Thursday Movie Picks: Science Fiction Movies (No Space/Aliens)

Noah

Directed by Darren Aronofsky.

2014. Rated PG-13, 138 minutes.

Cast:

Russell Crowe

Jennifer Connelly

Ray Winstone

Emma Watson

Anthony Hopkins

Logan Lerman

Douglas Booth

Nick Nolte

Kevin Durand

Mark Margolis

Frank Langella

Leo McHugh Carroll

Even if you're not religious, you're probably familiar with the story of Noah's Ark. The Good Lord was so fed up with mankind that he sent a great flood to wipe us all out. Before He did, though, He let Noah in on the plan and told him to build a great ark and all the animals, two by two, will join him and his family. That way, when the waters recede all of the various species can continue. Noah did precisely this and the world was repopulated entirely by the occupants of the most famous boat of all time. With Russell Crowe in the titular role, Noah fleshes out this saga in more detail than has ever been attempted.

Noah is presented to us as a simple man. He is wholly devoted to The Creator first, his family second, and has the courage of his convictions on all fronts. Crowe plays him as a man with a quiet, yet unwavering, authority. It is also unquestioned within his own family. When he says 'we're building an ark and all the animals are coming,' his wife Naameh (Connelly) doesn't even blink. It's evident that she is as committed as he to carrying out The Creator's wishes. If either of them, or anyone in the movie for that matter, isn't quite sure what He is saying to them, or what should be done next, they go pay a visit to Noah's cave-dwelling grandfather Methusaleh. All is then made clear and we drive on. Also involved are Noah's sons Shem (Booth), Ham (Lerman), and Jahpeth (Carroll). This makes for some pretty interesting family dynamics when things don't seem to be going quite as planned, or at least to everyone's liking. This provides the movie with its biggest dilemma and a controversial outcome. It opens the door for the interpretation that Noah was ultimately a failure in God's eyes. Noah himself seems to feel this way. It goes against the prevailing idea that he was an unmitigated success. Well, unless I missed something. That's entirely possible given I'm not a religious guy. If so, feel free to let me know.

Then again, letting me know what I missed isn't really necessary because this movie really only uses the biblical story of Noah as an outline for the rest of the movie. Basically, that he built an ark, all the animals came, and The Creator flooded the world destroying all life outside of that ark is all that's taken from scripture. However, this isn't a complaint. I fully understand why so much was added to the story. It would have been really boring watching Noah and his family chop down trees, swing hammers, and sing spirituals while they work for a hundred years to get it done. Likewise, it would not have been exciting watching them sail along for forty days and forty nights unless the animals started getting unruly. By the way, the movie very neatly skirts this possibility. Things were needed to give us human conflicts the viewer could relate to. To that end, we get the family drama, including a very tough situation that weighs heavily on the movie's final act. We also get a villain in the form of Tubal-cain (Winstone). He believes Noah really has been told by God to build the ark and that a great flood is coming. Well, Tubal-cain has an army and he wants on that boat! These things work pretty well to create tension where the source material has none. There is also an additional layer of mysticism applied to a tale that already starts with a supernatural conversation. This comes in the form of "The Watchers," fallen angels made of light but encased in rock ages ago when they betrayed The Creator by helping mankind. They seem to have leapt from Peter Jackson's imagination as possible Middle Earth inhabitants. Their presence gives our heroes some much-needed allies and they really spring to life during movie's largest battle scene.

On the technical side, director Darren Aronofsky has created a visually pleasing film. There are lots of wide shots of our heroes either traversing lush landscapes or hard at work on the ark. These and the depiction of the battles again bring Peter Jackson to mind. In battle, The Watchers take on humans in spectacular fashion. Bodies and rocks fly about the screen as swords, axes, and all sorts of ancient weaponry is put to use. By the time we get quite that far, however, we have already seen the most amazing shot of the movie: a forest instantly springing up around Noah and family from a singular seed. Another wonderful sequence has our hero audibly recite the story of Creation, but visually melds it with The Big Bang Theory and evolution. During our scenes aboard the famed vessel, we get lots of shots of people coming out of and going into the shadows symbolizing the less than altruistic intentions of several characters. We are also shown more close ups mimicking the claustrophobic nature of their situation. It's a clear case of the director and his cinematographer using the camera to influence the viewer.

Like lots of films, how much we enjoy Noah might depend on the expectations we bring to it. If you are a devout Christian and/or looking for something that sticks closely to the story you know and love, you may be sorely disappointed. I venture to say so many liberties are taken wish the source material it's possible you'll be offended. Of course, there's that whole bit about just what happened at the beginning of time. If you go into it dreading having to sit through a religious flick, you might just roll your eyes all the way through. Fallen angels and God delivering ultimatums in a voice only heard by one person is not going to change your mind. However, if you enter without clinging to your thoughts on what it should be, you will be pleasantly surprised. The story is told well and a good deal of tension is created. It also looks very good, as mentioned. It can drag a bit in spots, but things perk up whenever Ray Winstone or Anthony Hopkins is on the screen. It's a decent watch, but won't inspire you to start building an ark anytime soon.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Robot & Frank

Directed by Jake Schreier.

2012. Rated PG-13, 85 minutes.

Cast:

Frank Langella

James Marsden

Susan Sarandon

Liv Tyler

Jeremy Strong

Jeremy Sisto

Peter Sarsgaard

Once a globetrotting cat burglar, Frank (Langella) is retired and lives alone. These days, he gets all of his excitement flirting with Jennifer (Sarandon), the local librarian, while checking out books. The problem is he’s suffering from what appears to be the early stages of Alzheimer’s. That word is never used in the movie to my recollection, just my amateur diagnosis. His adult son Hunter (Marsden) is worried about him and has entertained the idea of putting the old man in a nursing home. Thinking better of it, Hunter buys Frank a robot that functions as an automated in-home healthcare attendant. Though reluctant at first, Frank and machine develop a fascinating relationship.

This movie raises many of the same questions we've been asking for years about the potential good or harm that may come from our ever-increasing dependency on technology. However, it does it in a way that’s refreshing. It’s refreshing because no matter how plainly we can see that their friendship is artificial, it feels as authentic as any other. Clearly, we’re viewing the world through Frank’s cloudy perception. The idea of a mutual bond between he and the robot is as much a figment of his imagination as it is reality. The line between the two blurred by the robot often responding as a friend might. As a result, we’re caught in that abyss between the heart and the mind. We know one thing to be true and hope that the other thing is also, though we know it to be impossible.

Frank Langella gives us a great portal for such feelings. He plays his part perfectly. We see Frank as a stubborn man, aware he’s not as sharp as he once was, but thinking he can handle it. The robot reinvigorates him, helps him reclaim his zest for life. This is not always good thing, necessarily, as Frank entertains the idea of returning to his old tricks. On the other hand, his synapses are firing once more.

There are a couple of narrative issues. Namely, the way Susan Sarandon’s character is handled feels like a bit of a cheat, to me. I see what the filmmakers are trying to do, but it renders Frank much further gone than has been let on to that point. In fact, it makes it seem as if there should never have been a purchase of the robot in the first place. His son should have went with his first instinct. For fear I've already said too much, I’ll leave it at that. I will say that Sarandon herself is great in the role. Other supporting players are just as good. The whirlwind turn by Liv Tyler as Frank’s daughter especially impresses.

While superheroes and dystopian futures dominate the box office, the truth is that most of the best science fiction of recent vintage shies away from explosions and invasions. Instead, they use futuristic premises to examine our present circumstances. In lieu of eye-popping visuals, they engage our minds. Ultimately, they are films about us human beings. Movies like Another Earth and Safety Not Guaranteed understand this and weave wonderfully relatable tales out of their sci-fi frames. They’re barely even recognizable as members of the genre, at all. Robot & Frank strikes a similar chord, though the presence of the machine renders it more obvious. Sure, it presents us with a society where it is becoming increasingly normal to have a robot around to do chores for you, but this isn't the hyper-paranoid universe of I, Robot. This is one man trying to come to grips with his own very personal situation.

Superman Returns

Unknown

Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra.

2011. Rated PG-13, 113 minutes.
Cast:
Liam Neeson
Diane Kruger
January Jones
Aidan Quinn
Bruno Ganz
Frank Langella
Clint Dyer
Sebastian Koch
Olivier Schneider
Stipe Erceg

Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) and his wife Elizabeth (Jones) arrive in Berlin for a swanky bio-technology conference where there is going to be a major announcement. When they get to the hotel, he realizes he’s left his briefcase at the airport. While his wife checks in, he catches a taxi to go retrieve the case, without telling her. On the way, the cab he’s riding in has a horrible but spectacular accident. He survives, but goes into a coma. When he comes to, no one knows who he is, including Elizabeth. She’s even with a guy who claims to be her husband, the real Dr. Martin Harris (Quinn). With no ID and no one to corroborate his story, he can’t prove otherwise. As if that weren’t enough, a couple of henchmen are following him around trying to kill him. I hate when that happens.

In an effort to reclaim his identity, Martin retraces his steps, looks for clues, etc. He also recruits Gina (Kruger), the cabbie, to help his cause. Of course, they have to survive the occasional run-in with the aforementioned henchmen. They also uncover things that seem to explain what’s going on. Before you know it, we’re watching The Bourne Identity starring Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, this isn’t nearly as innovative as that was when it came out. To be sure, it does some things well and manages a bit of excitement. However, it never escapes Matt Damon’s shadow.

For that matter, it doesn’t escape Neeson’s own shadow. More specifically, the one cast by the movie Taken. Whatever its flaws, Taken is a fun, no-holds barred action flick. In it, Neeson kicks a lot of ass and establishes himself as a genre star. Unknown seems to owe its existence to that movie. Alas, Unknown is not Taken. It drags things out a bit where that movie is concise, insistent on not letting us catch our breath. As I implied earlier, this actually takes more cues from the Bourne series. It executes many of the same moves, just not as good.

None of this is to say, Unknown is a bad movie. It’s not. There is certainly fun to be had. This is especially true if you’re looking for a movie where Liam Neeson barks lines in his megaphonic voice and beats down baddies, this is a solid choice. You’ll get what you came for. To continue the time-honored tradition of talking out of both sides of my mouth, even ardent fans of the actor probably won’t call this a masterpiece. It gives us a few thrills and an interesting finale. We’ll just forget about it not long after it’s over.

MY SCORE: 6/10

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Directed by Oliver Stone.
2010. Rated PG-13, 133 minutes.
Cast:
Shia LaBeouf
Michael Douglas
Carey Mulligan
Josh Brolin
Frank Langella
Susan Sarandon
Austin Pendleton
Vanessa Ferlito

There is a lot of stuff happening, here. The iconic Gordon Gekko (Douglas) is finally out of jail and armed with a best-selling book. Still, his daughter Winnie (Mulligan) blames him for everything since the crucifixion of Christ and wants nothing to do with him. Of course, this means she’s in love with a guy just like him. That guy is Jake Moore (LaBeouf), a young Wall Street hotshot with a jones for an alternative energy company in California.

Keep up, we’re just getting started.

The firm Jake works for collapses. Did I mention this is set in 2008? Anyhoo, when the firm goes belly up, Jake’s beloved boss Lou (Langella) can’t take it anymore, or finally had enough of the smell in the subway, and steps in front of a train. As you would expect, Jake gets all pissed and , tries to go Jason Witwicky and get Bumblebee to kick some ass. However, since he can’t do that in this movie, he decides he’s going to try and take down the man who he thinks is responsible for all his recent misfortunes, Gordon Gekko…oh, wait, sorry. That would’ve made it more interesting. Instead, it’s some other cold-hearted arrogant mogul named Bretton James (Brolin). He’s the kind of guy that likes to stab people in the back and then come around front and act tough as they die.

Well, since it is 2008 and all, the Dow Jones does all of Jakes heavy lifting and all the firms soon find themselves in financial ruin and facing extinction. By the way, there’s also Jake’s mom (Sarandon) who’s a real estate junkie, a cajillion karat engagement ring and an angry liberal website.

Phew! Let me catch my breath.

Actually, all that sounds like an interesting movie. Add in the fact that Oliver Stone is indeed directing the sequel to one of his masterpieces, and this has the pedigree to be great. Sadly, it’s nothing of the sort. It’s just a bunch of stuff.

An old baseball saying warns us to “make them beat you with your best pitch.” If you’re a pitcher tasked with getting out the other team’s star hitter in a potentially game-changing moment, throw your best pitch. If that pitch is a 100 mph fastball, go with that. Don’t bother with your curveball that doesn’t curve so much. For non-baseball fans, it simply means go with what you do best in crucial situations. WS: MNS rarely throws its best pitch.

It’s best pitch is the Gordon Gekko of the original movie. That Gekko is simultaneously magnetic and repulsive. He is irreverent, unapologetic, self-absorbed and above all, greedy. He is one of the best villains of the 1980s, possibly of cinematic history. This version is much more pathetic. His smugness and sliminess has lost most of its appeal. Worse than that, because we do get glimpses of the old Gordon, he’s a secondary player on what should’ve been his stage to shine.

That stage is thoroughly hogged by Jake and James. As our good guy, LaBeouf does what LaBeouf always does, take it or leave it. As the bad guy, Brolin turns in another in what’s becoming a long line of impressive performances. The problem is the characters themselves. They’re both less interesting knock-offs of their counterparts from the original, with equally less interesting dialogue and relationship between them. There’s no complexity to it. It’s simply good guy vs. bad guy. The original gave us two guys who obviously admired one another and, for a time, really were on the same side. The sequel ditches that for standard hero/villain fare, not its best pitch.

About two-thirds of the way through, we get a cameo by Charlie Sheen, ever so briefly reprising his role as Bud Fox. This might be the best scene in the movie. That’s the worst thing that it could’ve been. Seeing Sheen and Douglas have a short, but contentious conversation is too much a reminder of what could’ve been. It’s a mere hint of the movie we wanted. After a few fleeting moments, Sheen walks off dragging our hopes and dreams, kicking and screaming behind him, never to be seen again. There went the movie’s best pitch.

We get more curveballs that don’t curve. We get lots of drawn out scenes of meetings where old men try desperately to save their own backsides. We get lots of one-on-one meetings between others, either trying to save themselves or talk tough to one another. We get lots of clips of CNN. All of this is steeped in joyless financial jargon. The movie only moves away from feeling like economics class when it involves Gekko’s daughter, Winnie. However, with her constant whining she’s much more an annoyance that the reprieve we need.

This movie has needs, too. Apparently, it needs us to like the Gekko family, along with Jake who keeps threatening to be their new addition. To that end, everything is wrapped up in one gutwrenchingly cheesy and hastily tied little bow. All of the good guys will have their cake, and eat it too. It’s too easy, too cliché and not Oliver Stone’s best pitch.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

The Box

Directed by Richard Kelly.
2009. Rated PG-13, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Cameron Diaz
James Marsden
Frank Langella
James Rebhorn
Holmes Osborne
Sam Oz Stone
Gillian Jacobs

Plot: A couple with some new financial concerns is given a mysterious box by an even more mysterious man. They are then told if they choose to press the button on top of the box they will receive one million dollars in cash. However, someone they don’t know will die.

The Good: The choices with which our heroes are faced are incredibly fascinating. This holds true for not only the initial decision but the final one, as well. Because of this, it’s a great conversation starter. Throw in that it’s a religious (anti-religious?) parable and it not only starts conversations but can keep them going. The movie itself moves very well and presents one startling situation after another to bring you to the edge of your seat. As our villain, of sorts, Frank Langella is sufficiently aloof and detached from the proceedings. If you haven’t seen it, that sounds bad but it’s precisely what the role calls for.

The Bad: As interesting as its beginning and ending are, there are several points in the middle that might make it easy to give up on. The problem is the way it chooses to build its metaphors and try to be creepy feel kind of hokey. The basic pattern goes like this: something happens, you roll your eyes, then something else happens to explain what you rolled your eyes at and you’re okay with it. Well, it’s going to lose lots of people during one or another of those eye-rolling moments. I can hear tons of people saying “I just couldn’t get into it.” Lastly, I could also see people thinking this movie hates women. There is certainly a case to be made. At the very least, it seems very upset with them over that whole getting us kicked out of the Garden of Eden thing that happened a while back.

The Ugly: Southern accents seem to come and go as they please.

Recommendation: I thoroughly enjoyed this but understand many will quickly dismiss it, leaving me alone on an island. I was intrigued from the start and I almost always like movies that leave you something to debate, as this one does. Go in with an open mind but if you don’t like it, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The Opposite View: Claudia Puig, USA Today

What the Internet Says: 5.9/10 on imdb.com (6/25/10), 45% on rottentomatoes.com, 47/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 7.5/10

Frost/Nixon

Frost/Nixon
2008. Rated R, 123 minutes.
Director: Ron Howard. Starring Michael Sheen, Frank Langella, Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt, Rebecca Hall, Toby Jones.

Plot: Former US President Richard Nixon (Langella) grants his first interview since resigning from office to British talk show host David Frost (Sheen).

The Good: This is an actors' movie and the actors deliver. The writing and directing are both superb but without the actors it would disintegrate. After all, the movie largely consists of people sitting around hotel rooms and living rooms talking. It doesn't sound like riveting drama, but it is. Frank Langella is marvelous as Pres. Nixon. He conveys the smugness of a man confident things will turn out in his favor, yet accusing "media people" of possessing that same trait. People who have seen the actual interviews the movie is based on, or really can remember Nixon, might notice that Langella is much more demonstrative that the President. However, that's done for dramatic purposes and Langella (and the script) hit all the right notes to create what essentially is the movie's villain. Speaking of hitting the right notes, Michael Sheen also does so as David Frost. He is simply perfect. Like most great performances, he does his best acting when he's not talking. Through these moments we sense the pressure mounting on him to pull off something amazing or watch his career go down the drain. That same pressure is on the people working with him and the supporting cast does a great job showing this. Finally, the movie gives us a love interest for our hero but doesn't distract us with a love story.

The Bad: It, maybe, could've gotten more out of Pres. Nixon's team. We get plenty of Jack Brennan (Bacon) but the rest of his team of strategists are reduced to wall flowers simply around for reaction shots. Getting more input from them might possibly have raised the tension between the two camps a bit. Also, I know I commended the movie on not giving us a love story but they still could've found something for Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall) to do. She's pretty much just a prop in the background for most of the movie. However, if giving her more to do would've changed the direction of the film then I'm fine with it, as is.

The Ugly: The Prez's late night, drunken phone call to our hero.

Recommendation: Fans of political and/or courtroom drams will love this (yes, I know there are no courtroom scenes in this movie). It's the best one of either I've seen in quite some time. It works best if you have a decent working of knowledge of Nixon's presidency. Stay away if you need any of the following to enjoy a movie: gunplay, explosions, fighting, romance or slapstick.

The Opposite View: Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald

What the Internet Says: 8.0/10 on imdb.com (5/19/09), 92% on rottentomatoes.com, 80/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 9.5/10

The Tale of Despereaux

The Tale of Despereaux

2008. Rated G, 94 minutes.

Directors: Sam Fell, Rob Stevenhagen. Starring Matthew Broderick, Robbie Coltrane, Tracy Ullman, Dustin Hoffman, Emma Watson, Kevin Kline, William H. Macy, Stanley Tucci, Frank Langella, Richard Jenkins, Christopher Lloyd.

Plot: Despereaux (Broderick) is an outcast among other mice since he doesn't cower, scurry or show any fear at all. For this, he is banished from "Mouse World" into the sewers below. From there, he embarks on the adventure of a lifetime in hopes of saving a princess and perhaps an entire kingdom.

The Good: It trusts it's audience will stay with it when it lets up off the accelerator. So while there are scenes of silliness and action sprinkled throughout, there's ample time devoted to character development and plot building. The viewer is not rushed from one action scene to the next and we actually get to know a number of these characters. Visually, it's a wonderful piece of work. Like a lot of animated fare, it blends photo-realism with it's more cartoonish elements but it does so seemlessly.

The Bad: The tone might be a tad too serious. Young viewers weened on the all-out goofiness of many animated movies might be put off a bit. Also, If there's one character who was underdeveloped, it's the king. Having him more involved would've added another dimension, particularly if more attention were given his relationship with his daughter, Princess Pea (Emma Watson). As is, he sort of punctuates the movie. He occasionally shows up briefly to remind us he's there. Finally, I would love to have seen just how the rats got their two prisoners, especially the cat.

The Ugly: What happens to the queen.

Recommendation: It might move a bit slow for really young kids or those with short attention spans. Use Ratatouille or maybe even Wall-E as a guide. How you or your kids reacted to the non-action parts of those may provide insight into how they'll respond to Despereaux. For the rest of us, it's a pleasure to take in but admittedly not as good as the two movies I just mentioned. It's a movie in which we can actually relate to the characters having the adventure, even if they are mostly mice and rats.

The Opposite View: Avi Offer, NYC Movie Guru

What the Internet Says: 6.0/10 on imdb.com (4/15/09), 55% on rottentomatoes.com, 53/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10