Legacy

I was lucky enough to have seen Legacy at its world premiere closing the 2010 Glasgow Film Festival, where it was introduced by the producers and the writer/director Thomas Ikimi. The audience was informed of an intriguing production history – Ikimi had to source funding from personal contacts in Nigeria, the film was entirely shot in Scotland but mainly set in New York, and Idris Elba, who was also the Executive Producer, took advantage of his connections in the US to acquire much of the cast. Despite a seemingly infeasible gap between the ambitious aspirations and the miniscule budget, it largely succeeds in sustaining a credible and engaging dramatic narrative centred around a 'Black Ops' soldier dealing with the consequences of a failed mission and his earlier actions.

Elba plays Michael Gray, and his compelling central performance (he is in almost every scene) begins with an armed encounter in which his unit's attempt to tackle a Ukranian-born arms dealer ends catastrophically. Following ten months in a military hospital to overcome the torture that he is subsequently subjected to, he returns to Brooklyn and moves in to a run-down apartment for a period of reflection and contemplation. The impressive, elaborate plot that unfolds comfortably melds action sequences and art-house elements, and moves in a range of directions that simultaneously focus on psychological deterioration, the nature of political success (Gray's older brother is a senator on the verge of announcing a presidential campaign) and the responsibilities of the media.

Elba's robust performance aside, the film also features strong supporting acts (including his Wire co-star Clarke Peters) and some outstanding technical flourishes. I particularly liked the vibrant sound effects, from the deafening explosive gunfire to the subtle resonances that perfectly complemented the claustrophobic apartment setting, and the minimal but effective score. My one minor criticism is common to this sub-genre – an unreliable narrator who blurs the lines between the imagined and the real can lead to occasional frustration/confusion for the audience. It is, however, highly recommended, and a very welcome development for film-making in Scotland.

Legacy is an interesting film, to say the least. 90% of it is spent in a small hotel room, and follows the mental deterioration of a Black Ops soldier, recently returned from a botched mission in Eastern Europe, as he attempts a mission of self-retribution and revenge. It's a psychological thriller with stylistic hallmarks of greats from a bygone era ('Manchurian Candidate' and Hitchcock's 'Rear Window' spring to mind), where suspense and tension were paramount, instead of fast-paced action and explosive thrills.

A claustrophobic, slow-burning film like this lives or dies on it's performances, and Legacy really shines in that area, with Idris Elba playing the lead role with haunting intensity. The rest of the cast do great jobs as well.

The editing and cinematography are tight, and fit the dark, brooding mood of the film effectively.

The main story itself is gripping in all the right places, and is well paced, but there were one or two confusing moments where I felt a bit lost, and found myself wondering if I'd missed something important.

You owe it to yourself to check this out if you're a fan of strong acting, and clever, suspenseful thrillers.

It seems like for most people this movie is anything but "Legacy" building. But taking the performance by Idris Elba alone this should merit and have been scored higher. Add to that an unusual story that has more to deliver than the obvious and you actually should have a winner. Maybe people felt this was marketed like an action movie (when it's more a thriller with some guts and especially something worth to think about too), I can't tell.

What I can say, is that the movie delivers on its thriller element and on being not only claustrophobic but getting you into the mind of Idris character. Not an easy feat, but achieved almost seamlessly by the movie. So while you might have issues with some of the directors choices in the story department, you might want to give this movie a chance! It deserves one

In the interest of full disclosure, I let any reader know that I know the writer and director of the movie. However, what I aimed to provide here is an unbiased review based on our thoughts and observations as a person who has a great appreciation for cinema. I think generally speaking when you have relatively small films, which have not been distributed widely there is a reliance on those who actually saw the film to give their input. I was lucky enough to be able to attend the Tribeca premiere of the film and will try to provide my impression and humble opinion. First of I think it is quite difficult to pigeonhole the film, but since most people ask for some kind of points of reference when talking about a film, I'd say it's the Manchurrian Candidate, meets Phone Booth, meets Fight Club with some Hitchcock flair. Yea, I know not very succinct, but the best I can do. The movie relies heavily on the solid script and acting prowess of the lead, Idris Elba since the majority of the movie takes place in a rundown hotel room. Since it's a psychological thriller, which deals heavily with the distortion of reality, the success or failure of the movie lies squarely on Mr. Elba's shoulders. He showcases his potential as leading man and ability to be a commanding presence on screen. Overall, I think he did a very good job, even though I didn't fully agree with all of the choices he made with the character. The twists and turns and attention to detail with which the script was written require a good deal of concentration from the audience, but I think challenging content is something popular cinema has been extremely short on in recent years. I think working within the budget constraints ( the equivalent of less than 3 seconds in any Michael Bay chase sequence), well written script, tight acting and compelling story line make this an enjoyable movie, especially for anyone starving for intelligent and ambitious film making.

This movie has a problem that many movies have: it's a story that could be told in less than an hour but the film makers felt they had to expand it to fit feature length. It's well made, and the acting is great, but it gets tiring very fast. The suspense sags and the ending just isn't justified by all the waiting. To compare it to Hitchcock is absurd.

Malcolm is a psychologically wounded soldier back from a clandestine operation. He's holed up in a shabby hotel room fighting his demons. He was a member of a covert operation that went bad, he wound up killing the family of a terrorist, and then, to make things worse, was captured and tortured by the very terrorist whose family he had killed. We come to understand that he was betrayed, but who betrayed him? And was the betrayal necessary to protect the operation or was it just to cover someone's behind?

Now he's escaped from an army medical facility and is mentally disintegrating by himself in that shabby room. Some elements of the film are hardly believable and what is real and what is imagined is never really clear.

That war can have devastating psychological effects on soldiers is well known. But we also want to know the mechanics of the operation that went wrong, and the decisions that were made. The operation was set up in order to stop a dangerous terrorist who was in possession of a large quantity of sarin gas, and is intent on wiping out a major American city, at least the infidels who live in it. These details are in the background and are leaked out as the movie progresses, at least to the extent we can believe Malcolm, who is clearly delusional and drunk most of the time. Even in his right mind Malcolm may not know what happened at the highest levels. Meanwhile we have to watch Malcolm going crazy and telling his story in a rambling, confused videotape. The craziness, though skillfully performed, obscures our understanding the the story, so we're left wondering what really went down.

We can sympathize with his pain. Brave soldiers can be scarred for life, but having to wait for plot elements to emerge while watching Malcolm disintegrate in his paranoia and guilt is excruciating. In fact, the only real suspense is wondering what Malcolm is finally going to do to resolve his dilemma. When the ending comes it's an anti-climax. There are no bad guys here (except the terrorists) and really no sense of justice because it's difficult to know for sure who was involved or what decisions were made. Moral clarity is something you need for a successful thriller, but here the moral lines are blurred.