Showing posts with label Michelle Pfeiffer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michelle Pfeiffer. Show all posts

Saturday, December 30, 2017

mother!



Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Brian Gleeson, Domhnall Gleeson, Stephen McHattie, Kristen Wiig
Running Time: 121 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)
  
Sometimes, it only takes the first few minutes to figure out whether you'll be on a film's wavelength. From the opening scene of Darren Aronofsky's mother! and each succeeding one over the span of two hours, every single moment is compelling. There's a built-in, unnerving tension accompanying the execution of even the most menial tasks and a genuine feeling that you have no idea what will happen next. That's exciting, and for the accusations of this being the most polarizing, controversial, and challenging mainstream film in years (all true), it starts as merely a story about a couple of unwelcome houseguests. But there's this unpleasantness bubbling under the surface, and while we're not sure exactly what, most probably expected something resembling a traditional horror movie with supernatural elements. That's what the commercials and trailers hinted, as well as what we've come to expect and have been trained to spot. And while classifying it as a psychological thriller seems fairest, that description also fails to convey the magnitude of what plays out.

In creating a work of art that challenges and confronts his audience in almost sickeningly uncomfortable ways, Aronofsky backs us into a corner and makes us think our way out. It's not only 2017's best and most audacious effort, but the most accomplished work of this filmmaker's career, which is no small feat considering he's the director behind Requiem For a Dream, The Wrestler and Black Swan. This sees him truly breaking free from whatever creative shackles remained and operating on an almost entirely different level, upping his game in ways I didn't think possible. You'll know when you get to that point in the narrative whether you're willing to go along for the ride, or decide to abandon ship, as most critics and audiences already have.

The cruelest irony is that this isn't a confusing story lacking a coherent beginning, middle or end. It's everything in between that confounds, with very little of it having to do with plot. The only wrong way to watch is literally. And in Jennifer Lawrence, the director finds the ideal vessel with which to deliver it, showcasing her abilities in a manner we've never seen exhibited, or rather, inhibited, before.  At the very distinct point the movie starts riding the rails of the crazy train everyone's been talking about, I just fastened my seatbelt. "It's here," I reminded myself as the madness and insanity unfolds, relishing how rare it is in cinema to get a final act that pays off with such reckless abandon and unexpectedly thrilling consequences.

So much happens in mother! and yet it remains strangely immune to spoilers because what occurs isn't even half of what it's about. Still, a certain degree of restraint is best when describing events.  A struggling poet known simply as Him (Javier Bardem) is rebuilding his life after a fire destroyed the house he shares with his much younger wife, Mother (Lawrence). Prone to unexpected panic attacks, suspicious occurrences around the house disturb and unsettle her as she renovates, while Him suffers from the worst case of writer's block since Jack Torrance took up residence at the Overlook. Endlessly staring at a blank page, he finds his only inspiration from a rare, mysterious crystal object he keeps on a pedestal in his study.

Things change when a stranger named Man (Ed Harris) shows up at the house looking for a place to stay. Chain-smoking and prone to hysterical coughing fits, he's clearly ill, but also gives some indications his arrival isn't exactly a coincidence. Him and Man soon form a bond over the former's writing, but Mother is immediately suspicious. A day later, Man's wife Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives and the atmosphere worsens. Considerably. Before long, Mother is on the outside looking in, a spectator in her own home and marriage, with Him's behavior growing stranger and more self-obsessed, as these strangers infiltrate their lives.

A clear dynamic exists in this marriage before the houseguests from hell arrive, or more accurately, move in and take over. Him pretty much just does what he wants and Mother is expected to just go along with it, without nary a word. And mostly, she complies, out of love. But it's a love that seems unfairly balanced, as she stands by and watches Him let these strangers run roughshod over their home, basically ignoring the affections and support she provides on a daily basis. It only worsens as their presence grows more invasive, specifically in regard to Michelle Pfeiffer's Woman, whose questioning of Mother about her sex life and marriage, as well as the flagrant invasion of her personal space, has you scratching your head wondering when the latter will finally assert herself. The unexpected arrival of more family members pushes her to the breaking point.

As to why the title character is named "Mother" when she isn't one, and how that fits into the larger picture, is initially a mystery. And just as she starts putting her foot down after enduring far more than even the most patient spouse could, a single shocking event occurs that turns the story on its head, soon severing the already tenuous bond that exists between them. The lengths Him goes to in conveying an illusion of stability when the problem has clearly reached apocalyptic proportions is almost comical. As he explains away everything to placate his wife, you start wondering if this guy's for real. Could he actually be this vain and self-absorbed? If so, what's the possible explanation, and what does it have to do with these intrusive houseguests? O the mysterious crystal? The answers do eventually come, but once they do, you might regret you asked.

With her energetic presence and brash, oversized charisma, Jennifer Lawrence is already a seasoned pro at inhabiting characters who command in any room they walk into. As Mother, the actress gets to do something she's never attempted: Play the victim. A weak pushover whose only purpose seems to be providing for others, most specifically her husband, as she caters to his increasingly absurd whims. Even as the narrative clearly puts viewers in the position of identifying and sympathizing with Mother and seeing much of what happens through her eyes, it's fascinating to see Lawrence's natural playfulness and likability stripped away. Psychologically beaten down, she can't command anything since her character takes a passenger seat in her own developing nightmare. So, we start discovering what else Lawrence can do well, which is unsurprisingly everything. While she's again cast as the much younger wife of a male lead, it's the rare age gap that's acknowledged multiple times in the screenplay for purposeful effect. And not in the man's favor.

The more muted than usual Lawrence somehow finds a way to make what should be mundane, everyday activities like painting and boiling tea crackle with tension and suspicion as she grows increasingly weary of her unwanted guests. There's this slow escalation of insanity around her that explodes in the final act, the full force of which depends on her surrendering to the material and fully giving herself over to Aronofsky's vision, regardless of how disturbing and humiliating it becomes. Even if you despise where the story goes, it's tough to deny how present and gripping Lawrence is in every scene, or at least acknowledge how far outside her perceived zone she goes with the performance, adding "risk-taker" to the growing list of Jennifer Lawrence superlatives. It's also the first performance she's given that represents something bigger than only the interior life of the character she's playing, showcasing darker, quieter shades to her range we haven't been experienced in more mainstream projects that first punched her card as an award-winning star.

Bardem just might have the even tougher role, playing this damaged man who talks of the great love he has for his wife, even as his actions contradict it. He has to commit to this absolutely and does, dialing in on his character's vain self absorption in the face of a woman willing to do anything for Him. But he wants more. Whether it's adulation, admiration, or attention, it just never stops with this guy, and if you can figure Him out, you're a step closer to figuring out the film. As Man and Woman, Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer are brilliantly aggravating and deplorable, with Pfeiffer given her juiciest, most complex role in decades, especially shining in her combative scenes opposite Lawrence. In fact, she's so good (or rather deliciously bad), a strong case could be made, not only for a supporting nomination, but even more screen time. And yet, the amount she gets seems ideal, serving its function until her presence is no longer necessary. In a broader sense, the same could apply to all four characters, who are very much functional representations of something greater than they initially appear.

In this house, Aronofsky creates a world, and does it via the performances, the camera's perspective, sound and even production design. And when all hell breaks loose in the last third, you start realizing the scope and enormity of what he had in mind when creating this universe. And while much of this is tiptoeing for the sake of spoiler avoidance, let's just say it's one of the few instances where a script builds to a crescendo, then actually over-delivers on any reasonable expectations. It's disgusting, uncomfortable and there's one moment I'm convinced is the sole cause for all the animosity directed toward the film. And yet, somehow, in the end, it all makes sense.

The very last scene is just perfect, providing justification and clarification to nearly everything that came before. It's one of those great endings where you practically hear the sound of a book closing, even as its content, as well as the biblical and metaphysical questions it poses, stay with you long after the credits roll. View the film as a disintegration of a marriage, a religious allegory, a desperate plea to save us from each other, or maybe all of the above, its impact is lasting and worthy of a discussion audiences should have been having. That we're not speaks to a larger problem that Aronofsky is more than willing to throw in our faces, and deservedly so. It's all right up there on screen for intense examination, at least for those able and willing to see it through.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Dark Shadows


Director: Tim Burton
Starring: Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Eva Green, Jackie Earle Haley, Jonny Lee Miller, Chloe Grace Moretz, Bella Heathcote
Running Time: 113 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Dark Shadows starts off promisingly enough, with a prologue that's actually somewhat intriguing and an initial 40 minutes that teases the possibility that Tim Burton may have finally made a great movie again. Then it's all downhill, as the tone, which was initially so sure and steady, goes all over the place. At points it's just not clear what Burton was going for. Sometimes it feels like a Gothic horror movie while at others the comedy is so broad it may as well be a remake of The Munsters. What's not in question is that as far as TV-to-film adaptations go, at least this one seemed like a reasonable idea and it's understandable why Burton wanted to tackle it. But it's also equally frustrating when you have a director with so much talent and all these great ideas who can't seem to translate it into a compelling narrative with characters we care about. It happens over and over again with him to the point that it's difficult to even pinpoint a solution anymore (though taking a break from working with Depp might be a start). This is a fascinating near-miss, filled with elements that could have made for a great film and a single performance that really deserves to be in one. And having not seen the original 1960's cult supernatural soap it's based on, I'm comfortable wagering a guess that it's probably excellent. You can see the shell of something special and different here, especially in the first half hour. It would all seem to be right in Burton's wheelhouse, but once again his propensity for favoring production design over storytelling sinks him.     

The story tells of Barnabus Collins (Johnny Depp), who arrives to America from Liverpool in the mid 1700's and has an affair with the family maid Angelique (Eva Green), before spurning her and falling in love with Josette du Pres (Bella Heathcote). But an angry, jealous Angelique reveals herself to be a witch, cursing Josette into jumping off a cliff to her death and sentencing Barnabus to a life as an immortal vampire. Buried alive and locked in a chain coffin by Angelique for 196 years, he finally awakens in 1972, discovering that his cursed descendants now reside in his Collinsport, Maine manor. There's his cousin and family matriarch, Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), her brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), her rebellious 15-year-old daughter Caroline (Chloe Grace Moretz), Roger's troubled 10-year-old son David (Gulliver McGrath), and his psychiatrist Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter). They're joined by the grounds' creepy caretaker, Willie Loomis (Jackie Earle Haley) and their newest arrival, Victoria Winters (Heathcote again), a mysterious girl who's been hired as David's governess and bares more than a passing resemblance to Barnabus' dead lover Josette. Staying with the family under the guise of a distant relative, Barnabus begins to fall for her. But Angelique's still in town posing as a successful business woman, and if she can't have him, she'll destroy him, along with the rest of the Collins family.

The casting feels spot-on and as aggravating as it is seeing Depp collaborating with Burton for what feels like the hundredth time, he at least seems well suited for a role he's supposedly dreamed of playing for years. It's just unfortunate that his spooky, pale-faced appearance makes the role seem indistinguishable from his turns in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sweeney Todd, Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Alice in Wonderland. So, Barnabus is basically a composite of every Tim Burton character he's played. I'd like to say Depp does something totally different this time around, but it's really just more of the same, which isn't to say he's terrible. In fact, the most interesting portion of the film is the culture clash that takes place when 200 year-old Barnabus wakes up in the 1970's and must adjust to this new lifestyle around him. Just about the best decision Burton made was to set this in that decade since the setting becomes a time travel trip for the viewer as much as the story's protagonist. Watching Barnabus find his way around these surroundings, his observations of the music and fashions and seeing how his dysfunctional family responds to his resurrection, provide the satisfying moments.With a soundtrack featuring the likes of The Moody Blues, Donovan, Black Sabbath and Alice Cooper (who cameos) a good case can be made that the music is actually better than the movie, providing a steady stream of entertainment the story often lacks, especially in its last hour. Frequent Burton collaborator Danny Elfman also provides a creepy, catchy score that captures just the right tone for the material.

An excellent musical montage set to The Carpenter's "Top of the World" that pretty much signifies the film's last great moment before it deteriorates before our eyes and Burton's worst impulses take over. The script seems to abandons the compelling "fish-out-of water" story and Baranbus' connection to Victoria (who may or may not be his reincarnated lover) in favor of his love/hate feud with Angelique. There's a silly, over-the-top sex scene and everything that follows is practically too much of a mess to describe. Eva Green does her best to make it work though, giving what's far and away the best performance in the film by managing to lend many dimensions to a fairly one-dimensional character. Seductive, creepy and funny, she successfully turns Angelique into kind of a live-action cartoon, proving to have a great knack for physical comedy as well as dark drama. A haunting Bella Heathcote excels too in her dual role, despite being introduced as a major character then promptly forgotten about by the film's second half. Chloe Moretz is as melodramatic as can be as angry teen Caroline, though there's a development late involving her that comes completely out of left field and seems to make little sense at all. And this is probably the closest Helena Bonham Carter will ever come to playing at least a partially normal character in one of her husband's films. Yet, her Dr. Hoffman stills seems like a wacked out weirdo, which is probably appropriate.

The ending heavily hints at a sequel that won't likely happen anytime soon due to this film's disappointing financial returns. The expectation was clearly to build a franchise but adapting a TV series (especially one with which most modern audiences are unfamiliar) is tough because you can get way with a lot more when you have weeks and months to build a story. Supposedly, the supernatural weren't introduced in the original until well into the show's run, which had to have been a fun shock for viewers. An updated feature film adaptation has no such luxury, highlighting one of many advantages TV has over film right now. This is definitely a case where there are a lot of interesting ideas and fanciful performances that just don't connect in a cohesive, engaging story like they should. The set-up is perfect but when it comes to delivering on it, Burton drops the ball. If there's good news it's that the first hour of the movie proves that he's still got it. He always seems to be at his creative peak when telling deeply personal original stories, but frequently falters when adapting previously existing material for a payday. Dark Shadows feels like something strangely in between. It's questionable placing the blame entirely on Burton when so many other hands are on deck and factors at play in determining this project's success, but he's an unusual case in that he's the kind of filmmaker whose visual influence and style permeates through every facet of the work. For better or worse, his imprint is unmistakable. It's just that lately, it's been for worse.        

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Hairspray

Director: Adam Shankman
Starring: Nikki Blonsky, John Travolta, Amanda Bynes, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, Queen Latifah, James Marsden, Brittany Snow, Zac Efron, Elijah Kelley, Allison Janney

Running Time: 117 min.

Rating: PG


**1/2 (out of ****)


It would be unfair of me to review Hairspray without first mentioning that I'm not that big a fan of musicals. I've seen and enjoyed many Broadway shows and from time to time I'll see a movie musical that I think works. Other than that I've always just thought it was a tough sell on screen that someone would just burst out in song unless the film is filled with unequaled passion and is supported by an incredible story. Otherwise, it just seems like a joke. Even the musical genre's most virulent supporters would admit it tends to work better on stage than on screen. So when I heard they were planning a remake of John Waters' 1988 cult camp classic Hairspray, based largely on its recent Broadway adaptation, I cringed. I was looking forward to this about as much as surgery without anesthesia.

As I suspected Adam Shankman's Hairspray is a spectacularly stupid movie and a pointless remake but it does work for what it is. There are times though where I just can't stand what it is. All the bite from Waters' version is gone and replaced with silliness, but the musical numbers really soar. I should probably recommend it, but I just found it inescapable how obvious and simplistic the story was. Waters' version didn't call attention to that. This does.

When the actors aren't singing they're busy making cartoonish faces at one another and there's hardly a performance of real, sustaining value in the film, with one very notable exception. And it comes from a girl who's never acted before, though you'd never know it. She runs circles around everyone else, carrying this entire enterprise on her backing in the starring role. If you saw the movie just for her performance it would probably be worth it.

It's Baltimore, Maryland in 1962 and "pleasantly plump" teenager Tracy Turnblad (Nikki Blonsky) runs home form school every day with her best friend Penny Pingleton (Amanda Bynes) to watch The Corny Collins Show, a teen dance program in the vain of American Bandstand hosted by the charismatic Seacrest/Clark clone Collins (James Marsden). Tracy dreams of appearing on the show, something her mother Edna (John Travolta), an obese live-in laundress, discourages but her nerdy father (Christopher Walkin) blindly supports. When the show holds open tryouts Tracy is immediately criticized and dismissed as being too fat by the show's bitchy producer Velma Von Tussle (Michelle Pfeiffer) but Collins likes her and she's asked back.

Soon Tracy becomes an overnight sensation, but Velma's death grip on the show tightens as she tries to push her equally obnoxious daughter Amber (Brittany Snow) and her boyfriend Link Larkin (Zac Efron) as stars. Unfortunately for Amber it isn't long before Link only has eyes for Tracy. Velma makes plans to cancel "Negro Day" on the show, hosted by local R&B radio D.J. Motormouth Maybelle (Queen Latifah) and featuring her son Seaweed (Elijah Kelley). Here the film takes a sharp left turn into a parable on racism as Tracy organizes a protest march with the goal of integrating the show.

The events in Hairspray are supposed to take place in "1962" but really they don't at all. They take place in "fantasy movie land 1962" where a bunch of actors are singing and dancing on a spotless Hollywood soundstage wearing close approximations of 60's clothing. Musicals are supposed to exist in a kind of faux-reality so that's fine. Or at least it's fine until the very real issue of racism is introduced into the story in a fun, lighthearted way. I'm not in any way implying the film is offensive or tasteless, just that it's somewhat uncomfortable watching actors sing and dance about a topic like that.

The movie clearly wants to have a campy cartoon atmosphere and has its heart in the right place but when that element is introduced it's a clash and a feeling of uneasiness accompanies the rest of the picture. It isn't a major problem, but it is a noticeable, lingering one that hovers over most of the movie. The filmmakers were put in a tough spot here having to incorporate the dark element of racism into a PG-rated musical love fest and weren't entirely successful. In their defense, few would be. Those were the cards they were dealt with this story and they had no choice but to play them. Still, it doesn't come off that well.

The musical numbers are excellently choreographed and loads of fun with many of the actors give impressive vocal performances and those who don't more than make up for it with their charisma. As entertaining as it was though I just couldn't help but look at my watch and count down to exactly when certain events in the film would occur. I was right on cue most of the time. This created a sense of boredom for me even though what was happening onscreen was often far from boring. The screenplay has no surprises and veers very little from the 1988 version from the narrative standpoint. While Waters version made a trite, clichéd story seem surprising this doesn't because the tone is dumbed down for mainstream audiences.

There was a huge media blitz surrounding the film because of John Travolta's presence in drag, which is appropriate because that publicity looks like the only basis for the casting decision. When you look at Edna Turnblad all you see is Travolta dressed like a woman with a prosthetic face. This isn't a character or a performance. It's just a stunt to bring audiences into the theater and Travolta does nothing with the role other than invoke a high-pitched "girly" voice. That this is one his least embarrassing performances in recent years and has garnered high praise reveals more about the direction of his career than I wished to know.

I'm always interested when I hear stories of people plucked from obscurity in open casting calls to star in major motion picture. Nikki Blonsky was working part-time at an ice cream shop when she was discovered for the role of Tracy and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone more suited for it. It's fascinating because casting stories like this suggest that a lot of acting isn't necessarily something that can be taught. Certain actors just have it and others, no matter how long they've been plugging away or how much training they have, don't. They lack charisma, which is probably the single most important factor in becoming a successful performer. Blonsky has it in spades.

She holds the screen with fire and energy from the first second she appears all the way to the closing credits. This proves that sometimes for certain roles (especially ones like this) it helps to hit the street and find a regular person with little experience so they're not bogged down with actorish mannerisms. Plus, we see movies to spend time with characters that are in some ways a reflection of who we are. No one would understand that better than someone who actually is and that her story mirrors Tracy's could have only helped the performance.

Efron and Marsden are suitable in roles that don't demand anything while relative newcomer Elijah Kelley is magnetic in his scenes as Seaweed. Christopher Walken is one of those actors who could show up to read to phone book and it would be interesting. Here he brings his typical zany weirdness to the role of Tracy's father and is particularly hysterical in a scene where Pfeifer's character is trying (unsuccessfully) to seduce him in his gag store.

I had a strange reaction to Pfeifer's Velma. I hated her but I'm not sure it was for the reasons I was supposed to. Of course, she's a racist and we should hate her but this was different. I just didn't want to see her onscreen or in the movie. I didn't like looking at her or listening to her and I'm not entirely sure it had anything to do with Pfeifer's performance which is grotesque, but appropriate. At least it's not the worst performance in the film. That dubious honor goes to Amanda Bynes who somehow manages to be excruciatingly annoying despite having very few lines of dialogue or an important part at all. She just seems to stand there sucking on her lollipop and making goofy faces. I know since this is a musical I'm supposed to praise broad characterizations and exaggerated performances but this time it's difficult. The broad supporting performances work for the material, but at times they're irritating.

In many ways reviewing Hairspray is a conundrum since the film could be considered the very definition of a "mixed bag." I'm not recommending it, but only by the skin of its teeth because I think most people will enjoy it for what it's supposed to be. Anyone looking for a light, fun ride will be satisfied, but despite its energy I felt strangely deflated at the end, almost as if I didn't really experience anything at all. Or at least anything I could get really excited about.

There was just no need for this other than to make money off the name of a superior film. Anyone could just rent the Waters version instead and know they came away with the better deal. And Waters can comfort himself with the fact that he at least has a really funny cameo early in the film. The pieces don't all fit together with this one but it's far from a failure and tough to pinpoint exactly what could have been done differently to make it better. Maybe the question should instead be whether it needed to be done at all.