Love After Love is one of those movies that promises a lot, but never quite manages to deliver, despite a couple of nice performances by Chris O’Dowd (Loving Vincent) and Andie MacDowell (Magic Mike XXL). It starts off intriguingly enough, skipping through slices of life to expose the very real, drawn-out decline and loss of a loved one. Each splinter of time provides glimpses that build to a story.
But ultimately, director and co-writer Russell Harbaugh got lost in his conceit and allowed it all to fall apart at the end. For his first major film, it was an interesting attempt and shows some promise. One of the biggest issues was his choice to not edit out a stand-up sequence that torpedoes his entire focus for the film in exchange for the minimal exposure of one of the side characters. Which isn’t to say there aren’t good performances. Two of the nicer, smaller performances were by Romy Byrne (Flower) and Francesca Faridany (Black Panther) who stood out nicely.
Generally, there are much better films out there on death, loss, life, and love. Nostalgia comes to mind immediately, or even A Ghost Story, both of which employ small slices of life to build up complex tales and commentary. This entry to the field is rather missable.
The film is filled with overly long, meaningless shots. Bad motivations. Odd plotting, and really bad costumes and hair for Kirke. Seriously, she should have screamed at them for what they did to her because it ultimately had no purpose.
This is not writer/director Aaron Katz’s first or even his fourth film, which makes it all the more disappointing. What he delivered is something like a large-budget university film. I can’t even say it has strong women at its center. It isn’t that there isn’t some good stuff in there, some hints of talent, but it buried in bad pacing and plot problems.
Generally, you can miss this one unless you’ve a jonesing for one of the actors.
Four years ago, writer/director Takashi Shimizu (Ju-on, The Grudge) decided to tackle a horror tale in the air. I was intrigued, but it would be years before it would make it to any screen due to delayed releases, cancelled distribution, and other issues I’ve yet to discover (though the loss of Malaysia Flight 370 probably didn’t help his timing). The truth is that this is only a middling movie with a kinda fun idea crammed into less than 90 minutes. Its plot is a bit confused and its decisions more than a little silly and forced at times, enough to beggar credibility.
The structure of this story is familiar to any viewing audiences since Airport. To be fair, even Agatha Christie used the trope of setting up a bunch of interesting characters into a confined space (usually a remote house) and then letting events unwind. That said, Shimizu manages to create a certain amount of sympathy and tension with the story lines he takes time to set up before it all starts to go wrong.
Heading the cast are some recognizable faces (more so four years ago, admittedly). In particular are Leslie Bibb (Iron Man 2), Ryan Kwanten (True Blood), and Jamie Chung (Rudderless) who all get some nice moments, though far from fully fledged stories. You’ll spot other faces as well, but as much as this is an ensemble, the stories just aren’t rich enough to grab you.
If you were hoping for something as nightmare worthy as Ju-on, or its English remake in The Grudge, you can forget it. This just isn’t of the same caliber or imagination. I don’t know if that is because it was too Westernized in its approach or simply just a bit of a dud, which all filmmakers have eventually. It isn’t an unwatchable flick with a bowl of popcorn, but I’d put it way down your list for a day when you can’t find anything else.
I consider myself to have a fairly wide range of likes from the cerebral to the purest popcorn. However, I couldn’t even finish watching this movie. By 15 minutes in I had to turn it off. And I did that on an evening I was looking for something silly and escapist.
I will say that the mixed CG/reality was rather well done. And the script was actually willing to hold onto some of the darker aspects of the original tale. But there was something about how director Will Gluck (Easy A) paced and set the tone of the story that just didn’t work for me. Honestly, unless you’re somewhere between the ages of 5 and 8, I’m pretty sure it won’t really work for you either. Even Early Man, for all its faults and lack of an adult hook, was more watchable.
Abandon hope all ye who saw Jumanji. Not even The Rock could save this weak offering with his charisma and humor. I’d say it was on par with Geostorm, expect that weak bit of sci-fi had more believable villains. I really had a secret hope this latest Dwayne Johnson entertainer would surprise me. Well, it didn’t, other than at how ham-handed and bad the script and direction was. Johnson certainly gave it his standard all, but that wasn’t enough to overcome the writing.
Likewise, Naomie Harris (Moonlight) did her level best opposite Johnson, even though they barely made her credible as a person and as a scientist. There were other familiar faces that struggled along in the same way. Perhaps the least harmed was Joe Manganiello (Magic Mike XXL), whose scarred mercenary was never anything but over the top. Then there was Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Extant), whose cowboy caricature just got tiresome, even with him modifying it at times. Again, a game effort, but not fully successful.
But for our good guys to truly triumph, you need credible and engaging villains. Sadly, Malin Akerman (I’ll See You in My Dreams) and Jake Lacy (Miss Sloane) as sister and brother baddies were about as cardboard as they come. Stupid criminals that never would have survived as long as these two supposedly had (especially Lacy’s character).
There is basis of a fun story here, despite being adapted from a video game. And there are moments (some massively obvious or telegraphed) and some good one-liners, but there are no real characters and just horrible plot construction. Director Brad Peyton (San Andreas) just went a bit too broad to make this work. The result is too intense for the young audience level it was aimed at but not believable enough for the people showing up. It isn’t even a non-stop action ride which might have helped cover for the bad plotting; it certainly has for many other films by The Rock.
Some movies are inscrutable, but at least this one is long and subtitled to boot. And I do mean long for this kind of movie; it clocks in at 150 minutes.
At best, The Square is a series of vignettes about man’s inhumanity and the definition and business of art, held together loosely by a single event. But that’s being somewhat generous. I think Ruben Östlund had aspirations of updating The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover; assailing the limits of our willingness to intervene and help one another, and the taboos that sit at those boundaries. Frankly, he failed, giving us some nuggets of thought, but never grabbing us or pulling it all into a single, clarifying instant. The movie simply peters out, unresolved and unsatisfying. I guess Östlund would ask, did that make it art? His previous Force Majeure much more successfully ranged across humanity while focusing very specifically on individuals.
It isn’t that there aren’t some interesting questions in the film. And the peek behind the scenes of museum purchasing and marketing is interesting and disturbing, to be sure. But that isn’t enough to to make a movie. And if he wanted to turn the movie into a virtual square itself (which I do think he intended), Östlund should have begun and ended the film in 4:3 aspect rather than 16:9 to make the point.
The story is dominated by Claes Bang (The Bridge) whose awakening to the world around him is full of unrealized potential. He is clearly a well-to-do man in a position of power, and full of self-importance. Watching that surface erode, first with humor and, eventually with some humility, is intriguing. But we never connect with him in a way that makes us care. It is halfway through the tale before we even know he has kids; which is part of the point, I’m sure, but it just doesn’t work.
At the periphery of the story are Elisabeth Moss (Top of the Lake: China Girl) and Dominic West (Money Monster) who each bring a little of the outside world to Bang. They aren’t brilliant performances, but they’re probably the only faces you’ll recognize in the film.
One interesting, recurring bit part is played by Terry Notary. What makes it interesting is that he has stepped to our side of the motion capture suit to appear as human rather than as creature, as he has in Kong, Planet of the Apes, The Hobbit, etc. His casting is surely meant as another intended commentary on art, but you’d have to know who he is to even trip over the point.
Ultimately, this is a heck of a lot of time to spend in a world that is neither compelling nor fully realized. I can only think that the awards it won was due to people being duped into it being art, much like some of the odder installations in the movie itself (which isn’t to say those examples couldn’t be art, but even the story chips away at the core of that idea).
Personally, my though is that you could take the time you’d spend on this movie and see two other films that are much better…and you should.
Tulip Fever, much like the mercurial bloom’s marketplace namesake, is beautifully filmed, but ultimately not particularly satisfying on any level. The story here is purportedly one of romance, but it is as much about feminism, class, politics, greed, and a reflection of modern times. Unfortunately, all of that is easy to see, but not really felt in the final cut.
The story revolves around two couples and one man. Alicia Vikander (Jason Bourne) and Dane DeHaan (A Cure for Wellness) are the focus of the story, providing the main thread to pull us through. But the story is being told by Holliday Grainger (Strike), who’s relationship with Jack O’Connell (Money Monster) is affected as well. Both couples do what they can, though neither are particularly magnetic nor gripping in their passions emotionally, despite some nice on-screen physical examples. Frankly, when all is said and done, it is the path that Christoph Waltz (Downsizing) walks that is the most interesting. It is his most sympathetic and compelling role in a while. He is subtle and tormented in fascinating ways, and he manages to support the film from the background rather than trying to dominate it with a crazy portrayal.
There are also several notable supporting roles and characters. Tom Hollander (The Night Manager) and Judi Dench (Miss Peregrine’s School for Peculiar Children) are the most amusing and believable, but Matthew Morrison (Glee) and Zach Galifianakis (Lego Batman Movie) add their own value too. Galifianakis is hurt more by the script than his performance in this (but I’ll get to that). Finally, in a bit part that sort of goes nowhere is Cara Delevingne (Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets). The only reason to call her out is that she was paired with DeHaan in her next film; the performance here is fine, and I give her credit for making of it what she could.
So with all this talent, why did it fail? Despite being co-written by the great Tom Stoppard (Anna Karenina), the script is the real problem for this story. It depends entirely on two incredibly stupid choices by characters. It isn’t that the choices aren’t set up, but they are both avoidable and, in one case, purely ridiculous that no one stops it from happening. No amount of commitment or clever aspect of plot nor unexpected endings can overcome those points for me because they undercut the credibility of the story as a whole. Using the conceits of farce amid the romance just deflated the whole for me. And, while these items are also used in classic tragedy, they need to be credible to work. In this case they were blindingly avoidable.
There is some interesting history and reflection to absorb with this film. And Chadwick directed it reasonably well. But only make time for this if you must see the actors or have some deep interest in Holland in the 1620s, though historically you are likely to feel short-shrifted.
This isn’t an entire waste of a film, but in the #MeToo era it rings a bit oddly and, frankly, doesn’t manage a satisfying journey even absent that cultural phenomenon. I will say that David Harrower did manage to adapt his own play successfully to a movie script, but Benedict Andrews’s direction of the result never quite leaves his National Theatre roots behind.
The experience is basically a two-person play with a few extra characters thrown in, despite the number of locations and situations that are used. Rooney Mara (A Ghost Story) does believably create the results and shattered confusion of a young victim grown up. It isn’t a break-through performance, but builds on her odd energy and presence to help us feel her damage. Opposite her, Ben Mendelsohn (Lost River) gives us a tortured, denying predator. There is also a nice turn by Riz Ahmed (Nightcrawler, The OA) who helps pull some of the threads together.
The struggle with the film in this hyper-aware atmosphere is that it dances between something a bit too close to Lolita and a bit too far from something like The Club or Mysterious Skin or any number of other titles. A couple of years ago, this may have been seen as intriguing or challenging, but today it is politically deaf, even with the best interpretation of the ending. It isn’t that the story doesn’t have points to make, it is that it plays heavily in the gray area of the subject at a time when only black & white are going to resonate. So, if you do want to give it your time, watch with care and awareness that it may be a tad out of step with your expectations.
While this flick starts off with an interesting premise, it quickly slides into vague mediocrity. It is a shame since the cast is really pretty solid. Ansel Elgort (Baby Driver) and Chloë Grace Moretz (The Equalizer) work well together, and David Strathairn (The Darkest Hour) and Catherine Keener (Get Out), as their respective parents, deliver too. Even the ideas, as it heads down a Vanishing sort of path, is full of possibilities.
However, the adaptation from director and co-writer Sacha Gervasi (Hitchcock) is overly compressed. All the interesting stuff that is hinted at bleeds out to the point that even the title is never explained (I had to look it up to figure it out–turns out Elgort’s character in the book loved dark, Nazi-tinged humor; the term refers to those that involved with the Versailles Treaty at the end of WWI which led to the Weimar Replublik and the rise of the jackbooted fiends). Even after learning the roots of the title, I can’t map it to the actions in the movie, which implies strongly that it failed. I imagine the title was kept only to try and draw in the book audience, even though much of the book’s core had been scrubbed out.
The overall movie holds together, in a sort of light way, but there was clearly a lot more there when it started. The locations were a lousy choice as well; trying to pretend Rhode Island is Washington DC was a deadly stretch. In the end, it feels like Gervasi ran out of shooting time and made of it what he could.
As a high school romance, with a bit of life thrown in, I suppose it could be diverting for some. For the rest, I’d say just skip it. All of these actors have better venues to be seen in and you have better ways to spend your time.
Straight up, I am a Darren Aronofsky (Noah) fan and have been since Pi. His narratives are almost always complex and unexpected. Certainly mother! is anything but straightforward. Oddly, though, it isn’t anything new or unexpected either. And it certainly didn’t land with most audiences.
From the outset of the film, you know there is something off. First there is the apparent rollback in time from a disaster. Then there is the odd tension between Jennifer Lawrence (Passengers) and Javier Bardem (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) which just isn’t quite natural. By the time Ed Harris (Geostorm) and Michelle Pfeiffer show up, it is clear this isn’t reality, or isn’t being viewed from clear eyes. Domhnall Gleeson (The Revenant) makes a solid appearance as well to help seal the deal.
If you insist on still seeing the story as reality at any level after that point, it is no wonder that you would hate the film. Honestly, I was willing to go along for the ride, but in a year that included similar themes, like the more recent Phantom Thread, I was looking for something new, not just visually surprising.
Aronofsky has created a very personal vision and tale of his favorite themes: art, love, and religion/spirituality. But ultimately it is about a half hour too long to sustain the story and audience interest. After the first 90 minutes, you want answers, not more outrageous and infuriating situations. I appreciate he wanted to slow burn to the climax, but he asked too much from his audience; he never really fully earns our trust, providing no answers, only mystery and weirdness upon strangeness and offkey oddity. He has always been great skirting the edge of reality, as in Black Swan, to lead to a point. Here, however, the end result here is more the feeling of a surrealist play that is weird for weirdness’ sake alone rather than a cohesive movie. By the way, achieving that play-like presentation and pulling us along inexorably while staying true to the media is no small feat in itself.
I truly admire the craft and acting in the film, even if I disliked the result; it doesn’t feel satisfying in the end. After his last film, I was worried Aronofsky would try to stay more mainstream…I suspect he feared the same and veered way off the track to try and prove he wouldn’t both to audiences and, more importantly, to himself. The result is mother! Now that he’s made his point, I hope he will find his path again. He is a gifted film maker, but this isn’t his best onscreen musing.
Art, writing, life explained… or at least commented upon…