What do you do when Martin Scorsese says that your films aren’t ‘proper’ cinema? It’s not a quandary that many directors have had to ponder. The Russo Brothers—directors of four incredibly lucrative Marvel films, described by Martin Scorsese as being closer to theme parks than cinema—have had their first chance to respond in the form of Cherry.
For their first directorial effort outside of the Avengers series since 2006’s You, Me and Dupree, the pair have adapted Nico Walker’s novel Cherry. The titular character is a US war veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress, who turns to crime when he finds that life back in America isn’t all that he hoped.
This might remind you of a certain Scorsese film.
Here, the Russos adopt a more stylistic approach than Disney and Marvel would ever have let them. Their troubled lead, played by an impressive if strangely-cast Tom Holland, narrates and breaks the fourth wall, sounding like a millennial Holden Caulfield. Early scenes are captured by a dynamic camera and edited with some panache, as freeze frames and slo-mo punctuate the drama. Frankly, it would not be unfair to say that this style feels like it is aping the Taxi Driver and GoodFellas director.
This style soon becomes the main draw. Almost as swiftly, it becomes a touch over the top. Maybe too keen to prove their ‘true’ cinematic credentials, the Russos dial the tricks up to 11. Once Cherry arrives at army basic training, orders and insults from drill sergeants fly across the screen as text and the aspect ratio changes for no particular reason. It becomes rather messy and at odds with its subject matter, undermining the drama and causing tonal dissonance. However, the stylistic choices are not the only facet in which the Russos indulge. At two hours and twenty minutes, Cherry is a long film and the running time is not warranted nor is it used effectively. At least half an hour could be cut, while numerous segments meander, offering little. I guess that once your four previous films have grossed almost $7 billion in total, you are afforded such luxury. It certainly helps that the Russos’ production company are behind the film—often it feels like there is nobody telling them to rein it in. Judging by their success with Marvel, strict production might be something that benefits the directorial pair.
The film is set out in chapters, but plays out in three distinct acts. The first sees Holland’s protagonist, a student deeply underwhelmed by life, fall for his university classmate Emily (an impressive Ciara Bravo) and become more enlivened as a result. The second sees Cherry join the army before being deployed to Iraq. The third focuses on his life with Emily having returned from Iraq. Suffering from post-traumatic stress, Cherry turns to crime to fund a heroin addiction.
A number of issues arise from the structure, which does not quite hang together. The first act is about a relationship which the film does not develop properly in its infancy. We see Cherry and Emily fall for each other, but the film has little interest in why and does not explore what brought them together. As a consequence, Cherry then demands little investment in its emotional core. This lack of serious development and interrogation of its characters is a hurdle that trips the film frequently. Reasons for the actions of characters are sketchy at best and bewildering at worst. Often, Cherry finds itself in dire need of a catalyst.
It is at its best during the Iraq war—offering a surprisingly brazen depiction of the horrors of warfare. Phone calls between Cherry and Emily play well and avoid cliché, while the emotional toil of armed service and the haunting images of the battlefield are presented impressively. Holland thrives in the wartime section. Overall, he is excellent in a role which marks a significant break from his previous work. Generating sympathy for his flawed character, the clean-cut Spider-Man star embraces the rough edges of Cherry and brings more to the role than the writing warrants.
However, Iraq acts as set up for what becomes the main body of the film. Cherry returns from duty to Cleveland, Ohio—the Russos’ home city. Haunted by war, he hits new lows. Initially, the film provides an uncomfortable, if not revolutionary, depiction of post-traumatic stress. Cherry is gripped by horror and struggles to function. However, the film swiftly moves on, as we watch Cherry fall into a life of crime in order to sustain his addiction.
You could be forgiven for forgetting that post-traumatic stress was what led Cherry into both his addiction and criminal habits. The film moves these themes aside and has no interest in following how his wartime experiences have shaped his view of life back at home. The decision to start robbing banks is met with little resistance from those around Cherry or from the bank workers from whom he steals. The quiet and understated nature of the heists offer some nice and amusing moments, but we soon know exactly what is going to happen once Cherry enters a bank. As a result, interest wanes.
There is a dearth of drama in the robbery sequences, while the lack of interesting characters or moral conflict around Cherry means that his decisions are rarely questioned. He goes from bank to bank but the film does not bring any thrills or conflict with him. The banks which Cherry robs are given satirical names like ‘Bank Fucks America’ and ‘America Shitty Bank’, which feel so puerile that they wouldn’t even make it into a Grand Theft Auto game. Offering little interrogation into America’s oppressive systems, the film hopes that you will confuse these bank names for genuinely biting social commentary. If this is the Russos’ attempt to skew America for an unfair political system which makes a war veteran turn to a life of crime, it falls some way short of the mark.
That said, the film’s depiction of addiction is powerful and somewhat effective. Yet, like any other theme, it is not quite allowed to develop or flourish. It is an odd thing to say about an overlong 140 minute film, but the Russos do not give their themes and narrative points the required attention. Everything is spread thinly across the chapter structure, which suffocates themes and the narrative as a result—none of it is developed properly, nor does it hang together. There is no constant driving force.
The Verdict
By the time that the film reaches its conclusion, you’re left wondering what it was trying to say—not in an intriguing way. Overlong, over-stylised and underwhelming, the Russo Brothers’ first post-Avengers step is not convincing. If you’re looking for ‘cinema’ about the haunting psychological effects of war, a certain director might have something for you.
Rating: 5/10
Cherry is available to stream on Apple TV+.
Words by Dan Haygarth
Support The Indiependent
We’re trying to raise £200 a month to help cover our operational costs. This includes our ‘Writer of the Month’ awards, where we recognise the amazing work produced by our contributor team. If you’ve enjoyed reading our site, we’d really appreciate it if you could donate to The Indiependent. Whether you can give £1 or £10, you’d be making a huge difference to our small team.