Fury

David Ayer, 2014

Can I Stream it?

4/5

Fury as seen in the decaying white paint on the barrel of the tank's main gun, is the large armored home to the group of five soldiers who serve as the main characters of this Ayers film. The film zeroes in on the latter days of World War II. Much of the European countryside has been ravaged by the destruction. The soldiers themselves wear much of the devastation on their faces. None of them appear to bear as much of the burden of the memories as Don "Wardaddy" Collier (Brad Pitt). He has seen many men die next to his gun and in front of it. He has grown increasingly angry with the German enemy. When he breaks away for short moments the memories catch up to him inducing moments of panic. His innocence is no longer evident. He is not exactly an approachable man. For him, it's the routine of completing mission after mission. He senses it's drawing to an end, but he expects more loss. It's almost a guarantee at this point.

When young Norman (Logan Lerman) is thrown upon him as one of his replacement troops, he isn't welcoming to the idea because he immediately sees the inexperience (and the innocence) in him. Much of the film becomes about Norman's character, a wide-eyed noob more suited for a desk job stateside and not even remotely equipped to dealing with the brutality that the others have grown so accustomed to. His initiation involves a lot of the veterans of the group slapping him around, busting his chops. You get a sense that they are just trying to make a man out him, they probably went through the same type of thing when they were new.

Most of Ayers film work has consisted of stories largely focused on police fighting violent street crime. There are some common themes in his films. Ranking hierarchy, male comradery, putting your life on the line for your job. He is able to inject a lot of that into Fury. At this point there have been so many movies about World War II that it has you wondering if anyone can create a film with some originality and uniqueness. Ayer manages to do that here. Some of the battles, as violent and gruesome as they are, feel very fresh. But they are quite gory. There are some images that are bound to stick with you, much like Saving Private Ryan probably has. The energy between the five soldiers feels very organic, making some really great casting choices. A lot of war movies seem to always have this built in feeling of brotherly love between soldiers. There's something about the way they handle the group dynamic here that makes it feel more authentic. They are tense, quick to turn on each other and get physical. This would make sense because they have been stuck in each others company for so long, under little rest. Of course they don't want to lose each other, but it's a complicated feeling to say the least. A tough love dynamic at work. The movie manages to maintain tension, in and out of battle. When things quiet down for a moment, you never really feel at ease.

Noah

Darren Aronofsky, 2014

Can I Stream It?

2/5

Loosely based on the classic Biblical tale, Aronofsky's Noah tells the story of Noah (Russell Crowe) - a loyal father and husband suddenly served with visions of impending destruction. The earth's creator has grown disheartened with the current state of the human race which has become destructive and violent. Noah realizes that there is an intention to cleanse the Earth of the toxic human race that has spread through the lands. He realizes that it's his duty to salvage Earth's animal creatures and re-establish the human population after the storms have settled.

There are a lot of expectations going into an Aronofsky film. You know that there is going to be a real built-in dim disposition to any of his pictures. Examinations of human morality. Self-serving impulses. Self doubt, regret, weakness. Inner conflict. Interpersonal conflicts. Orchestral scores to assist in manipulating the dramatic tones. There's clearly a lot of these elements in his take on the story of Noah's Ark. But Aronofsky has one leg out of the door from his usual pure-twisted murk and in a more Guillermo Del Toro-imaginary mindset. It's curious as to why filmmakers want to touch religious material to begin with. The amount of scrutiny and inherent controversy raise the expectations so high that it's nearly impossible for the picture to please the masses. This is especially the case when you take on a story like this, a story that's already quite limited in depth in it's original form. Because of this the whole artistic licensing must be used. Aronofsky does this by attempting to make a thorough examination of Noah the character while also employing a considerable amount of CGI and a large cast of familiar faces. A story about a man carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Noah is certainly a flawed character, forced to watch the majority of the world quickly die off so he can save his own family and some indifferent beings. He ventures through the crowds of people during the final stages of construction of the Ark. They are greedy, self-serving, malevolent. Willing to kill one another off for a quick meal. They have cheapened the value of human life. But he also sees himself in them, which ultimately causes him to suffer with a sense of survivor's guilt as they all drown in the flooding. Their pleas for refuge are heard through the wooden walls that he has spent so much time building. He struggles with questions of why was he chosen? What is he supposed to do next? Are his convictions correct? The film certainly does a good job of examining Noah the character, with much help from the always-good Crowe. The two standout features of the picture are certainly Crowe's performance and the rather impressive CGI. Quite surprising to discover that not one real-life animal was used in the production, and the digitally-manufactured creations are really as good as Richard Parker in the Life of Pi. The rock-monster-like Watchers may be THE most memorable visual element of the entire picture, assisting Noah in his construction of the sanctuary so that they themselves may be redeemed and return to Heaven.

But where Aronofsky succeeds in creating a character study he fails at creating a thoroughly engaging story. There is some captivating build-up as Noah works to construct the clock as not only the clock is ticking when it comes to Mother Nature's impending doom but also Tubal-cain's people are knocking at the door. As the clock ticks and the pressure is on Noah, you're right there with the story and engaged. But as soon as the Ark begins to float away the story basically gets lost at sea. It begins to meander, to falter, soon becoming a predictable bore. Aronofsky has to take the blame. Perhaps it was the PG-13 rating, creating too much of a confinement for him. Perhaps it was the studio breathing down his neck, putting too much pressure on the production. It seems quite clear that Aronofsky is better equipped to handle smaller films with more unsettling elements like the unforgettable Requiem for a Dream or the very-compelling The Wrestler. 

Stuck in Love

Josh Boone, 2012

Can I Stream It?

4/5

Novelist Bill Borgens (Greg Kinnear) has put his writing on hold after separating from his wife Erica (Jennifer Connelly). Instead he spends most of his days reading alone at his beachfront house, and nights in the company of his two kids Samantha (Lily Collins) and Rusty (Nat Wolff) who also happen to be writers themselves.

In a sense, Stuck in Love is the kind of film that sneaks up on you. At first glance, it could be simply discarded as another unconvincing romance piece about a lonely father writer still licking his wounds from his divorce. Not really venturing on any new ground there. When you see Greg Kinnear's name in the opening credits, your skepticism likely elevates. It's not because Kinnear is a bad performer by any means, but sometimes he can be a bit over-exaggerated (*cough* As Good as it Gets).

But if you give this a chance you soon realize that its actually a quite endearing piece by Boone that nails the love thing on many angles. Boone has a lot to say about love, at times the film comes off almost like a literary piece. Powered by a good script and sustained by good performances, by the time that you hear the Bon Iver song playing in the background you're on board with it. Boone really has a good sense of the whole love thing. The introduction with your guard up. Meeting the person who comes on strong, who seems too good to be true. The many attempts to discount the possibility of organic romance and just telling yourself to be a realist. The film also captures some true familial dynamics as well. Sitting with the younger brother on the rooftop, giving advice over a bowl of weed. Boone also effectively captures that very real moment of multiple conflicts colliding between a family as they are about to be stuck in a vehicle together.

Not to say that there aren't annoying aspects though. To be fair, Samantha's complete coldness upon meeting the persistent but genuine Louis (the under-rated young actor Logan Lerman from the similar(ish) picture Perks of Being a Wallflower) is frustrating. Also, when the parents come to Rusty's aid when dealing with a relapsed addict girlfriend it comes off completely like a bad Lifetime channel after-school special piece. But it hits the right beats and should get you out of whatever head-space you happen to be in momentarily. It will hopefully put you that old but familiar state of naive, scary, exciting, heart-beating twenty-something love for a little bit. Or it may remind you of some of the inner-family conflicts of your younger years, which may not be as inviting but at least it's identifiable.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Stephen Chbosky, 2012

4/5

"Perks" has all of the innocence and awkward moments of being a freshman in high school, but also contains the complexity that separates itself from other high school dramedies. Chbosky wrote the book, the screenplay, and directed it so you can rest easy knowing that the popular book is in good hands. It has the snappy dialogue and the naive youthful sense of invincibility that reminds me of "Empire Records" although it is a much better film. Logan Lerman, Ezra Miller and Emma Watson all provide great performances. I haven't seen Ezra Miller since "We Need to Talk About Kevin", which was really night and day compared to this. I am interested in seeing more of his work, he seems to have quite a bit of range. Like "The Virigin Suicides", this film also hit my emotional Achilles heel - the beautiful girl dancing in the middle of the school dance to the cheesy Rock song. Still dont know why that gets to me. Its not like thats the memory I have of my awkward school dances growing up. In fact, they were nothing like that. They were devoid of any spontaneity, or any music that would strike an emotional nerve in me.