Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Review: Does Brendan Fraser give a great performance in ‘The Whale’? It’s complicated.

Published

on

Review: Does Brendan Fraser give a great performance in ‘The Whale’? It’s complicated.

When the digital camera seems to be at Brendan Fraser in “The Whale,” what does it see? It sees a person named Charlie who weighs 600 kilos and is slowly expiring from congestive coronary heart failure in a colorless Idaho residence. It additionally sees a well-recognized Hollywood face hooked up to a most unfamiliar physique, enacting the type of dramatic, prosthetically enabled transformation the film trade likes to slobber over.

You may discover these two photographs to be of a bit — an intuitive fusion of performer and position that reaches for, and typically achieves, a state of transcendent emotion. Or chances are you’ll discover them grotesquely at odds: the character whose each groan, wheeze and choking match means to encourage each empathy and revulsion, and the actor whose sweaty dramatic exertions are calculated to elicit reward and applause.

Let’s render that reward the place it’s due. There’s extra to Fraser’s efficiency than his exertions, simply as there may be extra to Charlie than the corporeal shock worth that the film frontloads him with: The opening scenes discover him frenziedly masturbating to homosexual pornography on his sofa, then doubling over with searing chest pains. It’s rather a lot for an actor to come back down from, however in a grueling chamber piece that tends to wield a dramaturgical cudgel, Fraser makes an attempt, and largely achieves, a symphony of unusual grace notes. He reveals us Charlie’s struggling, but in addition his sweetness; his grief, but in addition his good humor.

He laughs simply, although additionally with nice problem. He can mope and rant, however caught on the proper second, he’s an out-and-out charmer, a affected person listener, a superb storyteller. He teaches a web-based faculty writing class, hiding his overweight body from his college students (his webcam’s damaged, he tells them), however giving full voice to his love for phrases, his eager understanding of the pleasures and potential manipulations of language. His favourite piece of writing is an essay on Moby-Dick — the precise whale of the title — that he usually reads or calls for that somebody learn to him, a tool whose ludicrous backstory Fraser nearly makes convincing. And after some time, as doorways slam, stress mounts and Rob Simonsen’s rating broods and surges, you may really feel a curious tingle of recognition. Charlie, in any case, is a personality in a Darren Aronofsky film, which suggests he’s destined for a crucible of struggling that, nonetheless emotional and non secular in nature, exacts its most grievous torments within the flesh.

That’s to not counsel that he’s kin to the tortured performers of “The Wrestler” and “Black Swan,” who pushed their athleticism to brutish extremes, or the strung-out children from “Requiem for a Dream,” even when Charlie is aware of the ache of a special type of dependancy. The variations lengthen past the truth that Charlie is generally immobilized, solely often rising from his sofa to stumble, with a walker, towards the fridge or the toilet. (At occasions the digital camera, wielded by Aronofsky’s common collaborator Matthew Libatique, virtually appears to mock Charlie, transferring round him with an ease and agility that he can’t muster.) There’s additionally the truth that, in distinction with most Aronofsky characters, Charlie is born of one other author’s creativeness: Like quite a lot of research in confinement, “The Whale” relies on a play, this one written and tailored for the display by Samuel D. Hunter.

Advertisement

However whereas we could also be confined with Charlie, we aren’t alone with him. “The Whale,” straining to each honor and break freed from its supply materials, unfolds over a number of consecutive days, throughout which Charlie receives a collection of tourists. Their common appearances directly modulate the drama and expose its artificiality, none extra clearly than Thomas (Ty Simpkins), an earnest younger Christian missionary who turns up at Charlie’s door at a seemingly opportune second. He’s there to save lots of this man’s soul, and in addition to facilitate a load of exposition regarding Charlie’s late accomplice, Alan, whose premature dying hastened his personal downward spiral. Thomas can also be there to harass Charlie’s tough-loving greatest pal, Liz (an exquisite Hong Chau), a nurse who stops by each day to deliver him meals, examine his vitals and nag him to take higher care of himself. She is aware of that Charlie doesn’t want faith; he must go to the hospital.

Hong Chau within the film “The Whale.”

(A24)

However Charlie refuses, citing a scarcity of medical insurance and the final hopelessness of his trigger. Which doesn’t imply he has nothing to dwell for, judging by his concerted latest renewal of ties together with his 17-year-old daughter, Ellie (Sadie Sink). Nearly 9 years in the past, Charlie deserted Ellie and her mom, Mary (a briefly seen Samantha Morton), to be with Alan. {The teenager} who now sits earlier than him is greater than a resentful youngster; she’s the personification of spite, vindictive and verbally abusive. Sink’s emotional ferocity is spectacular, however Ellie, as written, quantities to at least one indignant word struck with relentless, finally misapplied pressure. As a personality, she’s about as delicate because the ultra-dim lighting — not simply realistically dim however fastidiously, oppressively dim — that suffuses Charlie’s residence, an all-too-literal embodiment of his internal darkness.

Advertisement

“You’d be disgusting even should you weren’t this fats,” Ellie snarls on the man she refuses to acknowledge as her father. And her ugly phrases discover a painful echo within the query that Charlie at one level asks Thomas: “Do you discover me disgusting?” It’s a query the digital camera appears to foist in flip upon the viewer, most emphatically when it reveals us Charlie, in a depressing fury, devouring and vomiting up a complete pizza. It’s unsurprisingly disagreeable to observe, not least as a result of Aronofsky appears to be shoving the digital camera in Charlie’s face with one hand whereas wagging his finger at us with the opposite. His query may immediate your personal: Is that this uncooked, unvarnished scrutiny of a tough topic tilting into exaggeration, even exploitation? If we’re disgusted by what Aronofsky reveals us, is that our fault or his?

Or is it Fraser’s? I’m reluctant to counsel it, and never simply because I’m as fond as anybody of an interesting, long-underappreciated actor returning to prominence, after a number of years’ absence, within the trade that made, broke and allegedly abused him. However I’m additionally reluctant to fall into the default crucial sample of lauding an actor for what works a few film or a efficiency and blaming a filmmaker for the whole lot that doesn’t, particularly because it simply feels just a little too straightforward. Film performances are sometimes extra collaborative achievements than we (or actors themselves) care to confess, and a efficiency as reliant on exterior wizardry as Fraser’s — on the unusual, seamless alchemy that welds an actor’s expressive instruments to an array of digital and prosthetic tips — doesn’t come into being with out a director’s agency hand on the wheel. What’s good and dangerous concerning the efficiency is unquestionably the accountability of actor and director each.

Sadie Sink in a scene from "The Whale."

Sadie Sink in a scene from “The Whale.”

(Niko Tavernise/A24)

The film’s crudest moments, those during which Charlie’s physique is handled as not only a matter-of-fact bodily actuality however a dare-you-to-look-away spectacle, have already raised respectable questions and accusations of fatphobia — a debate that tends to come up each time a Hollywood actor packs on some synthetic kilos. Typically this sort of transformation is finished for comically villainous impact, whether or not it’s Colin Farrell’s Penguin in “The Batman” or Emma Thompson’s imposingly evil Miss Trunchbull in “Roald Dahl’s Matilda the Musical.” However do these prosthetic encumbrances really feel kind of low cost when utilized to somebody like Charlie, who isn’t a violent caricature however a sympathetically drawn human being? Is the grindingly self-conscious realism of a film like “The Whale” a extra empathetic gesture or a crueler, uglier one?

Advertisement

To return to the query on the outset: When the digital camera seems to be at Brendan Fraser in “The Whale,” what does it see? I believe it sees a superb actor giving a well-meaning, erratically directed and infrequently touching efficiency in a film that strives to wrest one thing uncooked and truthful from a narrative that’s all bald contrivances, technological in addition to melodramatic. But when “The Whale” is a bizarre conflation of the unflinchingly sincere and the unbearably phony, Charlie’s personal sincerity is simple: “Inform me the reality,” he says and reiterates on a number of events, whether or not he’s urging his college students to write down from the intestine or partaking Thomas in a genial theological debate. As he demonstrated in his latest “Noah” and “mom!,” Aronofsky is a skeptic who’s extra keen than most to satisfy God midway.

And God, on this film, absolutely has rather a lot to reply for: hypocrisy, homophobia, despair and suicidal ideation, for starters. But when we will consider God as synonymous with goodness, and I believe we will, then he additionally appears to show up extra usually than anticipated — not simply when Thomas comes thumping on the door with a Bible in hand, but in addition each time Liz returns. Hong, not for the primary time proving herself a film’s secret weapon, provides maybe “The Whale’s” most interesting, least compelled efficiency. Whether or not she’s scolding Charlie, passing him a meatball sub or snuggling subsequent to him on the sofa, Liz lays naked her uncertainty: Ought to she be attempting to save lots of her pal or making his final days as joyous as she will be able to? It’s OK that she doesn’t know. It’s sufficient that she sees him and loves him — and extra absolutely, finally, than the film round him can handle.

‘The Whale’

Rated: R, for language, some drug use and sexual content material

Operating time: 1 hour, 57 minutes

Advertisement

Enjoying: Begins Dec. 9 at AMC Burbank 16; AMC Burbank City Middle 6; AMC the Grove 14, Los Angeles; AMC Century Metropolis 15

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

What If Jessica Chastain and Anne Hathaway Had a Mother-Off, and We All Lost?

Published

on

What If Jessica Chastain and Anne Hathaway Had a Mother-Off, and We All Lost?

The strange case of Mothers’ Instinct.
Photo: Neon

There’s a new movie starring Jessica Chastain and Anne Hathaway out this week, which is normally the sort of thing you’d expect to have heard about. But, after its release in the U.K. months ago, Mothers’ Instinct is slipping into U.S. theaters with as little splash as an Olympic diver nailing a triple somersault tuck. The film, a thriller directed by Benoît Delhomme, is getting the treatment typically reserved for a disaster, which is a shame, because I’ve been dying to discuss it with someone, and that’s hard when no one has any idea what you’re on about. Mothers’ Instinct is, indeed, pretty terrible, and not in the so-bad-it’s-good sense, and yet there’s something strangely moving about it. It’s a poignant example of how what looks like rich material to actors can turn out to be lousy material for audiences. Mothers’ Instinct is a remake of a 2018 Belgian film adapted from a novel by Barbara Abel, and watching it, you can appreciate exactly why these two major actors signed on to star in it. Funnily enough, those same qualities go a long way toward explaining why the movie doesn’t work.

Mothers’ Instinct isn’t camp, but it’s close enough that if you squint, you can almost see a version of the film that tips into something broader. Of course, if you squint, you wouldn’t be able to appreciate how immaculately Chastain and Hathaway are costumed. They look incredible — not like two 1960s housewives, which is what they’re playing, so much as two people who keep switching outfits because they can’t decide what to wear to the high-end Mad Men–themed party they’re headed to later. As Alice, Chastain is styled like a Hitchcock blonde in pin-curled ash updos and cardigan sets, while as Alice’s neighbor and friend Céline, Hathaway is given a Jackie O. look that involves a shoulder-length bouffant, pillbox hats, and gloves. They’re cosplayers in a gorgeous, airless setting, adjoining houses on a street that might as well be floating in space, the husbands (played by Anders Danielsen Lie and Josh Charles) vanishing to work for long stretches. The artificiality of this intensely manicured re-creation isn’t to any particular end, which gives the whole movie the air of a Don’t Worry Darling situation in which no one ever wakes up to the twist, instead sleepwalking through a stylized dream of Americana.

Advertisement

In fact, while Alice is restless over having given up her job as a journalist to take care of her son Theo (Eamon O’Connell), and Céline gets ostracized by the community after the death of her son, Max (Baylen D. Bielitz), Mothers’ Instinct isn’t actually all that interested in the pressures of living under a repressive 1960s patriarchy. Instead, it’s about another time-tested theme, one that’s best summed up as: Bitches be crazy. The perfect sheen of its surfaces — Delhomme, who’s making his directorial debut, is a cinematographer who started his career with The Scent of Green Papaya and has since worked with everyone from Tsai Ming-liang to Anton Corbijn — is paired with a score that shrieks unease from the opening scene, in which Céline is thrown a surprise birthday party. The source of this suspense isn’t revealed until later, after Max takes an unintended swan dive off the porch and the women’s friendship is threatened by grief, guilt, and suspicion. Is Céline in mourning, or does she actually irrationally blame Alice for what happened while developing an alarming fixation on Theo? Is Alice right to be suspicious of her bestie, who’s unable to have another baby, or is she being paranoid because the mental illness that previously resulted in her hospitalization has returned? Is it odd that two feminist actors jumped to participate in a film that traffics so freely in unexamined stereotypes about women and hysteria?

Not, it seems, when the opportunities to stare coldly into space or look on in glassy betrayal are this good. I’m not trying to sound snide here — the characters in Mothers’ Instinct have no convincing inner lives at all, but the exterior work of the actors playing them is choice stuff. When Alice and Céline are getting along, Chastain and Hathaway nuzzle together supportively like long-necked swans. When things start to go south, Chastain opts for an aloof distance with stricken eyes, while Hathaway prefers a labored smile that drops as soon as she’s alone. Theirs is a brittle-off no one can win, but both try their hardest anyway. The effort reaches its crescendo at Max’s funeral, where Hathaway’s enormous eyes glimmer through the barrier of a black lace veil and Chastain tilts her face up so that the elegant tracks of past tears can gleam in the light. The scene ends with Céline collapsing in anguish while Alice rushes her tantrumming child out of the church, an explosion of drama that would be so much more effective if the movie had left any room for modulation instead of starting at 10 and staying there. Mothers’ Instinct gets much sillier before it ends, but given how little it establishes as its baseline tone, it doesn’t feel fair to say it goes off the rails. Rather, as Hathaway stares brokenly into the dark and Chastain tears apart her nightstand drawer in panic, what comes to mind is how great a set of GIFs this movie will make someday. That’s not much, but I guess it’s something?

See All

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Twisters – Kenbridge Victoria Dispatch

Published

on

Movie Review: Twisters – Kenbridge Victoria Dispatch

Movie Review: Twisters

Published 11:15 am Friday, July 26, 2024

Let me immediately cut to the chase (pun intended) and answer the question you’re all wondering. TWISTERS is a fun and entertaining summer blockbuster, but it in no way holds a candle to its predecessor TWISTER (1996). Still, the CGI is intense, the sound design is loud and immersive, and the lead performances — especially from Glen Powell — are sure to wow.

Advertisement

Following a horrible tragedy, meteorologist Kate Carter (Daisy Edgar-Jones) has spent years out of the storm chasing business. She now lives in the largely tornado-less New York City, using her innate understanding of storm systems to direct weather alerts. But when her old friend Javi (Anthony Ramos) begs her to join his privately-funded start-up, which is designed to use military-grade radars to learn more about tornadoes and save communities in Oklahoma, she agrees to give him a week of her time. It’s not too long before “tornado wrangler” influencer Tyler Owens (Glen Powell) enters the scene with his ragtag group of weather enthusiasts, creating a competition between scientific research and entertainment. Each group races to be the first on the scene, with Kate and Javi seeking to model the tornado and Tyler trying to get the most likes on social media. But can the two groups find a way to work together or will the competition be more vicious than the tornadoes?

I am admittedly judging myself for caring too much about a summer blockbuster’s plot, because that’s not really what any of us sign up for with these films. But the various encounters with tornadoes begins to feel slightly repetitive and creates pacing issues, making a two-hour film feel like its runtime. And for some reason, it seems like there is something missing when it comes to portraying the sheer terror of experiencing F5 tornadoes, unlike the original film; the main set pieces were not as memorable.

The film does little to make you care about whether the characters live or die, relying on Glen Powell and Daisy Edgar-Jones’s chemistry and natural charisma to do the heavy lifting. The second Powell steps out of his gigantic truck, with his cowboy hat and belt buckle sparkling in the sun… sorry, I just lost my train of thought… and that’s what TWISTERS is hoping. Powell’s magnetism is sure to knock you off your feet and distract you from the film’s middling plot. And while Edgar-Jones’s performance is more muted, due to her character’s battle with PTSD, she brings an important level of humanity to the film and a character to both see yourself in and root for. More than that, her chemistry with Powell is off the charts and will certainly leave you wanting their relationship explored more in a sequel. The supporting characters are not given much to work with and as such, don’t really engender much concern when they are in deadly situations.

One element of TWISTERS I liked more than TWISTER is it showed the emotional and financial toll tornadoes ravage on communities. Of course, that is an element of the first film, but TWISTERS does a great job showcasing the speed in which tornadoes can overtake and devastate a community, both in loss of life and loss of property. This, juxtaposed with the “fun” in chasing storms brings a real human element to the film. I also want to give a shoutout to the movie not having any sad animal scenes (apart from a possible run-in with a chicken). So for all of you sickos excited to see another flying cow, this isn’t for you.

TWISTERS is the exact kind of movie you need to see in a theater so you can get the full experience. Where else can you admire the cinematography, get immersed in the sound design, and lose yourself in Glen Powell’s cowboy hat and million dollar smile? I saw it in a Dolby theater and was blown away.

Advertisement

There is no end credit scene.

My Review: B

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Raayan Telugu Movie Review, Dhanush, Sundeep Kishan

Published

on

Raayan Telugu Movie Review, Dhanush, Sundeep Kishan

Movie Name : Raayan

Release Date : July 26, 2024

123telugu.com Rating : 2.75/5

Starring : Dhanush, Sandeep Kishan, Kalidasu Jairam, Aparna Balamurali, SJ Surya, Saravanan

Director : Dhanush

Producers : Kalanithi Maran

Advertisement

Music Director: A. R. Rahman

Cinematographer: Om Prakash

Editor: Prasanna GK

Related Links : Trailer

Raayan is Dhanush’s 50th film as an actor and his second as a director. The film released in cinemas worldwide today amid moderate expectations. This review explores how the film performed. Read on.

Advertisement

 

Story:

Kaartavaraayan aka Raayan (Dhanush), enjoys a quiet life in Anjanaouram with his brothers Muthuvelaraayan (Sundeep Kishan), Maanikyaraayan (Kalidas Jayaram), and sister Durga (Dushara Vijayan). Their tranquility is shattered when Muthu gets into a fight with the local don Dorai’s (Saravanan) men, setting off a dangerous rivalry. Sethuram (SJ Suryah), another gangster, steps into the fray with a deadly plan to eliminate Raayan. What drives Sethuram’s desire to kill Raayan? Who is Raayan beneath the surface? What is his true purpose? The film unveils all these secrets.

 

Plus Points:

Advertisement

Expectations were high when the film was announced, as it is directed by Dhanush. Besides his intense acting, Dhanush demonstrates his directing skills neatly.

Sundeep Kishan takes on a significant role and delivers an exceptional performance with his portrayal of a character with grey shades. His scenes with Dhanush and Aparna Balamurali are enjoyable.

Dushara Vijayan is unexpectedly strong in her role, which becomes more intense in the second half. SJ Suryah, as usual, gives an exemplary performance. Aparna Balamurali, Selvaraghavan, and others perform decently in their respective roles.

 

Minus Points:

Advertisement

The movie doesn’t offer much that’s new for viewers. Dhanush presents a routine story with very few twists, but the slow-paced screenplay diminishes the story’s impact.

There is no strong hook to illustrate the conflict between SJ Suryah and Dhanush. The reasons provided are unconvincing, and SJ Suryah’s potential is not fully utilised.

Advertisement

The film caters mainly to action movie enthusiasts and may not be suitable for family audiences due to its violent content.

Prakash Raj’s character lacks originality, and Varalaxmi Sarathkumar has minimal relevance to the plot. Additionally, including more emotional depth might have improved the film. The second half feels dragged out, with unnecessary scenes added to extend the film.

 

Technical Aspects:

As a director, writer, and actor, Dhanush displays his skills, but as a writer and director, he could have crafted a more engaging story. The sluggish second half could have been tightened.

Advertisement

Given the high expectations, AR Rahman’s work is noticeable but slightly disappointing. The cinematography by Om Prakash is decent, while editing by Prasanna GK could have been better. Production values are satisfactory.

 

Verdict:

On the whole, Raayan offers nothing new but remains passable due to the strong performances by Dhanush, Sundeep Kishan, Dushara Vijayan, and SJ Suryah. The action scenes are adequate but not suitable for family audiences. The lack of a strong hook point and a dragging second half are notable drawbacks. If you still decide to watch it, manage your expectations accordingly.

123telugu.com Rating: 2.75/5

Advertisement

Reviewed by 123telugu Team

Click Here For Telugu Review

Articles that might interest you:

Advertisement


Advertisement



Continue Reading

Trending