There was hardly anything here that I found worth while. Jim Jarmusch seems concerned only with making his film moody and offbeat. While there's nothing wrong with this tone itself, it amounts to pretty much nothing. What even are these character's goals? Is there no greater reason we are watching a film about vampires other than for it to be about vampires? Why should we care about these characters? If they died in the middle of the movie I wouldn't have felt an ounce of emotion. There's very little reality and therefore no value to anything. Sometimes characters will say things that seem purposeful but relate to nothing else in the entire film, making it impossible to find any connections in meaning. The performances are fine, though nothing particularly special in these actor's filmographies. The direction isn't bad, but I can't say its good because it serves no purpose. Technically the movie is fine. That's the most I can say about the best of this movie is that it's fine. It never amounts to anything and is mostly a bore. A bore because nothing happens. Sure, stuff happens, but nothing REALLY happens. Only stuff. The plot goes nowhere, the characters go nowhere. There hardly is a plot because of the absence of a core struggle, and that's a huge problem. The characters want blood and each other's love. They only don't have blood towards the end and they never struggle to keep their love, so where is the struggle? If there's no struggle then why should I care, and how can this movie in any way be compelling? It isn't. You'd think maybe that the film being purposeless would be the point in some way, but there's not even a point to the pointlessness. I stuck around watching to see if anything would happen to draw a connection or meaning to any of the events in the film and nothing did. That was the only thing that left me watching and it didn't come. So the movie to me was pretty much a waste. Out of the Jarmusch films I've seen, Mystery Train had similar problems to this one, but with only a bit more watchability. Broken Flowers was actually intriguing in it's mystery and I enjoyed it. I don't understand why some of his films, such as this one, intrigue people. I read what they say and it doesn't make me feel like there was anything I missed. "It's just a solid movie that captures bleeh." So what? I ask, and I'd still like to see an answer. There's nothing to see here. If you don't know and like Jim Jarmusch then stay away from this one.
The world that Locke (the film) builds outside of the vehicle in which it takes place is immense and reaches far beyond the physical world, which is why it's such an entertaining and absorbing film despite the limited location. Responsible for this are Steven Knight's tight, layered script and Tom Hardy's complex and subtle performance that says almost as much. It's about a man who makes a life altering decision, thought some might say life destroying. Ivan doesn't think that way, and this mindset is admirable, if difficult to relate to on a human level, but that is what makes Ivan so interesting. Tom Hardy fills this character with deep human emotion and an introspective understanding of his situation that those on the line often fail to see. His wife and co-workers think he doesn't get it, but he does. We see from this film a man's life changing before our eyes and how he deals with it. It causes us to question how we would behave and why Ivan does what he does. I expect that this film resonates most with those who can relate the most to it, and there are many ways to relate to it. Locke is certainly a movie to reflect on (you could hardly watch it without reflection) and for anyone who likes that even a bit, should see it. It's also thrilling in a pure, dramatic way. Watch it with some attention and you'll be immersed.