not showy at all. It still makes you feel something in your core and that’s when you really know there’s a great actor in front of you.
7. Literally symbolic. I told you in part one that I thought this movie was quite literal. Well, you know how people always use lines like; descent into madness, driving me mad, going to hell, reflecting on your actions, backseat drivers, “I’ve lost everything”, being in your own little world, shaking the foundations of something, “my life is on the line”, like father like son...all those things are actually in this movie in some form. It’s kind of fun spotting them. It’s like Where’s Wally.
8. The End. You watch a man degrade in front of you. You don’t notice all the evidence of destruction until the end; his calm demeanour cracks a bit, his hallucinations get more vicious, his face becomes more weary, his appearance more dishevelled. He is not the Ivan Locke that got into the car 80 minutes ago. Literally. Another thing about the ending is just the ride that takes you there: the movie starts, it’s interesting, things happen then happen then happen then BANG, the end. Cue tears. I’m serious! I cried and it was so ridiculous that I laughed and was probably the picture of madness right there. That’s how to end a movie!
So. This probably won’t do the movie justice but Locke is incredibly impressive in every aspect. It is the best I’ve seen Tom Hardy so far. If you like him in any amount, you should definitely see Locke.
