NOAH, A Review

Contrary to some reviewers, I am putting a SPOILER warning here. As someone who never read the script or reviews prior to screening, I want to insist that upon seeing the trailer, you haven’t seen much of anything. So, please, don’t spoil anything for those who haven’t seen the flick.

As I sit down to write this, I’m reminded of the controversy surrounding a certain popular pastor’s book. In some sense, it’s funny that we haven’t changed much. In another sense, it is sad that, well, we haven’t changed much.

You know the story well enough. You heard it in Sunday school, or if you were like me, you heard it in high school from a teacher who skipped the nasty bits. If you were like me, those parts were far more interesting than the following material. Set in an unknown frame of time, NOAH is about a dying world that has been given a count down, and there is one man who is called to survive. In the midst of chaos, terror and moral ambiguity, the questions that arrive on screen for us are not easy nor are they something to be dismissed.

Is humanity worth saving?

What does it mean to be chosen by God?

What does it mean to be righteous?

What is mercy and justice?

What’s the big deal?

TECHNICAL

Having sat through Aronofsky’s The Fountain, I was pretty giddy about sitting through a big budget piece (especially since he was tapped early on to do Batman—something I still dream about!). While I couldn’t sit through The Fountain again, Aronosky is the undisputed master of the artful and the weird. The backdrop of NOAH is both parabolic and dystopic; people scavenge about, plants die, and violence against the Creator’s creation (both animal and human). The world is unforgiving, devoid of mercy, love and life. 

The imagery is astounding, with the opening credit sequence a midrash of brutal imagery and theological nuance. No detail is left untouched. The Nephilim are fascinating, able to convey several distinct expressions through light and solid rock.

I could go on, but you didn’t come for the appetizer.

NARRATIVE

NOAH consists of a few short chapters in Genesis, so its difficult to imagine how one could gleam a 2 hour story from such material. Purely on the basis of pragmatism, creative license is required. That said, the film is uneven but never dull. It can roughly divided into four sections, which I will cover.

SPIRAL.

From the beginning, the first section prides itself on establishing Noah and his family with minimal dialogue. This is commendable for a blockbuster, and the writing prides itself on maintaining silence when necessary. The move from low to high upon the mountain involves the climax of two visions. Noah’s calling is clear. This sequence involves slow but methodical pacing, complete inspired by the interesting characters and back story of a crumbling world.

SIN.

From the building of the ark to the judgment, Noah continues, providing a tense family atmosphere with lust, envy and mystery. The sequence is aided by the scenery-chomping Winstone, who adds the necessary external villain. With more characters involved, the stakes rise and everything sets off with an incredible deluge of rain, bodies and death. 

SUFFERING.

Isolation in the midst of unseen terror becomes a palpable element of this sequence, with Noah and his family upon the ark. The pacing slows down, running on steam from the previous section, family members fracturing, introducing a truly complex moral dilemma (one that was spoiled for me) that threatens everything. The emotional intensity was so strong that I had to look away at several scenes. To hear people screaming and banging against the outside of the ark certainly adds a dimension that eluded the storytelling technique of my high school bible teacher.

MERCY.

At the end, mercy is glimpsed and the waters of terror pass. We’re given a new hope, but one that is seen only in the light of suffering, sin and a spiral that may or may not have ceased here. The ending is ambiguous, quiet and significantly underplayed. Which is nice and a great change from the blockbuster elements of the first two sequences.

Russell Crowe was not my first choice as Noah, but he fills the shoes of a man that we all claim to know. Noah is said to be a righteous man, and this is both a gift and a curse. He is, however, outdone by Jennifer Connelly, whose sobering performance anchors the film, adding to the grit and terror of human nature that looms across the firelight. The sons are passable, not given much to do. Emma Watson is lovely and fiery, exhibiting a single-minded passion for life and honor. Ray Winstone is oily and unrefined, a perfect antagonist to the stoic Noah.

Anthony Hopkins is Anthony Hopkins. Creative, sly, and winsome. Always awesome.

But you didn’t come for this part. Onto the meat.

THEMATIC

Let me get this out of the way now. If you are a committed young earth creationist, biblical literalist, anti-environmentalist, then you will probably hate NOAH. If your stomach lining thins when you hear talk that you associate with liberals and hippies, then you will not like this movie.

As someone who is an open evangelical (that means I pour a drink and listen before I hit you with a Bible verse), I couldn’t wait to see where NOAH took me. The story in the text is so vague and general that I was hoping Aronofsky aimed more for the spirit of the text rather than the law.

I won’t be commenting on the negative reactions from many Christians, mostly because I don’t feel like linking their comments here. Besides, you probably know the complaints and could google them yourselves. I’m going to speak positively about the film.

Noah’s character arc is coherent. He goes to the people outside of the camp to fulfill the desires of his son, and witnesses the extreme wickedness of humanity. The misogyny, violence and excess of the camp is an excellent witness to the current first world culture. Like Gibson’s Apocalypto, Aronofsky simply holds up a mirror and asks us to look at ourselves.

The environmental factor is certainly present, but that is because the material is already present in Genesis. When I mentioned this to someone (who hadn’t seen the film), he nodded and confirmed that the topic was there. Gen 6:11-12 states “In God’s sight, the earth had become corrupt and filled with violence. God saw that the earth was corrupt, because all creatures behaved corruptly on the earth.” (CEB). The ESV/ NRSV/ NIV reflects this; the earth was corrupt because of human atrocities and wickedness. Human activity upon the earth, as given by YHWH, is culpable in the corruption. The punishment of humans is linked to their treatment of God’s earth. NOAH reflects this perfectly. So not only is the film a timely story on the dangers of over consumption and excess, it holds up Noah as a righteous man who doesn’t live outside his means. Josephus, a first century Jew says, “When Noah had made these supplications, God, who loved the man for his righteousness, granted entire success to his prayers, and said that it was not he who brought the destruction on a polluted world, but that they underwent that vengeance on account of their own wickedness.” Antiquities of the Jews, 1.3.99.

The world is good because the Creator gave it to him. Because of human sin, we gained death. NOAH has a high view of sin, sovereignty and human freedom. The capacity for choice in the heat of a watery apocalypse comes to a full head in the finale.

Simply, the final 35 minutes involving the planned murder of a woman’s baby is consistent with everything the film has done thus far. Noah has seen wickedness and is fighting to end such evil, yet has become evil. The revelation of the pregnancy is combined with a subjective event (the ceasing of rain) and is interpreted by two characters (Lla and Noah) very differently. Human life is precious, a whole being of sacred material made by God. Noah, having seen absolute sin, acts to end such sin. Noah speaks for some of the audience, who is repulsed by evil. Yet, he undoes himself as he believes “justice” must be carried out. It’s a powerful example of how a righteous man can twist himself to the point of becoming inhuman. 

And that is what Aronofsky was going for. He says, 

"Within our tradition, being Jews—a long tradition of thousands of years of people writing commentary on the biblical story—there isn't anything we're doing that's out of line or out of sync, but within that, you don't want to contradict what's there. In all the midrash tradition, the text is what the text is. The text exists and is truth and the word and the final authority. But how you decide to interpret it, you can open up your imagination to be inspired by it."

Aronofsky also specifically mentioned "justice" and mercy" in the same article,

That was a big part of the movie for us. When Ari and I started working on the project and started reading the Bible over and over, there's this term where they call Noah "righteous," so what does that word mean? There are a lot of ways to define it. So we started talking to a lot of people, a lot of the different theologians and scholars, and looking it up and trying to understand it. We came upon this idea that "righteous" is a perfect balance of justice and mercy. Ari [co-writer] put it a good way by defining it—since we're both parents—as this: If you're a parent with too much justice, you destroy your child with strictness. And if you're a parent with too much mercy, you destroy them with leniency. So being a really good parent is about finding that balance, which I think is in the story of Noah. Actually, it's similar to the story that God goes through. At the beginning of the story of Noah, he wants justice, and by the end he [offers] mercy through the rainbow, and grace. It was that balance that interested us.

Joel Green notes, “In broader biblical terms, this is simply the way of sin. Sin begets sin, one sin after the other. Sin in Genesis 3 is like a contagion, transmuting from shame and vulnerability to heightened alienation, even to the point where Yahweh’s own voice is no longer invitation but threat. Cain’s murderous act results in his exile (4:1-16); a restless, godless society emerges (4:17-24; 5:28-29); global violence leads to global destruction (6:1-9:18); sin within Noah’s family leads to the enslavement of one people by another (9:17-27); and, finally, the imperialism of conquest leads to the confusion of languages (ch11).” Body, Soul, and Human Life, 89.

God’s mercy is evidenced (in survival) by everyone except Noah. The balance of justice and mercy is shown, and Noah cannot see it. Blinded by his own sin (the sin he sought to eradicate in others and himself), he cannot make sense of it all. His journey into the heart of darkness is compelling, terrifying and appropriate.

Plus, let’s not forget that even righteous people act like jerks when their feet are to the fire. Or when we’re late for church.

CONCLUSION

Much could be said, and I’ve said too much already. Should you see NOAH? Yes. Will you like NOAH? Who knows. Only God knows. That said, I found NOAH to be spiritually captivating, theologically rich and cinematically enjoyable. You will not agree with the creative choices (there are parts I disagree with), but the choices will stimulate your spirit.

3.5 out of 4 stars.

--Nick

Oldboy (2013), A Review

*spoilers to follow*

What I will attempt in this review is to showcase similarities and contrasts in both films. I will admit up front that I refuse to own the original film. This is not because I don't consider it to be among my top twenty or so, or because I find it repulsive (though there is certainly repulsive content in it; not the point). Rather, it is because I can recall the horror and vicarious nature of over seventy percent of the film upon simply reflection. I find it too effective to watch or own. Once was enough.

Just setting up my background so this review may make more sense.

Joe Doucett (Josh Brolin) is not known as much of a saint. In fact, when we first meet him, he's the type of person from whom you wouldn't buy a used car. Which is why a man named Adrian Pryce (Sharlto Copley) wants him to suffer, locking him away for twenty years in a room, tormenting him with silence, regret and really really bad pot stickers.

TECHNICAL

I will contrast the two films (03 and 13) with reference to "original" and "revision."

The original film was stark, poetic and largely silent when it needed to be. The lighting was a haunting palette of saturated greens and rich yellows which reflected the sallow nature of the lurid material. It had, for lack of a better term, a pulpy feel.

The revision has largely stripped away much of the color palette and, with this, the sometimes needed warmth. The editing is quicker, more frantic, lending the film a far more jarring feel that I feel was necessary. Within the revision, the shots alternate between hyper-film school (a few long takes done generally well) and fairly standard. In other words, it reflects a far more stripped down thriller rather than the more meditate state of the original.

But, the most interesting component was kept (at least one of the more impressive action set pieces appears in both versions), and that was the hallway slug fest. In the original, it was sometimes telegraphed with poor/no contact made. However, in keeping the shot slow and moving at the speed of the fight, the original kept us far more engaged with the protagonist. This results in the audience feeling weakened when he is weak, in pain when he is in pain.

In the revision, the choreography is largely improved upon, and it looked as if much of it was done in one take. The blows are convincing, the stabbings more pointed. Pun somewhat intended. However, the frantic nature of these revision fights (one of the few instances of genuine excitement in the film) did reduce it to a far more standard action scene,l though mildly undone by the uncut nature of the fight.

My lack of excitement can be largely summed up in the idiom, "it worked better before. Now its just noise."

NARRATIVE

In the original, you have the incest reveal at the end. This included, if memory serves me right, only the siblings. This kept the story more intimate, but it did beg some questions as to how this could be kept a secret amongst a family. Though, possibly, it did add to the tension. So consider this a reflection rather than an argument.

In this revision, the subplot is expanded to include the father, who was having sex with the antagonist (Copley in this version) and with his sister. It is also intimated that he was intimate with his sister. The subplot works better in that it creates an air of consistency as well as expanding the nature of Pryce's sins and generational exploits.

So the revision, I think, improves upon the reveal. However, the way this is *revealed* is rather poor: we are literally walked through the steps and I imagine the audience will have figured things out *long* before Joe has. In the original, I had no idea until it had to be explained to me. Here, though likely because I knew the original ending, the finale is lackluster and rather dull.

So the finale is more emotionally traumatic in the original, and the subplot expansion helps the revision lend itself some credence.

In regards to acting, I don't think Brolin can live up to Min-sik Choi's iconic performance. This in no way impugns Brolin's talent, and he enlivens an otherwise averagely-written role. Copley is a difficult performance to evaluate, and will likely divide fans more than the changes I've noted above. In my opinion, I think the character is grating until the end, and Copley makes him truly despondent and sly, though like Brolin, his performance is overshadowed by the original. The rest of the cast is, sadly, forgettable.

In regards the original, pacing was an issue for me. I did feel 20 minutes could've been sacrificed. Berardinelli makes the same point in his review. However, I think the poignancy of the original was that it took it's sweet time. The revision, once Joe is set free, barrels along at such a pace that character development is reduced to reaction and overreaction. Joe does nothing except search the Internet (or have someone else do it) and then figure out something that was incredibly easy to find. The way the plot was laid out reminded me of the way one roughly unfurls a rug: just roll the whole thing out all the way and then walk over it. The original, instead, was more interested in unfolding the rug, one side at a time.

So the result is mixed. The revision removes much of the character depth and nuance for the sake of headbanging it's way to the finale. The original, for its faults, had patience for a finale that was generally worth waiting for.

The writing has some killer lines, but is otherwise unmemorable. Simply, there is no true suspense because everything is laid out for Joe to find. Its simplified to the point of being telegraphed a mile away.

THEMATIC

Actions result in consequences. A snide insult can lead to a lifetime of sadness and guilt. In the original, we have true reflection in that the protagonist has to completely confront his inner self, his inner darkness. His list because a vomit transubstantiation. His salvation is partly due to his regurgitation of the past. Here, the sins of the past are largely brushed over to Joe until the end.

I remember thinking about the doctrine of sin when I watched the original, sitting alone in my dorm room, staring at the ceiling, wondering what the hell I had just watched. I felt as if I needed to flush my system with purell. The level of depravity and wretchedness on display haunted me as it forced me to reconsider my life, what it meant be to human and what it called into question about myself. In some sense, the film (original and revision) is meant as a reflection on the nature of depraved recoil. Or karma even.

What does it mean to sin, and what does it mean to enact retribution? A sin while drunk can lead to nothing of note, or it could lead to disaster. A sin with a heavy hand deserves the downfall of one's self, and a sin with a low hand invites ridicule. The retribution of Pryce upon Joe is, in a way, characteristic of how we all view the world: do unto others as they did unto you. Feast upon them before they can grab a fork.

The film invites you to live vicariously through injustice, perversion, pain and sorrow. It invites you to look, and defies you to look away.

CONCLUSION

So, in summation, the revision does make some needed tweaks. However, it sacrifices far too much in the process. It sacrifices the characters for shells, it lessens the impact upon the protagonist and the denouement feels like a cop out, for me at least.

Joe pays them to put him back in the room to live out the rest of his days, whereas in the original, you have a logical conclusion to a soulless man. Here, it feels like an attempt to redeem Joe, which I am normally in favor of. But, I am reminded that just because someone does something good doesn't remove the stain of recoil. Something has to give.

Hopefully, it isn't us.

--Nick

APPENDIX I

These are brief notes I scribbled down while watching the revision. 

The hit woman for Pryce is not only highly sexualized, but serves no purpose other than to walk around half naked and be brutally killed. I was bothered by this, and I'm not certain if I am overstating my thoughts. But I was disturbed by how inconsequential she served the plot except to provide pretty skin.

APPENDIX II

I cannot give this a star rating. Not because I don't believe in a numerical system, but because I simply cannot decide what I would rate this film. The content and the nature of how the film is makes it incredibly difficult for me. I just don't know how to rate the film. The original had the same effect on me. I just don't know how to measure the film.

Technically, both are fairly strong. Narratively, there are glaring complementary weaknesses and strengths. Thematically, the same. The original had a profound effect on me, whereas the revision lacks a heart and soul.

Thor: The Dark World, a Review

I know I'm a week late on this one, but in my defense, I had to marshal up a lot of desire to sit through a film I was moderately sure I wouldn't enjoy. I'm far more of a "Batman" or "Punisher" kind of comic book lover, but I do enjoy the odd cheese-ball that Marvel can occasionally put forth.

Thor: The Dark World, is a film about a nasty substance that looks like a liquid form of what we call, the macguffin. It's nasty, its mean and you are pretty sure you don't want it inside you. Other than that, some villains want it and its up to the bumbling nilly Thor to save the day. While bringing along the real reason we're all here: Loki.

TECHNICAL

The film certainly looks pretty, for the most part. Asgard is nicely rendered, if a bit futuristic LotR-y. But still. Looks nice and pretty in the morning sun. The other realms are unmemorable, with one just looking like a dirty schoolyard sandbox. Thor flies around and smashes stuff, throws his mighty hammer about and ultimately, saves…something.

Seriously. It does look rather nice. I enjoyed the makeup on that Doctor Who dude.

NARRATIVE

Ultimately for me, I though the film faltered most here. The first half has some amusing moments, and the film seems to work best when it isn't blowing stuff up and instead focuses on the supreme goofiness of a flying goldilocks swinging a massive hammer. Him using the Subway, while funny in a broad sense, is more of less unnecessary when you think that he can kinda fly.

Maybe what I disliked most about the film was that it really doesn't need to exist. The character drama is largely bulky and superficial, with Stellan Skarsgard being reduced to running around barely clothed, Darcy quipping about interns and Jane Foster being, well, just hanging around. The aether, which is a killer, does very little to effect her except make her sleepy. Sounds more like a depressant than a world killer. I did make my wife laugh when I intoned that the main villain was the 'anti-Logos.' Given that his motivation is as emotionally investing as a dead cat swinging from a ceiling fan, I suspect that inserting said dead cat would've enlivened the final battle.

Actually, watching Thor beat a dead animal kinda sums up my feelings on the film as a whole.

THEMATIC

Well, I suppose that Thor giving up his birthright could've been explored in a meaningful way. The first Thor, flawed as it was, did portray him as someone who needed to grow up. Here, he makes decisions mostly out of screenwriting necessity. He seems to be simply an agent to move us between set pieces. The little moments of Thor acting 'human' are genuinely fun. Hanging the hammer up is one of those said moments. When the 'gods' act human, they tend to be more interesting. Here, they are detached to the point of being laughably tedious.

Anthony Hopkins and Idris Elba are fun, if underused as usual. The use of darkness and light as reoccurring motifs is fun, when they mention it, mostly because I get to intone my previously mentioned 'anti-Logos' comment. Usually resulting in my wife laughing.

CONCLUSION

Seriously though, there is plenty of material here that could've been mined to create a worthwhile action flick. This is not to say that the film isn't fun enough, or that there aren't some LOL moments. But beside the few moments of genuinely funny/intriguing material are washed over by an ocean of "well, I didn't expect them to not do much of this anyway so I can't be disappointed." Loki is really the only reason to watch this.

Of course, watching my sister twitter in delight whenever he was on-screen almost made up for the rest of this film.

2 stars out of 5.

--Nick

Four Reasons Why I am Excited for "NOAH"

Do yourself a favor, and watch the international version of the trailer. Far more interesting, and they didn't 'censor' the blood in the first 10 seconds. 

1. Darren Aronofsky has done great things with a little money (Fountain; Black Swan; Pi). In regards to a purely visual experience, one can hardly do better than Aronofsky. In regards to the screenplay, John Logan (Gladiator) has long been one of my favorite writers.

2. Theologically, I'm intrigued by the mixed reception from various theologians and writers. Usually the criticism is a perceived diversion from the unique source material. Since I haven't seen the film, I cannot comment on this.
However, I will say that to expect historical accuracy from such a generalized tale as Noah and the flood is to expect far too much. Especially when Noah's personality isn't mentioned, what happens on board the ark isn't explained and the story caps off (and begins) a narrative that is unspeakably violent and full of corruption.

3. An issue I'm excited about is relevance; how does this story translate to our (post) modern setting? I know Aronofksy has made claims about it being about environmental disaster, and this makes complete sense. Given the oft apocalyptic imagery one finds through the First Testament and Apocrypha and the images of collapsing ice glaciers in our age, its a fitting parallel.

4. Ultimately, its the experience for me. To sit in a large theater and to be drowned in the sound and fury of a live action story that has both perplexed and haunted me since I was a little boy is precisely why I enjoy movies in the first place.

Will you see it? Why, why not?

--Nick

Why Every Christian who likes "Breaking Bad" Should Watch "Deadwood"

I don't think David Milch will agree with me on this point, but I think his magisterial series is nothing but pure Pauline perfection -- alliteration be damned. Having sat through the three season series at least twice, I am convinced that, while Breaking Bad is indeed strong(ish), Deadwood is the show that Christians should be discussing.

Similar to Breaking Bad, Deadwood is also a western by genre. Of course, that is where the similarities begin, but they then diverge when you consider that Deadwood takes place a hundred or so years ago, and Breaking Bad happened yesterday.

Points of correspondence include antiheroes as lead characters, especially with Al Swearengen. C'mon folks. If you appreciate naughty language wielded with the deft touch of a sledge hammer, Deadwood triumphs over everything. HBO has a leg up on AMC, as HBO can pretty much show you every single inch of someone's body, whereas Breaking Bad only lets you see the goop that remains thanks to certain chemicals.

On a slightly more serious note, Breaking Bad's characters are driven to make choices, most of them out of their control. Of course, I'm only four seasons through BB, so bear with me on this. Deadwood

amplifies this by creating a world where choice matters some, but they are compatible with everyday life. Nothing is done in a vacuum. Swearengen accepts his current situation and lives like a king on top of his scrap heap. Walter White always feels like things are far beyond anything he can ever imagine; Swearengen can always imagine the worst side of sin, especially when he's knuckle deep in it.

With antiheroes comes moral ambiguity. White and Pinkman are no strangers to the necessary and oft unnecessary aspects of their line of work, although both White and Pinkman live in a universe that could afford them differing professions. Swearengen and Bullock are two sides of the same ambiguous coin: criminal and sheriff. They are born in a time period where chance has placed them a foot from good and six steps from evil. In Deadwood, there is little room for stepping over a line most people think doesn't exist.

Inside the realm of ambiguity comes economics and policy. While Breaking Bad has elements of this, Deadwood showcases events on a larger scale: money runs this town and if this town loses money (or if the wrong people get more money) then the town burns to the ground. Thus the corporate aspect is more alive and colorful.

This next point will assist Breaking Bad fans. The pacing is similar. Both shows takes their sweet damn time in getting anywhere interesting, but when they do, hold onto your nickers.

In terms of sin, Deadwood and Breaking Bad are spooning bedfellows. Neither of them are interested in pulling punches in the name of your sanity and sensitive stomach. Both treat the human body in the same manner; a collection of flesh and blood that bleeds and breaks. Both show the mistreatment and subordination of women as a means to satisfy men, though Deadwood has a more physical aspect to the abuse. To both shows, sin is treated as an unstoppable infection that rots away everything until it can no longer use you to sustain itself.

Then it turns on itself, and subsequently, to you.

Among other reasons, that is why Breaking Bad fans should watch Deadwood. The points of correspondence are highly similar, but the thematic out-workings of each show are unique and powerful. Hints of spirituality and redemption peak through the grime, but only enough to showcase the oft futility of a life of rebellion and sadness and death.

Happy New Year.

:)

--Nick

Cinematic Indulgences, or Brief(er) Reviews of Film I Haven't Reviewed

Well folks, I'm mostly back. Allison and I just returned from our honeymoon to Maui, and before that we were simply adapting to married life. Blessedly, things haven't had to change much. I saw a few films between the time of my engagement and now, and figure I'll share a few of my thoughts on them. These are by no means exhaustive, and I look forward to chatting them up in greater detail, should you feel the need to grace my comment section with your honey-like love.

And, as they say, on with the show.

Man of Steel

Visually stunning, largely well written, thematically interesting. The controversy about Super Man notwithstanding, I believe the sequence is provocative and not at all out of character. As much as I hated Sucker Punch (in hindsight), Snyder nailed this one for me. Russell Crowe is underutilized and the pacing for the second half is a bit flattened. However, a strong action flick.

4 stars out of 5.

2 Guns

As much as I enjoyed the trailer, I wish the film hadn't existed beyond the two and a half minutes of the trailer. The best parts are shown in the teaser, the pacing is truncated, the acting is by and large fun and ultimately, the film is hollow and proud of its brevity.

Amusing. Rental. 2.5 stars out of 5.

Pacific Rim

I saw this three times on the big screen and am pitching a serious headache right now, waiting for this to arrive on Blu-Ray. The acting is big budget balanced, but the effects and overall technical aspect of the story is sound and seriously like watching someone plant dynamite on a house. Boom boom boom. Seriously, the most fun I've ever had, besides being married. And even then, fighting monsters takes a front seat to "loving."

5 stars out of 5.

Riddick

The film suffers from several faults: a bad second act being contrasted with a magnificent first half. The first 45 minutes are, roughly, a silent film. The predator becomes the prey on a deserted planet. Diesel is amusing as the booming anti-hero, but the rest of the cast was … was … something. I don't remember. The effects are above average, the finale is a bit bland and the first act smokes so much the rest of the film kinda sucks.

Rental. 3 stars out of 5.

So. Yeah. Enjoy. :)

--Nick

Fast & Furious 6, a review

Well, they're back again, those 'wascally 'wabbits. Defying gravity, the law and often times the gravity again just for a speed boost.

Dom, Brian and the gang have split until found by Samoan Thor (The Rock) and are brought in as specialists to track someone that's as good at doing their old job as they were.

NARRATIVE

I'm not going to lie, I enjoyed the hell out of the fifth film. It struck a near perfect balance of action and catharsis. A welcome breathe of fresh air in a stale environment. Well, Fast & Furious 6 is a bit of a retread, especially if one stays for 'crazy credits' at the end. Don't worry, I won't spoil.

The pacing is somewhat uneven, with the midsection again enjoying its flab and oft-repeated sequences of self-indulgent street racing, complete with babes, bimbos and women that maybe just needed a few extra hugs when they were young. Whatever the reason, these scenes slow the film down.

Again, The Rock is the saving grace of the film, and it is disappointing that he isn't given quite as much to do this time around. Diesel has presence and the supporting cast is tolerable. Luke Evans is suitably slimy if highly cliche.

Imagine one receiving a glass of flat Coke. You with me? Then ask Luke to improve the status of your beverage. The most the guy can do is blow some bubbles and that's that. It isn't bad but you get the distinct impression that those few bubbles are there really is to his character.

I really wish I could spoil the ending for two reasons. One, it is a slap to the junk. It comes completely out of nowhere to daze you before jamming a needle into your forearm and pushing an entire container of liquidized pop rocks into your vein. Its wonderful.

Second, however, it more or less renders the entire film moot. They could've completely skipped making it based on the ending. Which means that I walked out both pumped and pissed. But, since I can't spoil it, you will just have to comment below about how right I am.

TECHNICAL

Justin Lin has elevated the franchise form dazzling to gritty neo-realism in two films. Gone are the wonky lights of the city, back are the dirt roads and dust of other worlds. It works wonderfully.

The actions sequences are generally crackling, with some pretty daring stunts. One sequences involving a tank and a doozy of an ending stands out. The finale is as over the top as Nicholas Cage but its all fun and games until the villains get hurt. The soundtrack has 2 Chainz though. Like the ending, this spoils quite a bit. But I will let it slide. For now.

THEMES

There is precious little here, so I'm not certain this applies. But, for what it's worth, the emphasis on family is refreshing. Some of these characters are growing up and the change of pace is welcome.

But, its really about spinners and drifts.

CONCLUSION

Despite being overlong, overwrought and slapdash, Fast & Furious 6 is fun. Very fun. The Rock adds dimension and tension as usual, the action sequences are fun and, depending on your point of view, the ending is such a cliffhanger that you can't but help come back for the next film. But if you are like me, you will see the next one regardless because, well, you won't find much fun for $12 that doesn't involve breaking the law.

2.5 out of 5.

--Nick

Iron Man 3, a review

When Shane Black was announced as Jon Favreau's successor, I jumped with glee. Largely because Black has directed (and written) many of my favorite films and I couldn't image how good Iron Man 3 would be. Having now seen Iron Man 3 and taken a night to reflect, I can safely say that I'm simultaneously glad and disappointed in the overall product.

With his sanity beginning to crack a bit, Tony Stark has to rise up and take on a terrorist with ties to his past. The sins of the past, as it were.

NARRATIVE

As always, the gem of Marvel's current universe seems to revolve around Robert Downey Jr's effortless performance as the brilliant Tony Stark. Here is no exception. With Kiss Kiss Bang Bang firmly set in cinematic stone, Black and co-writer Drew Pearce give Stark more one-liners and gadgets than Pierce Brosnan ever had. The stylistic choices, given Black's commitment to a more Tom Clancy-esque treat offer us plenty to deal with. The writing is uniformly solid, with witticisms and nice little reversals throughout, though the third act suffers from an over-reliance on 'Transformers' which brought it down quite a bit.

The supporting cast is given far more to do, with Don Cheadle and Gwyneth Paltrow actually being heavily involved in the plot and action. They both even get their own little moments for once (though the action scenes seem more at home in the latest Indiana Jones film than they do here).

However, the pacing is where things begin to fall apart. Act one contains far more personal material than the rest of the film, and the relationship between Potts and Stark is centered perfectly. However, once act two begins, the separation happens and, strangely enough, there is a great deal of meandering for at least 35-45 minutes. It adds little to the plot or character development, and the tension is sapped.

The finished product lacks catharsis and the ending has little emotional circularity. The bad guy dies, the victims are saved (even though thy are said to be pretty darn evil) and Stark creates yet another fireworks show. Given the psychological heft in the first act, its a shame that Downey isn't given more to do than just save the world.

Guy Pearce is suitably slimy as Don 'Let's Rumble' Rumsfeld in a Trump haircut, but he's more firebrand than actual character. Ben Kingsley, one of the few delights here, is, well, delightful. See it just for his two scenes.

TECHNICAL

I mentioned the 'Transformers' style ending, and if you enjoyed said film, you will enjoy this more than I did. That said, Iron Man 3 certainly looks impressive, particularly if you consider the Bondian elements than the first films lacked. The effects snap crackle and pop, particularly in the early assault on Stark manor by a trio of attack helicopters (by far the film's best action sequence).

The editing, in a similar breakfast cereal vein, whizzes and crackles (save for that sagging middle act). Musically, it is suitable and worthwhile if a bit forgetful. The cinematography is stunning, employing more whiplash than Michael Bay (I swear this is the last time I pluck that particular harp string) and enjoys the momentum created by the sometimes perfect pacing.

THEMES

Politically, the film is more difficult to pin down. The pot shots at American media propaganda are amusing (i.e. Iron Patriot) and the oil 'scandal' thrown at the President is about as timely and winsome as a 9/11 joke. But, it works and keeps things culturally contained.

Moreover, the film offers an interesting if brief treatise on the sins we create. Stark pays, in some respects, the price for being a pompous ass in his early career. Curiously, the film shows him in a state of 'redeeming' but he is still contained in his original sin. The idea being that even though one can be redeemed or move towards reconciliation, the sins of yesterday are still in the rear-view mirror.

An allusion, perhaps, to King David makes this more interesting than the film divulges. But, at least, the film offers far more to think and ponder than most summer blockbusters.

CONCLUSION

Despite a lackluster middle act and a lack of potential being utilized, Iron Man 3 offers some impressive action sequences and another dapper performance by Robert Downey Jr. Shane Black concocts some elaborate scenes of bait and switch, but one wishes that this was adapted throughout.

The film suffers not because it is a bad film (it surely isn't) but because it could've been far more than it currently is.

3 out of 5.

--Nick

Pain & Gain, a review

Its the 90s in Miami Florida, replete with gangsta rap, small swimsuits, sweat and stupidity.

Daniel Lugo, Paul Doyle and Adrian Doorbal are after what everyone else has: the American Dream. And, in according style and with perpetual flair, these three knucklehead bodybuilders will squat their way to achieving nothing less. Even if they have to bench, beat and kill anyone to do it. Pain & Gain. 

NARRATIVE

From the beginning, this is very unlike Michael Bay. He assembles an all-star cast with The Rock, Mark Walhberg and Anthony Mackie taking up the 'roided reins of the three extortionists. Fundamentally, the characters are the centerpiece (more or less a first here) and they excel. Each character gives their own point of view via voice over, and this works surprisingly well, giving us glimpses into the individual characters while the corporate absurdities pile up.

Walhberg delivers a comedic performance of epic proportions, saturated in delusion and Nike. After flagging and forced performances in the Other Guys and Broken City, Mark offers a 'roiled, soulless and singularly demented performance as Daniel Lugo.

Anthony Mackie as Adrian Doorbal is on giddy turf here, playing both foil and lightweight partner to the murderous Daniel. He is far more restrained than Daniel, but is far more prone to hysterics. Mackie carries this, switching from con man to pissed off husband to infatuated muscle man instantly, with hilarious results.

The Rock deserves his own category here. A born-again Christian who is sober, Paul Doyle easily roped into the schemes of Daniel. The Rock gives him a vulnerability and a child-like naivete, like he's a teenager with some semblance of a moral compass. Except when he's sniffing coke off some stripper's butt. He steals the show, easily.

The pacing of the film is a bit lacking, with several lulls in the middle act slowing things down considerably. Easily 20 to 30 minutes could've been exercised from the film. The writing is surprisingly strong, and this goes to confirm what I've been saying about Bay for years:

You give him a good script, and he will do wonders with it.

TECHNICAL

As mentioned, though the editing is whiplash (though most shots last longer than a few seconds, contra Greengrass and Bay's middle years) the aforementioned mid-section is flabby and a bit lackluster.

However, the cinematography is stroller, utilizing Bay's technique of heavy shadows, high-contrast color difference and continual dolly shots. He also breaks a bit from his usual slow-motion to give us handheld (gasp) and even some long shots. This works well because Bay keeps his focus on his characters. The film has a commercial feel but I think the film itself is in on the joke.

The sound design is about average, but there are sequences where voices are clearly dubbed. A tad distracting. For being such a low budget film, the quality is more or less astounding. Film students could've easily done this.

THEMES

This is where the film shines and darkens. Pain & Gain presents us with three more or less unlikable characters who steal, torture and ultimately kill to get a slice of the American pie. Michael Bay plays this up significantly by showcasing the foolish displays of fabulous wealth as each man wastes it. A fairly typical example of greed leading to destruction.

Consequently, I think this is a startling morality tale and a deeply emblematic satire.

It focuses on the American dream of excess and never stops. Male gym members are ripped to the point of being chunks of rock, and female gym members are disproportionate barbies desperately in need of 1950s skirts and clothing. But this works. Bay's usual style is to shove this in the faces of teenage boys simply for shock value.

Here, it is marketing. It is perverse. It is reality. Be all you can be, be more than you can be, be more than everyone else. Some may object to this, saying Bay is just up to his usual hijinks (and you could be right) but as the American dream itself is based on this, the most you could say is that Bay just made a documentary. Which is scary in of itself.

The film reminds me of a better Natural Born Killers, mixed with The Big Lebowski and Savages. It has humor darker than Tarantino, writing stronger than Stone and violence about as shocking as the Coen brothers.

CONCLUSION

The film is raw, excessive, politically incorrect, reprehensible and ultimately caves in on itself; the redeeming aspect is that it knows and embraces it and just shrugs. This is the way of the world, the way of the United States gone wrong.

At once hilarious and horrific, Pain & Gain is simply the best Michael Bay film to date and may be one of my favorite films of the year.

4.5 out of 5.

--Nick

Olympus Has Fallen, a review

If you are someone like me, you rolled your eyes a bit during the trailer for this flick, having recently tried scrubbing the bad taste from your mouth after that last Die Hard attempt. However, this is closer to the truth of what the "single savior versus terrorist" narrative actually represents: balls to the clanging wall action.

Beginning with a fairly typical prologue establishing remorse and death, Gerard Butler's Mike Banning has to save the day after the White House has been seized by North Korean terrorists.

Ripped from headlines, anyone?

NARRATIVE

Surprisingly, the film takes its sweet time in getting to the action. The brief bit of action at the beginning is set in a realistic fashion, almost routine. After being unable to save the President's wife, Banning is besieged with guilt and is forced from the White House inner circle. The pacing is slow but fairly methodical, giving us enough character moments to keep things interesting. The dialogue is about average, though nothing worth taking a shot over, and the action is decent.

Gerard Butler is somewhat restrained in the role, allowing himself little moments of sarcastic joy (like when he tortures some suspects; the scene had my buddy Holland and I rolling on the floor at the surprises) and he is cut from the rib steak of John McClane; a tough, no-nonsense, snarky hero with a hidden heart of patriotic fools gold.

Aaron Eckhart and Morgan Freeman round out the decent cast, though neither of them has anything particularly memorable to contribute. But you ain't here for the acting, really.

TECHNICAL

Directed with subdued stylistic flair by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day), the film crackles. The cinematography is, for the most part, nothing like the Bourne films (meaning you can see everything) and the color palate is suitable grim and gritty.

Another welcome addition is that the editor isn't hooked up to a caffeine drip of Colombian good sauce, and the pacing, once the action ramps up, is unrelenting. The opening assault on the White House is improbable but a hell of a lot of fun, coordinated and surprising in some of it's technique (realistic portrayals of big bullets going through little bodies). Accompanying this is wicked sound design that will have you bouncing in your seat with each fight.

(SPOILER) -- Also, a brief joke about a #hashtag had me laughing.

Far too much fun.

THEMES

'Murika.

Okay, fine. Patriotism gets a firm toot here, as well it should. The film portrays its' villains with no small part of sinister contempt and revels in it's pro-American love. Another hidden theme, this one far more interesting, is the nature of when we break. Witnessing a woman being tortured, the President has to stay firm in his refusal to release information.

Its a grim, intense sequence that will curl your toes, and hopefully help one realize that, well, being President sucks.

CONCLUSION

In short, this is the In n' Out of movies. Loaded with stuff that, on occasion, is quite good for you, Olympus Has Fallen is well-directed, well-acted and just too much fun. It is brainless, improbable and as patriotic as a John Wayne war film.

If you are down with that, you will enjoy this. If the sight of the American flag makes you wet with anger, likely skip it. For me, I enjoy a lot of cheese with my burger.

3.5 out of 5.

--Nick

Zero Dark Thirty, a review

I watched Zero Dark Thirty a few months ago, albeit in scraps and pieces. Having been somewhat removed from the controversy that the film generated, I was able to reflect a bit last night when I bought the flick and enjoyed it with my girlfriend.

So, what did I think of the "greatest manhunt in history?"

TECHNICAL

The film's chilling opening set the tone for the rest of the film; much like The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty revels in quiet terror and the unknown. Technically, this is achieved b y superbly dragging out sequences waiting for the unexpected. In light of a potential terrorist bombing, my girlfriend kept mutter, "something is going to happen." Neither of us anticipated what that something would be, but needless to say i didn't notice the 150 plus minutes of cinematic tension pass.

Cinematically, the film is stellar. The style and cinematography is a blend of Tony Scott (rest in peace) and The Hurt Locker with a dash of Bourne. Though handheld, it maintains a sense of urgency that doesn't bring forth headaches. Which is a positive thing in my estimation.

The editing is surprisingly crisp, keeping the pace moving and it rarely lags. Even in character moments (there are few but they are potent) the film reveals little by little so that the horrific journey pays off in increments. In some ways, we learn as much (or less) than Maya, who is the one supposed to be the active one.

We question everything with her, second guess the abnormal techniques and sigh when it finally ends.

NARRATIVE

Some have criticized the film on the grounds that there isn't much story. I would strongly disagree, because this itself is a story we lived and maybe that's why we are missing the mark. This story is fragmented and scattered simply because that is the awful reality of this journey. Jessica Chastain plays this perfectly, giving us hints of loneliness in between coffee breaks and interrogation sequences that would curl the toes of even the most die-hard Saw fans.

The acting is uniformly superb, with Mark Strong adding gravity simply by showing up. Jason Clarke of Brotherhood fame is a revelation. I haven't seen him in much, but what he did with an already complex character was nothing besides stellar. His little moments while feeding a monkey and enjoying himself makes one wonder about the link between biology and the effects of sticking pins and waterlogged rags into the faces of those that bleed the same color as him.

The final 40 minutes are the siege of Bin Laden's fortress, and it is the most toned down non-Michael Bay action sequences I've ever witnessed. The screams of pedestrians and the lack of pyrotechnics added to the grave reality that "justice" was being served. More on that below.

THEMES

It is difficult to evaluate the film in light of it's controversy, as I feel compelled to to people they've gotten it wrong. But, in sitting here at my laptop and thinking about the human effects that this war was wrought, its difficult to see how this couldn't be anything less than controversial.

But, in sitting here, I didn't get any sense of it. The claims about "torture" struck me as odd, not in that torture is unethical, but that nothing came from it. Given time, I'm certain Jason Clarke could convince me to change genders and banter about in a yellow sun dress. I simply don't think we are in any position to think about whether or not the film is correct to suggest that we gained anything from torture.

What, instead, the film asks is how does the summation of all things effect us, as detached and personal? I remember where I was on the morning of September 11, and I remember where I was when Bin Laden was announced dead. The parallel couldn't be sharper:

We were weeping and enraged on September 11, and our enemies were cheering and firing guns into the air. On May 2, 2011, we were cheering and setting off bottle rockets while our enemies were infuriated. I'm simply not sure what to make of the ethical dilemmas the audience was put into. The human tendency to ignore empathy is clearly present, but the revulsion one feels at the expense of humanity is justified.

CONCLUSION

All in all, Zero Dark Thirty is an accomplishment. The narrative is brisk and compact, the technical dimensions are strongly covered and the themes are deeply moral and designed to elicit conversation and debate. Simply put, I think the film was seriously overlooked during awards season.

Funny thing, the film begins and ends with weeping. Maybe taking a moment to reflect on that is what one really needs.

4.5 stars out of 5.

--Nick

Django Unchained, a review

Two years before the Civil War, a German bounty hunter with a killer mustache and a fiery slave embark on a violent mission to save the slave's wife. With Tarantino at the helm, we're treated to vintage Civil War era cultural norms such as the KKK, cotton, the n-word and a whole host of juicy bloodshed.

TECHNICAL

As with Inglorious Basterds, Django looks incredible. Tarantino and cinematographer Robert Richardson hone in the fine details: blood spray upon white cotton, the lingering wisps of breath in the cold mountain air.

The eye for detail creates a haunting contrast between moments of abject beauty, hyper-stylistic blood shed and instances of violence so gruesome I had to look away. More on that later.

For me, a film will make or break in terms of pacing. Django Unchained is surprisingly well-edited, keeping the typical Tarantino monologues to a minimum and giving the episodic side characters enough time to say their piece and move on. The film feels long, but I rarely glanced at my watch.

NARRATIVE

First and foremost, the acting is what sells this. Christoph Waltz's Dr. King Schultz is a character that practically leaps off the screen when he isn't twirling his Snidely Whiplash mustache. Being the moral conscience of the film, his instances of moral clarity are lucid and played nicely. Often such things are missed by one during the experience, but in the quiet places the memories often lurk. Waltz plays this brilliantly.

Jamie Foxx underplays his performance, waiting until the final 10 minutes to truly break out into a Punisher-style rampage on the villains estate. For the most part, his character is solid if bland. I understand the emotional heft behind the character, but Tarantino barely plays with it enough to lend even a bit of connection. Coupled with a criminally underused Kerry Washington as his wife and you get the sense that Django just isn't given much to do.

Tarantino is widely lauded by most (I'm in the neutral camp) as being an excellent writer. Reservoir Dogs and about half of Pulp Fiction are more or less masterpieces in my book. Here, we actually get a film that doesn't really feel like Tarantino. There are very few scenes (the slave battle being the exception) that actually feels like something he would write. Much of this feels like a souped-up buddy cop film. Which is fine and dandy by me, but it lacks not only Tarantino's flair but also his tenacity for subversive content.

THEMES

For me, this is where things get more complex. The issue of slavery is, of course, a sensitive matter. Tarantino got into hot water with Denzel Washington on the set of Crimson Tide some years back for his repeated use of the n-word in his films. Slavery is seen here as, more or less, an evil practice. The mistreatment of African-Americans at the hands of slave owners is at time exceedingly graphic and uncomfortable. Yet, at other times, Tarantino stylizes the violence to the point where everything feels like a Kill Bill version of Looney Toons.

The blend of Paul Verhoeven-style gore and The Wild Bunch visceral reaction actuality violence creates an odd experience: is Tarantino subverting the violent action film genre as satire? This makes some sense in that the instances where humans are tortured, the scenes ramp up in intensity. I confess, I'm uncertain about what I think.

An issue I did find quite compelling was the necessity for brutality to occur in the present to potentially preserve a future salvific act. Schutlz has Django kill a man in front of the man's son, and later the scenario is reversed; Schultz, who hates slavery but is willing to use it for his own interests, balks at watching the villain torment a beaten slave. This time, Django, unwilling to blow their cover, allows the violent action to occur.

So, the film has instances of moral complexity. Very much to chew on.

CONCLUSION

This rating is, unfortunately, coming with a fat asterisk. At this current juncture, I think the film is a decent thriller but lacks any sort of memorable feats save for the gouts of blood.

The film is damn funny in places, and is quick to place the characters and viewers in instances of moral confusion. We get a glimpse into the atrocities of the slave trade, but we also get a poorly utilized supporting cast (Washington). The female characters are relegated to the backdrop. I frankly, sitting down on my couch right now, cannot remember much beyond that. The few other instances I mentioned above I struggled to remember.

Although undeniably well-crafted and thought provoking (also kinda funny), Django Unchained is by and large an unmemorable experience.

3 out of 5.

--Nick

Gangster Squad, a review

In the City of Angels, crime fits like a sleek suit and gangster Mickey Cohen is it's tailor. Returning from the war lands a leading detective John O'Mara in hot water as he most go beyond the call of justice to take down the most powerful man in Los Angeles.

I was once an intern at Lin Pictures, so I acknowledge my bias in writing this review.

TECHNICAL

From the very beginning, we are treated to a gorgeous panorama of neon, glimmer and gore. The cinematography looks like it was taken from a Michael Mann film and it echoes the sheen of the city perfectly. Each scene looks painstakenly detailed, showing off the cars, tommy guns and clubs of the day. Bathed in cigarette smoke and the reflections from scotch glasses, the film looks flat out gorgeous.

The shoot outs are well-choreographed, with a particularly standout sequence involving a hand being broken off, guys beaten to a pulp with a chair and a head being smashed through a window. With the exception of the finale, the fist fights are kinetic and high-energy. The car chase is quickly done, though the sequence is well-shot.

An issue arose for me in the cimax, as it feels lackluster. The fist fight is clearly edited but is oddly shot. Like we had switched from DVD to Blu-Ray in an instant. The technical aspect completely pulled me out of the moment.

NARRATIVE

I've read some reviews that critique the writing, comparing it to The Untouchables. I will happily concede the point but offer a clarification: the writing is intentionally playing things with a tongue in cheek mentality, clearly enjoying the pulpy nature of the genre. Seriously, the writing is tailor-made for a crowd-pleasing time.

The acting is strong, with Sean Penn predictably carrying his fair share of the villainous weight. His monologues, especially one that involves him relating a childhood story while a cop is murdered nearby is a stellar example of chilling menace. Josh Brolin is stoic and works wonders with a standard role. Ryan Gosling feels somewhat miscast to me, too soft-spoken and calm for the moments where he acts out. The rest of the supporting cast isn't given a whole lot to do, but the little moments are welcome. Most memorable is Robert Patrick as a John Wayne gunslinger.

From the beginning, the film moves at a fast clip. The pacing is solid and rarely drags. I didn't check the time once, a rare feat and a strong complement. Oh, and the end credits rock. See below.

THEMES

The war-time relic of a military veteran is quite timely. It works wonders especially compared to our current situation. O'Mara plays this well, illustrating the need for help and reconciliation.

Studies in honorable sacrifice and justice, though quiet and often often too quick, are certainly at the heart of this tale. Dan Lin mentioned to the interns once that he wanted his company to focus strongly on heroes and their tales. That stuck with me, and this is well-played throughout the film.

CONCLUSION

Despite a potential miscast and an underused supporting cast, the film is well-acted, energetic and beautifully shot.

4.5 out of 5.

--Nick

Les Miserables, a review

I am no fan of musicals, with the exception of Singing in the Rain. I never found the Liam Neeson version of Les Miserables particularly compelling, and I am somewhat unfamiliar with the source material.

But I can tell you what it is all about.

It begins with a fallen prisoner under the law, Jean Valjean. It continues with a lonely mother turned prostitute, Fantine. It concludes with the just hammer of the law, Javert.

TECHNICAL

Les Miserables is a revelation. From the opening shot and set piece involving the physical towing of a ship into dock, where prisoners sing and waves crash. It is a sonic cacophony, with a swelling tide of barely bridled rage and thriving emotion.

The bulk of the dialogue is told via song, and this is where the film would fly or fall for most. I've read criticisms leveled at the film for focusing on tight shots, eschewing the sweeping grandure that would maybe typify a musical of this type. So the film's technique works against type, but instead I believe the film creates a gritty and spellbinding example. The criticisms aren't particularly persuasive, and I believe the film sets itself apart.

In an sense, the set piece isn't what is important. The song and the emotion and the power is given center stage, making this an actor's dream. Center stage. Coupled with mood lighting, exquisite set design and pacing that rarely flounders, the film is a technical masterpiece.

The song editing and design is masterful, keeping me from ever realizing that this was ever staged. Hooper's technique of having the actors perform their pieces on set is genius.

NARRATIVE

As I mentioned above, this is an actor's movie. Hugh Jackman fits the roll perfectly, exemplifying the inner turmoil that fits a man who has been reduced to base instincts: feed and survival. He is the apostle Paul before his fateful journey. The sequence of him questioning God and himself in the chapel is magnificent. It is gritty, uncomfortable due to the camera angles and highly emotive. For some it will be off putting. But most "confessional" scenes are rarely clean.

Anne Hathaway completely surprised me. I wasn't expecting anything from her in the role, but she takes her character and breathes her perfectly. The standout scene of the entire film is an uncut five minute take where she sings "I Dreamed a Dream." Perfection.

Criticisms have been leveled against Russell Crowe's performance, with some labeling it as "stiff." While it is certainly not his most emotive role, his performance seems consistent with his character. The Law seems rarely flexible or emotive, simply content to be "just."

All of those three paragraphs to say, the singing rocks.

My main criticism covers two topics: pacing and mood. The innkeepers Sascha Cohen and Helena Carter bothered me, more in that they felt out of place and severely crippled the pacing of the film. For their entire introduction, I felt I had stumbled into b-roll of Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd. The section slows the entire film and would've been better left out entirely or severely cut. Their subsequent reappearances do not fare better.

THEMES

The film is a living examination of the entire theology of Saint Paul, and Valjean is a perfect Pauline archetype. From the Damascus Road revelation, to his view of Galatians 3:28 in helping the fallen within society, to a nearly Adamic view as we see in Romans 7 in his treatment of sin and the law. In fact, every character (minus Javert) has an acute sense of despair, as they cannot live up to either the Law nor fulfill the world.

We see the conflict between the Law and those "in Christ" as shown by Javert, unmovable, unshakeable. Unable to cope with anything outside his systematic system. The Law cannot account for everything, and the film amply showcases this.

CONCLUSION

Les Miserables isn't perfect, but it is a sobering, powerful reminder of a life's testimony to not only grace but reconciliation. In it we see the seeds of liberation from a life of oppression, a life in bondage to sin, to a life victorious.

A living breathing parable.

4.5 out of 5.

--Nick

The Hobbit, a review

Ya'll know what the movie is about.

Dwarves, hobbits, wizards and a really angry dragon we only see in passing.

TECHNICAL

I saw the film in 3D and wasn't particularly blown away by it. It was by no means distracting, but I didn't notice much reason to opt for an additional couple bucks for a ticket. I've heard mixed to negative reactions about the 48 fps and didn't see any reason to jump into that. I've never really been a technical geek so I can't comment about whether or not it looks like a video game.

The sweeping scope is indeed sweeping, but frankly we've seen this before in the previous trilogy. The cinematography lacks any specific instances of cinematic pop, but the countryside exteriors are gorgeous, akin to Ridley Scott's Prometheus. Simply put, they are jaw-slappingly gorgeous. The best part of the film.

Barring none, the set design is perfection. The introduction of Radagast and the onslaught of the evil forces upon his home was a creepy sensory delight. However, the design of the White Orc reminded me so much of Kratos from God of War that all I imagined him doing was ripping out the eyes of the Hobbit and using them as a necklace.

NARRATIVE

This is where the film struggled the most for me. Beyond the opening dragon siege (a fun little sequence) the rest of the first half of the film is so poorly paced I half-slept through it against my will. Well, mostly.

The characters are for the most part unmemorable. The only characters I remember are Gandalf, Thorin and. . .Bilbo, I think. The lack of motivation was felt mostly in Thorin's quest to redeem his homeland and I thought this was compelling enough for him to be the main protagonist, seeing as how he was the only one with clear motivation.

Bilbo really has no motivation here. He's basically yanked out of his cozy little life and thrown into the fire of a bad situation by a wizard we only know because we read the spoilers (or watched the entire trilogy beforehand). This does not make for good storytelling nor does it endear us to the various characters Jackson and his screenwriter's want us to empathize with.

The final 45 minutes crackle only because we can finally see where the film is really going, and it doesn't do much with the climactic battle because the "trapped" aspect feels confined and the spectacle is belabored. Burning trees? Nearly falling over the edges yet again? Being saved by another dues ex machina? The battles lack common logic and do little to advance the story. They feel like padding, particularly a battle with giant rock robots.

However, the trolls were a nice little fantastic addition to the film. The near magic of the scenes is quiet compelling. The riddle sequence involving a certain mutated hobbit and the other hobbit was nicely written, but far too long.

THEMES

There isn't much going on here compared to the other trilogy. Fellowship had quite a bit going for it, but here the film just feels bloated and padded. The environment and the destruction of good things almost makes up for it, and the ideas of potential greed and prejudice get nods, but they are put aside for the sake of adding more unneeded battles and "extended edition" exposition.

CONCLUSION

Despite the magic of some scenes (any bit involving Radagast, the trolls and the ugly hobbit), the film is overall a poorly paced action picture with too much dialogue and not enough emotional resonance. The idea of environmental disaster is quite compelling, particularly in light of our current dilemma with potential global tension.

Not worth your time. 

2.5 out of 5.

--Nick

Film Award 2012: The Diving into Sheol Award

Aaaaaaaaaand we're back. This time, we cover a different type of film altogether. This film most certainly is within my top 5 of this year. The "Diving into Sheol" award is granted to films that have achieved the following results:

Hours upon hours of reflection. A mildly heated debate with a friend over the topic of free will. A nightmare. An agreeable consensus that it bucked some trends. A film that had both an atheist friend and myself in complete agreement on the film's lasting emotional power.

In conjunction with the first point, it resulted in a change in heart on certain issues, resulting in a bit of a paradigm shift.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am referring to none other than the film below.

Kids, I give the "Diving into Sheol" award to:

The Grey.

Easily the most emotionally staggering and intense film of the year. The performances and personifications are stellar, especially if one can see elements of themselves in each rugged individual.

A haunting, stripped down epic about survival, free will and the instinct of transcendence.

--Nick

Film Award 2012: The Cheap Wine Hangover Award

 So glad you came back for thirds. The following film deserves the award, and it fits the criteria thusly:

The film was awesome at the time and falls apart the more I think about it. It tastes great, but gives a painful reward for enjoying it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you:

Prometheus.

True, there were times in the theater where I felt my eyes knocking around the inside of my skull in annoyance, but the film by far was a cinematic treat. Until I stopped and thought about it.

The stupid cliche characters meandering around after getting separated, and then getting turned into worm poop? The odd love scene? The lame pseudo-theological crap spewed by the protagonist that sounds like something Ken Ham would say? The fact that the ship at the end didn't have any external weaponry? The hallmark "Fireproof-esque" 'heaven' dream?

The almost goofy zombie mid-section where the mad lover leaps around the ship like he's caught an intergalactic case of hungry crabs?

But, in fairness, the film is a lot deeper than I remember and the cinematography is jaw-slappingly beautiful. So, yes, I will be watching the sequel.

--Nick

Film Award 2012: The Neo-Hipster Award

Thanks for wading back through the muck of my last review. This award is given to the following film for several arguments, not the least of which it may simply be the film most likely to end up on several reviewers top 10. The reasons are as follows:

Pretentious, artistic, filled with abrupt shifts in tone, highly violent and equally fascinated with people making silent ocular intercourse.

That's right.

Folks, the Neo-Hipster Award goes to:

Drive

I love this director, so maybe it was just an awkward transition for me. I am not opposed to slow pacing or silent films, but this film didn't take off for me until the final few minutes. And those final few minutes resulted in the worst ending I've seen this year.

This film seriously plays out like a checklist of student film cliches:

Stylized world. Lots of retro elements. Quiet acting as to hide the bland dialogue. Creepy villains. Lame love story. Intentionally lousy climax. Blah blah blah. The only thing that kept it from being a home run was that it didn't have Zooey Deschanel.

On the positive, mawkish melodrama aside, the film looks pretty and the duo of Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman is fun.

More awards on the way!

--Nick

Film Award 2012: The Grease Stain Film Award

Okay. Welcome welcome. This award is given to the film that best exemplifies the following:

Greasy, artery-hardening, brain-killing, puppy-stomping, alien (both terrestrial and domestic) smashing good time. It involves a lack of writing, mediocre passable acting and an overall sense of dumb fun beyond the simple lack of good writing.

It is cheap, easy, greasy Red Box fun.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you:

Battleship.

Despite it's (major flaws), I enjoyed the piss out of this. I couldn't tell you about anything that happened beyond the vague recollection of Liam Neeson, a cute blonde girl and Pearl Harbor veterans piloting a massive naval vessel.

Actually that pretty much sums it up.

Liam Neeson. 

Thanks for watching! More awards coming up!

--Nick

Red Dawn, a review

What happens when you blend Modern Warfare 2 and remnants of Cold War fear together? Well, you get Black Ops, but that isn't my point. Red Dawn begins with traditional American folklore, taking place at a football game (anyone noticing a pattern here, particularly when America is getting cuffed about by a foreign power? Pearl Harbor, I'm looking at you), resulting in the seemingly fractured family of marine Jed (Chris Hemsworth sans Thor's hammer) and quarterback Matt (Josh Peck) waking up to a really bad morning:

Chinese -- umm -- North Korean planes are invading, dropping paratroopers and causing major havoc. With little to go on, the under 21 demographic (except for Hemsworth) end up in the woods waging a guerrilla war against a seemingly unstoppable force.

TECHNICAL

The film is a perfect product of modern cinematics, keenly influenced by Paul Greengrass and Call of Duty. Everything is intentionally designed to induce the feelings of modern combat, complete with shaky cam and an editing style that feels loaded up with pop rocks and diet coke. The initial invasion is impressively staged, with thousands of paratroopers descending from heaven, planes falling out to the sky and the like. The brief bits of wonder involve a close up on a snow globe being rocked around and a cool instance of a teenager being flung at ramming speed from one car through another.

The special effects and cgi are well-staged and achieve a sort of campy quality that heighten the entertainment value greatly.

All in all, the film is technically what one would expect. Competent if mostly uninteresting.

NARRATIVE

I confess, I did not come into this looking for a decent story. I cannot say I was disappointed. The material is perfect and ripe for some deep thematic involvement, but the laziness of the film drastically undercuts everything.

You have a two minute montage of kids firing guns and suddenly they are blood thirsty warriors. Two minutes later, they are gunning down faceless North Korea soldiers. The pacing is slipshod, with characters being introduced as if we've known them for a few years and being killed off on the basis of them knowing said characters.

The film is indeed dopey fun, but the screenplay shifts in the later section with a jarring tone similar to being slapped in the face with the frying pan while eating an omelet.

*Spoiler*

After escaping with maybe ten minutes left to the movie, the characters discover one of their guys is bugged and leave him there with a gun and some ammo. We never see what happens to him, nor do we get any sense that maybe a brief bit of surgery would help remove the annoying device. It strikes me as an incoherent attempt to amp up the emotional intensity and instead comes across as ham-fisted. A phrase that doesn't make sense but really just makes me hungry.

Finally, a few things I question:

Why would the Chinese North Koreans let ordinary citizens walk around in public? Why not put them all in concentration camps? Why not tag every citizen? Why not stage public executions? Why not level most of the buildings that could be hiding insurgents? Why wouldn't the Wolverines do things to strike fear into the hearts of their enemies, like skinning their enemies or public executions under the guise of quick time events? What about the desensitizing effect violence has upon the youth? Or on us for watching this?

*steps off soapbox*

You get my point. There is much more that the film could've explored.

THEMES

Many reviewers dubbed the film "jingoistic" and I don't quite get that. Cross out the American flag and substitute a Mexican or Japanese flag and the film wouldn't change much. There is nothing really unique about the film that demands a jingoistic description.

The clash of actuality violence and video action is worth noting, in that a kid flat-out cracks a joke about it, but doesn't seem to take it seriously. In fact, we aren't either. Some folks got angry when you had kids killing other kids in Hunger Games but here, as long as kids are killing adults, that's perfectly kosher.

This invites a little more thought because exploring the psychological effects violence has on someone should bring about a more interesting result than "they bad, kill they ass."

For the most part, plenty to work with, shot it's own shin off.

CONCLUSION

Red Dawn is a product of an age where video games are grafted together with real-world headlines and nameless faceless villains are worth their weight in staged movie blood. The concept is genius and I really dug the initial opening invasion.

Hemsworth has enough presence to make him the cool dude we all dig. However, as time progressed and the film worked out it's internal sense of (il)logic, most of the propulsive nature of the first act wilted and all we have left is a shoddily edited and poorly told story of kids fighting pixelated meanies hitting expert head shots with an ak47.

Which is totally worth turning into a drinking game.

2 out of 5.

--Nick