Review: mother!

Year: 2017
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Screenplay: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer.

Synopsis is here:

So that was mother! A tumbling freefall about the creative process? An overloaded allegory about absolutely everything? Whatever you may think the film is about, the main point I seemed to take from the film is that Aronofsky is Angry with a capital A, to substitute the missing capital in the film’s title card. At the time of writing, my twitter feed has been filled with snarky cinephiles bemoaning the film’s outrageousness as well as the punishing way it tortures its lead (who the director is now dating). It’s a film where its detractors must scream from the highest mountain on how much they disliked it.

Another word beginning with A that I would describe mother! With be absurd. It’s a film which wanted to make a point about humanity’s destruction of the planet, as well as flirt with the same sort of biblical subtexts that Aronofsky has been playing with since his lo-fi indie breakthrough Pi (1998). It wants to mention commentary on celebrity culture and wishes to it do so with haunted house tropes and lingering references to Roman Polanski. The film lays its cards on the table with little disregard on whether the audience wishes to go with it or not. Its execution is set at a pitch which is so high that only dogs could hear. It’s not surprising that it’s set audiences apart. There are those who clearly have the ear for it and those wondering why the other half have tilted their heads.

Did I like it? Sure. I cackled like a schoolgirl through a lot of mother! Mostly because its high camp melodrama tickled me in the right way. I couldn’t take such an audacious film seriously and I suspect that the film and its makers know this, despite its clear Anger at the world. The only way Aronofsky could lash out at everything that pisses him off (the environment, celebrity hounding, the meaning and understanding of creation/destruction). It’s reminiscent of Polanski’s apartment trilogy and holds a similar love for finding humour in its bleakness. Its main conceit had me considering the haywire temperament of Andrzej Zulawski’s Possession (1981) as well as Chuck Palahniuk’s fever dream of a novel Diary (2003).  It also seems to nod at the transgressional nightmares of Lars Von Trier and tries to aim for that same troublesome headspace. I must admit I’m more with Aronofsky’s style of “lulz” than Von Trier’s. I also feel that all the aforementioned examples are tighter with their focus.

My main issue with the movie is that despite its clear intention to be an ambitious piece of audacity, is that it has the same problems as Richard Kelly’s Southland Tales (2006). It wants to be all these things to its audience, but in doing so, the film becomes much of a muchness. The cast is routinely up for the absurdity even though it’s not top tier performances from any of them.  The tight claustrophobic framing, overloading of close-ups and bucking of typical structure gives the film a vision far removed from so many movies recently released. However, despite the “fun” you can have reveled in its nihilism (it’s really made for a particular sense of humour) once the film enters its extraordinary final 30 minutes, it all feels like 10 different people shouting at once, which is strange considering the film does what it can to isolate everything through the viewpoint of Jenifer Lawrence’s character.

That said, mother! is kind of the perfect type of movie for where we are as filmgoers. It’s ability to polarise audiences is heartily welcomed in the film world that seems hellbent on clogging social media streams on which bland filmmaker has been fired from whichever totally safe megafranchise. While the films detractor’s current snark levels feel somewhat insufferable, rather this than a movie that gave us no experience. To those who favour the film, it’s interesting to see what exactly they see within the hysteria. I for one enjoyed seeing a director try and reach for the sky. It’s very telling to see how many people were quick claim folly on this Icarus attempt. Each to their own. However, one hopes the conversations on mother! last for a long time. I may then be interested in rewatching it and joining in.  

Review: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Year: 2015
Director: JJ Abrams
Screenplay: Lawrence Kasdan, J. J. Abrams, Michael Arndt
Starring: Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Lupita Nyong'o, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, and Max von Sydow.

Synopsis is here:

This is going to be a difficult one to start. So I’ll go with the large revelation first. I’m not a Star Wars fan. I admire their technical prowess. I respect their position they hold within mainstream cinema. To a point. However, as a film goer who did not watch these films at a young, impressionable age, I do not hold Lucas’ space opera as the benchmark for nearly all cinema. Watching the hype of The Force Awakens take hold of my social media feeds, general media feeds and my workplace was more irritating than encouraging. I now have more understanding of how non-football fans feel during every World Cup.

My dismissive views of the saga will feel, to some, that I shouldn’t review the most anticipated film of the year, nee decade (Revenge of the Sith was 2005). I myself find it annoying that in order to be part of popular cultural conversation, I must now binge on T.V show seasons within a day, have general knowledge of Kim Kadashian’s movements and hold a view on Star Wars. A view that if not perversely uncritical and overwhelmingly positive, then death threats are abound.

It’s safe to say I went into my Saturday morning screening with a sense of trepidation. I dread to think how JJ Abrams must have felt with the pressure to deliver a film which must be considered as perfect to many people. Especially with the sour taste of Lucas’ over digitalised prequels.
I may not hold Star Wars as the cinematic standard and you won’t find me hastily slapping The Force Awakens on any end of year lists. I will say, however, that JJ Abrams has delivered an enjoyable, progressive and light entertainment.

There’s a lot of pleasure to be taken from The Force Awakens, mostly because Abrams keeps hold of many of the things that Star Wars’ does well. The impressive world building, the strong sense of scale and scope and some truly wondrous visuals. This is combined with an eclectic and spirited cast who sell film’s emotional beats and crummy expositional dialogue with aplomb.

The eye candy and characters do well to cover up the fact that plot wise, the film hasn’t too much to say. Abrams may have been wise to keep much of the structure of A New Hope and doesn’t deviate wildly from elements as he did previously with Star Trek (2009). Unfortunately, while the film reminds us of the archetypes and motifs that fans will feel comfortable with, the lack of risk taken leaves us with a narrative that feels a little flat and mildly predictable. The film also has that irritating issue comes with a lot of modern franchises in that, if you have not immersed yourself within the universe, then filling in the dots can feel cumbersome and confounding.

What The Force Awakens misses with a truly engaging story (I did zone out a few times), delivers with the fact that everyone involved gives it their all. There are moments in which Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher appear to age backwards in front of our eyes. It’s certainly clear that Ford feels more comfortable here than he did with those crystal skulls. It’s Abrams’ blooding of the new guard that is the most eye opening. John Boyega and Daisy Ridley are both given moments to shine and run with things with the right amount of vigour. Adam Drivers off beat speech rhythms makes him perfect for his role of Kylo Ren. It’s also a performance that’s far more emotive than expected. The same can also be said for Lupita Nyong'o who’s Maz Kanata has a moment that holds the type of gravitas that we’d only expect from the aforementioned Ford and Fisher. As for Oscar Issacs? Well, that guy is just made of charm.

Much like Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), the cast also highlights the need for progressiveness within the modern blockbuster. The film’s diversity never feels shoehorned and despite the narrative issues, provides fresher perspectives and stronger representation. Ninjas Kanata helps highlight just how tone deaf Jar Jar Binks really was. Meanwhile Boyega and Ridley playing center stage holds the possibility to pay dividends for younger audiences, such is the forward thinking by Abrams.

Indeed, that’s the point with Star Wars. The film will appeal to fans young and old, but its set pieces, colour and toys should delight a new generation of young sci-fi fans. More so than Lucas’ prequels. The drab trade federations and midi-chlorians aren’t found here. Only Millennium Falcon thrills and lightsabre duels. The film’s oddly named characters and planet hopping will unlikely change the minds of more hardened non-fans. However, The Force Awakens kept this non-fan entertained from start to finish. Even if I’d need Wikipedia to remember the character names. I still don't consider myself a Star Wars fan. But consider my viewpoint somewhat softened.

 

Review: Insurgent

Year: 2015

Director: Robert Schwentke

Screenplay: Brian Duffield, Avika Goldman

Starring: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Ansel Elgort, Miles Teller, Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Jai Courtney, Zoe Kravitz, Maggie Q, Daniel Dae Kim, Ray Stevenson, Octavia Spencer

Synopsis is here:

After spending over four hours in the Divergent universe, watching Insurgent the day before, I can honestly say that’s all I’ll need. I don’t regret my time spent with the young adult series. The importance of such franchises within the cinematic world, is definitely not lost on me. I must, however stress that despite the film’s progression of feminine goals, narratively, as with the first film, feels cumbersome and confounding at the worst of times and predictable at best. This is the heroine’s journey at its most basic. Yet we’re constantly thrown terms and descriptions which seem awkward for even the actors pronouncing them. Within the first act of this second entry, as I found Divergent, I felt that Insurgent is probably far more memorable as a book than a film.

Such discouraging thoughts come easily due to Insurgent’s ineffective screenplay. It is a film with a mass converging of characters, all jostling for screen time, yet struggling to gain the right amount of significance that they actually deserve because the film must push on with the lead character’s “neo complex”. I don’t mean this to be a negative on the role of Tris, who is ably played by Shailene Woodley. However Insurgent is so wrapped up in the character that other, clearly important characters are criminally underwritten. A perfect example of this is with the character of Tris’ brother Caleb Prior played by Ansel Elgort (The Fault in Our Stars). Far too often the character makes grand choices which motivate the plot yet are vaguely construed the man himself. Meanwhile the film’s central relationship between Tris and Four (Theo James) convincing, yet their connections between everyone else are often weakly portrayed. Much of the plot is clearly entangled between the youthful leads and their parents, but nothing is ever given much detail or resonance.

The frustrating thing about Insurgent, as with Divergent, is that nothing seems to stick. Visually the film is slick, glossy and feels a lot more open, but is still rather more functional than stand out. I’ve seen The Maze Runner (2014) and find both Insurgent and Divergent a tad more interesting (particularly the action sequences), but still quite ordinary when it comes to the characters and their interactions. It’s a film that has motifs and scenes that will remind you of more interesting/entertaining features. I doubt anyone is surprised that the Divergent series gained a greenlight once the likes of The Hunger Games became successful. I also wouldn’t be surprised if many other favour Katniss over Tris, although both are still playing an important part in terms of female roles with agency.

For me it speaks volumes that, as me and my girlfriend left the cinema, I mention how much of the divergence test in the film made me think about Luke’s trials in The Empire Strikes Back (1980). My girlfriend, who has no interest in Star Wars, was taken back by this.  I feel one reason being, that such action packed young adult action has been aimed at guys for so long, that aspects of this franchise generally feel fresh for females whom have never been interested before. Perhaps my cynicism gets the better of me. Insurgent works for my girlfriend, I was merely taken for a ride. Like so many women have been obliged to when guys get to see boys play with their toys. So as derivative as I may have found it, it looks to be opening doors for others. So silver linings.  

Review: John Carter

Year: 2012
Director: Andrew Stanton
Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews, Michael Chabon
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins and Willem Dafoe

Synopsis is here:

The goings on behind John Carter, remind me much of situations that have happened in places where I've worked. Here, we have an expensive product (reportedly over $250 million) that has a uncertainly in it's success, despite similar commodities having large amounts of achievement. A bunch of cooks  (executives, marketing and the like) who are all chopping and changing the recipe, despite appearing to hold their own reservations to the broth itself. There's is a braying, foaming at the mouth mob (we call them the consumer), seemingly waiting to rip the product to sheds. And at the end of all this, there is a director who honestly wants to do the best job he can.

John Carter (formerly of Mars) has so many disparaging factors attacking it from all sides that one was never really surprised at it's revenue stream. Many are debating the films financial success, but all in all, it's save to say that the film hasn't impressed as hoped. But then again how could it? With all the name altering, release shifting and weak marketing, Carter had seemingly lost it's voice before it even began. Let's not lie to ourselves. Despite the original story being a foundation of so much the fanboys hold dear, this attempt, with it's lack of known names and third world debt busting budget, was always going to be a tall order. But with so much nonsense surrounding it, at no point did any of the elements look to combine to create one true vision. All this and I've not yet got on to the bloody film itself.

John Carter (of Mars, Barsoom, whatever) is a film which is as flawed as it is entertaining and as earnest as it is erratic. For every character moment which sparked interest in me, there was juncture based on quite weak motivation. It's ambition clearly shows throughout, and yet it still feels slashed to try and fit everything in. With this said, the film still feels lengthy and yet you're never quite sure why it does. Sub-plots appear streamlined for a sequel not yet green lighted for a sequel Disney have not yet entered on to the franchise farm. However; if a sequel were to appear, I'd happily pay money to see it.

The thing is; while everything doesn't hang together as gracefully as you would hope, (American Civil War! Now MARS! Now Roman style Colosseum antics! An eternally lengthy Royal Wedding!) John Carter didn't bore me, as it jumped haphazardly from point to point. And why would it? Stanton's film; gives us a lead character who has enough heroism and appeal to keep investment. True, the first time Taylor Kitsch opens his mouth, his gravelly voice is more than a little gigglesome, and much of his reasoning behind his actions are muddled and murky at best. Despite this, Kitsch gives his performance his all and it clearly shows. As does the turn from Lynn Collins, whose display will remind many of Princess Leia, like so many characters of such an archetype.

Everyone in the film are so engaged in the situation, you just wish everything could be a bit more clear. We have three different tribes, all fighting, but for reasons that the audience are merely asked to bypass. The films antagonist (Brit villain for hire Mark Strong), is the type of heartless, immoral bastard that you you will love to hate. However, the film underplays the nefarious nature of the events that occur, much like the reasons for Carter to join the war that is taking place. When reasoning arises, it comes across mealy mouthed and unimportant. It just doesn't match the energy of the characters.

This brings frustration as when the film hits the mark, it strikes strong. A wonderful set piece involving Carter fighting for his life, intercut with his own personal back story is a moment I found emotionally overwhelming (all of the set pieces I enjoyed). It's old fashioned style towards everything is also welcoming. There is no pandering to modern trends; and this alone, gives the film a strange freshness about it despite the story itself being technically older than the films that have come before this movie (if that even makes sense). The films humour is also quite charming.

It's a shame we've been spoilt visually in the past however, as Avatar looms large over Stanton's industrious effort. The film is good looking and stylish in it's own right (despite that bloody orange/teal colour palette), but it just cannot match the efforts that take place in James Cameron's beautifully realised vision. It is; however, much more of a match, in its story. Despite both featuring the same archetypes within them, John Carter's various tribes, space travel and mixture of sci-fi and period history appears to be much more dense and enjoyable than Cameron's grunts on Pandora.  There is a richness in between the lines that could have been further unlocked were it not for all the mitigating factors that the film clearly had issues with. The development hell faced, along with the need to be a franchise can clearly be seen within John Carter.

I can say however, I was never bored with John Carter. I always wanted to know what came next, enjoyed its sense for adventure and its banter. Carter didn't reach the truly epic scale I had hoped, but by no means did it truly disappoint itself. It's a damn shame that all the pottering about the money, the release date, the marketing and everything in-between, have not allowed the film to breathe. John Carter isn't perfect but wear its flaws, like its heart, on its sleeve and goes down fighting.

NOTE: I'm not in Marketing. If I was I would have simply gone down this route: "Before avatar, before star wars route, Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo) takes you to Mars!" I don't know how that would work. But like I said, I'm not in marketing.