Movie Review: Noah (2014)

August 5, 2014 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

noah

Darren Aronofsky’s Noah is one hell of a trippy experience. You cannot possibly go into this movie without some preconceived notions of what it is about, but ignoring those notions is imperative if you want to comprehend it, let along enjoy it.

As the title suggests, the film centers around the biblical character of Noah, and if any actor can be accused of having a God complex it would have to be the man playing him, Aussie Russell Crowe (or when he makes a dick of himself, “New Zealand-born actor Russell Crowe”).

But the thing is, Noah is decidedly a non-religious movie. It’s a fantasy film that is so loosely based on the source material that it would be misleading to even call it “loosely based.”

God is not called “God” — he’s the Creator. We never see Noah speaking to him, and thankfully we never see the Creator talking back. In fact, there is no concrete evidence proving that the Creator even made contact with Noah, who may simply be a lunatic, though everything that happens in the movie strongly suggests that everything we are seeing is not just a string of random coincidences.

To make things even weirder, the film is filled with strange animals not of this world and creatures that look like they came straight out the Middle Earth, including these stone golems called the Watchers (apparently called Nephilim in the Bible) who remind me of LOTR‘s Ents. Parts of the film, in fact, have a distinct LOTR-type feel, with epic battles, epic speeches and an epic old man with white hair who seems to know a little bit of magic (in this case he’s Noah’s grandfather Methuselah, played by Anthony Hopkins).

(On the other hand, there is a guy called Noah, he does build an ark, there is a flood, and there are references to the Garden of Eden, and everyone’s a descendant of either Cain (the guy who killed his brother Abel) or his brother Seth.)

So if Noah is a Bible movie it certainly does not feel like legitimate one, and if you are a devout Christian expecting a “faithful” experience like The Passion of the Christ, you will likely come away not just disappointed but wondering what the heck just happened.

Having said that, Noah still works — surprisingly well too — as a timeless fable, a fantasy morality tale that could have been set in another world. And let’s face it, most reasonable Christians would probably concede that the biblical tale of Noah’s Ark is not a literal story but a fable, or at least take the position that it does not matter if it really happened because it’s the message that’s ultimately important. The universal themes — faith, family, vengeance, survival, love, compassion, mercy and salvation — are all there anyway, so what’s the big deal if they spice it up a little with some added melodrama, crazy creatures and eye-popping special effects?

This is a cliche, but another reason why the film stays afloat (pun intended) is because of the performances. Russell Crowe brings an intensity and sincerity to Noah that’s necessary for us to believe in the character, but he’s also complex and far from a saint. Jennifer Connelly again does a great job of playing Crowe’s supportive and stoic wife, bringing back memories of her Oscar-winning performance in A Beautiful Mind. Emma Watson is all grown up and plays their adopted daughter, while her love interest from Perks of Being a Wallflower, Percy Jackson aka Logan Lerman, plays Noah’s horny son, who just wants to “get married” before he is wiped from the face of the planet. They’re both somewhat annoying, but they serve their purpose. Ray Winstone, on the other hand, gets the meaty role as the film’s primary protagonist, Tubal-Cain, who wants to steal Noah’s Ark for himself.

On the whole, Noah is probably not what people envisioned when they first heard the film was being made, but if you can keep an open mind you might come away pleasantly surprised. The story on which the film is based has always been one of the more implausible tales of the Bible, and instead of taking on the difficult task of trying to make it more “realistic”, Darren Aronofsky just ran with it, creating a wild, crazy, trippy yet thoughtful fantasy experience that even non-believers can take something out of.

3.75 stars out of 5

Movie Review: The Bling Ring (2013)

January 18, 2014 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

the-bling-ring-movie-poster-2

Despite critical acclaim, I haven’t been a big fan of Sophia Coppola’s earlier works, such as The Virgin Suicides and Lost In Translation, both of which I felt were somewhat overrated. Her latest (written and directed), The Bling Ring, is based on the true story of a bunch of self-entitled rich kids in LA who break into the homes of famous people such as Paris Hilton, Rachel Bilson, and Orlando Bloom and Miranda Kerr. Apart from Paris Hilton, however, the other stars refused to take part in the film and archived footage was used instead.

The film features an impressive cast headlined by Emma Watson, who shines as the bratty and care free Nikki, with Vera’s sister Taissa Farmiga (from American Horror Story) playing her more naive younger sister Sam. These two are the biggest names, but they are really supporting characters, with the parts of the ringleaders taken up by the manipulative Katie Chang and the central protagonist Israel Broussard, the only male member of the gang.

The Bling Ring is categorised as a satirical black comedy, though it certainly felt a lot more like a semi-serious drama with just a sprinkle of satirical laughs. It’s really about how shallow and stupid these wannabe celeb rich kids are, thinking they could actually get away with something so brazen, but also about how ridiculously bad the security is at the homes of Hollywood celebs! Seriously, most of the time the kids just waltzed right in!

The performances are strong, but there is a strange distance about them that makes it hard to really get under their shallow facades. I felt like I was just watching a bunch of silly kids doing silly things while thinking it’s really cool, without ever really caring for them or what they were doing. They felt one-dimensional; I didn’t get to know them, nor did I want to. Part of the blame has to go to Coppola’s direction, which didn’t stand out for me, and failed to deliver the substance I had been hoping for. Maybe it was an impossible task to accomplish, given that the source of the story is essentially limited to news clippings, but even for a brisk 90-minute film (which was probably already stretching the material) it felt like more depth and insight could have been achieved.

In the end, The Bling Ring came across as superficial as the characters Coppola was trying to portray. Maybe it was too nuanced for me to get, but I didn’t find it particularly funny or engaging. It was an interesting idea to tackle and the performances were stellar, but more had to come from the characters since we knew from the beginning what they were doing and what ended up happening to them.

2 stars out of 5

Movie Review: We’re the Millers (2013)

September 1, 2013 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

were-the-millers-poster

We’re the Millers is another one of those crude comedies where the idea is way way way better than the actual film itself.

Jason Sudeikis (from Horrible Bosses and Hall Pass) is a low-level drug dealer who gets into some strife and accepts a job from Ed Helms (of The Hangover fame) to be a drug mule importing marijuana in from Mexico. To limit suspicion from border authorities, he enlists the help of a stripper (Jennifer Aniston), the local runaway (Emma Roberts, niece of Julia) and the neighbourhood geek (Will Poulter, whom you might remember from the second Narnia film) to disguise themselves as one big happy family on vacation.

It’s a premise that holds a lot of potential, but We’re the Millers squanders most of the opportunities with uninspiring jokes and bland storytelling. Instead of witty, edgy stuff, what we ended up with was a lot of sex and genitalia/body part-based jokes telegraphed from a mile away. Even if you haven’t already seen them in the trailers, many of the laughs are so obvious you can sense exactly when they are starting to set it up and can predict when and how they will deliver it.

Granted, there are some decent moments, mostly involving the geek kid and some random moments of improv (as seen in the outtakes at the end), but most of the jokes in this film elicited barely a chuckle from me. I smiled from time to time but did not laugh out loud once. Occasionally amusing but not particularly funny is how I would describe it.

The narrative progression was also disappointing because it was so cookie-cutter. We have the set-up: four people from different walks of life who are thrown together for a common purpose. We are told they don’t get along, but we know they inevitably will by the end, with a few life lessons about selflessness and doing the right thing learned along the way. Nothing unexpected, nothing surprising.

I’m pretty indifferent about him as an actor, but I think Sudeikis was a good choice to play the immature guy who refuses to grow up. He had a bit of that Ben Affleck-in-Argo floppy hair going on at the beginning but settled well into the goofy husband role as soon as he got that stiff haircut. On the other hand, I wasn’t so hot on the selection of Ed Helms to play his drug lord, as small of a role as it was, because to be honest I’ve always got these two guys confused either each other.

Ed Helms, Jason Sudeikis

My lack of passion for Jennifer Aniston as an actress is well documented, and her performance in this film did nothing to persuade me to change my mind. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with her (and she seems like a wonderful person by all accounts), but I just don’t like…whatever it is about her I don’t like. She’s really the only character with any brains in the movie, but still, I didn’t like it. And I have no idea why she’s trying so hard to shed her good girl image by playing a stripper (who gets an opportunity to do her thing) not long after she did the whole sexual deviant thing in Horrible Bosses. It’s her prerogative, but it doesn’t feel authentic to me.

Emma Roberts is pretty in a girl-next-door kind of way, but she’s given the least to do out of all four main characters. She’s your typical naive runaway who likes the wrong guys and likes to swear. That’s it. A lot more effort is put into Will Poulter’s character, and he clearly steals the show as the affable geeky virgin, though even he feels kinda cliched. That said, he is still by far the best thing in the movie.

So as you may have gathered, I’m not overly enthused about We’re the Millers. It’s less irritating and offensive than films like The Hangover and Horrible Bosses – where everything is constantly loud and obnoxious — but it’s also a lot more bland. I didn’t like it and I didn’t hate it. All I can say is that I guess there are far worse ways to spend your time if you have 110 minutes to spare.

2.5 stars out of 

2012 Movie Blitz: Part 11

August 26, 2013 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

Safe House (2012)

safe-house-movie-poster-02

Denzel Washington plays an ex-CIA operative who turns rogue and becomes an international criminal who, unsurprisingly,  appears to be more than meets the eye. Ryan Reynolds plays a low-level CIA agent who is tasked with looking after Denzel when the latter is captured and brought to a South African safe house (hence the title. Disaster strikes, and Reynolds is thrust into a dangerous situation in which he must figure out who he can trust in order to discover the truth behind everything.

It’s the type of basic premise we have seen dozens of times before (albeit with slight variations) — where a decent but relatively inexperienced guy out of his depth is paired with a slick professional and there is a big conspiracy waiting to be unveiled (is this considered a huge spoiler?).

I don’t mind these movies per se, but I’m a bit sick of the whole “Denzel is so cool” routine we seem to be getting in just about every film we see him in these days. You know, charismatic, super cool under pressure, extremely gifted in firefights and hand-to-hand combat, acts like he doesn’t give a crap about anything but cares deeply about doing the right thing in accordance with his own principles. As for Reynolds, I’m assuming he just played exactly the same type of character in RIPD (which I haven’t seen yet but will).

Look, Safe House isn’t bad — there’s intensity, action, suspense and a few semi-predictable twists here and there — but there is nothing that makes it memorable or stand out. In fact, I had forgotten a lot of the details and had to give myself a little refresher on YouTube and Wikipedia just to write this review. The performances are solid, but I didn’t like how the action sequences were edited with those quick, choppy cuts that prevent you from seeing exactly what is happening.

On the whole just an OK thriller that fails to live up to its full potential despite Denzel and an all-star cast that also features Vera Farmiga and Brendan Gleeson.

2.75 stars out of 5

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

The-Perks-of-Being-a-Wallflower-poster

I swear I still intend to get to the acclaimed book on which this film is based, written by Stephen Chbosky. I’ve heard so many people rave on about the book that it would be an injustice for me to ignore it. Interestingly, the film version is directed by the author, who wrote the screenplay as well. Usually it’s a recipe for disaster to place so much of a story in the hands of a single person, but in this case it was complete justified because The Perks of Being a Wallflower turned out to be one of the best coming-of-age movies I’ve seen in a long time.

Charlie, played by Percy Jackson‘s Logan Lerman, is a high school freshman dealing with a traumatic loss from the year before. Shy and withdrawn, he is a wallflower, someone who observes but is never really part of the story — until he meets step-siblings Sam and Patrick, played by Emma Watson (Harry Potter) and Ezra Miller (We Need to Talk About Kevin), who accept him as part of their group.

Without going into too much more detail, this is a story about the loss of innocence, friendship, falling in love, loyalty, betrayal, and all those things many of us go through as we grow into adults. With full control over the material, Chbosky delivers an extremely genuine and heartfelt story told through a sensitive and delicate lens that I’m sure will be easy for many teens to relate to and conjure up a deep sense of nostalgia in adults. It’s hard to explain except to say that I connected with this film more than I thought I would and that I fully believed in the story from start to finish. Yes it is sentimental in parts but not overly so.

I’m astounded that Chbosky has only previously directed one other film, in 1995. The tone and atmosphere he creates in The Perks of Being a Wallflower is masterful and reflects just how in command of the material he is. He must also be credited for eliciting the best performances I have ever seen from Logan Lerman and Emma Watson. Let’s face it, Percy Jackson and The Three Musketeers are not the best films for a thespian to show off their acting talents, but Lerman is unbelievably believable as the mild-mannered Charlie who is immediately likable but is also clearly holding onto something that prevents him from opening up. Your heart goes out to him. The only complaints could be that he is not quite young-looking enough to pull off a freshman or that he is too good looking to play such a loner.

As for Emma Watson, wow. I always thought she was the most talented out of the Harry Potter trio, but here she completely sheds the shackles of Hermoine and gives us the best performance of her career. The same can be said for Ezra Miller, whom I thought would forever be trapped in my nightmares as the horrific Kevin (from We Need to Talk About Kevin, one of the best movies of 2011). Here he is a completely different character as the giddy and affable Patrick and totally made me forget that he butchered a bunch of kids in his previous role.

In some ways, The Perks of Being a Wallflower might oversimplify or even glamorize some difficult issues in adolescent life, but for me it’s a small flaw in an otherwise brilliant motion picture.

4.5 stars out of 5

PS: I’m almost doing The Perks of Being a Wallflower a disservice by reviewing it as part of a four-film movie blitz, because it deserves a solo review of its own. But I am lazy and I can’t be bothered.

Deadfall (2012)

deadfall_xlg

A stylish crime drama of intersecting subplots that feels strangely complicated but is actually very straightforward.

Eric Bana and Olivia Wilde play a pair of siblings on the run after a casino heist has gone horribly wrong. For some reason they must split up so they could reach their goal of making it across the Canadian border under blizzard conditions, kicking off a string of violent events and coincidences that eventually all comes to a head in a climatic flurry. The film is powered by an A-list cast that also features Charlie Hunnam (Pacific Rim), Kate Mara (House of Cards), Kris Krisofferson, Treat Williams and Sissy Spacek.

I found Deadfall a difficult film to grasp because it seems to be moving along confidently, taking the audience in several directions seemingly without aim, but there is actually an underlying strategy all along to pull all the strands together by the end. But at the end of it all, I said to myself, “Is that it?” Despite the intrigue, I was left wondering what the fuss was all about.

That said, I was engaged and kept wondering what was going on through the majority of the 94-minute running time. I suppose you could call it dark, character-driven film, but then again I didn’t really care for any of the characters. Could it be described as a B-grade movie masquerading as an A-grade movie because of its sound technical efficiency and the super cast? I dunno. I can’t decide whether I liked the film, disliked the film, or if I am just indifferent about it. Meh.

2.5 stars out of 5

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012)

seeking-a-friend-for-the-end-of-the-world-poster

Every now and then comes along a really interesting idea for a movie and the execution is nearly good enough to pull it off, but for whatever reason just doesn’t quite get there. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, starring Steve Carrell and Keira Knightley, is such a film. It starts off brilliantly and has its fair share of genuine laughs and oddly comical moments all the way through, but unfortunately it loses steam halfway through and drifts towards a rather disappointing final act.

The film starts off with the announcement that the world, as we know it, is coming to an end. A giant asteroid is coming to Earth and there’s no Bruce Willis to save us. With just three weeks until impact, the world is understandably flipped into chaos (with drugs and suicides and looting and guilt-free sex dominating), but at the same time there are many lost and lonely individuals out there who have no idea how they are going to spend the last few days of their lives. Steve Carrell, whose wife leaves him in the opening scene, is one of them, until he meets Knightley, who had just broken up with her boyfriend and has no chance to see her family in England one last time.

Seeking a Friend could be described as a road trip comedy-drama, but it’s really a fascinating imagining of how the world would react if everyone thought they had just days to live. Would you keep working in your job because you have nothing else better to do? Or would you stay with family and go have beach BBQs all day? Or will you go crazy and break every law you can think of, just for the sake of it? A lot of the things depicted in this film, as random and outrageous and hilarious as they are, strangely ring true. I laughed often and hard, especially early on.

I’ve never been a big fan of either Carrell or Knightley, so I was shocked to discover that I really liked both of them in this. Despite the age gap (51 to 28), they had a comfortable rapport and a sweetness to them, and the resulting banter was sharp and clicking.

However, perhaps feeling like it cannot be a pure comedy with no emotion (given it is the end of the world, after all), the film starts to become more personal and begins venturing into light melodrama, regretfully sucking out its earlier charm. The closer it got to the end, the more flat and uninteresting things got. Some of the attempts are indeed poignant, but frankly I just wanted more laughs.

3.5 stars out of 5

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2D) (2011)

July 20, 2011 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

At last, 10 years after the first film and 4 years after the book series ended, the Harry Potter film franchise is no more.  As expected, there was a ridiculous amount of anticipation for the eighth and final movie, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (let’s call it DH2), and though I consider myself only a moderate fan of the series (both book and film), even I was very excited at the prospect of watching the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort on the big screen.

It’s not often that a franchise lasts for this many number of films and manages to maintain a certain level of excellence all the way through.  So is this final film the best of the lot?  Kind of.  Not really.  Yes and no.

Part of the reason why it’s so hard to review this film is because it’s impossible to view DH2 as a standalone film.  You can’t even really lump it with DH1, which I thought was nothing more than a pretty set-up for the grand finale.

In terms of excitement, DH2 is undoubtedly the best of the series.  After a small but slow build up at the beginning, the remainder of the film races at you at full blast.  It’s everything you could have expected from a finale that has been gradually building up for 10 years.  The extended siege on Hogwarts rivals some of the biggest fantasy epics in cinematic history (some may disagree but I think that includes Lord of the Rings).  It’s thrilling, visually stunning and wonderfully executed (thanks to director David Yates) and acted (especially Alan Rickman as Snape, who really held this franchise together for all these years).  Heck, even the trio of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson put on quality performances (a far cry from their debuts).

Accordingly, in a way, I guess you could say that splitting the final book into two films was justified (apart from financially), because despite the 130 minute running time, DH2 was never boring (unlike DH1).

On the other hand, DH2 wasn’t a complete story, and as such, must be viewed in light of everything that came before it.  If you haven’t read the books, seen DH1 or even the sixth film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, you can forget about it.  I’ve read all the books and seen all the previous films but even I struggled at times to remember/piece together what was going on.  Characters came and went without introduction and the majority of the secondary characters were reduced to fleeting cameos.

Of course, this is a film that can be enjoyed by anyone because of the marvellous action and special effects — despite some frightening scenes for the kiddies — but I believe to appreciate everything and feel the full emotional impact of the finale you have to be a ‘true’ fan (ie, one of those hardcore nutters that dressed up and camped outside the cinema).  Hence for me, a mid-tier fan, DH2 couldn’t have been more than just a ‘very good time’ that was fun to experience but lacked a deeper connection.

This is why I still think the franchise would have been better served had DH1 and DH2 been combined into one kick-ass 3-hour+ epic that got rid of all the fluffy ‘time fillers’ so we could enjoy the full story of the Deathly Hallows in one sitting (I know some places screened the two films back-to-back, but the combined running time of 4 hours and 36 minutes is waaaay too long).

Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed DH2.  Despite its shortcomings — some unavoidable and others not — this was a fitting conclusion to a magical, consistently high standard film franchise.

4 stars out of 5

PS: My favourite book and film of the series is still the third one, The Prizoner of Azkaban.

PPS: I intentionally watched this one in 2D, and I’m glad I did.  I’m at the point where I am starting to wonder whether I should even consider watching a 3D movie ever again.  Dark, uncomfortable, and most of the time 3D adds nothing positive to my film experience.  I don’t get the fuss.  And judging from this article, looks like I’m not the only one.  That said, I am surprised by the number of people supporting 3D in the comments section.

PPPS: A bit of a spoiler, so read on only if you’ve seen the film or read the book.  Remember how the book had this controversial ‘epilogue’?  Well the film includes it, and as expected, it also sucked.  One of the weirdest things I’ve ever seen.

 
%d bloggers like this: