Tag Archives: Emily Watson

REVIEW: “Everest”

by

27

EVEREST poster

I said this during a recent review – I have a real weak spot for good, thrilling disaster/survival movies. For decades it has been a genre that has constantly found a place for itself on big screens. No catastrophe is too big and no disaster is beyond cinematic creativity. Now of course some of these films have been nothing short of disasters themselves, but still I often find myself captivated by the melding of large-scale peril with human emotion and survival instinct.

Enter “Everest”, the new movie from Icelandic filmmaker Baltasar Kormákur based on the true story of the 1996 Mount Everest disaster. Mount Everest is the world’s highest mountain, ominously standing among Nepal’s Himalayas and armed with some of the most treacherous climbing conditions on planet earth. There is an almost mystic allure that surrounds Mount Everest and it has attracted climbers for years. Documented expeditions dating as far back as 1921 have helped to discover climbing routes as well as shed light on the mountain’s many dangers. Some have resulted in successful summits, but others have ended with disastrous loss of life.

EVEREST2

“Everest” assembles a stellar cast to tell the story of two expedition groups and their attempts to conquer and eventually survive Mount Everest in May, 1996. Rob Hall (Jason Clarke) is an expedition guide for Adventure Consultants. Among his clients are a lively Texan named Beck (Josh Brolin), a meek and timid mailman Doug (John Hawkes), and an experienced Japanese climber named Tasuko (Naoko Mori). They arrive at the base camp where they meet Rob’s team.

Also at base camp is the spirited Scott Fischer (Jake Gyllenhaal), a friendly rival of Rob’s who is there to guide a group for Mountain Madness. As conditions deteriorate and the window to ascend to the summit grows smaller, Rob and Scott agree to team up to try and get their groups to the top. But quickly complications mount as the mountain’s wealth of dangers hit the groups head-on. It turns into a man-versus-nature struggle where sheer survival becomes the ultimate goal.

“Everest” is a unique movie with a firm focus. It isn’t a film interested in serving up deep, fully developed characters. Nor is it interested in building layers of drama between its characters. It could be said that this is a weakness. Actually the film does give us tidbits that open up several of the characters albeit ever so slightly. We learn quite a lot about Rob through his reputation and interactions with his clients, co-workers, and especially his wife Jan (Kiera Knightley). There are also interesting glimpses into Beck and Doug’s backstories that help shape how we look at them.

But to my point, none of that is the prime focus of “Everest”. The film sets its sights on the climb. It grants insight into its characters but just enough to help frame its main focus – man versus mountain. The meat and potatoes of “Everest” is strength, endurance, and the human will to live violently clashing with the captivating, beautiful, yet deadly force of nature. Characters talk of accomplishment and fulfillment, but it all ultimately comes down to this conflict. That is what grabbed me and never let me go.

EVERST1

And perhaps most impressive is the sting of realism we get throughout the story. It doesn’t bomb us with big money moments or action-based contrivances. Everything that happens in preparing and especially during the climb feels organic. At times it is slow and methodical. Other times it is stressful and chaotic. And it is all captured with breathtaking awe. The visuals in “Everest” are stunning with several scenes literally causing me to exhale a deserved “wow”. Whether it’s the sheer beauty of the surroundings or capturing the climb itself, cinematographer Salvatore Totino’s mixture of CGI and on location filming is a sight to behold.

In the end “Everest” felt considerably different than I expected. It isn’t a brash, bombastic popcorn flick. It isn’t a by-the-books ‘real events’ movie. Sure, it has its big name ensemble cast and its share of visual ‘wow’ moments. But at the same time it felt small, concise, and restrained. The performances are exceptional throughout with actors filling in the character gaps and never allowing us to forget the human element. It’s harrowing, tragic, thrilling, and exhilarating. It could have easily been yet another disaster flick. For me “Everest” was much, much more.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Noah”

by

55

noah POSTER

Darren Aronofsky wasn’t the first person I would expect to make a serious Bible-based epic, but that’s exactly the task he has chosen. In fact he has been wanting to bring the story of Noah to the big screen for years. Now armed with a $150 million budget and a stellar cast Aronofsky has co-written and directed a large-scaled picture that has already been met with its share of controversy.

As a Christian myself there are certain things in the Bible where creative liberties have no place. That may not allow me to be the most objective critic of some Bible-based movies but it is a belief that is inseparable from who I am. On the other hand some stories from Scripture leave themselves open to interpretation while others may stir our imaginations by omitting many of the details. Such is the case with the story of Noah. The story of Noah and his ark takes up only a small portion of Scripture so there are definitely areas where our creative imaginations (in this case Aronofsky’s) may kick in. Yet you always look for respect of the spirit of the story and at least some type of adherence to the material.

NOAH2

Fans of popular novels or those passionate about a historical figure or account have always expected some degree of adherence to the source material from movie adaptations. That’s perfectly reasonable and why would the approach to this be any different? Instead Aronofsky has taken a well known Bible story and laced it with Tolkien-styled fantasy, weird mysticism, and one of the most heavy-handed environmental and animal rights messages you’ll ever see on screen. In essence he has chosen to tell a story about a man named Noah and definitely not THE story of Noah that many people may be expecting.

The main aim of Aronofsky’s version is recognized early in the film. Noah (Russell Crowe) shares with his three sons that the environment is the true apple of the Creator’s eye. He uses his son’s criminal offense of plucking a flower from the ground to show how callous men can disrupt the Creator’s beautiful and harmonious world. A situation then arises which allows Noah to tell of how animals are the Creator’s crowning achievement and how men endanger them, some going as far as actually eating them (which shocks his sons). All of this happens in one of the film’s opening sequences but it isn’t contained to it.

The main conflict throughout the movie is between the evils of mankind and the innocence of animals along with Noah and his family. In fact, Noah states that the entire purpose for building the ark is to save the animals and kill wicked mankind. Now the movie does throw a couple of bones to those who were hoping for a slightly accurate telling of the Bible story but the similarities between the movie and the Biblical account are strictly cosmetic. This is much more like a poor man’s Lord of the Rings installment filled with giant talking rock creatures, Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins) who is a strange hermit/wizard, and an huge CGI-heavy battle sequence. Spellcasting, odd relics, and bloody blades take center stage.

Noah1

The Creator is also in sharp contrast to what some people may expect. At no point in the film does Aronofsky use the name God. Clearly this was intentional. Was it an act of respect in order to not offend especially considering the massive liberties he takes? I don’t know but the God of the Bible and the movie’s “Creator” couldn’t be more different. In the film the Creator is a cold and distant deity who speaks with veiled visions and sometimes not at all. Aronofsky shows him as an iron-fisted tyrant at times who watches mankind wallow in uncertainty and turns deaf ears on their pleas for clarity. And sometimes it’s the Creator who is portrayed as the villain. While Aronofsky never calls him God, it wouldn’t be a stretch to consider this his view of him.

I could go on about strange and perplexing diversions from the original text, but how does “Noah” stand up as a movie? Is it good cinema and is it good storytelling? The film does have some strengths. Whether you like him or not, Aronofsky has a great visual style that separates his movies from others. There are some stunning shots that were really effective especially when the rain starts to come. There are also several phenomenal performances. Crowe is in top form and he is perfectly cast. We also get great performances from Emma Watson, Jennifer Connelly, and Logan Lerman. And I have to mention Ray Winestone. He’s fabulous as Tubal-cain, the king of the evil meat-eating men.

Noah3

But the film has several glaring flaws (aside from my concerns mentioned above). First off, while some of the visuals may be amazing much of the CGI isn’t. The rock creatures look like something out of an early 1990s film and the big climactic battle looked as clunky visually as it felt narratively. Then there were a number of unintentionally goofy moments which were often direct results of Aronofsky’s diversions. The film also grinds to a halt in the third act as a trumped up family drama plays out among those confined to the floating ark. The family conflict angle had a lot of promise, but here it drags the movie down and I began to check my watch.

I’ll be honest, Aronofsky’s decision to divert so wildly from the source material is an issue for me mainly because there is plenty of good story to tell aside from what we are given. But even aside from that, “Noah” is a film plagued with its share of problems. It’s a movie that teases us with what it could have been but ultimately stumbles because of what it actually is. This isn’t the biblical story of God’s righteous judgement of evil and His mercy towards humanity through Noah. But that doesn’t mean this movie isn’t preachy. Its sermon is on the evils of mankind and how the earth has been in a state of physical decay and animals have been robbed of their innocence since we came onto the scene. Who knows, whichever story you care about the most may also determine how much you care about this film as a whole.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “The Book Thief”

by

19

BOOK THIEF POSTER

Add this to the ever growing list of movies based on popular books that I’ve never read. “The Book Thief” was a popular novel released in 2006 by Australian author Markus Zusak. At least that’s what I’m told. I obviously had not read it or even heard of it until the new film adaptation hit theaters. I have to say the trailer instantly grabbed me. I’m naturally drawn to movies about World War 2, the Holocaust, or the people affected by them. So even with the film’s small amount of press and lukewarm reviews I was still anxious to see it.

Let’s not beat around the bush. I loved “The Book Thief”. Even further, I’m really surprised at some of the criticisms that have been thrown its way. Some I simply don’t agree with while others feel terribly unjust. It’s true that the movie doesn’t delve deep into the horrors of its setting. And it’s also true that it has its share of melodrama. But I never felt this film needed to be more graphic or detailed and melodrama in itself isn’t a bad thing. For me “The Book Thief” was a sweet, tender, and moving story. Yes those adjectives tend to be overused, but for me they fit this movie perfectly.

DF-05687.JPG

Oddly enough Death is the narrator. ‘He’ sets up the story by introducing us to a young girl named Liesel (Sophie Nélisse). She and her younger brother are being taken by their mother to meet their new foster parents. But when her brother dies in route, Liesel is left alone in this new and difficult environment. Her new parents, the cold, strict Rosa (Emily Watson) and the gentle, compassionate Hans (Geoffrey Rush), live in a small German town during a tumultuous time. Naziism is gaining strength and World War 2 is nearing.

Director Brian Percival takes us along as Liesel tries to adapt to and survive in her new world. There are a few people she meets who helps her along the way. Her new next-door neighbor, a young boy named Rudy (Nico Liersch), is instantly attracted to her and the two become great friends. She also encounters a Jewish man named Max Vandenburg (Ben Schnetzer), who Hans and Rosa put into hiding. But perhaps her greatest source of comfort is found in her newly discovered love for books. Through books she grows closer to her new father, she learns the ways of the new world, and she learns a way to express herself that she had never known before. Throughout the film many things in Liesel’s life changes. Her love for books isn’t one of them.

“The Book Thief” moves slow and deliberate but I never had a problem with it. I found myself glued to the story and the characters particularly young Liesel. Canadian actress Sophie Nélisse is asked to carry much of the load and she is certainly up to the task. The 13-year old gives a mesmerizing performance. She captures the childlike innocence and playfulness while never falling under the weight of the heavier emotional scenes. It was also amazing to see the way she handled a German accent. She really blew me away. Then there is the brilliance of Emily Watson and Geoffrey Rush. Both are perfectly cast and hit every note just right. In fact Rush deserves some serious Oscar consideration for this performance.

Book thief 2

But this is also a beautiful movie made so by Florian Ballhaus’ fine cinematography, some wonderful costume and set designs, and a lovely score by John Williams. There are several camera shots or visual moments that are still etched in my mind. The film is striking as it visualizes several uncomfortable events including a nighttime book burning, a home-by-home search for Jews, and people scrambling for bomb shelters as air raid sirens eerily scream in the background. And it’s made even more effective by the fact that it’s all seen through young Liesel’s eyes.

I love it when a film grabs me and pulls me into its world. That’s exactly what happened with “The Book Thief”. For two hours I was a resident on that small town German street. I cared about the characters, laughed with them, and was pierced by the tragedies they endured. It may be too dry for some people, too tame for others, and perhaps it is just a tad too long. I still had an incredible experience. A stirring story, some beautiful direction, some of the year’s best performances, and a near perfect ending all contribute to this being one of my favorite films of 2013.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS