OVP: Little Women (2019)

Film: Little Women (2019)
Stars: Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern, Timothee Chalamet, Meryl Streep
Director: Greta Gerwig
Oscar History: 6 nominations/1 win (Best Picture, Actress-Saoirse Ronan, Supporting Actress-Florence Pugh, Costume Design*, Score, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Confession time-I've never read Louisa May Alcott's Little Women.  Another, weirder confession-I've never seen any of the onscreen iterations of the film.  Not the one with Kate Hepburn.  Not the one with June Allyson.  Not even the one with Winona Ryder.  Somehow, despite all being "OVP" (we'll get to them all eventually), I'd never seen this story onscreen until I saw Greta Gerwig's recent iteration.  This also presents something of a challenge, because while I know enough about the story to be dangerous (weirdly due to that one Friends episode where Joey & Rachel read this book and The Shining), I don't know it by heart, and based on some of the reviews I've read, Gerwig's film takes a lot of different directions that aren't typical for interpretations of Alcott's story.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is not told in the traditional more linear fashion that past versions (and the novel) were told.  Instead, it jumps straight to the middle, and we get an array of flashbacks into the lives of the four March sisters.  We see Amy (Pugh) already in Paris with Aunt March (Streep), trying to pursue Laurie (Chalamet) after he's just been rejected by her sister Jo (Ronan), who is off trying to become a successful writer.  Meanwhile, Meg (Watson) is back home struggling to find a way to make ends meet with her poor husband, and we soon learn that she once had the opportunity to have a far wealthier end to her story.  And of course there's sweet, piano-playing Beth (Scanlen) off in the corner getting deathly sick.  Told back-and-forth, the film gives us backgrounds about these young women, as well as an indication of where they're going.

As I'm not familiar with the story, I was, while not confused, a bit perplexed.  Gerwig's film is clearly meant to be a companion piece to someone who is already a fan of this tale, not simply a "stand alone" story as if it's treated as such, it's kind of messy.  The film is charming, no doubt, and has enough of the original tale to make sense, but it has less impact when you are halfway to realizing Amy will marry Laurie and not Jo since that's the opening scenes for those characters, or that you have a strong indication that Beth is about to die from the film's beginning.  I am a firm believer that you shouldn't have to read the book to understand and enjoy the movie (they need to exist on different plains), so I am going to fault Gerwig's film a bit here even though others will claim this is totally acceptable.  As it is, the film is good, but it's not great, and that's because it feels kind of jumbled and without enough narrative stakes for the audience as written.

That said, she assembled an amazing cast and a slew of actors that likely saw Lady Bird and were willing to sign up for anything that Gerwig was willing to do after that.  Chalamet is sexy & spoiled as Laurie, but one has to assume that this is a character that feels pretty dismissible for fans of earlier iterations of the picture as you can't really root for such a man.  He re-teams here with his Lady Bird costar Saoirse Ronan, who plays Jo as an ardent feminist, someone who is more concerned to be what she said she's always wanted to be than, as the film progresses, who she might secretly wish to be.  The scene toward the end where she realizes that she might have made it work with Laurie is devastating, but I don't think Ronan does enough groundwork to make the rest of her character stick.  This is in contrast to Florence Pugh, who kind of steals the picture from the cavalcade of Oscar nominees as Amy.  She gives a character that could be easily discarded a verve and passion that you wouldn't expect, and along with Midsommar, shows that she's an actress that has arrived in 2019.

John's Worst Films of 2017

Tonight, I will officially be announcing in my real life my favorites of the year (I do a teensy little awards show every year), and you’ll be getting my Top 10 best films list of the 2017 tomorrow on the blog.  However, in a year that was such a disaster in terms of the news, it has to be said that it wasn’t just politics that was causing anguish: it was also the movies.

While there was no egregiously-bad film like Stonewall that I managed to catch this year, there were surely a lot of bad movies that came out in 2017, or perhaps more damning, bland films.  Movies in 2017 were consistently “fine” or “okay” and rarely fascinating in a daring way, making going to the movies dull.  For that reason you’re not going to see movies that I thought took risks (like, say, mother!) mostly because I want filmmakers to take these kinds of chances, even if they aren’t always successful (it’s also because mother! is still better than all of these pictures, and that Razzy nomination for Lawrence in particular is just horrendous, as she’s good in the picture and not a little bit “the worst of the year”).  Instead, we go with the below failures, all of which I count as the last pleasant of the year (listed alphabetically):

Beauty and the Beast (dir. Bill Condon)

How do you ruin one of my all-time favorite movies?  Perhaps by draining it of humor, panache, or singers who can properly sing (sorry Emma, I love you but no, just no).  The film is underwhelming from the original in literally every way, and the sets look less like an organic castle and more like something you’d see in a Disneyland theme ride.  The cash grab clearly worked, but must Disney destroy everything special it makes with heinous duplication?

The Disaster Artist (dir. James Franco)

Franco’s last minute miss at the Oscars was almost certainly due to the sexual harassment allegations against him.  It should have been because he plays his role as Tommy Wiseau as a joke, a comic look at a man who has no understanding of himself.  He’s mysterious because Franco doesn’t do any homework, claiming “it’s just Tommy!” in a cheeky frat-boy move that cruelly tries to be a message movie about people without talent succeeding, but instead is a passionless, dull affair that feels less like talent letting loose and more like actors tricking their fans into paying for a bad film.  Also, Dave Franco gives arguably the most listless performance I recall seeing all year.

Downsizing (dir. Alexander Payne)

Stuffed to the brim with interesting ideas, Payne’s script ignores all of them, giving the audience just “passage of time” jumps when the picture itself could be at its most fascinating.  Weighed down by Matt Damon as a character that clearly has never had an original thought in his life, the movie meanders around major questions of the purpose of life, the foolishness of man, and the selfishness of “sacrifice,” but it doesn’t have a point-of-view on any of them.

The Greatest Showman (dir. Michael Gracey)

Though the music is occasionally fun (I liked “Never Enough” and “Rewrite the Stars” in particular), but this is a terrible actual movie.  No one is bringing their A-Game with the acting, with particularly awful performances from Jackman and Zendaya, both weakly connecting to their costars and in Jackman’s case, being in strained voice.  And that “This is Me” number might sound great coming out of Keala Settle, but the lyrics and back-half of the plot is so hackneyed it would have been cast out as too syrupy even in the fourth season of Glee.

Marjorie Prime (dir. Michael Almereyda)

Like Downsizing, this is not short on ideas or fine actors in the cast, but it has few answers for these questions.  It’s hard to criticize a film that finally gives Lois Smith a leading role, but her supporting cast does her no favors, with Jon Hamm playing his character as merely a plot device, and Geena Davis/Tim Robbins phoning in their roles with little care.  Coupled with a bizarre ending that feels so toss-away it’s difficult to figure out not only the purpose of this film, but also the point.

OVP: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Film: Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Stars: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Kevin Kline, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Audra McDonald, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson
Director: Bill Condon
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Production Design, Costume)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

I'm going to admit I'm a little bit perturbed at Disney right now, so perhaps this isn't the best day to be writing a review of their biggest hit of the year, but I did give them a (very rare) 5-star review yesterday for the first time in seven years, so I suppose tackling Beauty and the Beast in the same weekend makes sense.  This movie, largely borrowing the same motif as their classic 1991 Oscar winner, is one in a succession of live-action adaptations of Disney's favorite animated adventures; after all, we've already seen Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, The Jungle Book, and Sleeping Beauty brought to the big-screen (with Dumbo, Aladdin, Mulan, and Peter Pan all on their way), so it made sense that arguably their second-wave Disney high-water mark should be brought to life.  Unfortunately, life is what is missing in a dreary, over-produced spectacle that is heavier on getting people to buy merchandise than making an actual movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is a tale as old as time, and so really, you don't need a spoiler alert.  If you've seen the original, there's almost nothing new here, other than the implication that the characters are becoming less human as the enchantment continues, rather than it just changing with the fall of the last pedal.  Otherwise, the only newness is a trio of Alan Menken songs, and of course getting to see the animation brought to life by the magic of visual effects.

That's it-there's nothing particularly fresh to the story, which means it's kind of pointless; if you don't add anything, people can watch the original.  It's hard to knock the film entirely, as it's a good story, but there's no heart here, there's no soul in this movie.  Emma Watson is a fine actress, I'm not one of the people who totally are against her as a performer (I particularly liked The Bling Ring and The Perks of Being a Wallflower), but she is badly miscast here as she doesn't have the voice of Paige O'Hara.  Really, though, other than Audra McDonald (who is such a better vocalist than the rest of the cast it's kind of distracting) no one here is a particularly compelling singer, or at least giving their all (not even McGregor, who as Moulin Rouge! indicated, has the ability to sing well, though that was admittedly 16 years ago so he might not be in the same vocal prowess).  Even though this is a musical, the sound mixing is poor and the singing mediocre, and as a result it frequently feels like we're seeing a cheap knockoff version of the movie, except there's movie stars in literally every corner of the film.

This gaudiness resounds throughout the picture.  I texted my brother during the iconic dance sequence, and said "it seems strange that the worst dress Jacqueline Durran puts on Belle is the yellow ballgown," and I stand behind that.  Durran, one of the best costume designers in motion pictures today, is usually so on-point, but feels saddled here by trying to live within the memory of our childhoods, rather than giving us something unique like Sandy Powell did in Cinderella.  It makes the film feel clunky, like a commercial more than its own product.  Even the wonder of the library scene or the occasional flourishes outside the confines of Disney feel stretched (literally the only non-animated part I liked was Dan Stevens' tiny growl at the end).  Menken's best new number (probably "Evermore") is considerably worse than the least of his original numbers, and no one in the film finds the right tone in their characters.  I tried really hard to see if I was just judging this movie against the original too harshly, as it's one of my favorite films, but even objectively, this movie is dreck, and combined with The Jungle Book is proof that Disney needs to stop trying to force nostalgia down our throats because eventually even the originals are going to feel lukewarm.

Also, before I go insane-did anyone else notice the weird microsecond editing choice of flashing Audra McDonald before the credits of the movie, or was that just my Netflix glitching?  I can find no discussion of this anywhere, so giving my sanity a rest would be greatly appreciated.

This Has Basically Been My Day

As a result, we'll get back to regular posting tomorrow.  In the meantime, let's try to make lemonade here-who is your favorite onscreen crier?  Mine is Julianne Moore, but I couldn't find a proper gif of her.

Finding the Magic in the Harry Potter Movies

I love the Harry Potter movies.  Love, love, love.  It's one of those situations where as a blogger I know that I cannot remain even the remotest bit objective, and so I figured on this totally arbitrary day (I'm going to be honest-I didn't get a chance to write the larger post I was expecting because I was out too late last night), I decided to randomly finish a giant Harry Potter post I did a while back but for a different site but has never seen the light of day here.  Enjoy (and obviously spoilers abound, but if you haven't seen the Harry Potter films yet, you are the biggest of muggles)!

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Review: It’s a bit odd, all-things-considered, to revisit the very beginnings of Hogwarts. Even if you are just stumbling across it for the first time, entering the magical world of Harry Potter seems utterly familiar-you would have had to been locked in Azkaban prison for the last decade to not know the tale of the Boy Who Lived. And yet, there are still wonderful things to uncover in this slightly by-the-numbers, but ultimately rewarding first outing. The actors may be mere children (try being born before 1987 and not feeling dauntingly older by watching this movie), but they have the moxie and charm that would become their trademarks, and not even Chris Columbus’s limp direction can stifle the creative magic of Jo Rowling’s best moments-the streets of Diagon Alley, Hogwarts letters sprouting out of thin air, and a Sorting Hat who knows a thing or two about the future.
Best Moment: Ollivander’s, by a country mile-John Hurt gives a giddy and just a teensy bit wicked performance as the wandmaster who helps Harry choose his destiny.
Worst Moment: Ron’s heavy-handed speech before being blown off a horse during chess-so out of character.
Film MVP: Daniel Radcliffe, who manages to bring a wonderful and celebrated literary character to life, despite being unable to drive a car.
Totally Arbitrary Harry Potter-themed Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d give it a Nimbus 2001-it’s faster than other models, but you know there’s something better ahead.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Review: The second, and thankfully last film from Chris Columbus, who didn’t find an emotionally cloying moment he didn’t spread across ten minutes of film. This is the least of the Harry Potter films, which is like saying it’s your worst visit to Disneyland-you may not get to ride the Matterhorn, but you can still enjoy the ambience. There are, however, moments to love about this film-primarily, Jason Isaacs and Kenneth Branagh delivering their characters of Lucius and Gilderoy (sneering malevolence and pompous certitude, respectively) with eleven shades of scenery-chewing (that doesn’t sound great, but it works in a film this shoot-for-the-moon). And of course, Jo Rowling gives us a strong showdown between Tom Riddle and Harry Potter that will overshadow the film’s weaker moments.
Best Moment: Moaning Myrtle-such a snide and spoiled ghost she turned out to be, and it gives the Hogwarts Trio all of their best lines.
Worst Moment: The ending-Hagrid getting a standing ovation? Ludicrously out-of-character for all but the Gryffindor house.
Film MVP: Jason Isaacs, who on second viewing is obviously making a completely different film than the rest of the cast (he would be even better in 2003’s Peter Pan-rent it now, for the love of hippogriffs!)
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d say it’s the film equivalent of Gilderoy Lockhart’s Magical Me-obviously entertaining and sometimes engaging, but clearly there’s some falsity below the surface.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Review: Ahh, now this is more like it. Alfonso Cuaron is the best director to ever cast his spell over Rowling’s universe, and this is perhaps the best (though, amongst the don't-stray-from-the-books fans, the most controversial) film of the series. It certainly captures the transition between childhood and adolescence with a clearer picture than almost any film out there. From the choir of singing students (and toads) to the Lewis Carroll acid trip of the Knight Bus to the delicious sarcasm that rings from every line that Emma Watson utters, this is the only film in the series that would stand on its own-if there were no other tales of Hogwarts, Azkaban would ensure it were a clever legend. Mischief managed, indeed.
Best Moment: I’ve always had a strong fondness for the scene where Harry fights the Boggarts with Professor Lupin. It may not be the flashiest in the flick, but it’s quiet wonder and the sheer joy of overcoming a small obstacle is perhaps the closest any of the movies came to capturing the tiny moments that made us love the novels.
Worst Moment: Daniel Radcliffe is many things, but a decent crier (at least in this movie) he is not.
Film MVP: I’d give it a tie between David Thewlis, whose reserved Professor Lupin gets better on repeat viewing, and Watson, who comes into her own with the help of some delicious dialogue.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a Patronus-light but strong, and it creates a sort of spell that only a few special people can muster-movie magic.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Review: If HP directors were James Bond actors (go with me here), Alfonso Cuaron would obviously be the suave Sean Connery, David Yates would be the dependable Roger Moore, Chris Columbus would be the miscast Timothy Dalton, which may leave poor Mike Newell as George Lazenby-solid, perhaps even worthy on occasion, but only given one chance to shine and then be replaced. Goblet is Newell’s only film in the series, and he is given the rather difficult task of making sense of Rowling’s most “jumbled” (I say that with love) book. He mostly succeeds, particularly in capturing teen angst and its sheer awkwardness and unfairness (come on, it must have been REALLY difficult growing up looking like Robert Pattinson) in the best moments of the film, even if he sometimes loses us in the bog of too-many-new-characters plotline. In particular, though, he gives David Yates a much freer palette to paint the final four films from-a nice transition from the traditionalism of Columbus and the out-there, could only make it through one film brilliance of Cuaron. By letting Harry grow up, he allows Yates to shake and stir the characters.
Best Moment: The Yule Ball-didn’t you want a song called “Dance Like a Hippogriff” at your Prom?
Worst Moment: The plot transitions-for those not familiar with the books, this is the jumpiest and probably most confusing editing in the series.
Film MVP: Brendan Gleeson gets all the good lines and steals all his scenes, but I have to go with Gambon, all wisdom and worry.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d say it’s a bag of Bertie Bott’s-some sweet, some bitter, but overall an experience worth the galleons you shelled out to see it.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Review: I’m going to be honest-there are times when the last three books seem to blend. And there are moments when I’m a little floored that they cut perhaps my favorite moment in this book, when Petunia gets her howler (never, in all seven books of reading, have I ever been so intrigued by one moment in the book). But that doesn’t mean that this isn’t a wickedly wild ride. We begin the first of the four David Yates films with the creepiest moment at the Dursleys, and are scuttled into the world of a doubting Ministry and character assassinations for political gain. Harry and the gang are truly excellent in this film, as Yates takes the time to flesh out characters like Neville and the daffy Luna Lovegood. Of course, Yates can’t take credit for the single best performance in any of the HP films thusfar, that of the pink sadist Delores Unbridge, ably played by Academy Award nominee (sadly not for this movie) Imelda Staunton (I say with much certainty that even in 2007’s cinematic excellence, she should have won the Oscar). With her, Harry finally gets a villain worth fighting against, and we get a straight-forward blast of a blockbuster.
Best Moment: Umbridge & Harry in detention-the film wouldn’t have worked if we didn’t hate Umbridge so fiercely.
Worst Moment: The Snape Occlumency lessons-so crucial and important in the book, and yet too glossed over in the movie.
Film MVP: Staunton, who gives every little “hmm” and “ahem” a cruel undertone that few other actors could have managed.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a nice pint of Butterbeer-warm and refreshing, with just enough of a kick to know it’s working.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Review: The even numbered books in the series were always, in my opinion, slightly less than the odd numbered ones that preceded them. So it is a little odd to say that this film is better than the one before it. Even without the cruel Delores Umbridge, we are still given a wild ride, and perhaps even a little peak into some of the characters who have until now been just “versions” of themselves from the books. Michael Gambon gives Albus Dumbledore a stronger and more fleshed out personality, and Jim Broadbent is absolutely brilliant as the status-minded Horace Slughorn. As this is the Hogwarts Trio’s final year at Hogwarts, it is fitting that we get a bit more teenage angst (though Yates doesn’t quite understand it as well as Mike Newell), and we also get a tear-inducing ending. The film also gives one of the most terrifying moments of the series thusfar (though HP7 would equal it with the snake-eating teacher) with Tom Riddle asking about horcruxes. All-in-all, this is perhaps the only film in the series that, while not the equal of the book, sewed together some of the pieces of where the book lagged. 

Best Moment: I kind of want to go with anything Broadbent did (seriously, between Thewlis, Staunton, and Broadbent, this series should have three acting Oscar nominations), but I have settle on his devastating monoluge about fish.
Worst Moment: Not to be cruel, but who was the casting director who hired the Lavender Brown actress?
Film MVP: Broadbent, such a weary traveler in the world of magic.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a veela-you know there’s something about it that you justifiably love, if at times you’re being too kind to its flaws.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (2010)

Review: I’ll never be 100% certain that they made the right decision splitting this movie into two. I mean, they used to make 4 hour movies-and wouldn’t that have been seismically epic? However, I shouldn’t let that stymie this admirable production. As the film series goes along, the movies become more polished, a bit more manufactured, and while they are consistently strong, they sometimes lose the childlike wonder of something like Azkaban. That said, this film has three distinctly perfect scenes-the opening, particularly Hermione erasing her parents memories, the hearing (the final stand of Delores), and finally the tale of the three brothers, an indy touch to a highly mainstream movie. These three scenes together make it one of the best films in the series, and the fact that we have now made the leap to three capable, competent actors proves that the casting director a decade ago knew exactly what they were doing when they called the names Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson off the call list.

Best Moment: As I mentioned above, I have three, but if I had to pick, it’s those opening scenes, where all of them slowly cast their spells and ward away childhood.
Worst Moment: The Oscars totally ruined “the tiny ball of light” moment for me.
Film MVP: With no teachers to steal the scenes, and Rickman/Fiennes sadly relegated to the backburner, I’d say it’s a threeway tie between the Hogwarts Trio, who all use their big moments in the film to shine hard.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s an invisibility cloak-not too flashy, but substantive when it needs to be and it hits just the right balance.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 (2011)

Review: And so it all ends, not with a bang, but with the most iconic castle outside the Magic Kingdom being blown to smithereens. That’s right people-if you were hoping that there’d be some top notch special effects in this film, you’ll be in for a treat. Then again, if you’re like me, hoping for the quiet moments throughout the film, you’ll get them, particularly in the first half. Yates was kind enough to give us some of the brilliant moments with Maggie Smith (one of two times I think I may have cheered in the movie) and Kelly McDonald (the gloriously melancholy Grey Lady). And of course, this film wouldn’t have been complete without Julie Walters taking out Helena Bonham Carter in pure style. I am glad, however, that Yates stuck most closely with the Hogwarts Trio in this one-all three of them had grown into young adults before the eyes of the world, and as this film proves, they’ve grown into fine actors as well. A fitting close to a wild ride of a series.

Best Moment: A tough one for me-the obvious choice would be Julie Walters taking down HBC (seriously-when I read that in the book, I knew that was going to be one of my favorite moments in the movie), but I really loved the walk in white with Dumbledore and (my ultimate choice for best scene in the picture) Maggie Smith’s taking charge.
Worst Moment: If I cheat, it would be that I didn’t see Dan take out the Carows in defense of Professor McGonagall. However, I’d probably go with the choppy transition at the beginning of the film.
Film MVP: Radcliffe or Smith-both of them made every moment they had onscreen count, and still added levels to their characters.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s the first ride on the Hogwarts Express-thrilling, new while still familiar, a bit mysterious, and full of wonder.

The HeForShe Movement

Emma Watson with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon

I have to admit that I was moved (to tears) by Emma Watson's bold and eloquent speech to the United Nations this past Saturday.  This comes with a deep sense of pride that an actress whose career I have long admired and whose talent onscreen is beginning to flourish (I maintain she should have two Oscar nominations by now and if you don't agree you clearly haven't seen The Perks of Being a Wallflower and The Bling Ring) is also using her celebrity for a great deal of good.

I'm not going to re-iterate all of the things that Watson stated in her speech (I've included a link below in case you haven't seen it already-and I suggest you do), but she is absolutely right that gender equality is not a women's issue in the same way that racial equality is not a person-of-color issue and equality for people of different sexual orientations is not just a gay rights issue.  Inequality is something that none of us, from any vantage point, should stand for, and it's equally true that none of us should simply stand idly by and wait for others to take care of the issue.  It's time to support political candidates and organizations that want to promote equality for all people, everywhere, in hopes that this issue, one that is so simple and yet continues to be a constant struggle around the world, will finally be addressed.

Noah (2014)

Film: Noah (2014)

Stars: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Logan Lerman

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Darren Aronofsky was always in a bit of a pickle tackling the Bible, as is any artist trying to take a stab at the best-selling book of all-time.  That’s because you toe the line when you try to tackle a religious subject-do you make carbon copies of the biblical stories, creating saints and pious men, or do you try and humanize the characters with flaws and sins?  It’s a tough conundrum, as the former lends to boring stories (and competing with the epic grandeur of Cecil B. DeMille and William Wyler) and the latter to religious backlash.

Unfortunately, for a man who has tried to make this film for as long as I can remember (I love when great director’s spend an eternity on their pet projects), he seems to have tried to do both of these things, neither with much success.  It’s one of the most famous stories of all-time, so spoilers shouldn’t be necessary, but here’s the alert anyway.  Noah is a story of a man who builds an ark based on blind faith, but the film never quite has the gall to question his motives or to find any insanity in the story.  It instead wants its cake and attempts to eat it too, but what we get is bloated and rotten.

The biggest problems with the film are the treatment of the central character.  Noah’s story has always been one of the more far-fetched in the Bible, just behind Jonah.  How could a senior citizen build a giant boat that saw the entire world covered in water, and then survive with just two of every animal?  I mean, it’s a tough one to grasp, and so to literally tell the story would be too easy.  Aronofsky tries to make Noah an extremely pious man, sometimes too anchored in his own beliefs to be able to see the grey in life, but he cannot quite get to the point where he is a “bad man.”  He keeps Noah very much on the verge of going into the darkness, of being the villain in this parable, without actually taking the plunge.

The better question would have been if he had subtracted some of the heavenly confirmations in the film.  How much more spectacular would the film have been (and less mixed message) if we saw no literal signs from God that the world was coming to an end?  If there were no stone angels (initially a neat effect, but quite ancillary and probably not worth the trouble) and no specific lights from God, we would have to completely base these decisions on Noah’s faith alone, which makes the film at once more complicated and far more interesting.  Faith is a hard thing to see when you don’t have literal confirmation of it-how different does the Noah story become if we don’t know for sure that his turning his back on the innocent is God’s purpose?

I mean, Aronofsky goes there with a couple of other scenes-considering the big budget, I'm surprised that, say, incest manages to make it into the plot of the film (it's pretty well-implied that Noah's two younger sons will eventually bed their nieces), though they do leave out the most famous incestuous moment (the interpretation that, Ham, here played by Logan Lerman, rapes his father after his father is found drunk).  The movie is not shy on biblical allusions or about showing a man-of-faith in the film, something that actually does ring of a bit of a game-changer (I hate to side with the right-wingers here, but you do rarely see outspoken people of faith in large budget cinema...then again, you rarely see women over fifty, people of color, or gay people in large budget cinema, so my sympathies only extend so far).

I guess my big problem, though, is that for a director who has had this vision for so long, why is there not more artistic license with the story?  The telling of the film becomes very literal, and with the major exception of Ray Winstone's story, follows the Bible in a pretty consistent way.  We get only one good person who we know dies as a result of the flood-the rest of the world is left in a sea of violence, rape, and murder.  It's a whole lot easier to let Noah's conscience off the hook if he's killing a hoard of pillagers and half-humans.  From a director as daring as Aronofsky, I'm surprised that he spent so much of his budget on rocky angels and less on a more cohesive, daring plot.  And the special effects are so damn spotty (was the scene of the family walking supposed to look like a de Mille special effect, because it did and if you're going to go there do it more than once so you don't just look cheap), it all falls apart behind-the-scenes and in the writer's room.  About the only thing that does ring true is the environmental and vegetarian message (both brought about quite well in contrast with the horrifying Ray Winstone character), but that's not a lot to lend itself to a film.

While the acting is for-the-most part the saving grace of the movie, it also doesn't have a great level of consistency.  Crowe, a movie star that has basically disappeared, still has the gravitas he had in films like Gladiator to lend himself to the screen, but Connelly as his wife only gets one truly great moment (an Oscar-y speech...if this film had any chance at the Oscars) but otherwise is just window dressing.  Emma Watson, who is on a roll creatively right now, makes the most of an underwritten character (the same cannot be said for Anthony Hopkins, who has been on autopilot for fifteen years or so).  And I actually genuinely liked the wide-eyed naivete of Logan Lerman, though some others I've found disagreed.  Worst of the bunch is Ray Winstone's unrealistically evil Tubal-Cain, who chews scenery like a random snake that he finds while stowing away on the ark.  Winstone is so bad but so omnipresent my thoughts keep coming back to him instead of the sturdy Crowe, Watson, and Lerman, which is never a good sign for a director like Aronofsky, who specializes in making you remember his best performances.

All-in-all, with only a few performances to lend itself, Noah can most generously be described as an ambitious failure-the signs of a director who learned his limitations.  Aronofsky has enough skills to pick himself up and find a new story to tell, but hopefully he'll leave the Good Book alone.