MovieMeditation's "One, Two, Three" Reviews!

→ in
Tools    
Page 5 of 5
« First45




MovieMeditation's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Friendo.
09-23-17
_______________________

MovieMeditation's

Reviews
_______________________

2014
Noah
directed by Darren Aronofsky
-

one word
Injustice.



one sentence
Darren Aronofsky dares to tell his own version of sacred source material and gets withheld by the studio and wrecked by the audience, with a film that fumbles to stay faithful to either one or the other and ends up with something in between, which has enough ideas to keep things interesting and enough entertainment to make things elevated, yet neither as a product of Aronofsky nor the studio does it really work as a whole, despite still being a more fascinating blockbuster though a less successful Aronofsky feature.

one paragraph
‘Noah’ is directed by the autonomous and artful director, Darren Aronofsky, who has stepped onto sacred territory with his atheistic footprint of which is neither of Christian descent or belief. It is an experimental film, inspired by biblical stories though not exactly based upon them. Aronofsky tells the story the way he wants to and one can choose to either see this as really brave or really stupid. Usually, movies based on pre-existing source material holds a lot of liberations, yet somehow when it comes to a biblical tale, people want it to be as faithful as possible. I admire Aronofsky for taking the essentials of the tale and tamper around with it in a way that sets it apart from all else. Unfortunately, the studio clearly intervened here and 'Noah' does certainly feel exactly like a big budget blockbuster made by a visionary art-director, which is also why even the fragmented mind of Aronofsky is still more interesting than your usual dose of deafening, monotone, mass productions out there. Overall I find the hate for this movie to be unfair.

_______________________


additional paragraph(s) for the avid follower
There is a lot to like here, despite how it might not add up to a complete work, and I find a lot of fascinating things in the story and the way that it is told. I like earthy, deserted setting where the movie takes place; really setting the film apart from other biblical tales. You get a feeling of a world without hope, a world that is lost and has gone mad and lost everything in the process. There is nothing left; it is a bare-boned life and struggle for survival. It is almost like a medieval movie with a biblical twist. Also, the imagery going on is beautiful. The stark constrasts of the color-free world set to the dreamy nightmares and foreshadowings and the flashbacks of a better world and the beginning of life itself. The timelapse sequences are some of the most impressive and inventive things I have seen in a while and the sense of dread and death is truly captivating.

I also like how the story basically turns into Noah being a twisted maniac - this is not some biblical story about a great man and his great doings - this is actually a MAN who is struggling to live up to his tasks from God and goes more and more mad with every new day and every new task that comes down upon him. The acting is also superb all around and overall the production value isn't at fault here... It is a beautiful looking and sounding movie.

Rock monsters... Yes, we had to go there. I don't hate them with a passion, but sure, I wish they weren't there if I had to choose. The idea of falling angels being doomed to an awful, eternal life on earth is cool and all, but the execution and place in the story is written to make sense, not the other way around. They do have a purpose in the story, but the execution is weird and they feel pretty misplaced. But again, I don't hate them. There is some clichés in the story, especially towards the end, but overall I find this to be a fascinating disaster of a movie... in more than one sense of the word. It's a fun spectacle, a miscalculated movie from the mind of a very talented director. I saw it in 3D, with a great sound system, and the movie is quite the experience. And again, I'd rather watch this than another conventional blockbuster. I do believe there has been some injustice to this film. It isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be.


Question
What movies can you think of where the director failed to deliver his vision?
How many liberations can you take with a movie based on pre-existing material?
Is the bible and religion in general just more sacred ground?

_______________________

Rewatch



edarsenal's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Women will be your undoing, Pépé
09-23-17
have not seen Noah, and at some point, I just might. Thoroughly enjoyed the review and it does push me closer to seeing it. Thank you.

Coming up blank about failed visions and when it comes to liberations I do have trouble with them. After reading Brown's book I was thoroughly agitated with the movie Angels & Demons. B!tched and complained the ENTIRE movie.
Another that comes to mind is The Hobbit turned into a trilogy/prequel to Lord of the Rings, which is one that I honestly try to lessen my anger and simply enjoy it for what it is; fan fiction.
Seeing new twists on old stories, like Grimm Fairy Tales to such as Dracula and so forth I do actually enjoy (depending on the caliber of the movie itself) which I think has to do more with having seen quite a number of movie versions already, so, seeing a new angle makes seeing another movie version worthwhile.

Can't really answer the sacred ground situation properly. Any religion is gonna get enraged if its cast in anything less than an ideal light and delving deeper into that subject is for more intellectual minds than myself.



Swan's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
CIA Spook
09-23-17
I love the rock monsters! I wish they were lobsters instead though.

Rock lobster!



cricket's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Registered User
09-23-17
Originally Posted by MovieMeditation
It may be accurate in terms of which actual parts of the events they portray, but it's more how they portray them that annoys me. Even for the inserted hand-held camera scenes, Berg still fails to make what is happening believable to me. He takes things on too simple, too surfaced or too cinematic, failing to make me buy into this film as something deeper than a Hollywood cash-grab or "pat on the back" picture.
One of the things that impressed me most about the movie was how authentic everything looked and felt, like I was there. I know that because I am here.

So they respected who they included in the film, but though they might have gone for a respectful portroyal of the characters, it didn't work for me. The Chinese guy was pretty good, but the rest of the characters were so bland and didn't leave much impact at all. They felt like they were "there" because they were in real life, but not because they actually did much for the story. It felt too forced to have check-list characters like that - the couple who got split up and had to reunite; the boy and father who got split up and had to reunite; the death of a young boy so the impact feels greater and so on...
The people who were affected were check-list characters.

I wouldn't say I necessarily have a "bias" towards such movies, but sure I do find them missing the mark most of the times. Whatever movie, the event always seem so dramatized and "set up" and you can always devide the movie into HEROES and ENEMIES (yes in capitals) and it always seem to be more a product made to please the inner patriotism and hail the heroes of the day in such a glorified way that it almost because disrespectful sometimes, because of the overly dramatic way it is done.
But there are many movies that are unpatriotic and also foreign movies that are patriotic.

You keep saying "that's how it actually went down". Sure, I know the basic story and such, but a movie isn't good just because it follows the real-life story that it is actually based on. That's kind of a given and what you expect from it really... It's more the approach and stylistic choices of a true story movie that sets it apart.
That's the way you saw it, don't know if that's something I could argue even if I saw it differently.

Greengrass' United 93 is a great example of such movie done excellently. The movie seems to be about ordinary people and it doesn't glorify one side or the other. The terrorists are not portrayed much differently than the heroes and the heroic acts come off as natural because of Greengrass' unbiased documenting approach. There is no real "hero moment" with an American flag in the backround or some patriotic remarks. The heroes are hailed as individual human beings and not as superhumans or action heroes, like it can often be the case.
i was up all night watching the chase and capture and was in Boston, Cambridge, and Watertown the very next day. The heroism and patriotism was 100% real. I have never seen police officers get their just due like they did that day, and I was proud as hell and I was far from the only one.

I remember you saying something about you living in Boston/knowing Boston or whatever it was, so doesn't that mean you could have some bias yourself towards the event? The movie is almost made for you then, because you were actually there or know more about the event first hand than I do? In the same way you could say I'm not an expert on the topic and therefore my criticism can be faulty. But really I'm just judging the movie, not the event. And I don't like the movie or how Berg makes movies. So if anything, it's more a bias against Berg than patriotic movies.
There's no question I am biased towards Boston movies, and I even mentioned that when I watched it.

Whether you agree or not, I did say "turning the otherwise goodhearted patriotic picture into a pitiful mocking of those who got injured" - so I actually think the starting point is fine and patriotic movies in its concept doesn't annoy more; though most of the times the execution just don't suit me.
I didn't see anything as mocking.


I guess it is in the nature of being an American to be very proud and have big arm moments about being an American. FREEDOM! and all that. I'm not saying all Americans are that way or that being an American is so simple in its nature, but more than others especially their movies seem to scream out a certain proudness of who they are and where they come from. In movies, that often comes off as cheesy or embarrassing to me.
I really don't see how it's an American thing.

So yeah, patriotism is not an American thing, but it has kind of become associated with America a lot because of the way it is viewed from outside the country itself. So I guess you could also say because I'm not an American, I don't understand the way you guys go about talking and being proud of who you are. Nations are different, countries are different, I might just not understand how you go about it.
I kind of understand how that might be a perception, but I also wonder how pride in one's nation can be a bad thing.



Joel's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Registered User
05-07-18
Originally Posted by MovieMeditation
_______________________

MovieMeditation's

Reviews
_______________________

2017
mother!
directed by Darren Aronofsky


one word
Revelation.



one sentence
Darren Aronofsky's ‘mother!’ is a chaotic yet crystal-clear vision, which pushes the limits of creativity, movie production and not least the audience's own limits and thereby creates a movie experience that is so much its own that you can help but be spellbound by it.

one paragraph
The film is best experienced as a stimulating and thought provoking piece of mind trickery, which puts the mind and soul on overtime, inside a film that strongly reflects the sparkling auteur, who Darren Aronofsky once again proves he definitely is. He challenges the movie medium itself, and its “fixed-frame workspace”, and creates a nightmarish reality, where visuals, sound and acting is unhinged and untouched... a devilish fabled dreamscape, serving as an expanded apocalyptic anecdote, all about being in the midst of the moment, inside all the chaos, while struggling to get a firm grip on Aronofsky's uncontrollable sparkle of light in subjective cinema...

_______________________


additional paragraph(s) for the avid follower
Director, Darren Aronosky, resurrects himself from the ashes with a glowing and puzzling production, made in secret behind the backs of both the audience and the press. With the art piece, 'Mother!', Aronofsky takes us back to the beginning, where the director’s distinctive authority once again receives the right to tear down Hollywood's huge, enclosed walls in order to resurface, but without pressure from studies or high expectations from the audience.

Aronofsky plays around with cinematic elements like that consists of satirical, biblical and biographical pieces and then tosses everything into a blender, which then tears it all apart before the eyes of the audience, in the most crazy and sophisticated production I have seen in a long time – a completely insane and psychotic "split personality" of a movie production, made with so much energy and effort from the director, that the absence of straight forward logic and refined explanations doesn’t matter one bit.

Darren Aronofsky's ‘mother!’ is a divine, two-hour-long trip through hell - completely without hesitation - where your brain is constantly challenged by a cascade of uncontrollable contrasts and concepts that appear faster than you are able to digest it. I would like to think that there is a storyline present, but it is stretched out far above the heads of the audience, where Aronofsky continues to hang even heavier metaphors and stronger symbolism, which eventually threatens to break and fall to the ground – but the excitement of whether it does or not is exhilarating enough on its own.

The movie is exactly as flawed as it is flawless, if it makes sense, and this is precisely what gives the film a almost demanded energy, which I happily accept with open arms – even though Aronofsky cuts both my arms off in the process and prevents me from getting close to his latest, most fragile and most extreme work to date...

Also, the performances are top notch and almost delivered with what seems to be no effort from the cast. They are naturals, acting as natural and honest as possible, selling this movie with Hollywood actors as anything but a Hollywood movie. But it is definitely a movie, that will have people wander out from the theater… but it will also leave some people in awe… and also some people in confusion. It will split the audiences and critics in an extreme way, but that is exactly what makes this so great… A mainstream movie aims to please a wide audience, but fails to center in on something truly perfect; all the while a more artistically driven movie aims to please itself first, which means the audience that it does hit, it will hit dead center. And Aronofsky did for me here…


Question
In which way can artful movies be better than mainstream, as well as the other way around? Can it be a good thing, when a film kind of loses you towards the end, simply because it is such a subjective work and dares where others don't?

_______________________
first-time watch
Great review! I jsut watched this last night, and while I did not like it and found it unnecessarily grotesque (near the end), I kept thinking about it today at work. The themes kept unraveling to me. Him is God..is the baby Jesus. Husband and wife break the crystal (apple from the tree0? I read some other thoughts on it and things cleared up a little more.

I will say that as far as filmmaking goes, this is an incredible film and was staged in an unholy and immaculate manner.

I wish I enjoyed the pace but I felt the pace absolutely destroyed the film, as well as the shocking secnes near the end involving innocence.

Page 5 of 5
« First45