Movie Review: NOAH

NOAH
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Douglas Booth, Logan Lerman

Films like Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan are these artistic visionary tales that take your mind to a whole different dimension. I was a bit perplexed when I heard that writer/director Darren Aronofsky would make his follow-up to Black Swan be an adaptation of the biblical tale of Noah and his ark. All of his films are very different, and Noah was a passion project for him that he has been developing for years. Apparently he’s been working on the script since Pi came out.

As a young boy, Noah watches his father get killed by Tubal-cain. This is early proof for him that the people and descendants of Adam and Eve have turned against each other. As an adult, Noah (Crowe) believes he is receiving a message from The Creator/Him that He will flood the Earth in order to destroy the universe as man is turning against each other. Noah believes he has been chosen to save all of the animals as they are considered innocent with an ark to keep them shelter from the flood. He turns to his grandfather Methulselah (Hopkins) for guidance and is given a seed that has been passed on from the Garden of Eden. This seed turns the desolate and barren land into a rich saturated land full of trees in order for Noah to build his ark to save the animals. Noah, his wife Naameh (Connelly), and the rest of his family receive help from The Watchers, rock creatures that are considered to be the fallen angels that have been punished by God. Tubal-cain (Winstone) receives word that Noah is building an ark and sets his men off to destroy the ark.

You may already be thinking to yourself that this does not seem like the happy story you read in Sunday school about how Noah built this ark and had two of each animal march peacefully into the ark in preparation for the flood. You have to go into the film with a bit of an open mind knowing that this is just one interpretation of someone’s take on this biblical story. Aronfsky fleshes out quite a bit of the story that is probably taken for granted if you read the bible story at face value. There is violence and unrest, bloody killings, sacrifices, mythical creatures, and even some CGI rock creatures. I’m sure that idea will turn many people away from this film. Have you ever wondered why God would want to destroy the universe He created or what happened to all of the animals once the entered the ark? What happened to Noah’s family on the ark as it weathered out the flood? Aronofsky decides to tackle a variety of these questions and some of his answers make some plausible sense while others feel a bit stretched.

I am sure there will be Bible literalists that will scoff and spew anger toward the film as it won’t be faithful to the version of the story the way they have come to believe it. These moviegoers will be turned off by the fantasy style elements with the rock creatures and other animal creatures that Aronofsky and his team have designed that no longer exist in today’s world. There is even a battle sequence that feels like it has come straight out of a Lord of the Rings movie. It has been many many years since my days of religion classes in my Catholic grade school, so I went in with a pretty open mind. I was on board with Aronofsky’s take on this story throughout quite a bit of the movie. I decided not to get wrapped up in the idea that the fallen angels became rock creatures. I was fascinated in this idea that the people were turning on each other and watching Noah’s determination in a message he believes he is given. Aronofsky seemed to have a clear vision on how he was going to approach this story and what would lead up to the eventual flood. The big problem with Noah comes post-flood. It feels like Aronofsky felt stuck with how he was going to resolve the rest of his take on this story once the flood happens. He resorts to seem cheap and gimmicky ways to keep the conflict going to put tension between Noah and his family and Noah and Tubal-cain.

Russell Crowe brings a strong, guiding presence to the determined Noah. Truth be told, I can’t really picture another actor in this role. This is the third time he has starred with Jennifer Connelly following A Beautiful Mind, for which she won the Oscar, and this year’s Winter’s Tale. This is a silly criticism but she always looked far too pretty as Naameh. I understand that fact that she is beautiful in real life, but how come they didn’t roughen her up a bit here. The men are seen with scruffy facial hair and even Emma Watson, who plays their adopted daughter, has frizzy hair. Connelly has perfect skin complexion and her hair always looks pulled back as if it’s ready for a photo shoot. The rest of the production design around the ark and environment felt pretty realistic given the time. Again, it’s a different look to the ark than people are probably used to seeing in illustrated versions of the bible. I appreciate the effort they went into actually making an ark structure to film on instead of fully relying on a CGI ark. On the opposite end, all of the animals seen in the film are CGI.

I applaud Aronofsky for tackling this very ambitious and daring project. I don’t think a filmmaker would go into adapting this story if he wasn’t fully committed and had an interest in Noah. There is quite a bit of imagining and explaining that any screenwriter or director would have to do with bringing Noah’s story to the big screen in order for it to make sense. If the film had ended with the flood or even wrapped up shortly after the flood, I probably would have given the film a positive review. Instead, it keeps going and turns into a mess. Even before the flood, the film goes back and forth between having these really interesting and thought-provoking scenes mixed in with some tragic over-the-top dialogue and Anthony Hopkins hiding out in a cave. I guess all of that led me to start rolling me eyes even more when it came to the scenes aboard the ark.

Is it worth your trip to the movies? Unfortunately, no. With such a talented filmmaker and cast, you would have thought it would have worked. Instead of staying afloat in it's third act, it sinks pretty hard.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5 Ticket Stubs

Movie Review: THOR: THE DARK WORLD

THOR: THE DARK WORLD
Director: Alan Taylor
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Christopher Eccleston, Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgård

Is it wrong that after three movies I still think of Vincent D'Onofrio when it comes to Thor? Other Adventures in Babysitting fans and I are still waiting for him to make a cameo in one of these. Chances are slim to none that it will ever happen but we can still hope for it. We do have the brutish Chris Hemsworth back to wear the red cape and throw that hammer around. Many moons ago a war broke out between the Asgardians and the Dark Elves whose ruler Malekith (Eccleston) sought to destroy the universe with a red liquid known as the aether. The Asgardians won and killed the Dark Elves, but unbeknownst to them, Malekith and some of his men survive and disappear into another realm. The aether was cast to Earth to stay hidden for centuries.

In present day Earth, astrophysicist Jane Foster (Portman) and her colleague Darcy (Dennings) investigate a bizarre finding in a warehouse when the dormant aether attaches itself to Jane causing her to disappear into another realm. Thor is informed of her disappearance and heads back down to rescue her. She reappears five hours later only to be scooped up by Thor and taken back up to Asgard. Thor’s father Odin (Hopkins) recognizes the aether and knows it is only time before Malekith returns. Thor must make the decision if he will turn to his imprisoned and deceitful brother Loki (Hiddleston) for help against Malekith.

With action happening on Earth, Asgard, as well as some other realms, there is a lot going on with the story. I applaud the production design and special effects teams for giving Asgard some actual dimension, depth, and culture behind it. There seems to be a bit of a Star Wars and Lord of the Rings feel to the look of it without it feeling overly CGI with a green screen behind the actors. At one point we see a burial ceremony after a battle sequence that was quite beautiful and touching. It took me by surprise as I was not quite expecting it nor was it even fully needed. I am glad director Alan Taylor kept the scene in as it gives some culture and reality to this world.

If you are up-to-date with your Marvel movies, you may know we are now into Phase 2. Along with Iron Man 3, the film follows the events in Marvel’s The Avengers. The writers know these characters a bit better, so there able to have a little more fun this time around. Now that we are done setting the stage and history, some of the smaller characters are utilized more. Dennings and Skarsgard are scene stealers at times given the comedic angles of their characters. Skarsgard spends the majority of the film without his pants on. He must have been prepping for his next movie, Lars von Trier’s Nymphomaniac. Even Rene Russo as Thor’s mom is given a fight scene this time around instead of standing in the background behind Anthony Hopkins. Even though Thor is the title character and the hero, the film really belongs to Tom Hiddleston and his return to the diabolical Loki. Loki is such a juicy character that teeters back and forth on how villainous he wants to be and if you can trust him or not. It is apparent that Hiddleston is having loads of fun here as he toys with our trust. Any great villain with the right actor should make you feel that way towards him.

What is great about these Avengers characters is that they all come from different times in history and from very different worlds. Iron Man is very much set in the technological now, Captain America is more of the historical World War II era, and Thor is from the old Norse mythology on a different planet. One may appeal to you more than others. Thor is a bit tricky as he is not all that interesting as a character nor does he have an alternate personality like Tony Stark. I am not a big reader of mythology, so he does not really appeal to me like say Tony Stark/Iron Man or the X-Men. Loki is the better character in this series. Many people found the first film a bit iffy, and I know where they are coming from. I have grown to like it and these characters more with each viewing. Like I previously mentioned, Loki is a big factor in that. The film is definitely action packed, but not so drawn out like Man of Steel. There are references and jokes to both the first film and Marvel’s The Avengers, but you shouldn't feel too lost going into this if you have not seen them. The film is naturally showing in 3D like everything else in theaters. Feel free to skip it and save the $3. Do NOT skip out on the mid-credit sequence AND make sure to stay after the very end of the credits for another brief scene. You should already know this if you have seen any of the other Marvel films.

RATING: **** (4 out of 5 stars)

Movie Review: HITCHCOCK

HITCHCOCK
Director: Sacha Gervasi
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Michael Stuhlbarg, Danny Huston, Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Biel, James D'Arcy

We take Hitchcock's masterpiece Psycho as an important part of film history. Many regard it as his best movie. Many people probably do not know the trouble that the master of suspense had while making the movie, let alone even getting Paramount interested in distributing it. After the release of North By Northwest, Alfred Hitchcock (Hopkins) was looking for his next big movie. Numerous industry insiders questioned if he could deliver another successful movie. Was he getting too old to keep making hit movies? Hitchcock started to feel some inspiration after reading a book called "Psycho" by Robert Bloch. The book was loosely based on the real life killings in Wisconsin by Ed Gein. Hitchcock wanted to bring back a good old fashioned horror picture. He was under contract with Paramount at the time, but they were less than impressed with the thought of Psycho being his next picture. Hitchcock was bound and determined to make the movie no matter what the costs were.

His wife, Alma (Mirren), was a vital part of his productions. She would often write revisions to the script and knew how to edit a movie to keep up the suspense. She was often Alfred's closest collaborator and voice of opinion for any movie he was making. Alma tried getting him to read a screenplay by her friend Whitfield Cook (Huston), but he was set in stone about the adaptation of "Psycho". Alma conceded and got on board with the production. They decided to fund the movie themselves putting much of their life in jeopardy just to get the movie made. It was Alma's idea to have the character of Marion Crane killed off within the first thirty minutes.

Hitchcock casts Janet Leigh (Johansson), Anthony Perkins (D'Arcy), and Vera Miles (Biel) as the stars of Psycho. Leigh is the latest addition to the line-up of women known as the "Hitchcock Blonde". Despite her constant professionalism on set, there is an underlining feeling that exists between her and Hitchcock. Alma cannot seem to shake her inner struggle with this and spends her time writing on the beach with Whitfield Cook. Her absence around their house and set does not go unnoticed by Hitch who begins to think she is having an affair.

There are two different stories being told in this behind-the-scenes look at the life of one of the greatest screen directors. The primary story centers around the marriage of Alfred Hitchcock and his devoted wife Alma Reville. The other focus of the movie is on the constant challenges he faced while making Psycho. The movie is based on the book "Alfred Hitchcock and The Making of Psycho" by Stephen Rebello. The movie history nut in me wanted more of the story to center around the making of the classic movie. I think it could have gone into far more detail. Instead, Hitchcock is more about his relationship with Alma. Both stories are fascinating and could easily have been made into their own movies. Here they are blended together and not given a very specific look into either one of them. Another jarring part of the movie deals with Ed Gein. The movie suggests that Hitchcock was haunted by the images of Gein and was seeing visions of the serial killer. I do not know if this was true in real life or just a cinematic concept that fell flat. Every scene with Hitchcock talking to Gein seems so out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie.

The strong performances save the movie and give it the depth that is missing from the screenplay. Scarlett Johansson and James D'Arcy bring some nice subtle choices to their real life counterparts that play well for the limited screen time they have been given. For the most part, Anthony Hopkins successfully hides behind the make-up and fat suit to bring out numerous sides of Hitchcock while still showcasing his obvious vocal qualities and posture. In what easily could have been a movie to show off the work of Anthony Hopkins, the best performance belongs to fellow Oscar winner Helen Mirren. I really began to wonder if the movie was about her character instead of Hopkins' character. There is humor, strength, and heart to her that showcases why she was a perfect match for Alfred but also makes you feel sorry for her. This is the second of two movies based on Alfred Hitchcock that were released this year. Toby Jones played Hitch in HBO's "The Girl" which followed his relationship with Tippi Hedren while filming The Birds. Which version has the more accurate portrayal of the master of suspense? I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Hitchcock is the better of the two movies by far. I just wish the movie would have decided to pick which story it wanted to tell and given more specificity to that story.

RATING: *** 1/2 (3.5 out of 5 stars)

Movie Trailer: HITCHCOCK

HITCHCOCK

Director: Sacha Gervasi
Starring:
Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock
Helen Mirren as Alma Reville
Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh
Jessica Biel as Vera Miles
James D’Arcy as Anthony Perks

I am always intrigued to hear and read about the making of Hollywood classics. I am one of those cinephiles that watches the bonus features on the blu-ray and reads books about the movies. What were the stars and directors at the time like? What did it take to get a picture made in those days? Earlier this year I read an intriguing book called “Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho” by Stephen Rebello. I knew of some of the mysteries behind the movie, but this book delved deep into the Hitchcock classic. The book has now been adapted for the big screen, simply titled Hitchcock. Academy Award winner Anthony Hopkins plays the titular character with fellow Academy Award winner Helen Mirren as his wife, Alma. He definitely seems to have the physicality of Hitchcock down.

I think if you are a fan of Hitchcock and his work, you will want to check this one out. From what I can tell, the studio seems to be rushing the release of this in order to be in consideration for this Oscar season. HBO is airing another Hitchcock based movie called “The Girl” starring Toby Jones as Hitchcock and Sienna Miller as Tippi Hedren. “The Girl” premieres October 20th.

What are your first impressions of the look of the movie and Hopkins portrayal of the legendary director?

Hitchcock opens in limited released on November 23, 2012