Noah

Noah has been banned in Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and in Egypt. Paramount Pictures test-screened three different cuts of the film to Christian audiences, all of whom hated it. Moreover, it hasn't picked up much positive praise at all, in religious circles or otherwise. This is rather surprising as, conversely, Noah is as about un-biblical as a biblical epic can be.

From its opening sequences, it's obvious that Noah isn't going to be an end-of-term DVD choice in every R.E. teacher's arsenal: it deviates from its source text to such a great extent that it has more in common with the sci-fi genre than a religious epic. Starring Russell Crowe in the titular role and Emma Watson as his adopted daughter, the film is, first and foremost, bonkers. Indeed, it is so ludicrous and frenzied that any sense of a serious religious or moral subtext is, ironically, drowned out.

The action takes place in an unidentified land where humans have corrupted the Earth and our hero Noah receives instructions from the Creator (the word 'God' is never used in the film) to build an ark to save the creatures of the planet when the floods come to cleanse the world of evil. So far, pretty standard biblical fare. Where it departs from this narrative – and I'm no Biblical scholar – is when fallen angels arrive on the scene in the form– rather bizarrely – of rock monsters with glowing eyes and voices which sound like Brian Blessed through a sub woofer. Throw in a few animals which could be straight out of The Lord of the Rings and the whole thing becomes rather bemusing. Add in a lot of shouting, Russell Crowe's every-changing hair style and some battle sequences and you've got a very confused film.

Crowe's performance is somewhat disengaging. One minute, he's the saviour of the world (quite literally) and the next he's a manic and self-destructing murderer, intent on wiping out the human race at any cost. I'm not even sure the audience are meant to like him. Any empathy which can be given lies with, instead, his wife (superbly played by Jennifer Connelly) whose emotional turmoil and outpourings of grief give the only sense of humanity to the character of Noah. Emma Watson is fine, but her role – along with the other female characters – felt a little underwritten. Ray Winstone is just about convincing as the bad guy Tubal-cain, intent on surviving the floods and Anthony Hopkins (for it is he) plays Noah's grandfather Methuselah.

Whilst the story of Noah and the drowning of millions was never going to be an easy narrative to translate to film, for a 12A, I was surprised by its graphic and, at times, very harrowing moments of death and destruction. The rousing score by Clint Mansell complemented the impressive visuals which director Darren Aronofksy clearly spent much time developing. All in all, however, the film doesn't know quite what it is or what audience it is playing to.

In the end, the biblical references feel like they have been shoe-horned in, the script is far from perfect and the total ridiculousness of it all will leave many feeling alienated. The countries mentioned at the beginning of this review really shouldn't get so worked up: in many ways, the only thing the film shares with its source is lots and lots of water.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

300: Rise of an Empire

If there's one thing which can be said about 300: Rise of an Empire, it is that it shouldn't be screened in an A Level Ancient Greek revision class. Its history is, to say the least, rather suspect and will certainly do the student of Ancient Greece no favours. More fundamentally, however, it shouldn't be shown because it is absolutely rubbish.

300: Rise of an Empire developed from the cult success of Zack Snyder's 2007 film 300, a movie with distinctive comic book visuals and with a slow motion, voyeuristic fascination with spurting blood and violence. The original saw Gerard Butler shout his way through the Battle of Thermopylae and 300: Rise of an Empire takes place at the same time, albeit on the other side of the Greco-Persian wars. Snyder's film had a lot going on in it: a beguiling visual aesthetic, intense violence, a coherent narrative and a camp undertone which didn't take itself too seriously. Oh, and lots of topless men.

Its sequel/prequel retains the topless warriors but dispenses with everything else, resulting in a film which is flat, narratively garbled and rather boring. Director Noam Murro shows a fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to narrative cinema and the film appears to sleepwalk between one battle and another, interspersed with rousing speeches (often delivered by our hero Themistocles, played by the Australian Sullivan Stapleton), which are neither rousing nor engaging.

Themistocles leads the Athenian army (who, I must point out, are much less ripped than their Spartan counterparts) and Stapleton's performance is just about adequate, even if his accent does jump around as much as a gap year student. The trouble lies, however, in the film's plot – or lack of one – and whilst the action sequences may be filmed and constructed well, this amounts to little when the audience have no investment in the characters and the narrative leaves each battle sequence high and dry (slightly ironic as most of the battles take place on the sea). It is not enough to throw blood-drenched battle after blood-drenched battle at the audience and hope that they'll find it interesting. Without the crucial narrative framework, there's more excitement to be had at a bingo hall than during the 102 minutes of 300: Rise of an Empire.

Perhaps the only saving grace of this film is Eva Green, who is ravishing as the baddie Artemisia, and she really does throw herself into the role and shows herself to be more than capable of wielding a sword. The original 300 had much to say and it appears as if its sequel is attempting to do the same. In reality, however, its self-awareness is lost and it tries rather too hard to be both visceral and edgy. Half way through the film, we're treated (or should that be subjected?) to the most bizarre one-night-stand you will ever see in the cinema and the film misjudges its sexual politics to a great extent. Naked men may be plentiful but the film's male gaze is firmly directed at women: evident in the costumes in which Eva Green is placed.

300: Rise of the Empire may have the blood, violence and visuals to make it a companion piece to300, but its lack of any semblance of narrative will leave you thinking “and so what”? There's only so much shouting and inspirational speeches that one can take. The overall effect is rather anaesthetising.

Clapperboard Rating: *

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson is one of the few directors whose work is instantly recognisable, such is his visual flair and narrative quirk. The Grand Budapest Hotel continues his tradition of perfectly-staged and ordered chaos, infused with rich dialogue and wit and it is a film which is charming whilst being slightly melancholic.

Set in the fictional middle-European state of Zubrowka and at the institution of the Grand Budapest Hotel, an establishment frequented by duchesses, politicians and high society alike, the film uncoils like a spring. Opening with our narrator (played by both Tom Wilkinson and Jude Law) recounting his meeting with the hotel’s owner Mr Moustafa (played by F Murray Abraham and in youth by Tony Revolori), who in turn introduces us to the protagonist M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), the hotel’s 1930s concierge. The film focuses on Gustave and Moustafa’s friendship as the latter becomes the former’s protégée as a hotel lobby boy. Got that? Good.

Ralph Fiennes is, perhaps, less well-known for his humorous roles, but here his comedic timing and physical acting is assured and engaging. As the disarming and rather sanguine concierge, Fiennes’ performance zips around the screen with great energy and intensity as M. Gustave attends to the every need of the hotel’s guests (needs which, he informs the young Mr Moustafa, must be anticipated before the guests themselves realise). Indeed, it is not only Fiennes’ talents which are worthy of praise: the entire cast are aware that they are in a Wes Anderson film and, as a result, give performances which are simultaneously controlled and dynamic. 

The cast list reads like a who’s-who of the acting world: Adrien Brody, Willem Defoe, Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton, Saoirse Ronan, Jason Schwartzman and Owen Wilson all make appearances. The plot jumps around, one minute murder is the topic of the day, then art theft, jail breaking and then all-out war, all grounded by Fiennes’ delightful performance and Anderson’s immersive style of direction.

Anderson’s film-making is all about artifice: every camera angle is worked out to the most exact of degrees, each tracking shot stops at a precise point, the actors move as if programmed by computer and the sets have more detail in them than the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Anderson’s visual craftsmanship is plain to see and there is not a single scene in which characters are not framed by something, reinforcing the stage and performance aspect of the film. Staying at the Grand Budapest Hotel is all about theatrics and performance, and the audience are not allowed to forget that. The film’s aspect ratio jumps around, title cards appear at regular intervals and carefully considered colour schemes permeate each frame.

This is scientific film-making. But none of this detracts from the charm and warmth with which Anderson approaches his subject matter – subject matter which addresses themes of age, loss, nostalgia and progress. With its collection of odd characters, sharp script, perfectly-pitched performances and stunning visuals, The Grand Budapest Hotel is a gem in the canon of Wes Anderson. Just like the cakes which pop up throughout the film, it is a sumptuous delight of film-making. 

Clappeboard Rating: * * * * 

Non-Stop

One of the best ways (in my mind at least) to pass the tedium and discomfort of long haul flying is to watch a film…or three. Last summer, I went travelling and suffered ten flights in ten weeks and all but two had a great selection of in-flight entertainment (the two without a personal screen at your seat were operated by Bangkok Airways, who instead opted to show an episode of Mr Bean – bizarre). The choice of genres on aeroplane flights is usually very good and sometimes a film is enhanced because of the context of watching it on a flight. Non-Stop, a film about a hijacking, really does deserve to be seen on a plane. And here’s why…

Liam Neeson has taken on a variety of roles over the years: the loving father in Love Actually and the killing, don’t-mess-with-my-family father in Taken and Taken 2. And it is the latter “I will find you and I will kill you” character which pops up again in Non-Stop. Neeson plays a US air marshal who, we establish within the first minute of the film, has a drink problem. On a flight to London, he starts receiving mysterious text messages from one of his fellow passengers who threatens to kill a passenger every twenty minutes unless his demands are met. And this is all you need to know to explain the subsequent ninety minutes of Liam Neeson running around, beating up passengers and brandishing a gun as if it were a news reporter’s microphone.

Put quite simply, Non-Stop is ridiculous. Preposterous. Absurd. So ludicrous that it makes Star Wars look like a Ken Loach work of social realism. The film’s third act will leave you slightly bewildered and the characters, the dialogue and the plot arcs are sensationalist to say the least. Indeed, quite how a plane-full of people can’t hear a fight-to-the-death happening in the cabin toilets is a mystery.

Neeson’s performance is standard fare – gruff, hulking and a bit unpredictable, but totally in keeping with the film’s tone. And I’ve nothing against him being an action hero – I’d even say he’s quite good at it. Julianne Moore plays his only supporter on the flight and Michelle Dockery (of Downton Abbey fame) is the slightly suspicious, always polite stewardess. For a film which is predominantly set in the confines of an aeroplane, I have to say that it never drags and the action keeps the film rolling along at a fair old pace.

I’ve said that Non-Stop is a ridiculous film but in many ways, this isn’t to its detriment. For what it is – a no-brain, bang, crash, whallop action thriller – it does go through the motions in an entertaining manner and Neeson is absolutely fine as its protagonist. It’s just a shame that the initial intrigue and (dare I say it) potential for intelligent discussion of issues affecting today’s society (which was setup in the beginning) was totally forgotten about, to be replaced with more shouting and violence than at Primark’s Boxing Day sales. But, in many ways, this was never going to be anything more than a standard thriller with our man Liam.

Non-Stop is as outlandish as it is loud. It makes, however, for a fun and solid action film and I started this review by saying that it would be the perfect movie to watch on a plane. A hijacking film may seem like an odd choice, but it is so ludicrous that you can be safe in the knowledge it will never, ever, happen. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

12 Years a Slave

Film is, fundamentally, an entertainment medium. As such, a trip to the cinema should be fun-filled, engaging and worth the extortionate price of a box of popcorn. Whether it's comedy, drama, romance or horror, a film's primary function is to entertain audiences and, if using this as the sole method of judging a movie, film criticism should be quite straight forward. However, every now and then, a film like 12 Years a Slave comes along which disrupts this notion. You will not enjoy 12 Years a Slave: indeed, it can't be classed as a work of entertainment. This, however, does not reduce its value or, moreover, its cinematic power.

We are told, from its very opening, that 12 Years a Slave is based on true events and, more specifically, on the 1853 memoirs of Solomon Northup, which gave an account of his being kidnapped and sold into slavery. The film is a gritty, shocking and emotional account of his life and the terrible situation in which he – and hundreds of thousands of other blacks – found themselves in nineteenth-century America. Solomon is played by Brit actor Chiwetel Ejiofor and a supporting cast reads like a who's-who of current British acting talent. Indeed, 12 Years a Slave is an overwhelmingly British feature, directed by Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame) and also starring Michael Fassbender and Benedict Cumberbatch. Brad Pitt, too, pops up for good measure.

12 Years a Slave has picked up nine Oscar nominations and will, no doubt, go on to win many of these, and deservedly so. McQueen's film manages to address the historical issue of slavery with an immediacy and urgency which is rarely found in historical dramas. In the film, 1840's America is a potent mix of brutality, injustice and hypocrisy, where a black man can have his freedom and identity stripped from him, literally overnight. John Ridley's screenplay follows Solomon from his beginnings as a talented violinist in a well-to-do position to his kidnapping by slavers and sale to William Ford, a plantation owner (Cumberbatch). Cumberbatch's character is a moderate and benevolent master (but nevertheless a slave owner) but when Solomon has an altercation with Ford's carpenter (Paul Dano), Ford is forced to sell Solomon on to save his life. Solomon then ends up in the ownership of the cruel and violent Edwin Epps (Fassbender) and his situation becomes intolerable.

Chiwetel Ejiofor's performance is nothing short of masterful and his physical ability to show such a range of emotions through his facial gestures is exploited to the full by McQueen, who lets the camera linger on the actors, well after any other director would have cut to the next scene. Ejiofor's representation of a man who must disguise his literacy and his freedom in order to survive is captivating and heartbreaking to watch, as is the rest of the cast who make for convincing watching.

The brutality experienced by the slaves is portrayed on screen with a frightening realism and an unflinching commitment to reality which makes the story all the more affecting. It is certainly not an easy watch, especially in sequences which see floggings by Epps on his slaves for the most incomprehensible of reasons: one slave is hideously punished for wanting to use a bar of soap. At times, McQueen's film feels vivid and contemporary, far from a work of historical fiction. The ultimate irony of slavery is highlighted when two men argue over Solomon's freedom, watched by other slaves who must suffer simply because they were not born free.

There is, perhaps, one issue with the film and the satirical magazine Private Eye has summed it up rather well. In a section about Oscar nominations, it fabricated Oscar categories in which the film will win. Amongst these were the awards for “Most Guilt-Inducing Film To A White Middle-Class Audience” and “Film Most In Need Of A Bit Of Light Relief”. As flippant as this may sound, it does ring with an element of truth: does 12 Years A Slave deserve all its praise or are critics and audiences simply praising it because of its subject matter? A film's subject does not inherently give it substance, importance and value: it is up to the director to do that. But, with 12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen has done just that. This is a film not to enjoy, but to admire for its immense skill and an immediacy which will, paradoxically, allow it to become a classic work in years to come.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * * 

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom

The cynic in me would say that studio bosses would have received the news of Nelson Mandela's death with mixed feelings. Sadness and respect, of course, but I can't help wondering that the timing of his death could be seen as something of a positive for those with a financial and a creative interest in Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom. People will go and see the film for many reasons: to reflect on Mandela's life and legacy, to see Idris Elba's performance or, like me, to simply learn more about the man and his achievements. From this point of view, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom is an informative biopic and will give the audience a run-down of the major milestones and events in Mandela's life. This, however, does not necessarily make for a great cinematic experience.

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom can't be knocked for its ambitious scope: it attempts to tell Mandela's story from his coming-of-age ceremony in the South African savannah, to his election as President in 1994. Idris Elba takes on the role and, for the most part, gives a nuanced and accomplished performance which captivates the audience from the very beginning. He is a commanding screen presence and, placed alongside Naomie Harris as his headstrong wife Winnie, is certainly one of the film's strengths. Harris' portrayal of Winnie's transformation is also very interesting to watch: from doting and vulnerable new wife and mother, to militant campaigner, Winnie's story is just as engaging as that of Mandela.

Elba is particularly assured when playing Mandela as a young man, charting his involvement with the ANC and exploring his attitudes towards violence and his experiences in prison. The problem here, however, is that the film feels a little too referential and merely skims the surface of Mandela's personal conflicts. Of course, a film charting the monumental events of Mandela's life was never going to have enough time but it often felt that the film was going through the motions, ticking off the milestones: a whistle-stop Mandela Tour.

The film is shot beautifully by Lol Crawley and the images of rural South Africa are particularly striking. Some have criticised the film's score as being too emotionally manipulative but I feel that it fits with the film's tone: this is not an exposé of some aspects of Mandela's life or a revelatory film: it is a dramatic summary, if you will, of Mandela. Its primary function is to be an emotive drama and its score reflects this. During scenes of prison visits by Mandela's family, the prison guard demands that the visits are conducted with the proviso that the conversations will include “no politics”. Some will disagree, but I think that, similarly, the film's own politics are less evident than they could be. This is not necessarily, however, a weakness.

Perhaps the central issue is this: does the film's subject-matter – based on the life and achievements of one of the most influential figures of modern times – automatically create a film of value and importance? The answer is no, it doesn't. Many will, perhaps, be disappointed with Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom because it fails to offer any more information than Mandela's Wikipedia entry. South Africa may look stunning, the cast may be captivating and the events portrayed may be exciting and affecting. But it's all too neat. At the beginning of this review, I asked whether or not biopics can make great cinematic experiences. Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom is not a triumph of cinema because, paradoxically, it is too cinematic, too polished and too referential.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom is released nationwide on 3rd January 2014 

Top Five Films of 2013

Unlike previous years, I'm afraid (or should that be glad) that there won't be a “Worst Five” films of 2013, simply because, I haven't seen that many bad ones! This is partly due to my absence over the summer when I was gallivanting around the world and partly due to the fact that 2013 has been a stunning year for cinema. Testament to this are the films which didn't make it into my list: Les Misérables, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Saving Mr Banks and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. It has been difficult to pick my Top Five but I have done it. Disagreements on the back of a postcard please...

5) Philomena

“Fantastic”, “affecting”, “poignant” and “potent” were some of the words I used to describe Philomena, the true story of Irish seventy-something Philomena Lee (Judi Dench) who, with the help of journalist Martin Sixsmith (Coogan), sets out to find her child who was put up for adoption by Catholic nuns in 1950's Ireland. The film balances wit with emotion and has two superb performances from Dench and Coogan (who is at his very best in this film). Some suggested that the film was an attack on the Catholic church: something which is patently untrue. But Philomena wasn't reluctant to address hard-hitting issues. A gem of a film which will pull at the heart strings.

 

4) Prisoners

If a film can be judged on levels of tension, then Prisoners is a sure-fire hit. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Hugh Jackman, Prisoners starts out with a fairly standard kidnap narrative but soon becomes dark, suffocating and very, very intense. Despite its 153 minute running time, the level of tension is sustained throughout and Gyllenhaal and Jackman give very assured performances. A word of warning though: you might just need to watch something with fluffy bunnies in it after seeing Prisoners.

3) The Place Beyond the Pines

In many ways, this film would make an interesting double-bill with Prisoners. Hollywood heartthrob Ryan Gosling plays a bike stunt rider who is constantly moving from one town to the next. He discovers he is father to a son and is determined to provide for both the child and its mother, Romina (Eva Mendes). The way in which he does this has fateful and far-reaching consequences for both him, his son and for Avery, an ambitious cop played by Bradley Cooper. Directed by Derek Cianfrance, The Place Beyond the Pines is epic, in all meanings of the word. Its frenetic changes in tone may jar with some viewers and its ending is a little too neat, but it is a film which speaks with dramatic lyricism and uninhibited ambition. It is unnerving, emotive and reassuringly human: all things which you want from a trip to the cinema.

2) Zero Dark Thirty

Creating more controversy than Miley Cyrus popping down to the local supermarket, Zero Dark Thirty surprised many in taking subject matter which we all thought we knew (the killing of Osama Bin Laden) and making it exciting and unsettling in equal measure. Jessica Chastain, as a CIA operative determined to track down Bin Laden, is fantastic and Katherine Bigelow's direction mixes espionage, action and drama together to create an intelligent film about intelligence gathering. Fantastic.

1) Gravity

And here it is: the Number One film of the year is Gravity – the only film that I think has to be seen in 3D. Its B-movie feel, short running time and immersive visual effects create a film which will have you gripping the edge of the seat from the very beginning. Sandra Bullock is at the top of her game and, despite the high-tech, wondrous special effects (which are ground-breaking), Gravity feels like a very personal, intimate film which will mean different things to each individual. It will make you fall in love with cinema all over again. 

Happy New Year from Clapperboard Film Reviews!