Y U DO DIS MATT DAMON

According to cinemablend.com "Matt Damon will probably return as Jason Bourne."

Matt Damon as Jason Bourne

Are you kidding me?  

Yeah let’s just bring Viggo Mortensen and the whole gang back for another The Lord of the Rings movie. Or why don't we just invite Clint Eastwood back for another "Dollars" western? 

Just...no. 

When I first heard the news about Matt Damon potentially coming back for a fifth Bourne movie, I thoroughly hoped it was a joke. No way he could actually agree to come back after The Bourne Legacy. No way he could actually come forth as Jason Bourne again. What is he gonna go on another treacherous journey and rediscover his identity all over again? Give me a break.

The worst part? Paul Greengrass is right there with him.

Like many trilogies before it, The Bourne Trilogy is one that should never have been touched. Damon escaped with his life (presumably) and found out who he really was in 2007, and as viewers, we were just as satisfied as he was. That’s what the entire trilogy led up to. It was finished.

But the first three films grossed almost $1 billion worldwide, and so of course, it was touched. I was certainly bummed about Jeremy Renner coming into the scene for The Bourne Legacy, but eventually I got over it because Damon would always be the real Bourne. I could say “Oh yeah the Bourne Legacy…that’s not a real Bourne movie.” It would always be detached from the original trilogy.

But if Damon comes back for another one, that argument is out the window.

Seven years ago, he walked away from the franchise because he didn’t want to continue working without Greengrass, who directed The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. That was a good reason, but Greengrass’s was better: He was satisfied with the work he’d done. And you know why he was satisfied with the work he’d done? Because it was just that: done.

Jason Bourne

not Jason Bourne

It’s just like Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale with The Dark Knight trilogy. They said before The Dark Knight Rises that it’d be their last one together. They made a great trilogy, and that was that. Now it’s Ben Affleck’s turn to disappoint people. 

Can you imagine if they came back in a few years and said they wanted to make another one? That’s what Damon and Greengrass are doing, and you can’t help but wonder about their standards.

I get it. Part of the reason very well may be money. But do they really need money? Matt Damon is worth $75 million for Pete’s sake. If I were him, I’d hate to think my reputation as Jason Bourne could be altered. I’d hate to think that someone in the future might say: “Ah yeah Matt Damon was great as Jason Bourne. I just wish he never came back and did that fourth one.”

Or maybe it’s not money. Maybe him and Greengrass just want to make another film together. Great.

Does it have to be another Bourne?

They did Green Zone together in 2010, and sure it didn't light up the Oscars or anything, but it was fairly successful. If they’re looking for a fresh story, they need to make it as fresh as possible, because there's just nothing left in the Bourne saga.

And you know what, that’s okay. The Bourne Trilogy was unique because it was a well made, entertaining series with a strong plot line. It wasn’t some clichéd revenge story or some mindless action tale. It was about a guy trying to find himself, and you just don’t see that every day.

It's not too late to change your mind, guys

So maybe they do come back and make a fifth one. Maybe Damon teams up with Renner and they spark a brand new adventure. Maybe they make another $200 million and everyone’s happy. 

But if go to see a fifth Bourne film, it won't be for entertainment. It won't be because I miss Jason Bourne, or because I'm curious to see what Damon and Greengrass can come up with for the third time. 

It'll be so I can come on here and rant some more about why it never should have been made. 

-EE

Gandolfini's Final Film Disappoints - THE DROP

THE DROP
2014 - 106 Minutes - Crime/Drama
Director: Michaël R. Roskam 
Country: USA
IMDB: 7.9
Metacritic: 69
RT: 88%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: C-

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• neighborhood crime dramas

• James Gandolfini 

• Tom Hardy 

Avoid this movie you dislike:

• violence (including animal abuse) 

• profanity 

• cliched plot points 

You need quite a few things to make a successful crime drama. Some of those things aren't exclusive to the genre, like a sound script, strong acting or smooth transitioning, but crime often calls for a bit more. You need authentic violence and terrorizing criminals. You need compelling moments and character development away from the world of crime. And perhaps more important than anything else, you need uniqueness.

The Drop has some of these things, but not the ones that matter most.

Tom Hardy as Bob

Tom Hardy plays Bob, a bartender at one of many dirty money "drop zones" around Brooklyn. On any given night, money travels through the bar and gets dropped into a safe under the counter. Bob doesn't know when his place will be the drop zone, but despite his calm charisma, he's been around the crime world for quite some time.


His cousin Marv, played by the late James Ganfolfini, was once an owner of the bar, but even though his name is still on the sign out front, he's now seemingly under the control of the Chechnyan bosses. When the bar gets robbed, they come looking for their money, and Bob and Marv must provide answers.

"The Drop" jumps out of the gate with a lively sequence of Bob narrating "drops" all over the city, and showing us how discrete the whole operation is. Fitting music on top of shady maneuvers suck you in, but we never see this type of energy again.

Part of that is due to Dennis Lehane's ultimately lackluster screenplay. Lehane, who wrote Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, and Shutter Island, is a very experienced writer, but writing a script proved to be a different sort of challenge. All three of the above mentioned novels were adapted into successful films, but The Drop is the first time Lehane has composed the screenplay by himself. A few episodes of HBO's The Wire was the only experience he had writing for the screen, and while his dialogue here wasn't poor, it was often head-scratching or off-putting in scenes that demanded more.

James Gandolfini in his final film role

Now to be fair, some of that seemingly bizarre dialogue may have been intentional, especially that spoken by Bob. If Lehane's goal was to create a mysterious and quiet character that showed signs of affection, but was clearly hiding something, he succeeded. And Hardy plays him very well, despite a peculiar accent reminding you of his British background. But he's in nearly every scene, and softly dominates The Drop, so you give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not a dynamite role from the Londoner, but it's one that we'll look back on as kick-starter to his great career. 

Also strong is Gandolfini, who passed away during director Michaël R. Roskam's editing process earlier in the year. While he may not be quite as powerful as the Tony Soprano we all know and love, he's back in a familiar role, and successfully plays both a threatening head honcho and a desperate old cousin in debt to the wrong people. 

But similar to Hardy as Bob, it was almost as if Uncle Marv's true emotion wasn't able to breach the surface. Like something was preventing him from saying what he really wanted to. It felt like he was acting, and with a legend like Gandolfini, you're much quicker to point the finger elsewhere.

Despite being held back by the script, the characters of "The Drop" are actually what keep it afloat. Some crime films are solely dependent on an intricate plot or shocking twist, but Roskam's film has neither — despite efforts to implement the latter. The plot moves slowly, and while it isn't stale or boring, it's a bit dull. A handful of tense moments perk you up, but only temporarily, and it's the characters that keep you interested, though not attached.

Without the strong performances of Gandolfini, Hardy and Noomi Rapace,— Prometheus, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo  — The Drop would have been a total failure.

And then there's the clichés. 

Some are tough to avoid, like a ruthless mob figure that's collecting money, but others just instantly induce face-palms and bring the movie down. Like the above-mentioned failed twist. If you watch enough films where there's just a little something is off, or something about a main character feels fishy, you know that the character is eventually going to do something unexpected. But because you're expecting the unexpected, it's not nearly as shocking as it should be. 

Or how about the detective that's snooping around, but never makes an arrest. He shows up at the scene of a crime, but comes a minute too late. He knows that a missing person isn't actually missing, and he knows that a primary character has committed a serious crime, but can never prove it. In this case, his last line of the film is: "They never see you coming, do they ________?" Gasp. Shocker. 

But worst of all is another instance of "getting the girl." Rapace does a nice job, but her character falls victim to another girl being wooed by some heroic act. In "The Drop," that heroic act happens to be a felony. It's the kind of ending that you know the actors don't even believe. And it's a shame too, because the final shot is the best of the film, but it's heavily diminished by the queen of crime movie clichés. 

Ultimately, The Drop isn't what it could have been. It's a fairly well made film that suffers from a sub-par screenplay, sloppy editing, and glaring clichés. The acting is strong, but not strong enough to make up for it all. If it's worth watching, it's solely because of Hardy and Gandolfini, who was kept from usual greatness in the last movie role of his life. 

-EE

As of September 23, The Drop is in theaters everywhere. Here's the trailer:

A Captivating Tale of Adolescence - BOYHOOD

BOYHOOD
2014 - 165 Minutes - Drama 
Director: Richard Linklater 
Country: United States 
IMDB: 8.9
Metacritic: 100
RT: 99%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: A

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• coming-of-age films

• character-driven stories

• Ethan Hawke

• movies...at all

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• long films (165 minutes)

• dialogue-driven movies 
• minimal plots 

12 years. One boy. One vision. One extraordinary film. 

Over the course of cinema's history, certain movies have single-handedly changed the industry forever. Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) introduced animation to the big screen. Seven Samurai (1954) set the standard for action adventure films. Steven Speilberg's Jaws (1975) changed the way movies were marketed and is widely considered to be the first true "summer blockbuster." Most recently, Avatar (2009) birthed Blu-ray, and brought 3D movies to life again. 

Richard Linklater's Boyhood is next in line.  

In 2002, when lead actor Ellar Coltrane was just five years old, Linklater and company set out on a daring, yet simplistic mission: Capture Coltrane's character Mason's childhood on camera, in real time. The same lead, the same family, the same crew, and the same screenplay, all until 2013. This kind of commitment is simply unprecedented, and it's one of the many reasons why Boyhood is so fascinating. 

Ellar Clotrane's transformation

From the very beginning of the film, it's clear that Mason's upbringing is far from ideal. His parents (Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke) are separated, he's constantly moving and leaving friends behind, and eventually, he even plays victim to a pair of alcoholic step fathers. His experiences shape the story, but more importantly, they shape his personality. 

Despite their fragmented nature, Mason's family and their interactions are the strength of the film. At a young age, his father is a loner that drives Mason and his sister Samantha around in a classic GTO without seat belts, takes them bowling without bumpers, and passionately attempts to explain what's going on in the political world. He's opinionated, blunt, and sometimes inappropriate, and couples it with the fact the he works in Alaska and only sees his kids sparingly. Later though, like all the characters in Boyhood, he develops. He remarries and seemingly finds a new outlook on life, and eventually transforms into the father figure Mason longs for. Hawke, who has acted in seven of Linklater's films, plays him brilliantly.

His mother, on the other hand, contributes much more directly to Mason's hardships. She's struggling to pay the bills, has boyfriends coming and going, and is ultimately the one pulling the strings on the family moving all over Texas. Like any single mom, she attempts to shield Mason and Samantha from her tribulations, but that proves difficult. She's constantly pressed with hard questions from the kids, like "Why do we have to move?" or "What about my friends?" and goes back to school so she can get her teaching degree. Arquette's character is a bit of a mess, but in a way, she symbolizes an underlying theme of the movie: life itself is a bit of a mess. 

Mason with his sister  Samantha and his father (Ethan Hawke)

Samantha is fittingly played by Linklater's daughter Lorelei, who according to him, had been insisting on starring in one of his films for a while before Boyhood. She hides the fact that she's an only child and plays the snarky and pestering Sam with impressive authenticity. While the story is centered around Mason, we watch Sam grow up alongside him, and she provides a 
unique perspective of the opposite gender. 

One thing about the cast is clear: They're extremely close-knit. The film essentially functions as 12 shorts compiled into one, and while physical appearances sometimes noticeably change from year to year, the cast doesn't skip a beat. Linklater's project demanded continuity, and his decision to bring in familiar actors (and a family member) payed off in a huge way. For a fake family meeting up for a few days a year, they're about as close to a real one as you can get. 

The time lapse of Boyhood isn't strictly a plot enhancer, though. It's also flat out entertaining. As someone who grew up while filming went on, watching Mason do some of the same things I did as a kid hit very close to home. His experiences and mannerisms were second only to his surroundings. Everything from GameBoy Advances, 20 Questions and Halo 2 on Xbox to RipSticks, 2000s pop songs and Harry Potter book premiers not only define Mason's early years, but define the generation as well. But even if you're not familiar with the specific items featured throughout the film, the basic progression of clothing, cars and other nuances will keep you entertained. They add charm and purity already established by Linklater's script.

With such a highly-praised film, it'd be commonplace to talk about how well it was made or how impressive the cinematography was or how flawless the production value was. Though, truthfully, Linklater's movie isn't flawless. It has some minor editing scuffs (to be expected from such an widespread selection), some forced plot points, and a couple of campy moments. 

But Boyhood isn't like any other film, and so it shouldn't be judged like one. The acting is superb, the writing is fantastic, and the soundtrack is fitting, but in this very rare circumstance, all of that is pushed behind the real reason for the film's greatness. It's astonishing because the moments it captures aren't. It's compelling because it's real, and it's groundbreaking because it's simple. Mason's adolescence doesn't include any earth-shattering moments, but there's surely something earth-shattering about his story. 

Mason in the final stages of the Boyhood

It has only received a limited release, but make sure you find a way to see Boyhood. 

-EE

Boyhood is in theaters as of August 25, 2014. Check out the trailer: 

"Pain Demands to Be Felt" - THE FAULT IN OUR STARS

THE FAULT IN OUR STARS
2014 - 125 minutes - Drama/Romance
Director: Josh Boone 
Country: United States 
IMDB: 8.5
Metacritic: 69
RT: 82%

EpicEnthuisiast's Rating: A-

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• John Green's novel 

• teen dramas

• romance films 

• Shailene Woodley

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• sad stories 

• book adaptations 

• young adult stories 

• sad stories (can't emphasize this enough)

Sometimes, you go into a movie knowing you're going to love it. You approve of the cast, get excited by the trailer, and in this case, race to finish the book before the film comes out. You think it'd be almost impossible to be disappointed, and start counting down the days until release. 

For a number of reasons, this is how I felt going into The Fault in Our Stars. 

The Novel: When I saw the movie was coming out this summer, I had to get my hands on John Green's novel. I had heard great things about it, and really enjoyed Looking For Alaska, another one of his books. I cut it close and finished The Fault in Our Stars the night before it came out, but it ended up making the film that much better. I was already attached to the characters and engrossed in the story, and was ready for them to come to life. My only thought was: Just don't mess this up. 

John Green: While he wasn't credited with composing the screenplay, Green was on set with the actors for the duration of filming, giving tips and collaborating with director Josh Boone and others. This happened when two of my other favorite coming-of-age stories were adapted into films. In both The Perks of Being a Wallflower and The Spectacular Now, authors Stephen Chbosky and Tim Tharp were on the set of the movie contributing in some way, and in Chbosky's case, directing the film himself. Both films turned out to be great, and they each stayed true to their respective novels. I didn't know what Green would be doing on the set of The Fault in Our Stars, but I knew that his presence would have a positive impact on the final result. It surely did. 

Novelist John Green with actors Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort on set

The writers: Most moviegoers wouldn't care to look at who is putting together the screenplay of a film, but the writing is what stands out the most to me when I'm watching. So, when I saw that Scott Neustadtler and Michael H. Weber, who previously wrote 500 Days of Summer and The Spectacular Now together, were teaming up for a third time, I was instantly drawn. They were experienced in the genre of young romance, and knew each other well. Thankfully, my prediction of them doing Green's novel justice turned out to be true. 

Shailene Woodley:  Perhaps what got me most excited for The Fault in Our Stars was actress Shailene Woodley, who plays Hazel. She was already one of my favorite actresses after The Descendants and the above-mentioned The Spectacular Now, and I was hoping that her role in The Fault in Our Stars would solidify her as one of my absolute favorites. She single-handedly raised my expectations, but definitely didn't disappoint. 

I'll start by continuing on about Woodley, because I simply can't say enough about her. In The Fault in Our Stars, she plays Hazel Grace Lancaster, who at 17, has cancer and must have an oxygen tank by her side at all times. Hazel is unique not just because of her condition, but because of her charismatic personality, her intriguing intelligence, and her complex view of the world. When she meets an equally interesting Augustus Waters at a cancer support group, she falls in love, and receives "a forever within the numbered days." Woodley captures her perfectly, and has everything from her mannerisms to her narration down to a science. 

Shailene Woodley as Hazel

I had a particular perspective of Hazel going into the movie, because I knew Woodley was going to play her when I started reading the novel. As I read, I pictured Woodley as Hazel throughout, and felt more connected to her character because of it. In the film, she dominates the screen, and gracefully tells us Hazel's heartbreaking story. Not only is she immensely talented, but she's absolutely stunning. (even with oxygen tubes in her nose and a short haircut) She was everything I could have hoped for as Hazel. 

That's really the biggest question when it comes to book adaptations: How similar is it going to be? What are the characters going to be like? What will they put in the film, and what will they omit? Josh Boone and company were faced with the daunting task of choosing what elements of Green's novel to put on screen, and while I'm sure he helped make some of those decisions, it was inevitable that memorable parts of his story wouldn't make the cut. 

Fans of the book might be slightly disappointed to know that minor characters like Kaitlyn and Caroline didn't make it into the movie, along with some other memorable moments like the little girl in the mall, or Gus's dad telling Hazel that he thanks God for her every day, but again, it would have taken at least a three-hour runtime to cover every last bit, and films of that length rarely make it into theaters. 

That being said, the moments that needed to be there were, and they were very well done. Everything from Isaac smashing basketball trophies in Gus's basement, to the raveshing dinner at Oranjee, to the gut-wrenching moment in the gas station parking lot seemed to come straight from the novel, and were every bit as moving as Green's words. Some lines were changed, some interactions were meshed together, and some scenes were altered, but everything worked. Everything was fitting. 

A memorable moment from the novel 

In fact, because the book was so fresh in my mind, I even found myself mouthing lines before the characters on screen said them. Despite the necessary changes, the movie stays very true to the book, and fans won't have many complaints. 

Fans will also approve of the entire cast of The Fault in Our Stars, but more specifically Ansel Elgort, who plays Gus. As readers of the novel know, the story is driven by the connection between Hazel and Gus, which meant a suitable actor was needed to play the illustrious Augustus Waters. With the opening stare down in the Literal Heart of Jesus, Elgort proved he fit the mold. Like Green's Gus, he's tall, handsome, confident and rocks an unlit cigarette quite well. His eyes aren't blue, but his connection with Woddley makes up for it. The two are actually friends in real life, and it seemingly had an impact on their interactions. Their scenes together are undoubtably the highlights of the film. 

Perhaps fittingly so, though, the real strength of the film comes from John Green's written foundation. Neustadter and Weber put forth another fantastic screenplay, using Green's novel selectively, and getting the most out of the actors. Their script is featured in a number of different ways, varying from standard dialogue and voice overs, to text message bubbles popping up on screen. Visually seeing all the facets of Green's novel took the already powerful story to new heights, but in the end, it's still the words that make The Fault in Our Stars such a beautiful film. 

Josh Boone's adaptation isn't a perfect one. It's not going to light up the Oscars, and it's not going to go down in history. The production value isn't off the charts, and truthfully, they probably tried a bit too hard to implement lines from the book at certain points. But the final product is honest. It's well-made, and it's captivating. It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry (I'm not ashamed to say I even teared up a bit), and it might even change your view on everything that is love. It takes a special movie to do that. 

Read the book, then go see the movie. Or see the movie, then go read the book. Just make sure you don't miss A Fault in Our Stars. 

- EE 

As of June 14, 2014, The Fault in Our Stars is in theaters everywhere. Here's the trailer:

The Definitive Action Film of Our Time - THE RAID 2

THE RAID 2: BERENDAL
2014 - 150 minutes - Action/Crime
Director: Gareth Evans
Country: Indonesia 
IMDB: 8.9
Metacritic: 71
RT: 80

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Incredible action sequences
• Martial arts films
• Gorgeous cinematography
• Ultra-violence
• The first film

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Extreme violence/gore
• Action films 
• Subtitled films
• Convoluted plots
• The first film

Ladies and gentlemen, look no further, for The Raid 2: Berendal is the definitive action film of our time. The sequel to 2011's international smash hit The Raid: Redemption, this Indonesian crime thriller has some of the most spectacular action sequences ever put to film. The first film is a taut and brilliant action flick in which an elite SWAT team storms a dingy apartment building to take down a ruthless drug lord. (Much violence and mayhem ensues, of course). It features absolutely mind-blowing and cringe-inducing fight sequences showcasing Indonesia's martial art, pencak silat. The Raid 2 ups the ante in nearly every way possible. Why it is by no means a perfect film, I was on the edge of my seat the whole time in the theater and could barely contain myself from yelling in excitement by the time the credits rolled around.

One of the film's most brutal sequences takes place in a muddy prison yard

Whereas the first film is a brisk 100 minutes and consists almost entirely of action sequences, The Raid 2 features a much expanded story arc and much more exposition. The story is not particularly original, and calls to mind other crime films like Infernal Affairs and The Departed. The dialogue is a little wordy at times, the plot occasionally convoluted, and the pacing awkward. There are a few scenes that drag a bit or feel unnecessary. I won't go into the story (as that's not really the point of the film), though I will note that the transition from the end of the first film to this sequel was done in a rather clunky manner. All of this makes the whole film feel a little rough around the edges, but ultimately I didn't end up minding too much. One doesn't go to a movie like this for a brilliant screenplay or original story. I came for the action, and wasn't disappointed. More on that later.

Rama (Iko Uwais) and The Assassin (Cecep Arif Rahman) face off in the film's climactic duel

Welsh-born director Gareth Evans exploded onto the international film scene with The Raid, demonstrating that few others can choreograph and shoot action sequences with the same level of mastery that he brings to the table. His camera moves fluidly as a part of the action, ducking and weaving through combatants and immersing the audience in the fight. Unnecessary shaky cam and obscuring closeups make no appearance; Evans' direction lets us see all the action, while also making us feel like we are a part of it. His excellence doesn't stop there though. A bigger budget (though still only a paltry $4.5 million) and longer film allows Evans to showcase some absolutely gorgeous visuals, from a rain-soaked prison complex to a snow-covered alleyway splattered in blood. He has a really unique eye, and I can honestly say I've never imagined some of the camera angles on display in The Raid 2. In a stroke of brilliance, one sequence where our hero Rama (Iko Uwais) fights four men in a moving car is partially seen from above. 

As you've probably guessed by now, the highlight of the film are the spectacular fight sequences. Since all of the baddies from the first film ended up dead by the its conclusion, we are introduced to a host of new antagonists, including two of the most memorable villains I've ever seen, a brother-sister duo named "Baseball Bat Man" and "Hammer Girl." (I'll let you use your intuition to figure out why they have those names.) As The Raid 2 focuses on two rival Jakarta crime syndicates, there are many other bad guys who come into play as well, such as local kingpin Bangun, his suave son Uco, and the ambitious and ruthless Bejo. Needless to say, there are a lot of characters (probably a few too many), and you probably won't remember everyone's name, but again, none of that really matters. 

Which finally leads me to the fight scenes. Never have I witnessed a film with such exhilarating and brutal action sequences. The film is a veritable symphony of death, an orgasmic cacophony of splattered blood and broken bones. The kills (and killers) are merciless, and Evans' camera lets us see it all in its full, unadulterated glory. Quite frankly I am flabbergasted as to how this film managed to avoid a NC-17 rating. It seriously makes Tarantino films look relatively tame. The only non-horror film I've seen that compares is Drive, which of course has none of the crazy martial arts present here. The choreography is lightning-fast and extraordinarily inventive, the set-pieces spectacular, and the blows completely visceral. The editing is also spot-on throughout the whole movie. One incredible fight scene between two characters took 12 days to shoot, but you would never know it with the way the sequence unfolds seamlessly. While the first film takes place entirely in dingy corridors and dirty apartments, the fight scenes in the second are much more varied. From a tiny restroom stall to a spotless white kitchen to the wide open streets of Jakarta, it's really fun to watch how the combatants adapt their fighting styles in acclimating to their surroundings.

There's even an excellent car chase!

The Raid 2 is made for a very specific audience. Those who love intense action and who don't shy away from blood and gore aplenty will find much to love. Anyone who doesn't fit this description probably should stay away (a shame though, as the cinematography is truly outstanding). The film's shortcomings in the story department, while noticeable, don't take away too much from the overall experience. It definitely drags at times (the pacing of the first film is much better), but the last 45 minutes of nonstop mayhem more than compensate for any weaknesses. Bottom line: there is really nothing else out there right now that compares to either of the Raid films action-wise. They have set the bar exceedingly high, and are hugely refreshing in today's era of sterilized, CGI-filled, trite PG-13 crapfests that pass for action movies. 

One final note - the Raid films display perfectly how independent filmmakers can produce outstanding films on modest budgets. The Raid 2 was made for just $4.5 million; the original just a scant $1.1 million. Yet the action is better executed and shot than any $100 million blockbuster you'll ever see come out of Hollywood. If this film sounds even remotely appealing to you, give it a try. It's definitely not for the squeamish, though.

-CC

Check out the trailer:

 

A Modern, Monumental Take on a Classic Tale - NOAH

NOAH
2014 - 138 minutes - Adventure/Drama
Director: Darren Aronofsky 
Country: United States 
IMDB: 6.6
Metacritic: 67
RT: 77% 

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: B

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Emma Watson

• biblical tales (albeit loosely based)

• visually appealing films 

• adventure or survival stories 

• Emma Watson 

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Emma Watson...ha, just kidding 

• religious films 

• special effects 

• PG-13 violence 

Noah: The classic biblical tale of heroism, survival and rebirth.

Well, sort of. 

From the very beginning of Noah, it was clear that director Darren Aronofsky was aiming to tell the story in a modern fashion. He wanted to use special effects to create a visually stunning world and bring the arc and its animals to life. He wanted to use makeup to convey the raw and rugged nature of Noah and his family. He wanted to loosely follow the familiar tale of the Old Testament, while also implementing a fresh, relevant message. And for the most part, he succeeded.

Russell Crowe as Noah

Not surprisingly, the story revolves around Russell Crowe as Noah. This was expected not only because his character was the title of the film, but also because of Crowe's proven track record. Here, he gives one of the most famous biblical figures a new identity. Soon after receiving his message from The Creator, (the only term used to reference God in the film) he establishes a focused, yet grouchy and stern mindset. His stubbornness sometimes reaches cruelty, but he knows what must be done, and won't let anyone, not even his family, get in the way. A hero in the end,  yes, but a cynical one. Crowe does a marvelous job, and puts forth a dominant performance.

His surrounding cast excels as well. Anthony Hopkins is fitting as the old and wise Methuselah, and provides a subtle sense of reliability and hope throughout. Jennifer Connelly flourishes as Noah's wife Naameh, and produces one particularly gut-wrenching 
sequence.

Emma Watson as Ila 

The real hidden gem of Noah, though, is Emma Watson as Ila. As one of the few women in the film, she lights up the screen with both her ravishing looks, and evident talent. Ila's range of emotion is perhaps the most widespread of all the characters, having to battle infidelity with love, and eventually miraculously giving birth, and caring for children. Watson portrays doubt, deprivation and innocence for half her role, and later switches to a mother that is determined and nurturing. Late in the film, she even consoles a broken Noah, and reassures him of his controversial decisions that birthed a beginning. The role of Ila proved to be a demanding one, but Watson shines the brightest in a very strong cast.

What makes the acting even more impressive is the fact that, at times, the actors don't have a whole lot to work with. It's clear that Aronofsky had a firm grasp on his visions and intentions for Noah, but his script isn't up to par with his production. He collaborated with longtime contributor Ari Handel, which is why the sometimes lackluster writing comes as a bit of a surprise. Handel is more known for producing Aronofsky's films, (The Fountain, Black Swan, The Wrestler, and now Noah) but he did help compose the The Fountain, and you'd expect a little something more from such a frequent partnership.

Oftentimes, the actor's dialogue weighs down otherwise powerful scenes. Suspenseful and gripping confrontations call for realistic and apt words, but they regularly disappoint. For such an intelligent and daring adaptation with complex characters, Noah's script is fairly elementary.

The arc under  construction

That being said, Aronofsky and cinematographer Matthew Libatique make up for it with their stunning visuals. From beginning to end, Noah is an absolutely gorgeous film, and the aesthetics really make it a worthwhile experience. They're especially impressive when the arc begins to form and Libatique creates sweeping shots through the structure, and gets up close and personal with the arriving creatures. The film has the budget and frequent special effects usage of a hollywood blockbuster, but where it differs is the reasoning behind it. The biblical world that Aronofsky and company create is not only pleasing to look it, but it's also vital to the story.

Overall, Noah is well worth seeing. It has caught some major flak from various religious groups, and I will admit that if you're looking for an entirely accurate re-telling of the famous story, you'll probably be disappointed, if not shocked, but that's far from point. Religious or not, you'll appreciate the strong acting and visual beauty, and you'll relate to it's compelling message. It puts an emphasis on human nature, and how we must make difficult decisions in the hardest of times. Noah is an iconic figure, but he was a human just like the rest of us. Aronofsky's version emphasizes this fact, and it makes for one captivating movie.

-EE

As of April 10, 2014, Noah is in theaters everywhere. Check out the awesome trailer here: 

P.S. - Just a quick note on the scores. I'll reiterate that the religious debates that Noah sparked were plentiful, and can most certainly account for the low user score of 6.6 on IMDB. Religious movie-goers that were upset by the accuracy of the film most likely just rated it 1/10, which is simply unfair. The solid Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores of 67 and 77% are more telling.