New Release! mother! (2017)

No spoilers. Rest easy.

One of the official movie posters, which
more than hints at the visceral scenes
which you can expect in the picture.

Director: Darren Aronofsky

This movie is one trippy, nightmarish horror show of unrelenting tension. And I was fascinated.

The movie follows a young woman (Jennifer Lawrence) who is married to a middle-aged poet (Javier Bardem) who is struggling with writer's block. The woman (her name is never given, but referred to as "Mother" in the credits) leaves her husband (name also never given, credited as "Him") to seek inspiration in solitude, while she meticulously repairs and refurbishes their entire house, which is a grand old country home that apparently suffered some sort of damage in the past. A visitor arrives (Ed Harris), and he very quickly imposes on the couple. While Mother is none too pleased with the unexpected guest's intrusion, Him seems oddly welcoming to this stranger. Soon, the stranger's obnoxious wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives, adding Mother's concerns. After this point, the situation steadily spirals out of control for Mother over the course of time. The entire home eventually becomes a whirlwind of bizarre and aggressive behaviors which Mother tries to reckon with.

Darren Aronofsky, who wrote and directed the movie, has shown in past films that he is more than willing to offer commentary on grand themes, while using hallucinogenic visuals to convey discomfort. He did this in his first two features, Pi and Requiem for a Dream, which dealt with paranoia and addiction, respectively. mother! does an equally commendable job building a sense of claustrophobia at the hands of encroaching guests and ever-multiplying hordes of unwanted visitors. When you add in the hallucinogenic, sometimes surrealist visions which Mother experiences, the movie certainly creates a mood. It's not likely to be a mood which pleases you, but I have to think that Aronofsky's point was to make us squirm more than a little. Mission accomplished.

Lest you think that the movie is simply about freaking out us viewers, rest assured that there is far more to it than that. Aronofsky has never been one to shy away from swinging for the fences in terms of grand themes, and mother! is no exception. It becomes clear fairly early on that we are not meant to see the characters on screen as "real" people, but rather archetypes. The character names in the credits certainly confirm this, giving credence to the idea that we are watching an allegory for several notions, some much more obvious than others. Such relatively abstract forms of film are likely to annoy or frustrate many viewers, but I found them mostly fascinating.

If you have seen the cast list, you will probably not be surprised that the acting is outstanding. Curiously, as purely cinematic as much of this movie is, there are certain elements that put me in mind of a stage play. This is something that can require a certain extra grandiosity in actors' performances, and will rarely work in films. In mother!, however, it actually works, given the allegorical nature of the tale. Enhancing the performances are the framing, camerawork, and set designs, which certainly create a memorable setting and sense of ever-increasing chaos.

One of several scenes which depict how Mother is (or at least
feels) completely out of place and sync with everything and
everyone around her, including her husband.

If one has looked at reviews for this movie, you'll notice very mixed reactions (something Aronofsky movies have inspired in the past). I think that this is for a couple of reasons. If one is able to see this movie as a piece of art, not unlike bizarre or even grotesque works by masters like Picasso or Gustave Dore, then one is likely to appreciate much of what it has to offer. If, on the other hand, one is expecting a traditional horror tale or human drama, then one is likely to be disappointed at the least and outright offended at worst. So it helps to know what you're in for here.

This is one of those movies that I can't say that I "enjoyed" but that certainly held my interest and which I found to be a quality piece of art. Some of the social commentary can come off a bit obvious or heavy-handed here and there, but I was always curious about what the next scene would bring. At times, I found it was actually predictable, but there were enough surprises and oddly vague suggestions that I remained engaged for the film's full two hours. I may never watch it again, but I was glad to catch it on the big screen. 

New Release! The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 (2014)

Have no fear! This review contains no spoilers!

Director: Francis Lawrence

This is certainly not a series that, on my own, I would have sought out. However, when the book series had reached the level of popularity that couldn't be ignored, I caved and read the first book, The Hunger Games. It was decent enough, for a young adult novel that relies mostly on borrowed ideas melded together in a plot-driven action tale. I began the second book, Catching Fire, but grew bored rather quickly and gave up.

I saw the first film, which I thought was entertaining enough, and rather true to the source novel. The second film was a little more of a chore to watch, taking nearly an hour to get past a dull emotional slog that only fans of the books could probably find engaging. Still, it was decent enough that I was OK with the prospect of joining some family members to take in the recent installment of the films: Mockingjay, Part 1.

If you've read any of the accusations leveled towards the movie that it is a blatant money grab, I can't completely disagree with them. One can argue that this two-hour-and-twenty minute movie really had only about an hour of solid material in it. While it does move the plot forward, it does so intermittently, with a lot of bland, emotionally drab filler in between.

Without giving anything away, the heroine of the series, Katniss Everdeen, has survived the rigors of her second Hunger Games, as chronicled in Catching Fire. However, she is now embroiled in a nation-wide revolution to overthrow the seemingly invincible aristocracy based in the Capitol. While there are some action sequences in the movie, illustrating the revolution's military movements, much of the movie focuses on Katiss's involvement in a large-scale propaganda war. These media-driven machinations play out through television screens, which I found watered down most of the emotional impact they might otherwise have.

Sorry, but no amount of future chic clothing or icy glares can
add  the gravity that this film was trying so desperately to
convey to us viewers.

A much larger problem is the development of Katniss's character. For someone who made her name with a completely selfless act of altruistic sacrifice by taking her sister's place in the Hunger Games two years prior, she becomes annoyingly self-absorbed. Sure, she's had some horrible things happen to her, but she starts to act and behave in ways that don't conform at all with who she was or what she was about as this series began. Change is one thing, but what Katniss becomes smacks a little too much of weak writing in the name of contrived drama. It felt as if the writers, whether it was novelist Suzanne Collins or the movie's script writers, were trying to appeal to teen readers' base egoism. It's also probably just simple misfortune for everyone involved that Jennifer Lawrence has, since first bringing Katniss to life a few years ago, outgrown this role in every way. At this stage, she's far too strong an actress to be playing an inexplicably whining teen.

Mockingjay, Part 1 may ultimately fit better within the larger scale of the entire series, once the final film comes out next year. For now, though, it is easily the weakest of the series, and it is one that only people familiar with the series should bother seeing. First-time viewers who have neither read the books nor seen the first two film adaptations will likely be left wondering what the fuss is about.