Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½ 

Disclaimer: reviewer is not what one would refer to as a “fanboy.”

My only knowledge of how the stories in these comic book movies work is solely based on what the filmmakers bring to the table each time. That and a quick search of Wikipedia before and after the screening never hurt either. I can also say that I’ve never been really big on the Spider-Man adaptations that have been brought to the screen in the past. “Spider-Man 2” in 2004 is the one very big exception. That’s still one of my favorite superhero movies of all time, placing fourth on my Best Ten of 2004 list.

Outside of that, the series has been pretty stagnant. “Spider-Man 3” in 2007 killed Sam Raimi’s interest in it with Sony not even wanting to continue on with him and Tobey Maguire. So they did what any of us would have done: they rebooted it. Also, they had to make another movie pretty quick or else they’d lose the rights to the franchise. That might now have been so bad. The rights would have gone back to Marvel Studios. Then we could have had Spider-Man hanging out with Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and Captain America. Oh well. I bet they really do regret selling the rights to some of their most valuable property now.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” in 2012 was yet another bland telling of the Spider-Man character. This time, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) was updated to the modern times (since 2002-2007 was oh so long ago). Now we have Spider-Man keeping up with his loved ones via cell phones and searching the Internet for clues with Bing (who uses Bing?). He also seems like a bit of a hipster. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I see it. Or maybe I’m just getting old and have nothing in common with the high school kids these films are about.

Nevertheless, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” opens the summer movie season this year on a weekend that’s been pretty much synonymous with comic book action movies for the last several years. Here we find New York criminals being hunted down by Peter Parker, once again played by Andrew Garfield. One this particular day he’s running late to his high school graduation because he’s trying to stop a mad Russian criminal named Aleksei Sytsevich (Paul Giamatti) from stealing plutonium from Oscorp.

But things aren’t going so well for him and his girlfriend Gwyn Stacy (Emma Stone). He promised her father (Denis Leary) as he was dying at the end of the first film that he’d stay away from Gwyn to protect her and that’s weighing heavily on his mind everyday. Every time he kisses her, he can see her father in his mind, watching him and judging him – literally.

If there’s one problem that too many superhero movies outside of the Marvel Cinematic Universe run into it’s the overuse of villains in their films. We’ve already met Sytsevich. Now enter Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) and Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan). We know from the original series with Maguire that Osborn is best buds with Peter Parker who will later resent him and attempt to kill him. Dillon is a new one for us non-fanboys.

Dillon loves Spider-Man. He’s obsessed with him. When Spider-Man saves his life one day, Dillon can’t believe it. When taking a ride up the elevator with the beautiful Gwyn Stacy, he can’t believe she remembers his name. He wants to be liked. He wants to be needed. He wants to be remembered. All this is a bit difficult for him since Oscorp has used his new power grid designs and gave him no credit for it.  Eventually an accident happens which turns Dillon into an electrically charged energy bomb. He calls himself Electro.

It would be rather easy to get the story completely oversaturated at this point with what appears to be three different villains. However, everything is pretty evenly spaced out. Personally, I was surprised with the handling of the story. A script from the likes of Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner usually spells convoluted disaster (see “Transformers” and their much-loved-yet-much-maligned TV series “Lost” and “Fringe”). Spider-Man only faces one villain at a time rather than all three ganging up on him on different fronts.

But that’s about the only thing they did right. When the film isn’t showing high-octane action sequences of nothing but CGI, the movie is nothing but plotting exposition. We’re treated to scenes of people talking that don’t do much to drive the plot forward. I suppose everything might be trying to set up what will ultimately be “The Amazing Spider-Man 3” or the spinoff series featuring the Sinister Six. But this is “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” and it should be handled as its own stand-alone film. That’s the problem with most of these mega film franchises: they’re always looking ahead to the next film instead of focusing on this film.

 Could you imagine how dull all these movies Marvel Studios have been putting out would be if they only existed to set up the next “Avengers” movie? Sure, not all of them are great, but they all stand by themselves. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” never feels to be a film all on its own, but rather a piece to a larger picture that might ultimately not be very satisfying.

And maybe that’s what director Marc Webb likes about these scripts. Maybe he prefers to see the characters evolve and grow throughout the entire series, however long it may be. His only other big movie outside of the new Spider-Man franchise is “(500) Days of Summer” which was nothing but growth and evolution of characters. That might work well enough for one movie, but if they keep it up for an entire franchise, that might be rather dull.

Still, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” pays off well enough when they’re in the midst of action sequences. And that’s really what people are paying for, right?  Webb uses the CGI to lift his action sequences up to a level that’s exciting for every viewer. But who isn’t tired of CGI by now? The climactic battle sequences of this film feel like big screen cartoons. Filmmakers can integrate live action and CGI better than this. We’ve seen it before with Christopher Nolan in his Dark Knight Trilogy or Joss Whedon in “The Avengers.” So it can be done.

It’s hard for me to say this is a bad movie though. The 100 drawn out minutes of muddy exposition are indeed boring, but there are some good moments (especially one great scene in particular between Peter Parker and Aunt May, played by the great Sally Field); the other 40 minutes are quite enjoyable. There are some tense moments and the action sequences are well put together (even if it’s from a team of animators rather than a film crew). Looking ahead at a summer full of unimpressive titles, I guess it’s a good thing that we started out on a half way decent note.

Review: Draft Day

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

“Draft Day” is a film that helps provide a little bit of insight into how a front office works on the first night of the National Football League’s draft. It’s a film football fans should be able to embrace. But for those who don’t care for the sport one way or another, it’s still going to be something you can like. It’s a simple premise – only taking place over the course of one day – and works very well thanks to a very concise story told very well.

Sonny Weaver, Jr. (Kevin Costner) is going to have a heck of a day. It’s the day of the NFL draft and it’s his second year as the general manager of the Cleveland Brown. The team’s owner Anthony Molina (Frank Langella) really wants him to make a splash. Sonny figures this means trading away his first round draft picks for the next three years to Seattle in exchange for this year’s number one pick. The top pick in the draft is thought to be Heisman Trophy winning quarterback from the University of Wisconsin Bo Callahan (Josh Pence), a once in a lifetime type of quarterback. This, of course, doesn’t sit well with Cleveland’s new head coach, Coach Penn (Denis Leary) who had his heart set on a top running back from Florida State Ray Jennings (Arian Foster – yes, that Arian Foster).

While most of us are probably very familiar with the whole NFL Draft process thanks to ESPN’s unflinching coverage of the event each year, the behind the scenes action is probably a little less known. I’m sure it’s unfamiliar territory for screenwriters Scott Rothman and Rajiv Joseph as well. A lot of work goes into designing the perfect draft board for all 32 NFL teams every year. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that each team has a small group of people already ranking the prospects for next year’s draft before this year’s draft even starts. “Draft Day” makes it look like Weaver is the only person in charge of all the decision making processes. But then again, it’s a movie. We’re always asked to suspend our disbelief to an extent.

This is all done for dramatic purposes and I understand that. This is a film where your expectations will determine how much you like it. If you’re looking for a film that’s going to give you a detailed overview of all the inner workings of NFL franchise’s draft day procedures, “Draft Day” isn’t it. However, “Draft Day” is still a very enjoyable movie. It takes the best dramatic moments of what probably happens in a draft room, and blends them into what ultimately amounts to very solid story.

Not only is Sonny the GM, but we’re also are treated to see much of his personal life as well. There’s his private relationship with the Browns’ salary cap manager Ali (Jennifer Garner). He’s also just lost his father Sonny Weaver, Sr. who is a Cleveland legend, coaching the Browns for years. Living in a father’s shadow isn’t easy, especially when the father is beloved by an entire city. The ongoing feud between Penn and Weaver occupies a good chunk of the story. Leary plays the roll well, one that I imagine is very consistent with many NFL head coaches and general managers. The only thing not believable about Penn is that he used to coach the Cowboys where, according to Penn, “they win.” He flaunts his Super Bowl ring every chance he gets. Except for the Cowboys have been the definition of mediocrity for the better part of a decade now, but I digress. There’s Weaver’s mother (Ellen Burstyn) who’s there to help add to the stress of Sonny’s day. She succeeds, part because of the character, but mostly because it’s Burstyn in the role.

There are too few scenes involving Costner and one of the potential draft picks, Ohio State linebacker Vontae Mack (Chadwick Boseman). The few we are treated too are some of the best scenes in the film. Boseman is a budding star and we should all be on the lookout for him to take Hollywood by storm. Many will remember his fiery performance as Jackie Robinson in last year’s “42” and we have his role as funk legend James Brown to look forward to this summer in “Get on Up.”  For a supporting role, his character is really well developed even in so few scenes. All the draft prospects are, for that matter. Once again showcasing the great writing by Rothman and Joseph.

However, there are many clichéd filled moments that clutter the script, particularly in characterization.  Weaver’s intern (Griffin Newman) is a walking cliché placed here only for the purposes of breaking up the dramatic moments with some humor. But there’s already enough genuine humor written into the script. Credit that to director Ivan Reitman (“Ghostbusters”) for being able to bring out the humor in the script and delicately balancing it against all the dramatic moments. This is one of his best films in years but let’s be honest, he hasn’t exactly been turning in gems for close to 20 years.

Still, “Draft Day” is surprisingly well done for a film that could have easily have fallen flat on its face. Most of this is thanks to the very well developed screenplay from Rothman and Joseph. For first time film writers, they really nailed it. There’s enough football in this film for football fans to like it, but there’s also a lot of personal drama and conflict for the non-fans. There’s nothing else really to it than that. Sometimes the simplest stories can have a lot of complex elements to it and be enormously satisfying in the end. 

Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

I couldn’t have told you one comic book superhero from the next until Marvel launched its Cinematic Universe in 2008 with “Iron Man.” Today, I look forward to each new installment. However, most of their films have not lived up to the enormous expectations. The latest installment from Marvel is “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and with that, Marvel may have finally figured out how to make these movies accessible to everyone.

“The Winter Soldier” takes place a couple years after the events of “The Avengers.” Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans) continues to work with S.H.I.E.L.D. helping them fight terrorists around the world. As we open, he’s on a mission with Agent Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) trying to rescue S.H.I.E.L.D. agents from a ship hijacked by pirates. One of the pirates is Georges Batroc, played by UFC fighter Georges St-Pierre, which turns into some fun and wild hand-to-hand combat between him and Cap.

Of course, Romanoff appears to have a separate agenda during this simple rescue mission. Rogers doesn’t like being left in the dark on missions when members of his team are given a separate mission. He takes it up with Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). Fury decides he’ll let Rogers in on a little secret mission since he’s so upset about being left out of the loop. S.H.I.E.L.D. is working on something called Project Insight which consists of three upgraded Helicarriers (advanced models of the massive air/water vehicle S.H.I.E.L.D. used in “The Avengers”) which can patrol the globe indefinitely and eliminate threats to world security. Rogers doesn’t agree with this thought process. Fury shares Rogers’ doubts about the program with Secretary Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford) who is leader of the World Security Council (an active supporter of Project Insight).

Fury’s suddenly finds himself being targeted by a ruthless assassin called The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan). He’s a Keyser Söze-type villain who’s more of ghost story character than anything else; many have heard of him, few see him and live to tell the tale. But here he is, in the flesh. Rogers and Romanoff take off running from him and those who hired him, trying to figure out why they’re being targeted all of a sudden. Thankfully, a new friend of Rogers, Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie), is trustworthy and proves very helpful.

“The Winter Soldier” is a huge win for Marvel and their ongoing Cinematic Universe. What they’ve done here is taken well known and beloved comic book heroes from this and previous generations and successfully blend them into a modern day setting. This isn’t a just a comic book/superhero movie; this is smart political action thriller more than anything else.

If you were to remove the superhero elements from the script, you’d be left with a tightly wound story about powerful and corrupt people with the good guys trying to bring them down. This, of course, despite many different antagonist elements sprinkled throughout the plot. I think this is the model Marvel has been working toward since they started making all these movies in the same Cinematic Universe. We’ve got the origin story out of the way, we’ve got “The Avengers” out of the way, so it’s time to really take this character and put him into a real world story arc.

While other Marvel movies have attempted this structure with little success, “The Winter Soldier” is the first film to really make it work. That credit should go to screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, who have worked with Marvel already on “Captain American: The First Avenger” and “Thor: The Dark World.” Third time’s a charm, I guess. The first “Captain America” was dead on arrival and no one was able to salvage that. It was a two-hour preview for “The Avengers” and had very little for the audience to identify with. It was an obligatory film that had to be made in order for “The Avengers” to be the success that it was. As for “Thor,” that’s a hard one to tell. The character isn’t well known outside the Marvel fan base and he’s not easy to relate to. Don’t get me wrong, I do like Chris Hemsworth in the role and Tom Hiddleston steals the show, but it seems to be a hard world to write and bring to life. But Markus and McFeely finally have it figured out with “The Winter Soldier.” It’s as if they wrote a political thriller first, and then stuck Captain America in there as the protagonist after they worked out the kinks in the story. And it’s got the right amount of wit and humor to accompany the story.

Of course, the film is not without its faults. There’s a lot of unnecessary development of the Rogers character despite this being the third time we’ve seen him. Additional development is okay in sequels (see Alvin Sargent’s masterful screenplay for “Spider-Man 2”) but it shouldn’t bog down the pace of the film. After an amazing opening series of scenes, this film grinds to a halt for the remainder or an overly long first act. There’s also plenty of spots where I wasn’t sure who was fighting who and who was on who’s side. When the climactic events occur in multiple locations all at the same time, things tend to get a little muddled. Joss Whedon figured that out, which is why the battle in New York at the end of “The Avengers” is so well put together.

But I can’t take anything away from directors Anthony and Joe Russo. For a couple of guys who’s credits include directing the pilot episodes to two cult television shows (“Arrested Development” and “Community”), they don’t seem to be intimidated by a complex plot, a big studio budget or operating within the realms of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel was wise to lock these guys into another film. They handle the story well by letting the plot take center stage rather than the CGI. Sure, there are hundreds of effects shots in this film but they’re used to supplement the film, not steal the show.

The Russo’s have also guided their stars into excellent performances. Chris Evans seems right at home as Captain America. I know I’ve seen him in other films before (including two terrible films featuring another set of Marvel characters that shall remain nameless), but I can’t help but see Captain American every time I look at him now. He works well with Scarlett Johansson too. I felt her character got the short end of the stick in her other Marvel appearances, but her character really takes off here. And I really liked the way the Winter Soldier character is handled. He is the film’s namesake, but the plot doesn’t revolve around him. He intersects the plot at random times causing havoc whenever he appears. He does get some back story, but overall he’s just viewed as a menace. That might not work in some films, but it works great here.

“Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is the stand-alone film Marvel fans have been waiting for. I don’t think fans of the comics will be disappointed at all, especially with the way the characters and the source material are handled. Those who aren’t big into superhero movies should really enjoy it too, especially those who like political thrillers. Because that’s really all this film is. I know nothing of these characters as they appear in the comics, only from what’s in the movies and on the TV shows. But I have become a fan of what this studio is doing. And with everything that’s happened in “Iron Man 3,” “Thor: The Dark World” and now this, I’m excited to see where they’re taking these characters and these stories in the next “Avengers” movie next summer. Just over a year to go.

By the way, there is one scene in the middle of the credits and one after the credits. You’ll probably want to check out both.

Review: The Grand Budapest Hotel

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★★

Take note, Hollywood: originality is alive and well if you’re willing to look for it. Director Wes Anderson is full of originality, from his stories to his style. “The Grand Budapest Hotel” is his latest film and it fits perfectly into his body of work that’s already been highly regarded and decorated.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” is a story about the adventures of Monsieur Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes), concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel in the fictional Republic of Zubrowka. M. Gustave is a dedicated servant to the hotel who is loved by all his guests, specifically the older blonde women who visit the hotel just for him. He’s most fond of Madame D. (Tilda Swinton) who thinks her current stay at the Grand Budapest will be her last time seeing M. Gustave.

Seeing all the events unfold (and acting as our story teller in the form of F. Murray Abraham) is young Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori) who is a junior lobby boy in training. Gustave takes him under his wing and the two become friends. About a month later, news arrives that Madame D. has died. Gustave takes Zero to pay their respects. When they arrive at her estate, Gustave finds out that she has bequeathed him a rare painting called Boy with Apple. It’s priceless. But Madame D’s son Dmitri Desgoffe-und-Taxi (Adrien Brody) doesn’t think he deserves it. Dmitri sends his henchman, J.G. Jopling (Willem Dafoe) out on a dastardly mission.

Soon, Gustave is accused of murdering Madame D. and is arrested by Inspector Henckels (Edward Norton). But the math doesn’t add up. All the evidence points to M. Gustave murdering her, but he didn’t do it. It’s up to Gustave and Zero to figure out the mystery so his name can be cleared. Along with help from Zero’s beautiful young bride-to-be Agatha (Saoirse Ronan), they all have to work together or else Gustave will be an innocent man locked away in prison.

 

The plot is, of course, much bigger than that. In typical Wes Anderson fashion, the story takes on a larger than life personality. “The Grand Budapest Hotel” is completely ludicrous, and I mean that in the best possible sense. It’s instantly welcoming and keeps you drawn in thanks to all the over-the-top and farcical characters. Anderson carries us from one wild chapter to the next with his fast paced script and style.

Anderson is in a class all of his own. He might even be a genre all of his own. To compare him to anyone else would be useless. His films are one-of-a-kind from the originality of the stories, the elaborated character types, deliberate camera movements and his lush use of music (thanks here to the fantastic compositions of Alexandre Desplat). Yes, there are many other filmmakers that have these types of trademarks, but not in the sense that Anderson uses them. He transcends the meaning of the term “filmmaker;” he’s an auteur.

While “The Grand Budapest Hotel” doesn’t contain any outlooks on life that will move you and rattle your emotions to the core, it is highly entertaining and exceedingly fun to watch. Anderson opted to tell the story in parts rather than acts. Five parts are bookended by a prologue and epilogue. This helps keep the film paced at a manic speed. Anderson claims the works of Stefan Zweig - an Austrian writer who was highly renowned around the world during the 1930s - inspired the film. He even creatures a caricature of Zweig – to an extent – with Tom Wilkinson and Jude Law portraying the character (simply credited as The Author).

The film is also bursting at the seams with Anderson regulars, albeit in small roles. Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson and Bill Murray all make appearances. There’s also plenty of room for other well known actors to make an appearance, such as Jeff Goldbloom, Mathieu Amalric, Harvey Keitel, Léa Seydoux and Bob Balaban to name a few. It’s hard to pin down one role in particular who carries the film; everyone is so much fun to watch.

Fiennes, more than anyone else, is magnificent. He’s known more for his serious or Elizabethan-era roles, but here he plays straight comedy and carries it with great ease. We already know he can play the high society role well and here he completely embellishes it. He’s fast-talking and uses a lot of big words that don’t really fit into today’s vernacular. I also liked newcomer Tony Revolori. He seemed confident and in command of his role despite standing opposite such a renowned actor such as Fiennes.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” is a film that showcases Anderson at the top of his craft. While this film certainly won’t be for everybody, it is probably Anderson’s most accessible movie. The quirks that are so closely associated with Anderson’s work are on full display here which could turn some viewers off. I implore those would-be naysayers to take a chance on something unusual and offbeat such as this. This is one of Anderson’s finest works to date, and should also go down as one of the finest films of the year. 

Review: Bad Words

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

“Bad Words” marks the feature film directorial debut of Jason Bateman. He’s no stranger to being behind the camera. He directed an episode of his cult television series “Arrested Development” for Fox. And before that, he directed three episodes of “The Hogan Family” when he was 18, making him the youngest ever director for the Director’s Guild of American at the time. So what took him so long to break into directing a feature film? I suppose he was waiting for the right script to come along. “Bad Words” was a very worthy script and he’s turned it into a very worthy first feature.

Guy Trilby (Jason Bateman) sure seems like a loser, but he might just be a genius. He’s also a ragging asshole, to put it nicely. Through a small loophole in the rulebook, Guy has worked his way into a children’s spelling bee. He dropped out of school in the eighth grade, and the contestants need to have not graduated from the eighth grade in order to participate. So Guy is in, much to the chagrin of all the parents and judges. And it’s not a piece of cake either. They’re not easy words; anyone who has seen the spelling bees on TV know they don’t take it easy on these kids. But since Guy is some sort of genius, he gets through with relative ease. All he needs is a media sponsor, which he has in Jenny Widgeon (Kathryn Hahn).

After winning a regional championship, Guy is off to the national Golden Quill Spelling Bee in Los Angeles. On his way out there, he meets one of the contestants, Chaitanya Chopra (Rohan Chand), a 10 year old bursting with energy and face that never frowns. Guy wants nothing to do with him, yet they end up on the same hotel floor.

Dr. Bernice Deagan (Allison Janney) oversees the Golden Quill and she hates the fact that Guy is here. She vows to get him out as soon as possible. The contest itself is the brainchild of Dr. Bowman (Philip Baker Hall) who is having it broadcast live on TV for the first time. Guy knows this, and its all part of diabolical little scheme. He may be a jerk and come across as a loser, but he’s very smart. He knows exactly what he’s doing. And he’s here for a purpose, one that he doesn’t share, to Jenny’s dismay.

Bateman has shown time and time again that he’s a great comedic actor (which he still doesn’t get a whole lot of credit for), but with “Bad Words” he proves himself as a very capable comedic director. The premise of this film, on the surface, seems very remedial and empty, but Bateman is able to breathe a lot of light into it, giving the film quite a bit of heart and depth.

The script comes from first timer Andrew Dodge, who has written what will surely be one of the year’s funniest movies. The whole story is simplistic and could have easily been told as a short film, but it works well in its extended length. Behind all the crude humor is a big-hearted narrative that resonates well. And while it may come across predictable, the final act is a riot with some unexpected happenings.

Bateman is solid as usual. He’s always seemed very comfortable in leading roles and I wish he’d accept more of those parts. Kathryn Hahn is strong in her role too. She’s been around for awhile in smaller roles and on TV shows, but I think she’s about to really break out into much bigger and more visible roles. I also liked seeing Philip Baker Hall in his role, as small as it was. Despite that, it’s probably one of his stronger performances in awhile.

But the real star of the film is young Rohan Chand. He steals every scene that he’s in. At first he might seem like he’s just going to be annoying nuisance of a secondary character, but he becomes a much larger part of the plot as we move along. He lonely, but that doesn’t seem to bother him. He’s a happy-go-lucky character and Chand plays it to near perfection. This movie is all his.

As the film’s director, Bateman has taken the relatively basic premise of “Bad Words” and made it into something much more meaningful. It doesn’t have an enormous impact emotionally, something that I thought it might achieve about halfway through, but it’s still genuinely heartfelt. Just because it’s a simple idea blended together with pervasive language and foul humor doesn’t mean it can’t be genuine. Bateman as a director has proven himself capable of making movies like that.

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.