Noah (2014)- Movie Review by Sean Wu

I'm going to be honest, I was really tempted to walk out of this movie around the forty minute mark. I thought, has Darren Aronofsky gone sentimental? At that point, the film was a string of scenes, nothing inherently complete.

Noah is not a perfect movie by any means, but when the ark hits the water, sh*t hits the fan in the best way possible. It's thrilling to see Russell Crowe command the screen, delivering power not seen since 2000's Gladiator. And with the film being PG-13, it's amazing how gore, guts, and overall grim atmosphere Aronofsky can shove in two-and-a-quarter hours.

Do you read the Bible? Are you religious? Both questions are irrelevant, because you must surely know the story of Noah's ark and the great flood. Writers Aronofsky and Ari Handel appear to have been very thorough when writing the film, digging through the Old Testament like ark-eologists (haha). Their creativity is superb, but when they try their hands at poetry, it falters. It tries hard to be like John Ridley's script for 12 Years a Slave, but comes off like Terrence Malick, without the improvised feelings.

Outside of Crowe, the cast is solid. Jennifer Conolly returns as Russell Crowe's devoted wife, a la A Beautiful Mind, and she gets a very strong scene of her own (you'll know it when you see it, which you should,). Emma Watson is really good, believe it or not, holding her own against the likes of Anthony Hopkins and Russell Crowe. Speaking of Anthony Hopkins, his character was poorly developed. He's the film's main source of comedic relief, and his mystic powers as the legendary Methusulah can only be revealed through internet articles about the movie. Ray Winstone is a good villain in the movie, he has motives and explains his character in a way the audience might agree with his ideals.

What makes Winstone's Tubal-cain so agreeable is that Aronofsky really develops the idea of internal conflict in Noah, the biproduct of burdening one with the task of saving animals and killing people. Noah believes that humanity should no longer continue after the Great Flood, and is convincing in his unjust belief. Tubal-cain, the animal of a man that he is, believes in the ethics of saving humanity, also convincing. I thought I was going into a disaster movie, but I instead I needed my thinking cap, and it made the movie so much better.

However, I am not singing my praises. There are characters in the beginning that are similar to the mechs in Pacific Rim, assuming they could talk. It's totally silly, even if it is one's artistic interpretation of the Bible, it doesn't work on-screen at all. It's unnecessarily silly, as if Aronofsky decided to make the first forty minutes in Middle-Earth instead.

As a whole, Noah ain't the masterpiece that has been decades in the making, but it is a good movie that works as both a blockbuster and moral drama. I liked it.

The Wrestler (2008), 3/4 Stars

Darren Aronofsky. Oh how weird you are.

Surprisingly, this film is an exception to his weirdness. I'm not insulting him because out of his works, they are very good. I intend to see his Requiem for a Dream when I am a little older. Anyways.

Mickey Rourke plays a role that might be even autobiographical to himself. If you read about him, he's actually a quite damaged man. I'm not insulting him either, because he delivered a great performance in the film. It's almost upsetting that he lost to Sean Penn (I'm still sore about his The Tree of Life hate). Anyways.

In the film, I feel that Rourke's Randy sympathized with himself, and Tomei's stripper Cassidy. She's aging in her art (I don't consider stripping an art,) similar to Rourke losing his talent in wrestling.

The film plays out like so: Randy "The Ram" Robinson, an aging wrestler is up for a 20th anniversary match. Problem is, he's had a health problem, and his relationships are crumbling to an extreme degree (Cassidy and his daughter).

It's an interesting plot that plays out in thin events, not flat out telling you what happens. Which is my main problem with the film. IT'S TOO THIN! It's main highlight is Rourke's performance, to such a subtle degree.

3/4 Stars

Black Swan (2010), 3.5/4 Stars

The closest thing I've seen to a ballet is Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan. I'm not going to lie, but the plot is very weird, and almost convinces you not to watch the movie. Ballerinas? Fighting for a role? Sexual adventures? All in the same film? Sounds like a real turn-off.

With Aronofsky's steady hand at directing (The Wrestler), the film is almost a visual beauty. The tricks and illusions looked good enough to me, and they were really good glance at a hallucination.

But I wondered, what were the points of the segments? The character Nina had some of the most cliched, cheest hallucinations ever. That's what degraded the film.

The opening half is very good, with easy to follow characters. It's evident, right from the start, that Barbara Hershey is very protective of her Natalie Portman (Who wouldn't be?). Anyway, she is very secluded and almost immature. She still has stuffed animals in her room, and is very protective of her miniature ballerina music box. But that's merely just an opening to the "white swan" of the characters.

The "black swan" characters are more outgoing, wild, and successful in a way. There's a new ballerina in the troupe, and her name is Lily. She is competing for the role of the Swan Queen in the next ballet. The head, Tomas Leroy, or Toma, chooses Nina. Nina's not perfect, though.

First off, Nina is not as outgoing to play the role of "Black Swan". Fortunately, she is very good as the White Swan. (Which probably won her the role). The thing is, Toma wants one ballerina to play both swan characters. Upsetting to Lily, she challenges Nina mentally, socially, and sexually.

The twist is, these challenges are affecting Nina psychologically. She has hallucinations, unique dreams, and other thoughts.

As I stated above, the hallucinations and twists are cliched, and the degrade the film from perfection. Bummer.

3.5/4 Stars