Mother! (2017)

Mother! (2017)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Michelle Pfeiffer, Ed Harris

Darren Aronofsky isn’t a stranger to playing with themes of Christianity or religion, in fact, right from the get go with his first film Pi (1998), he was already playing with ideas of religion vs. logic. Even when he did Noah (2014) a film based on the biblical tale of Noah’s ark, he twisted the tale in a way that the film actually turned into a critical view of the bible and its teachings instead of a purely “Christian Film”. When I saw Noah, I felt Aronofksy took many fantastical elements from the bible and slapped Christians right in the face with it. What angered Christians about Noah, and part of the reason why the Christian Community didn’t fully embrace that film was because they couldn’t deny that the “craziest” elements from that film where actually in the bible to begin with. This is why I find that Aronofsky’s newest film Mother! (2017), fits right in there with the rest of his cinematic repertoire. Aronofsky has always had a strong critical voice about religion. So, how do his views on religion show up in Mother!?

Mother! is all about this couple who lives out in the sticks in the middle of nowhere. All they want is a bit of peace and quiet. He wants peace in order to work on his writing and she enjoys working on improving her home. Problems begin to develop when uninvited guests being to knock at their door to interrupt their secluded married life. Will these people ever stop coming? What do they want?

This is not a film to be watched like a regular film, it is not “linear” or even literal in any sense of the word, though it starts out that way. Mother! is a film filled with symbolisms, closer to the experience of watching an Alejandro Jodorwsky film, where you aren’t supposed to follow a story line in the traditional sense of the word, but instead, you are asked to interpret what you are watching so that you can understand what the director/writer is trying to say.  That Aronofksy has made this type of film shouldn’t surprise anyone, after all, this is the director of The Fountain (2006), also a risky film, filled with symbolisms. I say risky because American audiences aren’t used to films they have to interpret. American audiences are used to being spoon fed the plot, so I am not surprised that Mother! received such a cold reception at the box office. Aronofksy knew he was making a hard movie to sell, which is why I applaud him for taking the risk of making an honest film that will make us think. It’s so much more refreshing then repetitive dribble regularly projected in movie screens across the world.  

Paramount Pictures actually sent out a press release “apologizing” for Mother! saying that they recognize it isn’t a film for everybody, which is true. What I liked abot their press release was that they didn’t kick the movie in the gut, but rather, stood by it and its filmmaker, defending it by calling Mother! a bold film made by a director and actors at the top of their game.  The backlash from audiences has been brutal, but it’s probably because they don’t understand the film for what it is. I mean, sure its images are shocking, gory, and brutal, but what do they stand for? Could it be that it’s getting this backlash because it’s saying that Christianity is just as gory, shocking and brutal? I’m guessing that’s why it’s being lambasted. Because again, Christianity cannot deny that the savagery seen in the film actually reflects their own beliefs. It’s not nice looking in the mirror and realizing you’re a monster.

Kudos to Aronofsky for doing this. I mean, I was just as shocked as everyone while watching the movie and it succeeds in making you feel something, even if it is horrendous shock. But if you look past the shock, there’s something profound being said here. Not many filmmakers are as brave as Aronofsky.  People are saying its “the worst film they’ve ever seen” and that they “left the theater before it ended” but it’s not because its badly acted or because it doesn’t look beautiful. Lawrence and Bardem are amazing in it. The film looks as beautiful as any other Aronofksy movie, though darker and grimmer for sure. Still, it’s not a badly made film, far from it. 

Lawrence and Aronofksy working out a scene

People are saying its “bad” because they can’t take the shock. So if you can take shock, you’ll have no problem. If you can take strong themes, go see the movie. If you despise religion, politics and hive like mentalities, you’ll dig this film. But if you are a Christian, you’ll probably hate looking at your beliefs represented on film and you’ll hate the fact that you can’t deny that this is what the bible teaches. Awesome movie in my book. Go see it, test your boundaries then interpret what you’ve seen. I applaude Aronofsky and Paramount for making bold, different cinema, keep at it.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Batman Returns (1992)

Title: Batman Returns (1992)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Michael Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, Danny DeVito

Review:

I watched Batman Returns back in 1992 when it first hit theaters and was wowed out of my skin by it; my teenage mind couldn’t take so much coolness! Watching it today, I still think it’s a fantastic film that is in many ways superior to the first one. And that was no easy task either, the first one has a magic all it’s own. But this sequel was a bigger production with a bigger budget. I mean for it’s time, this film was huge! For Batman Returns, the budget was doubled, which gave director Tim Burton an even bigger arena to play in then he had with his first take on the character in Batman (1989). This doubling of the films budget is understandable; it is actually standard operation procedure for Hollywood. When a film makes it ultra big (the way Burton’s first Batman film did) then Hollywood is programmed to automatically give audiences something bigger and better the second time around. An example of this would be Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), a film that ended up being bigger and louder then its predecessor; and this was certainly the case with Batman Returns, the sets they built for this film took up 50% of Warner Bros. studio lots! Taking in consideration how sometimes huge productions can become huge disasters as well, did lightning hit twice this second time around?

I’d say that yes, this film is as good as its predecessor, and maybe even superior to it. A lot of that has to do with the fact that Tim Burton was given way more creative freedom with this second film. Considering how well Burton did with the first film, and how much money it made, Warner Brothers let Burton do whatever the hell he wanted with this sequel. They even pronounced him full on producer. In fact, Burton accepted to work on this sequel only if his specifications were met, and they were. Whole characters were completely exorcised from the script and many re-writes were made. For example, the character of Harvey Dent (a.k.a. Two Face) was taken out and replaced by an entirely original character called Max Shreck, a millionaire tycoon/business man who wants screw Gotham City over. The inclusion of Batman’s sidekick Robin was supposed to happen on this film, but at the request of Burton he was taken out because there were too many characters on the film, a smart move on Burton’s part if you ask me. This could have easily turned into another Batman and Robin (1997) But under the able hands of Tim Burton, it was smooth trails for this film. By the way, did you guys know that Marlon Wayan’s almost played Robin on this film? He even tried the suit on, but eventually it was a no go and it was Chris O’Donell who ended up playing the character on Batman and Robin. Ultimately, these Burton made changes only helped the film, making Batman Returns the most ‘Burtonesque’ of all the Bat films.

Burton talks out a scene with Pfeiffer and Keaton

And that’s basically what sets this one apart, that it’s Tim Burton’s world, he effectively turned the Batman franchise into his own, gothic, dark, grotesque, slightly sexualized universe; all without forgetting that this is Batman were talking about here. We get the batcave, the batmobile and even a bat glider! Plus, there’s all those cool Bat gadgets! We also see Batman getting a new love interest. Apparently, Vicky Vale couldn’t deal with Bruce Wayne’s dual persona. But no worries! Bats is now interested in Selina Kyle a.k.a. Catwoman. One of the most interesting aspects of the film is how Bruce Wayne deals with falling in love for someone who is a mirror image of himself. Selina Kyle also leads a double life; she also puts on a costume and fights evil, in her own twisted, angry way. Pfeiffer’s Selina is the voice of the angry woman saying “I’ve had enough!” And that’s one of the things that make Tim Burton’s Batman films so damn good; he always handled the villains so exquisitely well. They were always bigger than life; and were always, to a certain extent treated with sympathy. There’s no better example than Batman Returns to show this.

On this film Batman goes up against three villains, and though in the hands of a lesser director  this could have become a hindrance (Joel Schumacher?) Burton handled all three villains very well, giving each the screen time they deserved in order to become fully fleshed out characters. This probably explains why out of all the Bat films this is the longest one clocking in at 126 minutes. I say that’s no problem, I’d rather have a slightly longer film that truly fleshes out it’s characters, then a badly edited one where things apparently happen at a blink or you’ll miss it pace. Another reason why the villains in Batman Returns worked so well is because they were so well casted! Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman, wow, I mean, many actresses were rumored to play the character, but I’m glad it was finally Pfeiffer who ended up donning the cat costume, she’s so freaking sexy on this film. In fact, she was part of the reason why the film got a lot of heat. The sexual innuendoes are all over the place on this one! At one point Catwoman tells Batman and The Penguin “You poor guys, always confusing your pistols with your privates!” Unfortunately the general population didn’t take a sexualized Batman film in a good way, so much so that McDonald’s had to put a stop to their Batman Returns promotional happy meals, which of course made all the sense in the world. After all, this was not a children’s film and neither was the first film for that matter, Burton’s films were made for adults. I mean, sure they were about comic book characters, but they had an adult like sensibility to them. This of course was something that the studio quickly changed for Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997) two films that were obviously aimed at a more infantile audience and were decidedly campier. It’s no surprise that these two films are the most despised in the whole franchise and the ones that killed it.

Catwoman steals the film; she’s the epitome of feminism. She’s the secretary who is stepped on (literally!) by her boss. She’s not paid enough; she lives alone, in an extremely crappy apartment, in a child like environment. The film comments on how women are treated in this world, and she’s a character that’s here to show the anger felt towards the machismo, the chauvinistic pigs of the world. She’s sexy yeah, but she’s not to be taken for granted! She matters! And she will be heard! “Life’s a bitch and now some am I!” Pfeiffer’s portrayal of this character was so successful that the studio squeezed in an extra scene in the last frames, where we see Catwoman re-emerging, still alive. The studio planned to give the character her own film, but it took then more then ten years to finally release Catwoman (2004), one of the worst films ever made. By then everybody involved with the first film had moved on to other things and so the magic went with them. The character would emerge again in TheDark Knight Rises (2012), portrayed by Anne Hathaway in a less sexy, yet still effective form. In my opinion, Pfeiffer’s take on the character is still unrivaled.

Then we have the awesomeness that is Max Shreck, a character brought to life by the one and only Christopher Walken, through this character Burton and his writers wanted to show that the “real villains of the world don’t always wear costumes”. Walken was the perfect choice for Shreck, scary, intimidating, yet completely diplomatic when he has to be. Reportedly Walken even scared Burton himself! This theme of costume less villains was a great theme to explore, the film was criticizing big money and how they often times sacrifice the interests and well being of the people in order to maximize their profits; a theme that is still relevant in our modern times, in fact, maybe even more so. Out of all the villains in the film, Shreck is the baddest of them all. He lies through his teeth; he portrays himself as a true Gothamite, while he stabs the city in its back with his proposed power plant that will suck the city dry! He has one of the best lines: "Who would have though Selina had a brain to damage? Buttom line: she tries to black mail me, next time I throw her out of a higher window! In the mean time I have bigger fish to fry!" Damn, so cold. Finally we have DeVito’s The Penguin, an outcast of society, who lives in the cities sewer system. And here is the villain whom we can feel some amount of sympathy for, he’s simply an angry man because everyone rejects him, even his own parents who have no problems in throwing him into the river. Interesting tid bit of information: The Penguins parents are played by Pee-Herman and Diane Salinger, two actors  who worked together before on Burton’s first film: Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1985)!

Critics were divided by this film; some felt it was a combination of art film and film noir, while others felt it didn’t give enough screen time to Batman or that it was too dark or sexual. Some said that The Penguin was a poor substitute for Nicholson’s Joker. I say the film is a big budget art film, it is dark and sexual. It feels a lot like a big budget film noir. And it’s gothic, and grand in scale, and grotesque and all of these elements add up to a great Batman film that never bores. A gigantic dark carnival! Seeing all these great actors having fun together on the silver screen is fantastic and personally, I love the fact that it’s a Bat film that’s heavy on themes. I can agree with some critics that said that Batman/Bruce Wayne is a bit eclipsed by the villains of the piece, but honestly, the villains are so interesting and the world they inhabit so lush and gothic that I had no real problem with this. It does feel like the stars of the show are actually the villains, and that’s okay in my book because, hey, at least Burton and his crew had something to say through them, this isn’t some empty spectacle. In my opinion, Burton created two very unique bat films, he did what every director should do with their films, make ‘em their own.

Rating: 5 out of 5  

Dark Shadows (2012)

Title: Dark Shadows (2012)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Eva Green, Jackie Earle Haley, Jonny Lee Miller, Chloe Grace Moretz, Bella Heathcote

Review:

Tim Burton’s always been one of my favorite directors. The guy is an artist through and through and it shows on his films. He always puts such emphasis on the mood and look of a film that even if the film is crappy (which has happened) you can rest assured you’ll at least see something that will look interesting. But even I must admit that he’s turned into a pretty hit and miss kind of director. Some of his films reach perfection like Sleepy Hollow (2004) and Ed Wood (1994); which to me are his brightest days behind the camera, some are halfway decent like Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007), and some are downright disastrous abominations like Planet of the Apes (2001) and Alice in Wonderland (2010). This is why whenever one of Burton’s films comes to the big screen; I always give them a chance. I could end up watching one of the good ones. Now take in consideration that I was never a follower of the old Dark Shadows television show, I only saw a couple of episodes sporadically. I’ve never seen any of the previous Dark Shadow films either so I’m judging this one solely on its own merits. This review comes to you from a Tim Burton fan whose been dissapointed with his recent batch of films. So, the question remains, was Dark Shadows a good Tim Burton film?

Dark Shadows is all about Barnabas Collins, a young man in love with a girl called Josette DuPres. At the same time, a powerful witch called Angelique Bouchard also has the hots for Barnabas, and she doesn’t take kindly to rejection! So when Barnabas rejects her advances, she puts Josette under a spell and sends her to her death. As for Barnabas, he gets locked inside of a coffin, buried alive and cursed to live the life of a vampire! Fast forward 196 years later, and some people unwillingly unearth Barnabas who is now faced with the fact that he’s been buried for nearly 200 years. Barnabas is now headed towards  a culture clash of gargantuan proportions! He must quickly learn the ways of Lava Lamps and Rock and Roll. He also discovers that the Collin’s family is no longer as prominent and rich as it once was. So now, Barnabas’ has only one major concern in his mind: restoring the Collin’s family to it’s former glory. Will he achieve it?

So I went into Dark Shadows kind of skeptical, would it be one of the good ones, or would it be a sucky Burton flick? If you ask me, with his recent slate of films, Tim Burton has been kind of selling his soul for money with films like Alice in Wonderland and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). Would Dark Shadows be one of these fluffy colorful get rich quick films? Or would this be one of those Burton films that he puts extra care and attention to? My answer is yes, this is one of the good ones! First off, I enjoyed the humor. Going into this I was expecting Tim Burton’s version of The Addams Family. You know, a cooky, spooky, funny family, and that’s pretty much what I got, only thing is that this film is aimed more towards adults. It has sexually explicit jokes, and lots of dark humor. My only gripe is that this film should have been ‘R’ rated. I mean, you’re having a female character giving Barnabas Collins oral sex for Christ’s sake! Make it an ‘R’ rated film and you don’t have to shy way from the blood and gore which brings me to the one and only thing I didn’t like about the film, in terms of the gore it felt restrained.

Tim Burton, working his magic with Johnny Depp

Let’s take for example Sleepy Hollow (2004) which I consider to be Burton’s masterpiece. It’s a fairytale, it’s dark, it’s gothic, it’s gory…and it was rated ‘R’ which was the perfect thing to do. After all, this was a movie about a guy who goes around decapitating people, there’s no way around it, Sleepy Hollow, though based on a fairy tale (which are usually aimed at kids) needed to be rated ‘R’ so you wouldn’t shy away from the gory nature of the story, from the horror. If you ask me, Dark Shadows should have been an ‘R’ as well. Aside from the fact that it’s a film filled with a sexual situation or two, Barnabas is a vampire, a blood sucker. One scene that has Barnabas feeding on a group of young kids should have been a blood bath, instead, Burton cuts away and we don’t see the potentially gruesome scene, even after all the build up that goes on before it. I guess this is the way films are made today. Everything has to be watered down PG-13, just to play it safe. Just to make sure you’re film will make as many millions as it possibly could. Well, you know what, I got news for you Hollywood; Sleepy Hollow was ‘R’ and it still made a huge amount of money. But whatever, filmmaking is equal parts business and equal parts art, I’m sure here Burton was just following orders from studio execs not to go over the top with the blood and gore. I’m just saying; this film needed a bit more gruesomeness. Still, this is a minor hiccup with the film, what else worked about it?

Well for starters as it is expected in a Burton film, the art direction was superb. I loved the look of Collinwood, the mansion that the Collin’s family inhabits. It’s this gigantic old mansion filled with room after cob web filled room, with dark hallways and secret passages. At times, with certain shots, I felt like I was watching an old Hammer film, which is probably exactly what Burton was going for. Burton did a good job of mixing that look that horror films from the 70’s had with his gothic, artistic sensibilities. The result is a film with a very different color palette then your usual Burton film, the film is colorful, but the colors are kind of muted, the way the colors looked on the old Dark Shadows television shows. I would say that Burton was successful in replicating the way Dan Curtis’s films and television shows looked. But the film still has Burton’s ‘gothicness’ to it. And by the way, I want to applaud the fact that CGI was kept to a minimum on this one, finally, this film like a real film and not like a bunch of actors are standing behind a green screen. The CGI is used the way it should be used, whenever it’s necessary. Mr. Burton, The Film Connoisseur salutes you for this!

Dark Shadows is a spooky flick filled with everything from ghosts, to witches, to vampires and even werewolves, a horror fan should be happy with this film. I also enjoyed the phantasmagorical images Burton came up with in those scenes dealing with the ghosts that inhabit Collinwood. This is a horror film, but it’s also a comedy, and the characters are funny in their own kooky ways, with that mordant Burton sense of humor which is present in many of his films. Dark Shadows marks Burton’s eight collaboration with Johnny Depp, who is great as Barnabas, the character is likable even though he’s a villain which is a tough feat to achieve, its Barnabas that will keep you entertained through out, great character. Some complaint that this movie is slow, or boring, but I found it to be great fun, the dialog, the sarcasm, the witt, honestly at times it felt like The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) of the horror world. You know, the story of a family trying to recover its former glory. And for those that complaint about this film being ‘boring’ just remember that Dan Curtis’s films were never action packed films, they were always quiet, spooky tales about family. And this is what this film captures well, it captures that fog filled cemetery, with the ghosts creeping about the hallways of the mansion, the dark corridors...the gigantic ominous looking house with a history. I’m guessing what some people might not like is that this version of Dark Shadows is a comedy, and the old show wasn’t, but if you look at the campiness of those shows today, you might find comedy in it.  

In terms of the comedy, I say the film succeeded. I was laughing like a mad man with some of the jokes, especially those dealing with Barnabas and his clash with the 70’s, great fish out of water stuff there. The comedy is a bit subtle, and it’s more related to the dialog than slapstick or physical comedy, so what these characters say and the way they behave is what should keep you giggling. The film reminded me of The Addams Family (1991) in many ways, let’s see, we have the eccentric family members, the gigantic and spooky mansion, the family treasure and the strangers who want to get their hands on it, and finally, the honor of the family name. These are all elements that both films share, but Dark Shadows adds the element of sexual obsession to the mix, though Gomez and Morticia had a little of that going on as well. So both films are similar, but Dark Shadows is decidedly more adult in a way.  Final words is that this was a satisfying Tim Burton film, and I’m glad because I’ve been waiting for a good Burton film for a while, glad I didn’t give up on the guy. He’s still got it in my book.

Rating: 4 out of 5