Showing posts with label Jennifer Connelly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jennifer Connelly. Show all posts

Thursday, July 16, 2020

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Still a disturbing, hypnotic portrayal of addiction in a couple of forms.

The movie follows four people in Brooklyn - Sara Goldfarb, her son Harry, his girlfriend Marion, and his closest friend Tyrone. Harry, Marion, and Tyrone are all heroin addicts who have plans to become dealers and attain some self-sufficiency; maybe even get rich. Sara is obsessed with getting on television, in particular on a self-help show focused on looking better. To do so, she begins a ruthless regimen of diet pills that results in erratic behavior and a fracturing of her mind. By tale's end, all four people are horribly broken: Sara is in a psychiatric institution after a complete mental breakdown; Harry has had his arm amputated due to an untreated infection from his intravenous drug use; Marion has taken to completely sexually degrading herself for heroin, and Tyrone has landed in prison.

A simple summary of this story doesn't come close to conveying this film's strengths. This was Darren Aronofsky's second feature-length film, after his brilliant, claustrophobic, black-and-white Pi, about a harried mathematician. With Requiem for a Dream, he took his artistic skills to draw a frantic parallel between addiction to hard drugs and addiction to seemingly innocuous substances like television or diet pills. Unlike most "drug" movies, this one doesn't end with a third-act redemption. The quartet of addicts all hit rock-bottom, at least one of them irrevocably, and that's where the story ends. Even the then-controversial and surprisingly popular Trainspotting - which predated Requiem by a few years - had a more uplifting ending. Aronofsky's film does depict the apparent bliss that addicts feel when they get their fix, be it hard drugs or less obvious means of stimulation, but those euphoric moments are brief and easily forgotten by the film's end.

This description should make it clear that this is not an "entertaining" film. It's never fun to watch people fall into pits of addiction from which they won't or almost certainly won't save themselves. This is why I've only seen this movie twice - the first time in 2002 and then again 18 years later. It's just tough to stomach in many ways. Still, there is an artistry and skill to its execution that I had to see again, and I'm glad that I did. As hard as it is to watch, I have to admire how the story puts TV and diet pill addiction on the same level as heroin addictions, and arguably has worse consequences for its victim, Sara. And the cinematic techniques used to convey the sense of paranoia, panic, and fevered desperation that Sara experiences are nerve-wrackingly effective. As her mental state deteriorates, Sara's faded little apartment living room soon feels every bit as confining as a sweatbox at a Floridian penitentiary. With equal skill, the masterful editing of the movie's visuals and sound gives a sense of the shifts between sobriety and intoxication of various characters. It's often amazingly hypnotic, just on an aesthetic level.

Sara chats with her son, Henry, before things start to go
gradually off the rails for both of them. Just one part of
the grand tragedy is that Henry, himself addicted to heroin,
is the only person who later sees the telltale signs of addiction
in his mother.
There did seem to be a bit of buoyancy missing from the movie, mostly in the first act. Not that it was necessary, or that there needed to be much of it, but I couldn't help wonder if spending just a little more time seeing the characters be happy with one another might not have made their tragedies even more poignant. For the most part, we just see them suffering and fairly tense right from the start, and things only get worse as the story unfolds. Part of this feeling probably comes from the fact that the actors do such excellent work, which should come as no shock when you see the cast: Ellen Burstyn was nominated for a ton of awards for her performance as Sara; Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly play Harry and Marion, and the surprising but highly capable Marlon Wayans plays Tyrone. These four do such great work that, grim as the tale is, it pulls you along in the hopes that somebody manages to escape their fates.

I've long been a huge fan of Darren Aronofsky, and I like every one of his films, to one degree or another. While I don't have Requiem for a Dream among my favorites of his (those would be The Fountain and The Wrestler), Requiem for a Dream is an excellent film on a dark subject. If you're one who isn't put off by difficult, and depressing subject matter, then I recommend that you check this one out. 

Monday, May 7, 2018

Retro-Trio: Noah (2014); AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004); Eagle vs. Shark (2007)

Noah (2014)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

My third time seeing the movie, and I still think it's phenomenal.

I gave this one a full review back when it was released, and you can view it here, so I'll keep this one short. It's been about two years since I last saw the movie, and it has grown no less impressive to me. What stands out most at this point for me are the overarching theme of the burden of responsibility and the film's expert pacing.

I still find Aronofsky's take on the titular Old Testament protagonist highly compelling. With Noah almost literally having the weight of the world on his shoulders, his anguish is palpable. This, however, had the potential to become a bit dull if it had been the only struggle or storyline in the movie. Rather, we also get the added and essential layer of Noah's misunderstanding of the responsibility thrust upon his shoulders by his lord. Because of his sorrow at having to see and allow nearly every person in the world die around him, he takes on a completely apocalyptic view of everything - to the point that he swears to slaughter even his own adopted grandchildren, should they be born. It is a brutally dark turn, but one that captures both the light and dark sides of Old Testament "heroism."

The pacing of the movie is also phenomenal. Considering how much is covered - from revealing this particular version of Noah's earth, right through the entire flood and its toll on Noah and his family, the tale moves along at a very satisfying pace. Nothing feels bogged down or rushed at any point, with the entire epic tale clocking in at just a bit over two hours. It's a testament to Aronofsky and his editor Andrew Weisblum that they told such a grand story so efficiently.

I actually bought this movie on blu-ray, and I haven't regeretted it. It's one that I've obviously gone back to a few times already, and will continue to do so in the future.


AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Director: Paul W.S. Anderson

After so many years avoiding this movie, I have to say it wasn't bad. Not great, by any means, but not bad either.

Like plenty of sci-fi adventure geeks, I revere the original two Alien movies, and I absolutely love the original Predator. I own all three movies and watch them about every year or two, and still rank them among my favorites. Still, I'm all too aware that, like many sci-fi "franchises," the quality of the originals faded severely as studios kept cranking out follow-ups. The Alien and Aliens are iconic; Alien 3 was mediocre at best, and Alien: Resurrection was a total mess. Predator is brilliant; Predator 2 was decent but a dropoff, and 2010's Predators was a dull rehash of the original.

Tucked in, just before that final Predators film were the two "AVP" flicks - Alien versus Predator. This first one, released in 2004, tells the story of a group of scientists gathered by billionaire Charles Bishop Weyland (a name familiar to Alien movies devotees) to explore a mysterious heat signature detected at a remote, abandoned station on Antarctica. The team digs deep beneath the surface to discover a wildly elaborate, labrynthine pyramid structure. As they explore, they ascertain that it was built by a race of extra-terrestrial hunters - the "Predators" introduced in that film series - as a staging ground for periodically staged hunts of trapped xenomorphs known from the Alien series. Little does the team of explorers know that the initial heat signature also acted as a beacon to a trio of Predators, who have also arrived on the scene to take part in the ritual hunt.

Nobody will ever mistake AVP for the very best of either of its root film series, in terms of quality. The acting is spotty at best, with the two main leads clearly being hired for their looks over their acting skills, and the dialogue is rather tepid throughout, with nary a decent one-liner to be found. And the little attempts at human connection or emotion fall pretty flat. But as an action/adventure film, the movie does just enough right to hold one's attention; at least it did for me. The backstory of the Predators arriving on earth centuries earlier and being revered as gods by the ancient Aztecs is fun, and the setting of the subterranean pyramid works well for this sort of picture. None of it is overly original, but it shows just enough novelty to keep things interesting. And the fights between the Aliens and Predators, mostly kept to small-scale, one-on-one fights, work well.

This movie is a decent way to scratch the "Alien" or "Predator" itch that one might have, while not watching the vastly superior original films. Several friends had recommended it to me, and I can now see why they enjoyed it, for what it is. However, since those very same friends have told me what a piece of garbage the followup AVP: Requiem was, I will avoid that movie like xenomorph blood.


Eagle vs. Shark (2007)

Director: Taika Waititi

Within the last few years, I've grown to become a great fan of New Zealand director Taika Waititi. It began around 2015, after watching and loving his vampire mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows. Then, my wife and I fell in love with his 2016 film The Hunt for the Wilderpeople, followed by backtracking to his earlier film Boy, which we also greatly enjoyed. The most recent icing on the cake for me was his deft and hilarious handling of large-scale superhero movies with the brilliant Thor: Ragnarok. Having gone 4-for-4 with me, it was only logical to go all the way back to Waititi's very first feature-length film, the low-budget regional Kiwi flick Eagle vs. Shark.

The wife and I really liked it.

The movie tells the story of Lily (Lauren Taylor), a rather shy young woman who works at a fast food restaurant and harbors a crush for the nerdy Jarrod (Jemaine Clement), who works at the nearby video game shop. When Lily is callously fired, she dares to crash a video game party that Jarrod hosts, and the two sleep together. Lily is then caught up in Jarrod's grand plan to return to his hometown and fight the boy who used to bully him in high school. In Jarrod's hometown, though, Lily begins to see Jarrod as more self-involved and immature, which culminated in his breaking up with her. However, she also sees that much of it stems from a bizarre home life where his deceased elder brother has cast a long shadow over the entire clan. Lily ultimately finds herself stuck in Jarrod's remote, rural town, biding her time for several days before Jarrod's scheduled fight.

This movie is a nearly perfect blend of Wes Anderson's sweeter films, a few dashes of Napoleon Dynamite, and Waititi's innate, quirky New Zealand sensibilities. The main characters Lily and Jarrod are painfully awkward in most circumstances, though Jarrod in particular is possessed of a wildly misplaced self-confidence and arrogance sometimes found among nerddom. Despite their trouble in most social situations, the two find just enough common ground to let each other into their lives, at least to a certain extent. While the tone is certainly off-beat, there is a certain level of authentic heart to the proceedings - something which Waititi would more masterfully use in his later films. In Eagle vs. Shark, these elements may not be as finely tuned, but they are still highly effective. This is all balanced well with a steady dose of oddball humor - from Lily's uncomfortable interactions with her snooty fast-food coworkers to Jarrod's "kung fu" training in preparation for his revenge fight, plenty of the scenes would be right at home among the best things you've seen in Rushmore and the like.

Not that I needed any more encouragement, but this film only solidified Waititi's place in my mind as a modern director whose films I now eagerly anticipate. And as much as I loved Ragnarok, I would actually prefer that he go back to smaller-scale, more personal flicks such as Eagle vs. Shark. This is clearly where he has made and can continue to make more meaningful, unique, and touching movies.

Friday, April 4, 2014

Noah (2014)



Director: Darren Aronofsky

Let me get two things right out of the way: (1) I really like this film. (2) I know that plenty of people will dislike and even hate it, for all sorts of reasons. I don't care. See (1).

I'm a tremendous fan of Darren Aronofsky. I like all of his films, to one degree or another. Topically, they all seem very different. Pi is about a mathematical genius; Requiem for a Dream is about various forms of addiction; The Fountain is a science-fiction/love story with deep romantic roots (pardon the pun, those who know the film); The Wrestler is about an aged WWF-style professional wrestler; and Black Swan is about an ambitious, perfectionist ballerina. And now Aronofsky turns his skills onto one of the oldest stories in human history - that of the great flood and the man chosen by a god to preserve life in its aftermath.

I think the movie does a splendid job of it.

We've already heard about the protests against the film. Of course, many of these are being staged by religious fanatics who are upset that the film does anything other than present a literal interpretation of the Old Testament story. These people are horribly misguided. What many of them don't know, or willingly choose to ignore, is that they have no monopoly on the flood myth. It's found in every ancient culture around the world, with one of the better known being that of Utnapishtim of Mesopotamian legend. The idea of one man feeling tasked to survive a divine cleansing of the world is far greater in scope than even the massive Jewish and Christian religions and their mythology can contain. Aronofsky's film seeks to be more inclusive by not restricting his version to Pentateuch canon.

The fellow surrounded by water here is a character that is at least as old as the Noah story - Utnapishtim, whose exploits are told in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

On top of shaking off the constricting details of the Old Testament story, Aronofsky decides to incorporate some ideas that have only been given clear definitions in more modern times. This sets up another element that some people will likely scoff and sneer at - the "vegetarian warrior" aspect of Noah and his family in the film. I admit that I'm still not completely sold on this part of the story, as it seems just a tiny bit forced. Still, it is woven extremely well into the logic of the movie. This version of the tale pits Noah and his family against the "evils of the rest of humanity," which are exhibited by brutal violence and an insatiable desire to possess and/or consume everything in their path. Obviously, this is a concept that is as old as humankind itself; it's just that Aronofsky's Noah includes the consumption of other creatures' flesh into mankind's catalog of evil as defined by senseless destruction.

Probably the final major complaint that people level against the movie is regarding the "rock monsters." If you haven't seen the movie and plan to, I won't ruin this for you by explaining the details. Just know that there are Lord of the Rings-like, craggy creatures featured through the first half of the movie. Before you roll your eyes and dismiss this notion, though, I will tell you that they are explained in an way that I found blends with the movie. Sure, they may have been added simply to mix in some fantastic, adventurous, family-friendly spice to the film, but they represent more than mere eye-catchers for the kids. And even though they figure heavily into some of the more epic action sequences, I hardly found them frivolous appendages to the plot. If one wants to think in terms of the actual story as relayed in the book of Genesis, they make a good deal of sense. And really, if a person wants to obsess over a "deviation from the source," go back and read Genesis. Wrestling angels and women turning into pillars of salt is completely plausible, but some hulking rock creatures aren't?

The twisted rock creatures known as "Watchers" seem to be a contentious addition to the film. 
I found that they added much to the story.

One thing I think most people can agree is excellent about the movie is the psychological and emotional weight that is carried throughout. Through the screenwriting and the strong acting, we do get a sense of how one man and his family's incomprehensibly massive burden is borne. Aronofsky blends in elements of several other Old Testament tales, such as Adam and Eve as well as Abraham and Isaac, which shows the coherence between these mythic prophets of Judeo-Christian belief. The gravitas has always been a large part of these characters, just as they have been with most characters who have endured for millennia. This movie is able to harness and express it in ways more palpable than any film representation that I know of.

And so, with this weighty theme of supreme religious devotion and sense of grand purpose, we come full circle. Just as with Aronofsky's other films, the protagonist is driven to obsession by a single purpose. Such characters often drive stories, and Noah is no different. Though not without some flaws, I think it's merits far outweigh them and make it a strong, thoughtful and intelligent cinematic tale.

I will likely see the movie again, sooner rather than later. I will be curious to see how it holds up to a second viewing. So far, the movie has stayed with me and I enjoy pondering it various elements and the way they were constructed. I recommend that everyone check it out and form their own opinion, for everyone surely should have an opinion on it.