Mommy

11 Replies

This movie is as challenging as it is rewarding. Undoubtedly difficult to sit through, I found myself really turned off by the characters and I had to coach myself a little in order to keep going. Just last week I was defending a movie to Sean and I found myself saying that a movie doesn’t have to have likeable characters or a happy ending in order for it to be ‘good.’ I believe this to be true, but I’d forgotten how tedious a film can be if you have no one to root for.

And I don’t mean to call this movie tedious by any means (although I’d say it’s overlong) because once I forgave the characters for being nasty human beings, I could relax into the theme of the movie, which never for a moment claimed otherwise.

First off, director Xavier Dolan wants you to know that the film’s set in an alternate Canada where a new law has just been passed enabling people to wave their parental rights and surrender “problem children” to the government at any time, no questions asked. So keep that in mind. Diane is a single (widowed) mother with a teenaged son named Steve who’s prone to hyperactivity and violent outbursts. He’s been institutionalized since his father died but having recently maimed a kid in a fire he set, he’s being kicked out and mommy dearest must bring him home. This kid’s behaviour is immediately repulsive, but our introduction to his mother isn’t much better and right off the bat it’s clear there’s a strong case of apple-doesn’t-fall-far-from-the-treeism at work. Home school him? That’s a joke. Try just not getting choked out by him. His mother, despite her faults, is trying hard to keep him away from the system, and it’s clear that she does love him. The surprise of this movie is that she doesn’t just chuck him at the nearest hospital. She tries. And the trying is painful to watch because we see how futile and unending it will be. And then a mysterious neighbour named Kyla lends a hand, but there aren’t enough hands in the world to save this kid from his attachment disorder.

Mommy has a very distinct style, the director choosing to go with an almost unheard of 1:1 aspect ratio, which means we actually view the movie as a perfect square. Dolan chose this deliberately to highlight the emotions of each scene, and he reinforces this again with his tight shots, up close and personal, intimate certainly, sometimes claustrophobic. When Steve is at his most inappropriate, your skin crawls because you, like the characters, cannot escape. There is little breathing room – literally, figuratively – what a thing to be able to communicate through film! Steve is a trial, and even at 2 hours, the burden feels almost unbearable at times, and you begin to walk in his mother’s shoes. Mommy isn’t much for the bigger picture, but it’s an immersive experience that pushes your limits, makes you wish for bad things, and then leaves you feeling slightly ashamed for having wished them: quite a feat for a little Canadian film.

If you can’t cope with a movie with unlikeable leads, then this one’s not for you. It’s tough even if you think you can. Steve pushes against boundaries and is continually in a state of having gone too far. He’s alive on screen, visceral and so real he’s scary, scary because you know he exists, and that he’s somebody’s son. The kid who plays him must be really well-cast because I loathed him, loathed his face, loathed every grimace he would make. Do you see how it got to me? This movie demands a lot of its viewers, not just in terms of bearing witness, but also in looking away when the rest of the story isn’t really fleshed out. Kyla, for example, appears on scene with a disabling stutter that’s a fresh result from some unnamed trauma, but we never get to know what it is. She exists to help mother and son and her back story is just a tantalizing black hole. But Diane, on the other hand, is given such a shockingly non-judgemental treatment that you won’t believe it can originate from a 25-year-old director. It’s a compassionate and stark look at caretaking, and the breaking point of the maternal bond.

I’m not sure if you can really enjoy a movie like this, at least not int he way you might enjoy a popcorn movie with a talking racoon. This is a movie that requires digestion, possibly even mastication, but I do believe it will leave you satisfied.

The Music Never Stopped

2 Replies

Henry & Helen hadn’t heard from their son Gabriel in 20 years until they get a phone call from the hospital – their son has a humongous brain tumour and even if the operation is successful, it’s already erased his short-term memory and a lot of cognitive function. There are two components to this story: the ongoing medical issue, which they try to resolve through the use of (and love of) music; the second, the family’s past issues, which is told through flashbacks.

I picked this movie because of JK Simmons, and he’s the reason to watch it. The movie’s predictable and sentimental, but Simmons’ performance really rises above. He’s just a father trying to bridge the gap between himself and his son – the brain tumour is actually the least of it.

It’s actually based on a true story and had the potential to be more than it is, but the newbie director plays it safe, injecting very little in the way of artistry. And there are holes in the narrative: what have any of them been up to in the intervening 20 years? But I enjoyed this movie, and was moved by it, in the expected places but also along the edges. JK Simmons has been trying to tell us for ages now that he’s capable of so much more than Hollywood’s been handing him, and I’m glad he’s getting his due. Character actor my ass. I hope to see his name front and centre on the marquee for a long, long while.

Accidental Love

2 Replies

Fellow movie buff Dan over at Dan the Man’s Movie Reviews wrote a tepid (at best) piece about a film he’d watched recently called Accidental Love.

Dan didn’t much care for it, and I respect his opinion, but felt compelled to see it anyway. Isn’t it funny how we do that? I wrote a review on a terrible movie called Freeway, but because it’s Reese Witherspoon doing the terrible, that review managed to garner someone else into watching it. So, that being said, I knew because Dan told me, that this would be a bad movie, and it was. But I still watched it, and here’s why:

a) David O. Russell directed it. Now, if you know me, you may realize that this is not normally a selling point for me. Silver Linings Playbook did nothing for me; American Hustle did even less. But I did love The Fighter and I hearted I Heart Huckabees. But sometimes even David O. Russell hates David O. Russell movies, such is the case with Accidental Love. This movie has been collecting dust on the shelves since 2008. Russell removed himself from the project in 2010. Somebody has just decided to release it, so it bears the “director is embarrassed” pseudonym Stephen Greene. Russell normally excels at satire. It’s the heart of Huckabees. So I imagine he saw the potential for a hell of a political satire in the script, but let me assure you, it never pops in this movie. It never works, not even for a second.

b) The cast. Jessica Biel doesn’t have any bank with me, but James Marsden does, and so does Jake Gyllenhaal after his brilliant turn in Nightcrawler. I most possibly most impressed with Catherine Keener, whom I love but seems to be typecast as these blowsy, hippie types, but gets to play a conservative astronaut-turned-congresswoman complete with bucket hair and power suits in this one and does a really, really good job. But then the cast had to walk out on filming because the producers failed to show they had enough money to actually pay them, and even worse, pay the below-the-line crew members.

c) The satire. It’s easy enough to poke fun at the health care system in America; it pretty much lampoons itself. Why then does the whole thing fail to gel? If principal photography was never really completed, you can understand why a movie might not meet its potential. But they’ve cobbled together a beginning, a middle, and an end, and at no point does it feel like you’re watching something smart or funny or worthy. This movie may have been plagued with production difficulty, but it was also plagued with pure suckage. If Kirstie Alley lands more laughs than Tracey Morgan, ABORT! Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. And do not stick in Peewee Herman as straight man just to see if anyone notices. Kristin Gore is credited for her screenplay – as in, daughter of Tipper and Al, a family not known for their comedic stylings, but alas, she has written for Futurama and she’s got politics in her blood, so how can we forgive her for so completely missing the boat?

So, Dan was right, as we knew all along he would be. But sometimes you have to roll around in the slop just to enjoy the bath afterward. Amiright?

Eagle vs. Shark

12 Replies

Apparently this was one of my tests for marriage material and I didn’t even know it. Jay introduced me to it without any real warning or lead-in, and I remember enjoying it but none of the specifics. We’ve been on a bit of a Taika Waititi binge with What We Do in the Shadows and Boy, so this seemed like a very good time to rewatch Eagle vs. Shark.

This movie confirms that Jemaine Clement, who I knew from Flight of the Conchords before seeing this the first time, is either a terrific actor or a terrible human being. Jarrod, his character, is just an awful person who brings nothing to the table at all. So while this is supposed to be a love story, the love is entirely one-sided. Lily, the loving half of this on-again, off-again couple, is probably as much of an outcast as Jarrod (both are extremely awkward), but Lily is sweet to all those around her while Jarrod is bitter and unlikable from start to finish. As Jay pointed out last night, is it really a happy ending if these two end up together? Lily could do so much better!

If you can get over that, and I can get over pretty much any plot hole if I am being entertained, there is a lot to like here. This movie is memorably quirky and has quite a few hilarious moments, including the death of a seagull and some fantastic animal costumes (including an eagle and a shark)!

Overall, this is an enjoyable movie about a pair of social misfits, and there are some great moments here, but since Napoleon Dynamite did this material first it takes away the originality and uniqueness that might otherwise have been this movie’s calling card. Still, it’s worth checking out. I’d say watch them both and let me know which one you prefer!

Touching The Void (2003)

2 Replies

What a beautiful film! “Touching The Void” is about two mountaineers (Joe and Simon), who decide to live up to their great ambition of climbing the Siula Grande, a 20, 814 ft mountain located in the Peruvian Andes. What follows is a beautifully hellish story of 2 friends’ will to survive when Joe, an experienced climber, breaks his leg as the pair are starting to rappel down one of the world’s most treacherous mountains. I was left on the edge of my seat for the entire length of the film. Besides death, not much more could of gone wrong. It was nerve-racking, at times difficult to watch but ultimately one of the most rewarding and honest documentaries I’ve ever seen, and trust me, I’ve seen many.

Very rarely will I see a film where every word holds its weight, to the point where I paused the movie many times to simply reflect. I would ask myself what would I do in these situations? Would I be as mentally strong? Would I give up? Would I capitulate and accept death? Truth be told, I don’t think anyone can honestly answer these questions without experiencing the sheer nightmare these guys went through. Just when you think things can’t get any worse for Joe and Simon, nature will gladly prove you wrong. Thin air, snowstorms, freezing cold temperatures, nasty winds, crevasses and extreme ice are just the beginning of what Simpson & Yates will be forced to deal with. I don’t want to give away too much so I’ll just say this: If there’s ever a documentary I would recommend with confidence, this is it. Within the same breath it effortlessly explores life, death, hope and despair which makes for a powerful and unforgettable experience.

images

If any of you have seen this movie, I would love know what you thought of it.

The Orphanage (El Orfanato)

5 Replies

Warning: there’s a near-instant creepy vibe about this movie, and if you’re a big feathered chicken like me, you might want to find a buddy to watch it with.

A woman returns to the orphanage where she grew up, hoping to open it as a home for special-needs children. Her husband and young son, Simon, make the move along with her. Simon has imaginary friends who tell him secrets: that he’s just like them, without father or mother (he was secretly adopted), and that he’s going to die (he’s HIV+ but doesn’t know it). And then one day he disappears.

It’s hard for me when watching a subtitled movie to really pay attention to anything else, but this movie really got me. The young actor, Roger Príncep, is very good. Love his little curls and his long-lashed eyes. He’s young but well-cast and capable. Belén Rueda, as his mother, plays against him very well and the relationship feels genuine.

There’s some classic horror movie elements here, strange noises and loooong, eerie hallway shots that do nothing but disturb while heightening the anxiety. I had LOTS of anxiety watching this movie and usually stay away from the genre altogether, but our weekly theme of ‘fairy tales’ gave me the push I needed to give this one a try.

The home is too beautiful and interesting to be an orphanage but it’s lovely to look at. The wallpapers are magnificent, the architectural details, the chair rails for goodness sake! I had to rewind a few times because I was so busy taking in all the lovingly layered details that I occasionally forgot to read! And then during scary parts, I tried to watch indirectly, hoping to minimize the impact of sudden, scary things that still felt sudden and scary nonetheless. And try as I might, I don’t speak Spanish. I understand resort words learned from vacations in Mexico, and the occasional bits and pieces that share roots with French. But you know what? If the director’s any good, there’s a lot being communicated in a movie aside from the spoken words. The music tells a story. The angle of the camera tells a story. The point of view does, and the tension in the silences does, and the shadows on an actor’s face do.

I barely made it through this but I’m so glad I stuck it out. There’s nothing cheap about this movie; it rises above its genre, darkly mixing fairy tale with horror, and it’s a really satisfying watch, if you have the nerves.

Boy

2 Replies

Last week I blogged about watching What We Do in the Shadows, the latest endeavour from Taika Waititi, whose work in my opinion cannot be missed. This week I went back in time to watch 2010’s Boy.

“Boy” is 11 years old in 1984. He loves Michael Jackson and girls, employing the former’s dance moves to lure and impress the latter. He lives on a small farm with his grandmother, his younger brother Rocky, and several young cousins. When grandma has to go away for a funeral, Boy is in charge of the household. At home he’s a grown up, cooking and cleaning and caring for the little ones. At school he’s still just a kid, making up stories about his jail-bird dad and getting into fights when those stories aren’t believed.

But then one day his dad shows up, along with two friends. They’re only intended to stay long enough to find the stolen money they buried before being pinched by the cops, but Boy sees it as potential bonding time.

It’s clear that the father is even less mature than his sons. He doesn’t know how to join them in grieving their dead mother, doesn’t know how to make up for lost time, doesn’t know how to put others first, and certainly doesn’t know how to give a decent haircut (though this doesn’t stop him from trying).

Watching this movie, I was struck by how Waititi feels a bit like a low-budget, New Zealand version of Wes Anderson. I don’t mean this in a copycat way, but rather that his movies share a certain randomness paired with an attention to detail that makes for a delightfully off-kilter movie going experience.

Waititi is bursting with talent, but he doesn’t spread himself too thin. He’ll workshop a script for years just to get it right, which means that there’s far too little of this innovative filmmaker to be had. I first came across him with what has become one of my favourite laugh-out-loud, painfully awkward comedies, Eagle vs. Shark. Turns out, he was already an Oscar nominee by then, having received a nom for his live-action short, Two Cars, One Night (he lost but famously pretended to doze off as the list of nominees was read). He’s written and directed stuff for Flight of the Conchords (Jemaine Clement is a longtime friend and collaborator; the pair toured together as award-winning comedy duo The Humourbeasts). He’s also had a taste of big Hollywood, having starred opposite Ryan Reynolds in Green Lantern. But it’s these three movies (Eagle VS Shark, Boy, and What We Do in the Shadows) that are GOLD. You can’t ask for better than that. But I am asking for more.

Paddington

5 Replies

Is Paddington the cutest little movie I’ve seen in a long, long time? Why, I do believe it is.

I was charmed by the bear the moment I met him. He’s cuddly and fluffy and of course you’d take him in! But he’s not a one-note character. We know this because the books have been around for decades, children love the mischievous adventures, his irreproachable manners, and his sweet nature. It’s always nerve-wracking to watch somebody make a go of your fondest childhood memories, but this is one (exceptional) case where you won’t be let down. Paddington’s essence travels with him from Peru to London, where he’s adopted by a family of humans, the Browns, who need rescuing from him just as much as needs to be rescued by them.

Cinderella

8 Replies

If you’re wondering whether you should bring your 2-year-old to see this movie, the answer is a resounding no.

I happened to sit beside a 2-year-old girl at the screening of this movie a few nights ago, and it did not go well.

Could she make it 3 minutes without yelling something out? No.

Could she stay in her seat? Of course not.

Did she spill all her popcorn before the movie even started and then cry about it at an ear-aching volume? You’ve probably already guessed the answer.

But the thing is, she’s 2. I actually thought she was pretty well-behaved for a two-year old being asked to sit still for over two hours (the movie’s not that long, but the event sure was.) The problem is not the chatter and the squirming, the problem is that in Cinderella, both parents die.

Did you remember that little detail? That’s the catalyst for poor Cinderella being left to the whims of her evil stepmother. First the mother dies, and then the father. And the little girl beside me just didn’t get it. Of course she didn’t get it. At two she’s just beginning to understand that people leave and come back but still exist when you’re not seeing them. Two-year-olds love to play hide and seek. They’ll search for hours (but they really suck at hiding). So even though her mother explained to her that Cinderella’s mommy died (but what is died?), the little girl every 4 minutes would ask “Where’s her mommy?” and every time a vaguely female character appeared on-screen “Is that her mommy?”. And then the dad died, off-screen, and the movie just could not be saved. At two, she is confident that parents always come back. She can’t understand that they just don’t exist anymore. But she’s starting to feel a little panicky about it. Cinderella is sad – why don’t they come out from hiding? A two-year old needs stability, needs to believe that her parents will not abandon her. She resisted the idea of the dead parents for the duration of the movie and had no appreciation for anything that came after. Every moment she was obsessed with the return of the missing parents.

There were other little girls (and boys) at the screening, and the older ones (say, 5 and up) seemed to tolerate it well. The live-action still has the mice, and the dress, and the glass slipper, and the fairy god mother all of the elements to dazzle a child. But it dazzled me as well. I was quite pleased that Kenneth Branagh did so faithful an adaptation – yes, mixing in just a tiny bit of Grimm stuff to even out the story, but giving us just a blush of nostalgia (the shot of Gus-Gus nibbling a kernel of corn comes to mind) to evoke our own childhood experience of the film while telling the story we all know and love.

Lily James is quite lovely in the role. She certainly does The Dress proud – takes what was probably a 15 pound dress and makes it look light as air. Cate Blanchett steals every scene she’s in, though. She’s still Cinderella-pretty herself, but she projects coldness like nobody’s business. She shows restraint, never fully abandoning herself into evil, always holding something back, a shred of humanity that leaves us feeling just a tiny bit sad for her. And she may not get to wear The Dress but she is quite well-dressed. Her gowns are sumptuous, the wardrobe department giving her lots of belted ensembles that remind us how much she means business. Even the set came properly dressed; I could practically feel the textures in Cinderella’s home.

Branagh is careful to sprinkle his fairy dust everywhere. The carriage is resplendent in gold. The glass slippers sparkle attractively. Prince Charming’s teeth are perfectly straight. Matt has said that “If you can do Shakespeare, you can do anything” and I don’t doubt it’s true – I just didn’t expect Branagh to give us something so lovingly and painstakingly rendered. My only complaint is that the camera moves around way too much – so much that at times I felt sick. Cinderella is already plum-full of gilt and brocade and magic; it doesn’t need the added artifice from the camera. Just let it be.

Cinderella is rated PG, which means leave the two-year old at home (with a baby sitter, of course), but bring the rest of the brood to squeal in delight. Your kids will love it, and you might just find yourself right there with them.

Frozen Fever

4 Replies

Attending a screening of Disney’s new live-action Cinderella, there was a hum of anticipation, and it wasn’t for the movie.

Preceding the movie is a 7-minute short starring everyone’s favourite princesses, Elsa and Anna. Because Frozen just won’t die. And Disney, profit machine that it is, has no interest in letting it die, or even slightly abate. So they’re feeding the frenzy with this short, and I have to admit, they’ve spared no expense. Though only 7 minutes, it feels like a complete experience, and the quality is not what we’ve come to expect from straight-to-video sequels. Disney’s not messing around this time. All the favourite characters are back, voiced by the original talent, and treated to a new story line. It’s Anna’s birthday, and Elsa is determined to give her one perfect day, to make up for all the ones she’s missed.

There was a two-year old girl sitting beside me, obviously a fan. One of the first things Elsa does upon waking the birthday girl is present her with a new birthday outfit. Even Elsa changes out of her famous blue dress and into a fabulous green, spring-like creation, with all the glam of the last one and very little convenience. No matter. She’s a princess and must dress the part. “Look at the dresses!” screams the little girl beside me, in rapt approval. Elsa’s train seems like a hazard when pedalling a bike built for two, but she’s game, and all catastrophes are cute.

To have her perfect day, Anna gets to follow a red string around her castle and around the town, from one gift to another. The only problem is that Elsa’s now feeling well. She has a cold (a cold never bothered me anyway, she insists). Anna wants to put festivities on hold, but Elsa pushes on, sneezing out tiny little snowmen along the way (note to Disney: this was a big hit with the kids, great device, but I knew that no matter how cute they are, they’re snot. I knew, Disney. I knew.)

The song is catchy and fun. The sisters spend quality time together. Olaf gets plenty of screen time. Disney did a great job, and your kid’s gonna love it. But it’s still snot.