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

Parker

Directed by Taylor Hackford.

2013. Rated R, 118 minutes.

Cast:

Jason Statham

Jennifer Lopez

Michael Chiklis

Nick Nolte

Emma Booth

Wendell Pierce

Clifton Collins Jr.

Bobby Cannavale

Patti LuPone

Carlos Carrasco

Parker (Statham) is a professional thief who run big-time burglaries. With the help of a crew run by Melander (Chiklis), a group he’s never worked with before, he successfully robs the Ohio State Fair of about one million dollars. Instead of splitting the money as previously agreed to, Melander suggests they put all the money toward a bigger score that will net them a few million bucks each. Parker balks at the notion and winds up in a roadside ditch with several bullet holes in him. Thanks to some good Samaritans who happen to be driving by, he makes it to the hospital. Of course, as soon as he opens his eyes he escapes and goes looking for Melander and the rest of his cronies. A broke and lonely real estate agent played by Jennifer Lopez figures into things later.

While watching that setup, I am immediately reminded of the Mel Gibson flick Payback. Gibson’s character there, and Parker in this movie, are essentially the same guy. Indeed, the two movies play out in much the same manner as far as major plot points go. The biggest difference between them is in tone. Payback strikes a darkly comic one, quite brilliantly in my humble opinion, while Parker plays it as a straight up action flick with the usual small doses of humor, here and there. This is where the movie’s biggest problems are. No, it’s not a terrible picture. It’s just that with little or nothing to truly call its own, the conventionality of its frame is laid bare. Surprises are minimal.

It doesn't help that our hero is a pretty flat character. We get that he’s been wronged and he’s incredibly focused on getting his just due. Unfortunately, that’s it. We understand that he loves his girlfriend Claire (Booth) and her father Hurley (Nolte). However, the depth of that love is summed up in the fact that whenever he does something to piss off another bad guy, he calls them on the phone to tell them someone’s going to be coming for them. Gee, thanks.

On the other hand, J-Lo’s Leslie is much more fleshed out with a good deal less screen time. The movie pushes the sympathy envelope hard with her, and simultaneously uses her for comic relief. However, it’s an up and down role that Lopez struggles with. Unlike many, I actually think she’s a fine actress. It seems to be at least as much an issue of presentation and writing as it is of her. How we’re supposed to take her changes from scene to scene and the jokes she’s given aren't funny. Besides, as good as I think she is, comedy has never been her strong suit.

All is not lost. Remember, this is an action flick. It’s a Jason Statham action flick, at that. Most people will watch to see our hero beat the crap out of and/or kill lots of bad guys. That’s precisely what he does. True to form, it’s brutal, bloody, and exciting stuff. His first fight, inside a moving SUV, and one he has later in a hotel room take top honors. Both are just plain fun to watch, no matter how preposterous they may be. Speaking of preposterous, even though the idea that Park is affected by all the damage done to his body is a fraud, I’ll at least give the film credit for trying in that department. The point is, if you’re looking for a testosterone fueled popcorn flick you could do a lot worse than Parker.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Arthur (2011)

Directed by Jason Winer.

2011. Rated PG-13, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Russell Brand
Helen Mirren
Jennifer Garner
Greta Gerwig
Geraldine James
Luis Guzmán
Nick Nolte
Murphy Guyer
Evander Holyfield

Arthur (Brand) is a fabulously wealthy alcoholic party-boy who fails to comprehend most things beyond what would be expected of a toddler. In fact, he’s still cared for by his nanny Hobson (Mirren). Tired of the exploits that keep landing him on the front page of the newspaper and embarrassing the family, and more importantly its business, his mother mandates that he mary the company’s respectable exec Susan (Garner) and settle down. If he doesn’t he will be completely cut off from the family fortune. Of course, he doesn’t particularly like Susan. To complicate matters even further, he’s become smitten with Naomi (Gerwig), a poor girl who scrapes by giving illegal tours of Grand Central Station to tourists. Yes, this is a remake of the beloved 1981 hit starring Dudley Moore.

In the title role, Russell Brand does the usual Russell Brand schtick. His Arthur is hardly distinguishable from his Aldous Snow, his character in both Get Him to the Greek and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. If you’re a fan of his, this is great. If you’re not, then it’s not. In either case, the movie constructed around him isn’t as good as either of those. Arthur just drags us down a road we’ve traversed many times. It’s that road where all the rich people are cold and calculating, possibly evil, while all of the poor are virtuous and loyal, almost angelic. Even this can work if the story is told in an interesting manner and/or we’re given round characters we feel empathy for. Such was the case with the original, unless nostalgia is getting the best of me. These people are cardboard cutouts of characters in other crappy movies who were caricatures to begin with. It all adds up to us not caring one iota about what happens to them because we’ve already seen them in other movies and didn’t particularly care for them, then.

Whatever the material’s shortcomings, the cast is game. While Brand is vigorously doing Brand, Jennifer Garner is feverishly working the dominatrix in a business suit angle, complete with riding whip. Either I’m jaded by years of seeing her as the good girl or she doesn’t have too many evil bones in her body, so I can’t quite buy it. Still, the effort is there. Helen Mirren gives her character dignity, sincerity and depth beyond the lines she speaks. It’s a typically wonderful performance from her. Greta Gerwig as Naomi is the exception. For pretty much the entire time she’s on screen her eyes are big as saucers and she can’t remove the perma-grin. Regardless of context, most of her lines come across as if she’s saying “Gee Willikers Arthur, that was neat!” Of course, during her sad scenes she’s worse. I could “see” her acting. That’s never a good thing.

Arthur plays out exactly as it is set up to right from the start. It’s a straight-forward entry into the ever-expanding romantic comedy genre. That might be okay if it were funnier. This is the major difference between this and the original. That one has more laughs. Most of the jokes here don’t quite work. Aside from the novel appearance of a not-so-heroic Batman and Robin plus two by the gaudiest of all Batmobiles, our new Arthur fails to stand out from the crowd.

MY SCORE: 4.5/10

Warrior

Directed by Gavin O’Connor.

2011. Rated PG-13, 140 minutes.
Cast:
Nick Nolte
Tom Hardy
Joel Edgerton
Frank Grillo
Maximiliano Hernández
Kevin Dunn
Jennifer Morrison
Denzel Whitaker
Kurt Angle
Erik Apple

What happens when your demons catch up to you? Our three main characters in Warrior have to find out the answer to that very question. There’s Paddy AKA Pop (Nolte), and his two sons, Brendan (Edgerton) and Tommy (Hardy). The three have been estranged for quite some time. Pop is a drunk who abused the boys’ mother. He’s been sober for close to 1000 days. When he comes home one night he discovers Tommy waiting on his doorstep. We quickly learn that a few years ago Tommy took mom and fled in hopes of getting her as far away from Pop as possible. He seethes hatred for his old man, yet here he is. Brendan lives not too far from his father but refuses to see him, mostly for the same reason as his brother. However, there is even more to that dynamic. The two brothers aren’t speaking, either. Both are trained fighters, but not working as professionals. Still, they both decide now is the time to get back in the game and start seriously training for a very high profile mixed martial arts tournament where the winner takes home $5 million. They do so separately and without knowledge of what the other is doing, of course. Interestingly enough, Tommy asks Pop to work with him.

The three men share something I hesitate to call a bond. That would imply that what they have is a positive thing. Rest assured, it is not. It’s much more akin to shackles that keep them connected no matter how much they desire to be otherwise. Indeed, they are each other’s demons. It seems they’ve been haunting one another all of their lives. Despite all the anger between them, we empathize with each of them. We understand the actions of the two sons. Things are a little trickier with regards to Pop. However, we feel sorry for him. He desperately wants to make amends but knows his mistakes are unforgivable.

Besides watching the guys rage against each other, the reason the two brothers want and need the prize money is also explored. This adds to the drama and helps to flesh out the characters. The writing and the actors themselves aid in this also. Nolte and Hardy are particularly good. It’s one of Nolte’s best in years. He really conveys a man constantly grieving his own errors, desperate to reconcile with his offspring and feeling completely dejected. It’s heart wrenching stuff. Whenever Hardy’s on screen, Tommy’s anger consumes both him and us. We feel the chill of his coldness. However, knowing what’s gone on in his life, we totally understand. By the way, as Brendan, Joel Edgerton holds up well also. Unfortunately for him, his performance is bookended by two outstanding portrayals.

Don’t go getting the wrong idea. There is lots of MMA action. It’s oddly handled, though. It’s brutal, but only up to a point. Fists, elbows, feet and knees hit as bone-crunching noises threaten to blow out your speakers. Bodyslams certainly live up to their name. However, it’s all strangely sanitized to fit into the movie’s PG-13 packaging. In short, it’s a bloodless affair. Anyone who’s seen the sport in real life knows this isn’t the case. Often, someone is being pummeled but where they’re being hit is barely out of sight. When you see this realize it’s the camera doing what camera’s aren’t supposed to do: flincing.

The fighting in Warrior is not here to satisfy my bloodlust, though. It’s here to provide a triumphant achievement for one of the brothers. For this reason, it’s been called just another Rocky clone. I disagree. There is that element to Warrior, but it’s much more. It’s about the painful relationships the three men share. This comes through even in its most Rocky-esque moments. Though one son assumes the Balboa role, the other is no Apollo Creed. He’s much more reluctant hero than villain. However, we do get an Ivan Drago in the form of unbeatable Russian champion Koba (Angle). In reality, he’s merely an interesting sidebar. Finding a way to defeat him is not the point of the nearly two hours we spend with this dysfunctional family. The point is to see how much the thrill of victory can be tainted by the agony of defeat.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10

Zookeeper

Directed by Frank Coraci.

2011. Rated PG, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Kevin James
Rosario Dawson
Leslie Bibb
Ken Jeong
Donnie Wahlberg
Joe Rogan
Sylvester Stallone
Nick Nolte
Adam Sandler
Cher
Judd Apatow
Jon Favreau
Maya Rudolph
Faizon Love

Five years after being dumped by Stephanie (Bibb), the girl he planned on marrying, Griffin (James) still pines for her. When she pops up at his brother’s engagement party, he completely freaks out and desperately tries thinking up ways to get her back. Just so you understand what’s going on here, let’s explain a bit more. Stephanie left Griffin largely due t o the fact that he is indeed just a zookeeper, hence the title. She’s quite high maintenance and is looking for someone to finance the life she wants to lead. He also has an attractive co-worker named Kate (Dawson) whom he’s never thought of in “that way.” Kate’s obviously a more genuine person than Stephanie. So far we’re in pretty familiar rom-com territory and you can probably already figure out how this will end. Trust me, there are no surprises at all.

If you’ve seen any other romantic comedies then you know that our would be Romeo has friends that give him bad advice on how to win Stephanie’s heart. If you’ve seen the trailer then you’ve already guessed the only thing that makes this different from most movies of its kind. The friends are actually the animals at the zoo. Yes, they talk.

All comedies with talking animals can’t be terrible, can they? Let’s give this one a chance. After all, it can’t be that bad if George Clooney decided to lend his voice to it. Oh wait, that’s not Clooney. That’s Sly Stallone as Joe the Lion. That monkey is obviously Adam Sandler. Well, no need in watching the rest of this. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy for me. My youngest daughter has wanted to see this for months. I contemplate jumping up and kicking hole in the screen, then explaining that I saw a bug. That’s too costly. Hey, I think I just heard Cher…and Faizon Love…and Nick Nolte? Yup, that’s Nolte. My daughter chuckles. I’m screwed.

Resigned to my fate, I wade through the muck. Like I said, everything that happens plot-wise is telegraphed from the last thirty rom-coms you watched. There is the occasional laugh. The scene involving Griffin, Bernie the gorilla (Nolte) and a trip to T. G. I. Friday’s is the most amusing scene. Even that’s only worth a few snickers. At least Rosario Dawson is always nice to look at. Still, ogling her whenever she’s on the screen isn’t nearly enough to save this dreck. Skip it if you can. If not, you have my condolences.

MY SCORE: 2.5/10

North Dallas Forty

Directed by Ted Kotcheff.
1979. Rated R, 118 minutes.
Cast: Nick Nolte
Mac Davis
Charles Durning
Dayle Haddon
Bo Svenson
Dabney Coleman
Steve Forest
G. D. Spradlin
Savannah Smith Boucher

Phil Elliot (Nolte) is a veteran wide receiver for the North Dallas Bulls. Everyone seems to agree he has the best hands in the league. Over the years, his body has taken a tremendous beating. He’s in constant pain and seems to subsist on a diet of painkillers, B12 shots, cigarettes and alcohol. Citing what they call his childish attitude, his coaches have taken him out of the starting lineup and are constantly on his case. He pines to get his job back and does whatever it takes to be ready to play.

Doing whatever it takes seems to be the mantra he and his teammates live by. It pushes these men to the extremes in all situations. For them there is only intense pleasure or sharp pain. Though the two often mix, there really isn’t a middle ground. They are emotionally and socially underdeveloped, applying a football mentality to all areas of their lives. The sport encompasses their entire beings. When Phil laments “It’s the only thing I’m good at,” he seems to be speaking for the whole team.

Their shortcomings reveal the sacrifices they’ve made to get as far as they have playing the game they love. The question Phil must wrestle with, the one they will all have to answer at some point, is does the game love them back. His every effort is met by a naysaying head coach who hands down orders to be barked by his drill sergeant of an assistant. The two function remarkably like a ventriloquist act. Regardless, Phil perserveres. We come to admire and pity him simultaneously for what he puts himself through. We become his friend and wonder if he has any others in his own lockerroom. We doubt very seriously whether the one guy who seems to be on his side truly is.

The movie also has shortcomings. The biggest one is that the love story between Phil and Charlotte (Haddon) seems to come out of nowhere. He meets her early on. She disappears from the movie for quite a while until we suddenly see the two waking up in bed together. It also feels a little rushed given that the entire movie spans a time frame of only about 3 weeks.

Still, more than any movie before it, and perhaps since, North Dallas Forty gives us a long realistic look at the inner-workings of professional football. Though the amount of dollars has increased exponentially and the drugs involved have mostly changed the framework seems to still be intact, judging by the recent lockout in the NFL. The ‘us against them’ attitude of both players and owners still feels present. The owners still hold most of the cards, able to cut a player at any point regardless of contract. Players fearing for their livelihood still put their bodies through arguably inhumane treatments to stay on the field. A number of these same players act out immaturely leading to a sport-wide arrest rate seemingly quite a bit higher than that of the public at large. Coaches rely on an endless stream of data to create gameplans and remove emotion from the decision making process. It’s all summed up beautifully by the eloquent words of Jo Bob (Svenson), frustrated, fed up and yelling at one of his coaches: “Everytime I say it’s a game, you say it’s a business. Everytime I say it’s a business, you say it’s a game!”

Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore

Directed by Brad Peyton.
2010. Rated PG, 82 minutes.
Cast:
James Marsden
Christina Applegate
Bette Midler
Katt Williams
Nick Nolte
Neil Patrick Harris
Sean Hayes
Chris O’Donnell
Roger Moore

Kitty Galore (Midler) is a super-villainous cat that is trying to take over the world. It’s up to the agents of a secret dogs-only CIA-type organization to stop her. James Bond influenced, CGI enhanced cat versus canine hijinks and shenanigans ensue.

Along the way, our heroes make alliances with a cat and a pigeon while generally unfunny stuff happens. On the flipside, even more unfunny stuff happens as we watch Kitty try to spring her evil plan into action while also dealing with her owner who is a bumbling, incompetent magician.

Don’t get me wrong, there is the occasional chuckle to be had. Many of them belong to the pigeon, voiced by Katt Williams. Hmm, how ironic is it that in a movie about cats against dogs, the bird is played by a person named Katt? Nevermind. I feel a tangent coming on. This movie isn’t worthy of a tangent.

To try and force a few more laughs, parents are treated to…subjected to a neverending stream of references to other, better movies. There’s lots of James Bond, some Lethal Weapon, Men in Black and countless others, including a huge Silence of the Lambs parody that can be spotted from miles and miles away for anyone who’s seen the horror classic. And it’s not funny. Yeah, during the 82 minute runtime I’m pretty sure I rolled my eyes at least 82 times.

Story-wise, it just lurches forward with the obvious message about overlooking our differences, joining forces and working together to overlook our differences. No, that’s not a typo. It gets to the point where it’s unbearable. Kids might love it, but many adults will be fighting the urge to take a nap. Remember G-Force? Yup, it’s like that. By the way, if you’re wondering why I haven’t mentioned the original, assuming you even knew this was a sequel, it’s because aside from that whole Silence of the Lambes, this has absolutely nothing to do with the first movie. I actually like that movie. This one, they could’ve kept.

To be fair, it is a 3D movie, but I saw it in plain ol’ 2D. Maybe, it would’ve been better in 3D. Nah, because then all the suckiness would be leaping off the screen at me.

The Opposite View: Billy Heller, New York Post

What the Internet Says: 2.4/10 on imdb.com (2.4/10 on imdb.com, 96th worst of all time as of 9/20/10), 13% on rottentomatoes.com, 30/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 2/10