Did Darren Aronofsky Keep Our Trust with Noah? (+ podcasting on The Matineecast)

The Christopher Nolan that made Following and Memento is not really the same Christopher Nolan that made the Dark Knight trilogy and Inception. He's got more money, more trust, more opportunities. Yet, there's a clear connection running through his body of work, the identifiable Nolan-ism that makes us realise that Following and The Dark Knight Rises are made by the same person, instead of feeling like a rote blockbuster made by the same guy that's made 20 blockbusters before that.

And this is the case with Darren Aronofsky and his biblical epic/passion project, Noah. I must admit, had this been made by another person, I wouldn't have been at all interested in it. But because this is a film made by the guy who has given us films like Black Swan, Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler, I was excited to see how he'd fare when he was given a few more dollars in his back pocket and the opportunity to tell a tale that would get the tongues wagging - perhaps more so than ever before.

Noah is indelibly a Darren Aronofsky film. It doesn't feel like it's cut from the same cloth as Aronofsky's other films, but it makes a nice addition to a nice enough patchwork quilt. Aronofsky is the kind of director that we could trust with anything - even The Wolverine, had he chosen to make this film - but Noah seems like the biggest thing we've trusted him with yet. Or is it the biggest film that we've trusted anyone with yet?

Hmmm, one has to ponder.

Everyone Knows Someone From Lord of the Rings, And Other New Zealand Fun Facts

Tomorrow is Waitangi Day - which, as you likely don't know, is a national public holiday in New Zealand to commemorate the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi (if you want to know more, attend any kind of school in NZ). So I thought, what better way to celebrate than tell you a few home truths about the country I've lived in for my entire life. Because you've always wanted to know more about New Zealand. I suppose.

1) Everyone knows someone who was in Lord of the Rings. 

If you watch Lord of the Rings (as most NZers are required to do and required to like), then yes, you're essentially watching a nine hour long tourism video for our vast green landscape and mountains. And then you add in the nine hours of The Hobbit and wow, that's 18 hours of tourism endorsement from Peter Jackson. Seriously, it will take most of you 18 hours to fly here, so you may as well just spend that time watching Middle Earth because all you can really do here is make like a Hobbit and go walking around on mountains and stuff. But anyway, one of the coolest things is that in those 18 hours, literally everyone in NZ can go "hey, I know someone who worked on this". I know several jockeys who were a part of the big horse riding scenes. And just recently the guy who was used as a height scaler (because he is over two metres tall) for scenes where Gandalf and the Hobbits are together just moved into Dannevirke, and now he lives next door to my sister. I have him a membership at Blockbuster, and he is besties with Peter Jackson. Plus some guy from my high school did effects work on The Hobbit. So yeah.

Do You Hear the People Sing?

Les Miserables (2012) / UK / Out in cinemas now / Directed by Tom Hooper / Written by William Nicholson, based on the musical by Claude-Michel Schonberg and Alain Boublil and the novel by Victor Hugo / Starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter / 157 mins

Les Miserables is a tough egg to crack. For any newbies, going along for a quiet Tuesday matinee of Tom Hooper's film adaptation might find themselves a little disconnected, jaded by the amount of topics it burns through and wondering how people got to be where they are. I am one of those people who are a Les Miserables 'veteran'. A couple of years back, I did the make-up for the stage production that was in town. This was a huge deal for Dannevirke, since the cast could probably be made up of our entire population, the budget was high and we were putting on one of the most professional productions this town has ever seen. While I never actually got to see the production on stage as I spent most of my time backstage, I'd seen enough rehearsals and heard enough of the songs to have them etched into my memory. Going into Les Mis, I was in the mindset that I'd love it - to be honest, this was another one of those War Horse cases but since the end of my blogging is nigh I won't be defending it quite as vociferously - and I did. That's because I knew what the story involved. People must bear in mind that the book is over 1000 pages long, and then the musical is over 3 hours long. So condensing this enormous story with lots going on into a cinematic spectacle for a modern audience was always going to be difficult, and it succeeds, for the most part - probably just for us Les Mis fans.

Angry Men with Raspy Voices: Unknown and The Next Three Days

Unknown and The Next Three Days. They both feature guys who want to save something. They spend a lot of time driving around angrily in cars. They both have raspy, serious voices. Oh, and incidentally, they both feature the only 59 year old I find really attractive: the one and only, Liam 'I am probably God' Neeson. One has him as the lead, the other has him in a single scene. But he's awesome in both of them. Obviously. Because whether he likes it or not, he is now my adopted dad. And I'm awesome, which means he is too. Obviously.

Anyway, without further ado, here is the ultimate battle between the Neeson's, the angry men, the raspy voices...

The story:

Unknown is about a guy, Dr. Martin Harris, who has a 'ravishing' wife, Elizabeth. He goes to Berlin for some summit, only to wind up in a car accident. When he wakes up, no one seems to know who he is. So, ultimately, this is a story about a guy in his 50's (though I wouldn't say old Liam looks a day over 49) trying to find himself - finding his true worth in this lovely world we live in. Okay, so it's not a heart warming story. It's more an opportunity for Liam to show off his skills that he acquired in Taken. And there ain't nothing wrong with that, now is there? (here is the part where you say 'no' because Liam Neeson is fucking awesome)

The Next Three Days is a remake of a French flick called Anything for Her, which ironically stars Diane Kruger who just so happens to be in Unknown. Our hero is John Brennan, who is now a single dad as his wife, Lara, was accused of murder and was sent to jail. John can't take it anymore and neither can Lara, so John, convinced his wife isn't a murderer, decides that he is going to get his wife out of that jail. No, it's not as easy as it sounds. John enlists the help of Liam 'I am probably God' Neeson, and he surprises his wife one day by rocking up and dragging her out into the open. Yeah, I think a surprise birthday party would just be enough for me.

The winner: While I think Unknown had an intriguing premise, if I were to choose between the two based on story alone, I'd have to go with The Next Three Days. It's as predictable as hell, but it does make for some intense stuff.

The director:

Unknown's director is Jaume Collet-Serra, a.k.a the guy who made Orphan. Which is the movie that everyone else hated, but I really liked. He's also done the remake of House of Wax and a sequel to some soccer movie called Goal II: Living the Dream. I think it's safe to say that Unknown is his best work - and he makes this film look pretty good.

The Next Three Days has Paul Haggis behind the camera. He's written quite a few movies, including Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Million Dollar Baby. His feature directorial efforts go as far as Crash (a.k.a the most hated Best Picture winner ever) and In the Valley of Elah. Definitely a bit more up-scale than Jaume Collet-Serra, but this is definitely his worst work (directorially speaking).

The winner: I gotta say, I'd pick Haggis anyday. So let's just say we base this on their body of work...yeah, Haggis wins.

The angry man with a raspy voice:

Unknown's headline star is Liam Neeson. You know, the guy that has played Oskar Schindler and Zeus, killed a whole lot of people to get to his daughter, gave Aslan a nice voice, led the A-Team and trained Batman. Yes, you're fucked. Not to mention, this guys voice is exactly what I imagine chocolate ice cream and velvet sound like. Even if he was supposed to be American in this movie, the Irish accent that came through was always pleasant to listen to.

The Next Three Days is led by Russell Crowe. The dude that has been in such works as L.A. Confidential, Robin Hood, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, Master and Commander and the highly revered Aussie soap series Neighbours (hahahaha). Oh, and he is from New Zealand. Where I happen to come from. And I am awesome. So he must be too. But his voice...yeah, that wasn't chocolate ice cream and velvet at all.

The winner: I should go with by fellow Kiwi, but come on, this is Liam 'I am probably God' Neeson we're talking about. He had a nicer voice...

The women folk:

Unknown gives Liam Neeson the pleasure of starring opposite Diane Kruger and January Jones. Diane, for one thing, is really good in this movie. I thought she had an Oscar-worthy turn in Inglourious Basterds, and here she proves that she is still awesome. How the woman is in her thirties is beyond me. January Jones, however...she drives me nuts. I have been watching some re-runs of Mad Men lately, and she's average in that. But between Unknown and X-Men: First Class, she's really pushing it. I think it has something to do with the fact that she has a really childish voice, she always looks stuck-up, and she's like an ice woman. And no, no matter how 'hot' the men folk think she is, I did not enjoy watching her cannoodling with Liam in the shower.

The Next Three Days features Elizabeth Banks as Russell Crowe's wife and Olivia Wilde as a fellow parent. I really like both of these actresses. Banks has always been a favourite of mine; she was brilliant in W., Zack and Miri Make a Porno and Definitely Maybe. Her performance here is beyond brilliant, showing that she really is good at both comedy and drama. Olivia Wilde was the best part about TRON: Legacy, and while she is barely used in this movie (her character was pretty much wasted), she's still awesome.

The winner: While I'd like to think that Diane can make up for January's bad performance, Elizabeth and Olivia are just better.

The intensity level:

Unknown is apparently just a rehash of Taken, which is true, to a point, but it as nowhere near as intense as that one. Liam doesn't have nearly as many people to beat the crap out of and he comes out as more of the victim. In saying that, the movie keeps up a nice pace right the way through, with wavering amounts of intensity.

The Next Three Days is quite slow, until it quickly burns up all of it's intensity in the final act. Once the movie gets to it's point, it is pretty explosive, but it takes a while to get to that point.

The winner: Definitely Unknown.

The cliché level:

Unknown, I'll admit, is ridden with with clichés, once we find out what is really happening. But the thing that I found unpredictable is what is 'really happening', if you know what I mean. Mind you, I get surprised by anything.

The Next Three Days isn't the most original piece of work (and I don't mean because it's a remake), as the premise can really only go a few ways. I felt like the thing had already been done many times before (again, I haven't seen the original so I don't mean that) and I pretty much knew what was going to happen right from the get-go (while I'm at it, the start was pretty weird in context with the rest of the film). One thing about this film that isn't so predictable though, is Lara. Now she was a wild one...

The winner: The one that has the least amount of clichés is Unknown. Hmmmmm.

My overall enjoyment level:

Unknown, of course, had my vote because it has Liam Neeson in it kicking ass as only he knows how. While I definitely wasn't wowed by it at all, and have pretty much forgotten most of it after a couple of weeks, I still really enjoyed it. Yeah, my new dad Liam could do with some better films, but Unknown isn't so bad. It looks gorgeous, it is well-acted for the most part and it definitely has a few thrills. It was perfectly adequate, and I'd probably watch it again.

The Next Three Days was a very solid film, but like Unknown, I wasn't wowed by it. The slowness really got to me, along with the waste of Olivia Wilde's character and the fact that Russell Crowe is...well, Russell Crowe. But hey, Liam has a cracking single scene, which is awesome. But looking at it's critical reception, it is a tad underrated.

The winner: I definitely enjoyed Unknown more. Yes, that is 75% to do with the fact that Liam is in it kicking butt.

Overall, the best movie that has angry men with raspy voices in it is: Unknown, which wins 4-3. They're both perfectly solid films, and I'd give them both...(leaning towards a 7 rating instead of an 8)

NOTE: I'm not awesome at all. I was only joking about that one.

A Conversation with L.A. CONFIDENTIAL

I'll admit, I have a lot of trouble reviewing films that are already regarded as 'classics'. I don't know why that is, but I just feel so late to the party or something to that effect. So, instead of going 100% on a review on the great L.A. Confidential, let's just imagine for a second that I am the movie, and I'm going to tell you why I rock.

No more Stevee, just L.A. Confidential. And let's call our interviewer...ah, Christopher, since I really want a cat called Christopher.

CHRISTOPHER: Hello, L. May I call you that? It's a lot easier.
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL: You're the first man in five years who didn't tell me I look like Veronica Lake inside of a minute.

C: Ah...okay, L it is. So tell me a bit about yourself.
L: I'm a cop movie. You see, these three cops, Vincennes, White and Exley, they're all trying to figure out this murder case, in their own ways. Vincennes, he likes to arrest movie stars so he can get a bit of money off his tabloid-editor friend Sid Hudgens. White is a bit of a violent one, and he ends up with this hooker who looks like Veronica Lake, who may know a thing or two about this case. Exley is the rookie cop kind of guy who like to think that he is better than everyone else, when really, everyone likes to make fun of him and his ridiculous glasses. Their stories all combine into a film that rivals some of the old film noir, with plenty of intrigue and style.

C: Your stars?
L: They may have liked to bill Kevin Spacey first, but I promise you that was only for promotional reasons. Russell Crowe and Guy Pearce, two Aussies at the beginning of their big-time careers, are probably the most prominent stars in the film, with Spacey becoming a secondary character. Kim Basinger, who seems to have vanished of late, plays the Veronica Lake-lookalike hooker Lynn Bracken. That earned her an Oscar. Danny DeVito is quite funny as that reporter Hudgens. James Cromwell plays the dodgy detective and David Strathairn is the owner of an escort agency which has girls cut out to look like movie stars. Hence why Lynn looks like Veronica Lake.

C: In one sentence, describe what type of movie you are:
L: I would say that I'm a very stylish film noir, exquisitely made and always interesting to watch.

C: Why are you so stylish?
L: Being a movie set in the 1950's, everything has to look great. Especially because I'm set in Hollywood, amongst the movie stars. But while I'm glamorous and everything, I still look cheap. I'm not really set amongst the movie stars...sure, they pop up sometimes, but really, all the people that you think are movie stars are probably hookers. Or there are the people who really want to be movie stars. How annoying they are. Basically, people drink in bars that don't look that great, they hang around the back-streets and they take drugs which aren't high class. Cheap. But it's stylish.

C: How about the violence in this film?
L: Oh, there's a lot of violence. People bashing each other senseless, guns shooting everything in view, people with their throats slit...it's not pretty.

C: Would you say that it is needlessly violent?
L: *scoffs*  I doubt you've ever taken a stupid breath. Don't start now.

C: Okay...What would you say your greatest feature is?
L: Obviously the good looking Guy Pearce. *awkward silence* Okay, the script. My script is really good. It's filled with some great lines. In fact, I think I'm pretty funny.

C: So, final question, recommend yourself to someone who hasn't seen you before?
L: I'm the best movie of 1997, not that movie about that boat sinking. I didn't even cry in that once.

C: That's an adequate description. Anyway, must be off. Got a hot date.
L: Yeah? Who is she and what did you arrest her for?

Anyway, my rating:

DVD--Robin Hood

or: Russell and Ridley make Men in Tights...just without the men in tights.

One word to sum it up: Yawn

Robin Hood should have been great. It had everything going for it. Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott were teaming up for the millionth time, but this time tackling an age old story of the msot famous outlaw. Cate Blanchett as Marion. Where did it all go wrong? Batman Begins was the right title for a prequel on Batman, but Robin Hood isn't a good title for a prequel on Robin Hood. That is because throughout most of the movie his name is Robin Longstride and he isn't actually declared an outlaw until the very end of the movie.

This is the untold story of the man behind the legend as Robin (Russell Crowe), a heroic warrior, turns outlaw when he assembles a band of skilled marauders to confront injustice and lead an uprising against the weak and corrupt English King. When the rebellious hero falls for free spirited Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett), he must first save her village and then confront a growing storm of threats from near and afar if he is to win her heart. As Robin and his men answer a call to ever-greater adventure, these unlikely heroes set off to battle for their country and return England to glory—and ride into the legend.

Like most movies, Robin Hood has it's stunning points. It is done in a way which is true to the period, and almost has that Gladiator sort of feel to it, which is what to be expected of Ridley Scott. Towards the end, the film really gained momentum and shone like an epic movie should. Unfortunately, it was a shame that the first one and a half hours (give or take) was actually really boring. Like, nothing happened, apart from a few action sequences placed here and there. I don't even think me paying attention any more than I was would have stopped me from finding it boring. Obviously, the story before the story of Robin Hood wasn't going to be that interesting, but at least it could have tried. I kinda felt like I had to have lived in the 13th century to get any of it.

Russell Crowe makes a convincing Robin, even though he is a little too old for the role and I still felt like this was a rehash of his much better Gladiator performance. When you take a look at Russell and Ridley's working collaborations, there is only one that stands out as a particularly good film: Gladiator. Look at A Good Year and Body of Lies, neither of these films fared very well, and their only saving grace was the star and the director. It's time the pair made a better movie, because they still do have a lot of potential. Thank God Cate Blanchett came along for the ride, too. She was marvellous, as always, in her role, but her performance, too, felt like a rehash of a much better The Aviator. If anything, the stars will get you through, just.

It's trying hard to be the epic film which we haven't seen in a while, but maybe today's audience isn't looking for a medieval romp. Maybe we aren't looking for the back story on a character which we have already seen a film on countless numbers of times. To be honest, I would rather have seen a remake of the actual story on Robin Hood, not Robin Longstride. The film really doesn't have much going for it until the last hour, and even then, you may find yourself constantly checking the time and wondering how much further you have to go.



THE VERDICT: Should have been better. Could have been better. Would have been better. So what went wrong?

5/10