There’s something tiresome about this Mary… Anne Hathaway’s a troubled pop diva in this over-the-top psycho-horror

by

Mother Mary (15, 112 mins)

Rating: Two out of five stars 

Verdict: Heavens above 

Michael (12A, 127 mins)

Rating: Two out of five stars 

Verdict: Dishonest biopic 

Imagine a perfume commercial that’s deliberately over-the-top and irritating, but instead of being thirty seconds long, it lasts nearly two hours – that gives you a sense of the experience of watching Mother Mary.

This over-the-top and spooky story, complete with original music by Charli XCX, features Anne Hathaway as a struggling pop star desperately seeking a new outfit for her return to the stage.

Anne Hathaway plays Mother Mary, a pop star clearly inspired by artists like Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, and Madonna. She’s built a devoted fanbase that almost feels like a religion, and she uses this to create a dramatic stage persona. She performs with a halo, sings songs with religious titles like “Holy Spirit,” and dances energetically with a large group of backup dancers.

We see a vulnerable and down-on-her-luck Mary arrive at the house of Sam, a former dress designer (and possibly a past lover), played by Michaela Coel.

With Mary’s show just three days off, Sam is under immense pressure to finish the dress. However, she finds some satisfaction in knowing Mary will be stressed, a small act of revenge for the pain Mary caused when they broke up.

This idea has a lot of potential and could make for a really captivating story. Just look at Paul Thomas Anderson’s excellent film Phantom Thread (2017), which proved how much drama and interest can be found in the world of high fashion.

David Lowery, the writer and director, tries to do too much, adding unnecessary scary elements and even a ghost – a strikingly red-clad figure that feels ripped from a particularly vivid dream. Ultimately, he focuses too much on spectacle and not enough on the story itself.

Lowery explored comparable themes in his 2017 film, A Ghost Story, which was a significant improvement and a truly remarkable work. However, in his current film, the overly elaborate dialogue places too much burden on the actors.

Coel’s performance feels overly affected and artificial, particularly in a long scene with another woman in Sam’s studio. Their conversation is filled with unnecessarily complex language, as if they’re competing to use the most elaborate words possible. It’s like watching two highly skilled players in a verbal duel, and when they struggle to find more words, the indirectness becomes even more noticeable.

Mary said she wanted the same thing as me, but only if my motivations were good. Honestly, it made me start to question if anyone else even wanted what I wanted – which, at that moment, was simply to leave.

This Michael Jackson biopic, like Donald Trump’s attempt to portray himself in a divine light on social media, presents a carefully crafted image of the pop star, but doesn’t reveal the complete picture of who he truly was. It focuses on building a legend, rather than offering a full, honest account.

As a lifelong fan, I’ve always seen Michael Jackson as something more than just a performer – he felt like a truly divine figure. He radiated warmth and kindness, always giving back, and of course, he delivered unbelievably captivating entertainment. He was like a shining, golden presence, a beacon of light and love in human form.

Like many music biopics, the names in the credits tell you a lot about the film’s perspective. Six executive producers, and the actor playing Michael Jackson (his nephew, Jaafar), all share the Jackson family name. This suggests the film presents a very sanitized version of Michael’s life, hinting that any potentially troubling private behavior is glossed over – portraying him as someone whose worst offense might have been kissing his llama.

The film ends in 1988, but promises a sequel. The big question is whether that sequel will address the serious rumors of child abuse and the reported $25 million settlement Michael Jackson allegedly paid to the family of Jordan Chandler, the teenager who accused him of abuse. While I don’t want to assume anything, it seems unlikely the next film will delve into those details.

Director Antoine Fuqua and writer John Logan present Jackson’s life story in a straightforward way, avoiding any complex or subtle details.

The story starts in Gary, Indiana, in 1966. Joe, a demanding father, relentlessly drilled his sons with their performance, constantly making them practice. He harshly disciplined anyone who complained or refused to cooperate, often using a belt.

This is the first of many hints about Michael Jackson’s troubled life. Later, in a scene where eight-year-old Michael reads Peter Pan, he happily declares, ‘Neverland was finally free!’ This line is a clear reference to the name of the ranch he would later purchase. While most viewers see a hopeful moment, others are reminded of the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, which featured allegations of childhood abuse against Jackson.

Like many biopics, the film shows how relentless pushing from Joe Jackson ultimately works. By 1969, the Jackson 5 are performing in Los Angeles, impressing Motown founder Berry Gordy. From there, the movie covers the key moments of Michael’s incredible career: his decision to go solo, his rhinoplasty, his firing of Joe – delivered harshly via a short fax from his new manager, John Branca – and the frightening incident on a 1984 Pepsi commercial set where his hair caught fire.

Jaafar Jackson, Jermaine Jackson’s son, does a surprisingly good job portraying his uncle Michael. While he may not be a seasoned actor, he remarkably captures Michael’s appearance, voice, and iconic dance style.

The story itself is pretty basic and leaves out a lot of important details, but with a $200 million budget, they clearly put the money towards impressive visuals and spectacle.

Both films are in cinemas now. A review of Michael ran in Wednesday’s paper.

Read More

2026-04-24 03:25