The Killing of a Sacred Deer, 2017

Directed by: Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring: Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, Barry Keoghan

IMDb

The Killing of a Sacred Deer is a tough watch, but I for one really liked it.

Much like Yorgos Lathimos’ most recent film ‘The Lobster’, the film takes place in a slight dystopia where everyone talks and acts in an emotionally muted and hyper-literal fashion. The rules of our society do not apply and it leaves you with a very unsettling feeling.

The setup for the setting pretty well encapsulates the films intended effect: extremely unsettling and non-conforming to the rules. The rules of standard hollywood story structure, that is.
It’s an extremely well made film, and Colin Farrell gave an excellent performance, but it’s not necessarily meant to be enjoyed by all. I liked it, but to you guys I say: go see it if you don’t mind being weirded the fuck out.

If you liked Mother! you may dig it. If you liked The Lobster, you’ll almost definitely dig it.

It’s very good, and it will keep me thinking for a long time. But then I’m a film nerd. I’m keen to hear what anyone who did see it thought.

Advertisements

The Disaster Artist, 2017

Directed by: James Franco

Starring: James Franco, Dave Franco

IMDb

The Disaster Artist was a pretty great film. I can’t recommend it (and the titular Disaster it tells the story of) highly enough.

If you’re not aware, The Room is heralded as one of the worst films ever made, and it has gained an ever-growing cult status in the years since its release. For my Sydney friends, The Hayden Orpheum in Cremorne (not sponsored, I swear) hosts a screening on the first Friday of every month and it’s a great laugh. The cult movie experience is more than worth the price of admission. One of the most striking things about The Room is its Director/Writer/Producer/Star Tommy Wiseau: a vampire-looking man of unknown origins and a notable lack of… any talent, and the way he presents himself is intriguingly strange. He’s a truly interesting and mysterious real-life figure.

James Franco absolutely knocked me out with his performance as Tommy. What a truly captivating character, and what a seamless performance/portrayal. I did not for a moment see James Franco, I saw Tommy. There were times that I totally forgot I was watching a performance and thought it was really the man himself. Truly legendary. One of the most convincing performances I’ve seen of any kind in years.

Everyone else was good too. Dave Franco played the other lead, Greg, very well and very sympathetically, despite being vastly upstaged by his brother. I particularly enjoyed the minor characters played by Josh Hutcherson and Seth Rogen. You really get the impression that tonnes of celebrities were pining super hard to be involved in this production, and their passion is felt very strongly. Everyone feels like they’re having a good time.
If I were to nitpick, I would say that it was actually kind of distracting having so many super-famous people in the movie, it kind of distracted from their characters a little. This isn’t a serious issue though.

The story is captivating in that it makes you immediately curious right from the get-go as to just how The Room came to be. It would probably be less interesting if it weren’t based on a true story, but fortunately for us it really happened and damn is it interesting. The story does get a little cheesy at points in ways that depart from the actual truth of the sequence of events, but I feel that these changes do ultimately benefit the film as a whole.

It’s a really funny movie as well. You will probably appreciate it more having seen The Room though, so if you haven’t I would recommend at least looking up a ‘best of’ list of moments on youtube or something.

Soundtrack, cinematography, editing and directing were all good, but not particularly notable. That’s ok though, this is a character driven movie and it succeeds to a spectacular degree at being that.

Hurry up and go see it. It’s awesome.

Justice League, 2017

Directed by: Zack Snyder (and Joss Whedon)

Starring: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Ray Fisher, Jason Momoa, Henry Cavill

IMDb

Justice League wasn’t even fun. You can skip it. Suicide Squad and Batman V Superman were at least enjoyable in a ‘watching a train wreck’ kind of way, but Justice League was simply a bore. Nothing interesting is done at all, every plot development is completely expected, none of the characters go through interesting arcs and the action scenes just aren’t even that good. Strictly speaking it’s better than the aforementioned DC ensemble pieces, but not in any really meaningful way. Justice League is a nothing movie and I honestly think you should skip it.

From here on out, I’m going to spoil everything. If that’s not what you want, stop reading now. You have been warned.

Also, for obvious reasons I’m going to be alluding to The Avengers a lot.

 

The first and most glaring issue with this film is its structure. Much like Batman V. Superman, it kind of begins four times in a row, as if they brainstormed a whole bunch of ideas and decided to go with all of them instead of choosing the best one. So right off the bat, the audience is bored; none of the openings provide any real intrigue or value to the film as a whole and are actually handled pretty clumsily, which I found honestly surprising. Snyder, despite his shortcomings, is more than capable of making his shots look striking, which none of these did. Most importantly though, none of these openings actually worked to bring the team together. They just sort of happened. This kind of progression with things just ‘happening’ pervades the entire film, and by the end you feel like nothing was gained from watching.

Like Batman V Superman, there is no proper second act. There kind of is, but it essentially acts as a prelude to the climax and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Imagine if in ‘The Avengers’ immediately after capturing Loki, the team went and fought the horde of alien monsters. It felt rushed and importantly, didn’t feel earned. Not to mention, the climax wasn’t really all that fun. The editing was too fast, there was no truly interesting or iconic cinematography and it left pretty much zero impact.

The most vital thing to get right in a movie like this, though, is the characters. The filmmakers have failed these beloved icons to an epic degree. They learned 0 from Marvel’s success. By the time the Avengers was released, we had: four hero characters who had starred in their own films and two less major ones who had at least had a scene before, and the main villain had been well established. The whole experiment that was ‘The Avengers’ worked because they covered all their bases before actually going for the big one (it was also very tightly written and directed, but bear with me here). The Justice League Consists of five (six if you include spoiler-not-spoiler), of which only one had been in their own movie. Batman V Superman was close enough to being a Batman movie, so I’ll call that two. Even so, that’s more than half the main cast being introduced in this movie. The result: no one gets developed, no one is interesting and everyone feels like a watered-down version of their supposed character. The most prominent lesson that any character learns is ‘working together is good’, like that hasn’t been done to death in Hollywood genre films. In order to properly illustrate just how lame the cast is, let’s go through the list one-by-one:

Flash was uninteresting. He’s the quippiest character, and so supposedly the fan favourite, but his entire shtick is that he’s socially awkward and finds it hard to make friends. In a movie where the entire point is forcing people together, this could have been played up as an interesting challenge to overcome for the character, but they don’t do anything with it. Probably would have been helped if he had more time to be developed. Ezra Miller was fine, but the writing failed him.

Aquaman was also underdeveloped, and he was honestly kind of annoying. I didn’t mind the casting of Jason Momoa, but the characterization felt overly workshopped; his entire personality in this movie can be summed up as: ‘I’m too cool for this’, which is entirely the wrong choice for a character named ‘Aquaman’ whose powers include swimming really fast and talking to fish. He was honestly like an angsty teen, so I guess he was effective as the self-insert character for the target demographic.

Cyborg was the most interesting of the three new additions, and definitely got the most development, but that’s a low bar to overcome. Ray Fisher was put in a tough position, having to play a character with a lot of his emotions practically ripped out of him, but I think he did well under the circumstances. He reminded me a bit of Vision from the Avengers, but with much less charm. At least his design was neat and his powers were cool. The movie would have been immensely better off, however, without dealing with his backstory. They could have cut it out and had the first mention of him be in the scene where he remotely hacks the batcomputer. It would have been a much better character introduction, a much more impactful scene altogether and would have made the film flow so much better.

Wonder Woman has nothing interesting to say or do in this move. She dumps exposition, makes a few references to the more emotional moments of her movie (which I guess were supposed to count as the emotional moments in this movie) and is in general the most powerful member of the team. Nothing in her character feels like a complete creative decision, everything is a compromise. It sucks, and it’s a shame, considering how energetic and motivated she was in her own movie. None of it shines through here. Gal Gadot is still good, but she isn’t given much to work with here.

Ben Affleck honestly looks kind of bored through most of the movie. His performance was better in BVS, and as much as I appreciate the brighter and more colourful lighting in this movie, it really highlights how silly this Batman costume looks. Also, every time he starts to do something cool with a gadget or vehicle or something, it’s destroyed within seconds. He feels very un-valuable in this scenario beyond the fact that he’s the one putting the team together and hosting the meetings. Strictly speaking, he is the one dragging the plot along by its hair, but like the others, his character goes nowhere.

Superman is back! (what a surprise) And the way that they bring him back to life is honestly so dumb that it’s my favourite part of the movie. If you don’t intend to see the movie, here’s what happens: the McGuffins for this film are these three cubes (super original, guys) which ‘simultaneously create and destroy life’. So, they decide to resurrect Superman like a fucking zombie in order to essentially use him as a big gun against the villain. They spend like one minute debating the ethics of that in a scene ripped straight out of ‘Age of Ultron’ and then proceed to do it without any further debate or real consequences. They dig him up, put him in the spaceship from Man of Steel and use Flash’s speed-electricity to set off the cube and bring him back to life. Only now he’s gone mad and fights the Justice League for a bit. Probably about five minutes. Dead serious, this is probably the best part of the movie, but it’s so dumb. He also has, no joke, freeze breath, which he uses to freeze the villain’s axe thing. So much for the gritty realistic reinterpretation of Superman. His inclusion in this movie is pretty superfluous for the most part; he doesn’t have much bearing on the plot as a whole, making his death even more meaningless. What a wasted opportunity to effectively pull off the on-screen death of a globally revered icon.

Also, it is hilariously obvious in which scenes they CGI’d the moustache off of Henry Cavill’s face, it looks pretty horrible and I find it hysterical.

Steppenwolf is possibly the worst villain in any recent mainstream superhero film. If you saw Thor Ragnarok, he was essentially that fire demon guy from the very beginning of the movie. You know, the one that Taika Waititi basically played as being a joke for being so very uninteresting and clichéd. The comparison is uncanny, they even kind of look alike. He’s all about the usual ‘world domination’, ‘this world belongs to me’ bullshit that we’ve all seen before a million times, and we never get anything resembling a deeper look as to his motivations. He just kind of is this way.

He quests to find these cubes (Avengers) that will let him take over earth (Avengers) and terraform it into his home planet (Man of Steel) in service of a big tyrannical galactic Overlord (Avengers). He has attacked the earth before, thousands of years ago but was defeated (X-Men: Apocalypse) and carries a big axe hammer thing (Guardians of the Galaxy).

The soundtrack was also very dull. If there was a ‘Justice League’ theme, I didn’t notice it. I heard some variations of the original Superman (1978) theme which were kind of cool I guess, but otherwise it was very generic action movie crap.

Strictly speaking, this is a better movie than BVS and Suicide Squad. I’m not sure if I’d consider better than Man of Steel. It does have some flow to its narrative, but events lack impact and you don’t care about the characters. It, as far as I could tell, had very few plotholes, but this was the wrong lesson to learn from Batman V Superman. Plotholes are not deal breakers to the overall experience; poor narrative structure and underdeveloped characters are. Case and point: The Dark Knight Rises.

I would recommend finding something else to watch this weekend. Justice League is boring, uninteresting and not even a spectacle of a failure. It’s far from unwatchable, but it was straight up disappointing.

DC, I would seriously reconsider your current course. Stop hiring Zack Snyder as a director, he is not a good storyteller. Sure, comics are a visual medium and he’s a visual director, but this movie didn’t look good enough for it to be worth it. Let the reigns go a little. Let the directors and writers try and come up with a more creative approach to these characters. It’s paying off for Marvel. It paid off with Nolan. It will pay off again. Just do it. I believe in you.

Love,

Max.

Thor: Ragnarok, 2017

Directed by: Taika Waititi

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo, Cate Blanchett

IMDb

Thor: Ragnarok does not disappoint. It’s an immensely good time.

I’ve been super excited for this movie for seemingly ages and it’s payed off pretty well! It’s not Marvel’s best film but it is their funniest. It’s also certainly the best Thor movie (The first one was ok, the second was incredibly forgettable). The plot isn’t really anything to write home about, but the movie doesn’t really seem to care, and is just unapologetically fun.

Short review over. Getting into some more detail: the film immediately launches us into the franchise’s new outright comedic tone and Taika Waititi’s influence is unmistakable throughout from the word go, including the unexplained spike in number of characters with kiwi accents. The comedy is undeniably the film’s greatest asset; the audience was having a great time and it never dipped too deep into superfluous emotional moments (unlike its predecessor).

Chris Hemsworth doesn’t really do anything in this movie that he wasn’t already doing in the previous Thor/Avengers films, besides the accentuated comedic element (which he is admittedly good at), but he didn’t need to. Thor is a captivating lead and he didn’t need anything to spice up his character. Same goes for Loki, who gets a prominent role once again, though unfortunately doesn’t get a real arc. He’s still the Loki we love, but more could have been done. I really liked what they did with the hulk. Putting him in a comedic setting was perfectly ridiculous, and yet somehow this is probably the most true-to-the-comics depiction yet. There was some actual development going on and I really dug it, and the “that is in my brain now” line also killed me. Tessa Thompson’s character Valkyrie was a welcome addition, a much more interesting character than the inexplicably missing Lady Sif (Jaimie Alexander) or the mildly explicably missing Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). She doesn’t get too much development either, but hey: that’s not exactly necessary when you’re awesome. Speaking of awesome: Idris Elba. I need say no more.

I was left mildly let down by Hella, played by Cate Blanchett. I suppose I shouldn’t have ever really set my expectations too high for a marvel villain. She’s certainly better than the only-nerds-remember-their-names Laufey and Malekith from the last two films. I’ll probably remember her character, but I don’t think I can really give her any more credit than that. Cate is a great actress, and doesn’t make any mistakes or anything, but I wish they went to more of an extreme with her character, either funnier or more savage. To sum up the character: I didn’t dread spending time with her, but I wasn’t exactly looking forward to it either. Her ambition was also a little lame, despite a decent motivation.

The story was just ok. If I were to say I had an issue with this film, it’d be that the plot doesn’t have much to it beyond face value. To compare it to this year’s Guardians Vol. 2, Thor lacks that film’s super integrated theming and emotional core. On the other hand, it’s certainly funnier, but I don’t think those elements have to be mutually exclusive. There are some scenes in Ragnarok that had the potential to be pretty emotionally powerful, but just aren’t, and that’s a bit of a shame. It didn’t really feel like it was avoiding emotion as to not hinder the comedic tone, but rather it felt like it was trying to be impactful but unsuccessfully

The audio and visuals are very nice. Again, it’s nice to see Marvel using a lot of colour, though I think this one could have benefitted from upping the intensity just slightly; it felt weirdly washed out in some bits. The 80’s synth that featured through the soundtrack fit well with the tone and gave the film some unique personality. I felt the Led Zeppelin inclusion was a little tacked on, but it worked fine, nowhere near suicide squad levels. There was also a fair bit of really nice cinematography.

Verdict: Thor: Ragnarok was a really really good time. It’s worth your time and your money. Go see it!

Blade Runner 2049, 2017

Directed by: Denis Villeneuve

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford

IMDb

I’m not really the biggest fan of Blade Runner (yes I watched the director’s cut). I’ve watched the film twice and failed pretty hard to really connect with it either time. I get the impression that maybe if I saw it in a cinema for my first viewing I would have liked it more, but even then apparently the theatrical version is vastly inferior. So yeah, not exactly sure why, but it never really resonated with me.

Blade Runner 2049 is a different story. I fucking loved it.

I’m going to be tripping over my toes for spoilers here, but if you want to go in knowing actually nothing, the mini-review is just to go see it ASAP. It’s really good.

First off, Ryan Gosling was fantastic. He was very well suited to his character, but I still managed to disassociate the actor from the role, which is difficult with such a big name. I’m also glad that he was truly the central focus of the film, as the character was really interesting; I was constantly in a state of wanting to know more about him. The performance was pretty spot on as well. Top notch effort. Harrison Ford, by comparison, was far less interesting, but in a good way. I feared going in that he would be playing a similar role as Han Solo in The Force Awakens, a pretty ‘done’ mentor trope, and was glad to see him take a back seat. His inclusion only benefited the story, which is pretty much the opposite of what I expected.

The story is simply captivating. It’s slow and complex, but it sticks out in my mind as special, as it created a genuine mystery. Every time I thought I knew exactly where the story was going, I was wrong, but that never comes from cheap tactics such as characters lying or some bullshit like that. It was consistently because the film anticipated what kinds of assumptions I would be making. It’s very smart. Its slowness, by the way, may disappoint some, but I felt it only added to the film’s rich atmosphere.

Speaking of atmosphere, holy crap the visuals and audio. The film looks and sounds gorgeous. The filmmakers have created/updated a truly interesting and fleshed out world, and the sound design enhances the experience by somehow adding to your understanding of what living in it is like. It’s kind of hard to explain, but the way the film is scored works incredibly well to further immerse you in the film without compromising its melodic nature. Where most films would typically have a track end at the same time as its corresponding scene, here it may even crescendo into the transition and continue into the next sequence, greatly aiding the flow of the story. This is a long movie and I never got bored, I never even had proper opportunity to check my watch, and I think the audio and visuals had something to do with that. I’d also like to add that the audio mixing was done with a bit of flare that I rarely see (hear). Every film that comes out of hollywood will be made with a surround sound setup in mind, but I very rarely notice, barring gimmicks. Here is was just done really well, added another layer of cool.

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any major flaws. If I were to grasp at straws, I would say some character motivations were kind of confusing at times, but I’m pretty well convinced that they were explained and I just missed it. Similar to how I must have missed something in the first movie, because I really want to watch it again with this new viewpoint. The CGI was fantastic overall, but had two blunders for me. First was a bug, which was more or less excusable, and the other was a fully rendered character. While better than Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher in Rogue One, the technology still isn’t quite there yet. Please stop.

Blade Runner 2049 is a fantastic film, and I highly recommend going to see it in cinemas while it’s still out. Be warned, it is long and slow, but I didn’t see those as bad things at all. One of the best of the year.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle, 2017

Directed by: Matthew Vaughn

Starring: Taron Egerton, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, Pedro Pascal

IMDb

Took me a while to get around to this one, but I finally got to see Kingsman: The Golden Circle. I actually have a bunch I want to discuss, which isn’t all necessary to the criticism of this individual film, so I’ll do my mini review first.

Kingsman 2 is not really a “good movie” per se; it lacks the identity and “classic” qualities of the first one. That said, if you’re the type of person who can enjoy pure ridiculous insanity, there is a lot to enjoy. I had a really great time. It tried really hard to be ridiculous and fun, and it certainly succeeded. I recommend it pretty highly, just don’t go in expecting a quality story.

So what I really want to talk about are the elements that make it “bad”. Certainly its hyper-cliche’d story doesn’t help, but that seems to be completely intentional. The film seems to have no real interest in being “good”, and a lot of interest in getting a laugh out of dialling up the insanity to eleven, which seems to be a pretty common strategy for the film’s production studio: Marv.

Marv is responsible for a pretty inconsistent quality of film. On one hand, they made Stardust which I really loved, and Eddie the Eagle, which I’ve heard is pretty great. On the other, the were involved in the garbage fire that was Fantastic Four (2015). None of these films really fit in with what I would consider Marv’s signature style, which flourishes in the studios most lucrative series: Kick-Ass and Kingsman. I loved both Kick-Ass and Kingsman; they simultaneously contributed in and parodied the Superhero and Spy genres respectively, and they did it really well, delivering satisfying, funny, and extremely memorable films. Both films thrive on over-the-top, high intensity action scenes with creative and interesting cinematography and production, and they’re both a lot of fun, though Kingsman is technically a better film.

Kick-Ass 2, however, kind of sucked. It suffered from a version of ‘sequelitis’ that far too many Hollywood films do, making constant callbacks, often entire scenes, to its predecessor. If one element of the first film was particularly popular/ well recieved, Chloe Grace-Moretz’s profanely violent Hit-Girl in this case, it will be back in force, becoming the most major element of the sequel, where Hit-Girl effectively becomes the main character. This trend rarely ends well, as it usually misses the point of what made it good in the first film, and forces it to be something it’s not. Hit-Girl had a very simple story Arc, and a very simple character in Kick-Ass. Making her the main character of Kick-Ass 2, forced complexity on her, which unfortunately, as the film was a bit phoned in, resulted in her being pretty boring. Most of the film was like that. It tried its best to keep interest by being ridiculously over-the-top, but the cost of any interesting story developments was too steep. They tried to do “the same thing as last time, but bigger” and it backfired bigtime.

Kingsman 2 does the same thing, but is far more self aware. The film pretty explicitly states its thoughts on the crap-ness of its story, openly admitting that it doesn’t care, and just wants to provide pure bullshit insanity. There is more than one scene in this movie involving people being shoved into a meat grinder, both times without even a drop of blood appearing on screen. So if we’re not meant to take it seriously, can we criticise it for bullshit story? I probably wouldn’t, if it were a little more original, and didn’t make so many damn callbacks to the first scene. The “manners maketh man” bar scene is recreated, every major action scene evokes the “church” scene. The Swedish princess gag-character from the last movie is a supporting character now. Not to mention that her only memorable line from the first one is called back to two times. This movie has very very little identity of its own, and I doubt I’ll watch it again, I’ll invariably turn to its predecessor over it. It is, however, way better than Kick-Ass 2, and I think it’s its self awareness that led to this.

It did have some highlights though. Its opening fight scene in the cab was fantastic, and left me with a big smile on my face; the same applies to the film’s climax. The villain was fun, but not very memorable – bar the meat grinder. I had a lot of fun with the US government, despite the paper-thin plotholes in the president’s plan. I also liked the music, I thought the original soundtrack had a very ‘Avengers’ feel, which I thought fit pretty well.

Action movies have the capacity to be “good” and fun at the same time. ‘Kingsman: The Golden Circle’ doesn’t even try to do this, and it somewhat suffers from this. There is a lot to enjoy, but turning your brain off is a must. I personally recommend it, but it’s not a must for seeing in cinemas.

MOUNTAIN, 2017

Directed by: Jennifer Peedom

IMDb

‘Mountain’ is a feature length collection of beautiful cinematography of mountains, great classical music and Willem Dafoe narrating vague, important sounding fluff. That’s it. If that sounds up your alley, it will be. It’s pretty straightforward.
 
I, however, found it a total slog. To the vast majority of my readership (if you’ve even aware of its existence), I’d recommend avoiding it.
 
Near every shot could be framed on a wall, and the added dimension of motion only adds to the experience. It’s pretty remarkable just how beautiful mountains can be; this is pretty much the premise of the film. An hour and a quarter of just the mountains though is a bit much of an ask in my opinion. This is definitely not a documentary, in that you don’t learn anything. The narration truly amounts to important sounding bullshit, the only purpose of which is to attempt to keep the audiences interest. Attempt being the key word.
 
My favourite part of the film is about half way through, where the it starts to focus on how humans interact with mountains. It highlights skiing, mountain biking, mountaineering and rock climbing, and this is where the cinematography gets the most breathtaking, when you have something relatable to give a sense of scale and peril to the mountains. I legitimately got vertigo in a couple of shots, and a few bits got a gasp from me. For about 20 minutes I was invested.
 
‘Mountain’ is a film about mountains. Mountains just are, they do not do. If that kind of static non-storytelling appeals to you, and you really like looking at pretty mountains, go for it. Otherwise, don’t make my mistakes.

Mother!, 2017

Directed by: Darren Aronofski

Starring: Jeniffer Lawrence, Javier Bardem

Mother! is not what the trailer depicts in the slightest. I liked it anyway.
That said, it’s an incredibly difficult movie to talk about without spoiling, so I actually have no hard feelings about the marketing. I have no idea how else they could do it without spoiling the entire experience. So if it sounds like I’m tripping over eggshells in this review, that is why.

The director, Darren Aronofski, is most famous for the excellent Black Swan. Mother! and Black Swan are similar in that they use a great number of figurative elements, having the on-screen actions as acting as completely non-literal metaphors or allegories.
The difference? Black Swan has elements of both the literal and the figurative. Mother! is, from start to finish, all metaphor. It’s honestly pretty shocking to see what effectively constitutes an art film nabbing such a high marketing budget and Jennifer Lawrence, but that is certainly what it is.

So. A metaphor for what? I won’t say. The absolute best part of the film for me was when I figured it out, but that only happened after about 90% of the runtime, and for the friend I saw it with, after the credits started rolling. For this reason, you might not enjoy the film – it’s hard work. I spent most of the film with a furrowed brow, just trying my best to figure out what the hell was going on. Once it hit me though… I can honestly say I haven’t enjoyed rethinking and reinterpreting a movie so much in years. But then, I’m a film nerd. So take that with a pinch of salt.

Jennifer Lawrence did a great job. Not only her performance, but the way that the camerawork and writing constantly kept her as the central focus of the film, and as the audience surrogate as she seems to be the only character at all who acts with any level of rationality. Despite her strange purity, her character is very relatable in that if all this crazy shit were happening to you, you’d be just as confused and upset. If I have one complaint about her performance, is that I still can’t detach the actress from the role, and even though I think she acted better than in any other film I’ve seen her in, I think the role would be better suited to a lesser known actress.

I liked the way the film constantly fed subtle clues as to what it’s all about, but never enough to fully explain itself until you connect two key dots, and then it all unravels. The film is pretty damn cynical, which I feel some may interpret as pretentious, but I personally did not.

If your idea of a good time at the movies is to sit back and relax I’d avoid Mother!, as it’s quite hard work. But if you don’t mind having to think when going to the cinema, then I recommend it! I think you’ll get a lot out of it, both during the film and after the credits roll and you’re discussing with whoever you saw it with.