NOAH

Read more: http://flicksandthecity.com/noah-review/#ixzz2xaPfkFJA 

Follow us: @FlicksCity on Twitter | FlicksAndTheCity on Facebook

Darren Aronofsky brings Noah and his ark to the big screen in his long-awaited biblical epic that is ased on the famous story of Noah (Russell Crowe), a man who God entrusts with the task of building an ark in order to save two of each animal before an apocalyptic flood destroys the world.

Let’s be honest, everybody knows the story of Noah’s ark, though not necessary in great detail. And while Aronofsky’s retelling of the story has faced criticism from religious leaders for straying from the original tale, the basic premise appears to be the same with added drama for entertainment purposes.

The film starts with a brief biblical history of the earth’s creation and how the descendants of Adam and Eve were Cain, who was evil, and Seth, who was good and father to Noah. This good/evil divide is integral to the story and leads to Noah being chosen to save the animals as God cleanses the world of the evil of mankind in order to start anew.

Although the basic story of Noah is his epic task, the heart of the film is Noah’s family and the brutal impact his task has on them. Douglas Booth, who stars as his son Shem, and Emma Watson, who plays Shem’s wife Ila, add complexity to the story. The film delves beneath the surface of Noah’s mission and brings home the tragic consequences of wiping out all of mankind, leaving him to wonder if humans are supposed to survive the new world, or if God thinks the world would be better off without them due to their brutality and evil. This aspect of the film is a thought-provoking new take on the story and adds to the tension and high-drama throughout.

However, While the added elements of Noah’s family are widely welcomed, at times their presence changes the tone from epic blockbuster to soap opera. Aronofsky tries to cram too many subplots into the film, making it around 30 minutes too long. As Noah progresses, the family’s issues become more melodramatic with Jennifer Connelly, as Noah’s wife, and Watson delivering lines in a way that feels too contemporary given the film’s biblical setting.

Despite this slight narrative hiccup, Noah is aesthetically beautiful with mesmerizing CGI and cinematography that gives the film an almost fantastical feel throughout, with some scenes that wouldn’t look out of place in Middle-earth. The look of the film also complements the narrative; as with the original story, you must be willing to suspend your disbelief in order for it to make sense. God communicating to Noah through a dream, Noah’s grandfather having magical healing powers, even the way all the world’s animals travel to the ark in pairs would look out of place and impossible to wrap your head around if it weren’t for the rest of the film having a fantasy element to it. The film’s overall look is arguably the strongest part of Noah, as even when the plot begins to falter it is still enjoyable to watch.

All in all, Noah is a fascinating take on the original story, and tackles many questions you may not have considered prior to seeing the film. Although it’s a story most of us think we already know, Aronofsky’s retelling adds complexity and depth as the film delves beneath the surface and brings home the tragic consequences of Noah’s epic task. The focus on Noah’s family is a particular strength of the film and, along with the its visuals, makes for an original and thought-provoking take on a classic story.

★★★✯ ☆

Noah is in cinemas nationwide from the 4th of April!

Stay tuned for more reviews and follow me on twitter if you fancy it :)

Love,

ROMEO & JULIET

Needless to say, this 2013 remake of Romeo & Juliet was not high on my list of 'must-see' films, in fact I had scarcely even heard of it and its forgettable trailer and z-list cast made me wonder exactly what I was letting myself in for when I went along to the cinema on Tuesday night.

Directed by Carlo Carlei, this film is simply yet another rework of Shakespeare's classic play about two star-crossed lovers Romeo & Juliet. In case you live under a rock, a brief summary of the plot: Romeo (Douglas Booth) and Juliet (Hailee Steinfield) are on opposing sides of a long-standing feud between two families. However, when they meet at a masquerade ball they immediately fall in love and marry in secret - however, tragedy soon ensues.

Carlei can not compete with the 1996 masterpiece

The story has been made into film countless times - from the traditional to the animated to the outrageous but perhaps the most prominent interpretation comes from the Baz Luhrmann's 1996 masterpiece Romeo + Juliet, starring Leonardo Dicaprio. Unsurprisingly, Carlei's version doesn't even come close to the levels of Luhrmann's brilliance.

I suppose the most important point to mention is that Carlei has stuck to the more traditional depiction of the story. There are sword fights, they are in 'fair Verona', there are no fights at petrol stations nor any murder on the beach. One criticism that I can't understand is that it 'bastardizes Shakespeare' - this film holds the closest imitation of the actual play from any of the films that were made this side of the 1970s (sadly the 'Do you bite your thumb at me, sir?' debate was mercilessly cut), although the 1996 version is the stronger film by miles, if either of the two were to be accused of bastardizing Shakespeare, I would have thought it'd be the that one.

Despite sticking to the language of the play and paying homage to traditional Shakespeare, the incredibly weak cast are the huge downfall of this film. Reminiscent of a bad school play, it was clear that much of the cast - namely Hailee Steinfield who was unfortunately one of the leads - simply memorized their lines but didn't bother to look into the meaning of the words. It was obvious that they did not understand this old English language of which they were speaking and it made for awkward, emotionless and confused dialogue being recited in a way that can only be described as cringe-inducing.

Surprisingly, aside from our Juliet, the most painful performance came from Damian Lewis who floundered as Juliet's dad. A performance so bad that it actually defied belief as he over-acted his way through the two-hour film, trumping any other bad performance within the film almost as though the actors were secretly in competition for the title of Worst Actor.

Most of the cast seemed to be competing for the title of 'Worst Actor'

The only shred of acting capability came from Douglas Booth as Romeo. Still not the strongest of performances and he definitely doesn't have the charm and loveability that DiCaprio brought to the character in 1996, but he at least appeared to understand the lines that he was reciting and he managed to have a slither of believable passion as a character, which is more than can be said for anybody else.

Let's be honest, the film was clearly on a tight budget - this was proven by the fact you could see the actor's breath as they spoke throughout most of the indoors scenes as they were clearly freezing on set -, the cast were amateurish and the entire thing felt a bit clunky and awkward. However, it was still watchable and I have to say I have certainly seen much worse films this year. As a traditional re-telling of the classic play, it is a good adaptation; it sticks to the original script and transports you back to the time of which it was set. It is just a shame that the cast made this feel more like an awkward High School play than one of the most renowned pieces of fiction  to exist.

All in all I award Romeo & Juliet: ★✯☆☆☆

Stay tuned for more reviews and follow me on twitter if you fancy it :)

Love,