My Review: Noah (6/10)

"My father said that one day, if man continued in his ways, the Creator would annihilate this world."

The trailers and the first half of Noah made me believe this was going to be a very different Darren Aronofsky film. Mostly known for his independent work as an art house director he centers his films on characters with strong obsessions that tend to lead them towards some form of self destruction. The first half of this film however has an epic tone with fantastic visual effects and a big scale production unlike what we've seem in his past films. That firs half reminded me a lot of other epic fantasy films like The Lord of the Rings. However midway through the film Aronofsky switches gears on us and returns to the themes he is known for. He centers the story around the psychological struggles Noah is going through and how his obsessive behavior begins leading him to self destruction. Kind of like what he did with the main characters in Black Swan and The Wrestler, Aronofsky tries to delve deep into the psyches of Noah and the delusions he might have been tormented by for the task he was given. This is Aronofsky's film and it is very loosely based on the Bible (Noah's story only has four short chapters in Genesis). Christians will be disappointed if they go into this expecting a film based on a biblical perspective, because Aronofsky takes many artistic liberties and creates a tormented and flawed character similar to the ones he's made in his past films. What he does different with Noah is that he begins telling the film on an epic scale and then he reduces it to a personal story centering on Noah and the struggles he faces with his family. The visuals are great and the performances are strong, but the film feels too long and it oversimplifies environmentalism to make the story relatable to modern audiences. One could even argue that Aronfosky wasn't telling a story of the past, but presenting a futuristic apocalyptic tale. 

Having read the story of Noah in Genesis I must say that this film isn't really an adaptation but more of an original screenplay written by Aronofsky and Ari Handel (who also wrote The Fountain and has produced three other Aronofsky films). The story introduces us to Noah (Russell Crowe) and his wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) who live with their three sons: Shem (Douglas Booth), Ham (Logan Lerman), and Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll). They are the only descendants of Seth that remain, the rest of the world has become wicked and disrespectful towards nature and the Creator. In a dream Noah sees water covering the Earth, and in order to understand this strange message from the Creator he visits his grandfather, Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins), who is still alive. Along the way he discovers several dead humans who have been attacked, but their is a young girl named Ila (Emma Watson) who has survived and he decides to help her and take her with him. After meeting with his grandfather, Noah understands his calling and begins building a giant ark to make space for his family and a pair of animals of every species in order to preserve creation. He encounters difficulties along the way as a group of men led by Tubal-Cain (Ray Winstone) defy him, but Noah has the protection of Watchers (fallen angels who've taken the form of giant stone-like creatures). The flood is coming and Noah will stop at nothing to execute the Creator's plan.

Noah has some breathtaking scenes that work really well for an epic film like this. My favorites were the montage where Noah explains how the world has been created and the scene where he plants a seed and a spring of water comes out from Earth extending into an entire forest in a matter of seconds. The scenes involving the flood were also pretty well made. The scenery and cinematography is captured gorgeously. I also enjoyed the performances from Crowe, Watson, and Winstone. However, Noah is the only character that has depth as the rest of the cast play stereotypical characters that don't offer much to the story. The film centers on Noah's inner struggle and how he deals with the task given to him as he becomes obsessed and self destructive after seeing the wickedness of mankind. The film does become a bit heavy handed with the ecological message although it certainly simplifies it at times because what Aronofsky is really interested in exploring is the character of Noah. This might be his most ambitious film to date, but I still prefer his smaller films. The Wrestler continues to be my favorite film of his, although I still haven't seen Pi or The Fountain.

My Review: Thor: The Dark World (6/10)

"You must be truly desperate to come to me for help."

Marvel Universe Season 2 Episode 2

The second phase of the Marvel universe began this summer with Iron Man 3 which was a film I enjoyed very much, but really hasn't seemed to stick with me. I'm afraid the same problem can be said about Thor: The Dark World, which was an entertaining movie but I don't think I'd enjoy it as much on a second viewing. Most of these films are fun and exciting as you experience them for the first time, but the magic seems to vanish for me after a few weeks. Perhaps The Avengers was so great that these sequels don't seem to live up to the standard set by Joss Whedon. I still had a great time in the movies and enjoyed the sequel to Thor considering I wasn't blown away by the first film either. By now Thor knows exactly who he is and doesn't have to prove anything to anyone, so we get to see him in action with his might hammer quite a bit. At times the film has a sort of Star Wars vibe to it mixed with The Lord of the Rings (with Jane reminding me of Frodo), but the final action scene suffers from something we've seen in way too many superhero films recently: buildings getting completely destroyed and blown up. It also mixes some elements near the end that we've seen in Jumper, but all in all the film succeeds thanks to the great chemistry between Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. The way they played off each other and interacted was the highlight of the film, and Hiddleston was extremely funny here. I wasn't a huge fan of his in the first Thor, but after The Avengers I began to enjoy his performance, and his character in this sequel is better than ever. I wasn't blown away by the action scenes, but I did like the smaller comedic and light moments which the film had to offer. The film is entertaining enough to garner at least one watch.

The film picks up after the events of The Avengers with Thor (Chris Hemsworth) back in Asgard serving his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) trying to restore peace to the nine realms that his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has altered. Loki is sentenced to prison after his mother Frigga (Rene Russo) insists he shouldn't be killed. It turns out to be a good decision because Thor will need his service after the city is attacked by a race of beings known as the Dark Elves. Their leader, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), is searching for a weapon known as the Aether which had been taken away from him thousands of years ago by Odin's father. Since the aether couldn't be destroyed, the Asgardians had to hide it. In the meantime Jane (Natalie Portman), who hasn't seen or heard from Thor since he left two years ago, along with her assistant Darcy (Kat Dennings) discover an anomaly very similar to the one that had brought Thor to Earth in the past. When she goes to investigate she is sucked by some sort of wormhole and ends up right next to the place where the aether had been hidden. After Heimdall (Idris Elba) warns Thor that Jane has disappeared, he goes after her, but somehow Jane has awaken Malekith which is what provoked his attack in Asgard in the first place.

Thor: The Dark World is pretty generic and follows a similar formula of most superhero films. That is the reason why so many scenes remind us of other scenes we've seen in other action films. I was never at the edge of my seat during any of the action scenes, but I did have a great time with the light and funny moments. Some people actually enjoyed the action sequences in this film, but it really didn't do anything new for me. The highlight of the film for me was Tom Hiddleston and the scenes he was in were probably the most memorable of the movie. Jamie Alexander, Zachary Levi, and Ray Stevenson all return for their supporting roles here as Thor's soldier/warriors but their characters aren't really developed too much. It is strange to see a summer blockbuster film in November but I guess that the timing was right considering all the superhero films that came out this year. Thor doesn't stand out (and I guess none really did this year), but it is still an entertaining movie. This Marvel universe is growing so fast with all these films that at times it feels like a TV series. So I guess it was a good idea that they brought in the Game of Thrones director, Alan Taylor. He has made an enjoyable film.

My Review: RED 2 (5/10)

"If there's one thing I know, it's women and covert operations."

If there's one thing I know, it's that if the first film wasn't good, the sequel probably won't be either. That was the case with RED 2 which follows pretty much the same generic formula that it did in the first RED with the new additions of Catherine Zeta Jones, Anthony Hopkins, and Byung-hun Lee. The film has its funny moments, not thanks to screenwriters Jon and Erich Hoeber (responsible for the terrible screenplays of Whiteout and Battleship), but to its incredible and highly likable cast. Their presence alone and their interactions together elevate this otherwise ridiculous film. I guess that the producers decided to make a sequel considering the world wide success the first film had (despite not being a fan) and this time they brought Dean Parisot (Galaxy Quest and Fun with Dick and Jane) to take over the director's chair that Robert Schwentke (RIPD and Flightplan) had left unoccupied. This sequel takes the same formula and similar situations by mixing comedy with over the top action sequences. There is nothing sophisticated or fresh about this film, so don't go into this expecting an engaging and thoughtful trailer. 

The plot follows the events from the previous film as Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is trying to enjoy his retired life now with the company of his girlfriend Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), but the relationship is being affected by his overprotective behavior. She is yearning for some action in her life, so when Marvin (John Malkovich) shows up to warn Frank that there are people following them she doesn't hesitate in wanting to come along. But Frank dismisses Marvin and claims he is overreacting and that he and Sarah should continue to go on with their normal lives. It turns out that Marvin was right, as a Pentagon operative named Jack Horton (Neal McDonough) tries to capture Frank and threatens to torture Sarah unless he gives him some important information. Marvin comes to the rescue and explains that they are being hunted due to their previous involvement in a Cold War undercover operation known as Nightshade involving some sort of nuclear weapon. In order to find out more information and discover the reason as to why these men are hunting them down Frank, Sarah, and Marvin travel to Paris and meet up with Russian agent Katya (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who also happens to share a past relationship with Frank. Former MI6 agent, Victoria (Helen Mirren), is hired to kill Frank as well, but being a friend of theirs she gives them the heads up. It seems these former agents have been forced to come out of retirement once again to settle things once and for all.

If you thought the first film was silly, then you will think RED 2 is even more ridiculous considering the over the top action scenes involving car chases and gunshots. The plot is really dumb and light, and the only fun you might get out of this film comes from the cast. I actually liked Anthony Hopkins and Byung-hun Lee in their particular roles here, but they just couldn't do much with the material. Hellen Mirren is such a talented actress that at moments it felt embarrassing to hear her speak out her recycled lines. The cast did seem to have a lot of fun with the lightness of it all and John Malkovich delivers several funny lines, but I just felt this film was dull, stale, and unsatisfying. To be honest I came into this film remembering very little about the first film, and I can imagine I will completely forget about this sequel as well in a few more weeks because it is beyond silly. Silly can be good at times, but here I think they went a little too far with it. I will give this two and a half stars for the cast involved because they are just fun to watch at times. 

My Review: Hitchcock (7/10)

¨That, my dear, is why they call me the Master of Suspense¨

Biographical films can be tricky because you can enjoy the movie based solely on your love or passion for the person which the film is based on. I knew it was going to be hard for me not to like Hitchcock because I am a huge fan of his work and love to hear every small detail about his life. Hitchcock was one of the most influential filmmakers in the history of cinema, and Psycho is considered to be one of the best horror films of all time so I was excited about this project. I really enjoyed this movie, but I can´t say if someone who isn’t a fan of Hitchcock´s work might enjoy this film or not. Hitchcock was directed by Sacha Gervasi, who also happened to direct one of my favorite documentaries: Anvil: The Story of Anvil; and the screenplay was adapted from Stephen Rebello´s book ¨Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho.¨ You can´t possibly go wrong with a movie dealing with such an influential director on the making of one of his masterpieces. It is part of the Hollywood history, and everyone who enjoys films will probably appreciate this work for at least trying to give us a glimpse of Hitchcock´s mind. The film might not be as deep as other recent biographical films, but it is a pleasant experience. The major complain most people had is that it didn’t spend as much time on the set of Psycho as it did dealing with his relationship with his wife, Alma. We would have all enjoyed this film a little more if more emphasis was placed on the making of Psycho rather on his disputes with his wife. What I did love about this film is how they focused on the huge risk that Hitchcock was taking by making this movie on his own despite being a well known figure. He decided to step out of his comfort zone and try something new. You are never too old to take risks and follow your heart and that is exactly what Hitchcock did when he decided to make Psycho.

If you can learn one thing from Hitchcock´s life is that the phrase ¨behind every great man there is a great woman¨ is completely true for Alfred and Alma. The story centers on the period of Hitchcock´s (Anthony Hopkins) life when he was coming up with the idea of filming Psycho. It was 1959 and he had recently had success with North by Northwest, but some questions about whether or not he was ready to retire began to creep in his mind. It was time to try something different and when he got his hands around a novel titled Psycho, he knew it would be his following picture. This horror novel seemed impossible to adapt at the time considering all the tight regulations being placed, but Hitchcock took this as his next challenge. Paramount isn’t happy about this risky move so Alfred decides to finance the film on his own with the support of his wife Alma (Helen Mirren). Alma on the other hand begins to collaborate with a friend named Whitfield (Danny Huston) on a screenplay that Alfred has decided to overlook at the moment. Alfred was known for his controlling habits over his lead lady´s and productions, and this being a film financed by him made the tension even worse. He decides to hire Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) for the leading role after Alma´s recommendation and Anthony Perkins (James D´Arcy) to play the psychotic Norman Bates. His former lead lady, Vera Miles (Jessica Biel), was set to play the secondary role. Thus the challenge began for Alfred as he had to manage his personal life with his professional one.

I found it funny how in a couple scenes they brought up the failure of Vertigo, which is now considered to be Hitchcock´s masterpiece. Criticism for that movie wasn’t well received, which shows us how ahead of his time Hitchcock really was. He could have continued to listen to the big production companies and made the same films over and over again, but he decided to face and challenge them bringing something unique and new to the table. This serves as a modern criticism towards Hollywood which continues to make the same films over again without wanting to take any risks. If it weren’t for people like Hitchcock who stood up to these corporate giants we wouldn’t have had films like Psycho. There are some directors today who have been influenced by Alfred and continue to take risks, but for the most part most continue to bend over to the big Hollywood producers. Hitchcock, the movie, doesn’t seem to take any big risks and plays it safe with this biography, but it works thanks to some strong performances from Hopkins and Mirren. Scarlett Johansson, James D´Arcy, and Jessica Biel all share unique resemblance to the original actors. Credit has to be given to the makeup and hairstyling artists who rightfully earned the only Oscar nomination this film received. This was a pleasant experience although the superficial biopic wasn’t groundbreaking; the story was still worth it.

  

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Thor (8/10)

¨Whoever wields this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.¨

With Thor, summer movies have officially started in Hollywood. It`s not one of my favorite seasons of the year for films, but if the rest of the movies can live up to what Kenneth Branagh has accomplished with Thor it will be an exciting and entertaining season at the movies. I wasn`t a huge fan of Thor before this movie came out, I wasn`t even expecting too much out of it, but I decided to go see it because he`s still one of The Avengers and I couldn`t miss out on all the propaganda that began with Iron Man. With each one of these films my expectations for The Avengers is rapidly building, and even Thor managed to win me over to his side. The first thing I can say about the movie is that it was entertaining enough for me to want to go see it twice in two days. The story, the visuals, the strong performance from two relatively unknown actors like Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston are all factors that contribute to making this movie successful. Include Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins into the mix and you have an even better film. The directing had a lot to do with it as well because Kenneth Branagh is a serious and dedicated director; he has proven it time after time with his adaptations of Shakespearean plays. He was dedicated with this project as well; adapted this Marvel comic superhero and prepared him for the big screen. Like most every Marvel character, they are very well developed and the film is no exception remaining true to the comic.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is the son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) the god of Asgard. He is a great warrior and his father has been preparing him to be the future King of Asgard. It is no easy task because Asgardians are the keepers of the peace in all nine realms (Earth being one of those realms). They can travel from one realm to another through the bifrost which is guarded by Heimdall (Idris Elba). Odin saved Earth from extinction many centuries ago when the Frost Giants tried to destroy the planet. Odin defeated them and took away their power so they could no longer leave their planet, Jotunheimr. Odin has kept the peace during all these years but now it`s time to proclaim Thor as his heir to the throne. On the day of his proclamation something unexpected occurs and three Frost Giants manage to enter Asgard and almost steal the cube which holds their power. However The Destroyer does his job and kills the invaders before they can do any harm. Thor is furious and wants to give the Giants a lesson, but Odin wants to maintain peace and orders Thor to remain in Asgard. Against his father`s command Thor travels to Jotunheimr with his younger brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the 3 warriors: Volstagg, Hogun, and Fandral, and Sif (Jaime Alexander). Together they face the Giants who tell them there is a traitor in Asgard. Odin discovers that Thor disobeyed his command, rescues the warriors from the Frost Giants but vanishes Thor to Earth without his supernatural powers. In Earth Thor meets a group of scientists: Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard), Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), and Darcy (Kat Dennings) who help him rediscover his path.

I can imagine how difficult it was to try to make a serious movie out of all this Norse mythology about the nine realms and so on, but Branagh pulls it off by combining humor with the story. For instance when the three warriors come to Earth to find Thor, the unbelievable situation is toned down with a lot of humor. The same can be said with the Destroyer when he arrives at Earth to try to destroy Thor. When the SHIELD agents first see this metal giant they believe it could be one of Stark`s creations. So whenever the plot seems to be getting ridiculous, the tone of the film is cooled down with a lot of humor. The funniest character is Darcy who with clever one-liners manages to steal most laughs. I liked Kat Dennings in Nick and Norah`s Infinite Playlist, but here once more she proves she is a talented actress. The true stars of the film however are Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. Hemsworth plays Thor to perfection, and Hiddleston is excellent as Loki. The scene where he realizes his true identity is perhaps one of the most dramatic and best acted sequences in the movie. I know we are being bombarded with a lot of superhero movies, but as long as they keep on making them this entertaining I have no problem with that. Thor is no Dark Knight, or even Iron Man for that matter, but it still is a very good film. I will end my review by quoting my six year old brother`s words after the movie ended: ¨I don’t want to have an Iron Man party for my birthday anymore. I want it to be Thor!¨  

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: The Wolfman (4/10)

¨Terrible things Lawrence, you've done terrible things. ¨

(4/10) This is a remake of 1941`s Universal Studios monstrous creation named The Wolf Man. One thing that the original had going for it is that it was a creature that hadn`t been on screen before and it became a classic horror film. I can imagine audiences being blown away by this monster and scared to death. Now almost 70 years later they have decided to remake the film using all the technological advances and of course the effects are much better. The Wolf Man seems much more real than the one in the original, but we are already used to seeing these monstrous creatures and have already grown used to seeing these incredible effects. Audiences nowadays need a good story to go along with the effects. I can imagine people being more terrified with the original version because it was something that audiences weren`t familiar with. Nowadays we have been bombarded with all kind of creatures on screen, from aliens, to vampires, to gremlins, to predators, to dinosaurs, and so on. We have even seen a comedy about a teenage wolf man (starring Michael J Fox) so the unknown element that was present in 1941 now is gone. These creatures are not scary on their own; you need a decent script to aid with the frightening scenes. That is why director Joe Johnston (Jumanji, The Rocketeer, Jurassic Park III, and Hidalgo) brought two well known screenwriters to help him with the movie: Andrew Kevin Walker (Seven and Sleepy Hollow) and David Self (Road To Perdition). Unfortunately this time around I didn`t find the script very helpful and ended up with a movie that seemed to miss some important elements. By the way, the effects aren`t that great either (the werewolves in the Twilight saga are done a lot better than this).

The story takes place in a small town near London during 1890. Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro) is a Shakespearean actor who has gone to America and left his father and brother after his mother`s death several years ago. Now he is back in England for a short while working on a play and he receives a letter from his soon to be sister in law, Gwen (played by the beautiful Emily Blunt from The Devil Wears Prada) saying that his brother is missing and wants him to aid in the search. By the time Lawrence shows up at his home his brother has been found slaughtered by some sort of beast or demented person. Lawrence promises Gwen that he will find the killer. Lawrence reunites with his father, Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) and memories from his troubled childhood begin to haunt him. All the while Sir John has a calm and serene attitude and he seems to be hiding some crucial information. Meanwhile Lawrence decides to investigate a gypsy camp because his brother dealt with them a lot. Several other murders continue to take place so a Scotland Yard officer (played by Hugo Weaving) is sent to investigate the strange occurrences. Somehow Lawrence becomes the prime suspect after recovering miraculously from the creature`s attack and the plot develops from that point on.

I didn´t have any problems with the cast, I thought that they all gave good performances and were actually above average for a horror film. Benicio del Toro is a great actor and he has proved that he can carry a movie. Anthony Hopkins is one of the best and even though he isn`t as great in this movie as he is in most of his films his average is better than most good performances from many other actors. Emily Blunt also does what she can with a character that didn`t seem to play an important role although she should have been key if the story was developed better. I think the true star of the film was Hugo Weaving. He had a minor role, but he stole every scene he was in as the Scotland Yard officer. The main problem I had with this film was that there were very few scares and the story was developed very poorly. Some moments were very entertaining, but others seemed to drag and the story lacked its effect. There is some gore in The Wolfman so fans of that genre will be pleased, but there are not many scares so don`t expect to be frightened by this movie. There were mixed reactions in the theater; the person next to me fell asleep in a couple of occasions, but then at the end there were a couple of people that ended up clapping and cheering for the movie. What really made me give this movie four stars out of ten was the ending which I thought was developed poorly and should have been done much better. It seemed to be missing something and it just didn`t convince me. I would recommend you to skip this movie unless you are a true fan of The Wolfman; and it will probably satisfy some blood thirsty gore fans as well.