Noah

Make it rain

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Russel Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, Logan Lerman, & Douglas Booth
Released: 2014

Reasons I was offended by Noah
-Skinny jeans
-Hooded sweatshirts
-Infinity scarves
-The garish font used in the title card and subsequent credits
-The unnecessary 45 minutes in the 3rd act that completely diverged from the theme and plot set forth  in the first portions of the film.

  Let's get some things out of the way, am I a Christian? Yes. Do I believe the public should avoid and our boycott a film specifically because it "offends" or "alters" Christian beliefs or Biblical events? NO.

  Here is something the Christian viewing public needs to understand, if you're going to tell someone to avoid a film because of its inaccuracies or its misconstruction of Christian beliefs I do hope you go see the film FIRST so you can explain exactly WHY. Enough of these second hand accounts. Just because Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show tells you not to see or read The Golden Compass does NOT mean you should avoid it at all cost...to me any controversy of this fashion generated around a film or book series simply makes it more alluring. (Say the conservatives "Oh it's Satan's temptation!") It was the reason I began reading His Dark Materials series and guess what? It's one of the best written pieces of young adult literature and one of my favorite book series.

  If you're going to campaign so heartily against a film, you better have seen it yourself so you can back up your claims of inaccuracy. Seeing a film you don't agree with also aids in explaining any questions non-Christians may ask their known Christian friends...instead of responding with "Well...Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show saw it and HE says..." No harm ever came from a bit of research...

Director Darren Aronosky & Russel Crowe

Now, of course if you don't find said film in your interest you have every right NOT to see that film, but please don't deter others from expanding their knowledge. I find the fact that a film can get so many people discussing the topic of religion (specifically Christianity) exciting! In this year alone there have been THREE Christian themed/Biblically rooted films released (so far) Noah, is NOT for everyone; director Darren Aronofsky shot it (as all his films) with a very specific theme in mind.
  This is what get's my goat, many strike out at this film, but it was never marketed as something it was not. Noah was never billed as a Biblically accurate account, it was never marketed specifically towards or for a Christian audience. This, I believe, is most important when considering whether Christians should take up arms and fight the religious injustice that is Noah (*cough* sarcasm *cough*) or keep a rational, open mind. I'm not going to dwell on what Noah is, or is not in accordance to religion. The source material for Noah is not THEE Bible, it's a graphic novel written by the film's director and that graphic novel does not boast a strong religious agenda. Just keep that in mind. This is all I want to say on the controversial subject because I'd love to actually REVEIW the film, and after I'm done you can decide for yourself. Will you see Noah so you have an educated stance in the heated discussion of the film, or will you avoid it out of stubborn second hand he-said, she-said accounts OR (Yes there are more than two options) is it possible the film's intriguing aspects were literally drowned by a dismal 3rd act resulting in a dower end product?

Simply put, this is Noah...

Before the flood 8 1/2 out of 10 stars; during/after the flood 3 stars

  I have no problem with how the story was handled, it's artistic license, this is NOT Heaven is For Real, it's Aronofsky (the man who gave us Requiem of a Dream, The Black Swan, The Wrestler) I actually ENJOYED many of the unique, compelling ideas Aronofsky has developed; I became emotionally upset with the three hundred and sixty degrees change the film took after the flood occurred. In the beginning (Ha. Ha.) Noah was the definite hero of the film, his passion and commitment to The Creator (God) frames him as a good man, working against those who have sinned and destroyed the beautiful land they were given. You see how revolting and lost the race of Man has become and why the Earth needs to be cleansed...you shutter and gasp at the atrocities of Man's behavior and but as soon as the Ark shuts its door Aronofsky (who penned the film as well as directing) turns Noah into a completely different character. Gone is the father figure who's dedication to God is inspiring; instead we're left with a bloodthirsty, deranged lunatic who never recovers his respected status obtained in the film's first hour and half. What happened to saving the planet and hopping for a better future? What happened to seeing the best in Noah? Themes of responsibility, hope, and trust in God are completely forgotten and abolished, ending the film in bitter contrast. A feeble attempt to recover them is made in Noah's last scene however the previous change of pace was so dramatic it proved difficult to rebound.

The first hour and half of Noah, brilliant. Gorgeously shot, intriguing and unique, I feel it didn't spit on the actual religion of Christianity at all...simply took a well known story and used it very loosely to construct a new tale of epic proportions. Noah is not a film about staying true to the story in Genesis, it's about environmentalism, saving the world from Man's destructive course (and then some garbage at the end) I found myself willing to suspend disbelief to enjoy the original take Aronofsky presents. If one was to "faithfully" adapt the story of Noah, the film would be roughly 30 minutes long. Fantastic cinematography and expert editing make Noah a pleasing film aesthetically. The images created by cinematographer Matthew Libatique varied from haunting to etherial to painfully realistic...that being said Noah does offer it's fair share of CGI.

The Animals {emit heavy sigh} I understand and agree that it was the only way but I honestly think I saw 5 Moose...the same Moose couple...dispersed throughout the massive hear 5 times...and that Armadillo-Dog.
  The Watchers, another highly contested portion of the film, dare I say it, one of the most fascinated ideas as well as top notch production on the design and creation of these creatures.

Got Moose? Deer? Elk?

  Performances are solid despite some questionable character developments. Is Noah a perfect film? No. Will it be one teachers show in the Sunday school class room? Absolutely not. But what Noah does offer is entertainment. I'm not going to lie, several times I found myself shaking my head at the absurdity of the story, it's characters developments, and comparing/contrasting Bible and Film but I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of the film, however outlandish or "inaccurate" some may call it. Ultimately, a good portion of Noah could have hit the cutting room floor. Had several of the major struggles that occurred on the Ark during the flood been cut out, the films integrity wouldn't have suffered; it actually would have improved. The film didn't need the additional conflicts that drastically tarnished the its title character.  Leaving the theater I contemplated my initial retain to the film and found the film dove so so low there was no way the finale could benefit from its rainbow-ed end. I found myself so upset and depressed at how irrational the last 30-45 had been I didn't feel much hope for a better future. It's been quite some time since I've been so emotionally split by a film; therefore, I defer to my original point, if you'd like to make claims and/or have an opinion about Noah, I suggest you see it for yourself.

I snuck into Captain America the Winter Soldier right after Noah...
    -There is a reason people are calling this the best Marvel movie in years and I can tell you why. It's because a Director FINALLY stopped trying imitate Joss Whedon's crackpot style of directing and actually produced a distinct, quality action film...void of constant jokes and absurd plot lines riddled with gaping holes.

A full review, COMING SOON!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Released: 2013
Staring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Benedict Cumberbatch and Luke Evens.
Rated: PG-13

  At this point introducing any film from J.RR Tolkien's Middle Earth brought to you by Peter Jackson is nearly impossible. The films speak for themselves and The Desolation of Smaug is no exception.

  Rewind to 2001, a series almost forgotten by many mainstream book enthusiast regained a new life in the hands of one unknown New Zealand director. The Lord of the Rings series had been adapted from its book format before, but never in such an appropriate, epic style. Seemingly overnight names like Frodo, Gandalf, and Gollum became household names, and 'Hobbit' may be used as an endearing term to describe your hairy footed uncle who can't recall if this is his first or second breakfast. With multiple Oscars under his belt including one for Best Picture in 2003 and more than a fist full of dollars (highest grossing film of 2003), it was only a matter of time before Peter Jackson returned to Tolkien's material.  

  

  We, the anxiously awaiting (fans) public, knew we'd get the The Hobbit sooner or later, what we did not except was 3 Hobbit films, all filmed in sequence at 48 frames per second with extra material, not published in the original book, but Tolkien's none the less. There was much debate over which portions were Tolkien and which were Jackson's; an uproar sounded in the Middle Earth community, whether it was one of joy or outrage was hard to tell but in the end audiences got much more Hobbit than was expected. 

 I've spent many hours reading, watching, and rewatching the original Lord of the Rings series, and as an avid fan it is my humblest opinion that the more the better! Jackson is a director who, when it comes to STORY, does not sacrifice quality for quantity. Was/is there a whole hell of a lot going on in The Hobbit films? Yes. Does any of it take away for the driving plot line? Debatable, but when you get down to it, the answer is no. Is Peter Jackson a greedy little Dragon who is possibly suffering from James Cameron-Ka-Ching-Ka-Ching syndrome? Possibly. As an avid fan, if you present me with a Jackson quality product that remains almost unwaveringly faithful to it's source material while ADDING even more, I'm going to lap it up. The fact that Jackson can do so much while staying true to the book overshadows any doubts I had about the added material. 

  As a reviewer I see faults in The Hobbit series, An Unexpected Journey more than The Desolation of Smaug, yet as a fan I'm completely enraptured by them both. I tell you this, my dear readers, so you will know, there may be nit picking points accompanied by minor annoyances but in the end The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit has been and will remain my favorite series of all time.

  In my end of the year review for 2012 I named The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey my favorite film of the year on the basis that I had been waiting for it for almost ten years...While this is true, the film was not without it's faults; primarily it's silly, prepubescent humor. The burp, butt and snot jokes were not only disgusting but completely misplaced in Jackson's directorial world. The Lord of the Rings films never lacked jokes and wisecracks, but it's humor never dealt on such a low, bodily level. The Desolation of Smaug regains any traction that might have been lost due to the low blows of An Unexpected Journey by keeping it's humor referential rather than immature, gross out stints. Martin Freeman is a funny actor and very funny in the role of Bilbo Baggins. His physicality and facial expressions lend themselves to the character brilliantly. The script is often quite humorous and I think produces may have read many of audiences reactions to the overall tone of An Unexpected Journey and for that reason darkened the mood of it's sequel.

  The Desolation of Smaug is considerably darker than it's predecessor and rightly so. The first act is over, introductions are finished we know our main characters; we've seen them laugh now we want to see them fight! And fight they do. The Desolation is action packed from start to finish. The fast paced action scenes are engaging and exciting, verging on ridiculous but unimaginable fight scenes are a driving force behind the success of these films. I'm not paying to watch Tom Cruise shoot a gun at a criminal mastermind, I picked this film to see 12 Dwarves and a Hobbit race down a river in wine barrels while pursed by Orcs and high-flying Elves. It's fantasy and fantasy will lend itself to fanciful chases! 

Lee Pace, Director Peter Jackson & Evangeline Lilly

  Speaking of Elves, new comer Lee Pace, beloved from Bryan Fuller's short run and under-appreciated TV series Pushing Daisies, melds perfectly into the world of Elven royalty. He's come a long was from loveably awkward pie-maker. Devilishly wicked and totally unexpected, Pace plays the role of King Thrunduil with operatic bearing. Evangeline Lilly, also new to Middle Earth, was a missed opportunity. A fine actress, Lilly's character whom adds would have audiences believe is the strong, feisty, warrior woman of the series is reduced to an object of affection in possibly the oddest love triangle ever put on screen. I supported bringing in the new, original character of Tauriel thinking she'd be portrayed as a warrior like all the rest; instead she succumbs to the emotional advances of two men...brilliant. This from the director who gave us "I am no MAN", witch king-killing Éowyn. I don't get it. 

  Odd Elven relationships aside, the remaining story line in The Desolation of Smaug stays true to the book as well as any side stories begun in An Unexpected Journey. Audiences weren't left with so much a cliff hanging in the first of the series as something to look forward to, as all good films should. We knew we'd be seeing the great dragon in this installment and the tension leading to the final revel makes it all the more scintillating.   

 

No words review can accurately describe the detail and deadly beauty in the animation of Smaug. It's brilliant, flawless, and any other adjective associated with top notch animation. Every scale and claw was considered...the lighting and coloring are pure perfection...the way he moves and please let's talk about the cutting voice behind though razor sharp teeth. Benedict Cumberbatch with the best and only choice. His voice is pure dangerous allure. Cumberbatch, with the help of visual animation studio WETA, truly became this dragon through motion capture technology. That means voice, movement, and facial expression were all generated by Caumberbatch...and quite perfectly, he gives this inhuman  creature a personality and purpose. A huge hand must be given to the animators behind Smaug, he is a sight to behold on the big screen. No images found online can do him justice.

Benedict Cumberbatch gets in touch with his scaly, fire breathing side

  Smaug's animation soars, leaving many of the other animated characters with a rushed, sloppy, even cheap feel to them. One thing The Lord of the Rings series did so well was create real, disturbing characters through the use of great prosthetics. This is a technique not used as appropriately in The Hobbit series, especially where Orcs, Goblins and other nasty folk are concerned...yes animation is cheaper but nothing draws an audience from the moment like recognizing "oh that's definitely CGI" This is a huge attributing fact as to why Smaug's animation is so incredibly impressive. Comparing the detail in his design to that of others is somewhat disappointing.  

  With a darker atmosphere, Jackson really plays up Biblo's developing obsession with his newly acquired ring and creating a strong tie between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The Desolation of Smaug is great fun with a couple of nice references for die hard fans and spectacular animation (for the most part) Fans will not be disappointed and new comers to the series should find it just as enjoyable. Don't expect Smaug to be popping up in any category except effects, during awards season like The Lord of the Rings films did, but the heart of this film is in the same place; as is its epic scope and action packed adventure. If there was ever a time to jump into one of the most celebrated fantasy series of all time, now would be it! 

12 Years a Slave

Steve McQueen's brutally honest film depicts both the best and (mostly) the worst of man kind. 

Directed by: Steve McQueen

Released: 2013

Staring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Paul Dano, Benedict Cumberbatch, Lupita Nyong'o, & Brad Pitt

Rated: R 

Times Viewed: 1

  Every fall as the weather transforms from glowing warmth to chilling cold, a new film season emerges to draw audiences to theaters. The first budding blooms include previously reviewed films Gravity & Captain Phillips; each release seemingly better than the next. Awards Season may only be in it's early, yet essential months of release, but Steve McQueen's bio-pic 12 Years A Slave may possess what it takes to persist the cold winter winds all the way to March 2nd. 

  12 Years A Slave tells the true tale of Solomon Northup; a free black man, making a living as a violinist in upstate New York before being tricked and sold into slavery.  Frame by frame, director Steve McQueen paints an unrelenting portrait of the human soul in both it's brightest and darkest colors.

Cinematgrapher Sean Bobbitt & Director Steve McQueen

  12 Years a Slave is meticulously crafted, each individual shot looks as though it could be a masterpiece painting. The angles at which cinematographer Sean Bobbitt and McQueen shoot are unique, fresh, and fascinating. Wether it be Benedict Cumberbatch standing in a door frame with Chiwetel Ejiofor at his feet; or Ejiofor hanging from a tree, the source of his punishment and suffering, an unfinished cabin looming in the background, the imagery and iconicism are breathtaking. No frame was shot without the closest consideration, and every shot is intentional and for that reason, powerful.

  From the beginning scenes of the film McQueen uses camera angles, light and sound to establish the right from the wrong, the natural from the unnatural. The film begins with Solomon cutting sugar cane but moves quickly into another scene later that night in which he and a fellow female slave become intimate. The scene was shot from a tight, overhead, horizontal view, the characters only visible from the chest down. The abruptness of the scene is somewhat jarring in not only it's placement in the film but also the angle at which it was shot, with both actors heads situated far screen right. The lighting is cold and harsh. Another rapid cut to atheistically contrasted shot; Solomon and his wife sit in bed in upright vertical positions. A warm light is cast around them and both actors are centered screen, a comfortable distance from the audience. The transition from one intimate scene to another create a vivid image to emotionally influence the audience as to what feels warm and safe, verses cold and uncomfortable. 

  "Uncomfortable" is a word many would use to describe any number of scenes in 12 Years A Slave but eliciting an emotion from an audience is the sign of a true director. McQueen utilizes not only camera angles/light but also manipulates sounds and ABSENCE of sound. A score by Hans Zimmer feeds the desolate undercurrent of the film but rises when called upon to become a tool of heightened drama. Sound builds and builds in moments of strife; however, once action has been taken, the audience is left with nothing but the bodily sounds of the characters, accompanied by silence. It's this silence that delivers the true impact of suffering better than any motif ever could. 

Our main character left hanging by a rope, his toes sloppily grace the mudded ground below last for an "uncomfortable" amount of time. No synthetic sound is heard, and with nothing but staggered breathes and the call of birds, this is the most powerful scene in the whole film. Prolonged silences and takes are what drive 12 Years a Slave and turn a possible generic period film into Oscar GOLD.

The beautiful Lupita Nyong'o as Patsey along side Michael Fassbender & Chiwetel Ejiofor. 

12 Years A Slave has quite the list of Hollywood names, those names however are reputable, respected names. 

  Adds are selling this as a Brad Pitt film when in reality his total screen time can't equal more than 15 minutes; that being said, he gives a well acted performance. Pitt's hand is more in producing than acting which, I have no complaints about. It takes a strong and humble actor to have so much invested in a production and yet take such a small role. Pitt's eye and and status in film making have matured immensely over the past 10+ years and I can't help but feel my sense of respect for him, as both actor and person, grown.  

Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Cumberbatch & Paul Dano 

Benedict Cumberbatch's role as plantation owner Ford plays as the contrasting figure to Michael Fassbender's maniacally cruel and unhinged Edwin Epps. Ford, while a slaver non the less, displays acts of kindness, generosity, and humanity. Cumberbatch was a perfect choice for the role, not only a goodnatured face but he also emits a disposition to match. His range of work in 2013 alone must be noted and applauded. I find it hard to believe that this man on screen is the same who plays the cheeky Sherlock Holmes and intimated nerds world round as the ruthless Khan. Benedict Cumberbatch is a rising star who shows no signs of slowing down...and I hope he doesn't.

  Our leading man Chiwetel Ejiofor, a relative unknown to both me and most likely the average movie goer, gives a performance that is nothing short of superior. To pull the truth and raw emotion from a story and script such as this is a feat daunting to any actor, no matter what their status. Ejiofor demonstrates a fearlessness and force that radiates through the screen. As I wrote before, 12 Years A Slave features numerous prolonged scenes of silence with nothing but the actor and perhaps a breath of wind. These scenes could have become dull and lifeless but Chiwetel Ejiofor emotes pain, trepidation, and hope all through his eyes. He knows how to utilize his face without seeming overdramatic and mime-esque. When he does speak, his delivery is believable and powerful.

 

Closely tied with Ejiofor for best performance in this film is unsurprisingly Michael Fassbender. The audience isn't sure whether he's a racist or a sadist, or just plain insane, but what Michael Fassbender creates is nearly beyond words. He demonstrates a calmness that makes his character all the more dangerous and terrifying; a burning and intense gaze accompanies words that had many an audience member shaking their head and murmuring in disgust. Edwin Epps is an unforgiving man, holding true to the belief that these people are his property and he many do with his property as he chooses. In the same fashion, Fassbender's method and performance are just as unforgiving. He could have gone complete passion and emotion, yelling and gesturing about, but he saves it for when it counts...a silent attack that explodes at the slightest push. Michael Fassbender has proved time and time again to be one of the best performers working in cinema today in for his role in 12 Years A Slave I'd be shocked if he didn't receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

  Paul Geomati makes a brief but note worthy appearance and I've never heard an audience applaud so loudly as they did when Paul Dano's character was beaten by Solomon. THAT is a true testate to the power of acting and the influence it can have on an audience. Where Fassbender's character had a quiet  yet deranged force behind it, Dano was it's counterpart. His performance as the overseer Tibeats on Ford's plantation is a boiling pot of superiority and temperament, quick to jump on any slave that shoots him a definite eye and acting rashly with no concern for law and order.

  The performances in 12 Years a Slave were the strongest to have graced in screen in all of 2013 and I will be shocked if there's not one or more cast member who's nominated for an Academy Award. For all of it's successes, the film does get heavy. With very few, if any light moments, the film may prove hard for some to sit through. It's an intense emotional roller coaster from start to finish, but the quality of the production and performances make it well worth the strife. Moving in more ways than one and important in the fact this is not an African American movie, it's an AMERICAN movie. One of the greatest countries in the world, America is also one who's held a blood-soaked ledger.  Steve McQueen reminds us how important our history is, he shows us the good, the bad, and the worst of ALL Americans.

  The only other obstacle I see 12 Years facing is what I've come to call the "Lincoln Bug." This time last year, everyone had Steven Spielberg's presidential bio-pic to be front runner for the Academy's highest award; however, following it's release, interest in the film dissipated and soon it lost to thriller Argo. The problem with Lincoln was it was all talk no action....what everyone thought would be a stirring drama turned out to be a Daniel Day-Lewis performance piece filled with the President telling lengthy stories and jokes...while all performances were excellent (I did cry) as a whole, Lincoln was one of my biggest disappointments of last year. Honestly I don't think 12 Years will suffer the same fate...it's equal parts performance drama and cinematic beauty along with severe depictions of plantation life.

  12 Years a slave received a rousing reception at The Uptown Theater with both the 7:00 and 10:00 shows selling out, the 7:00 showing by 3:00pm! There was not a dry eye in the house during the final scene and credits. Goosebumps, cheers, and tears were a plenty throughout the film; this is one film that MUST not be missed for both it's cinematic achievements  and outstanding cast.

Gravity

This whole problem could have been solved if you had a Time Lord...

Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón
Released: 2013
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Sandra Bullock & George Clooney
Times Viewed: 1

  But all Doctor Who jokes aside, Gravity reiterates a fact embraced by many a Whovian...Space is AWESOME. Not since Kubrick has a director translated the terrifying desolation and beauty that is Space onto the silver screen so spectacularly. Alfonso Cuarón utilizes Space like no other, continuously flirting with varying levels of depth of field as well as sound. The scope of Gravity, at first glimpse, appears vast and daunting but Cuarón brings this epic down to human reaches by interjecting immense cinematography with tight, extreme close-ups of it's leading lady. The director plays with reflections in space suit helmets, POV shots, and even drops nod to Kubrick if you're a cool enough cat to catch it. Alfonso Cuarón's variety, sharpness, and seamless blending of film and CGI creates an irrefutable Sci-Fi classic. The great this about Gravity thought is that it's hardly Sci-Fi at all..no aliens, no laser guns, just real space and real people. 

   Sandra Bullock, who wouldn't have been my (nor I believe the directors) first choice for the role, can be a bit distracting at times...a kinder word than annoying. Bullock was not the worst actress to be cast in a role such as this and did demonstrate great command over her body, hours of trainer where evident in her physical being, but when it came to a vocal presence she's not one I appreciated. She gives literal life to the phrase "Ah, Ahh, Ahhh." This being said, the Academy Award Winner brings a human "real life" presence to the role.

  Opposite Sandra Bullcock, the ever charming George Clooney does what he does best...charms his way through the film. George Clooney plays George Clooney, and the first 10 minutes of the film try so unbelievably hard to establish a (charming) character for Clooney it's somewhat painful. On the verge of cliché, his veteran Matt Kowalski (charmingly) reflects on past missions, mishaps, and memories with Huston as he takes his final walk throughout space, alluding to retirement and lamenting that he'll never surpass the record for most time spent wondering the heavens above.  

  Does anyone remember Michael Clayton? An angry, passionate George Clooney, that's what I'd love to see again...he's a talented actor but I feel he choses roles that too closely reflect him as a person. In that perspective Gravity was a perfect match, but I'd love to see him take a real, unforgiving RISK.

But perhaps I pick on the leads too much...I've yet to decide if my reservations about each actor was due to the performances or a sub-par script; my conscious tells me it's the later. 

  Unfortunately the script (mind you not the story) proved to be the film's weakest attribute. Majority of the film belongs to Bullock who, again, wouldn't have been my first choice for a role like this but my overall impression was she carried many of the scenes well enough. The attempts to build an emotional back story for her character Ryan Stone failed,  transforming from bone dry to down right cliché. Creating back story for a character is important so the audience can develop that emotional connection and, ESPECIALLY in a film like Gravity feel the character's tension, anxieties, fear ex. as they push forward to the climax and an undeterminable end. Again, this was more the writers fault than Bullock's. I do appreciate we didn't get any cheesy flash backs of Stone on earth with her beloved daughter, the accident, and Stone's sedated life afterwards. In the hands of another director, poorly plotted flash backs such as these could have ruined the entire film; thankfully Cuarón keeps us in the now, in the space, and in what's important. Any return to Earth before the finale would have broken the atmosphere and caused utter disaster. For keeping such consistency, I must say bravo Caurón on a bold decision.

  Sound, or the absence of sound surrounds Gravity but doesn't let itself become the most memorable thing about the film...although it does make a sizable impact. Explosions are witnessed in almost complete silence with nothing but Steven Price's haunting and inspiring score to accompany them.

Check it out here!

  

  While the character development and back story may be predictable, the film itself is not. Visually unique, one cannot help but return to Kubrick's game changer 2001: A Space Odyssey and remember the impact it had on audiences and film makers alike. Just consider what Gravity means for this generation? With Star Trek and Star Wars with their own come backs underway, Gravity has certainly forced the sequels to up their game. The CGI is flawless and the use of the 3D is the BEST I've ever seen. The cinematography is unbelievable . Simply unbelievable. I would attempt to describe it but in Gravity's case, the pictures really are worth a thousand words. 

    There's not much else I can or will tell you about Gravity other than GO SEE IT! Go see it in Theaters in 3D. It is without a doubt THEE film to watching this fall season. It's an experience unlike any other that you've had at the theater. Tension, anxiety, and frustration are all felt and shared by the audience. Visually impeccable and emotionally heightened, Gravity simply cannot be missed. 

Life of Pi

...A horror movie in which the ocean is the villain and a 16 year old boy goes 227 days without growing any facial hair.

Directed by: Ang Lee
Released: 2012
Staring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall, & Richard Parker via Rhythm & Hues Studios
Rated: PG
Times Viewed: 1

  Perhaps it's because I watched both A Perfect Storm AND Cast Away at far too young of age, but I have always been TERRIFIED of deadly ocean storm and/or stranded in the ocean type films. Life of Pi, while vividly entertaining and beautifully envisioned, was no exception. If there was ever a film that  would convince me to stay away from ship travel this one would be it; forget Titanic, it's Life of Pi all the way. That being said, I'll do my best to cope with my fear of the open ocean/drowning and review the film without shuttering.

"Better than Disney World Mumbai!!!" 

   Everything you've heard about the amazing CGI in this film is absolutely true. Originally I was completely against the idea of  nearly 100% computer generated animals and visuals(set?) JUST USE A REAL TIGER and some clever trick shots is what I kept saying. Humbly, I must admit I was quite wrong about that and the visual team at Rhythm & Hues Studios did an outstanding job!

The detailed process behind making Richard Parker come to life

  I do believe you will always be able to detect CGI from non-CGI, but what the artist's generated was truly amazing. All of the animals, Richard Parker (the tiger for those of you who don't know) especially were created with such detail, vibrance, and movement when one is engaged in the film it's quite easy to forget they're not real. And for that I take my hat off to the designers and engineers at R&H Studios who were unjustly NOT appreciated or mentioned for their fantastic work during director Ang Lee's acceptance of the Best Director Oscar at this year's show...I'll delve deeper into that later.

A fight for dominance in "Life of Pi"

If they used some shots of a real tiger mixed with CGI I will never be able to tell the difference.

  Back to the animals...Animals which can so often appear flat and cartoonish on screen due to the lack of detail, attention to lighting, and depth, come alive in Life of Pi. As you would in a live animal, you can see every hair on the tigers coat move and ever scale on each fish glisten in the sunlight. The saturated colors of the entire movie help the animals really pop and allow the viewer to see how much work was put into creating these creatures.

  The limitless ocean, dream-like sky, and floating island also must be mention as they are all gorgeous and truly unique. I must say, this is a movie I really wish I would have seen in 3-D. I could tell from watching at home, Life of Pi was a film that was developed to be shot in 3-D and utilize it with the depth of the ocean, lashing tiger, and flying fish. Lee even changed the aspect ratio of the film several times to submerge the viewer even deeper into Pi's beautiful and deadly adventure.

  I  reccomend this film for the sole reason of the outstanding work the special effect team did on the whole film. It's vibrant, fun, sometimes scary, and always stunning. Life of Pi is definitely a feast for the visual senses.

I'm sorry Pi, the tribe has voted; You must either leave the boat or be eaten.  

Richard Parker & Pi have a staring contest to kill time...RP is a sore loser. 

  The story and themes behind Life of Pi, I feel could have been a bit stronger than were presented in the film. What themes you ask? Religion is supposedly the driving force of the story; however, at the end of the tale I felt as if religion had been lost rather than found. Religion is mentioned quite a bit at the beginning of the film as the writer and we the viewers are taken back to Pi's childhood and his induction into three (I believe) religions. I found this part of the tale quite intriguing and enjoyable; Pi telling us how he is able to simultaneously be apart of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. At first I thought the back story telling was a bit excessive but now that I think about it, that's what really connected me to the character of Pi.

  The strong appeal of the three different religions acting as one was perhaps why I felt as if they were missing at the end of the film. The character of the writer himself says the whole reason he was sent to Pi was because he had been told that Pi had a story that would make him believe in God...I felt, as Pi concluded his tale, the shock of the two different scenarios detracted from the major theme that was supposed to be represented in his tale.

A young Pi discovers Christianity.

  This is where the story and review get tricky. Pi revels to the writer that his whole magical journey with Richard Parker might not have even happened. It might have just been his mind's compensation for the tremendous amount of mental and physical strain put upon him by the wreak. I'll just leave it there so I don't spoil too much, but when those dual stories are introduced there will forever be conflict embedded in the story. JUST like THE LADY AND THE TIGER. Which one did she choose? Which one was behind the door? Which story was reality? Will we the reader and/or viewer ever know for sure? The writer chooses to believe the tale featuring Richard Parker because obviously it would make a great book to film adaption (har har) I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy this psychological turn of events, on the contrary I found it added a bit of substance to a rather fanciful film; but it was the intrigue of the two stories that seemed to be of greater interest to the writer and audience rather than religion. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, to me it just seemed to diverge from the original intent of the story.
      -I have never read the book although I've been told to by many...just so you know.

Director Ang Lee on set.

Ang Lee...that man is a strange duck...I'd just like to take the time and remind you all that this is the same Ang Lee who directed 2003's horrendous Hulk, which I think SyFy channel has even stopped playing. That being said, he has also directed some great films like Sense and Sensibility and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon...everyone gasp as I confess I have never seen Brokeback Mountain.

  Range in directing is good, but I feel his is at either end of extreme levels of quality. After finally seeing Life of Pi, can I say that I agree that he should have won the award for best director...eh...the list of directors this year was odd...I personally think Benh Zeitlin should have won for Beast of the Southern Wild (if you haven't seen it yet go NOW) Spielberg is and always will be fantastic, I've yet to see Amour, but then David O'Russell? I did like Silver Linings Play-Book a lot more than I had anticipated, but I didn't see O'Russell getting an award for it. Odd group...just odd. I was shocked when neither Tom Hopper or Quentin Tarantino were nominated; I would have loved to see Tarantino win for Django, but he go his Oscar for original screenplay so that's just as good if not better.
     
  I don't know...best directing? Really academy? Of the whole 2012 year?
Special Effects for sure...but directing? AND I must admit I lost a bit of respect for Ang Lee when he didn't even mention the special effects team in his thank you speech. I know there was a big lock out/the company was shutting down scandal, but those where the men and women who CREATED THE WHOLE FILM. Perhaps now I'm getting too subjective...don't let any of this deter you from watching because it really is a great film.

Life of Pi is no Cast Away. The gritty realism we as viewers have come to know from many a ship wreck film is replaced with spectacle and fantasy. Life of Pi is beautiful, with an fresh story and unbelievable special effects, this one is a must watch. Viewers of all ages will find something to enjoy in this film even if it is just the vivid scenery, glowing fish, or a tiger named Richard Parker.

Drive & Valhalla Rising

A Nicholas Winding Refns Double Feature

Drive

Released: 2011

Staring: Ryan Gosling, Carrey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, Oscar Isaac, Ron Perlman & Christina Hendricks 

Rated: R

Times Viewed: 2
Available on Netflix Instant Streaming

   I feel like many young (women) people have this pre conceived notion about Ryan Gosling. They think he, like his sweater, is perfect boyfriend material.  Soft and sensitive. Strong and hot to trot. Just a funny, good looking guy. They know The Notebook and they know Crazy Stupid love...they know Ryan Gosling's abs. A lot of people think Ryan Gosling is just a Rom-Com leading man...I like to think that I know better. I know that HE is better than that. Truth be told, Ryan Gosling is a helluva lot darker than the uninformed public knows. There is a quiet brutality and insanity in him that echoes throughout many of his lesser known and more violent films. 

  If one was to look at his profile on IMDB one would see that the only real "Rom-Coms" that he's been in are The Notebook and Crazy Stupid love. I like to think of these films as the skeleton that holds Ryan Gosling acting career together, but the real flesh and blood of his work are films like Blue Valentine, The Ides of March and one of the films I'll be reviewing today, Drive. 

Drive is an expertly crafted homage to the 80's filled with impeccable performances, blood & tears violence, and shot with great style.  Refns' modern action masterpiece.

 Ryan Gosling plays a part time stunt driver part time get away car for hire who, after becoming invested in the lives of his pretty neighbor and her young son, finds himself in deep with the wrong tank of sharks. 

  Everything in this film works. From the color scheme to the FANTASTIC soundtrack, Drive is the complete package in first rate film making. There is a deception in the first half of the film. Like Ryan Gosling's character (who is never given a name...billed as "Driver" in the end credits) it's a quiet film. But quiet does not by any stretch of the word mean boring. When I say it's quiet I mean there's action, but it's a subdued action, not thrown in the audience's face from the opening frame. This is prepping the audience for the ultra blood and guts violence that's to come later.

  Refns couples actions with suspense and character intent. There are no unnecessary, loud and brash conversations as there are in many action films. The script is clean and concise; it's a story of human experiences. There are no over blown conspiracy theories, unwarranted explosions, or ridiculous plot lines. Everything that happens in the film could have been taken from an unpublished memoir of a Driver living in Los Angeles. It's (the script's/story) simplicity allows the actors to really shine and when it is time for the action to erupt boy does it taste good. 

  Gosling is FANTASTIC. As I said before his character is quiet, but you KNOW that inside his head gears are turning; he's planning, thinking, and calculating. This stubble nature makes the performance all the more brilliant when he really hits the gas and starts hunting down the scum that threaten Carrey Mulligan and her son. Calm and collected he walks into a strip bar and beats the brains (quite literally) out of a man. Only until he pulls back and the camera focuses on his shaking hand do we see an once of humanity it his action. Truly it's breathtaking. The last 30-45 minutes of Drive is a violent roller coaster ride. Those who've had some difficulty with the "quietness" of the first half should stay put because the car chases and beatings taken in the second more than make up for the first half.
        (I personally loved all of the film, but I know a few people who didn't enjoy the first half as much)

A blood bathed Ryan Gosling in "Drive"

  If Bryan Cranston is as good in Breaking Bad as he is in Drive perhaps I should start watching the series. He's just so damn amazing. 

Ryan Gosling & Bryan Cranston in "Drive"

  Finally we need to talk about Albert Brooks. Describing someone like Albert Brook's character is difficult, but him being a relatively unknown actor to many in my generation worked for him. He comes out of no where and knocks it out of the park. He plays it like a snake slither through the grass, cool and collected until he strikes at the end...leaving more than one dead body in his wake. Brooks received a Golden Globes nomination for the role.  

Now I need to talk about the whole reason I'm here. Director Nicholas Winding Refns, a native of Denmark, is a relatively new Director but boy does he know his stuff. He knows what STYLE means, especially when it's applied to film. Drive is a film of complimentary High Key day shots and Low Key night shots where the shadows take charge and the main lighting sources are the stop lights ahead. This effect is gorgeous and really enhances the 80's feel the whole film has.
The soundtrack is definitely one of the best parts of the film. The 80's synth and heart-beat like bass that accompanies the dark, midnight drives through the streets of L.A. build suspense when the violence has been suspended for a while. Even if you don't watch the movie, I highly recommend the soundtrack.

Drive is one of my personal favorite modern films. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Valhalla Rising

Released: 2009

Staring: Mads Mikkelsen, Gary Lewis, & lots of other unknown scruffy actors 

Rated: R
Times Viewed: 1
Available on Netflix Instant Streaming

One review called it a "masterpiece" another called it "unbearably self-important." Via Netflix, one viewer compared it to drinking their own urine. "Stylish Brutality" is another apt description of Refns productions. So what's my verdict on this visceral, religious and physical piece from Nicholas Winding Refns? 

  Valhalla Rising is without a doubt a visual journey that is either a close hit or a far flung miss for most of it's viewers. It takes patience, an open mind and a bit of imagination to interpret this enigmatic film.

The film follows the journey of an enslaved warrior who kills his captors and travels with a young boy and a group of Viking Christians to Jerusalem. Only they never arrive in Jerusalem. Lost at sea, they soon discover it is not holy ground they've landed upon, but a new world as unforgiving as Hell itself.

The Film is broken into 6 Parts

Wraith 

Silent Warrior

Men of God

The Holy Land

Hell

The Sacrifice

  I'll just put it out there right now and say this is not a movie most ladies will enjoy. It's medieval brutality and ambiguous story are not  for the faint of heart.  And for those of you watching just so you can see Mads Mikk's awesome body. GET OUT. Yes it is definitely an enjoyable feature, but if you watch a film just for the body...I'll run after you fillet you. I believe I made it very clear in my review of the Hannibal series that I too possess a strange attraction to the Dane prince, but the majority of that attraction is to his talent.

  Mikkelsen is superb in this film. His performance only garners more praise because his character was a  MUTE. Yes that's right. He doesn't say a single word through out the whole film, but oh my stars is his performance incredible. OH! And he only has one eye. So now he's lost two of the key essentials that actors use in delivering a performance and still kills it. Mikkelsen uses his physicality to act as his voice, simply turning one way, or lowering a shoulder that way he concisely communicates the character's state of mind and stance. His presence speaks for itself.  

  The first 15 minutes of the film as I wrote before are stylistically brutal. Lot's of bare handed medieval mud fights where One-Eye literally beats an opponents skull open with a rock. As in Drive, when it finally comes time to show the violence, Refns doesn't hold back on the blood or gore. Honestly I love this. I think it adds emphasis but because each beating (both in Drive & Valhalla Rising) are relatively short scenes and not the entire film, he (Refns) can get away with it without being vulgar.  

  A recurring plot subject in Valhalla Rising is trust and devotion to God. After procuring One-Eye and the young boy, the Christians set out for Jerusalem. At first they believe the mighty warrior will bring them good luck, but when a mist sets in and the ship is lost at sea for an uncountable number of days, the men now see One-Eye as the devil. A bad omen delivering them all to the gates of Hell. 

           They end up on the coast of North America so close enough. 

  Through out the film One-Eye has, what I interpreted as, visions of the future.  The film will cut from a close up of one One-Eyes face in normal print and color to a close up of the injured side of his face filmed in black and red. After this the film cuts again to whatever bit of the future he may be seeing (all done in black and red coloring) An arrow head, where the ocean turns into a river, the native americans, and ultimately his own death. The first time it happened I had no idea what it was but each scene that he sees in red occurs later in the film i.e. seeing into the future.

  After landing on shore and loosing several of their ship mates, the Christian Vikings being to loose faith in their religious leader. They soon turn to One-Eye for guidance and follow him as their leader despite the boy telling them they're all going to die eventually. Valhalla Rising is packed with Religious symbolism near the end. Once the leader of the vikings dies, the events and style of Refns' directing clearly show One-Eye meant to represent some God or Jesus like leader who eventually sacrifices himself  to save the young boy. Valhalla itself is a heaven like structure in Norse mythology.     

"Valhalla Rising" was filmed entirely in Scotland and boast some gorgeous cinematography. 

Gary Lewis finds the light in "Valhalla Rising"

My favorite shot from "Valhalla Rising" AMAZING color spectrum.

 
  While it took some patience to watch, Valhalla Rising is a BEAUTIFULLY shot film with great cinematography, prime beating fight scenes, lots of thought provoking symbolism and an unforgettable, silent performance by Mads Mikkelsen. Final verdict, it was an intense movie going experience although I won't recommend it to everyone.