Noah (2014)

     Aronofsky's Noah is an interesting beast. It aims to tell not just a large scale story but an entire biblical epic in the now standard just over two hour running time given to it and all other not guaranteed money making movies. Until a Director's cut comes out we won't know if Noah is a masterpiece marred by its editing or if it's more of a shoddy mess of scenes stitched together at the last minute but what I can assure you is that the final product that I just saw was pretty great as a whole but held back some by the age old story it's trying to tell.

     I won't go over the plot in detail (Come on you should know this by now if your above the age of 6) but what I will say is that it follows the bible story very closely. Adding in characters and set pieces to drive the visual quality from great to stunningly great. Our hero Noah (played by Fighting Around the World's own Russel Crowe) is tasked by god to build an Arc to save two of each animal so that God can flood the world and cleanse it evil humans . Where the movie differs from the simple story I remember is that he is helped by a rogue band of fallen angels who seek redemption, and is sieged by the Human King Tubal Descendant of Cain, played by Ray Winestone , who demands that humans get safe passage on the arc as opposed to animals.

     The two most interesting things the movie does are it's timeline and it's visuals. To levy the harsh reality that the drama portrays the visuals of the world and some of its inhabitants and distinctly fantastical creating a believable setting that could be an old pre-flood earth or just a simple fictional drama. It allows for enjoyment of both the religious and the non each interpreting the surreal world portrayed to them however they see fit. Everything is just grounded enough that it could have existed but nothing is thrown in your face to try and change your personal beliefs. I guess in a sense that's all this movie really had to accomplish ; tell the story of Noah's Arc without offending anyone and I'd say it did a good job of that. Portraying theoretical evolution right next to creationism with flashy visuals and beautiful scenery. I don't know where parts of this movie were filmed but I want to go there.

     The other thing it does well is detach yourself from the main character just like how he has to detach himself from the situation he's in. Pressured by his beliefs he constantly looks as though he wants to abandon the cause and sticks with it out of faith. It makes for a character you can get behind and empathize with without having to support all of his actions.

     The movie isn't flawless ( I mean you should go see it but it's not flawless), the rest of the cast don't really pull their weight as Noah's family they all kind of have single note plot device personalitys that make them seem bland until the scene their in is about them. It doesn't start getting in the way until the last Act of the movie but I will say if you can get through it all is well by the end. I would say that it runs too long and has some boring parts but I don't have a lot of ground to say that because I can't think of a lot of scenes I would have cut.

     All and all Noah turned out a lot better than I expected it to. I don't know if it's for everybody but given when they released it and how they've been marketing it I'm sure it'll do about as well as it deserves to.

300 : Rise of an Empire (2014)

     I was never that fond of the original 300, and while I was clearly in the minority I don't think there's anything that's going to convince me. Part of the problem is the source materiel itself, I appreciate the works of Frank Miller but rarely agree with what they have to say and how they go about saying it. 300 is decent book and the movie adaptation is just a simple slog endlessly enjoyable for the action but not necessarily a great flick. That's why I'm surprised that while its sequel Rise of an Empire (which is a really bad name) isn't the most amazing movie you're going to see this summer you probably should go see it.

     Rise of an Empire is an interesting piece, taking place before, during, and after the events of its predecessor and is made with a hint of disdain at the original, aiming to be a bit smarter and a bit deeper, opting to have two of it's main three characters female is where the originality starts and ends for the most part ; Lena Headey returns as Leonidas' wife and narrates parts of the movie, weaving the tales she sees it which I thought was rather clever because by making the voice female it comes across with a lot more clarity and by it also being the wife of the fallen Spartan king  her narration feels very sympathetic. Her role in the movie is similar to the first one, going from being the power behind the throne to having to take charge and lead openly, thought we only get one real scene of this I feel like her casting was a good choice then and an even better choice now. The other female lead is Eva Green and let me just say she completely steals the show, everything else the movie does right or wrong pales in comparison to her powerful presence on screen. She serves as a foil to Headey, similar character and even the same motivations but while one was a queen who helped her king, the other manipulated and created her god king of Persia (which is scary enough on it's own without some of the f*cked up killing she does in this movie). One could say that beyond the action the movie is symbolically about the conflict between them, their ideals, and the men that follow them.

     Unfortunately I'd say that's the main thing the movie has going for it, and instead of making that the whole movie there's a third, male lead Sullivan Stapleton as Themistokles a Greek solider who fought off the first Persian invasion many years ago, and feels partially responsible for what Xerxes has become for just killing his father and not him during that battle. He's not a bad actor but his part in the movie feels a lot weaker, very underwritten to match the way he plays the character as opposed to 300's King Leonidas who was a lot louder and more commanding. I suppose making him more of a thinking mans brute was the intent but apart from his scenes opposite Green I was not a fan of his performance. SPEAKING of his scenes opposite to her I have no doubt that their two scenes together had some writer snickering thinking he was all clever and two his point they are pretty cool. Without going into detail the first ***Spoilers*** is a sex scene that kind of plays out like a fight and a final fight scene that feels very sexually tense *****Spoilers Over***** and they are killer loads of fun as well as well choreographed. Was it all necessary? Well in a movie like this that sort of prides itself of the campiness of it all, but likes to flip the tables and be actually impressively made I'd have to say yes.   Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd there's really nothing to say about the action because at the end of the day that's the main draw of the movie and it's AWESOME. I don't know a lot about Greecco era navel combat but holy crap it looks awesome in this movie. It would have been a really bad misstep for them to screw up the action.


     Though I walked out of the movie somewhat unimpressed for being a little bit boring and disjointed, I mean a lot of the minor side characters have already faded in my mind, I have to say the more I dwell on it the more I was impressed by it's originality. The action topped off with Eva Green are what makes this movie and I'd be lying if I tried to spin it any other way. Not spectacular but if you wanna go to the movie I'd say most people would enjoy this one.