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

Fruitvale Station

Directed by Ryan Coogler.

2013. Rated R, 85 minutes. 

Cast: 

Michael B. Jordan 

Melonie Diaz 

OctaviaSpencer 

Ahna O'Reilly 

Kevin Durand 

Ariana Neal 

Chad Michael Murray

During the first few hours of New Years' Day, 2009, 22 year old Oscar Grant (Jordan) was shot and killed by a police officer in the middle of a crowded train station. Of course, people captured the incident on their cell phones. Don't worry, I'm not spoiling anything. This is where the movie starts and it is based on a true story. From that opening, we then recount Oscar's final day. We find out quickly that he lives with his girlfriend Sophina (Diaz) and their daughter Tatianna (Neal). Things aren't going according to plan. He tries to rectify the situation while not letting his family or anyone else know the struggles he's going through. This is in addition to the rough stretch of water he and Sophina are currently sailing together because of his infidelity. Walking a mile in Oscar's shoes ensues.

As portrayed by Jordan, Oscar is a guy that immediately pulls you in. The draw is that he feels like a flesh and blood human being, not a movie character. He's generally a nice guy who has made some bad mistakes. We see him efforting to change his ways and his luck. This is no easy task. Doing things the way he's done them before will provide at least a temporary refuge from some of his troubles. The key word is temporary. Besides, he can no longer stand the effects of his choices on those he loves. Given that last bit of info, it's no surprise he's a doting father, as well. Like many of us dads, his little girl has him wrapped around her finger and there is no place he'd rather be than with her. He has fun with her every chance he gets. On top of all this, it's his own mother's birthday (Spencer) and he wants to make it a special day for her, too.

Just those things we see on the surface make Oscar a remarkably well-rounded character. What viewers may not realize is how brilliant it is to make him such. Let's go back to the beginning, or actually, to the end. This is a movie about a young black man killed by a white cop. In many films, whether based on fact or fiction, similarly doomed protagonists are given halos and wings as they walk the Earth. Their shortcomings are generally side effects of their greatness. Oscar is no hero. He is just dude trying to support his family. This endears him to us. He's been in jail and is comtemplating whether or not he should continue to sell weed. We don't necessarily like these things, but given what else we know of him, he's hardly some super-evil boogeyman drug dealer who would make us quiver in his presence. Just as important is the fact that all of his issues are his own. Neither he nor the movie tries to lay blame for his problems any further than his own feet. This is important to ensure that we are squarely in his corner. He is a man standing at the crossroads trying to decide on a path. We're entirely willing to stare at the options with him.

Something else that has us in Oscar's corner are the people in his life. Despite whatever he's put them through, it's obvious they love him. They want desperately for him to do well. More than that, they enjoy his company. They like having him around. To the movie's credit, these other people are also well represented. As Sophina, Melonie Diaz gives a completely natural performance. When she shifts gears in how she addresses Oscar, we understand. It feels like a conversation we may have had with our upset significant other. She raises her voice in anger, changes her tone in confusion, and brings it down a few octaves to show concern. Her facial expressions all work, too. On the other hand, the looks she gives Oscar have nothing on the contortions Octavia Spencer does with her face as Oscar's mom. Every one of them conveys much more than the words she speaks. As good as she was in her Academy Award winning performance from The Help, it was a role that lapsed into caricature. There are no such issues, here. For my money, this is her better work.

The most unfortunate aspect of Fruitvale Station, aside from Oscar's death, is that it tackles a still relevant topic. At the very least, what happens to Oscar is an abuse of power and a gross over-reaction to a situation that could have been handled a lot better. At worse, and certainly not out of the question it's an outright act of racism. Even if the officer who pulled the trigger would not normally be considered a racist in his day-to-day dealings with people of color, what he does is quite possibly a reaction to fear stirred by the cumulative effect of a few centuries' worth of stereotypes rushing to mind in the heat of the moment. If he is a racist, well, that doesn't need any of my dime-store analysis. For that officer, there are no right answers. The other cops present may not find much good in their own actions, either. Instead of diffusing it, they exacerbated the situation, creating an unmanageable frenzy. Something bad was bound to happen.

Real Steel

Directed by Shawn Levy.

2011. Rated PG-13, 127 minutes.
Cast:
Hugh Jackman
Dakota Goyo
Evangeline Lilly
Anthony Mackie
Kevin Durand
Hope Davis
James Rebhorn
Karl Yune
Olga Fonda

Charlie (Jackman) is a former prize-fighter who now makes his living in the world of robot boxing. Making a living is overstating things. Generally, he ducks the people he owes money to after whatever robot he’s picked off the scrap heap gets destroyed in a match. Along comes news that an ex-girlfriend, and mother of his child has passed away, leaving behind Max (Goyo), the son he’s abandoned. The kid’s wealthy aunt Debra (Davis) wants custody but needs Charlie to sign over his parental rights. Never one to miss an opportunity, Charlie brokers a deal with Deb’s husband Marvin (Rebhorn) to sell them his rights for a load of cash. One strange caveat to the deal: in order to keep Debra in the dark about the exchange of money, Charlie has to keep Max for a few weeks while his rich soon-to-be guardians are out of the country.

Once Max actually appears we know precisely how it will play out between him and his deadbeat dad. Ditto for Charlie and Bailey (Lilly) and their very PG love affair. The only possible surprise isn’t one if you’ve seen the trailer. It involves Atom, a seemingly inferior fighting robot with a very unique feature. Suffice it to say this part of the story is yet another re-working of Rocky. It comes complete with a physically superior champion and his villainous handlers.

If it isn’t obvious, there is pretty much no effort put into the plot. It’s completely perfunctory, taking no risks, holding no surprises nor posing any challenges. In a brief moment or two of artistic integrity, the filmmakers threaten to throw one wrinkle into things. We get a couple hints that there is more to Atom than meets the eye. Yes, the reference is intended. Anyhoo, they totally drop the ball on that idea to remain in the safety zone, give us more of the cheese borrowed from other cheesy flicks. In short, they want you to like this movie even though you’ve likely seen it quite a few times before.

Predictability be damned, there is only one real question to be answered: is Real Steel fun to watch. The answer is yes, in its own corny way. It moves at a brisk pace despite an unnecessarily bloated runtime of over two hours. It plays cute with the father/son angle and the final act contains lots more of the ‘bot fighting people likely come for. Jackman gives us Wolverine-lite, a less surly than the mutant and sans cigar. It’s a character we know and either somewhat like or somewhat dislike. The same can be said of Max and every other character in the film. By the way, Max is more of an adult than any of the other characters, too. Even my nine year old picked up on that. Max’s maturity aside, all of these people are just bland caricatures. They’re here to fill in the portions between fights not be too much of a distraction from them. The end result is an overwhelmingly OK movie that young boys will love watching with their dads. Boys of my age will wonder how it is possible that this isn’t called Rock’em Sock’em Robots.

MY SCORE: 5/10

Robin Hood (2010)

Directed by Ridley Scott.
2010. Rated PG-13, 140 minutes.
Cast:
Russell Crowe
Cate Blanchett
Oscar Isaac
Max von Sydow
Mark Strong
William Hurt
Danny Huston
Mark Addy
Kevin Durand
Léa Seydoux

The legend of Robin Hood, here played by Russell Crowe, has survive for ages by keeping him fairly simple. He and his band of merrymen, plus Lady Marion (Blanchett), roam Sherwood Forest and steal from the rich only so that they can give to the poor. Have you ever wondered how he wound up there? Me neither. However, in Ridley Scott’s sparkingly grimy update on the character that’s precisely what we find out. Oh, if you’re vexing over the oxy-moronic “sparkingly grimy” you have to see it to understand. Dirty people have seldom looked better.

Not content to merely be about our favorite archer, we’re treated to several other storylines to fret over. Most notable is one that emphasizes the difference between King Richard the Lionheart (Huston) and his brother and eventual successor John (Isaac). This supplies us with our hero’s reason to be heroic. Of course, there is also the love story and a couple other things going on. It’s not as convoluted as it sounds. Most of them breathe well enough on their own and come together nicely.

In the lead role, Russell Crowe does what Russell Crowe does. It’s not up there with his best, but it’s solid work, nonetheless. He’s actually outdone by Cate Blanchett as his love interest. Overall, the acting is very good. You should expect no less from the excellently assembled cast. The action scenes are solid, but not spectacular and evoke memories of Braveheart. However, they don’t quite measure up.

Evoking memories is a bit of a problem for this movie. It seems to blend the aforementioned Braveheart with another Scott/Crowe collaboration: Gladiator. The main problem is there seems to be little difference between our newly crowned King John and Gladiator’s Commodus, save for that whole incest thing. Instead of becoming something grand, it turns into a rather bland epic. It’s not bad, but it isn’t likely to stick in your psyche for very long.

Despite the best efforts of Kevin Cosner and Mel Brooks, the image most of us have of Robin Hood is one of Errol Flynn practically dancing up the stairs while sword fighting with multiple henchmen. Maybe we think of Flynn swing from the chandelier or from some other moment culled from all the fantastic cheese that movie provides. All the while, he’s wearing the unmistakable bright green tight and funny mustache. Hmmm…I’d dismissed all charges of homoeroticism against the classic until I wrote this paragraph. There’s nothing wrong with that. I just had a revelatory moment, that’s all. Anyhoo, the 21st century version is a solid, but flawed effort not likely to change the reality of our perception of what Robin Hood should be.

Legion

Directed by Scott Charles Stewart.
2010. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Paul Bettany
Adrianne Palicki
Lucas Black
Tyrese Gibson
Dennis Quaid
Charles S. Dutton
Kevin Durand
Willa Holland
Kate Walsh
Jon Tenney

The Bible teaches us that once, a very long time ago, God had finally had enough of our crap. He was so fed up He made it rain for forty days and forty nights. This flooded the entire planet, completely wiping out the population of Earth, Man and Beast alike, save for Noah and the inhabitants of a boat that must’ve been the size of football stadium. What will happen should God be so angered again? Legion has some ideas.

We first meet Michael (Bettany). Because we’ve seen a lot of movies we immediately assume he’s either and angel or the mutant named Angel from the X-Men. You see, he has wings. Through a nifty bit of contortionism we don’t get to see, he very quickly cuts them off himself. After this and a gunfight with a shpe-shifting cop he begins his quest. Michael’s quest, we learn is to stop God from completely exterminating mankind and starting over. Michael still has faith in man while God does not. He feels God is making a mistake.

God is a particularly nasty fellow, here. He must really be ticked off with us. He doesn’t send a flood or plague. He turns all but a few into zombies and sends most of them to a dusty, roadside diner to stop a baby from being born, presumably taking away man’s hope and clearing the way for our extinction.

It’s an interesting idea but there are too many holes on either side of the equation. Theologically, it assumes God is capable of imperfection and questionable judgment. Nor is He all-knowing. This pretty much defeats the purpose of monotheism. It’s kind of like Michael’s beef is really with “a father” not “The Father.” On the other hand, is this the only baby near birth in the whole world? Or is this scene playing out in similar fashion all over the globe? But there’s only one Michael, so I doubt that.

Is this baby special? I dunno. I suppose he is if he makes it through the nicotine and tobacco filled gestation period a healthy lad, mom can’t quit smoking. The movie never tells us anything other than he must be born. I was expecting to hear that he’s the second coming of Christ, or at least John Connor or Neo (oh, you know them). Yet, Jeep (Black) and mom-to-be Charlie (Palicki) are indeed played like a modern day Joseph and Mary, except for that virginal and pure nonsense.

If it sounds like I’ve done way too much thinking about what’s going on here it’s because the movie invites you to do so. The problem is it isn’t thought out enough to stand up to scrutiny. It falls apart under its own weight. The crumbling starts from the very first time we’re asked to both believe that the God of Christianity is indeed real, but He isn’t perfect. By the way, if Michael, an angel, is so determined to disobey God’s orders doesn’t that mean he’s working for someone else? Hmmm.

However, all is not lost. It’s still just a movie. That said, it has some wild imagery and fun action scenes. Old ladies walk on ceilings, a man explodes. Angels have bulletproof wings and use them effectively in their own sort of martial arts. Though those action scenes are spaced a little far apart, there is some tension created. It’s a movie that’s somehow less than it wants to be, but more than it deserves. It’s not the deep, philosophical exercise it pretends to be, but it’s still an interesting watch.

The Opposite View: Joe Leydon, Variety

What the Internet Says: 5.0/10 on imdb.com (6/28/10), 19% on rottentomatoes.com, 32/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 5.5/10