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

Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Score: 5 / 5

For anyone who didn't already know Denis Villeneuve is one of the best directors currently working (some of us would say ever), Dune: Part Two will cement that attribute to his name. For those of us who love the middle part of any trilogy -- for, indeed, the heart of Frank Herbert's Dune is the first two books, the story of Paul Atreides, this film being the second part of the first book -- this is eminently on par with the likes of the middle of The Lord of the Rings and the three Star Wars trilogies, picking up where the previous left off, diving right into action without need for more exposition, and intensifying the dread of war and prophetic doom while raising the emotional stakes for characters we already know (and a few new ones). Villeneuve has never shied away from scope and breadth in his films, but his keen focus on the psychology of his main characters is what makes all his films feel epic. With this material, he can finally embrace a real epic, and boy, is it glorious.

After their annihilation of the Atreides, the Harkonnens take over Arrakis again and wage war on the Fremen "sand rats" who live in the desert and disrupt the harvesting of valuable spice. Unbeknownst to Baron Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his brutal nephews (Dave Bautista and a chilling Austin Butler), one tribe of Fremen led by Stilgar (Javier Bardem) harbor two Atreides house survivors: Paul and his mother Lady Jessica (Timothee Chalamet and Rebecca Ferguson). As they integrate into Fremen culture, the two learn more about prophecies of a savior from beyond, a messiah meant to lead all Fremen tribes to take back Arrakis and launch a holy crusade that will turn their planet green and sweep across the stars. They decide the prophecy applies to them -- and well it might -- and take drastic steps to ensure their own ascendancy.

Whereas the first installment sets the stage in every conceivable way -- mostly expository and world-building, the first film had more intrigue and tension (if not action) than some credit it -- the second allows the various factions to collide in some spectacular battle sequences. More importantly, the heightened stakes reveal more about characters we need to care for, making the violence matter in emotional ways. To counterpoint this, several characters, especially Stilgar and Paul's love interest Chani (Zendaya) inject key moments with unexpected and wonderfully effective humor. Exerting extraordinary mastery over tone, Villeneuve and screenwriter Jon Spaihts use these elements to inform their headier themes of corruptibility of power and the uses and dangers of fanaticism in ways we rarely see in epics or hero's journeys.

Not to be outdone by cerebral intrigue, Villeneuve continues his inability to make any visuals less than picturesque. Shot by Greig Fraser, every moment could be paused, blown up, and framed, including enemy bodies falling from rocky buttes and fleets of sandworms racing across no-man's land. Costume and production design continue to be the best in the business: a sacred reservoir looking like a bottomless cavern, a princess in pristine silver that could be chains, a new reverend mother who looks like some priestess or goddess from an eastern religion. And nothing compares to the breathtaking transitions to infrared light on the Harkonnen homeworld of Gieidi Prime under its "Black Sun," a brilliant interpretation of the novel, which suggests the planet is a volcanic wasteland raped by over-industrialization; here, their world (and lifestyle) is so removed from nature that even the sun's light seems profoundly wrong and torturous.

While I was annoyed in the first film that Zendaya's Chani narrated, I was pleased to finally have some of Florence's Pugh's Princess Irulan in this film, though her part is sadly limited. So is Christopher Walken's Emperor Shaddam IV, but he's not featured much in the book either (and frankly I've rarely been interested in his acting, so this limitation was fine). Given what happens in Dune: Messiah (the final part in this trilogy, though I promise, no spoilers here), I'd have liked a bit more time with the emperor and princess, Charlotte Rampling's reverend mother Gaius Helen Mohiam, and Lea Seydoux as Lady Margot Fenring, but I expect we'll get plenty more in the next film. This isn't their story. Yet. On the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised at the visual power and attention paid to Lady Jessica's rise and the film's recognition of her disturbing desire to galvanize weak-minded religious tribes into worshipping her son and waging open war. This isn't about them understanding and joining and leading the native people; it's about them co-opting an entire planet for their own designs.

You need to see this on the biggest possible screen with the best possible stereo system. Then see it again.

Friday, June 9, 2023

The Little Mermaid (2023)

Score: 4 / 5

Rob Marshall is back in a big way! Every three or four years he returns with another major movie, and I would rank every single one on a list of my favorites. Even his work on Broadway and in television films are all utterly fabulous. And, being the slut for Disney that I am, I especially appreciate his directorial work for the studio starting with my favorite Pirates of the Caribbean film in 2011, followed by Into the Woods and Mary Poppins Returns. He combines wildly disparate energies in his films, from eye-popping spectacle to brooding woe and from bright camp to dark stylized chamber work. His dexterity extends, too, to his use of CGI, which really should set the standard for Disney in that it's often present but rarely overwhelming. Of course, a project like The Little Mermaid does, by necessity, require bounteous effects, but thankfully he reins it in in favor of character and atmosphere every time.

Which is exactly what these live-action remakes should do: either give us what we love in an updated or better way (think Beauty and the Beast and Dumbo), or recreate a middling work to become something we love (looking at you, Pete's Dragon and 101 Dalmatians). The Little Mermaid does indeed fit the bill for the former, basically retreading the original with a few interesting updates, not all of which worked for me but most of which did exceedingly well. Its aesthetic choices, story updates, and casting will be the focus of my thoughts here; if you don't know the story by now, I can't help you.

To start: the cast. Much will be made of this, so I'll be brief in my reflections. Halle Bailey is a magnificent Ariel, bringing no small amount of intelligence and likability to the rebellious-to-a-fault character; she finds ways of strengthening the music and her own character that are much needed. Javier Bardem is fine as King Triton, masterfully bridging tenderness with control. Jonah Hauer-King plays a wonderfully more rounded Prince Eric, whose arc parallels Ariel's own and makes their romance infinitely more believable, thanks in no small part to the inclusion of his mother as a character, the queen who fears the sea and its ill fate, played brilliantly by Noma Dumezweni. He even gets his own song and has a nice voice, though the scene is directed to be more like a mix of Zac Efron in High School Musical and a Michael Bolton music video. And, of course, we have Melissa McCarthy as our fabulous sea witch, who camps up the role even more than Pat Carroll and her animators did, turning an insane parody of Divine into a modern drag queen who looks and sounds like she's been chainsmoking in piano lounges for decades in the same glittering black bodice. Like McCarthy's humor or not, she completely blew me out of the water in this film -- as she did in Can You Ever Forgive Me? -- and she'll do the same to you. For you. Either way.

To continue: aesthetics and animation. Perhaps most surprisingly and successfully, to my eye, is Marshall's choice to stick to the energy and atmosphere of the original while making the non-human/merpeople characters photorealistic. It follows the pioneering efforts of Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book and The Lion King for sure in that way, which I personally really love. I've never really been a huge fan of the animal-centric cartoons, and so turning the animals into something you might see on a nature documentary who also happen to talk and sing is definitely my sweet spot. So numbers like "Under the Sea" and "Kiss the Girl" are here no less visually glorious, but they are pared down a bit in terms of voices (there is no chorus of singing fish whatsoever) and choreography (no awkward cartoonish crustacean band, but rather schools of fish simply showing off their synchronized swimming). At it helps to have Marshall, who himself led the charge with more "realistic" mermaids in PotC: On Stranger Tides, leading this charge again, effectively bringing his bona fides to an undersea realm that rivals that of James Cameron's Avatar: The Way of Water

What about the animated characters? Daveed Diggs is the standout by far, imbuing his Sebastian with gobsmackingly clever humor in ways I certainly didn't predict. Visually, he's also the most interesting animated character, despite his animators having little but eyes and claws to work with. I did not, however, like that they changed his role from concert master (who therefore knows Ariel very well and naturally treats her like a naughty student) to Triton's majordomo, which makes him a redundant Zazu to Bardem's Mufasa. Jacob Tremblay swims in for a couple scenes as Flounder, who is even more annoying and laughably inconsequential than his cartoon counterpart; the film may as well have cut his character. Awkwafina brings her signature voice and wit to Scuttle, who is changed to be a diving seabird, which is kind of cute when it allows her to speak to her friends underwater. Her performance is excellent and a welcome update from Buddy Hackett's iconic vocal take in the original; unfortunately, she is given an unforgivably obnoxious rap song by Lin-Manuel Miranda, who should just stop for a while until he finds something actually interesting to do.

To conclude: updates to the story. Here, Triton's aquatic kingdom does not appear vast or rich or even populated; without the concert at the beginning, the only merpeople we ever see are Triton, his daughters, and one who may be his sentinel or guard. We have no sense of scope or stakes, so his melancholy brooding later makes little sense, as does his conflict with Ursula for rule of the ocean. However, it is an unmistakably beautifully rendered Caribbean paradise that I'd be happy to revisit soon. The relationship between Ariel and Eric is magnificently organic, and includes her exploring his treasure trove of ocean artifacts as well as getting the marketplace to dance like Giselle in Enchanted. It was interesting -- neither good nor bad -- to have Ariel sing in voiceover during her time on land, though her new song could have used some more workshopping. Ariel also gets some key moments of agency, climaxing when she herself pilots the deadly galleon into her villain's torso. So, despite a few odd choices and arguable missteps, The Little Mermaid more than earns its place among the great live-action Disney remakes even as it helps shine a light on where the studio can go from here.

Thursday, January 27, 2022

Being the Ricardos (2021)

Score: 4 / 5

The sort of high-brow chamber piece no one expects based on its subject matter (not unlike Steve Jobs), Being the Ricardos is a deliciously dramatic exercise in how even an unbalanced film can succeed through the craftsmanship of its writer and the dedication of its actors. Much like that earlier project, this film is a pressure-cooker of a viewing experience, as we are thrust into the lives of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz during a single, intense week in 1953. And while the facts and history may not be nailed down, the visceral impact of the characters' lived experience is the point of this film. Aaron Sorkin's latest work is certainly not as timely as his latest and greatest film (The Trial of the Chicago 7), but it does showcase a cast as adept with his rapid-fire dialogue as any he's yet assembled.

In terms of plot, the story concerns Lucy and Desi as they work together on recording their hit show I Love Lucy in 1953, during the second or third season. Despite having one child and another on the way, the show seems to have become their baby. They collaborate endlessly (read: chain smoke and banter with writers around the staff table) on every creative choice, but it's clearly Ball who has the final say. Her stamina and wit -- sometimes caustic -- carry her through each ordeal, such as when she orders "healthier" food for her irritated costars for breakfast, or when she clashes with directors on the logics of writing, reading, and even blocking one particular scene. Shrewd and sometimes bitchy, she holds no punches, and much like her famed character, Ball doesn't harness her tongue in the face of the male-dominated industry. It sometimes serves her well, as when (in one of the film's many, lengthy flashbacks) she threatens her entire career if she can't do the show with her Hispanic husband.

And, for now, her catty but well-meaning behavior seems to have saved her marriage, with little to no help from her philandering husband. As they counter each other privately, they support each other publicly, perhaps most clearly in this film when news of Ball's current pregnancy hits the producers, who panic about keeping her stationary, behind furniture and bulky costumes, and even cancelling the show. The power couple team up to trailblaze the idea that a pregnant woman on prime time television is nothing to be ashamed of, as the executives most certainly are. This story's biggest threat to their stardom -- did I mention that, in Sorkin's vision, this is a really stressful week for them? -- comes in the form of Walter Winchell, the infamous tabloid snitch, who revealed Ball's past connection to the Communist Party. This news, more than anything, threatens their livelihoods, and the pair comes out guns blazing to defend themselves. I do wish the film leaned a little further into the real history of the Red Scare and its impact on Hollywood, or even on Ball's factual and staunchly fierce fight against McCarthyism, but this is no historical treatise.

It's a drama, one that hinges on its players' skills in order to succeed. The cast, led by some of the best work from Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem we've seen in years. Thankfully, they are not chameleonic here; the vogue of the last ten years or so in biopics has been to physically transform characters into uncanny imitations of the real thing; I usually like that to some extent, but there's a lot to be said for suspending that expectation and simply letting actors channel real characters. That's what happens here. Even though Kidman is layered with some prosthetics on her nose and cheeks, it is very much Kidman working to breathe believable life into a distinctly unrealistic caricature. Similarly, Bardem looks almost nothing like Arnaz, but his voice and energy feel as fresh and magnetic as anything his real counterpart delivered on screen. Add J.K. Simmons and especially Nina Arianda as their co-stars "Fred and Ethel," whose hatred for each other shines in this dramatization, and these four performers give us nothing short of an actor's masterclass.

I confess myself surprised by some of Sorkin's directorial choices here; Molly's Game similarly had a few baffling moments, perhaps because he's still working on auteur status. This film is framed, annoyingly, by interviews with older versions of the writers of I Love Lucy, who usually set up exposition and provide details to the flashback sequences. The mockumentary trope employed here is sometimes funny, sometimes sad, and always heavy-handed; it distracts from what would otherwise be a taut focus on the main characters. And it's not like Sorkin is afraid of his leads; indeed, multiple times he takes us directly into Ball's mind, visualizing key scenes from her show in black-and-white to work out physical comedy and timing before putting it on its feet (or even on the page). This isn't the ultimate work to explore the inner lives of two of the most iconic golden-age Hollywood stars -- or of the sexism that came with the territory -- but it's a damn good place to start. Now we can all just wonder what Debra Messing might have done in the role.

Monday, November 8, 2021

Dune (2021)

Score: 3.5 / 5

Denis Villeneuve is my favorite director right now for a lot of reasons, and his films are all on my regular favorite lists. As he's moved into science fiction and major franchises, I've been slightly skeptical; not because he didn't knock Blade Runner 2049 out of the park, but because I've worried that studio oversight would limit his vision or shoehorn accessibility into his work. We've seen it happen before. And Villeneuve's latest, Dune, is only exacerbating my anxieties to that end because, while my exact concerns did not come to pass, it is easily my least favorite film from the genius.

As with any big franchise -- especially in this genre -- most discussion will revolve around the adaptation process. Frank Herbert's '60s groundbreaking novel and his five (?) sequels spawned an entire shared universe of interplanetary politics, economics, and war, and it was notoriously labeled as unfilmable after David Lynch's 1984 cinematic attempt. I've never read or seen anything about Dune, so this review will not engage with those concerns, but I'm aware enough of its sprawling world-building scope to understand that there is enough within the franchise to excite anyone interested in heady ideas of environmentally radical geopolitics, anti-capitalist exploitation, and unusually complex gender and racial dynamics that hinge on religious identity. In these respects, I'm planning to read Herbert's series in the coming months, if only to check it off my list. But this film did almost nothing to excite the prospect of more, and given the widespread praise of it, I'd like to reflect on why.

The plot is, I think, shockingly simple. In the distant future, a galactic emperor decrees that the powerful Atreides family will relocate and become the rulers of Arrakis, a desert planet. What seems a curse is complicated due to the presence of "spice," a unique natural resource only on Arrakis, which is crucial for space travel (and hallucinogenic trips) and therefore the most valuable element in their civilization. Making this move, the Atreides patriarch (the ever-handsome Oscar Isaac) realizes they are in the midst of a power play between the paranoid emperor and other dynastic families vying for wealth and influence, none more so than the villainous Harkonnens (and their patriarch, a deliciously wicked Stellan Skarsgard), who previously ruled Arrakis. As the family learns more about their new place in galactic geopolitics, they must fend off traitors; their son Paul (Timothee Chalamet) becomes a man and a messiah, seeing visions and exhibiting powers cultivated by his deeply religious, slightly witchy mother (Rebecca Ferguson), and connecting with the native population to mysterious ends.

As the title card for this film indicates, this is only "part one" of the story, which will reportedly conclude with a "part two," and so it is by no means a complete narrative. Its extensive work in world-building is nothing short of spectacular, and deserves to be seen (and heard, in a droning Hans Zimmer score that threatens to blow out speakers) on the biggest screen available. But its characters, largely archetypal, are much harder to parse because they simply do not go through standard dynamic developments. The closest we get is the callow (dare I say shallow? Sorry, I'm not a big Chalamet fan) Paul becoming a man, but as much as he learns about himself, his mystical gifts, and his place in the violent intrigue of this interstellar Game of Thrones, he ends the movie finally finding "the girl" he's been seeing in visions (Zendaya), which is about as trite a resolution as we could have gotten.

It's a thoroughly entertaining experience, and in Villeneuve's hands often feels like the sort of epic that will add it to fans' shelves alongside major movies from George Lucas, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, Stanley Kubrick, and Ridley Scott. I especially liked that it is so (apparently intentionally) allegorical, and was probably one of (if not the) first in its genre to tap into Islam as a good thing, as well as a certain sensitive portrayal of ecoterrorism. The native people of Arrakis (the Fremen) appear to be modeled after Arab Muslims, and "spice" read to me as oil, which the alien invaders sweep in to take over and fund wars much like Westerners (and in Westerns, at that). I confess myself most confused not with the material itself, nor with its visionary spectacle, but with its technical delivery. The editing is all over the place, in my mind, and almost every time I was prepared to settle in and absorb a new frame -- each gorgeously, gloriously composed -- it would cut to another shot. This worked well during the action sequences, including any time sandworms attacked and flying through a sandstorm, but not so well in intimate scenes or any shots meant to inspire sensations of grandeur or even fear, such as the weird religious test of pain Paul goes through very early in the film.

Perhaps part of my ambivalence for this movie stems from a similar annoyance with other soft science fiction devices, specifically an over-reliance on original vocabulary. You may have already gathered as much, but this movie made very little sense to me because of its thick screenplay, which is comprehensible only if you can effectively remember and contextualize its many characters, organizations, and technologies after only hearing them briefly. I say "hearing," but that's the other major problem: I could barely understand most of the dialogue in this film. Much like last summer's Tenet, I expect I'll like (and comprehend) this movie a lot more when I can watch it with subtitles. The sound mixing is fine, but the editing should have been mindful of their audience, many of whom have no idea what's really going on here, and so need to be able to listen accurately and without driving us to distraction. I appreciated that the screenplay didn't make its exposition feel like exposition, but the flip side is that it took me a while to feel reasonably confident about anything going on.

Friday, September 15, 2017

mother! (2017)

Score: 5 / 5

Ironically enough, Mother! is the most balls-out, aggressively weird movie of the year, maybe the decade, and it's a real motherfucker of a trip. Where to start? Fair warning: spoilers abound, because otherwise it's impossible to talk about the movie.

I guess to start: The movie is palpably pretentious. It's the sort of trash-meets-Art experiment that sometimes works, but in the hands of Darren Aronofsky it becomes that rare High Art that stabs you right where it counts. The characters have no names, referred to even in the credits as Mother (Jennifer Lawrence in the best role she's had in years), Him (her husband, played by Javier Bardem), Man (Ed Harris), and Woman (a delicious Michelle Pfeiffer). These characters are played as real, immediate, and consequential, but by the time the movie is over you realize they've played allegory with such nuanced, unrecognizable skill that you feel you've been had. Which is, of course, what Aronofsky intended. The master crafter of Black Swan hasn't used up all his tricks yet, thank heaven.

The film opens with a close up of a woman burning amidst a blazing inferno, her eyes glassy and calm as her skin bubbles and scorches. We jump immediately into a surreal sequence where Him places a crystal on a pedestal, and the burned and broken house around him transforms into a gorgeously renovated mansion. A pile of ashes on the bed form into the shape of a woman, and Jennifer Lawrence awakens, turns to look for her absent husband, and calls out, "Baby?" Already there's so much to unpack, and the movie hasn't even rolled on for five minutes. But we'll get to that presently.

The first half of the film works much as we expect from the trailers, a sort of psychosexual domestic thriller that combines imagery and themes from Rosemary's Baby, The Strangers, and Eyes Wide Open. There are many, many more obvious and subtle references, but that would require encyclopedic skill and time to relate; just know that Aronofsky's blatant grabs for other Art are only the tip of his ballsy project. Most simply: Mother is the renovator of this gorgeous mansion in an Edenic field, seemingly isolated in the country, and the perfectly wifely partner to Him, a famed poet suffering writer's block. She not only literally rebuilds his wasted ancestral home all alone, but she manages to clean after him, cook extravagant meals, and still look super fine doing it all.

But all is not well in cishetero-patriarchal paradise. Mother is cracking on the inside. She has spells of tinnitus, a debilitating ringing that makes her dizzy and weak until she pours a sickly yellow drug into a glass of water and downs it. She also has this tendency to stare into the walls of her home to perceive a beating heart there. These images seem to discomfort her, along with the bizarre and creepy comings and goings of Him, and we eventually learn that she wants a child -- or maybe her husband does? It's left quite ambiguous -- and that the couple doesn't make love often, if ever.

One night, a visitor arrives at their lonely estate, a visitor (Ed Harris) it seems her husband was expecting. He assumes his place in the house through shady storytelling and lies with great big holes. But Mother's protestations are put to rest by her husband, who demands her hospitality and compliance while doing nothing to help himself. She makes the bed. She cooks the food and boils the tea. She cleans up after him. And yet her express wish for him not to smoke is ignored. Her husband is enthralled with this man, who strokes his ego and puts stars in his eyes. Apparently this Man is a fan of the poet's work, and he lusts after the poet's crystal.

Soon enough, the Man's wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) shows up too, though he had neglected to mention her existence. Their obviously erotic relationship unnerves Mother but entrances Him, and the intrusive couple overstay their welcome in every possible way. They are terrible houseguests and awful people, and soon they invite their spiteful, bickering sons as well (Domhnall and Brian Gleeson), one of which slays the other. Soon more people arrive for the funeral, and it's right about this time I gathered what Aronofsky was doing. The movie is a psychological thriller, yes, but it's also a fiercely original vision of religious allegory. Man and Woman, the Man with a flesh wound where his rib should be, they break the crystal as a form of original sin, one son murders the other. Cut and dry, right?

WRONG.

The second half of the film gets really messed up. It's some aggressively weird filmmaking, but it's also some of the best filmmaking this year. After an angry, passionate sex scene, Mother finally becomes pregnant, but she still sees the slowly dying heart in the walls of the house, and the blood spot rotting away the floorboards beneath the murder scene keeps returning, much like in Poe's "Tell-Tale Heart." Also much like that story, we begin to fear for Mother's sanity, but we quickly lose that fear in favor of our own. When strange people keep invading the house and destroying it, we realize Mother may not be losing her mind, but we're losing ours. The frenzied, infuriating, abstract absurdity of the horrors are like a knife to the heart, and I had to occasionally close my eyes to wonder if I was having a stroke.

I didn't think things could get weirder, but Aronofsky seems pointedly aware that things can always get more insane. A quiet dinner gone wrong turns into a party, a rave, a riot, a war zone. But even saying that lessens what the film is doing. There's a concentration camp, a cult, cannibals, and before all is said and done Kristen Wiig shows up to sacrifice a baby. The previously timeless setting (Woman has a cell phone, but Him writes using a quill and inkwell) is taken to drastic extremes, and we lose all sense of place and logic. It's hardcore crazy-porn (if that's a thing?), and that's inflicted both on us and on Mother. It doesn't help that the film's utter lack of musical score heightens the drama, and carefully calculated, disturbingly edited sound effects raise the stakes to skin-crawling extremes.

Aronofsky keeps such a tight focus on Jennifer Lawrence throughout the film that it's sometimes hard to see the religious allegory. We get deeply invested in her brave performance, and the film encourages out sympathy with her character. In fact, Aronofsky seems determined to protect her point of view, which messes of course with our traditional understanding of the Judeo-Christian (or, actually, monotheistic) narrative. The director and cinematographer (Matthew Libatique), however, work even harder than that: their handheld camera is also active in the film, swirling and diving in, sometimes embracing Mother in its confidential gaze, sometimes prowling around her like a hungry wolf. Lawrence is never less than bare to our vision, but her strength and conviction is such that the wolf (us) can never take her down. In fact, during the crazed, extended climax of the apocalypse (I use the word because what else is the climax? Mother herself jokingly calls it that), the camera seems almost to suffer in its constant circling orbit around her character, as if she were a gravity well or black hole from which it (we) cannot escape. When, at her utmost, she screams for the death of her child and the ground shatters, we finally escape her orbit, briefly, to get an overhead view.

More than a psychological-supernatural thriller, though, and far more than a horrific religious allegory, Mother! is even still working harder to fight conventions. I think its ultimate goal is to depict the domestic horrors of a trophy wife to a Great Man, and the history of that in the world. Further, the film depicts this from said trophy wife's perspective, and forces us to live it with her. She's younger, more beautiful, but infinitely taken for granted. She's less confident, less praised, and less loved. Her final moments -- escaping the mob to the tankers in the basement, where she ignites the oil and destroys the world -- are a scream into the abyss, a cry of rage and pain and sorrow not unlike King Lear or Job, something I think Darren Aronofsky has tried to do with the film.

After the apocalypse, an unharmed Him carries her and she asks him, "Who are you?" "I am I," he responds cryptically, suggesting that he is God. But that phrasing also indicates that the film is suddenly switching its focus. It suddenly becomes about him. He finally becomes the subject of the film, and she becomes its literal object, something the film has played with ambivalently until that point. He kills her (mercifully? Who knows) by removing her heart, the ashes of which crystallize into -- you guessed it -- another beautiful gem he places on his shelf, which immediately restores the house.

Even if you read this review -- even if your skills at predicting a movie's plot twists are that good -- you will not, at all, in any capacity be ready for the way in which Aronofsky takes you through the picture. I guessed the religious allegory fairly early, and the nature of the poet's crystal. But there is nothing that could have prepared me for the sheer insanity and aggressive horror that got me to the end. You can talk about this movie for forever, in the right crowd. It's as though Aronofsky is taking everything that's ever been in his mind, splashing around in it, and throwing it at you point-blank. This is the rare movie that is totally uncategorizable because it is a consummate work of high art, containing so much trash and pulp that you feel icky for the entire two hours it violates your eyeballs.

It's magnificent. Easily my unexpected favorite this year and this decade.

IMDb: Mother!

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)

Score: 3 / 5

I loved this movie. I love pirates, I love Geoffrey Rush, I love the swashbuckling action and high-seas fantasy. It's become cool to hate the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise for reasons I cannot comprehend; it remains one of my favorite series of any media. Yet for all my enthusiasm and affection for this movie, Dead Men Tell No Tales is a bloated, waterlogged disappointment.

It's safe, in this instance, to squarely blame the script. We can only bitterly wonder what was in Jeff Nathanson's mind as he wrote this mess of a tale. The brilliance of Catch Me If You Can and The Terminal is nowhere to be found here. Instead we get a haphazard tale that takes intriguing ideas and enchanting mythology and butchers them into a collage of weirdness that is left unexplained and, worse, underappreciated. The basic premise of the film makes almost no sense as timelines are made arbitrary and characters don't age as they should. And, perhaps worst of all, the dialogue is laughably banal, using frequent and lazy sexual innuendo to offset the occasional expository hooey that feels like an elementary book's back-cover summary. Even casual interactions between characters reveal nothing beyond the comparable shallowness of each. One can only hope that Nathanson's upcoming work on The Lion King remake can see him return to some sort of form.

Have I lambasted it enough yet? Perhaps not, as I consider the direction under Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg. The relative unknowns have their moments of style and flair, notably in one scene when Jack Sparrow faces the guillotine leaves you feeling particularly elated. But their slipshod sense of characters, incoherent pacing, and bizarre tendency to randomly break into slow motion are bewildering more often than not. They want to tie in too many threads, keep the focus on too many people doing too many things, and answer questions that were never asked.

**SPOILER ALERT**

The film takes place almost twenty years after At World's End, making Henry Turner about 19 years old. Having searched his entire young life for a way to save his father from his cursed fate aboard the Flying Dutchman, he embarks on a quest to find the Trident of Poseidon, which can apparently control the sea and break marine curses. He teams up with young astronomer and scientist Carina, an orphaned girl wrongfully accused of witchcraft, before the two join Captain Jack Sparrow's escape from the law to the open ocean. Concurrent with all this, Captain Salazar and his ghostly crew of pirate-killers escape from the Bermuda Triangle hell-bent on finding and murdering Jack, the pirate who entrapped them there.

While trying to acclimate myself to this new adventure and its new faces, I found myself annoyed that there was no mention of Angelica the lovely pirate whom Jack left on a cay with a voodoo doll of himself. We still don't know what became of Syrena the mermaid or Philip the missionary. We do, thankfully, see a wealthy and powerful Barbossa as captain of the Queen Anne's Revenge and his restoration of the Black Pearl from Blackbeard's bottle. And, of course, we get a couple brief scenes featuring Will and Elizabeth Turner, though their presence is woefully short-lived.

With the exception of some spectacular ghost soldiers (essentially pirates, but not by name), an island of stars, and the show-stopping but sadly brief presence of predatory ghost sharks (GHOST. SHARKS.), the film has little in the way of novelty or awe. I'm glad something in this series finally mentioned the Bermuda Triangle, and it's pretty cool, but the mythology is underwritten and confused, linking it to Jack's compass in a nonsensical manner. Worse, and unforgivably in my opinion, the climax comes with the revelation that Carina the astronomer is actually Barbossa's long-lost daughter, not long before he dies to save everyone from Salazar. Why the film felt the need to kill off the best character and actor in the franchise is far beyond me. While he's already been brought back from the dead once and presumably could again, the witch-goddess Tia Dalma is long out of the picture. This film tries to re-do her in the form of Shansa, another tattooed witch persecuted by a naval officer (in the form of David Wenham, no less), but she's in it so sparsely I wonder if she wasn't just a fever dream.

The film ends rather firmly, thank heaven, and even eked out a little tear from me in the last scene. But stick around after the credits: we see Will Turner, free of the Dutchman and sleeping with a radiant Keira Knightley in her second scene in the movie, having nightmares of his curse. The shadow of Davy Jones falls across his bed and we see a crab claw snap before he awakens, horrified. As he falls asleep again, safe in the arms of his love, the camera pans down to see wet barnacles on the ground, suggesting his nightmare wasn't only in his head. Should Disney dive in for another swashbuckling adventure, could they resurrect Bill Nighy as the devilish fish-man? I certainly hope not, but the possibilities of Will's post-traumatic stress from the curse are at least intriguing.

This franchise, which could go on forever considering the endless ideas of mythic adventures in the Caribbean, will probably not see another installment. If it does, as I dearly pray it will, Disney desperately needs to double- and triple-check who it hires to write and direct. This bunch of flotsam and jetsam should have had to walk the plank.

IMDb: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales