Parallel Mothers [Maderes Paralelas]

 

Pedro Almodóvar and Penélope Cruz’s latest collaboration was a definite showcase for the actress, a lot like how his previous film, “Pain and Glory”, was a showcase for Antonio Banderas. However, the difference between these two films was that the latter was rooted in honesty and raw emotionality whereas this film leaned towards soap opera melodrama with a lot of excessive and wide ranging emotions. 

That was brilliant for an actress like Cruz who got to bring her character through all the different emotions and really nailed it at every turn. But that also resulted in a film that felt detached and inauthentic. It also did not help that Milena Smit who was Cruz’s main scene partner throughout most of the film was not at the same calibre as Cruz. Therefore, their dynamic always seemed off and imbalance, and less interesting then it could have been especially given the soap opera nature of the main narrative. 

Speaking of which, the film also surprisingly was quite predictable. Although at times it appeared that Almodóvar was going to do a left turn but it always ended up heading straight forward - as expected. Would that be some sort of genius anti-subversion move? Or just commercial forces leading the art?

That being said, kudos to Almodóvar for weaving in politics rather seamlessly into the film. Although, at times it did seemed forced, but ultimately the parallel with the main narrative was made. 

The music by Alberto Iglesias also stood out with its rather whimsical yet dramatic score. Not surprising then that he got an Oscar nomination for Best Original Score. 

Cruz definitely deserved her Best Actress Oscar nomination, but despite her having won the Volpi Cup for Best Actress at the Venice Film Festival, her chance of repeating at the Oscars is rather slim. Nonetheless, her performance itself definitely elevated the film and made that 120 minutes enjoyable. 

Encanto [Disney+]

 

Encanto will definitely delight the kids with its colourful visuals, cute animals and catchy songs, but if you look under the glossy sheen, the film was overly simplistic, ridiculously contrived and, most importantly, narratively frustrating. This was catered to a very specific crowd and did not respect the intelligence of its viewers to be able to understand beyond the superficial. It was as if the elevator pitch was "One Hundred Years of Solitude for children but with songs and music and a grouchy capybara...minus the emotional depth and the character developments and the complexity of real human/familial relationship...but hey, we have a toucan!"

The saving grace were the songs, but even then, after Hamilton and In the Heights, Lin-Manuel Miranda style and signature rhythms are getting stagnant and repetitive. Regardless, it was still no surprise that the soundtrack got into the charts. Although, as pretty as the Oscar nominated song Dos Orugitas is, it still remained a head-scratcher why that was the song chosen (highly unlikely that it will win over Billie Ellish's No Time to Die).

The animation itself was pretty but nothing groundbreaking or stunning, although the details remained meticulous. However, it was only that much animation can carry and obfuscate (for adults or anyone looking closely) if the bones of the story are lacking. 

The story was just so annoying. It had potential and ambition but seemed to have been squandered by simplifying it to make it the most accessible. Sure, there is a lesson in it to be learned but why did it have to be kept hammering in. Incessantly. Were there not more to be said? Why could they not find more to say? 

The ending was a perfect Disney emotional manipulation but the journey to get there was just not worth it. It was not well-earned. But sure, what the heck, as long as the tears flow.

On the other hand, the voice cast was great. Kudos to Stephanie Beatriz, John Leguizamo, Jessica Darrow, Adassa and Diane Guerro. Their voice acting were great and the singing a highlight. Pity they were not given more to do.

Nonetheless, kudos to Disney for expanding its representativeness and diversity. As a child-friendly animation, this was fantastic. Introducing the young ones to a different culture and community. Kids will be enthralled and the accompanying adults will be suitably entertained. But this lacked the emotional depth of Pixar's entries like Luca or even Disney's non-white animations like Raya and the Last Dragon and Big Hero 6.

The Batman [IMAX]

Why is it that DC seemed to be only able to get Batman (almost) consistently right? Here we have a DCEU film that was dark, but noir-esque rather than bleak, serious and dramatic rather than dour and existentialistic. It lacked humour but was not weighed down by its own self-seriousness and dread.

This was a great concept and a refreshing iteration of the iconic - and over-exposed - Batman. The Year 2 masked vigilante who was still discovering his purpose, his place and his footing in Gotham City and as a "superhero". But also, an emo and ungrounded Bruce Wayne who has not grown to become the self-assured, confident billionaire that we were more familiar with.

Although it would have been interesting to see how this Batman/Bruce Wayne came about but Matt Reeves and co did a great job in establishing the character and trusting the audience to be familiar with the mythology and origin story to be able to fill in the backstory themselves.

Essentially, The Batman was one long crime thriller. More of a why-dun-it rather than a whodunnit, and again, this formula made it stood out from its predecessors and other large-screen superhero flicks. Think more Netflix-Marvel era Daredevil and Jessica Jones, with a hint of David Fincher's Zodiac and Seven (minus the style). Though, granted, the dirty, noir-ish cinematography by Greig Fraser (last seen working on Dune), did give the whole film a stylised noir mood - with some outstanding moments and aesthetics - and an overall grittier feel which made the film just that more approachable and relatable. 

However, at 3-hours long, the movie definitely felt like it. Although thankfully it did had enough going on to feel enjoyable almost throughout and the periods of downtime was just enough to let the film breathe without bogging it down. However, this was still no Drive My Car, but at least it was not a Dune.

Most of the action choreography was excellent. There was less use of gadgetry and more hand-to-hand more combat, which was refreshing. The fight scenes were generally easy to follow, and, again, thankfully well lit. The big car chase scene was adrenaline pumping and nail-biting, however it may have more to do with Michael Giacchino's big score rather than Reeve's direction. There was just a bit too many edits and cuts in that scene to make it feel really organic and immersive.

Robert Pattinson ended up being a great choice for Batman. But, he was an even more inspired choice to be the new Bruce Wayne. He has got that private, moody, edgy, emo, brooding, posh look down pat. He may lacked the physicality of Batman which did make Batman's skills seemed suspect, but at least the suit bulked him up and he has the jaw and height for it. Although, I would not say he has the best jawline for that cowl of all the cinematic Batmans. Regardless, Pattinson is an underrated actor and he definitely delivered here. It was just a shame, we had less scenes of him as Bruce. Though, his eyes - all shaded in emo-black - was fully expressive and emotive.

Zoe Kravitz, on the other hand, just looked great. Unfortunately, her role was diminished and not really relevant. And sadly, was not Michelle Pfeiffer. She was given less opportunities to show off her Catwoman skills/persona, but instead was portrayed more as a femme fatale. But even then, her action sequences demanded more, which Kravitz could have definitely delivered. Thankfully, she did have some screen chemistry with Pattinson. However, if she does not show up for the sequel, I doubt she will be much missed.

The rest of the supporting cast were superb! Collin Farrell, unrecognisable, stole the show as Penguin (can't wait for his mini series!); Paul Dano was scarily terrfiying as Riddler (this ain't no OTT-esque Jim Carrey camp); John Turturro was a convincing crime boss; and Jeffrey Wright gave James Gordon such gravitas and strength that it was utterly believable that he and Pattinson's Batman have an honest, reliable relationship. 

As mentioned, Fraser's cinematography was great and Giacchino's score was a standout. This film deserved to be watched on a big screen, but IMAX may actually not give it that big a boost. The singularly great thing about The Batman was that, by itself, it was still a good noir thriller. Take away the characters we know and changed them to just their character descriptions, the beaten-down, emo sleuth, the femme fatale, the deranged villain, the mob boss, the criminal mastermind, the honest cop, etc, and the film will still work.

That is a little post-credits Easter egg, but mainly just for the diehard fans.

Nightmare Alley

Guillermo del Toro’s follow-up to his Oscar-winning Best Picture and Best Director “The Shape of Water” felt like two separate, incomplete movies meshed into one, resulting in slightly underbaked character developments especially for Bradley Cooper’s protagonist and rushed narratives.

However, what worked fantastically well was del Toro’s amazing visuals and world building. The cinematography by Dan Laustsen and production design by Tamara Deverell and Shane Vieau were stunning and absolutely deserved their Oscar nominations.

Unfortunately, that led the story itself and the characters to take a back seat. Cooper was not doing his best work here. His silence in the first half lacked gravitas and dimension. There was no discernible hunger or passion or self-serving interest behind them. Which then made the later half’s metamorphosis seemed unearned. It was not hard to understand, just undeserved.

Rooney Mara and Toni Collette were also both underserved by the script. Collette especially, though great in the role, ended up being rather one dimensional. Mara fared a bit better, being ostensibly the female lead, she had a bit more depth but ultimately only served to extend Cooper’s character’s arc rather than a fully fleshed out character in her own right.

And what a waste of actors like Willem Dafoe, Mary Steenburgen, Richard Jenkins and David Strathairn.

The one character that worked well was Cate Blanchett’s noir-drenched femme fatale (gosh, the camera sure loved her and she looked amazing in that look!). Although she only appeared in the second half, Blanchett absolutely owned the screen, acting circles and chewing the scenery. A pity she did not get a Best Supporting Actress nomination, though, granted the weakest two were Jessie Buckley and Judi Dench (though Caitriona Balfe would have deserved it over Dame Dench).

The film’s best chances for Oscar glory will be for the under-the-line categories. But even then, it will still be a long shot.

Spencer

A near 2 hours mood piece reflecting the frenzied, paranoid, mess, seemingly fractured mind of Princess Diana over those three days during Christmas at Sandringham estate in 1992. Kirsten Stewart was amazing. Together with director Pablo Larraín and writer Steven Knight, Stewart was lost in her portrayal of a princess that vacillated between fragile and on the verge of breaking apart, to strong and sure-footed of what she wants.

The film was undoubtedly excessively and somewhat self-possessed, but like what Larraín did with Natalie Portman in “Jackie”, this was a psychological profile of a famous female at a precarious point in their life as they navigated expectations both from themselves within and from the people - public and private, perceived and assumed - without.

In “Spencer”, dramatically and narratively, nothing much happened. It was a series of moments and vignettes that Larraín et al had crafted to highlight and heighten the inner workings of Diana’s mind and feelings.

And Stewart absolutely nailed it.

Stewart’s mannerisms and voice were similar to Diana, but what made the accolades well deserved was her full bodied immersion into the role. Stewart the rising star was gone, instead we are left with this complicated, fragile, unstable princess yet undeniably strong and loving mother. Her performance was nuanced at the quiet scenes but when the moment required more drama and more frenzied emotions she never overplayed it but raised the heightened display to meet Larraín’s equally discomforting camera work as assisted by cinematographer Claire Mathon.

Mathon’s lensing here was as stunning as her work on the gorgeous “Portrait of a Lady on Fire”. Just as apt was the brilliant, dissonant, disorientating score by Jonny Greenwood.

This film can be divisive because essentially it was a mood piece. More an art installation rather than a true cinematic narrative. Nonetheless, Stewart definitely deserved her Best Actress Oscar nomination and can truly be a dark horse to win the statue.

Belfast

 A feel-good but very superficial crowd pleaser. Kenneth Branagh’s semi-autobiographical was pleasant enough but lacked depth and heart. And for a story told from a child’s point of view, it also lacked a child’s innocence and naïveté (thank “Jojo Rabbit”).

The filming was too deliberately organised and ordered that at times it felt emotionally sterile despite what was happening on screen. The most resonant scenes were those set in the theatre, the big dance moment (that was brilliant!) and the final parting shot with Dame Judi Dench. I can see why she was nominated but in all honesty, if only one actress was to be nominated, Caitríona Balfe, should have had the edge.

Balfe was the emotional heart of the film, whereas Dench was more the soul. Ciarán Hinds’ nomination was well-deserved, and although Jamie Dornan got the least recognition, he was actually quite good here too. He definitely looked the part, all 40s Hollywood suaveness.

At a brisk 90-odd minutes, the story went by easily but not always briskly. Branagh’s direction was just too deliberate and mannered, and although Haris Zambarloukous’ black and white cinematography was pretty it was kind of missing the artistic styling of films like “The Tragedy of Macbeth”, “Cold War” and “Roma” which then begged the question, did this film really need to be in black and white? Music was by Van Morrison and the closing, Oscar-nominated, song, “Down to Joy” was lovely, but the needle drops throughout the film was just a tad too frequent and too much.

The film was enjoyable enough and it would definitely strike a chord with most people for its easily relatable relationships, but ultimately I would not have been too upset if Branagh’s Best Director nod had been snubbed for Denis Villeneuve instead.

Benedetta

Paul Verhoeven’s French lesbian nun biopic was equally riveting as it will - was - undoubtedly be divisive. The fact that the film was based on real events makes it even more fascinating. Although the film ran rather long - 131 minutes - most of it was interesting except for a meandering second act where Verhoeven needlessly focused too much on the sapphic aspects instead of deepening Benedetta as a character. We understood her purely on a superficial level but what led her to make the choices that drove the final act was never fully explored. As a biopic, the central character remained as much an enigma in the beginning as in the end (Wikipedia offered more insight).

Virginie Efira definitely had screen presence but her Benedetta lacked that enigmatic charm to fully sell her as a mystic with a personality cult. Daphne Patakia as her lover, Bartolomea, had little to work on, despite a tragic back story, only acting as the narrative demanded it with no consistency or substantive reasons.

Charlotte Rampling was the highlight, a delight to watch as she stole the scenes with each pursed lips and clasped hands, and a slight nod or shake of the head. Verhoeven should put Isabelle Huppert and Rampling together and watch them both chew the sceneries - and hopefully each other - apart.

“Benedetta” was an interesting film for its historical context and entertaining for what it may or may not have been.