Noah (2014) – Review

Review: Noah is a visually impressive and character-driven adaptation of the story found in Genesis (which is very similar to other flood narratives from other comparative mythologies, predating the Book of Genesis). The film is about the world of men coming to an end. First there were Adam and Eve and they had three sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. Cain killed Abel and his descendants have built the empire of man, spreading man’s dominion over the world, but also corrupting and destroying the world with their greed and desire to consume everything without regard. Seth’s descendants, however, have been at peace with nature, living off the land and trying to be good in the eyes of the creator. Many years have passed; Noah and his three sons are the last descendants of Seth while Cain’s descendants have all but ruined the world. The creator speaks to Noah, giving him a task. He must build a great Ark to shelter the innocent (the animals and his own family) as the creator is sending a flood to cleanse the world of all other living things and their wickedness (except animals that live in salt water, they are fine, but all fresh water life is doomed as they have no place on the Ark and cannot survive the salt water). For Noah, this task is a great undertaking that will test his resolve and faith in the creator.

Let me start this review by first saying that like any other film adaptation based on something previously released, I base my review on the film alone and not on its relation to the story it is using as its inspiration. They are two sole and separate things (something people tend to forget and get upset when adaptations are different than they imagine they should be). Noah the film is not beholden to Noah the story in the Book of Genesis in any regard whatsoever. Writer-director Darren Aronofsky has his license as a storyteller to do whatever he wants with its characters, themes, and narrative, to adapt them to the narrative he wants to tell (the story of Noah is merely the base from which to build his own narrative), as any other filmmaker has with any other story they may be adapting. Again, each is its own completely separate thing with its own merits (and/or faults). I specifically and explicitly say this here because this story holds significant meaning to many who may or may not like this interpretation solely because of the way it compares to (their own interpretation of) the source material (although, one might argue that the story of Noah’s Ark in the Book of Genesis, like many other stories throughout the Bible, is an adaptation of other narratives that predate it, like the Sumerian flood in the Epic of Ziusudra or the Mesopotamian flood stories in Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts, taking, leaving, adding, and changing story elements to fit its own purpose).

Aronofsky’s narrative has a lot going on, and speaks to today’s audiences and addresses modern concerns. The film is in a way timeless, as these characters could exist in the past or far in the future (or even on a different planet). Aronofsky never explicitly refers to it as Earth (although, it is more or less inferred). The world of man is a dark and ugly one. Their cities are a stain upon the earth and they use everything without regard for the future (strip mining, butchering animals, and so on). Meanwhile, Noah and his family live solely off the land, only taking what they need and they are vegetarians. Aronofsky is clearly equating the world in which Noah lives to our own, one that is ravaged by decades of pollution and seemingly irreversible slights against nature. One in which we still value today above tomorrow, disregarding the long-term consequences that our actions have on the planet. Noah lives in harmony with his world while Tubal-cain (the King and descendant of Cain) and his people have destroyed the world around them. The creator favors Noah while wishing to eradicate everyone else. This could be read as a cautionary tale, in a sense. If we, as humans, do not change our behavior, our Earth may forever be ruined and become a barren wasteland that no longer supports life (as it is shown in the film). I am not much of an environmentalist; but from what I have read, the Earth’s climate has already been profoundly influenced by our current way of life, and while this may not be catastrophic in our lifetimes, or even the lifetimes of our children, it will be cataclysmic one day, a day that is being ever accelerated forward by are disregard today. Noah is a warning maybe? The great flood may not be immediate for us; but as the polar ice caps melt (at frighteningly alarming rates) and sea levels continue to rise, the great flood very well may eventually eradicate many of today’s major metropolitan areas gradually (apparently, this review is going to be a little preachy…happens).

The world of the film has an adventure fantasy feel to it, filled with monsters and magic (something I always felt too when I watched the cartoon stories at Sunday school, as if the world once had magic and other fantastical things and creatures, but they were all lost in time). Aronofsky, however, does a good job making these elements feel at home in his narrative. The animals are all slightly different from real animals (for example there is a dog looking animal that has scales or armor of some kind – like a dog mixed with an armadillo, but it works given the harsh conditions of the world in which it lives). Again playing into the notion that this may be like our world but is not our world (either in terms of taking place on a different planet or so far in the past or future that it is unrecognizable).

The aesthetic for the film is fairly dark and muted, as the world is mostly just a wasteland. Yet, when Aronofsky does use color, it creates something quite striking visually, juxtaposing the bleakness in which most of the narrative exists. I really like the manner in which he displays the story of creation and Adam and Eve (and so on). Along with Noah’s visions of the coming flood (which can also be taken as his conversations with the creator), these sequences seem to play almost like hallucinations with wonderful silhouetted figures and magnificent time-lapsed photography. If nothing else, Noah is visually impressive.

Like Aronofsky’s other films, Noah too is at its heart a character piece. Yes, the visuals and scale make this an epic, but Aronofsky is much more interested in the mental strain that Noah being chosen to carry out the creator’s task is having on the man and his relationship with both his family and mankind as a whole. It is a great burden – to be the one ultimately responsible for allowing mankind to essentially cease to exist. Noah believes that it is the creator’s intent that all men should die, leaving the world for the innocent (i.e. the animals, bugs, fish, and so on). This creates terrible tension in his relationship with his family. Noah seems to descend into madness and the film becomes very claustrophobic upon the Ark, almost as if the film has taken on the tone of a horror piece. Yet, Aronofsky does this to allow Noah the ability to make a profound choice between the love he feels for his family and the responsibility he feels he owes the creator. Love versus pain and death, in a sense. While the building of the Ark and gathering of all the animals is grand and epic, it is these emotional questions that make the film truly interesting and compelling on a deeper level.

I also found the dichotomy between Noah and Tubal-cain to be very interesting. Noah is obviously the hero of the film and Tubal-cain the villain (there is even a scene of Tubal-cain murdering Noah’s father in the prologue), but it does not always feel that way. Tubal-cain gives a rousing speech at one point, rallying his people to take the Ark and live, preserving humanity. This speech plays in such a way that it almost wins over the audience too. Humanity has its faults, yes, but as selfish beings we always root for our own preservation above all else. There is a part of us that wants to see humanity continue, because there is always hope that tomorrow will be better (even if we seem to only act in a manner that champions today). Plus, Noah is half-crazed and unlikable by this point in the film. We too find that the ambitions of the creator (to cleanse the world) are secondary to our own survival, and thus for a moment, we may root for Tubal-cain (even though he is mostly despicable). And later, when Noah is on the Ark, alone with his family, vowing to carry out what he believes is the intention of the creator for all human life to end, splintering his relationship with his family, we again find ourselves rooting against Noah. But in the end, he chooses humanity, hope, and love, thereby redeeming himself in the eyes of the audience, finding his way through the madness and coming out the other side willing to start again, hopefully forging a better world.

Overall, Noah is a grand film experience with wonderfully illustrious and impressive visuals and a gritty and emotionally compelling central character-driven narrative. Noah must endure great personal strain and sacrifice that takes a mighty toll on the man. That said, parts of Aronofsky’s film are a tad heavy handed and the pacing is at times a bit slow. This is an epic blockbuster-style film that features all the flash and bang of other blockbusters, but lacks the overall entertainment, instead creating a deeply gritty emotional character journey. In this sense, it is a blockbuster that is not actually a blockbuster at all. It is very ambitious, and for all its little faults, still manages to be something quite spectacular.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Noah is very much in the same vein as Darren Aronofsky’s other films (it is his sixth feature). It is dark and gritty and at its center features a character falling prey to seemingly un-yielding outside pressures (it reminded me of my favorite of his films, Black Swan, in moments). Noah allows Aronofsky to look at the darkness in man; but unlike Black Swan, this time the protagonist can find his way out the other side, allowing the audience to also see the good in man, the redeemable quality of man, and that man ultimately has choice/reason – the thing that sets him apart from beasts (who are presumably ruled by instinct and not reason). It is not just that the creator rules the world and men are but his pawns to do with what he will; man ultimately has to make his own choices, to be good or bad (simply put), for himself alone, as it is man who must make his home in this world. This was my take away from Aronofsky’s film at least.

As stated above, the aesthetics in the film are fantastic. Clint Mansell’s score very well might be the best part of Noah. It is powerful and not what I was expecting, featuring very dark overtones (I should have remembered who was directing the film). The score accompanies and accentuates the emotional journey of Noah and his family, while also giving an even more epic feel to the grand scale of a few of the sequences. Matthew Libatique’s cinematography is very good. The film is almost void of color, as Noah’s world has regressed into such a state that it is seemingly no longer habitable. It is barren and lifeless. This juxtaposes wonderfully with the beautiful greens that find their way in once the forest to build the Ark is generated. The mountain where Noah’s grandfather lives also is strikingly juxtaposed to its surroundings. Once on the Ark, when the film becomes rather claustrophobic and takes on more of a horror/thriller tone (trapped in a floating rectangle with a bunch of sleeping wild animals and father’s gone a bit crazy – it almost feels like The Shining), the photography is very gritty, again complementing the intended emotional experience. My favorite photography, however, came during the sequences that involved the characters silhouetted against the colored sky – very beautiful. Mark Friedberg’s production design is impressive as well. The most astonishing visual in the film is the completed Ark (which they built to scale, using the measurements in the Book of Genesis). The interiors of the ark are cool as well.

 The cast overall is very good. Douglas Booth, playing Noah’s oldest son Shem, is probably the weakest, appearing in the film as not much more than a pretty face. Logan Lerman, playing Noah’s second son Ham (who named these kids), has the difficult task of being the rebellious and envious son. It is an upward battle (in our modern culture in which audiences are sort of fed up with “emo” as a thing) that Lerman never quite wins, but he is decent. Emma Watson, playing Noah’s adoptive daughter Ila, is very good, and in some ways is probably the second or third lead. Ila’s journey is much more emotionally compelling than Shem or Ham’s. She was left for dead when Noah found her and raised her as one of his own. There is a special bond between them, which makes it all the more heartbreaking when Noah and Ila come into direct confrontation. Watson is able to hold her own in her scenes opposite Russell Crowe’s Noah (when he is very intense). Anthony Hopkins plays Noah’s grandfather Methuselah with sort of a whimsical hamminess, but it works in the context of fantasy troupes (he feels like he might be out of The Princess Bride to some extent). Ray Winstone is very good as Tubal-cain. He is in moments the villain and the hero. He is ruled by his own self desire (but who is not). Given the fact that he knows that his world is about to come to an end and Noah has the only means of potential survival, it seems only human for him to do everything he can to survive. Winstone, however, does a good job reminding the audience that he is despicable overall though – that he is indeed the villain. Jennifer Connelly is also very good as Noah’s wife Naameh. Connelly brings a lot of strength to the roll and can go head-to-head against Crowe in the very dramatic moments (she has maybe the best in-scene performance of the film when she tells Noah how it will be if he continues down his intended course once on the Ark). Crowe is great as Noah, a deeply conflicted character. There is so much turmoil and pain in his eyes. Crowe is able to exude such love and affection in one moment and then utter conviction and madness in another. The film would not work without his strong work at its center.

Summary & score: Noah has imposing and thrilling visuals, but its character moments make it something compelling and not just a fleeting popcorn blockbuster. Noah’s internal struggle with the seemingly impossible task he is asked to perform results in a film that is intense and emotionally involving at its core. 7/10

The Bling Ring (2013) – Review

Review: The Bling Ring is a stylish look at celebrity, the new American Dream, and today’s culturally vapid and self-entitled youth. The film is about five teens who decide to rob the homes of celebrities.

Writer-director Sofia Coppola approaches this true story with a detached perspective. The audience is neither a part of the group, as Coppola never really digs deeply into what motivates them, or completely outside, as the narrative never leaves its leads. Marc and Rebecca serve as the film’s leads. Marc is new to his high school and has self-esteem issues. He is the most relatable character for the audience, as he is the audience’s way into the group and he seems to somewhat elaborate on why he stole (and may even feel slightly regretful about it at first), but his sincerity is questionable. It feels like he is more nervous about being caught than actually being conflicted about whether or not what he is doing is wrong. Rebecca, on the other hand, is a kleptomaniac. She gets a thrill from stealing in addition to it being an easy way she can fill her need for nice things. She sees celebrities, their lifestyles and thinks that there is no reason why she should not have the same life. She wants to be them (on a deeply psychological level), and thus she does what she has to do to afford that lifestyle. When she breaks into Paris Hilton’s house, it is not just about stealing, she imagines herself living in the house – she just wants to hang out and absorb the full experience. The third lead, Nicki, is also fame obsessed. Her whole life revolves around how she might elevate herself to celebrity status (which seems to be normal behavior based on her friends and home life – so who can blame her). Like Rebecca and (to a lesser extent) Marc, Nicki does not feel any semblance of shame or regret for her actions. In fact, it was just a learning experience for her, a stepping stone on her way towards fame. They aspire to be the same as these people. They are constantly engorged on personal details of their lives, and thus try to emulate them. They go to the same nightclubs, wear the same closes, and try to embody the same outward appearance and attitude (which is mostly fake – a show for the media).

The Bling Ring is not a full on satire of these seemingly celebrity and fame obsessed teens however. Rather, Coppola’s film plays as sort of a commentary on the cultural attitude that has developed in America (and to some extent the rest of the World). Why are we so interested in celebrities? Compared to the average American, their lives must seem fantastical. They surround themselves with beautiful things. The myth of the American Dream has always revolved around the idea of the self-made man – hard work is how one achieves their dreams. Now, it is the opposite. Driven by media’s oversaturation of every facet of a celebrity’s life – in L.A., London, New York, Paris paparazzi stalk celebrities every moment of their lives (and they do this because it is all lapped up by the public) – the American Dream has been warped. Fame is now seemingly the easiest way to achieve all the riches of the World. Work is also now a negative word, only saps work for a living. Today’s youth truly believe that they deserve the same wealth that they see in others and it is not fair that they do not have it. Thus, stealing is not really a negative action because they are merely appropriating what they deserve. Consumerism has overtaken almost every other value.

Thus when Marc, Rebecca, Nicki, Chloe, and Sam break into the houses of the celebrities, Coppola styles it as almost dreamlike. They are entering a magical wonderland full of treasures ready for them to exploit. There is a thrill to it all. Plus, Coppola displays these houses like fantastical palaces lit up against the night sky, sparkling and wondrous. Who would not be allured by these spectacular residences? There are beautiful shots of the teens’ silhouettes against the moonlight as they frolic from or to a score, which elicits a feeling of fantasy, again evoking sort at dreamlike aesthetic.

Yet, Coppola still maintains separation from the characters. What at first feels exciting, like explorers uncovering a great bounty, starts to distort into something much more uncomfortable. As the group takes down more and more houses, there is a shift that occurs subtly. Coppola conveys a feeling of disgust towards each new heist. There is an uncomfortable feeling that the audience begins to have, like they are watching strangers go through their own homes, their own personal stuff. The dream fades into the reality that this is nothing more than petty greed and larceny. There is nothing romantic about these characters or their actions.

There is a sense that develops that Coppola not only does not like these characters, but that she feels no pity for them either. They are almost nothing more than soulless hooligans – explaining the blasé manner by which they confront their crimes. They are only upset because they got caught (or because society tells them that they should present an outward appearance of regret so as to be not as harshly judged). Coppola does not explore their motivations on a character level because they are not specific to them – it is a cultural epidemic.

Coppola most harshly (but subtly) addresses what populates this cultural obsession with celebrity. The Bling Ring is filled with sequences of media aggrandizing celebrity and anything surrounding it. The characters themselves are hounded by paparazzi when their names come out in connection to the burglaries. They even find themselves on television, assuming some level of celebrity themselves – to some extent achieving what they always wanted. Thus, taking what they believed was theirs seems to pay off. But for Coppola, the whole thing feels very vulgar. The media that creates this hunger for gossip and need for personal information (that would seems outrageous if it were you or me) is just as guilty if not more so than these teens. The only difference between these teens and the average American teen (or teen growing up surrounded by the culture explored in the film) is that they actually had the fortitude to take it a step further. Their actions are not condemned by their peers or the media, rather on both accounts it is promoted. They are not vilified but awarded (particularly in the case of Nicki). This is what Coppola is fascinated by, and disgusted by. This is not a tale of ‘crime does not pay’ as the final moments reveal Nicki being interviewed on television (achieving some level of fame – something that she always wanted), but a tale of the corruption of American culture – the souls of our youth.

The Bling Ring does have a narrative through line, and Coppola does manage the pacing well, but unlike most narrative films the characters are not the central aspect of the film. Coppola uses them (and their story) more as a foil by which to explore American youth culture. The lack of strong character development does make the film more difficult to relate to for the audience, as really none of the characters are likable, and the audience never gets to know them well enough to see a deeper more emotional side to them. They are all just emotionally superficial, but that was part of the point Coppola is trying to make. Coppola’s detachment also seemingly leaves the audience wondering how to feel about the actions of the characters (or the characters themselves), but the film certainly seems to lend itself to a critical reading of today’s celebrity obsessed culture in addition to the attitude that seems to have developed among young people that they deserve all the World has to offer without working for it – there existence is enough to justify their desires. It is not fair that they are subjected to their level of wealth when they see those that have more. Coppola’s film does not paint a positive picture.

In many ways, The Bling Ring is equally a fairytale and an indictment of American culture. This is the brilliance of Coppola’s film. It enchants the viewer with the excitement of these teens looting these ‘celebrities’ (who themselves are somewhat vilified in the media, so the teens are only robbing ‘bad’ people anyway right), but the film also begins to reveal just how grotesque the whole attitude and culture is, propagated by the media and consumed by America. No one comes away looking good.

Technical, aesthetic and acting achievements: Sofia Coppola has continually been accused of making films that value style over substance. But, she is not making narrative films in the traditional sense. For example, Somewhere works much more as a montage piece as images and scenes are juxtaposed to create a feeling or idea. The Bling Ring is no different. Coppola again has made a wonderfully stylish film that seemingly lacks substance in terms of characters, but she is exploring an idea with the film using the characters merely as a template. The film exists in between the forms of expressionistic art and narrative filmmaking. I think it is her best work since Lost in Translation, as it is a socially piercing look at American culture while still maintaining a high degree of artistic merit.

 Composers Daniel Lopatin and Brian Reitzell create a score that works tonally very well with the film. Their compositions plays into the dreamlike feel of many of the burglary scenes. The Bling Ring also features a brilliant soundtrack that seems to perfectly capture the youth attitude on display (with songs like M.I.A.’s Bad Girls and Azealia Banks’s 212, for example). Christopher Blauvelt and Harris Savides (who the film is dedicated to, as he passed away during its production) provide the film with magnificent cinematography. The exterior shots during the theists are often remarkable. There is a scene in particular in which the camera lingers outside from a far as Marc and Rebecca pillage Audrina Patridge’s house. It is enchanting, skillfully embodying Coppola’s detachment and the film’s thematic dichotomy. Anna Ross’s production design is also evocative. Paris Hilton allowed Coppola to film in her actual house, but Ross’s design work for the other celebrity homes is fantastic as it personifies the fantasy aspect of the film (as the homes just seem absurdly glorious – though, that feeling is strongest at Hitlon’s home). However by the time the group robs Rachel Bilson’s house, Ross has toned down the opulence greatly, and it feels much more like they are just ransacking a normal house and not some grand wonderland. Another interesting aspect to Ross’s work is that all the members of the group live in nice homes too (especially Chloe).

While Coppola does not explore her characters in detail, the cast does strong work bringing them to life. Leslie Mann plays Nicki’s mother, who herself seems obsessed with fame, as she homeschools her children on the beliefs of The Secret (which just seems ludicrous). She is oblivious and enabling towards her daughters’ behavior. Mann plays her well. Taissa Farmiga and Claire Julien play the two supporting members of the group, an adopted sister who is less pretty and vying for her place and a spoiled rich girl who is wild because she can be, respectively. They are along for the ride and enjoying every minute of it. Emma Watson (playing completely off type) is fantastic as the sociopath Nicki, a girl who is really only concerned with herself. She would be a villain in most frames, but here she seems to merely be a product of her time and surroundings. Watson shows off her range. Israel Broussard has the tough job of playing Marc, a character who seems like he could be sympathetic, but is equally shallow and unaffected by his actions. Katie Chang plays Rebecca the group’s ringleader. She does a great job playing sort of the mean girl role as she seemingly pressures Marc into each situation (but his apprehension stems more from fear than a feeling of what he is doing is wrong), but where she really excels is in her glazed over coldness when confronted with her actions. There is not a true hint of remorse in any of them.

Summary & score: The Bling Ring is aesthetically beautiful and engaging as it straddles the line between artistic expression and narrative filmmaking in its scathing look at the state of celebrity obsessed culture. 8/10

This Is the End (2013) – Review

Review: This Is the End is hilarious, insane, and above all very entertaining. The film is about best friends Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel who decide to get together for a weekend of hanging out (playing video games and smoking weed). Jay, being from Montreal, does not really like the celebrity-obsessed atmosphere of LA but begrudgingly agrees to accompany Seth to a party at James Franco’s house. Seth and Jay begin to feel at odds as Seth is very comfortable in the surroundings and with his ‘new’ friends, while Jay just wants to leave (and hates everyone there). However, suddenly, what seems like The Apocalypse happens, with many of the party guests being killed. Now, Seth and Jay are stuck in James Franco’s house with James, Jonah Hill, Danny McBride, and Craig Robinson. Will they survive?

Writer-directors Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg have created something comically wonderful with This Is the End pairing Judd Apatow style (self-deprecating) improvisational humor with what amounts to be a horror style action-thriller. Much in the style of Ricky Gervais’s Extras, the actors all play somewhat exaggerated versions of themselves (for comedic and dramatic effect), allowing them to basically make fun of each other and themselves in sort of a meta way (as presumably the audience has seen most of these actors’ films and TV shows and knows who they are). In a strange way, even though the characters are still fictional depictions, the drama seems heightened as well due to the audience connecting to these famous people (as themselves). Thus, the audience enjoys the humor more because they are laughing with and at the actors, fully aware of their past work and personas, and are more dramatically engaged as well, which combined amplifies the overall experience.

However, if the viewer is oblivious to these actors and their past work, a lot of the jokes and elevated sense of excitement will probably be lost, and the film will not play nearly as well (and may not work at all). The story is very simple and not a lot of character development occurs (because they filmmakers assume the viewer does know going in). Additionally, the humor is almost completely dependent on the viewer knowing (to some extent) the personas of these actors (like James Franco being really into reading literature and studying art or Danny McBride personifying his Eastbound & Down character Kenny Powers). In this way, the film is like a sequel to the actors’ careers up until this point in time. To appreciate the sequel, the viewer must see what comes before it first.

But if the viewer is in the know, the humor throughout is very funny thanks to a talented cast (these are basically the best young comedians in Hollywood right now, for the most part). All these actors have come up through the ranks of or have frequently worked with Judd Apatow and the overall style of comedy in this film is very much in his mode. It feels like these actors (who are all friends in real life) just got together with a thinly outlined plot and just improvised jokes and scenarios (Evan Goldberg even made it his mission to get the actors to do more and more outrageous gags until they were too embarrassed or offended and said no – Rogen and Franco both never said no). Many of the jokes are very crude in nature, and there is a sense of each actor competing to come up with better, funnier stuff. The result is a comedy that is hysterical all the way through (and easily the funniest film so far this year) and there is a camaraderie among the actors that the audience can feel.

This Is the End also works as an action-thriller. First-time directors Rogen and Goldberg keep the film moving, which is vital to the film’s thriller aspect. The narrative does not lose momentum, and they also strike a good balance with the ‘empty space’ moments that are needed for the improv-comedy and the action sequences. Rogen and Goldberg also escalate the stakes and the danger as the film progresses – as things get rather insane and the third act is brilliantly funny and exciting. While it is certainly a comedy first, it is also a good action-thriller.

All in all, This Is the End is a marvelous comedy that is engaging as an action-thriller and riotously funny. However, again, liking and being aware of these actors and their past work is probably essential to maximizing the enjoyment of this film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen have written some very funny stuff in the past (Superbad and Pineapple Express), but This Is the End clearly shows that they have a talent for directing comedy as well. The film has sort of a loose documentary style, fitting the premise, and Goldberg and Rogen often just let the camera linger on the actors allowing them to perform (and be funny). In addition to getting the pacing right (which is probably the hardest part of feature narrative filmmaking), they also find the right tone for the film – completely ridiculous, keeping things funny, while still with a constant feeling of impending thrills. In this way, it works much like a horror film. The audience is constantly expecting something frightening to jump out or a character to suddenly and gruesomely be killed. The audience is laughing, but on their toes – a great combination.

Henry Jackman’s score works well, underlining the tone and emphasizing the apocalyptic aspects, but it is the film’s brilliant soundtrack to steals the show. Goldberg and Rogen seem to find the perfect song to fit each moment (they probably spent as much acquiring the rights to use all the great and fitting songs as on the rest of the film itself, and it pays off). Brandon Trost’s cinematography also fits the tone well. His lighting creates a heightened, darker reality – an atmosphere for the crumbling of society that looks gritty and stylized. By the end of the film, LA basically looks like how we might imagine Hell. Chris Spellman’s production design is strong too. His set for James Franco’s house is great, as it works both as a joke on Franco and as the perfect bunker for a catastrophe. I also loved the juxtaposition of the neighbor’s house that the characters enter later. It is so neat and polished in comparison.

While the story is fresh and original and the soundtrack is great, the cast really makes the film. This Is the End features small supporting work from tons of great comedians (all of whom have worked on Apatow projects in the past – many from as far back as Freaks and Geeks and/or Undeclared). And, there are some fun cameos. Michael Cera (who is rambunctiously silly) and Emma Watson (who seems to be having a blast) are both good in their supporting roles. However, most of the film is spent with its six stars. Danny McBride is so much fun, as he exudes misguided swagger and mischievousness. Jonah Hill plays himself as someone who just wants everyone to like him and think he is cool, coming off like a complete tool. Craig Robinson is brilliant playing himself as being insecure and lovable. James Franco is very funny, as he plays off his own lore. He is also not afraid to make himself out to be ridiculous (much like McBride). Jay Baruchel does a good job as well playing the outsider, which also works in bringing the audience into the story. To some extent, he plays their perspective in the film. And finally, Seth Rogen is good as well. He is the element that brings all these characters together and is the peacemaker, but also secretly selfish and not a hero.

Summary & score: This Is the End is something fresh in a genre that has become complacent and boring. It strives to be something different and bonkers (much like The Cabin in the Woods), and it achieves it in all the right ways. 8/10  

LeapBackBlog 2012 Film Awards – Part 2: Supporting Performances

Film in 2012 may not have been quite as strong overall as 2011, but right at the top there were a lot of good and very entertaining films. 2012 also featured many wonderful performances, particularly among men (many great performances that would have made my lists in past years were sadly left off). The LeapBackBlog Film Awards are comprised of what I think were the best and most interesting films, the strongest performances (taking into consideration who the actor is and what else they have done), the narrative style that drew me in (best directing), and exquisite craftsmanship (best technical achievements). But really, these are lists of my favorites from the year.

Part 1: Technical Achievements

Part 3: Directors

Part 4: Leading Performances

Part 5: Films

Amy Adams – The Master

Playing Peggy, Amy Adams at first seems to be a quiet doting wife to Lancaster Dodd, kind and gentle, but as the film progresses it becomes clear that she is really the one with the control and power behind The Cause. Adams’s work in The Master is therefore sort of misleading. She does not seem to have much dramatic work, and yet is a commanding presence in many of the scenes (most of which she is just sitting and watching – it is only near the end of the film where is vocally asserts her true authority). And thus, her performance is a key component to the film. It is one of the year’s more difficult subtle performances (and best).

Javier Bardem – Skyfall

Villains seem to make up a lot of 2012’s best supporting work, and Javier Bardem’s Silva in Skyfall is maybe the best of the lot. James Bond villains have always been amplified and sort of comically evil (and we love them for that reason). Bardem captures the essence of the typical Bond villain but also does something new. Silva actually makes Bond uncomfortable (as well as the audience to some extent), because he is much more than Bond’s equal. He is a real threat to Bond, more so than any villain in the franchise’s history. The performance is completely magnetic – the scene in which Bond and Silva first meet is among the year’s best.

Alison Brie – The Five-Year Engagement

Alison Brie is hysterical in The Five-Year Engagement playing the sister (Suzie) of one of the film’s leads (Violet). Along with Chris Pratt (who is also killer in support), she delivers much of the film’s funniest moments (as the leads are given most of the drama). Brie is particularly fantastic giving a speech at her sister’s engagement part, on the verge of tears, and giving her sister a pep talk later in the film in an Elmo voice (maybe the film’s best scene). Comedy is always overlooked, but Brie just radiates too brightly to be ignored.

Leonardo DiCaprio – Django Unchained

Django Unchained is full of great and fun performances. Jamie Foxx is at his best in the lead as Django and Christoph Waltz (who very easily could have made this list, and would have in most years) is top-notch in support. But, it is Leonardo DiCaprio who shines the brightest. He is thoroughly insane as Calvin Candie, a cruel plantation owner. While Waltz is funny and engaging, DiCaprio is forcibly dynamic as he seemingly by sheer will takes over every scene commanding the attention of the audience (and the other characters). He is the focus of all his scenes. Villains often have the latitude to go big with their performances, and DiCaprio goes huge. He is an absolute blast to watch.

Tom Hardy – The Dark Knight Rises

Tom Hardy had the impossible task of following Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight playing Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. The role is also particularly challenging as Hardy’s face is almost altogether obstructed by a mask. Yet, he is brilliant. Using his body language and the way he moves, along with his menacing eyes, Hardy constructs Batman’s most brutal foe. Bane also very much lives in the gypsy voice that Hardy gives him – his line delivery (though, it does take some getting used to – but it does become easily understandable eventually) is playful and authoritative, an odd combination but it completely works. Every scene that Hardy is in is a pleasure to watch. He certainly lives up to Ledger’s Joker.

Anne Hathaway – Les Miserables

After seeing The Dark Knight Rises, Anne Hathaway seemed destined to make this list for her fantastic work as Selina Kyle (essentially giving the definitive performance as the character). However, her work in Les Miserables as Fantine is even better. She is heartbreaking, leaving every viewer emotionally touched. Her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream is magnificent, perfectly capturing the dismal low that Fantine finds herself in, having lost everything. The viewer forgets that they are watching an actress and a performance. It is probably the best performance of the year (at least in support).

Philip Seymour Hoffman – The Master

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s work in The Master is among his best. As Lancaster Dodd, the man at the head of The Cause, he has a wonderful duality to his performance. He is completely infatuated with himself and utterly oozing with confidence, and yet he also seems completely lost and alone, shackled in solitude by the farce he has created around himself. Whenever Hoffman is on screen, he demands the attention of the audience, as the center of it all – and the audience completely obliges him as they cannot look away. His work is just too compelling. The scenes between Hoffman and lead Joaquin Phoenix are especially electric.

Ezra Miller – The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Following up on his brilliant work in We Need to Talk About Kevin, Ezra Miller turns in another phenomenal performance in The Perks of Being a Wallflower as Patrick. Miller has so much energy and intensity in the film that he pulls the audience’s attention towards him in every scene (which is the mark of truly great work – the viewer cannot look away). Patrick burns almost too brightly, that when he gets low there almost seems to be a lull or void, and Miller is able to capture these darker emotions of sadness and loneness incredibly well. While 2012 was full of great supporting work by male actors, Miller might just turn in the year’s best performance in the category (a performance that has been shamefully overlooked).

Kelly Reilly – Flight

Flight has a number of wonderful supporting performances in it – namely from John Goodman, James Badge Dale, and Kelly Reilly – however, it is Reilly that serves as the film’s heart playing Nicole, a vital role given Whip’s fall (the film’s lead character). Her work in the film needed to be strong, as she allows the audience to get behind Whip, even despite himself and his vices, because she believes in him and is behind him. Reilly is also a ray of hope in Whip’s life as she too is an addict, but a recovering one who is determined to start her life anew. As good as Denzel Washington is in Flight, the film would just not be the same emotionally without Reilly’s excellent supporting work.

Emma Watson – The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Emma Watson grew up before the eyes of cinemagoers playing Hermione Granger for over a decade in the Harry Potter franchise. Starting as a newcomer to acting, she got better with each film devolving into one of Hollywood’s great young stars (her work in the Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2 is especially strong). In The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Watson has the difficult role of playing both the ‘dream girl’ and a well-drawn realistic character as Sam, and she pulls it off beautifully. She wins the audience and Charlie over with her charms, but is not without flaws and struggles – once again presenting young women with a female character they can relate to and care about (when Hollywood seldom offers good female characters).

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) – Review

Review: The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a charmingly sincere and humorous yet emotionally charged high school drama. The film is about a troubled freshman, Charlie, starting his first day of high school. He has no friends and feels invincible. That is, until two seniors Sam and Patrick take him under their wing and introduce him to a new world, bringing about both good and bad emotions in Charlie.

High school dramas and comedies have been done well in the past (things like Freaks and Geeks, Rebel Without a Cause and for most of us: the films of John Hughes, among others). With The Perks of Being a Wallflower, writer-director Stephen Chbosky has captured both the good parts (hanging out with friends, young love and having your whole life in front of you) and the anguish (being an outsider, being bullied and the emotional development of our teenage years) of the high school experience. And, like most high school films, he has approached the topic with a protagonist that is not one of the cool kids. Charlie is emotionally fragile and even unstable (having been in treatment following the suicide of his best friend), but he is generally a very nice and innocent guy. Using Charlie as the audience’s window, Chbosky explores high school in a much different way than viewers are use to – in that, Charlie is not just interested in girls, sports and other pursuits that drive typical high school students. All he really wants are friends, and more specifically people he can connect with so he does not have to feel so alone. Being alone causes him to overthink everything in his life, which leads him back towards his destructive behavior (as it did after his friend’s suicide). Thus, Charlie approaches life from a very sincere and naïve place, making the seemingly more mundane experiences feel fresh, grand and even funny. The audience cares about Charlie, even though he may come from a place somewhat foreign to them, because there is a piece of him that they all can relate to – be it him being an outsider, having his first love (or crush) or finally finding a place where he feels comfortable. If anything, this is a film about Charlie coming into his own (much like a coming-of-age story).

Chbosky is also not afraid to take on the more difficult and darker subjects that teens face with his narrative (the film somewhat reminds me of It’s Kind of a Funny Story in this manner, but this has much more of an impact on the viewer). In doing so, he puts an emotional strain of the audience, as he has done such a great job of relating Charlie to the audience and making them care about him. His supporting characters are also well drawn and complex. The emotional drama builds throughout, and while Chbosky does defuse a lot of it with humor for the first three-fourths of the film he does not shy away from allowing the film to have a strong emotional impact on the audience. The character journeys (specifically Charlie, Patrick and Sam’s) mean something to the audience. Chbosky is not intimidated by a general feeling that audiences and studios seemingly just want fun and entertaining teen movies. His characters feel real, with hopes and dreams – and most importantly flaws and important struggles that they try to overcome, struggles that the audience can take stock in and feel something about. This is not just another throwaway high school film. This has something important to say about being at that stage in life and those experiences. And hopefully, taking on the darker and difficult subjects and getting the audience to care will help change the way people treat others in the future (to not bully others, not use people, not push people to the edge where they feel like there is no escape, not treat people abhorrently because they might be different, and not turn your back on someone in need just to save face or because it is easier).

There is also a nostalgic aspect to the film. Not just in the time period, though that does come through in the great soundtrack, but to the wonder and excitement of being young, when everything is new. Again getting back to Charlie as the protagonist, his innocence gives the audience almost a pure and fresh way to relive some of those experiences, while still having the nostalgia of remembering their own similar experiences in comparison. It is this part of good teen films that seems so appealing – the going back. And yet, Chbosky has a lot of pain here too to go with the joy, pain that most of us can relate to as well in some way.

Structure wise, Chbosky has veered away from most high school and teen films. At first this seems like a film about making friends and finding love (a bit like Mitch’s journey in Dazed and Confused), but then it delves much deeper into the characters and their more rooted issues. Thus, structurally the film seems like it has different sections, rather than being just one flowing narrative. Yet, Chbosky manages to keep the audience’s attention, even when switching dramatic focus, by keeping the narrative character driven. While most teen films are about a character or characters trying to accomplish something, this film is about the characters just being, and the issues and happiness they have – their coming to understand a deeper truth about themselves.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is one of the more dramatically heavy teen films (especially one targeted at teens). Though, it still has enough wonderful humor to keep things light enough for the audience to breath. It is the first great teen drama/comedy for this decade.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Stephen Chbosky’s shooting style for the film is mostly straightforward (in terms of an indie drama) with a few stylish choices to fit the tone. Really, his film is about the performances and the characters, and in this he has done an excellent job capturing great work. I look forward to what he does next.

Michael Book’s score works well emphasizing the tone and emotions of the film, though it is the soundtrack that steals the show (stuff like The Smith’s Asleep, while Cracker’s Low felt very nostalgic – I just remember listening to that song a lot in the summer of 1994 watching the World Cup). Andrew Dunn’s photography and lighting are fantastic. The camera is intimate at times and detached in others, mirroring the feelings of the characters. Production designer Inbal Weinberg’s also does fine work. The color scheme of the film seems to play an active role in the emotional make-up of the characters, while the sets play toward the more general themes in the film – being inviting and foreign when need be (for example: the set for Sam’s bedroom seems like a perfect fit for Charlie to feel comfortable, just as he is in love with her, while the school halls where he is often bullied feel very desolate).

The power of the film, however, is built from Chbosky’s great script and the very good performances he has garnered. There are a lot of young actors in the film. Among the supporting players, Johnny Simmons, Nina Dobrev, Adam Hagenbuch, and Erin Wilhemi all are good in their small roles. Mae Whitman, also in a small role, steals a few scenes and is fantastic. Paul Rudd is very charming and likable (as always). Emma Watson plays Sam, Charlie’s crush. She portrays the character to be very much the girl the audience falls for (relating with Charlie), but also gives her depth and dramatic weight. Ezra Miller is brilliant in the film, giving one of the year’s best performances playing Patrick. He is electric, pulling focus towards himself in every scene he is in (this, building off of last year’s We Need to Talk about Kevin, is a star-making turn). Logan Lerman is great as Charlie, as well (giving probably the best performance of his career to date). He brings just the right amount of shyness, awkwardness and innocence to really draw the audience in before delving deeper into his issues.

Summary & score: The Perks of Being a Wallflower draws the viewer in with its humor, wonderfully developed characters and compelling performances, only to emotionally engage them with weighty drama. 8/10

My Week with Marilyn (2011) – Review

Review: My Week with Marilyn is both a character study and short-form biography (like a time-in-the-life, specifically of Marilyn Monroe through the eyes of Colin Clark). The film is about Monroe’s experience in England making The Prince and the Showgirl with Laurence Olivier, as told by a young man on his first film set (and first job) as the film’s third assistant director. Director Simon Curtis creates a common structure to this type of film. While Colin is the lead in terms of who the camera stays with, it is Marilyn who is the star. The film is completely built around Michelle Williams’s performance. If she is not good, the film will be awful – but she is good and thus the film works. Curtis and Williams present Marilyn as not a very likable character, as she is seems completely fake and manipulative – even if what she shows you is the truth, nothing is trustworthy and so you are never sure. And yet, she is completely engaging and you cannot take your eyes off her. In this, Curtis and Williams have created the aura of Marilyn and is the reason the film completely captivates its audience despite being filled with unlikable lead characters (for the most part). The allure of Marilyn is why the audience can relate to Colin even though his actions (especially towards Lucy) are less than gentlemanly. But, he is also naïve to the world, and thus his wonder also excuses his behavior. Marilyn’s personal troubles are very much known due to her sad end, and the film does not explore new territory – rather the look into the psyche of screen legends Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier is almost more interesting (if Williams was not so compelling). Narrative speaking, the film is a bit muddled. It is a character study of Marilyn, but told through sort of a coming-of-age story. The character study works but is nothing new in terms of exploring Marilyn, and the coming-of-age story is undeveloped and the audience does not really care about Colin (again due to the complete viewer and scene gravitation towards Marilyn). This leaves My Week with Marilyn a good but not great film. It is built upon Williams’s performance, and that is really the reason to see it. As a side note, the film fan (and student) in me loved the filmmaking background of the film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Simon Curtis makes his feature debut with this film, having done lots of good work on TV. Slight narrative and story issues aside, Curtis has a great talent at garnering wonderful performances from his actors, making him someone to watch in British cinema (his style sort of reminds me of fellow British director Tom Hooper, who came out of TV to become an Oscar winning director with his third feature). Conrad Pope’s score is good and works well with the tone of the film, but the best piece of music is Marilyn’s Theme which is written by Alexandre Desplat (who could have the best score category to himself). Ben Smithard’s cinematography in the film can be exalted for his ability to light Michelle Williams so beautifully, again helping Curtis and Williams create the aura of Marilyn. Donal Woods’s production design captures the period look wonderfully. But, as stated above, this is a film built primarily on performances (not story). The performances are great (and thus the film is good). Julia Ormond, Judi Dench, Dominic Cooper, and Emma Watson (showing that she can be good in something post-Harry Potter) are all good in small supporting roles. Eddie Redmayne continues to develop as one of the best young British actors. He does a good job with Colin presenting him as completely fresh in the world (which the story dictated as a necessity). Kenneth Branagh is fantastic as Laurence Olivier. He plays maybe the biggest stage star in England at the time with such a veiled vulnerability. However, and this is true of Williams as well, his performance also comes off as if he is playing a character (not wholly becoming the character), but again he is very good in the film. Williams is astonishing as Marilyn. While it does seem as if she is playing a caricature, she captures the essence of Marilyn perfectly and to an extent Marilyn was playing a role her whole profession public life (which is why Williams comes off that way).

Summary & score: My Week with Marilyn is going to work the best for those who enjoy very good performances, cinema history and period dramas. 7/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011) – Review

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a wonderful conclusion to the Harry Potter series. Like his other Potter films, director David Yates mixes in lighter moments and humor into what has predominately been a dark and emotionally dark story. However, there is a lot less of it in this film, as the sheer scale and emotional weight on all the characters of what is about to transpire (Voldemort and his army standing outside Hogwarts about to lay siege, surely meaning the obliteration of all they are and love) gives little room for humor – though Yates is still able to inject just enough into the drama to give the audience time to breath and cut the tension. As with Part 1, the aesthetic of this film is magnificent. Yates and his creative team have done an absolutely marvelous job getting the look and tone of the film just right. While Part 1 was mostly a character piece, Part 2 is more action based, producing a very entertaining film that briskly moves forward (essentially the whole film takes place over the course of one day), though there is still some very good character work. Yates also slightly deviates from his shooting style in Part 1 (aside from the prologue and epilogue, it is focused completely on Harry’s perspective). In Part 2, the camera stays with Harry primarily during the main section of the film but also leaves his perspective at times to capture other story moments that he is not involved in (though, for some there are moments left off-screen that they would have liked to have seen). Yates certainly wants to preserve the narrative style of experiencing the story and action through Harry, which is why many moments still occur off-screen and the emotional impact of them is left to when Harry discovers them rather than when they actually occur. Yates, though, must leave Harry from time to time as there are too many important story moments that he is not a part of that would have left the overall narrative feeling disconnected for the audience had they not been shown, and Yates gives the audience a few needed character moments (for characters that are not Harry, Ron or Hermione) that also work well. However, again, most of the big emotional moments are placed with Harry’s perspective. A complaint about the film is that it is not dramatic enough (presumably some fans wanting there to be more melodrama), which seems to go hand-in-hand with a few moments being left off-screen. However, taking this film in the context of the whole series (of films, not the books), Yates has Harry, Ron and Hermione overwhelmed with bleak feelings of dread, tittering on the edge of hopelessness (though, all three seem to never lose hope, as they take stock in each other, and it is their friendship and support of each other that really gets them through the awful times they go through, the incalculable negative odds against them and gives them the strength to go on and take the hits; at its heart, Deathly Hallows is really a beautiful film about friendship and perseverance). The character work Yates has done for these characters (from Order of the Phoenix on) makes their reactions to the events feel very believable for their characters. Harry takes the dismal news, deaths and everything else and just pushes on. With Part 1 included, Deathly Hallows is essentially a four hour plus movie, and thus Yates had to decide what characters and moments where essential to the narrative of the series. Sure, die-hard fans (me included) would love to see everything and every character have their moments, but it would have made for a terrible film. Yates made the decision to put most of the character work and emotional resonance on his three main characters, and the series is all the better for it. Deathly Hallows: Part 2 serves as an epic and emotionally poignant ending for Harry, Ron and Hermione (which is what we wanted, as they are characters we love and have seen grow up and develop through the years).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: David Yates, who made his feature film (at least, non-TV feature) debut with Order of the Phoenix, has again proved himself to be a top director. The four Harry Potter films he has done are all brilliant, showing off an ability to garner great performances, create narratives that have emotional resonance and provide an enthralling aesthetic (I cannot wait to see what he does next). Composer Alexandre Desplat arranges a wondrous score for the film that captures the tragedy, scale and wonder (beautifully incorporating part of Nicholas Hooper’s enchanting score from Half-Blood Prince into the Snape revelation scene). Desplat always does great work, but this is among his most emotionally engaging scores. Cinematographer Eduardo Serra, again (as he shot Part 1), does unbelievable work. The look of the film is spellbinding (as much as I like the work of Bruno Delbonnel on Half-Blood Price, and he is maybe my favorite D.P., I think Serra’s is the best of the series). Production designer Stuart Craig has designed all eight films. There are not enough positive words to talk about how amazing a job he has done throughout. Here, his work, which seems to take on a minimalist style as everything crumbles around the characters, is exquisite. Along with Yates and Serra, Craig has created the perfect tone and look for this film. Like the technical work behind the camera, the acting throughout the series has been phenomenal, boasting maybe the greatest group of British actors ever assembled. Deathly Hallows: Part 2 yet again features great work across the board, but like the other films a few performances stick out. Matthew Lewis (it is great to see Neville get to be more involved) and Helena Bonham Carter (loved her scene in which her character is being impersonated by Hermione) are quite good. However, among the supporting performances, the work of Warwick Davies (whose scene negotiating with Harry near the beginning is magnificent), Ralph Fiennes (who actually gets to bring more human emotion to Voldemort in this film) and especially Alan Rickman (whose work in the Snape revelation scenes is tragic and beautiful) is outstanding (many critics even calling for Rickman to receive an Oscar nod, though that will probably never happen for this film, given that it is an adventure fantasy). With each film, the leading trio grows both as characters and actors. Daniel Radcliffe has such a tough role in this film, having in a sense the weight of the world on his shoulders, yet he does a fine job of emoting enough to connect with the audience while being the hero that Harry is. Rupert Grint started out as the comedic element to the trio. Through his great work, he developed Ron into one of the best characters in the series (again, talking solely about the films here, not that Ron is not also awesome in the books). Emma Watson is maybe the best of the three, as she is able to capture the strength of Hermione but also let the moments of fear and dread sneak forth behind her outward strength. She gives a touching and radiant performance in the film.

Summary & score: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is the perfect ending to this beloved film series. It has all the drama, emotion, humor, character, and action to make it yet another excellent film in the series. 10/10