Double Review Spectacular- IT and mother!
Yeah, I know, I'm shocked as well. The guy who hates horror has gone out and reviewed not just one but two horror movies in one week. Obviously, I did it because this is the spookiest time of year; the month before Halloween. Spoopy stuff.
IT is the horror movie of the moment (still) which you have probably already seen but I had other priorities so I'm only just getting around to reviewing it. The story is based on half of a Stephen King book about a small town in America called Derry (it's Stephen King so yeah, Maine) which is being haunted by a demonic figure who appears only to kids and mostly as a demonic clown. After the disappearance of one kid's brother (spoiler alert, the clown bit his arm off and it was sick), he decides to search for his brother and maybe get to the bottom of what is causing the string of disappearances with his friends, hanging out and riding bikes all Summer. I haven't read IT and so while I know about some missing plot points (child gangbang for example) I can't compare it to the novel. What I can say is that the story never gets too predictable and while a little long for my liking, it was nice seeing it all play out.
For a film full of child performers, I should hate talking about the acting but actually, they're all pretty damn good. In general, they started to annoy me at first because they all sounded a little too smart ass, a little too annoying. After about half an hour though, I was fully on board with them. Main kid Bill is played by Jaeden Lieberher who I loved in Midnight Special and while not being as good as in that film (because seriously, go watch Midnight Special, he's great), he works well as the leader of the Losers Club. Finn Wolfhard from Stranger Things is in the film as well and as the wisecracking sidekick character, he is almost too much. Too much sometimes but just almost other times (with one AIDS joke hitting admittedly hitting the perfect note). The other Losers Club members are great but none especially standout which means I can get to the best performance of the film and the one that everyone is talking about; Bil Skarsgard as Pennywise. They use CG to emphasise him a little much by making the camera shake or lose focus but without that, his performance would have come across much better. He's the reason why the early sewer scene is my favourite in the movie. He just sits there, smiles, doesn't blink and talks in his really creepy way and he is great. His return for the second film is one of the things that makes me excited about it.
The problem for this film is the horror elements and that is especially an issue when you're a horror movie. I know I'm not a horror fan so feel free to take my comments with a pinch of salt but I have watched some good horror films and I know what I like in them, what works, what actually creates horror. The answer? Not jumpscares. The film is full of them and while there are brief moments of tension that build to the jumpscare, there's no joy in that payoff. One particular moment near the end just had a child turn around and Pennywise appeared there, out of nowhere. Credit where credit is due, the imagery of the film is great and Pennywise is a creepy antagonist but your film needs more than that to scare. The worst part is that once you realise that Pennywise isn't actually killing any of the main characters, even when he has the perfect opportunity, the fear starts to dwindle. I understand that Pennywise is a creature who feeds on fear so scaring the children is fine but when he does it for two and a half hours with few attempts at actual killing, the tension dissipates. It's why the best moments of the film are those that are simple and don't require extravagant effects or jumpscares. Scenes like Bev's confrontation of her worst fear and the opening scene with Georgie. That scene in particular works because of the Hitchcockian dread building; we know something bad is going to happen, we just don't know when. When it does happen though, the payoff is immensely satisfying and twisted in a way that most of the film wishes it was.
It sounds like I've been quite harsh on the film here and that's not because I hate IT, I just wanted something better. The "kids on bikes" type of scenes are great and feel like a different movie to the scary clown stuff, leaving me feel like I'd rather have just had one tone perfected. Most people are probably going to really enjoy this movie and I can't tell you that you won't. It just lacked some genuine scares to go along with what is admittedly a story with great heart. That's why I'm giving this film a
Okay so I wasn't the biggest fan of IT but maybe mother! can give me the horror kick I was left waiting for. That is, unless Daren Aronofsky subverts the norm with an insane and unpredictable film that can't really be defined as anything.
mother! is a film that works better if you have no idea what the plot is so if you haven't seen the film, skip this paragraph. It won't really go into detail but you want as few details as possible to really get the... Well, the mother! experience. The brief summary is that Jennifer Lawrence's character wakes up alone in her house, a house she is trying to rebuild with her poet husband (Javier Bardem). One day, a mysterious stranger turns up (Ed Harris) who Bardem lets stay with them for the night. Not too much of an issue except then his wife (Michelle Pffiefer) turns up as well, soon followed by their two sons and a whole horde of others. It's a deliberately oblique plot, not so much hiding things from you as it does shows you puzzles that once solved will reveal the true nature of the film. In true Aronofsky fashion though, it is a quiet film that builds into a 30 minute explosion that has to be seen to be believed and then pondered on for weeks to come close to understanding.
However much this film has split critics, one aspect that is deservedly getting pretty universal praise is the performances. Due to the crowded nature of the last act, there's a lot of people in this movie that you might not know are in the film so I'll just talk about the ones I've mentioned above to avoid as many spoilers as possible. Ed Harris doesn't get a huge amount to do in the film but with the time he does have, he plants this silent menace in the film that flourishes into a Venus flytrap of chaos. Michelle Pffiefer is also limited in her screen time but has this threatening sexuality that plays in wonderful contrast to Lawrence's meek performance. Getting to the two central characters, I really have nothing but praise for Javier Bardem. His role evolves consistently throughout the film and it says a lot about his ability as an actor that I could only see the character, not the actor. Of course, the real star here is Lawrence and quite simply, this is her best role I have ever seen. It's not showy, it's not flashy, it's very small for a very long time. You could argue that part of it is the Kuleshov effect (google it) and that Lawrence isn't actually doing much acting but when it comes to the more intense scenes, she goes all for it and the power she carries is incredibly admirable. Other secret actors do a great job but I don't want to spoil the film there.
I suppose what I'm going to do with this final paragraph is talk about the film metaphorically because that's what it is, it's a big metaphor of a movie. This part of the review is where I'm going into full blown spoilers so jump out now if you still want to see the film. Since the release of the film, Aronofsky has come out and said that the film is a metaphor for mother earth, climate change and how we treat the world. The thing is, this isn't a film that offers itself to a single, correct interpretation and so while Aronofsky's biblical illusions are clear and deliberate, the film could be just about them instead of that being part of the examination of mother earth. Personally, I see the film as a discussion about the reception of art in a way that may not be as self aware as I'm giving it credit for. Javier Bardem is a poet with writers block who is praised for his earlier work. People keep asking him when his next work is coming out but he doesn't know what he's doing. Suddenly, he makes his next work and it's praised, people love it, they flock from miles around to see it. Except then it gets ugly and people form cults around his work, they pester him for answers about what it all means and will tear up any little scrap he gives them, whether that's information or a baby. Due to how much pretentious this interpretation would make Aronofsky look, I don't think that's what he was going for but hey, art is subjective, who says we can't have some fun with it?
If you're still not sure whether you want to see mother!, I'd say wait for the DVD release because you might hate it and probably don't want to waste too much money on it. If you're interested though, I am always going to recommend seeing an original movie and personally, I think it's incredible. mother! is unlike any film I have seen this year, maybe ever, and its claws are still stuck in me. With the acknowledgement that this rating isn't how many people will feel, I give mother! a
IT is the horror movie of the moment (still) which you have probably already seen but I had other priorities so I'm only just getting around to reviewing it. The story is based on half of a Stephen King book about a small town in America called Derry (it's Stephen King so yeah, Maine) which is being haunted by a demonic figure who appears only to kids and mostly as a demonic clown. After the disappearance of one kid's brother (spoiler alert, the clown bit his arm off and it was sick), he decides to search for his brother and maybe get to the bottom of what is causing the string of disappearances with his friends, hanging out and riding bikes all Summer. I haven't read IT and so while I know about some missing plot points (child gangbang for example) I can't compare it to the novel. What I can say is that the story never gets too predictable and while a little long for my liking, it was nice seeing it all play out.
For a film full of child performers, I should hate talking about the acting but actually, they're all pretty damn good. In general, they started to annoy me at first because they all sounded a little too smart ass, a little too annoying. After about half an hour though, I was fully on board with them. Main kid Bill is played by Jaeden Lieberher who I loved in Midnight Special and while not being as good as in that film (because seriously, go watch Midnight Special, he's great), he works well as the leader of the Losers Club. Finn Wolfhard from Stranger Things is in the film as well and as the wisecracking sidekick character, he is almost too much. Too much sometimes but just almost other times (with one AIDS joke hitting admittedly hitting the perfect note). The other Losers Club members are great but none especially standout which means I can get to the best performance of the film and the one that everyone is talking about; Bil Skarsgard as Pennywise. They use CG to emphasise him a little much by making the camera shake or lose focus but without that, his performance would have come across much better. He's the reason why the early sewer scene is my favourite in the movie. He just sits there, smiles, doesn't blink and talks in his really creepy way and he is great. His return for the second film is one of the things that makes me excited about it.
The problem for this film is the horror elements and that is especially an issue when you're a horror movie. I know I'm not a horror fan so feel free to take my comments with a pinch of salt but I have watched some good horror films and I know what I like in them, what works, what actually creates horror. The answer? Not jumpscares. The film is full of them and while there are brief moments of tension that build to the jumpscare, there's no joy in that payoff. One particular moment near the end just had a child turn around and Pennywise appeared there, out of nowhere. Credit where credit is due, the imagery of the film is great and Pennywise is a creepy antagonist but your film needs more than that to scare. The worst part is that once you realise that Pennywise isn't actually killing any of the main characters, even when he has the perfect opportunity, the fear starts to dwindle. I understand that Pennywise is a creature who feeds on fear so scaring the children is fine but when he does it for two and a half hours with few attempts at actual killing, the tension dissipates. It's why the best moments of the film are those that are simple and don't require extravagant effects or jumpscares. Scenes like Bev's confrontation of her worst fear and the opening scene with Georgie. That scene in particular works because of the Hitchcockian dread building; we know something bad is going to happen, we just don't know when. When it does happen though, the payoff is immensely satisfying and twisted in a way that most of the film wishes it was.
It sounds like I've been quite harsh on the film here and that's not because I hate IT, I just wanted something better. The "kids on bikes" type of scenes are great and feel like a different movie to the scary clown stuff, leaving me feel like I'd rather have just had one tone perfected. Most people are probably going to really enjoy this movie and I can't tell you that you won't. It just lacked some genuine scares to go along with what is admittedly a story with great heart. That's why I'm giving this film a
Okay so I wasn't the biggest fan of IT but maybe mother! can give me the horror kick I was left waiting for. That is, unless Daren Aronofsky subverts the norm with an insane and unpredictable film that can't really be defined as anything.
mother! is a film that works better if you have no idea what the plot is so if you haven't seen the film, skip this paragraph. It won't really go into detail but you want as few details as possible to really get the... Well, the mother! experience. The brief summary is that Jennifer Lawrence's character wakes up alone in her house, a house she is trying to rebuild with her poet husband (Javier Bardem). One day, a mysterious stranger turns up (Ed Harris) who Bardem lets stay with them for the night. Not too much of an issue except then his wife (Michelle Pffiefer) turns up as well, soon followed by their two sons and a whole horde of others. It's a deliberately oblique plot, not so much hiding things from you as it does shows you puzzles that once solved will reveal the true nature of the film. In true Aronofsky fashion though, it is a quiet film that builds into a 30 minute explosion that has to be seen to be believed and then pondered on for weeks to come close to understanding.
However much this film has split critics, one aspect that is deservedly getting pretty universal praise is the performances. Due to the crowded nature of the last act, there's a lot of people in this movie that you might not know are in the film so I'll just talk about the ones I've mentioned above to avoid as many spoilers as possible. Ed Harris doesn't get a huge amount to do in the film but with the time he does have, he plants this silent menace in the film that flourishes into a Venus flytrap of chaos. Michelle Pffiefer is also limited in her screen time but has this threatening sexuality that plays in wonderful contrast to Lawrence's meek performance. Getting to the two central characters, I really have nothing but praise for Javier Bardem. His role evolves consistently throughout the film and it says a lot about his ability as an actor that I could only see the character, not the actor. Of course, the real star here is Lawrence and quite simply, this is her best role I have ever seen. It's not showy, it's not flashy, it's very small for a very long time. You could argue that part of it is the Kuleshov effect (google it) and that Lawrence isn't actually doing much acting but when it comes to the more intense scenes, she goes all for it and the power she carries is incredibly admirable. Other secret actors do a great job but I don't want to spoil the film there.
I suppose what I'm going to do with this final paragraph is talk about the film metaphorically because that's what it is, it's a big metaphor of a movie. This part of the review is where I'm going into full blown spoilers so jump out now if you still want to see the film. Since the release of the film, Aronofsky has come out and said that the film is a metaphor for mother earth, climate change and how we treat the world. The thing is, this isn't a film that offers itself to a single, correct interpretation and so while Aronofsky's biblical illusions are clear and deliberate, the film could be just about them instead of that being part of the examination of mother earth. Personally, I see the film as a discussion about the reception of art in a way that may not be as self aware as I'm giving it credit for. Javier Bardem is a poet with writers block who is praised for his earlier work. People keep asking him when his next work is coming out but he doesn't know what he's doing. Suddenly, he makes his next work and it's praised, people love it, they flock from miles around to see it. Except then it gets ugly and people form cults around his work, they pester him for answers about what it all means and will tear up any little scrap he gives them, whether that's information or a baby. Due to how much pretentious this interpretation would make Aronofsky look, I don't think that's what he was going for but hey, art is subjective, who says we can't have some fun with it?
If you're still not sure whether you want to see mother!, I'd say wait for the DVD release because you might hate it and probably don't want to waste too much money on it. If you're interested though, I am always going to recommend seeing an original movie and personally, I think it's incredible. mother! is unlike any film I have seen this year, maybe ever, and its claws are still stuck in me. With the acknowledgement that this rating isn't how many people will feel, I give mother! a
Comments
Post a Comment