mother! Cert: 18 / 121 mins / Dir. Darren Aronofsky / Trailer
Before what could be politely described as 'a challenging piece of work', and after the usual run of ads for products that no-one is actively bothered about, sat a selection trailers. This was the distributor's demographically-charged opportunity to showcase upcoming content to an audience already somewhat on-side, by means of them being perched in front of a tonally-related film. And so, on Friday afternoon, we had the promo reels for The Ritual, Jigsaw, Flatliners and… A Bad Moms Christmas. It appears that Paramount aren't entirely sure who Darren Aronofsky's mother! is for. And having since watched it through, I know the feeling…
We centre around a couple played by Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem, building an idyllic life for themselves in a recently restored house in the countryside. But when a stranger arrives unexpectedly and is offered hospitality, it begins an irreversible chain of events that will change their lives forever. It's nowhere near as linear or formulaic as that setup makes it sound, I assure you.
Notwithstanding my snarkiness at the choice of pre-film trailers above, the other thing which caught my attention was the BBC-card's brief cautionary summary: "Strong violence", it said*1. Just that. Strong violence. Which, with a work like this, translates roughly as "The two lines afforded to a description on this screen are nowhere near enough to even begin listing all the things which an audience could find problematic. Seriously, mate. I mean, you've seen the trailer, right? However, there are moments of violence in there which, while they aren't intended for shock-value alone, are nonetheless over-and-above what we could normally squeeze into the 15 bracket. So let's just say 'strong violence' and leave it at that. In all honesty, the violence depicted will be the least of your worries if you start actually thinking about what you've sat through, but hey. Strong violence."
Right, four paragraphs in. Better start critiquing the film, really. And that's very much the thing; the more you think about this, the more you'll back away from examining too closely. mother! is frankly insane*3, albeit in a marvellous way; a two-hour fever dream, grinding together domestic farce and escalating psychological horror, like Terry and June on an absinthe and mescaline-fuelled bender. Aronofsky's screenplay is an allegorical symphony of religious*4, social and ecological notes, where not a single frame, line of dialogue nor pause between them is wasted. Less of an enigmatic scalpel, more an intricate sledgehammer.
Lawrence and Bardem are on excellent form, absorbed completely into their characters. Ed Harris with Brian and Domhnall Gleeson are strong (if fleeting) support, and Michelle Pfeiffer is utterly terrifying. As the story unfolds and the cast grows larger, Aronofsky never loses the focus on his leading pair. All in all, this is great direction of a great cast.
And how it makes the audience work, like only art can, and is all the better because it's not trying to appeal to the widest possible audience. None of the characters are specifically named, so the spoken references to him, her, he, she, they and you gets irritating around ten minutes after the house-guests arrive. The hand-held camerawork spends a fair chunk of time in close-up / extreme close-up position and is constantly moving, lending the atmostphere an air of genuine claustrophobia unlike anything else I've seen this year. This is a horror movie in the truest sense, showing what can me achieved when a writer/director has the courage to let madness expand organically.
The only real issue I have with mother! is that I'm not sure if I want to see it again (just yet, at least), in case I find it less enjoyable the second time round. Ironically, watching with the knowledge of what's to come feels like it will rob the screenplay of its power, despite bringing the opportunity to pore over its foreshadowing in greater detail.
It's rare that films come so close to being classified as an art installation, and rarer still that the multiplexes screen them, but Aronofsky's work really is the jewel in the ashes.
The close-quarters shaky cam is arguably better suited to a small screen. This film looks gorgeous but I wouldn't be surprised if it gives some viewers headaches/nausea.
I think so?
It could well be.
Absolutely not.
There is a fair chance you'll despise this, and I delight in you telling me why…
Not that I heard, although there's a lot of hullabaloo in the third act and it would be easy to lose one in there.
(I can't give the film a 7 without watching it again; I can't watch it again without letting my brain process it; I can't let my brain process it without speaking to other people who've also seen it. So go and watch this then report back, yeah?)
*1 Speaking of which, this was the second 18-rated movie of the week, and the second to feature very specific capitalisation in its title. And while I know it's a thing I can't seem to let go of, that exclamation mark at the end of mother! isn't going to hashtag well. And it'll look even worse without the capitalisation normally given to a film title. Any online buzz will be lost in people talking about their mums*2. It's almost like Aronofsky just wants to bring life to his artistic vision and doesn't give two fucks about social media marketing. I know, right? [ BACK ]
*2 Maybe that's why we got the trailer for Bad Moms Christmas? Very meta. Speaking of which, yeah - a footnote within a footnote. That's quite meta, too. Although a film like this fully deserves it. [ BACK ]
*3 Now it's one thing to have the title stylised as mother! with the lower-case 'm' and exclamation mark permanently attached making spell-checkers think the sentence has just finished. As it's a conceit of an already unique film, I'm fine with that. But it feels very, very wrong to be starting a sentence with the title and keeping the small-m. [ BACK ]
*4 If even I can see the biblical references scattered throughout this film (but still know that's not what it's specifically about), there are probably way, way more that I'm not picking up. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Now the main thing to bear in mind for the duration of this review is, Salazar's Revenge*1 wasn't going to be 'for' me. And I'm fine with that. I've never really found Disney's PotC series any more than quite good at best, and my recent live-tweeting of installments one-to-four was knocked on the head after the first two, as I was becoming bogged down by the rapid succession of the things I didn't like about them.
So, we're now approximately nineteen years down the line from the end of At World's End, and young Henry Turner (Brendon Thwaites) thinks he's figured out a way to free his father Will (Orlando Bloom) from his 'Being The Captain Of The Flying Dutchman' curse. This will involve tracking down Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Meanwhile elsewhere, young scientist and scholar Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelario) is on the verge of being executed by her townsfolk for witchcraft, and is determined to discover the identity of her long-lost father. This will involve a chance meeting with Jack Sparrow (Spoiler: he's not her dad). Old faces from movies past return for the outing (although there are more than a few notable by their absence), and despite having a superb villain in the form of Javier Bardem's Salazar (think: a livid, Spanish Darth Vader), the inevitable violence is kept within 12A-certificate levels. For a family thrill-ride, you could do a lot worse.
I just didn't find the finished product particularly interesting. And it's not as if there's an absence of plot mechanics or pacing issues slow that plot down at all; action set-pieces are delivered, swashes are buckled and timbers are shivered with watch-setting regularity. I just couldn't shake the feeling that I'd seen all of this before, and barely even in a different order.
Outside of the aforementioned scene-stealing by Sr. Bardem, Kaya Scodelario, Brendan Thwaites and Geoffrey Rush are all aching for a better screenplay, their obvious talent largely wasted. But I may as well join the choir in saying that the real problem here is Johnny Depp, not even mustering his usual lacklustre levels of performance. By this point, Jack Sparrow*2 feels like he should be an incidental character in 'Allo 'Allo, wheeled out once a week with his worn-out schtick in the hope that audience-familiarity will be enough to pad over the gaps in the script. It won't. If anything, the one-note seafarer is just getting in the way now, the very agent holding the series back rather than pushing it boldly forward. Ironically, the character has become more of an anchor than Disney ever intended.
All that said, I don't feel able to lay out the beating that many critics are currently getting off their chests, if only because I don't feel the film's put in enough effort to really warrant one. There are good things in PotC5, but nowhere near enough of them and for nowhere near as long as they need to be.
However, it's also important to note that I actually fell asleep during the multi-million dollar, climactic battle of Salazar's Revenge. I mean only to the point where I jolted myself awake, but still. What can I tell you? By that point I was all out of fucks to give, and the murky*3, fast-cut action/mayhem shaky-cam, coupled with what can only be described as overwhelming symphony of grey-noise from the orchestra, audio-effects department and indeed the cast, basically just said to my brain 'you can't actually concentrate on any of what's meant to be happening here. Just sleep and pick it all up from the ending you know is in the post anyway'.
And with the exception of Bardem, the after-credits sequence made me happier than anything in the preceding one hundred and twenty eight minutes.
*1 No you're right, Ian Disney, giving a different episode-title just for the UK release makes absolute sense. I'm assuming this is so you can tell how many cam-jobs are originating from our shores, given that it's not like "Dead Men Tell No Tales" is a phrase us Brits would look at and think 'hey hang on, how is that pirate-related?'. [ BACK ]
*2 Sorry, 'Captain' Jack Sparrow. Hahaha, yeah, that never gets old… [ BACK ]
*3 And given that the final half hour is way too dark (visually) in 2D, my heart goes out to the poor saps who watched this in 3D and had to put up with the associated light-loss… [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Oh, Sean… you can soapbox your political views all you like, but if you're going to produce and star-in films like The Gunman then you can't expect to have your judgement taken too seriously. As much as this movie would like to assure its audience that it's an intelligent, political conspiracy thriller, it quickly becomes apparent that it's just a Liam Neeson film*1 with A-levels…
The Gunmanis a competently assembled film, doesn't spoon-feed the audience too much and has some beautifully tense set-pieces. It also features some fantastic melee-choreography and enough 'wet-kills' to justify that 15 Certificate. So it's a bit of a shame really that the film doesn't bring enough to the party to set it apart from the other guests. Beginning with Penn as 'security contractor' Jim Terrier carrying out an assassination in the Democratic Republic of Congo*2, we then jump forward eight years as he reconnects with his former acquaintances in a bid to find out who's trying to permanently silence him. Yeah, you can pretty much guess the rest from there.
Despite Penn's contractually-assured shirtless scenes, he's really a bit too old to be starting in this genre. All that's missing from this performance is a comedic gripe about his bad hip. I expect more from Penn as an actor somehow, even though I don't particularly like him. This becomes part of the problem too; Sean Penn has the raw charisma to lead the film, but not the charm to be likeable while he's doing it. And if you can't like Jim Terrier, it's going to be an uncomfortable two hours. A fairly heavyweight cast surrounds him, pulling their weight with a laboured script, including Javier 'Skyfall' Bardem and Mark 'Wolf Hall' Rylance going full-pantomime (with the latter growling away like a pissed-up British Batman).
While it's never less than watchable, The Gunman is also never more than passable, and feels far longer than it's 115 minutes. It's also very considerate that Jim's Incredibly Fragile Brain Trauma™ is diagnosed in the first act then lies dormant throughout the bullet-ridden second one until the plot requires its resurgence at the film's climax. Although the best part for me was a script is so switched-on that at one point it has a rowdy skinhead start a fight in a pub in the East End of London, then mid-way through shout "call the fucking pigs!". A phrase which, for his character, sits on the real-life-probability-chart just behind "I really like crochet!". Although the hardened-reality of this film also has the characters engaging in a conversation between bursts of an un-silenced firefight indoors. I'm imagining the "military advisors" listed in the credits had the day off for the Spanish villa scene?
Say what you like about Penn's politics, but you've got to love his taste in Hawaiian shirts. They're certainly more colourful than his performance in The Gunman, anyway…
Probably not, to be honest.
Netflix / telly.
Not in the cases of the cast members whose work I'm familiar with, no.
I'd be very surprised if it did.
Not particularly.
Of course there bloody isn't. What do you think this is, some two-bit action flick? …oh.
The Gunman features a 'you-get-what-you-pay-for' performance from Ray Winstone, who starred in 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' opposite the Corellian smuggler himself, Harrison Ford.
*1 Oh, and as with Run All Night, the trailers for The Gunman included Cinderella, Minions and The Moomins. Who the fuck do Studio Canal think is watching a 15-rated film of Sean Penn shooting people in the face for two hours??
*2Where, it has to be said, not one person is shown to be drinking Um Bongo. Hollywood lies, yet again.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
The Counsellor (or The Counselor, if you're not in the UK*1)
Cert: 18 / 117 mins / Dir. Ridley Scott
It's no secret that I thoroughly enjoyed 2012's Prometheus, despite its flaws, but it looks like Sir Riddlage Scott has gotten wind of this and thought "Hmmm, I really wanted to aggrieve everyone with my film, but that doesn't quite seem to have occurred. Perhaps I'd better helm a half-arsed tale of drug-lords, sex and decapitations to mop up any stragglers." That's not to say that no-one will like The Counselor, but I watched bad things happening to bad people for two hours, and didn't really care about any of it*2. Neither, apparently, did the other four people in the auditorium (although the cinema staff had already commented to me that this film's had almost no push here).
So, Michael Fassbender plays a nameless lawyer, foraying into illegal activities like drug-running and failing to control an accent in a built-up area. He's very successful at one of these. Everyone else (Cruz, Diaz, Bardem, Pitt) seems to be enjoying themselves, but their characters never quite become more than a cartoonish outline of who they're meant to be. The main problem is that the trailer suggests a film full of slick dialogue and little exposition, and the feature goes ahead and delivers on that promise. The script feels like it's been written for quotation-value rather than coherence, and entire scenes trundle by, full of apparently meaningful exchanges, which fail to advance the plot, only clumsily erecting callbacks for later use.
The Counselor is more of a character-piece, and the A-listers are fleshed out to varying extents, but the story they're in is neither coherent or engaging enough to run for two hours. All of the stars have performed so much better elsewhere, so I really have to lay the blame at the feet of the director (worst case examples being Cruz & Fassbender's toe-curling*3 opening to the film, and the platitude-laden soliloquy from Diaz in her final scene, the latter featuring so many dramatic pauses you can almost hear the script-pages being turned in the background).
There's a tense, sexy, violent, darkly funny film in here somewhere, but this isn't the team to uncover it. The Counselor never becomes outright dissatisfying, but its enjoyable moments are few and far between.
For best results, file alongside The Place Beyond The Pines and Killing Them Softly.
The trailer is way more concise than the film.
Sometimes. Not enough.
I don't think so.
Telly.
No.
Doubtful.
There isn't.
You know when that bloke sets up the wire in daylight (the one he pings in the trailer) to decapitate the biker, and then waits until it's completely dark before getting a phone call 15 seconds before the biker arrives (somehow) to let him know he's on his way? What's to stop ANY OTHER TRAFFIC from coming through a very public highway in the intervening hours and, if it's a truck, spanging the unbreakable*4 wire and flipping his van into the middle of the road, ruining the entire plan?
Why does wire-setup man assume the biker will sit upright when the lights come on, rather than just looking to his right with his head down?
Oh, That's two questions, isn't it? And now that's three.
Damn.
*1 What's with the L's? Just call it "The Llawyer", why don't you? Honestly, it's like The Time-Traveler's / Traveller's Wife all over again. I could have just referred to it as "The Counselllor", to hit neither target, but that's not exactly search-engine friendly…
*2 Truth be told, Penelope Cruz failing to make it across a car park was a moment when I did care, but we barely get to know the woman, so it's not like i was welling up or anything. She's friends with Diaz's character, remember, so it's not like she's squeaky clean herself.
*3 Not 'toe-curling' in the way they were hoping for, either. It was embarrassing to the point where it couldn't have been any worse if my parents had been sat on either side of me.
*4 I am assuming it's the same wire used in the automatic-beheading-device, which has a loop big enough to fit over someone's head but which then contracts to the size of their neck instantly and then contracts more slowly. Somehow. That bit isn't really explained clearly. It's almost like someone just really wanted to use 'The Bolito' to the point where they didn't mind spending just as long explaining what it does, as they do actually showing it.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
And so Craig returns for another round as the increasingly world-weary hero in the 23rd Bond movie. A great, lengthy pre-titles sequence sets the scene for an agent who's worried he's losing his edge, in an organisation that's struggling to keep its head above water…
In some respects, it's been pared down nicely to a muted version of the spectacle we've seen in previous films; by the final showdown, the world isn't at stake, only the worlds of four people standing in a deserted chapel. Elsewhere, CAT diggers and tube trains ramp up the action to precisely the level of mayhem we've come to expect.
Javier Bardem makes an excellent villain, although I'm not convinced that he's an excellent Bond villain. He carries a layer of madness and tragedy that lifts him way above other characters in his class, but at the same time caps his overall threat-level. He's so wrapped up in his personal agenda that you get the impression that he won't know what to do after he's achieved it, like a dog chasing a car. Ultimately, this makes him arguably more human than anyone else on-screen, which may be the point, but seems a little out of place for a story where we're meant to be cheering the good guys. There are some interesting themes running through the MI6 threads, particularly with the overall fear of obsolescence, but they're pretty much shrugged off by the end of the story, and they're just not as engaging as watching Bardem's Silva losing the plot scene by scene.
A hugely entertaining movie which doesn't outstay its welcome.
Oh, and the chase sequence at Embankment tube station? I'm probably not the first person to point out that they put things on the Tube escalators to stop you sliding down them like that. So, y'know, don't try that. Just saying.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
