Review: Noah

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

“Noah” is the first film of the year that carries with it a wave of controversy. Many of the world’s religions hold Noah in high esteem. To tell the story of Noah and his ark would seem so simple. But Hollywood has a habit with overcomplicating things when it comes to adaptation. Why do something so simple for only $60 million when we can spend $160 million and rival the trilogies of Middle Earth? Hollywood reached out to one of the most visionary directors working today, Darren Aronofsky, to craft this film and make it something so much more than the story everyone is so familiar with. The result is stunning cinema, but more of the same-old-same-old when it comes to the story.

Russell Crowe stars as Noah, a descendant of Seth who was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain’s slaying of Abel. Early on, we see Noah’s father Lamech (Marton Csokas) killed by a young Tubal-cain (Finn Wittrock), a descendant of Cain who embodies mankind’s evil. Noah sees this, but is able to flee. Next we see Noah with his wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) and their three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth. Noah has a vision of death and destruction at the hands of the Creator causing a great flood. He and his family leave their home to seek out Noah’s grandfather Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins).

On their way, they come across a small village that has been ravaged by Cain’s followers. One survivor is a young girl named Ila who has been severely injured. Noah saves her and takes her in as an adoptive daughter of sorts. They seek refuge from the evil men with the Watchers, who are angels cast down from Heaven by the Creator because of their sympathy toward Adam and Eve. Upon reaching earth, the Watchers took the form of massive stone giants. They eventually reach Methuselah who helps Noah figure out what the Creator wants him to do: build an ark to house all the animals of the world from the great flood. The remainder of mankind will be washed away and killed.

It takes about 10 years for Noah to build the ark with the assistance of the Watchers. Shem (Douglas Booth) has grown into man who has fallen for Ila (Emma Watson), whose injury from her childhood has left her unable to conceive a child. Noah’s middle son Ham (Logan Lerman) is somewhat jealous of his brother because Shem will have a wife for himself after the flood. He and Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll) will not have anyone.

Once all the animals start showing up at the ark, Noah is visit by Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) and his army of evil men. He wants on the ark, but Noah knows it’s only for the animals. Noah believes the Creator is tired of mankind, and wishes for only animals to remain in his world. Noah will see to it that mankind will not remain following the great flood. Not even himself or his family.

Darren Aronofsky has made quite a career by producing dark and intense films. “Noah” is no different. Make no mistake, Aronofsky doesn’t hold back on anything. His vision is ambitious and his handling of the film is as much fearless as it is controversial. All of his stories are difficult to watch because they’re all so bleak and paint members of the human race in such unique situations. This film is simply an Aronofsky take on a timeless story everyone knows.

All that said, Aronofsky take many creative liberties with his source material, but that’s no different than any of the other book adaptation Hollywood attempts to make. The only difference here is that this story is sacred text for billions of people worldwide. And that’s where the controversy arrives. Aronofsky has turned this timeless tale into a film with a certain fantasy epic element that feels more like “The Lord of the Rings” than a feel good story from the Bible.

If these changes to the story affect the way you perceive this film, that’s really your own opinion and I cannot fault you on that. But from a film standpoint, Aronofsky has great vision as always, and is able to bring to life some very eye catching moments. He’s also able to bring out some very shocking and frightening imagery too. He’s definitely one filmmaker who can put forth such great juxtaposition between beauty and horror, light and dark, uplifting and heartbreaking. Many of his movies run across many spectrums of emotion. He’s a master of conveying this.

However, he limits his abilities here with several moments of disconnection in his screenplay, one he co-wrote with his longtime collaborator Ari Handel. In their attempt to bring the element of fantasy into the film, Aronofsky and Handel deal a fatal blow by trying to tie in too many subplots that don’t enrich the story. The first act is drawn out unnecessarily long, probably to show off the trademark shots so closely associated with Aronofsky. And the third act is a complete mess. This is nowhere near as polished as the screenplay for “Requiem for a Dream” which is structurally similar to “Noah” in many respects.

The vast cast of talented people is also lost in the confusion of the story. No one really wows in his or her performance. Sure, they all have their moments, but nothing really stands out. I will have forgotten every one of these performances by next week. Not to take anything away from them; they’re all talented (especially Crowe, Connelly and Watson), but they seem to have lacked the proper guidance from their director who was more concerned with the visual elements that the things that actually make a film good.

I don’t ride the fence on movies too often, but I’m right in the middle here with “Noah”. While I will still say Aronofsky is an exceptionally talented filmmaker with a sharp and original vision, he skimps on his story too much when he’s handed a large budget. “Noah”, much like his last big budget effort “The Fountain”, is a stunningly beautiful mess of an epic tale. It’s gorgeous to look at and provides many moments of extreme and genuine intensity, but it lacks the depth and substance that we’ve come to expect from him thanks to films like “The Wrestler” and “Black Swan”. Both of those films were so well written (not by Aronofsky) and executed to near-perfection with his trademark style (I named “Black Swan” the Best Picture of 2010). A film is only as good as its story, and I think Aronofsky might have gotten a little too carried away with turning a classic and well known story into a epic fantasy film.

Review: Thor: The Dark World

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

There’s no denying Marvel is king right now. The gamble this studio made several years ago to solely finance and release their movies seems to have paid off. They’re now on track to release at least two or three movies every year through 2018. “Thor: The Dark World” is the second film from Marvel to come out this year (yes, I know “The Wolverine” is Marvel property, but that’s not released under the Disney/Marvel banner and does not factor in with the story arcs involving The Avengers). The first release this year – “Iron Man 3” – is already the year’s top grossing film and nothing will dethrone that. It’s also the second film of four planned films that will all culminate with the release of “The Avengers: Age of Ultron” in 2015. Yes, Marvel seems to have everything all planned out the way they want it. Now if only they could hire some better writers.

“Thor: The Dark World” takes place after the events in “The Avengers”, though I’m not sure how much later. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is being sentenced to a life in the Asgard dungeons by his father Oden (Anthony Hopkins) for his role in the New York City alien invasion from “The Avengers”. Meanwhile, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is fighting to keep peace on all the different realms in the universe. He still misses Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), his romantic interest in the first film. With the help of the gatekeeper Heimdall (Idris Elba), Thor has kept his eye on her from a distance.

Jane is living in London, continuing her research with Dr. Eric Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and her intern Darcy (Kat Dennings). Jane and Darcy aren’t able to locate Selvig as the movie opens; unbeknownst to them, he’s been arrested for running around Stonehenge butt naked babbling about the end of the world. But Jane and Darcy have bigger things to worry about right now. Their research shows readings that are similar to what they saw in the first film right before Thor appeared. Jane is excited since she thinks Thor is coming back for her. What she’s actually stumbled upon is a mysterious weapon hidden by the Asgardians called the Aether. Once she finds the Aether, it attaches itself to her.

The Aether’s sudden reappearance awakens Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), leader of the Dark Elves who wish to use the Aether to turn all the realms into dark worlds. Knowing that Jane is in danger, Thor returns to earth and takes her back to Asgard where he can protect her. The plan is futile, however, since Malekith’s first plan of attack is to hit Asgard. In order to keep Jane safe from Malekith, Thor must turn to his completely untrustworthy and deceitful brother Loki for help.

The original film “Thor” came to us in 2011 and served more as a set-up piece for “The Avengers”.  This was a necessary move for Marvel since the only people aware of the Thor character and the world around him were comic book fans. The film that director Kenneth Branagh gave us was about as good is it could have been given that its only purpose was to be a two-hour introduction piece for Thor and Loki. Now that the characters are established, it’s time for Marvel to really show us all the potential in these characters’ stories.

But “Thor: The Dark World” doesn’t capitalize on this as much as it probably could have. Now that everything has already established, Marvel seems to have dropped additional development of these characters to a secondary status. This film just seems to begin with no solid first act, forgetting the fact that it’s a standalone film. That’s always a major gripe I have with sequels: writers seem to forget the rules of screenwriting when drafting a sequel. Instead of building a completely separate story, they just write as if they were given free rein to extend the first film by another two hours. This is what makes Alvin Sargent’s screenplay for “Spider-Man 2” so good; not only is it a continuation of the character from the previous film two years early, but it’s also a completely different movie with a different set of conflicts and emotions. It stands alone by itself. For my money, that’s still the best superhero movie.

A lack of focus in the story is really what limits “Thor: The Dark World”. There are five credited writers on this film. Don Payne - who was the first writer to work on this film – and Robert Rodat (who wrote “Saving Private Ryan”) receive story credits, while Christopher Yost along with Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely provided the script. Yost has worked with Marvel for quite some time, and Markus and McFeeley are a collaborative team responsible for writing “Captain America: The First Avenger” and its forthcoming sequel. It’s even been said that Joss Whedon had to come in for rewrites and reshoots. With so many people working on the same thing, it’s easy to understand why the film lacks vision.

Problems with the script could have doomed this film for failure, but “Thor: The Dark World” is rescued from certain disaster by two people: Alan Taylor and Tom Hiddleston. Taylor is the film’s director who took a disconnected script and found enough drama, humor, action and emotion to make this a tolerable and fun film to watch. This could have easily gone the other way, but Taylor made sure that his film would not be an utter bore. His work composing shots, especially ones filmed entirely against green screens, is the work of a seasoned professional. Taylor is known for his work on the HBO television series “Game of Thrones” which shares similarities to the mythological subject matter of “Thor”, but he’s not really known for his film work. He’s come through here, adding his own touch to the fantasy worlds already established in the earlier film. The visuals are striking despite an overload of CGI to make it possible. Action scenes are limited to only a handful, but they are very well executed and choreographed making them a lot of fun to experience.

Hiddleston is the saving grace on the acting side. While Hemsworth is excellent as Thor, he brings nothing new to this film that we haven’t already seen. Portman’s role is reduced to that of damsel in persistent distress, which is such a poor use of a talented Oscar winning actress such as herself. Hiddleston, however, continues to surprise us as Loki. This is also the third time we’ve seen him in this role, but he gets better at it every time. He has a great grasp on this character, much more than any of his costars. Yet they do work very well as an ensemble which also helps cover up the story flaws.

I’m not saying “Thor: The Dark World” is a bad film. It has is disappointing downfalls, but it is enormously enjoyable from start to finish.  It’s a fun and exciting fantasy adventure. But I can’t ignore the problems with the writing. That’s the most basic and most important component to every film regardless of the target demographic. A good story isn’t something that’s reserved for low budget indie features; every film needs to excel at this. I did enjoy the film and I’m sure most everyone who watches it will too, but I have to call out what is a glaring flaw affecting far too many movies today. Marvel is on top of the world right now and they’re not going to be unseated anytime soon. But if they continue to release films with mediocre stories and scripts, the box office receipts will drop off, especially from the diehard fan base of these comics.