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

Cowboys & Aliens (2011) – Review

Review: Cowboys & Aliens is probably a better western than it is a sci-fi adventure, but sadly it is not a western. It is an adventure film with villains that have no emotional impact whatsoever. The audience does not care about the villains and thus the stakes are not two-sided putting all the dramatic weight on the heroes – the problem is that director Jon Favreau did not really develop the heroes much either, relying instead on action, spectacle and his stars to carry the film. This would have been fine, except the pacing is very slow at times leaving most of the film feeling boring (which is a surprise for a summer blockbuster). The aliens have no inherent humanity about them, they are just here to destroy our world (a bit like Battle: Los Angeles, only the stakes feel a lot more life-and-death in that film).  And the heroes are made up of either undeveloped characters like Doc and Ella, bit players like Alice, Meacham, Percy, Nat, and Hunt or western genre caricatures like Colonel Dolarhyde and Jake Lonergan. Dolarhyde and Lonergan are the characters the audience is intended to relate to and be invested in. However, and especially in the case of Dolarhyde, Favreau banks too much on the star appeal and persona of his actors than developing authentic deep characters. Thus, the audience does not care about the villains and does not really care about the heroes, outside of a love of and draw to the actors playing them. Lonergan does have some good development work, but the man he was in the flashbacks seems to not resemble who he is at present in the film, thus the audience almost dismisses any backstory and takes the character at face value on what he is doing at present, which in a way does help the relationship he has with Ella work more than it otherwise should. All in all, the film is poorly made from a narrative standpoint. That said, the aesthetics, especially the look and style of the western side of things, are great and provide the best moments in the film – the opening sequence of Lonergan waking up and finding the town, Lonergan’s run-in with his old gang and the end battle with the Aliens is good fun too, and it helps that the audience somewhat cares about Ella and Lonergan. The rest of the film just sort of drags, brought down by poorly done supporting seemingly pointless characters and terrible pacing. If a film is not going to be ripe with lush characters and well done drama, at least keep the action and pacing tight enough to keep things moving. And that sums up Cowboys & Aliens – some good action, well done western motifs but poorly made overall (leaving me to wish that this was an actual western drama and not a sci-fi adventure).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Jon Favreau began to position himself as a good action director with his work on the Iron Man series (neither one is great, as both suffer from somewhat crippling narrative issues, but they are fun entertaining action films). Cowboys & Aliens, in a way, further exposes his directorial shortcomings and reliance on his stars to carry his films (which is also the case with Iron Man). It is not nearly as good as either Iron Man film. The film also calls into question the quality of writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (who only seem to make good stuff when working with J.J. Abrams), as they also recently wrote the completely terrible Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The score by Harry Gregson-Williams is fun, as he blends a classic western vibe with sort of the typical superhero adventure compositions. Matthew Libatique’s cinematography is not as good as his usual work. The action is often muddled and disconnected (though, this is on Favreau too), while a lot of the film is too dark (do we ever actually get a good look at the aliens? I cannot imagine seeing this in 3D, it would just a black screen the whole time). Scott Chambliss’s production design steals the show a bit (his set for the town is spot on, and I loved the look of the inside of the riverboat). One paper, the cast is great and perfect for this sort of genre blending film. However, great actors like Sam Rockwell are given essentially nothing real to do, working with a few clichés and minimal character (the role as it appears onscreen was pretty much a waste of his time, and certainly his talent). Probably the best work is done by the bit players: Paul Dano (who is so good at playing a whiny jackass, see There Will Be Blood for reference), Adam Beach (who actually emotes real drama in a film almost void of it), Keith Carradine (who is beyond perfect for any western), Abigail Spencer, Walton Goggins, and David O’Hara deliver good moments. The stars are alright, but really they were not given much to do.  Olivia Wilde is very detached, but it works decently enough as the story develops. Harrison Ford has to almost completely rely on his own screen persona and Daniel Craig, who has probably the best role in the film from an actor’s standpoint, is quite good and compelling and his good work goes a long way in making the film entertaining.

Summary & score: With all its issues, it is thanks to great star power and operating in fun genres that Cowboys & Aliens is able to be entertaining at all. 6/10

LeapBackBlog 2010 Film Awards – Part 1: Technical Achievements

Film in 2010 was fantastic, full of great performances, great directing and great work behind the camera (or in post-production). More so than the last few years, 2010 had a greater number of excellent films, which made choosing the best films, performances, directors, and technical achievements very difficult. 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, and 2010 features a lot of amazing breakthrough performances), 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 2: Supporting Performances
Part 3: Directors
Part 4: Leading Performances
Part 5: Films

Technical Achievements: 

Jonathan Amos & Paul Machliss – Editing – Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a fun film. Director Edgar Wright visually and sonically got everything just right. Technically, the film has a lot to praise from Bill Pope’s cinematography and Marcus Rowland’s production design to the great songs written by Beck. But the work of editors Amos and Machliss really is what stands out. And what is more amazing is that the film was their first feature, both having about a decade’s worth of experience cutting TV series though. So much of the flow and comedy of the film is dependent on the editing, which really needed to be perfect for the film to work – and it was.

Roger Deakins – Cinematography – True Grit

True Grit, much like all the films mentioned in this list, has great work throughout the film. Deakin’s cinematography however is mesmerizing. The prologue to the film features a slow push towards a body lying on the ground outside a saloon, slow falling snow caught by the beams of light escaping the building perfectly framing the body. It is beautiful and interesting – taken out of contest the snow looks a bit like ash, as if this were a shot out of a post-apocalyptic film. That shot alone will have fans of photography enchanted, but Deakins follows it up with well captured and picturesque landscapes perfectly fitting the classic western genre of the film.

Michael Giacchino – Score – Let Me In

Let Me In needed to have just the right mix of tension and love/friendship to work, making the score an essential part. Giacchino’s (who won a LeapBackBlog Film Award in 2009 as well for his score to Up) work is haunting and terrifying, yet in other moments sweet and touching – but still with a lingering sense of dread and tragedy. Certainly, and without even looking at the screen, audiences will be on edge. It is probably the best score of the year.

Rob Hardy – Cinematography – Red Riding: 1974

Red Riding: 1974 (the first of the trilogy) takes places in a cold and dungy Northern England (Yorkshire). The characters and situations are scary and gloomy. The photography needed to be gritty and dark to match the tone. Hardy’s work captures the essence of the tone perfectly. He uses light to its greatest effect in the film as well, mirroring the main character’s emotions – while most of the film is dark and cloudy, there are moments of joy for the character and Hardy is able to visually show that with (though still de-saturated) oranges and other light pastels. Aesthetically, it is the most interesting film of the trilogy and one of the most artistic of the year.

Adam Kimmel – Cinematography – Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go is an entire film of subtlety and nuance, and probably the most aesthetically brilliant work of the year. Kimmel’s photography is both beautiful and tragic – capturing the hope, desperation and complacency of the film’s characters, which was no easy task. The most emotionally charged scene is Ruth’s completion (at least from the viewer’s standpoint) – visually it is shocking both from the bright white light and production design juxtaposed to the darker and restrained tones of the rest of the film and from the nature of the scene. However photography wise, my favorite shot is of the lighthouse at dust. As a still, it is a perfect image for the tone of the film and journey of its characters.

Matthew Libatique – Cinematography – Black Swan

Black Swan is a kinetic piece, and Libatique’s camera dances with its players. The film’s prologue – Nina’s dream of Swan Lake – has the camera floating on air, engaged in a beautiful dance with her, whisking and twirling. It is powerful and erotic. That scene informs all that see it, that the film and Libatique’s cinematography (and Aronofsky’s directing) are something special. The film goes in and out of reality into fantasy being completely unreliable, yet the lighting stays steady, intensifying the illusion. Much like Therese DePrez’s wonderful production design, the lighting and look of the film is minimalistic, letting the performances shine, while matching the tempered and cold tone of the film.

Rachel Portman – Score – Never Let Me Go

 As stated above, Never Let Me Go is an aesthetic masterwork. Portman’s score plays with the film’s themes of sadness and despair, but there is also hope in there. Her work represents the emotional language of the film, as the direction and performances (and really the story) are so restrained. This film, more than any other in 2010, affected me and stayed with me, Portman’s score had a lot to do with that. It is desolate yet radiant (and even a little playful despite what is to come) – much like the film.

Atticus Ross & Trent Reznor – Score – The Social Network

The Social Network is a film all about power. Ross and Reznor’s score drives that theme with electronic music. The music feels very modern and cool, which perfectly fits the subject matter of the film – a bunch of kids revolutionizing social interacting in the midst of personal and business power struggles. The character of Zuckerberg is quite cold and cut off in the film, and the techno aspect of the score has the same feel to it, but the genius of Ross and Reznor is there are also moments of emotion and heart, if only for an instant. Maybe the great moment of is their cover of In the Hall of the Mountain King, it is so atmospheric and dramatic.

Eduardo Serra – Cinematography – Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is a film that is full of moments of torment and anguish. Thus, visually the cinematography needed to fit the tone of the narrative (i.e. dark and gloomy). Serra’s work captures it amazingly well. Muted colors and vast landscapes filled with jagged and uninviting terrain make up most of the photography. However, the sheer brilliance of Serra’s work is in the beauty of his photography. Despite the depressing and dark nature of the piece, it is presented in a stunning manner. The landscapes are breathtaking to behold. The lighting captures perfectly the tension and emotion of the characters’ faces. (In my opinion) it is the best cinematography of the year, no question (and that is saying a lot, both as this year featured tons of excellent work and Serra took over from Bruno Delbonnel, whose work on Half-Blood Prince was arguably the best of 2009 – big shoes to fill indeed).

Hans Zimmer – Score – Inception

With Inception (and building on his score for The Dark Knight), Zimmer changed movie scores forever (or at least for the time being), or more specifically music used menacingly in trailers. The strong notes that indicate impending jeopardy and threat like booming thunder highlight Zimmer’s work on the film and make it unforgettable (just listen to the trailer for examples). The score is also riving with emotion and passion, much like the film. It is big and action-packed on the outside, but what makes it great is the deeper drama within. Everything in the film is spellbinding and stunning, it is Zimmer’s score though that snares the viewer and in accompaniment with the performances and directing taps not just into the need for spectacle but the need for something real and relatable – something to care about and get behind, making this the extraordinary film it is.

Black Swan (2010) – Review

Black Swan is intense, enthralling and beautiful – yet jagged, fracturing and unique. The first thing that stands out about the film – Darren Aronofsky’s vision – is how fluid the camera work is, and how compelling the visual display is for the audience. The opening scene is powerful and seduces the audience completely – it is visually the epitome of the Black Swan (from the ballet), and thus the film announces itself as something special right off. Aronofsky’s narrative is interestingly layered with Nina’s story mirroring in the story of Swan Lake, which also happens to be the ballet she is performing. Her transformation –very visual and jarring, overwrought with tragic foreshadowing – pulls the audience in only to terrorize them with the nightmares of a crumbling perception. Nina’s story is one of achieving perfection, no matter the cost. Her journey is overrun by emotion and unabating stress, which oppresses and scalpts her while intriguing and menacing the viewer. The characters outside the ballet are all archetypes of characters from the ballet (for example Lily, the sexual seductive newcomer to the troupe is The Black Swan character) creating an interesting dichotomy. The viewer is led down an increasingly unreliable path, never sure what is real and what is imagined, and yet to the skill of Aronofsky the narrative is all the more gripping as it proceeds, despite being mostly false. Aronofsky’s style is also unflinching and graphic, which makes the film more shocking (when it needs to be) and more impactful. There is an emotional journey not only for the characters but for the audience as well. The aesthetics of the film, while beautiful and interesting, are employed not for artistic reasons alone, but to fully immerse the audience into the experience, which is what makes the film work so well. However, the narrative may alienate some viewers. This is not a story of perseverance in the feel-good sense (when it easily could have been, and maybe starts out that way a little). There is no happy ending (and did we expect there to be one?). This is a visceral experience. A film to be felt – to be interacted with – a film to let yourself be given over to – to accept the raw emotions and flow with it – much as the opening invites the audience to do. Black Swan plays off the viewer and succeeds to its highest degree when said viewer submits.

Technical and acting achievements: Aronofsky is a master of visual suspense, employing tragic and scary elements into his narrative that lure each viewer in, enthralling them with fine performances, deep characters and exquisite visuals, only to shock them with moments of sheer anxiety and panic. This film is some of his finest work (and my favorite of his films). Cinematographer Matthew Libatique is also a star of this film. His camerawork and lighting are amazing and beautiful (if not the best of the year with Eduardo Serra’s work in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1). Clint Mansell’s score fits the narrative well. It captivates the audience, puts them on edge and ambushes them (and in many cases freaks them out accompanying the visuals and narrative tension). However, it is the music from Swan Lake that has the most emotional resonance and impact (I had forgotten how beautiful and tragic the pieces of music are from the ballet). The production design by Therese DePrez is also top-notch, being both minimalistic but specifically detailed to fit the characters. The acting in the film is exceptional. Mila Kunis, Barbara Hersey and especially Vincent Cassel are wonderful in their supporting roles. But, the film belongs to the performance of Natalie Portman. She is meek, shy and stiff only to explode with sexuality, hysteria and malice – it is quite a transformation.

Black Swan grabs the viewer, twists them until the strain is almost too much and then lets them go fading to white. 9/10

Iron Man 2 (2010) – Review

Iron Man 2 is full of sleek visuals, large action pieces and humor, and yet the film’s narrative is poorly structured – leaving it with noticeable peaks and valleys. Mostly the film works, the cast is great and the technical aspects of the film are generally good – the film is entertaining and most will be quite satisfied. The issues with the film arise from its story and overall structure. The film drags noticeably in parts and seems as if it was pieced together from a series of ideas rather than flowing seamlessly throughout. Thus, the film plays wonderfully in moments – there are a number of memorable lines, performances and scenes – but it is not cohesive. The timeline of the film, while seemingly to take place over a number or days or weeks, is muddled in that logically the events more likely take place over the course of a full year, but there is no sense of the passage of time – everything is immediate yet there are clues that large gaps of time rationally must have passed. The story itself is average, the villain is a bit weak, and his motivation and character not nearly evolved enough to make the viewer care. Another issue with the film is in the characterization of Tony Stark. While Robert Downey Jr. is good again in the role, the film seeks out to dive more into the character, yet for those that have seen the first film the character is well established and thus here in this film he feels more like a caricature of himself than a real person. This leaves the viewer disconnected during moments of character development, because since the character is not real or does not feel real (aside from the film being fictional, of course) the viewer does not have a stake in the outcome, in the journey, and thus the film drags. Sure, the viewer will still enjoy the action and laugh at the humor, but for the film to be great there must be a bond formed between the characters, especially the lead, and the viewers (and this is not asking too much of a blockbuster or comic based film, see Spider-Man 2 or Christopher Nolan’s Batman films for reference). These aspects of the film leave the narrative pacing slow (in a film that is not that long), which hurts the film as a whole. But there is a lot to like here too. The action scenes are big and well constructed (though there does seem to be a lot of casualties of innocents that are not referenced). Jon Favreau does have an eye for fun yet cinematically interesting action, which is nice to see amongst many other films with often overly generic and boring action (the final action scene in the Japanese garden is pretty awesome). The best part of Justin Theroux’s script is the humor. There are a number of very funny scenes and lines throughout, and this humor mixed with the awe of the action saves the film from mediocrity. Like with Iron Man, this sequel is mostly good but again suffered from a poor structure, should Favreau return to helm a third, hopefully he can produce a film that flows well (which is really the hardest thing to do in filmmaking). Technically, the film has many triumphs – the score is not one of them. John Debney’s work tries to hard to be like other superhero films (noticeably like a mix between Batman and Spider-Man), it does not have its own identity, and thus not memorable. It is lost to the background instead of enhancing the film. Matthew Libatique’s lighting was both good and awkward (something I noticed more the second time). The sets were lit very well and the Iron Man costumes looked great too, the use of shadows in many of the action scenes was great (and Scarlett Johansson looked great, so I am sure she appreciated the lighting too). However, some of the actors did not fair as well. Sam Rockwell in the hanger scene looked beyond tan (if you look at his hands they look like they are caked in mud), meaning that Libatique’s use of the white scale in the scene was either a bit off or he intended the characters to look like they had spray on tans. J. Michael Riva did a wonderful job with the production design. The sets were great. The film had an overall slick look to fit with the character of Iron Man, and thus Tony Stark. The visual effects are also top notch in the film. The cast was fun and there were a number of solid performances and great bits too. As stated above, Downey Jr. was good, though his performance was hindered by the story a bit. Don Cheadle is every bit as good as Terrence Howard, bringing a lot of the same feel to the character. Mickey Rourke plays a Russian version of himself and his character is vastly undeveloped. Gwyneth Paltrow, Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson are all good and fitting for their parts (Jackson has a great stare in the film). And, Sam Rockwell is up to his zany goodness. There are also a number of small enjoyable segments featuring John Slattery (always awesome), Favreau, Kate Mara, Leslie Bibb, Clark Gregg, and Garry Shandling. Iron Man 2 is a lot of fun and full of entertaining moments, no doubt, but sadly it is a step below the best blockbusters and superhero films. 7/10