mother! (2017) review

Director Darren Aronofsky has become well-known for his work on psychological dramas that delve into the psyches of their main protagonists. However, while several of his films have done excellently with critics, they’ve also attracted tons of controversy for various reasons, usually because of how insane some of them get. His sophomore directorial effort, 2000’s Requiem for a Dream, was deemed too intense for audiences, thus initially earning an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. Aronofsky refuted the decision, but his appeal was denied and the film was instead released unrated by its distributor. While his 2010 effort, Black Swan, did earn Natalie Portman an Oscar for Best Actress, it also led to some debate over how much of the ballet dancing in the film was done by Portman herself. And as for his most recent film, 2014’s Noah, it ended up being banned in several countries due to Aronofsky’s radical take on the story of Noah’s Ark, while also turning out to be his most commercially successful film to date. And from the looks of it, this trend of Aronofsky’s polarizing output continues with his latest film, Mother. Headlined by the ensemble of Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, and Michelle Pfeiffer, Mother is a psychological ‘horror’ film that’s steeped in biblical allegories. However, that hasn’t stopped the film from attracting an extremely polarizing response from critics, and given that it was handed the worst rating possible from the marketing research firm CinemaScore, an F, it’s also proven to be quite divisive amongst audiences as well. As for me? Well, unfortunately, I find that I lean heavily towards the side that gave this film an ‘F’.

In a quaint, little-secluded area, a young woman (Jennifer Lawrence) lives with her husband (Javier Bardem), who’s a poet, in their newly renovated home. The young woman has spent much of her time working on the remodeling so that they can have a perfect home, even though it becomes clear that this isolation has had a negative effect on her husband’s work. However, their idyllic home life is soon threatened by the arrival of some unwanted guests. First, a doctor (Ed Harris) arrives at the house, having been led to assume that it was a bed and breakfast. He also mentions that he’s a big fan of the husband’s work. Later, the doctor’s wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives as well, and while there, she begins to question the young woman about why she and her husband have yet to have kids. This, obviously, begins to freak the young woman out but, to both her surprise and dismay, her husband is extremely welcoming of their new guests. And soon enough, more people start to arrive on the premises just so that they can meet with the husband. Thus, as the young woman begins to become more and more stressed due to all the unwelcome guests in her home, it also starts to have quite an effect on her relationship with her husband, especially after she does indeed become pregnant.

As noted in the intro (and without giving anything major away from the plot), this film’s story is basically one big biblical allegory. If you’re familiar with some of the most famous stories from the bible, then you’ll probably recognize them here by way of how they’re represented in the film’s characters. This includes everyone from the older couple that comes to visit the main characters’ home to their two sons (played by real-life brothers Domhnall and Brian Gleeson) and, of course, the titular ‘mother’ and her husband. And to this film’s credit, I do think that it’s an interesting way in going about telling a Bible-influenced story in a modern context. However, the way in which Aronofsky goes about it is what ultimately ruins it. Part of this is due to the often-temperamental cinematography by Aronofsky regular Matthew Libatique. Said cinematography involves tons of close-up shots and quite a bit of erratic/shaky camera movement, the latter of which becomes a huge problem when things get nuts in this film. And believe me, this film gets nuts, mainly during its second half where to be perfectly frank, it goes off the frigging wall… which, as you might have guessed, is not a good thing in this case. This film also utilizes Aronofsky’s quick-cut style of editing that was apparent in Requiem for a Dream, though it mostly comes into play during the more chaotic moments of the narrative. So, in other words, pair rapidly cutting editing with erratic cinematography and you have a film that can make you feel quite nauseous at times because it’s moving around so much, thereby giving you barely any time to try and grasp just what the heck is happening onscreen. 

It’s a shame, really, that this film is the disaster that it is because everyone in the cast is solid in their respective roles. At the very least, they all do a fine enough job at conveying the traits of the biblical characters that they’re meant to be representing. While not necessarily the best performance of her career, Jennifer Lawrence does do a fine job in the ‘title role’. She holds her own for sure, especially given that the film mainly revolves around her, but she’s also quite good whenever she’s working off one of her co-stars, like the always charismatic Javier Bardem. With that said, though, prior to its release, there was some controversy over the fact that Lawrence’s main romantic lead in this film is 21 years her senior. However, if anything, the film does sort of address this and, again, without giving anything away, it ends up making a bit more sense once you realize who Bardem’s character is meant to be. The other couple in this film, played by Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer, provide an interesting contrast to the main couple given their overall characterizations. Harris’ character is more of a charming stranger while Pfeiffer’s character is far colder, the latter of which is seen whenever Pfeiffer interacts with Lawrence. Both Harris and Pfeiffer are great in their respective roles, with Harris providing some nice charisma while Pfeiffer is great at conveying an incredibly uncomfortable, steely persona. Ultimately, though, these solid performances aren’t enough to save this dreadful material.

Now, to be fair, I can at least see why some have reacted positively towards this film. I can see why they’ve found it to be an artistically fascinating and refreshingly original film in today’s current market. Ultimately, though, I did not see ‘exactly’ what they saw with this film. Now, to be clear, this wasn’t a situation where I just didn’t get what was going on (for the most part…). I did, at least, understand all the biblical references that this film was conveying. However, it’s ultimately the overall execution of it all that just makes this an incredibly frustrating film to watch. Because while the cast does do a good job with what they’re given, Aronofsky’s direction and the erratic cinematography end up turning this film into a chaotic mess. I mean, for the record, I do think that this is an interesting way to do a modern take on a story that’s heavily influenced by the bible. However, as much as I hate to say it, this probably would’ve worked a hell of a lot better under a different director; say, David Fincher or someone similar. Because as is, this is just an incoherent and all-around ugly film that’s way too surreal for its own good to the point where it comes off as being extremely pretentious. Now, again, if you liked this film, then all the power to you. But as for me, though, this ended up being one of the most emotionally-draining films that I’ve ever had to sit through because of everything that I’ve covered in this review… ugh, thank god this comes out this Friday.

Rating: 0.5/5

Noah (2014) review

One of the most controversial films of this past decade, if not of all time, was 2004’s ‘Passion of the Christ’, directed by Mel Gibson. The tale of the final 12 hours of Jesus Christ’s life sparked much debate due to its extremely violent content; regardless, it was actually a big hit commercially as it grossed over 600 million worldwide. This year we have ourselves another religious-based film that has also caused some controversy; ‘Noah’, an adaptation of the ‘Noah’s Ark’ narrative from the Old Testament. This film has already been banned in a few countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia. However, in the case of ‘Noah’, the controversy is not on the violence, but on the ‘creative liberties’ that were taken by director Darren Aronofsky in regards to his vision of the story; bottom line, it is a very bold take on the story of Noah’s Ark but controversy aside, this is still a pretty damn good film that is not only visually stunning but one that also gives us a fascinating different take on the story. It may not be completely accurate when compared to the original story but it is much more character driven than what some people might expect.

The titular Noah (Russell Crowe), the descendent of Seth, one of Adam and Eve’s offspring, receives a prophetic vision that God (referred to in this film as ‘the Creator’) plans to destroy the world by way of a massive flood in order to rid the world of the many misdeeds that mankind has committed over the years since Earth was first created. Noah realizes that the Creator had chosen him specifically to be the one who would save those who were innocent and so, with the help of his family; his wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly), their three sons Shem (Douglas Booth), Ham (Logan Lerman), and Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll), and their adopted daughter Ila (Emma Watson), Noah begins to build an ark in order for them to survive the storm. However, he soon finds himself dealing with his nemesis, Tubal-Cain (Ray Winstone), the same man who killed Noah’s father years ago who poses a threat to the safety of both him and his family both before and after the flood begins.

Like I said, there definitely are some creative liberties taken in telling this story. Probably the most notable aspect of these liberties is the portrayal of this group of characters known as ‘Watchers’ who help Noah and his family (these characters have been absent from the marketing). But perhaps the most interesting aspect of this adaptation of the story is how it is much more character driven than what one might expect. I mean, religious or not, we all know the story of Noah; he builds an ark, two of each kind of animal get on it, then Noah, his family, and the animals spend 40 days and 40 nights on the boat before the waters recede. But there’s much more to the story in this version, like how much burden is placed on Noah to perform this deed that the Creator has given to him or how sometimes he doubts whether or not he and his family are worth keeping alive. The latter dilemma especially becomes relevant during the final half hour of the film. I won’t spoil what the scenario is, but it does involve another ‘task’ that the Creator wants Noah to do and a pretty damn dark one at that. That’s another thing about this movie; it may be PG-13 but it can get pretty brutal at times. Regardless, it’s a fascinating character study showing how no one’s perfect and that there is darkness in all of us.

Religious aspects aside, this movie is very visually stunning and that’s mainly for two reasons; both the visual effects done by Industrial Light and Magic and the cinematography by Matthew Libatique. This film also benefits from a strong cast from top to bottom. Russell Crowe gives one of the best performances of his career as Noah, really capturing the personal struggles and sometimes anguish that the character goes through. Just like how the movie itself can get dark, this is not the Noah that some might expect but even with that in mind, Crowe is fantastic here. Equally terrific here is Emma Watson who, like Crowe, also gives one of the best performances of her career here, as she provides quite a bit of the emotion that arises during the final half of the film. Everyone is very good as well; Jennifer Connelly, despite sort of being stuck in a role that just has her stand around, works well alongside Crowe and Ray Winstone is quite intimidating at Tubal-Cain, a role that is actually a bit more substantial than what one might expect from watching the trailer.   

‘Noah’ is no doubt going to be one of the most controversial films of the year, but I get the feeling it won’t just be for the religious aspects of the film. For many, this will not be the Noah that they are familiar with. In fact, the trailers aren’t really conveying the real nature of the film at all. At times, this film can be very dark mainly in regards to some of the moral dilemmas that Noah faces during the course of this film, particularly the one he struggles to deal with right at the end of the film. But at the same time, these darker moments in the story make it a fascinating character study of how one man dealt with the monumental task of protecting the innocent while also questioning whether or not he is among those worthy to live. This is sort of a hard film to recommend because if you are a very religious person, you may find yourself not liking the way this story is told here. However, from a film perspective, ‘Noah’ is visually beautiful, well-acted, and well-directed. Again though, it won't be for everyone.

Rating: 4/5