Noah

Chloe Leeson started her review out by saying, “Requiem for a Dream director Darren Aronofsky has mashed up various ideals & theories such as creationism, evolution and environmentalism in his latest $125,000,00 kinda biblical-kinda-pro-vegan epic, Noah.”

Anyone who has read the Bible knows the story of Noah being given a message from God that he plans to destroy Earth and purge the sin out, so Noah has been chosen to save what good is left on Earth, like his family and the animals. This results in Noah going to build an ark, helped by some ridiculous ‘fallen angel’ rock-monsters. Insert an army of bellicose men, some hybrid creatures, Anthony Hopkins playing a “Grandfather” who is a little obsessed with berries and more water than “2012” and “Titanic” put together, and there’s a sci-fi fantasy version of the Biblical tale.

With so many references to give the movie is difficult for carrying the ideas during the first act, large amounts of screen time are spent watching the Noah family wander through dead wastelands that look like they would not go wrong in “District 9.” As the children grow into young adults and the first tree springs the story begins to form and pick up pace, with Emma Watson leaving Hogwarts for more mature roles proving herself to be more than just the smartest witch of her age. Logan Lerman does not go wrong either as ‘Ham,’ a charming and kind-hearted young man with a less than attractive name. Actually, despite the awe-inspiring CGI, this film is carried entirely by the actors (everyone but Douglas Booth who does nothing but complain the entire runtime), Russell Crowe controls the story with such force it’s really difficult to believe that he is the one playing Noah. Leeson said, “Taking Noah to extreme lengths, Crowe presents him as an utterly mad extremist, a man set on destroying the entirety of man-kind, as opposed to the peace keeping Noah people have come to know.” It becomes difficult to agree with a man so determined for destruction but the good nature of wife Naameh, played by Jennifer Connelly, rolls in some of his unmatched anger.

Leeson noted, “Long time collaborator Clint Mansell’s score is also of epic proportions, booming drums collide with haunting violins to mimic the chaos created by the combined forces of ‘the creator’ and man. Primarily complimenting the CGI heavy battle scenes to the highest degree this could be Mansell’s finest Aronofsky collaboration since Requiem For A Dream.”

The significance and timing of “Noah,” released in 2014, couldn’t be more on point. Leeson mentioned, “As previously mentioned the desert barren lands would not look out of place in one of the many apocalyptic/dystopian films released the past few years and an under-lying eco warrior message is absolutely apparent.” The events inside the film could have happened in the past, it could be a fantasy world, or it could be about to occur (look closely into the landscapes, debris and ‘creation of life’ montage and see for yourself). Neeson said, “This innovative, if not completely obvious to all, twist elevates the film from self-indulgent project to thought provoking and socially conscious.”

“Noah” is hands down the most heroic of stories to tell, so Aronofsky’s complete determination and vision alone is worthy of value. Leeson ended her review by saying, “The path of the story does get lost amongst various colliding ideas at times but his cast manage to navigate through those tempestuous waters with the grace of a family who truly deserve to be saved.”

As good as this movie is, which it “is” a good movie; it really depends heavily on the sci-fi CGI effects that really deviates it from the Biblical story. I guess people who are serious of the Biblical tale may find this offensive and will hate it, but personally, I still think this is a good, emotional movie to check out.

Thank you everyone for joining in on “Russell Crowe Month.” I hope everyone had a good time and…wait a minute, next month is October. You know what that means…HALLOWEEN MONTH!!! Look out and see what films I have in store for you.

Les Misérables

There is a lot of noise about the live singing on the set of the 2012 adaptation of “Les Misérables.” Every actor sang as the cameras are on as opposed to recording it in a studio first, and that’s a great achievement since many of the actors can sing greatly and don’t really need auto-tuning (unlike Emma Watson in the live action “Beauty and the Beast!!!”). Caitlin Hughes said in her review, “This live singing in combination with the film’s grand scope – finally, a film of the legendary Boublil/Schönberg musical! – is supposed to make this a great film. But, very sadly, it does not.” Despite the film has a lot of great talent and definitely is watchable, it’s under the direction of the often incredibly careless Tom Hooper and never becomes the epic masterpiece it originally trying to be.

The story is very evident (and quite involved), but Jean Valjean, played by Hugh Jackman, is finishing up his time in prison for breaking into a house and stealing a loaf of bread. He thinks he is free, but because of being on a strict parole from Inspector Javert, played by Russell Crowe, he cannot get a job after his parole is over. Valjean says he will get another chance, thanks to Colm Wilkinson saving him, and when we see him years later, he is living under another name as the mayor of a small town.

Valjean pays his good money when he helps factory worker-turned-beggar Fantine, played by Anne Hathaway. After Fantine dies, he gains custody of her young daughter Cosette (Isabelle Allen) out of an abusive boarding house under the command of Thénardier and his wife (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter).

Cosette does grow up (now played by Amanda Seyfried) and she falls in love with French Revolutionary Marius (Eddie Redmayne). However, can Valjean learn to let go of his adopted daughter, especially when they are always being followed by lawman Javert?

The main problem here is that Hooper in the end did a very poor job of directing. Hughes noted, “The film is shot in a staggering series of close-ups with little purpose – an odd choice, given the amount of the film budget that likely went to costumes and sets. The close-ups drastically shrink the potentially large scope of the film. It’s as if Hooper went to see The Expendables and took notes on how to make it look like someone left the TV on the “zoom” setting.”

Sadly, Hooper’s mistakes don’t end there. Hughes noted, “There are many clichéd shots of people singing off balconies à la Evita. There is even one shot that goes to the heavy-handed lengths of Javert singing off a rooftop next to a giant stone eagle.” Get the symbolism?

The sets and costumes are also really inconsistent, running the extent from highly stylized to “gritty” and realistic. If you see the sets of historical French landmarks like Notre Dame look like the real places and large portion of the main actors look really genuinely dressed. Hughes noted, “However, the prostitutes and the Thénardiers look like they stepped out of a Tim Burton movie, the poor people are so hideous that they look like zombies on The Walking Dead, and some of the village sets look like they were taken off the stage of the Broadway show in that they are extremely artificial-looking.” Because of the roughness, the look and feel of the film never quite mesh, especially when Hooper depends to his constant use of an obvious screen.

As you can tell, Hooper’s constant mistakes cannot obscure the amazing music that is played in the film, and most of the actors do an exceptional job at performing, both in action and in song. Jackman and Crowe are fine as the enemies Valjean and Javert and, at one part, they bring it in The Confrontation. Many jokes have been made on Crowe’s singing voice not being well, but he is actually very believable since he really acts in all of his songs and his voice never sounds forced or inauthentic. Hughes said, “Even though he’s been on Broadway in real life, Jackman could take a few pointers from Crowe – he warbles a bit too much and butchers classics like “Bring Him Home.”” I actually thought Jackman did a good job in that song.

With a few exceptions, the rest of the cast also delivers. Hathaway is a standout as Fantine and gives so much emotive power from her short time on screen. Hughes noted, “Seyfried and Redmayne work quite well as the vanilla young lovers Cosette and Marius, and their singing voices are more-than Broadway caliber.” However, the real starts are Samantha Barks (Eponine), Aaron Tveit (Enjolras) and Daniel Huttlestone (Gavroche). Barks and Huttlestone had previously starred in a London production of “Les Miséerables,” and Tveit starred in a Broadway production of “Catch Me If You Can.” Hughes mentioned, “Their French Revolutionaries breathe much-needed life into the film’s third act, and their voices capture an impassioned take on the material.”

Hughes noted, “On the other end of the spectrum, Sacha Baron Cohen is the only actor in the film who made the odd choice to intermittently alternate between the Thénardier-traditional cockney and a French accent.” Hooper probably should have leashed that one in.

“Les Misérables” is hands down a great musical, but it would have been interesting to see what a different director would have done with the material. At about two and a half hours, the film feels even longer, even though a lot of the songs were not included and the plot would likely be difficult for people not completely familiar with the book or the stage musical. There was a lot of expectation behind the release of this film, and it’s possible that many people will still like it and a lot of theater tickets must have been bought when it played in theaters, but it mainly is seen as a big missed opportunity to be something great.

In all honesty, I really did like this adaptation, despite that I have no knowledge of the previous material. I never read the book and I did see some YouTube clips of some stage performances of a few songs. I used to have a friend who was a fan of “Les Misérables,” so I only knew it from him. I still say check it out, but bear in mind, no one really had a unanimous decision on this adaptation. People liked it, hated it or were indifferent. However, I still say check it out and judge for based on your own thoughts.

Wait until next week when I wrap up “Russell Crowe Month” with a certain type of film that I have reviewed before.

A Beautiful Mind

The late Nobel Prize winner John Forbes Nash Jr. used to teach at Princeton, and walked to campus every day. Roger Ebert said in his review, “That these commonplace statements nearly brought tears to my eyes suggests the power of "A Beautiful Mind," the story of a man who is one of the greatest mathematicians, and a victim of schizophrenia.” Nash’s discoveries in game theory have an impact on human society every day. He also believed for some time that Russians were sending him coded messages on the front page of the New York Times.

“A Beautiful Mind,” released in 2001, stars Russell Crowe as Nash, and Jennifer Connelly as his late wife, Alicia, who is pregnant with their son when the first signs of schizophrenia became apparent. It tells the story of a man whose mind was a huge help to society while at the same time torturing him with scary delusions. Ebert said, “Crowe brings the character to life by sidestepping sensationalism and building with small behavioral details.” He shows a man who falls into insanity before, suddenly, bouncing back to work in the academic world. Nash has been compared to Newton, Mendel and Darwin, but was also for many years just a man talking to himself in the corner.

Director Ron Howard is able to show an amount of goodness in Nash that inspired his wife and others to stand by him, to keep hope and, in her words in his worst time, “to believe that something extraordinary is possible.” The movie’s Nash begins as a quiet but overconfident young man with a West Virginia accent, who slowly turns into an afflicted, mysterious paranoid who believes he is a spy being followed by government agents. Crowe, who has a mysterious way to change his look to fit a role, always seems convincing as a man who ages 47 years during the film.

The young Nash, seen at Princeton in the late 1940s, calmly tells a scholarship winner “there is not a single seminal idea on either of your papers.” When he loses at a game of Go, he explains: “I had the first move. My play was perfect. The game is flawed.” He is aware of his impact on others (“I don’t much like people and they don’t much like me”) and remembers that his first-grade teacher said he was “born with two helpings of brain and a half-helping of heart.” It is Alicia who helps him find the heart. She is a graduate student when they meet, falls in love to his genius, feels for his loneliness, is able to accept his idea of marriage when he tells her, “Ritual requires we proceed with a number of platonic activities before he make love.” To the point that he can be touched, she touches him, despite often he looks trapped inside himself. Ebert noted, “Sylvia Nasar, who wrote the 1998 biography that informs Akiva Goldsman's screenplay, begins her book by quoting Wordsworth about "a man forever voyaging through strange seas of Thought, alone." Nash's schizophrenia takes a literal, visual form.” He believes he is being chased by a federal agent, played by Ed Harris, and imagines himself in chase scenes that resemble those from 1940s crime movies. He begins to find patters where no patterns exist. One night he and Alicia stand under the sky and he asks her to name any object, and then connects stars to draw it. Romantic, but it’s not so romantic when she sees his office heavily papered with many articles torn from newspapers and magazines and connected by uptight lines into imaginary patters.

The movie follows his treatment by an understanding psychiatrist, played by Christopher Plummer, and his struggling courses of insulin shock therapy. Medication helps him improve a bit – but only, obviously, when he takes the medication. Eventually newer drugs are more powerful, and he begins a hesitant re-entry into the academic world at Princeton.

Ebert said, “The movie fascinated me about the life of this man, and I sought more information, finding that for many years he was a recluse, wandering the campus, talking to no one, drinking coffee, smoking cigarettes, paging through piles of newspapers and magazines.” One day he paid a very ordinary compliment to a coworker about his daughter, and it was noticed that Nash looked better.

There is a great scene in the movie when a representative for the Nobel committee, played by Austin Pendleton, comes visiting, and hints that he is being “considered” for the prize. Nash sees that people are usually told they have won, not that they are being considered: “You came here to find out if I am crazy and would screw everything up if I won.” He did win, and did not screw everything up.

The movies have a way of not focusing too much on mental illness. It is bizarre, sensational, cute, funny, stubborn, tragic or wicked. Here it is simply a disease, which leaves life almost but not quite impossible for Nash and his wife, before he comes one of the lucky ones to pull out of the hole he falls in.

When he won the Nobel, Nash was asked to write about his life, and he was honest enough to say his recovery is “not entirely a matter of joy.” He sees: “Without his ‘madness,’ Zarathustra would necessarily have been only another of the millions or billions of human individuals who have lived and then been forgotten.” Without his madness, would Nash have also lived and then been forgotten? Did his ability to enter the most difficult parts of mathematical thought somehow come with a price to pay? The movie does not know and cannot say.

This is definitely one of the best biographical films ever made. See it if you haven’t, especially to those who have researched and know about the life of John Nash and his impact on the mathematical and scientific society. Crowe and Connelly were great in this role and I don’t know who else could have played these roles, but it was a job well done. Like I said, don’t read this review, go out and see it because it has to be seen to be believed and you’re missing out on a great biographical movie.

Look out next week when we look at another adaptation in “Russell Crowe Month.”

The Lion Guard: Battle for the Pride Lands

I found out that last month, the season 3 premiere of “The Lion Guard” started with another hour-long movie titled “The Lion Guard: Battle for the Pride Lands.” I watched this today On Demand and I have to say, it was a nice special that had some nostalgic touches for people who watched the first two “The Lion King” movies and perfectly explains the events that occurs in the second film.

The basic story of this is that The Lion Guard has grown and matured while protecting the Pride Lands from another attack that is made by the animals from the Outlands. The members include Kion (Max Charles), Bunga (Joshua Rush), Fuli (Diamond White), Beshte (Dusan Brown), Anga (Bryana Salaz) and Ono (Atticus Shaffer). Kion and Simba (Rob Lowe) make a plan to have all the best warriors of the Pride Lands join the Lion Guard in defeating Scar (David Oyelowo) once and for all. All of this is being reported to Scar by Ushari (Christian Slater) and Janja (Andrew Kishino), although Janja is having second thoughts about the Lion Guard, remembering what Jasiri (Maia Mitchell) once said to him.

For those who are fans of this series will definitely like this special. You have great cameos in here from the original movie, like Mufasa (Gary Anthony Williams), Nala (Gabrielle Union), Kiara (Eden Riegel) Rafiki (Khary Payton) and his apprentice Makini (Landry Bender), Zazu (Jeff Bennett) and Timon and Pumbaa. Other familiar voices will be John O’Hurley (who you might remember from “Seinfeld” and host of “Family Feud”), Common, Phil LaMarr and Michael Dorn.

Another added touch on this special is that it shows how Scar got his nickname and how he got his Scar. I’m not going to give that away because that would be spoilers.

Overall, I would say that if you have seen the past two specials of “The Lion Guard,” then you should see this one. It nicely picks up from the second special and you will really love this one, especially for those who are fans of “The Lion King.” I think this series is running strong, despite that I haven’t seen any episodes, but only the specials. I want to wait a bit before I see the live action remake to see how horribly they did that.

Thank you for joining in on today’s review, stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Russell Crowe Month.”

Gladiator

For this month, I thought I would review all of the movies I have seen that have starred Russell Crowe, seeing how I haven’t really talked about him since “Man of Steel.” To start off, I will review Ridley Scott’s 2000 movie, “Gladiator.”

For people who worry that politics and entertainment look very much alike, this epic film says that things were actually similar only way bloodier, in the early days of the first millennium A.D.

Bill O’Driscoll said in his review, “While the film masks its more reactionary sentiments with the rhetoric of democracy, it's entertaining enough doubletalk.” Marcus Aurelius, an emperor who is close to stepping down as Roman Emperor, wants his successor to not be his terrible son, Commodus, but his greatest general Maximus. “Help me save Rome from politicians,” Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) pleads noble Maximus (Russell Crowe) – because, as everyone knows, soldiers are your best people in democracy.

To seal the throne, Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix, kills his father. (Note: Joaquin Phoenix got really into the role during that scene, he actually fainted.) Maximus escapes execution, sadly his wife (Giannina Facio) and son (Giorgio Cantarini) don’t. He gets sold into slavery and becomes the empire’s greatest gladiator: in the capital city his popularity with the audiences in the coliseum is that despite someone else owning him, his influence equals that of incompetent Commodus. No worries, a takedown is inevitable.

O’Driscoll said, “Scott consciously seeks to resurrect the sword-and-sandal extravaganzas of two generations ago, and in the frequent combat set pieces he shows flair. Gladiator is a massive production, from the catapults, horses, swords and flaming arrows of the opening battle to the mud-brick amphitheatre where Maximus proves his mettle and the grander frays at the coliseum, with armed charioteers and chained tigers. (Most of the coliseum, by the way, is computer-generated, and most of the spectators digitoids. The kitties are real.) The hand-to-hand set-tos are bloody and bone-jarring.”

However, like a soldier strangely being sworn on the throne, Scott is less successful when weapons aren’t there. The palace plots aren’t terribly plotting. Dramatically, the biggest problem is that from the start, Commodus never looks a worthy villain. Phoenix humanizes him to a certain point, but as written Commodus has no traits that aren’t either hateful or pathetic: He’s a coward, traitor and false populist who sympathizes with that poor Caligula and is which is strangely hinted, attracted to little boys. On top of that, he’s short. His complete worthlessness is only shown by the appearance of his beautiful, noble sister, Lucilla, played by Connie Nielsen.

O’Driscoll said, “If Gladiator is anti-monarchial, it's pro-military coup, and Marcus Aurelius's regard for democracy is subsequently overshadowed by the film's concern with the fickleness of "the mob," embodied by the gladiatorial fans. They're portrayed as so easily swayed by spectacle, free bread and bloodsport heroism that it's hard to credit Scott with any sincerity regarding the rightness of restoring the republic.” Meanwhile, in the Hollywood political tradition, it’s a lonely heroic figure – “A Hero Will Rise,” as the posters say – who gives the best if not only hope for justice.

While Maximus is fictional, Marcus Aurelius largely resembles his actual counterpart. However, he was not killed by his son: The real Marcus chose his son Commodus to rule together three years before he died. From there, the story is at least as strange as the one “Gladiator” tells. O’Driscoll noted, “Commodus' misrule worsened as he grew insane, imagining he was the god Hercules and fighting in the arena dressed as a gladiator.” Twelve years into his sovereignty, his advisers had him strangled by a champion wrestler.

In “Gladiator,” it’s hinted that Maximus’s heroic efforts restore power to the republican Senate. O’Driscoll noted, “In history, the death of Commodus was followed by civil strife, ushering in a century or so when multiple emperors ruled at once, presiding over a fragmented empire.” Maximus is praised as most fit to be Emperor because he doesn’t want to. Post-Commodus emperors depended on generals and armies for their power.

Movies like “Gladiator” might not pretend to be a historical movie, but they do influence how people view history, past and present. Scott, working from a story by David Franzoni (who co-scripted), certainly doubted anyone wanted to see a film where heroic sacrifice went unrewarded. O’Driscoll ended his review by saying, “Talk about treating an audience like a fickle mob.”

Now, in all honesty, as good as this movie is, I can see why Doug Walker said that this movie is basically the Moses story. We have seen this story told before so many times about a person who loses everything and has to work his way back up so he can seek his revenge. Still, I think this movie is well done and is another good gladiator type movie that people should check out.

Look out next week for the next installment in “Russell Crowe Month.”