Noah: Where are all the other Races?

NOAH: 2014: ++: DRAMA/ACTION:  I wanted to review this movie earlier but I didn't have the chance since I couldn't get to it at the time.  I rented it and had certain expectations because I heard so much acclaim and so many people recommended it.  I wasn't disappointed.  However, I felt some aspects made the movie uneven. There's also another big issue in the movie that I will bring up at the end of this review.  


"Uneven, what does that mean?"

Much of the action occurs in the first "third" of the movie and the action was very entertaining.  The Golems or "Watchers" were a different spin on the story and I enjoyed them, while others had serious questions about why the director/ writer Darren Aronofsky included them.  In some ways, it does "explain" how such as huge ark was created but at the same time this is a biblical adaptation so it doesn't need any "explanation".


I liked the inclusion of the "Watchers".

Noah's cast was right on the money and I liked the fact that Emma Watson complimented the cast of Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, and Anthony Hopkins.  Russell Crowe's acting was almost a carbon copy of his performance in The Gladiator, but that's a good thing as he gave Noah a more demanding presence. Some interpret the Biblical Noah in this fashion so I assume that was intentional direction by Aronofsky.

  
Crowe in Gladiator and Noah, longer hair, same attitude...


Would Christian Bale have been a better Noah?  Hard to say but he was apparently offered this role as well.  I believe there would have been too much cross referencing to Batman and it would have hurt the overall impact and lasting impression of the movie.  

Emma Watson continues to impress in this movie and I feel she had a challenging role.  I won't give too much away because you should definitely watch this movie if you haven't already.  She nailed this role. Her range was really demonstrated here and it overshadows her performances in the Potter movies.  You can almost say she stole the show in this movie!  Along with Jennifer Lawrence, she is among the top female roles in Hollywood.


Emma Watson led the way with one of the better performances in this movie.

Although Anthony Hopkins' role was minimal in this movie, it's hard to ignore or discuss this movie without discussing him.  He plays a somewhat distant but approachable character but this time he isn't planning on biting your ear off.  His role in this movie is instrumental in allowing certain elements to evolve so he makes an impact. 


"Where's Clarice?"

Standout scenes are when the animals arrive, the battle against the unruly humans before the flood and when Crowe fights the leader Tabal Cane at the end.    I also enjoyed the sections where other parts of the Bible were mentioned, especially the Adam & Eve creation story, which is often referenced.  Also, the snakes, snakes, snakes were cool!


Here come the snakes, hey they're creatures too!


A snake within a snake, very original!  The root of all evil!

The special effects were also excellent in this movie and made the animals, the flooding, the action, and the ark very realistic.  


This important scene was done extremely well!

This was an ambitious effort and Aronofsky delivers a great movie. I just thought it could have been a bit more balanced because I felt like I saw some of the best parts after the first third.  

Also, where are the different races?  It seems very racially homogeneous. I deducted major points over this.  This is a glaring problem with the movie and I don't understand how you can leave out other racial classes.  Especially now with the shooting of Michael Brown, I was floored by the absence of other races.  Was this an agenda or symptomatic of Hollywood? Or worse, was Darren's Aronofsky's treatment of the Noah story a reason why?72%


"A 72%, what is he thinking?"

Flashback Classics: The Hannibal Lecter saga

The Silence of the Lambs:  1991: ++: Thr/Hrr:  I can't believe that it's been over decade since this amazing movie came out and thrilled/ shocked audiences around the world.  Not a movie to watch only once, I've easily watched this movie about 5-6 times completely and for certain parts, about 10 times.  Everything from the casting, the characters, to the music and plot structure set new water marks for the thriller/ horror genre.

Jonathon Demme does an outstanding job directing this movie based on a novel by Thomas Harris.  Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins, Scott Glen and Ted Levine put up performances that dominate their careers.  Ted Levine as Buffalo Bill is so extremely creepy that it either makes you laugh or makes you cringe.  I say that it made me laugh only because it makes me think of the South Park parody where Cartman plays "Lambs" in the basement and recreates the "put the lotion in the basket" scene.  The actual scene is one of my favorites, as it is for many, because Bill starts out being cordial but then loses it and curses at the mayor's daughter.  

It's tough to rate this movie because it has received so much acclaim.  It's actually in the US Congress Film registry due to it's accuracy and realism in depicting the life of a madman.  It also won 5 academy awards and was immensely successful in theaters.  An odd fact about this is that the person who wrote the "Goodbye Horses" (from the scene where Bill gets naked) was Harold Shore, who was also tormented by his sexuality like Buffalo Bill.  He also wrote  some of the music in The Shining.  There's some trivia for you to impress your movie buddies.  Or not..

There were many terrifying parts of this movie, but the ending, where Clarice looks for Bill in the dark while he stalks her with the night vision goggles, is unforgettable.  I also liked when Clarice meets Bill at the door and he says, "Oh wait...was she a big fat person"?  This isn't intended to be a slight against larger people, but his voice, his face and how he looks totally befuddled are hilarious.  I loved it when Hannibel, how is only in the movie for 20 minutes mind you, says, "I'd love to chat but I'm having some for dinner".   I'm sure you've seen this movie, but watch it again, since Halloween is coming up:::94%


Hannibal: 2001:+++:Thr/Hrr:  I have to admit when I heard about this movie I had some trepidation because not only did Jodie Foster and Jonathon Demme decline to be in the sequel, but because how can you top the first, perfect thriller/ horror?  Well, the answer is by showing how a total psychopath like Dr. Lecter can also have a softer side.  A side where he not only wants to eat his victims, but he wants to find some that aren't on his menu.  Can this be possible?
Well, in a way.  Is this better than the first?  Read on..

Julianne Moore, whom I like as an actress a great deal, was very believable and I feel she added a more feminine quality to the role of Clarice Starling.  She always looks great on film, but in this movie, she was outstanding.  The casting worked well because she has the "look" of Jodie Foster, but more attractive.  Her acting was stellar and her accent never made you question it's validity.  The onscreen chemistry between Dr. Lecter and Julianne Moore was as good or better in this movie.  After awhile, you forget about Jodie Foster completely.

Ray Liotta was the obnoxious FBI agent who you want to hate, and you do, especially up to the end at the dinner table.  This scene presents one of my favorite parts where, well you watch it, but Ray "loses his head" after being rude and interrupting a conversation between Clarice and Lecter, who are having a very romantic dinner.  I loved the part of the "Patsy" detective and when he gets hung.  That's is another great part of the movie.  The lecture that Dr. gives sets the mood completely well and his entrance was a great example of foreshadowing.  It should be noted the Dino De Laurentis (music from the Conan Movies) and Ridley Scott directed this.  They did a great job and perhaps it was good that this movie had different directors.  

I also liked the character that is forced to live with very little ability to move and was apparently a victim of Hannibal who was convinced to cut his face off and feed it to the dogs.  As he said, "It seemed like an good idea at the time".  How wrong he was.  This sets up the drama in the movie and is a pretty good driving force, but not as strong as the force in the first movie to find "Buffalo Bill"  I loved when he was fed to his "pets"..

Now, this movie wasn't a rehash of the first, it was a very interesting, entertaining sequel which gives you more insight into Dr. Lecter.  The Clarice character isn't developed that much, but she didn't really have to be because the first one did all the heavy lifting.  In terms of horror/ thriller, the first one is hands down more terrifying, but this one was the sequel that needed to be.  It "completes" the first one and gives you more perspective into Dr. Lecter.  I loved the part when Dr has to decide over his hand and being arrested.  What does he decide?  Watch it if you haven't:::89%


Hannibal Rising: 2007:+-: Thr:Hrr:  I have stumped so many "so called" movie experts by asking them how many Lambs movies there have been. I always get 2, sometimes, 3 (Red Dragon), but I never get this one. Why?

Well, it's because this movie flopped after the audience realized it was almost completely different from the other two and also because if you take away the name, it's not even close to one of the other Lecter movies. However it is stylish (at times) and I liked Lady Murasaki's character.  She was sufficiently dark and brooding and a perfect mentor for a young Hannibal Lecter.  Gaspard Ulliel plays a young Hannibal but looks nothing like the Dr. later in his life.   Very bad casting here and it just goes downhill..

On it's surface, it sets up an adequate explanation of why Hannibal becomes a cannibal but this fails because it seems so contrived, especially in the end, where it is as "Hollywood" as can be.  I did not like the ending at all.  Some of the killing scenes in this movie were decent, but no where near as horrifying as the first or even the second.  The story definitely dragged and there should have been more of an emphasis on the love story because Lady Murasaki and the young Hannibal.  It failed on that end (just a bunch of stares and awkward moments).  This just ended up confusing the focus of the movie as well the saga.  Why was this movie made?::::56%


The Manhunter: 1986: -+:  Thr:  This movie was a buildup in my mind to the critically acclaimed Silence of the Lambs.  I sometimes think this movie was a litmus test to see if the Harris novel would shock audiences too much or if it would be received well.  Don't get me wrong, there are many groups that opposed the Lambs but overall it was an outstanding success.

From the beginning, this movie had it's issues, from the name of the movie, (initially to be Red Dragon), the casting of Hannibal and the Tooth Fairy, and also with the ending.  Dino Di Laurentis received a lot of criticism because of this movie due to the title, but his reason was that he thought people would think it's a kung-fu movie.  Wow, we must be a bunch of illiterate, uncultured masses aren't we?  William Peterson was also criticized at first, but as this movie was watched in subsequent years, he was heralded as a strong character.  In watching it, I thought he was completely well suited for the role.  I have to admit, I don't remember everything about this movie..someone "borrowed" my copy and I can't find it anywhere, but I remember liking it. 

The music was outstanding in this movie, although a little dated.  Hey, it was 1986.  It's a rumor that the people who wrote the music worked on Miami Vice.  There was also heavy use of colors and tints in this movie, which initially drew criticism, but then was appreciated by some cult followers.  The ending of this movie is outstanding.  This movie has a definite '80s feel and is nostalgic and entertaining to watch:::62%

I'm not going to rate Red Dragon, because I strongly believe it doesn't fit well here. It's too much of a rehash, but if you want to get your Hannibal fix, it's worth a watch:::N/A