By Brett Blake Director Darren Aronofsky’s grand re-telling of the Noah story is many things: sometimes reverently adherent to the Biblical text, sometimes off on its own tangents; sometimes a sweeping, fantastical epic, sometimes a provocative character study. You might not think these disparate ideas, tones, and styles could co-exist in anything resembling a cohesive and satisfying final product, but the miraculous thing about NOAH is that it somehow pulls it off. It both fits into the long tradition of epic Bible-based films, and yet it also feels completely fresh and modern. It will almost certainly not sit well with some sectors (more on that below), but for those willing to go along with a more fantasy-inspired “take” on the tale, this is a borderline-spectacular film. The bare bones of the story should be well-known to everybody, given that it’s one of the oldest stories of human civilization, so I’ll waste no time on recapitulating it here; what I will mention, though, is just how complex - morally and theologically - director Aronofsky chooses to present the tale. Much time is given to debate and discussion between the characters about Noah’s (Russell Crowe) course of action; some even go as far as to directly and repeatedly challenge Noah’s interpretation of what God - referred to in the film only as “The Creator” - is asking of him. The film never shies away from the inherent implications of Noah’s task and the ensuing great flood. Human faces are given to those wiped out by the deluge, and though the movie presents ample evidence of mankind (at that time) being sufficiently flawed enough to warrant God taking action, it’s nowhere near as cut-and-dried as previous tellings of the story have presented. More devout viewers may find this muddying of the waters (as well as the expansion of the story beyond what's present in the text) to be inappropriate, but I believe it gives the movie a genuinely thought-provoking quality that’s quite welcome, and it foregrounds the idea of the mystery of faith in a truly compelling way. We are shown people wrestling with the events going on around them, and struggling with the question of what God wants from them; aside from Noah himself, obviously, this idea is somewhat embodied in the characters of the Watchers, fallen angels who have strayed (or so they believe) from God’s will, and who alternately help and hinder mankind on Earth. I’ve seen more than a few critics point to Martin Scorsese’s controversial (but quite excellent) THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST as a comparison to NOAH, and I think that’s - at least partially - a fair one. Both films deal seriously with how human beings relate to God, and they don’t shy away from the somewhat murky moral questions that can crop up with respect to men trying to decipher God’s ultimate plans. Where NOAH separates itself from the complexity of LAST TEMPTATION - and where it’s not so much unlike the sweeping Biblical epics of the past - is in its embrace of spectacle. There’s a strain of grand fantasy running through this film that’s quite striking; this is a movie in which six-limbed rock giants (the aforementioned Watchers) help to build the ark, and in which a man repels an advancing army with a wall of fire brought forth by driving a sword into the ground. There’s also a spectacular sequence involving a hoard of men laying siege to the ark as the deluge begins, and it’s a marvelously staged setpiece, one full of interesting bits of action as well as character moments. The film does stumble a bit in the third act, once the ark is afloat. Without getting into spoiler-heavy territory, I will say that the movie kind of transforms into almost a psychological thriller, and it goes so far as to position Noah himself as something of an antagonist. Again, some will have an issue with that, and I’ll grant that it feels like it comes out of nowhere to a degree, but it does illuminate a great deal about this version of Noah’s character and what he thinks his mission is. Speaking of Noah, it’s high time I talk about Russell Crowe’s work; no contest, I think it’s one of his very best - and most complex - performances. He conveys Noah’s innate decency, his initial absolute confidence of purpose, and his love for his family, but he also perfectly captures the weight bearing down on the character (particularly as the story moves into its second half), and his transition into a more troubled and dark figure is well-handled. It’s awards-level stuff from him. In terms of the supporting performances, there’s not a weak link to be found. Jennifer Connelly is a strong counterpoint to Crowe’s Noah, and many of the more philosophical ideas at play come about because of her conversations with other characters; ditto for Ray Winstone, the ostensible villain of the piece who makes valid arguments against what Noah’s up to (up to a certain point, of course, as the movie does pretty unequivocally come down on the side of his character being a villain by the end). Logan Lerman does a fine job brooding as one of Noah’s sons, and Emma Watson is surprisingly effective in the moments she’s called upon to show genuine emotion. Plus, Anthony Hopkins turning up as a wise old hermit can never be a bad thing, so he’s a welcome presence, too. The design, creation, and visualization of the ancient world in which the tale takes place is fascinating, and there are more than a few moments in here that are profoundly stunning and awe-inspiring. Though the story is confined to a relatively small geographic area (until the post-flood scenes, anyway), there’s a huge sense of scale and scope, aided in no small measure by the production design and the cinematography. Clint Mansell’s musical score is - thus far - the strongest of the year, and it gives the movie a profundity that’s appropriate, but it also handles the quieter, more delicate moments with aplomb. NOAH is not a film that wants the audience to sit down and passively watch it. NOAH is a film that demands that the audience (read: you!) engage with it on the weighty and philosophical issues it raises. It’s a movie that grapples with the implications of faith in a challenging - yet completely respectful and, ultimately, hopeful - way, and it also offers some incredible moments of visual splendor and excitement. It’s not Darren Aronofsky’s masterpiece (that remains 2010’s BLACK SWAN), but as of this moment, NOAH is the best film of 2014.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake NON-STOP is the sort of film that could have turned out any number of ways: a mind-numbing bore, a grim slog, a cliche-ridden potboiler… Thankfully, it’s none of those things, and though most would probably admit that it’s got its fair share of ridiculousness, its ultimately a completely entertaining entry in the subgenre of films set aboard airplanes. It’s a classic subgenre, with movies ranging from the AIRPORT series of the 1970s, to AIR FORCE ONE of the 1990s, and more recent films like RED EYE and FLIGHTPLAN. NON-STOP is in the upper tier of such movies, which may or may not sound like I'm damning it with faint praise, depending on your personal taste. In NON-STOP, Liam Neeson plays a man with a very particular set of skills. Wait... sorry, that's actually his character from TAKEN. I got confused for a second, there. Here, he's playing an emotionally troubled U.S. Air Marshal. We know he’s emotionally troubled because he drinks a lot, broods, and sneaks into airplane lavatories to smoke cigarettes. On a red-eye flight to London, a sinister, unseen mastermind begins playing games with Neeson, games which eventually explode into a full-on crisis situation. Bodies pile up, tensions rise, and only one man can handle the situation - Neeson! Now, I’ll admit, I deliberately made the movie sound pretty cheesy in that description, but I think it’s a good representation of the film itself. It takes itself just seriously enough to generate some legitimate tension, but it also embraces the somewhat silly nature of the events that unfold. The script does a surprisingly great job of setting-up red herrings and potential solutions to the central mystery, and while the ultimate resolution of that mystery is - to be honest - a little half-baked and goofy, it works because the movie seems to know exactly what it is - a solidly-made B-movie with a fine cast and strong direction. This could have easily been schlock (some might say it still is), but director Jaume Collet-Serra does a fine job of pitching the more absurd elements at just the right tone. He also manages to keep the film visually interesting at all times; despite being set entirely onboard an airplane, the setting never becomes boring, and Collet-Serra uses seemingly every inch of the plane to full effect. The staging of a couple of fight scenes in close-quarters are particularly effective. As the lead, Neeson’s in fine, professional form. His new-found niche as an action star has been well-covered elsewhere, so I won’t dwell on it here, except to say that the conviction he brings to this kind of role makes him extremely watchable, and the kind of presence the audience naturally wants to root for. He’s not doing anything groundbreaking or Oscar-worthy in NON-STOP (see the recent THE GREY for just such an Oscar-worthy performance), but he’s a compelling figure amidst the hijinks (and hijacks) that unfold. He’s joined by an aces supporting cast; Julianne Moore is the biggest “name” in the lineup, but you’ve also got great up-and-coming character actors like Corey Stoll, Scoot McNairy, Michelle Dockery, and newly-minted Oscar nominee (for 12 YEARS A SLAVE) Lupita Nyong’o rounding out the passenger manifest. Each treats the material seriously, and none act as though they’re “above” this sort of film. Moore, in particular, seems to be having a pretty fun time as Neeson’s ostensible sidekick. Technically, the film rises above its B-grade station; it’s a very slick production, featuring moody cinematography (you might not think the cabin of an airplane would be the most interesting location in terms of light and color, but this film makes a strong argument that it’s possible), as well as an effective sound mix that nicely heightens the tension at some key moments of the story. The production design is also interesting, as the set is clearly convincing as being a real plane, and yet it conforms to the demands of the filmmaking process in an unobtrusive way. I suppose that’s just a long-winded way of saying the airplane set is clearly larger than its real-world counterpart would be, but not in such a way that screams “THIS IS A MOVIE SET!” In the final analysis, NON-STOP is much better than it probably should have been. It’s a solid, fun little thriller with a strong lead performance. It’s not high art, but I had a great time with it, and fans of Liam Neeson’s action-type films should find much to enjoy. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|