Showing posts with label Javier Bardem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Javier Bardem. Show all posts

Saturday, 23 December 2017

Review #1,283: 'Mother!' (2017)

Darren Aronofsky's Mother!, or mother! as it is often printed, has already generated more controversy than most movies can achieve in an entire lifetime. A fever-dream of chaos, violence and nightmarish imagery, Aronofsky's latest seems to provoke extreme reactions from both sides of the spectrum. After its premiere at the Venice Film Festival, the film received both a standing ovation and a chorus of boos. Whether you love it, hate it, or simply cannot make up your mind, Mother! will be successful at yanking a reaction out of you, be it repulsion, confusion or laughter. Yet the biggest shock is not the orgy of brutality at the climax or the religious undertones, but that a major studio would ever fund this at all. Paramount were apparently convinced when star Jennifer Lawrence signed on, but there is little here for fans of The Hunger Games, and not much more for those hoping for a straight-forward haunted house flick.

We open with a woman burning, before apparently jumping forward in time. The house in which the stranger met her demise has been repaired, and is currently being turned into a paradise by 'Mother' (Lawrence). She wants to shape the home into a place of tranquillity for her much older husband, 'Him' (Javier Bardem), an artistically-blocked famous poet who has failed to write any new material in over a year. Things seem peaceful, but something isn't quite right. The house is in the middle of nowhere, hidden away from civilisation, so Mother is shocked when a doctor - billed as 'Man' and played by Ed Harris - turns up at the door claiming to have mistook the house for a B & B. Mother wants to be left alone but Him seems eager for the company. It becomes clear than Man has no intention of leaving when his wife ('Woman', played by Michelle Pfeiffer) turns up at the door. She is obnoxious and rude, carrying a clanking glass and glazed eyes with her wherever she goes, and events start to spiral out of control when their bickering sons (played by Brian and Domhnall Gleeson) also show up.

Things seem to calm down when Mother becomes pregnant, and the couple withdraw into isolation once again. Fatherhood reawakens the artist in Him, and he soon has a new book published. But this only starts to attract more outsiders, which rapidly turns from a small crowd of book fans to a hoard of crazies, who start to systematically destroy the house. Think Gaspar Noe meets some of Ben Wheatley's more extreme works and you can start to grasp the tone of Mother!'s climax. It's a clusterfuck of unpleasantness and claustrophobia, like a house party crashed by Satan himself. Aronofsky makes sure that you're uncomfortable from the very get-go, with camerawork nearly always from point of view of Mother, or directly in her face. Classic horror elements also establish feelings of unease, such as a bleeding floorboard, a dingy basement with a bricked-up wall, and a strange instrument heard through the walls with the appearance of a beating heart. Aronofsky possibly thinks he setting the audience up for the nastiness about to be inflicted on the heroine, but nothing could have really prepared me for the last 40 minutes.

Mother! is one of only a few films I've really had to wrestle with. As I was watching, I felt disgusted, patronised, and in need of a good wash, and the end credits made me feel like I was exhaling for the very first time. As time passed, I could only admire the way in which Aronosky had forced such a physical reaction out of me, and the many ways in which the film can be read. Essentially it's a story of motherhood and creating a home for your family, but it also works as a religious parable, with certain characters clearly stand-ins for figures from the Bible. Most of all, this is an artist's reaction to terrifying reality of our times, with nuclear war, global warming and terrorism a constant threat, and dangerous, unpredictable leaders seated at the head of some of the most powerful countries in the world. The director himself stated that he woke up one morning and spilled out Mother! over the course of four days, and the film certainly reflects Aronofsky's urgent, scribbled approach. It's hard to recommend Mother!, but I would urge anybody to see it at least once. You may find it to be preposterous nonsense or a cathartic masterpiece, and you'd be right either way.


Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Brian Gleeson, Domhnall Gleeson, Kristen Wiig
Country: USA

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie



Mother! (2017) on IMDb

Saturday, 5 January 2013

Review #559: 'Skyfall' (2012)

So finally, after becoming the highest grossing film of all time in the UK, grossing over 1 billion dollars worldwide, and amongst chants of "best Bond ever!", I finally got round to watching Skyfall, Daniel Craig's third appearance as the re-invented British spy, following the excellent Casino Royale (2006) and the somewhat flat Quantum of Solace (2008). Ever since Paul Greengrass picked up the reigns of the moderately successful The Bourne Identity (2002) and gave birth to a franchise with his sequel The Bourne Supremacy (2004), action cinema has been significantly affected. We no longer expect cheesy one-liners and long-haired villains being thrown over tables, we now look for damaged anti-heroes, spectacular but realistic stunts, and messy hand-to-hand combat. Skyfall is Bond's most emotionally engaging movie yet, but it's also an alarmingly underwhelming experience.

After a botched MI6 operation in Istanbul, a lone mercenary, Patrice (Ola Rapace), escapes with a computer file containing details about undercover agents working within terrorist organisations. James Bond is accidentally shot by his partner Eve (Naomie Harris) and believed to be dead. Back in London, M (Judi Dench) finds her position threatened by Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), who urges her to retire in the aftermath of Istanbul. When the MI6 headquarters are bombed following a threatening cyber-message to M, Bond returns, facing questions about his mental state and his physical ability. But when Patrice is tracked down, an assassination leads Bond to a casino in Macao, owned by cyber-terrorist Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), a former colleague of M's.

If I can say off the bat, I've always been in favour of this re-invention of Bond. As the 'old' Bond films were progressing, they were becoming gradually more ridiculous and fantasy-laden, leading to the inexplicable invisible car in Pierce Brosnan's last film as Bond, Die Another Day (2002). The films seemed to be losing sight of Ian Fleming's source novels, and although they remained commercial hits, Brosnan's outings (with the exception of GoldenEye (1995) were becoming increasingly dire. Casino Royale set the tone early with a moody black-and-white sequence that gave birth to Daniel Craig's colder, brutal Bond, less concerned with how his Martini's were made than going to extreme (and illegal) lengths to bring down his target(s). Royale's reinvention showed a darker side to the beloved character, yet staying with tradition, still kept him at an emotional distance.

Director Sam Mendes made the bold decision to reveal more about Bond's past and childhood, risking fanboy wrath and damaging Bond's almost mythical characterisations. The main crux of the film focuses on his relationship with M, a stern authoritarian that risks career and her own soul in putting national safety and the success of a mission above the lives of her agents. Bond, being a willing soldier, follows M blindly, and when Silva announces his intention to enact revenge on M for a former betrayal, Bond takes M to his childhood home, Skyfall. Bond facing his childhood allows time to develop on Bond's tormented psyche, but it all seems quite out of place. One of the most intriguing things about Bond is his almost suicidal willingness to risk all for his job due to his almost complete lack of emotion, but Skyfall is unable to make any grand revelations so it all comes to nothing more than a distraction. (Saying that, the only previous Bond film to try and engage Bond emotionally led to one of the most devastatingly cold climaxes in the series' history in the underrated On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)).

As well as the Bourne series, it seems that Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (2005-2012) is a major influence on this film in particular. Mendes delves deeper into the workings and hierarchy of MI6, rather than just a boss sat behind a desk, and adds a modern, more 'real' bad guy in Silva to the mix (even stealing the Joker's voluntary arrest in The Dark Knight (2008)). Silva is a technical genius, able to hack MI6's database with relative ease, and also proving himself more resourceful and intelligent than Bond and M realise. Bardem is wonderful in the role (as you would expect), but sadly his character is not. Labelling him simply as a cyber virtuoso seems like a very lazy way to allow Silva to repeatedly outwit MI6 and their own technical marvel Q (Ben Whishaw) to the point where you wonder if Britain's finest could really be so stupid. The film is therefore full of plot-holes and distracting MacGuffin's that stretches out the running time to more than it really needs to be.

Skyfall also asks a lot of the audience, especially when it comes to suspending their belief. Before the frankly bizarre opening sequence appears and we are treated to Adele's drab title song, we witness an already wounded Bond get shot with a rifle and fall over 300 feet from the Varda Viaduct into water, only to emerge alive and romancing a mystery woman. No explanation is given as to how he manages to survive the ordeal, and given the revelations about Bond's diminishing physical prowess, it seems rather insulting. As questions are raised by his superiors over Bond's ability to his job given his age (it must be the grey in his stubble), Bond is put through various tests in which he struggles with, yet half way through the film, this seems to be simply put aside as he competently shoots and fights his way through various bad guys. Again, no real explanation given.

Like I stated before, the most suitable word to describe this film would be underwhelming, especially with the critical adoration that the film was lavished with. The action scenes are dull, with nothing matching the free-jumping opening of Royale. They are also quite strange - was anyone expecting a henchman to be eaten by a CGI Komodo dragon? How about death by underwater funky chicken? It all leads to a very unsatisfying climax at Skyfall, where a simple shoot-out and foot chase fail to justify a 2 hour-plus build-up. It feels like the entire film is building up to an explosive climax that never comes. I found the whole experiencing really quite baffling, with the attempts to mix the old with the new Bond never really convincing or flowing. The film is competently directed by Mendes however, and everything looks suitably crisp and clean. What direction all of this means for Bond, I don't know, but given the film is currently the 14th highest-grossing film of all time, and the film somehow being lauded by critics and audiences alike, it won't be too long until Craig dons the suit once again.


Directed by: Sam Mendes
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Bérénice Marlohe, Ben Whishaw, Albert Finney
Country: UK/USA

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie



Skyfall (2012) on IMDb

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...