Mother! (3/5 Stars)

The last two movies of writer/director Darren Aronofsky, “Noah” and now “Mother!” Present a point of view that is rarely posited. Believers of God generally think of the deity in an absolutely positive light, whether as fully good or at least fully just. Whereas non-believers don’t have an opinion about God (though they may hold a generally negative of organized religion) because they don’t believe that the deity exists to have an opinion about. Darren Aronofsky, at least in his last two films, believes in God, and finds the deity lacking. For example, in “Noah”, God decides to kill almost everybody on Earth. Some characters in that movie were quite articulate as to the unfairness of it all. If there was a such thing, that movie and this new one would be heretical works.

“Mother!” is an extending and ever-developing metaphor of all the crimes ever committed against Women/Nature. I myself did not quite grasp the overall metaphor until about two thirds of the way through and upon reflection noticed I missed many things early on. Then again, I went into this movie blind. Just reading that its a metaphor will likely help you catch on to the biblical parallels earlier. “Mother!” has received a Cinemascore of F which should give a hint as to what an unpleasant experience this movie can be. However, an unpleasant movie does not necessarily a bad movie. “Mother!” is technically proficient, well-acted, and has more things to say in ten minutes than most movies have in their running time. I cannot say I liked “Mother!”, but when I exited the theater I had a feeling that reminded me of the feeling I had when I exited the theater after watching Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York.” It is an intense proceeding.

The movie takes place entirely in a fixer-upper mansion in a picturesque landscape. Here Jennifer Lawrence, doing her best impression of a Renaissance Madonna, works on renovations while her older husband, played by Javier Bardem, tries to get out of a writing block. Nobody actually has names as who they are and what they represent seem to more or less explicitly change over time.

The movie can be broken into three parts: the first is about the neuroses and concerns of a married couple trying to decide when and if to have a child, the second is about fame and what happens to a couple when one of them starts spreading their love in a not exclusive fashion, the third is quite explicitly about God and Mother Nature. In the background, making things complicated and then throwing the whole world into squalor and chaos are the humans. The movie takes a dim view of the humans, and through this dim of view of the humans, places the ultimate blame for the troubles on God, who made them in his image. The only innocent here is Women/Nature. At least that is what I believe this movie is about. Aronofsky does not feel the need to be explanatory. I think that wound in the floor is Original Sin, but there is no way to know for certain. Javier Bardem it should be noted is quite good as God. Not sure how that sort of thing is pulled off, but he does it.

I can’t recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see a movie with anyone else. You are going to have to see this one alone. It’s not a good time. However, it will make you think. It is quite literally a challenging movie. I for one never considered what Mary, mother of Jesus, may have felt about God giving up his only son through martyrdom for our sins. I mean it’s not like God asked Mary for permission or even her opinion on the matter.

Gravity (5/5 Stars)

Gravity is why I love movies. Wow Wow Wow!

“Gravity,” the much-anticipated next feature of Director Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men, Prisoner of Azkaban, Y Tu Mama Tambien) meets expectations of goodness and powerfully surges past them into the realm of greatness. How great is this movie? I have no idea. And I don’t mean that facetiously. In many areas this movie is beyond the critique of lowly me. After all, how can I judge the technical aspects of a movie when I must admit that I have no idea how the majority of the movie was made? How did they do that? How??? Whatever the next step from Avatar was, this is it. See it in IMAX. See it in 3D. Please see it now while it is still in theaters.

The plot is very simple. Several astronauts are on a space shuttle mission to reservice the Hubble Telescope. On the space walk outside the shuttle are veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and rookie astronaut Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock). Before anything even happens, the movie is a visual marvel. The view of Earth from space is fully realized. The laws of zero gravity and angular momentum are present in such a real way it makes a mockery of almost every other movie that takes place in space. (A great example is how in regular space movies, spaceships always seem to be stationary while in orbit. In “Gravity,” everything conforms to the reality that everything is moving at a blindingly fast rate around the earth.) It is made fully clear how close to death the astronauts are even before the real danger closes in. There is no air to breath around them. The temperature fluctuates from fatally hot to fatally cold. There is no sound. As we are told in a title before the movie, Life in Space is impossible.

Then disaster does strike. And how. As they are fixing the telescope, the astronauts are informed that a Russians have shot down one of their satellites in an exercise not meant to have any effect on the American mission. Unfortunately the debris from the first explosion hits a different satellite and causes a chain reaction that sends shrapnel towards the Americans. Much worse than that is the fact that the shrapnel is going much faster than the American shuttle or the International Space Station or Chinese Space Station. What this means since nothing in space ever slows down is that after hitting the astronauts a first time, the shrapnel will be back again in 90 minutes having gone all the way around the world and back.

The shrapnel hits the American space shuttle and the Hubble telescopic causing catastrophic damage. You may have seen all the science fiction movies ever made but you have never seen anything like this. Director Alfonso Cuaron continues his career long quest to take advantage of the suspense of real time. What that means is that he likes using long takes. Very long takes. Like the entire shrapnel attack is shown in one continuous shot. I haven’t the slightest idea how this was done. All I know is that someone somewhere was doing some serious physics work in a back room somewhere because everything happens with no movie magic cheating whatsoever. The result is absolutely terrifically horrific.

A long shot needs to be used correctly for the very reason that they are so impressive. Since they require much coordination they draw attention to themselves. Because of this, there needs to be a storytelling reason to use them lest the film literate believe its presence has more to do with the indulgent whims of an egotistical director going ‘look what I can do!’ Here, however, because they are used so frequently and in such a situation where obviously almost everything in the screen is not real (it looks very real but we must know they did not shoot this in space) any obviously indulgent exercises are impossible to find. I could not tell how they did these shots or even when they began or when they ended, so instead I focused on the story, which is what a long shot in the hands of a masterful director should do. In that way the directing truly complemented the movie in the best possible way. I would be absolutely gob-smacked if someone other than Alfonso Cuaron won the Oscar for Best Directing this year. And whatever category is responsible for everything else (Cinematography or Visual Effects or Production Design?) should be locks as well.

It what is a one-man show for most of the movie is Sandra Bullock, who finds herself in the best role of already impressive career. As an incredibly human counterpoint to the absurdly calm-under-immense-pressure presence of George Clooney (an actually realistic portrayal of a veteran astronaut, the astrophysicist Neil Degrasse-Tyson assures us), she provides the audience with the much relatable panic of someone thrown out into the vastness of space all alone. To make matters worse, she is thrown out into space going head over heels in a spin and, of course, as this is space and this movie has done it’s homework, the whole spinning head over heels never stops. Holy Cow. The rest of the movie deals with Dr. Ryan Stone trying to get her shit together under the enormous pressure of imminent death. At the core of the movie is an incredibly human theme of what it means to not quit on life in the worst of circumstances. I’m not giving any more of the plot away suffice to say you may find yourself unconsciously gripping the chairs of the theater seats as if your life depended on it.

Really all that is missing from this movie is a scene at the end where Stone shows up at mission control and everyone applauds. That is the only thing I felt this movie needed by the end: Thunderous applause. 

Pain and Gain (4/5 Stars)

You may think you have seen this movie from director Michael Bay before. You may have taken a look at the trailer, noticed the macho men, the strippers, and the conspicuous consumption of fast cars, big houses, flashy clothes. You’ve seen it before glorified and sensationalized in other Bay movies like the “Bad Boys” franchise, “Armageddon,” and the “Transformers” franchise. And yes “Pain and Gain” has all of that but there is a fundamental difference here. “Pain and Gain” does not glorify any of that. Instead it has contempt for the arrogance, greed, and stupidity that all of the above. It’s like Michael Bay grew a conscience about the types of movies he was making or something. There is morality in this picture. This movie, like his previous, is still heavily tasteless of course. It contains gratuitous violence, heavy substance abuse, and a cast largely made up of beefcakes and supermodels, sure, but it is not an amoral movie. The message is clear: The characters being portrayed here are, to borrow a direct quote from the movie, really “fucking dumb,” and the movie quite successfully makes much humor out of their stupidity. That is of course before they get so stupid that people start dying. Then the laughs kind of peter out and one watches the movie in what must be described as a state of awe.

This is a true story. The screenplay was based off of a series of Pete Collins’s news articles in the Miami New Times. Now what does that matter? For anyone who has seen Michael Bay’s “Pearl Harbor” we all know he would gladly and immediately sacrifice the truth if it means he could use more explosions.

(One of my favorite movie critic anecdotes belongs to a man who took it upon himself to listen and rank every single audio commentary in the Criterion Collection. Apparently the best one ever consists of the science advisors from the inexplicable inclusion of Michael Bay’s “Armageddon” sharing anecdotes about how they kept on telling Michael Bay that none of what was on the screen was good science or remotely possible and Michael Bay ignoring their advice in favor of more explosions.)

And it is true that Michael Bay still does not care about the truth. I had the pleasure of looking up the news articles and finding out that about half of what is on screen never happened. But here is the best part: The story is so wacky and bizarre that I bet you would not be able to tell just by watching the movie which parts were made up. You may as well flip a coin for true or false on every unbelievable thing you see. That is after all the reason the real police (as they do in the movie) did not believe the story and refused to investigate even in the face of an incredible amount of evidence left over by really dumb criminals. Imagine my shock when I learned that Michael Bay did not add any explosions. That one explosion happened. It did.

Mark Wahlberg stars as Daniel Lugo, the manager of Sun Gym. He is the type of guy who believes big muscles and the right attitude as opposed to say an education or honest work is the key to success in America. He attends get-rich-quick seminars from a Tony Robbins-like personality named Johnny Wu, played by Ken Jeong. Johnny believes in the American Dream and it isn’t the old 1950s consumerist fantasy of a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence, two cadillacs, a wife, and a couple kids. His American Dream is a mansion bigger than your neighbors, a flashy speedboat in addition to a flashy car, and the ability to pick up the most expensive golddiggers at the most expensive strip club. “I had a wife and kids,” says Johnny, “then I stopped being a loser. Now I have seven honies to pick from.” And Johnny points to seven supermodels in the front row. Daniel Lugo nods his head and thinks, “Man, this guy totally gets me.” To my great delight he also references the Al Pacino character in 1983’s Scarface as one of his role models. Like I’ve said before, no other statement in a movie or in real life will so easily certify a person as a Grade-A moron. What is Johnny Woo’s golden advice: “Do be a doer. Don’t be a don’ter.” This mantra will be repeated throughout the movie to justify kidnapping a millionaire, torturing him in a warehouse for several weeks, forcing him to sign over all his assets, and then attempting to murder him. And then doing it again to an unluckier soul once the original money is all gone.

Nobody has played dim more successfully in more good movies than Mark Wahlberg has (Boogie Nights, The Other Guys, Ted) and I’m trying to phrase that in a way that sounds like a compliment to his acting ability. After all playing stupid convincingly requires the intelligence to know why what you are doing is stupid and the humility required with the knowledge you are doing is something stupid. Tack on that the many scenes where Wahlberg is either shirtless or in a kiss the cook apron and I think you can say this is a pretty brave performance. The role of Daniel Lugo could have very easily taken a dark turn and in doing so sacrificed much of the humor in this picture. For instance at one point Daniel Lugo decides it is a good idea to take back a malfunctioning chainsaw to Home Depot for a refund. The chainsaw is malfunctioning because human hair has gotten stuck in the chain. Only halfway through the conversation with the return desk cashier does Lugo realize it might not have been a good idea to return a chainsaw with human hair and blood on it. The scene is macabre but Wahlberg’s performance never allows Lugo to be a more frightening presence than he is a laughable one.

Of course stealing scenes left and right is Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson in what is perhaps the first and only decent role he has landed in his entire movie career. He plays the third and most innocent wheel of the Sun Gym Gang: a body builder of enormous size and recently sober and born again Christian. He is roped into helping Lugo and his partner Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) because he really needs the money and is dumb enough to believe Lugo when he promises there will no be violence in the operation. The man is a huge contradiction but then again so is Dwayne Johnson, which is at least my theory as to why he has never had a good movie role before. The man is incredibly hard to write for. Because he is such a huge guy, you would think that he would be perfect for action blockbusters. The problem is that he does not have a tough looking face. In fact, it can be described as angelic, which would explain why he has done a lot of children’s movies. So the perfect role for this guy would seem to be a really shy body-builder. And guess what? Pain and Gain is one of those rare movies that contain such a non-cliché character. Dwayne Johnson plays his character with as much humility as Mark Wahlberg. In fact, I would say the action sequences are better characterized as physical comedy routines, especially when Johnson tries to rob an armored car and the bank bag explodes green slime in his face in the midst of a crowded beauty salon. That was funny.

This is Michael Bay’s best movie. It is not totally without flaw however. You may at several points think to yourself, say isn’t this movie running a bit long. Such is always the problem with Michael Bay. He generally does not understand that simply because he can do something with a camera, that it does not mean he should. Each shot taken as itself looks good but there are too many superfluous scenes that taken in whole extend the movie at least a half hour past where it should end. I am still of the belief that one of the best things Michael Bay has done was achieved when he still made commercials. He is after the creator of the first “Got Milk” commercial; a true achievement in how much information can be conveyed in a one-minute time frame. The important thing about this movie though is that Michael Bay limited himself to 25 million dollars and almost no special effects. As such, the movie is far more interesting to watch than the epics of catastrophic proportions known as all his other movies. I swear the more limitations put on the man, the better his movies will be. When he gets several hundred million to make his movie and creative control as well they turn into three hour long gargantuan messes. Pain and Gain succeeds where his other movies fail more because of what he is not doing (focusing on robots and special effects) than what he is doing (characters and story). I hope he makes more small movies in the future.

It is at a time like this when the death of Roger Ebert comes into full focus. Ebert never wrote better reviews than when they were aimed at a Michael Bay feature. I would have loved to read his review of this movie. Perhaps we can imagine his surprise when he found out he did not completely hate it. 

Gone Baby Gone 10/21/07

Gone Baby Gone delivers on all sorts of levels. Not only is it a crime drama with a complex plot filled with twists and turns, it is also a morality play that asks many questions of the audience. This one will certainly have people asking each other after the credits: Well, what would you have done? Who was right, and who was wrong? This story, unlike many others, requests a thinking audience and although it may not be a classic it is done so well that it deserves the very high tomato meter it got. 
What? what did that credit say? The director is Ben Affleck? no kidding, really? Send a message to Matt Damon, Ben Affleck is starting to catch up. This movie, more than anything, resurrects his career. He has now gained back the credibility he lost (unfairly) during his Bennifer days. And Matt Damon hasn't directed anything yet. This game has suddenly become more interesting. 
The Affleck brothers together seem to have cinematically matured. Casey Affleck has always been a favorite actor of mine. Something about the guy is truly original. I think it's his voice. It comes out as a squeak and when he speaks slowly it sounds like pained and hurt. It is a testament to him that he can hold the stage in this film with great older actors like Ed Harris, and Morgan Freeman. I doubt he'll ever be a major star but I hope to see him headline just a few more movies. 
Overall the movie is incredibly solid and definitely worth a watch. I loved certain things about how the movie was put together. Like the fakeout ending half way through. and the way the movie was edited in the perp's house, how it never became exploitive and was always careful and courteous with the tremendously fragile subject matter.
This movie was adapted by a novel from the same guy who wrote Mystic River. There are concurrent themes in both of those movies, but I think I would rank 'Gone Baby Gone' over 'Mystic River.' In my opinion its a more challenging and believable film.

A History of Violence 10/01/05

I have never seen such graphic violence in a movie. Maybe in a horror or a war movie, but certainly not in a movie that plays so much like a drama. And it's not just that a man gets shot in the head, we see little parts flying in so many directions and then don't forget the close up of the accumulating pool of blood. What makes it more disturbing is the juxtaposition of it with a small peaceful little town. It's all very real. And I suppose it's well done (Good acting, good directing yada yada) but I started wondering where does this all lead too. Viggo Mortensen kills a few people and then kills a few more and then the body count starts getting really high. Pretty soon everyone in the movie is dead. I got a picture in my head of the writers in a room asking each other "What now, we've killed everyone." What now? What now? What now nothing. The movies over. When I saw the final blackout I thought the projector in the back was broken. I was expecting at least a half hour more of the movie. But it was over. I haven't seen so many people die since Shakespeare's Hamlet, and I was wondering what's next. But nothing. 
I suppose it should be a good thing when the people leave the theater wanting more, but I don't know. I was wondering if the entire point of the movie was a certain quest for survival. The quest ending when all the characters were dead. I read Roger Ebert's review and he said in so many words that it was about Darwinian survival of the fittest. I suppose that fits. If you want to see a fit man survive, there you go.