Search
WarGames (1983)
7.2
Rate It
Movie Watch
A high school computer hacker unwittingly comes to the brink of World War III when he accesses a...
War Games
Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)
8.1
Rate It
Movie Watch
Troubled that he has little access to his children, divorced Daniel Hillard (Robin Williams) hatches...
Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 2017
Book
*Large-format edition* The 154th edition of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack is crammed, as ever, with...
Rooms to Inspire by the Sea
Book
An unprecedented tour of breathtaking beach community and waterfront properties in idyllic settings...
Nudging Health: Health Law and Behavioral Economics
I. Glenn Cohen, Christopher T. Robertson and Cass R. Sunstein
Book
Behavioral nudges are everywhere: calorie counts on menus, automated text reminders to encourage...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
A Walk Among the Tombstones stars Liam Neeson as former cop, and former alcoholic, Matthew Scudder in this adaptation of the tenth novel in Lawrence Block’s long-running series. Set in 1999, amid the Y2K scare, Scudder operates just outside of the law as an unlicensed private investigator. Approached by a fellow AA member, he is tasked with finding the men responsible for kidnapping and murdering the wife of a local drug trafficker. Along the way, he receives help from homeless teen T.J. (played, with admirable restraint in a role easy to overdo, by newcomer Brian ‘Astro’ Bradley) and discovers that the two men he is investigating have killed before, and will do so again.
This is exactly the type of movie that I find myself drawn to, a brooding, hard-edged film-noir, but what stops me from enjoying it more and rating it higher is that right from the opening frames, Tombstones, unlike last year’s Prisoners, which defied all my expectations, doesn’t strive to do anything more than to satisfy the requirements of its genre and lean heavily on the performance of its lead.
That being said, it is another fantastic performance from Neeson and, still sporting that questionable American accent, he brings real weight to the character of Scudder. Don’t expect to see a tour-de-force the likes of Denzel Washington battling alcoholism in Flight, but it is refreshing to see these types of characters humanized and played straight in roles that have previously been over-the-top and laughably romanticized.
Another highlight is the relationship between Scudder and T.J, something that from the outset seems a cliché and had the potential to detract from the plot, it is however surprisingly well-constructed. One scene in particular between them is a stand-out as we see Scudder’s reaction to finding out that T.J. has been carrying a presumably stolen firearm. I will refrain from ruining the punchline, but it is a rare piece of frank dialogue and is deservedly shocking in its delivery.
Where A Walk Among the Tombstones unfortunately falls short is in its lack of subtlety, through a heavy-handed score and, more importantly, a bloated running time. More times than I would have liked, I found myself asking, “Is this scene necessary, or relevant?” Less would have been so much more, especially in the case of the two antagonists, who are set up as being formidable psychopaths for our anti-hero, they are instantly deflated through a single moment that depicts the normality of what we assume is their morning routine. Though it’s not unheard of that the most violent of criminals lead ordinary lives, the tongue-in-cheek nature of the scene does nothing to intensify the fear and dread we are supposed to feel toward these men.
Fans of Liam Neeson should be pleased, but what we’re given here is a solid first act and dialogue that ranges from good to great, but ultimately a predictable, over-long, paint-by-numbers effort. Sure, it hits all the right notes atmospherically, but I can’t expect that it will be more or less memorable than any of the other recent thriller entries in Neeson’s oeuvre (anyone remember 2011’s Unknown?). Between this and knowing that a third Taken is on the way, I now find myself longing for another great dramatic turn from him along the lines of Five Minutes of Heaven, or Kinsey.
This is exactly the type of movie that I find myself drawn to, a brooding, hard-edged film-noir, but what stops me from enjoying it more and rating it higher is that right from the opening frames, Tombstones, unlike last year’s Prisoners, which defied all my expectations, doesn’t strive to do anything more than to satisfy the requirements of its genre and lean heavily on the performance of its lead.
That being said, it is another fantastic performance from Neeson and, still sporting that questionable American accent, he brings real weight to the character of Scudder. Don’t expect to see a tour-de-force the likes of Denzel Washington battling alcoholism in Flight, but it is refreshing to see these types of characters humanized and played straight in roles that have previously been over-the-top and laughably romanticized.
Another highlight is the relationship between Scudder and T.J, something that from the outset seems a cliché and had the potential to detract from the plot, it is however surprisingly well-constructed. One scene in particular between them is a stand-out as we see Scudder’s reaction to finding out that T.J. has been carrying a presumably stolen firearm. I will refrain from ruining the punchline, but it is a rare piece of frank dialogue and is deservedly shocking in its delivery.
Where A Walk Among the Tombstones unfortunately falls short is in its lack of subtlety, through a heavy-handed score and, more importantly, a bloated running time. More times than I would have liked, I found myself asking, “Is this scene necessary, or relevant?” Less would have been so much more, especially in the case of the two antagonists, who are set up as being formidable psychopaths for our anti-hero, they are instantly deflated through a single moment that depicts the normality of what we assume is their morning routine. Though it’s not unheard of that the most violent of criminals lead ordinary lives, the tongue-in-cheek nature of the scene does nothing to intensify the fear and dread we are supposed to feel toward these men.
Fans of Liam Neeson should be pleased, but what we’re given here is a solid first act and dialogue that ranges from good to great, but ultimately a predictable, over-long, paint-by-numbers effort. Sure, it hits all the right notes atmospherically, but I can’t expect that it will be more or less memorable than any of the other recent thriller entries in Neeson’s oeuvre (anyone remember 2011’s Unknown?). Between this and knowing that a third Taken is on the way, I now find myself longing for another great dramatic turn from him along the lines of Five Minutes of Heaven, or Kinsey.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ava (2020) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
Great mother/daughter scene in the middle of a generic assassin flick
To give you everything you need to know about the Jessica Chastain assassin flick AVA is to read the IMDB description of the film:
"Ava is a deadly assassin who works for a black ops organization, traveling the globe specializing in high profile hits. When a job goes dangerously wrong she is forced to fight for her own survival."
Pretty generic, right? There are only about a dozen films that I can think of off the top of my head that would fit this description. So...what separates this one to make it worth watching?
Not much.
Chastain stars as Ava, a deadly assassin who...oh, you get it. When the "job goes dangerously wrong", she heads back to Boston and into the arms of her loving family - who want nothing to do with her.
Chastain is good, but nothing special as Ava...she seems to be able to pull off the physicality of this role quite well (like Jennifer Lawrence in RED SPARROW or Charlize Theron in ATOMIC BLONDE). The head of the shadowy organization that Ava works, played by Collin Farrell, is generically shadowy and Farrell plays it professionally with a touch of "over the top" acting (but not too much). The great John Malkovich is a spark of energy in this film as Ava's mentor. Mr. Malkovich, as is his want to do, eats the scenery in every scene that he is in. Under normal circumstances, this would annoying, but in this film, it is welcome. Ioan Gruffudd and Joan Chen show up (briefly) as adversaries of Ava and all of these components makes the "assassin side" of this film work well enough.
The "family side' of this film just doesn't work - except for one scene.
Common is just plain bad in the underwritten role of Ava's former lover who is now married to her sister. Jess Wexler is forgettable as Ava's sister (I even had to look her up on IMDB to remind me of who played this role) and Geena Davis - as Ava's estranged mother - looks like she is just there because she owed someone a favor.
Except for one scene.
And that's the interesting thing about this film. Right in the middle of this very generic, very ordinary film is a "come to Jesus" meeting between Ava (Chastain) and her mother (Davis). This scene was "Oscar worthy" with 2 very good actresses going back and forth with each other (with Davis dominating the scene). I gotta think that this scene was the only one Davis read when she agreed to do this film and was pouting during her other, generic scenes.
Director Tate Taylor (who took over when the original Director was bounced when past sexual indiscretions were unearthed) and writer Matthew Newton bring nothing new to the genre. It is all very...generic. The action scenes are professionally done, but generic. The situations are contrived and...generic. The acting is...scenery chewing generic. The ending is predictably generic.
All-in-all an "entertaining enough" generic action flick - except for that one scene (and maybe Malkovich's performance), they make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10 - it really is a "5", but will add a point for Malkovich and another point for the mother daughter scene). - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
"Ava is a deadly assassin who works for a black ops organization, traveling the globe specializing in high profile hits. When a job goes dangerously wrong she is forced to fight for her own survival."
Pretty generic, right? There are only about a dozen films that I can think of off the top of my head that would fit this description. So...what separates this one to make it worth watching?
Not much.
Chastain stars as Ava, a deadly assassin who...oh, you get it. When the "job goes dangerously wrong", she heads back to Boston and into the arms of her loving family - who want nothing to do with her.
Chastain is good, but nothing special as Ava...she seems to be able to pull off the physicality of this role quite well (like Jennifer Lawrence in RED SPARROW or Charlize Theron in ATOMIC BLONDE). The head of the shadowy organization that Ava works, played by Collin Farrell, is generically shadowy and Farrell plays it professionally with a touch of "over the top" acting (but not too much). The great John Malkovich is a spark of energy in this film as Ava's mentor. Mr. Malkovich, as is his want to do, eats the scenery in every scene that he is in. Under normal circumstances, this would annoying, but in this film, it is welcome. Ioan Gruffudd and Joan Chen show up (briefly) as adversaries of Ava and all of these components makes the "assassin side" of this film work well enough.
The "family side' of this film just doesn't work - except for one scene.
Common is just plain bad in the underwritten role of Ava's former lover who is now married to her sister. Jess Wexler is forgettable as Ava's sister (I even had to look her up on IMDB to remind me of who played this role) and Geena Davis - as Ava's estranged mother - looks like she is just there because she owed someone a favor.
Except for one scene.
And that's the interesting thing about this film. Right in the middle of this very generic, very ordinary film is a "come to Jesus" meeting between Ava (Chastain) and her mother (Davis). This scene was "Oscar worthy" with 2 very good actresses going back and forth with each other (with Davis dominating the scene). I gotta think that this scene was the only one Davis read when she agreed to do this film and was pouting during her other, generic scenes.
Director Tate Taylor (who took over when the original Director was bounced when past sexual indiscretions were unearthed) and writer Matthew Newton bring nothing new to the genre. It is all very...generic. The action scenes are professionally done, but generic. The situations are contrived and...generic. The acting is...scenery chewing generic. The ending is predictably generic.
All-in-all an "entertaining enough" generic action flick - except for that one scene (and maybe Malkovich's performance), they make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10 - it really is a "5", but will add a point for Malkovich and another point for the mother daughter scene). - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)