Noah

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Starring: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins, Logan Lerman, and Ray Winstone

Tagline: The end of the world ... is just the beginning.
Synopsis: Noah and his family are tasked with building an ark before the world is destroyed by flood. 

Review

I went in to Noah with high expectations and an open mind.  At no point was I expecting a doctrinally accurate portrayal of Noah.  I wasn't even expecting a particularly Biblical portrayal of Noah (director Darren Aronofsky is, after all, a self-proclaimed atheist).  And I was fully prepared to defend the film as an artistic piece of historical fiction (with a whole lot of liberties taken) and leave religious accuracy out of my review.  That intention lasted for about the first half of the movie.  Then the film lost me up until the last five minutes.

Now this is going to be as much an analysis as a review.  FYI, there may be some spoilers.  But I trust you know the Biblical account and how this ultimately has to end.

Perhaps I should begin at the end.  By the time I left the cinema, the overwhelming feeling in my heart was of gratitude for the plan of salvation.  Halfway through the film, I could no longer refrain from wanting to infuse my own beliefs and understandings into the action.  The fact the film was so devoid of the simple yet beautiful truths of the gospel made me appreciate those truths all the more.  (Sort of like how you appreciate food so much more when fasting.)  The film's lack reaffirmed my own abundance.

If gratitude was my primary feeling, sympathy was the second.  I felt sympathy for those without the understanding and perspective the restored gospel brings.

The film started out well enough.  Yes, there were some "wait what?" moments and components as the filmmakers took quite the artistic license (okay, that's probably an understatement).  But as the story progressed and began to fall apart, I realized it was in part because the film's very foundation is unstable.  The whole story is constructed upon three false premises:

1. The Creator had no purpose in creation
2. Mankind is just another creation
3. Mankind, through the Fall and subsequent wickedness, ruined the rest of creation

Throughout the film, Noah and all the other characters only ever refer to "the Creator."  I don't recall the movie ever referring to Him as "God" and certainly never as "Father."  He is merely the Creator of all things, but apparently with no plan, purpose, or design.  For the purposes of this film, the verse would have to read: "For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass a beautiful garden where all the animals and people are well-behaved and tidy."  That is certainly not the Creator I know and serve.

[It was strangely fitting that a few hours later I was singing "I Am a Child of God" with millions of women the world over during Women's Conference.]

In the film, the Fall of Adam and Eve is a great calamity for the world.  And from Cain's murder of Abel onward, mankind is full of violence and wickedness and bent on destroying the world for gain.  Mankind's major crime is the destruction of creation (which does include mankind itself).  Only the line of Seth (of which Noah's family is the last) have lived in harmony with nature.

All of this leads to the main -- and invented -- drama for the film: whether or not mankind is fit to continue or if they were simply a mistake and the new world would be better off without them (harking back to the false premise that there was no ultimate purpose to creation).  This idea doesn't fully manifest itself until halfway through the film (the point it lost me).  At that point you realize Noah has his own false premise: that he is primarily tasked with saving the innocent animals and not with being the new father of the human race.

This leads to a major deviation from the Bible account.  When the ark door shuts, neither Ham nor Japheth have a wife, and Shem's wife, Ila, is thought to be barren.  Noah becomes so convinced that all of mankind must be punished and wiped out, he is ready to do the unthinkable.  It turns out Ila has been cured of her barrenness (by Methuselah).  And when Ila gives birth to twin girls, Noah believes it is his duty to kill them, lest they perpetuate mankind and its evils.  When it comes down to it, though, he is unable to harm the babes.

Which actually leads to one of the main themes of the film: justice versus mercy.  Justice is hammered pretty hard throughout the film.  It is just that the Creator destroy mankind for having destroyed the rest of creation.  It is just that the innocent animals be preserved.  It is just that even Noah's line die out because he sees their imperfections and faults.  All of that is described as "just."  And the fact that Noah's family is ready to turn on him and hates him for saying his own granddaughters must be killed is -- as his wife, Naameh, tearfully and vehemently points out -- also just.  Noah's complete subscription to justice became almost unbearable to watch.  It was a long, long wait for mercy to finally show up.

Ultimately, Noah does show mercy over justice in sparing his granddaughters' lives.  He then feels like a failure, like he has failed the Creator and his family, because he still believes the false premise that humanity doesn't deserve to live.  Once they reach land, Noah gives into his depression and survivor's guilt, becomes estranged from his family, and indulges quite heavily in wine.  (That last part does at least have basis in the Bible).

Then, at long last, the film finds a redemptive note.  Ila goes to talk to Noah (merciful in and of itself considering he almost killed her daughters).  When Noah says he feels as though he failed, Ila points out that the Creator chose him for a reason.  The Creator chose Noah because He knew Noah would choose mercy  and love over justice.  Comforted, Noah then finds reconciliation with Naameh (in a beautifully simple scene) and blesses his sons and granddaughters with the admonition to "multiply and replenish the earth."  Cue the rainbow.

For me, the ending works.  It does offer the much needed note of redemption, mercy, and reconciliation the film was desperate for.  But I'm still not entirely sure it was enough.  If I'm tempted to accept that the mercy there was enough to balance out the justice of the film, I think it is because I'm imposing all my own beliefs about God's mercy in that event.  And there really isn't enough movie left to fully start liking Noah again.

Putting theology temporarily aside, the film also struggled even from a story perspective.  It's Noah's ark!  One of the major components of that story is the animals.  Not only were the animals entirely CGI (that's one way to make sure no animals were harmed in the making of this movie), but they spend most of the film asleep.  Yep, once the animals get settled on the boat, Noah and the others walk around with some type of incense that puts all the animals (but not the humans) into a sort of hibernation.  And when you finally get to the flood, well, it's not that impressive.  Just a lot of water.

And let's not even discuss the "Watchers": fallen angels turned into rock creatures with a hint of the Prometheus myth in their backstory.  Yes, really.

The film also struggles as it tries to be religious to the believers and fantastical to the non-believers.  In trying to straddle both, it never quite succeeds at either.

Noah can be considered a prophet in only the most literal sense of the word.  He prophesies that a flood will come.  That's it.  Still, he starts out quite well.  He is shown to be a kind father (including a caring, adoptive father to Ila), a loving husband, and generally a good man.  He shows himself to be obedient and dedicated.  But he as the burden of impending justice weighs upon him and indeed begins to consume him, he becomes ... well, pretty difficult -- if not impossible at times -- to like.  After he finally shows mercy, he at least becomes sympathetic again.

I was prepared for a complicated Noah, one torn between justice and mercy, one devastated at having to watch the destruction of the world (even knowing the rebirth and renewal that lay ahead), one who perhaps even struggled some to find inner peace.  I was expecting that sort of interpretation from a Hollywood film.  Instead the film seemed to emphasize neither his prophetic role nor his humanity, instead falling somewhere awkwardly in between.  That said, I felt that Russell Crowe did an excellent job with the Noah he was asked to portray.

The film's villain is Tubal-Cain (portrayed by Ray Winstone), and for the most part he worked quite well.  He was certainly menacing and focused in his efforts.  And, quite appropriately, much of his personal justification was founded in half truths.  It is he who points out time and again that man is in the Creator's image.  He also points out that man was given dominion over the earth.  But he, like the rest of mankind, has twisted those truths to suit his own selfish desires.  He proudly affirms that what he wants, he takes.

Like I said, a villain spouting half-truths works quite well, especially in a Biblical context.  What becomes so frustrating is that there is no one affirming the full truths.  At no point does Noah seem to acknowledge man having been created in the Creator's image or of having been entrusted with dominion.  It seems like there should have been some powerful moment when Noah boldly affirms that with dominion (like great power) comes great responsibility.

As for Noah's sons, Shem and Japheth are pretty bland and aren't given much to do.  Ham gets far, far more screen time.  The Bible essentially says that Ham became estranged from the family but is fuzzy on the details.  So the film spends a great deal of time coming up with reasons for that estrangement.  It does at least make Ham an interesting character to watch.  And he becomes a convenient person for Tubal-Cain to beguile with his half-truths.

Well, that's an awful lot of what the film did wrong and sometimes utterly wrong.  It also did some things right.

For starters, I enjoyed Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah.  No, he wasn't the faithful patriarch I would have liked, but he was nonetheless charmingly eccentric.  He added a little much-needed lightheartedness in his interactions with his grandson and great-grandchildren.

Hands down, the two highlights of the entire film were Naameh (Noah's wife) and Ila (Noah's adoptive daughter who becomes Shem's wife).

Naameh is terrific and Jennifer Connelly is perfect in the role.  She is truly a "help meet" for Noah: strong-spirited, loyal, and diligent.  She is utterly believable as a woman who would walk miles through barren desert, help build an ark, put up with a menagerie, and only falter slightly as the snakes make their way aboard.  Her love for Noah is clear, which makes her struggle against his sense of justice all the more difficult as she must come between her husband and her children.  Connelly's emotions in some of her arguments with Noah are so real and raw, you forget she is acting.  She does such a complete job of selling this couple's relationship, that when a penitent Noah comes wordlessly seeking forgiveness, it works.

As terrific as Naameh is, it is still Ila who steals the show.  Emma Watson is absolutely fantastic (she's come a long way from her bushy-haired, Sorcerer's Stone Hermione Granger days) and the character she plays works so perfectly.  Noah and his family rescue and adopt Ila as a child.  Her family and kin have been killed and she is left wounded among the dead.  Noah's interactions with Ila, both as a little girl and as a grown woman, do much to emphasize his humanity and goodness.

What makes Ila stand out so beautifully is that she is the only character in the entire film who is willing to make a sacrifice.  She wholly believes that the Creator intends for mankind to continue.  And there is an absolutely beautiful, poignant scene between Ila and Noah.  Ila is barren and not yet wedded to Shem.  And though she loves Shem, she tearfully begs Noah to find him a "real woman" who can give him posterity.  Watson's emotions are so real in that moment.  Maybe it's because we're studying the Old Testament in Sunday School this year, but in Ila's words and tears I glimpsed an echo of what Sarah or Rebekah might have felt.

If Noah becomes the (nearly) unyielding embodiment of justice, Ila is the embodiment in the film of mercy. It is more merciful than just that she should be willing to sacrifice her own desires for love and happiness.  It is more merciful than just that she should be cured of her barrenness by Methuselah's blessing.  It is more merciful than just that she should go to Noah in his isolated anguish to offer him comfort and clarity.  And so in that sense it works to have Ila be the one to explain mercy to Noah.

Ultimately, the film (not the story) feels like a tragedy.  It had the potential.  It did some things so right.  Yet it fell short of that potential because it didn't quite know what it wanted to be and because it was founded upon false premises.  Certainly the film never made me question my beliefs.  On the contrary, it made me feel and embrace them all the more fully and want to shake Noah and tell him the plan of salvation as well as how justice and mercy are supposed to work.

In summation, I find that I can neither fully condemn nor condone this film.  Nor can I bring myself to actively encourage or discourage anyone from seeing it.  What I can do is express how grateful I am for a merciful Father in Heaven's plan, a plan founded not upon false premises, but upon the pillars of salvation: the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement.  And how grateful I am for that "grand design, where justice, love, and mercy meet in harmony divine!"*

Quotable Quotes

• "The snakes are coming too?" -- Naameh
• "I am not alone." -- Noah
• "Is this the end of everything?"  "The beginning.  The beginning of everything." -- Ila and Noah

*Snow, Eliza R., "How Great the Wisdom and the Love," Hymns, no. 195.

ISFS

Muppets Most Wanted

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: James Bobin

Starring: Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Walter, Ricky Gervais, Ty Burrell, Tina Fey, all the other Muppets, and more celebrity cameos than anyone can keep track of

Tagline: Taking the World by Farce
Synopsis: While the Muppets are on a world tour, Kermit is deviously replaced by a lookalike, mastermind criminal.

Review

I love the Muppets.  I grew up watching reruns of The Muppet Show as well as watching Muppet Babies, the short-lived Muppets Tonight, and all the various movies.  It is not Christmas if I haven't watched A Muppet Christmas Carol.  I even own a self-help book written by Kermit the Frog and have gone as Beaker for Halloween.  The Muppets are terrific.  And a few years ago when The Muppets brought the fuzzy gang back to the big screen, I rejoiced.

Needless to say, I've been looking forward to Muppets Most Wanted.

Once again though, I need to backtrack.  Before I reviewed Mr. Peabody and Sherman, I first railed on the insipid short that preceded it.  So it is only fitting that I should now rave about the short that preceded this film.  As soon as the beloved Pixar logo appeared I got excited.  The short was Monsters University: Party Central and it was terrific.  It was witty and clever and full of the gags that make Pixar so awesome.  The final payoff gag still puts a smile on my face remembering it.  That's how you do a short.

We now return you to your feature presentation ...

The opening for Muppets Most Wanted was everything I love about the Muppets.  The segment is "We're Doing a Sequel," and it gleefully pokes fun at Hollywood and its chronic sequelitis as well as the pitfalls of franchises.  The catchy musical number and its lead-in were full of self-aware humor, goofy antics, celebrity cameos, and a parody reference to a classic film that probably most people in the audience had never heard of let alone seen.  But for those of us in the know, it was a laugh out loud moment.  Although I've never seen Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, the iconic scene of Death playing chess with a medieval knight is a staple in film textbooks.  So to have that scene briefly reenacted by Death and Swedish Chef (Bergman was Swedish) was priceless ... as was Kermit's rejection that American audiences don't watch movies with subtitles.

I wish I could say that the rest of the film lived up to that opening sequence.  But while the film was fun and enjoyable throughout ... it still felt like it was a little lacking.  The Muppets had nostalgia on its side and it used it for all it was worth to great success.  This should have been the Muppets now getting to do what they do best.  Instead it seemed like we spent more of the film with the human characters or the villain than with the Muppets.  Constantine (Kermit's evil lookalike) got more showstopping musical numbers than Kermit.  Nor were the musical numbers as catchy or memorable as the previous film.  The exception is "We're Doing a Sequel," which truly is terrific.  The "Interrogation Song" is pretty fun too, but it can't compare to "Life's a Happy Song."

But that is way too much about what the film did wrong.  So while it isn't the best Muppet movie ever, it is still a fun movie full of endearing characters.  Kermit is ever-lovable and ever-relatable in his exasperation.  Miss Piggy is still Miss Piggy.  Walter (a new character from the last film) makes a nice addition to the gang.  Sam the Eagle gets a fairly good sized role for a change, and he has a terrific repartee with Ty Burrell's Interpol officer.  Tina Fey is also quite fun as Nadya, a prison guard at the Russian Gulag where Kermit is falsely imprisoned.  Also enjoyable are all the various cameos (a Muppet staple) from Usher as an usher to Celine Dion singing a duet with Miss Piggy to Tom Hiddleston as a prisoner in the Gulag to Stanley Tucci as a friendly Gulag guard.

Quotable Quotes

• "Turn the lights back on.  I can't see anything.  You have to, like, wait until I'm out of the hallway." -- Nadya
• "And not one single person noticed I'd been replaced by an evil criminal mastermind?!" -- Kermit
• "When do I get to do the indoor running of the bulls?" -- Gonzo
• "Slow news week: Muppets make headlines!" -- Newspaper headline

ISFS

Mr. Peabody and Sherman

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Rob Minkoff

Starring: Ty Burrell, Max Charles, Ariel Winter, Stanley Tucci, and Patrick Warburton

Tagline: History is catching up with them.
Synopsis: The improbable adventures of Mr. Peabody -- a genius who happens to be a dog -- and his adopted boy Sherman as they time travel through history.

Review

Let me begin by saying that I have fond memories of watching reruns of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show from when I was a kid.  I loved the quirky humor.  And I always enjoyed the segment, Peabody's Improbable History.  I think by the time I started watching the show I knew enough about history to get the jokes and know how far they'd stretched the truth.  After all, how realistic could you get with a genius, talking dog as your main character?

I should back up though.  I guess it has been a while since I saw a Dreamworks animated film.  Have they always done short films before the feature?  I don't remember any of them.  Maybe it is a new thing and they are trying to be cool like Disney (Paperman was better than Wreck-It Ralph) or awesome like Pixar (Gerry's Game, 'nuff said).  If it is a new thing, they started with a fail.  I don't even remember what the short was called.  It was colorful, but nonetheless bland.  It finished and I thought, "Wait, that's it?"  I've seen commercials with more heart and humor.  Bleh.

Sorry, back to the actual movie.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman does a nice job paying homage to its origins.  It even begins and ends with the same lines as the very first Peabody's Improbable History segment.  It also ends with the same disgruntled, bristle-brush mustachioed street sweeper cleaning up after the final parade.  Nice.

And it is fairly true to the zany view of history and historical figures.  This is certainly not a movie that is trying to teach history.  It is a film having fun with history and embracing anachronisms.  And, true to the original, Mr. Peabody loves to crack terrible puns.  Case in point: Peabody and Sherman find themselves in an Egyptian tomb where a mummy loses its arm, freaking out Sherman.  Peabody responds with, "Well, that's disarming."  What can I say, I'm a fan of puns.

The humor in the film is more than just puns though.  It manages to run the full gamut: from body odor gags to humorous references about Oedipus ("You do not want to go to family dinner at his house.  Awkward!").  How many in the audience actually got the Oedipus joke I don't know.  But I appreciated it.  While it is hardly laugh out loud worthy, there are certainly enough chuckles to keep most people amused throughout.  I think my favorite gag had to be the "I'm Spartacus!" line during the climax.  Terrific usage of a famous movie quote.

As for the story itself, well, it is fairly predictable.  And by the end it starts getting a bit convoluted (a typical consequence of ripping holes in that pesky space-time continuum).  It does have some heart as it strives to be not just an adventure, but a "father" and son bonding tale.  I got the impression it was trying to take a few pages out of Finding Nemo's book with the whole "You think you can do these things, but you can't" setup.  But it just doesn't quite work here.  I guess you might say the film only puts forward a halfhearted attempt to have heart.

The film is visually fun and the voice acting is pretty spot on.  It's not a terrific movie, but it's fun and worth seeing, if not in theaters then via Redbox or Netflix.  So if someone asks if you want to see Mr. Peabody and Sherman, just say "Sure, man."  (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Quotable Quotes

• "You can't have your cake and edict too." -- Mr. Peabody
• "If at first you don't succeed ... Troy, Troy again." -- Mr. Peabody on his escape from the battle of Troy
• "I love you, Mr. Peabody."  "I have a fond regard for you, too" -- Sherman and Mr. Peabody
• "I'm Spartacus!" -- Spartacus

ISFS

The Lego Movie

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

Starring: Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Morgan Freeman, Will Arnett, Will Ferrell, and Liam Neeson

Tagline: Assembling in 2014
Synopsis: When President Business threatens to unleash a super weapon, Emmet, an ordinary minifigure, must rally the Master Builders in order to save the Lego world.

Review

The other week I noted that Monuments Men failed to live up to its movie trailer.  Well, I suppose in a strange way The Lego Movie balances that out by far surpassing its trailer.

I've loved Legos for as long as I can remember.  It was my toy of choice during my childhood.  I had castle sets and pirate sets and space sets and town sets.  Even now, I still have some Legos as decorations.  I'm also a big fan of the Lego Indiana Jones video game.  So when I saw that Lego was coming out with a movie, I was cautiously optimistic.  The trailers showed the film would have zaniness and humor (and Batman), but they didn't really get me excited about the film.  And then the reviews started coming in ... and they were nearly all positive, very positive.  I knew I definitely had to check it out.

So, now I can add my praise.  The Lego Movie is terrific.  I suppose "awesome" would be a more appropriate term given the number of times the song "Everything Is Awesome" plays throughout.

There is a wonderful humor that runs throughout the entire film.  There were so many clever or tongue-in-cheek lines it was hard to keep up.  I think I spent most of the run time with a grin on my face.  The film also pokes fun at various movie genres (e.g., there is a constant bar fight going on in the western town; the villain's lair is guarded by lasers, sharks, and laser sharks), superheros (Batman is fantastic, with a great theme song), and pop culture (e.g. Emmet happily buys a $37 coffee).  The humor is also at times very irreverent.  There were a few times when I thought to myself they'd never get away with this if these weren't plastic minifigures.

The animation is colorful and somewhat manic, but very fun throughout.  Even when there is water or an explosion, there is the appearance that it is all made of Lego pieces.  Also outstanding was the voice cast.  They were all perfect for their roles.  I was especially impressed with Liam Neeson who played a Bad Cop/Good Cop character.  Each personality had a very distinct voice.  Will Ferrell is also a terrific villain.

The story itself is fairly straightforward.  Bricksburg is a nice orderly city where everyone follows the instructions.  But the world is in danger because President Business still isn't satisfied that everything is perfect and plans to unleash his secret weapon: Kragle.  So a prophesied "chosen one" must arise to save everyone.  In this case, that person is termed "the Special."  Emmet is as ordinary as ordinary can be and follows his instructions obsessively.  But when he accidentally stumbles on the "Piece of Resistance" (that clever name made me very happy) he is immediately believed to be the Special and is whisked off to a meeting of the Master Builders who are in hiding.  What follows is the typical quest.  The heroes experience some setbacks, have to work together, and manage to get exactly what they need exactly when they need it (by means of my favorite cameo in the movie).

In terms of themes, the Master Builders pride themselves on their creativity and ability to build whatever they need without instructions.  And it is awesome and fun to watch.  But Emmet, whose creativity is severely lacking, teaches them that there is a place for instructions.  More importantly, he shows them that sometimes their own creativity is keeping them from successfully working together.  There is also a theme of being yourself and your own special.

And then the third act hit with a plot twist I didn't see coming.  All of the above is why The Lego Movie is a fun, enjoyable movie.  But the twist takes it to the level of a terrific movie.  Suddenly there is as much heart as there was humor.  It's a little annoying that I can't say more, but that would ruin the movie.  So the rest of my review will have to go down in the Spoiler Section.

I definitely recommend this movie, but be in a slightly goofy mood and be prepared to have "Everything Is Awesome" stuck in your head.

*** Spoiler Section ***
Once the movie revealed what the Kragle was (Krazy Glue with some of the lettering rubbed off) and President Business started showing off his relics (including a used Band-Aid, a Titleist golf ball, and an X-Acto knife) I had a feeling there might be a real world tie in at some point.  Having Emmet sacrifice himself by throwing himself off the edge of the universe worked quite well in the story.  And I wasn't particularly surprised when, in the real world, he was picked up by a young boy.  Up until that moment, the movie was humorous and fun.  And then Will Ferrell, the voice of President Business, walked down the basement steps to confront his son for messing with his (the father's) toys.

In that moment, the entire movie changed.  Yes, it was still about what it means to be special and creativity vs. instruction-following.  But mostly it was about a father and son.  In that one moment, everything that had been happening in the movie took on a different meaning.  It had always been about a son and his relationship with his father.  And because of what had come before, you already knew much more about their relationship and who this father was than was portrayed in the live action sequence.  Watching Will Ferrell's character thaw from being an OCD perfectionist to seeing the value of his son's "chaotic" creativity put a bigger smile on my face than any of the witty lines or visual gags.  Based on all the trailers and the entire movie up until that point, I was not expecting that much heart.  And that surprising touch of humanity is what elevates The Lego Movie.

In the end, the film was never about Emmet saving the world.  Given that it is based in the imagination of a young boy, that Lego world will never be safe.  Instead, the movie was about reconciliation: the reconciliation (and coexistence) of precise instruction following with creative play and the reconciliation of father and son.  And that is awesome.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, when I played with Legos as a kid, I built according to the instructions and played President Business style.  As Emmet proves, we can't all be Master Builders, but that doesn't mean we can't still have fun.

Quotable Quotes

• "I think I heard a whoosh." -- Emmet
• "The Special will now give an eloquent speech." -- Vitruvius
• "Come with me if you want to not die." -- Wyldstyle

ISFS

The Monuments Men

Credible Credits

Year: 2013

Director: George Clooney

Starring: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin, and Cate Blanchett

Tagline: It Was the Greatest Art Heist in History
Synopsis: A team of museum curators and art historians fight to recover millions of pieces of stolen artwork from the Nazis.

Review

From the moment I saw the first trailer for The Monuments Men I couldn't wait until it came out.  It looked so awesome.  How could you go wrong with such an incredible sounding true story and a cast like that?  It seemed like Oscar bait for sure.  When the release was pushed from December of last year to this February I was so sad, but still extremely excited.  It became one of the films I was most excited for this year.  Sadly, the film did not live up to the trailer or all the expectations it raised.

It was disheartening to watch the "rotten" reviews start to pile up on Rotten Tomatoes.  From the tidbits of reviews I looked through, the general consensus was that it was a film of unrealized potential.  Some films are just plain bad because the script is trite or downright ridiculous, because the actors are wooden and unlikable, or because the director simply didn't know what they're doing.  That was not the case for The Monuments Men, and I think that is why critics were so excessively harsh on the film.  It had so much potential, and yet it never lived up to it.

The story -- based on actual events -- is incredible; make no mistake about that.  And for that reason alone, I think the movie is worth seeing once.  But let's end on the positive note ...

I wanted so very much to love The Monuments Men.  I really did.  But the best I can really say is that it was likable.  For one thing, the pacing was so very slow.  Now I've watched many many old movies.  I am fine with unfolding a story at a slow pace and getting to know characters.  But this was just plain slow.  And I didn't feel we really did ever get to know the characters.  For as brilliant as the actors were, and as fun and charming as they were in their roles, there just wasn't a ton of depth.  There were some attempts to add more characterization, but with so many characters, it was as though each only got a half-hearted attempt.  Nor did those attempts at characterization forward the story.  A great film can move the story and the character development along simultaneously.  This film couldn't seem to manage that.

The movie also had some tonal problems.  It was never trying to be a gritty, realistic film like Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List.  But it seemed to struggle to balance a light, humorous tone with some of the more ugly parts of war.  I enjoyed the humor.  I enjoyed that it didn't completely gloss over the atrocities the Nazis committed.  But the two tones didn't quite gel the way they were supposed to.  Again, the problem seemed to be depth.  The humor and the horror were more situational.  They didn't naturally stem from the humanity of the characters.

The biggest problem was in the telling of the story itself.  The story was, by its nature, very episodic.  But not all of the episodes seemed to fully resolve or lead to further developments.  Basically there were quite a few times when I had to shake my head and say "wait what?"  Even analyzing things after the fact, I'm still not entirely sure how certain plot points were supposed to work.

The cast did do a very good job.  You were just left wanting there to have been more.  And the film certainly has good intentions.  I'm grateful George Clooney wanted to tell this lesser known story from WWII.  It's a great story.

 By the time the Monuments Men in the film get to work, the tide has already turned and it is fairly clear the Allies are going to win.  With the greatest dangers averted, then they are able to divert some attention to the preservation and recovery of art.  The film makes it seem like it was just these seven men.  In reality, it was a much larger program consisting of a few hundred service members and civilians.  In the film, the men don't always get much support from the various commanding officers they seek assistance from.  That may have been true at times, but in reality, the program had the backing of General Eisenhower himself.

The film asks an intriguing question: what is worth fighting and even dying for?  In real life and in the film, there were a couple of casualties among the Monuments Men.  But this wasn't simply the case of a person dying for one piece of art, even if it was by Michelangelo.  The Nazis had plundered every place that had fallen into their possession.  The number of pieces of art was in the millions.  It was much of the cultural history of western Europe.  George Clooney's character explains why they risked all they did for the cause: "You can wipe out an entire generation.  You can burn their homes to the ground, and somehow they'll still find their way back.  But if you destroy their history, destroy their achievements, then it's as if they never existed."

Having watched the trailer again, I want the movie the trailer gave me hope for.  This is a great story that deserved a great movie, not a passably likable movie.

Quotable Quotes

• "We've been tasked with the finding and protecting of over five million pieces of stolen artwork." -- Stokes
• "If you destroy [people's] history, destroy their achievements, then it's as if they never existed." -- Stokes
• "Why would you do that?" -- Garfield to Granger, who just stepped on a mine

ISFS

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

Credible Credits

Year: 1927

Director: F.W. Murnau

Starring: George O'Brien, Janet Gaynor, Margaret Livingston, and a drunken pig (don't ask)

Tagline: N/A
Synopsis: A wayward husband reconnects with his long-suffering wife, falling in love with her all over again.

Review

It is time again for another film school flashback.  This time we're going all the way back to the silent film era.  Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans is often cited as being not only one of the best films of that era, but one of the greatest films of any era.  I watched quite a few silent films during my time as a film student, and Sunrise was hands down my favorite.  It is simply a beautiful film.

Cinematic storytelling has changed a lot over the decades.  Just to put this in context, Sunrise came out the same year as The Jazz Singer (the first "talkie").  And although it is a silent film, it was one of the first to incorporate a proper soundtrack with sound effects.  But what little dialogue there is comes from title cards.

The director, F.W. Murnau, was a master of German Expressionism and this film is simply a Hollywoodized version of that movement.  What that means is, if you are looking for realism, this isn't the film to choose.  Sunrise isn't about reality in the sense of being a completely realistic story set in the world as it literally is.  It is expressive by design and an exaggerated portrayal of reality.  What's truly real are the emotions.

The film's subtitle is A Song of Two Humans, and that is an apt description.  The story is kind of like a song, or perhaps a fable, rather than the normal narrative structure you'd see today.  The main characters are more archetypes than fleshed out people.  They are never even given names.  They are simply the Man, the Wife, and the Woman from the City.  But just because the Man could be any man and the Wife any long-suffering wife doesn't mean you don't connect with them as humans with genuine feelings and emotions.  The beauty of the film is that you do connect with them.  Perhaps it is not that the characters are realistic portrayals so much as they are true portrayals (if you want to have a nice philosophical discussion on the difference between real and true let me know).

Since there is hardly any dialogue in the film, the brunt of the storytelling and character development comes from body language and facial expressions.  The Man's change is the most dramatic.  At the start of the film he is beaten down by life and having a fling with the visiting Woman from the City.  He doesn't walk, he trudges.  His entire frame bespeaks his guilt and shame and turmoil.  As he hits rock bottom, he is hunched over with downcast eyes.  But then things change.  He realizes he still loves his wife and is horrified by what he has done (and almost done).  I can't help but smile as I watch him transform.

The bulk of the film is dedicated to that transformation, as the Man comes to his senses, seeks forgiveness from his wife, and rekindles their romance.  It is a beautiful portrayal of repentance/forgiveness as you see the burdens fall from the Man.  He begins to walk taller and straighter.  He gets a shave and a haircut.  He laughs and dances.  For her part, the Wife goes from worn down to terrified to forgiving to flirtatious and joyous.  And you can believe every moment of it just from her body language and face.

But the film doesn't end with the couple's reconciliation.  They must first weather one more storm, literally.  It isn't so much a final test for the Wife as it is for the Man.  And there is a dramatic irony to the situation that unfolds.  As the title implies, after the long and stormy night is over, a new day dawns for the Man and his Wife.  And the seductress heads scowling back to the city from whence she came.

There are so many wonderful moments in this film that make it a joy to watch.  The scene in the church, where the couple watches another couple exchange wedding vows is a brilliant and believable catalyst for the Man's continuing change of heart.  But my favorite scene is probably when they go to a photographer to have a portrait done.  It's just a wonderful, playful scene that helps lighten the mood and shows why the couple fell in love in the first place.

So there you have it, my favorite silent film.  I know it isn't a movie for everyone.  Silent films require a lot more patience than modern ones.  But if you do decide to hunt down this film (which just got easier since it came out on Blu-ray), remember, this isn't a story about the roaring 1920s, it is a story from the 1920s.  Trying to impose modern sensibilities would be a disservice to the film.

Quotable Quotes

• "For wherever the sun rises and sets, in the city's turmoil or under the open sky on the farm, life is much the same; sometimes bitter, sometimes sweet." -- Title Card
• "Forgive me!" -- The Man

ISFS

Frozen: Let It Go

Credible Credits

Year: 2013

Director: Chris Buck & Jennifer Lee

Starring: Idina Menzel

Music/Lyrics: Kristen Anderson-Lopez & Robert Lopez
Synopsis: After Queen Elsa's icy powers are revealed, she flees into the mountains and begins to explore just what she is capable of.

Review

Nope.  I'm not one bit ashamed to admit that I saw Frozen for the third time today.  I still think it has some flaws, but I love it anyway.  And I just really wanted to see it one more time on the big screen.

As the post's title suggests, this is only a review of one particular segment.  I actually had many of the following thoughts related to "Let It Go" a few weeks ago.  So I thought I'd put my film school knowledge to use and share.

It truly is a powerful segment, as the outstanding visuals and soaring music forward both the story and Elsa's character development.  I've read the equivalent section of the novelization (What?  It's a good story.) and it isn't nearly as awe-inspiring or revealing.

The segment is about liberation.  Elsa starts out feeling isolated and like a failure for having accidentally revealed her powers.  For years she has abided by her parent's well-intentioned counsel to "conceal it; don't feel it."  But now her secret is out.  And with it comes a sense of exhilarating relief.  She no longer has to keep this enormous secret.  She no longer has to live in fear of discovery.  And though she is alone, she thinks she no longer has to fear hurting Anna or anyone else.

At long last, Elsa lets go of her fears and the constraints she has lived under (symbolized at that point by her remaining glove and cloak which both blow away in the wind).  Instead, she embraces the incredible power she was born with.  As soon as she relinquishes her fears and embraces who she is, the snowstorm around her stops and the night becomes crystal clear.

It is very appropriate and telling that almost the first thing Elsa does as she embraces her powers is to build Olaf.  She has never forgotten the lopsided little snowman (who likes warm hugs) she and Anna once built as children.  Olaf in a way becomes a living reminder of not only the sisters' bond, but also of Elsa's inherent goodness.

As Elsa is liberated (or rather liberates herself) from her fears and the constraints on her powers, she also undergoes a transformation.  Timid steps become an excited run.  Her confidence grows along with her ice palace.  And lastly she transforms herself, freeing her hair and changing her gown to become a crystalline, shimmering complement to her powers.

But there is an undercurrent to the segment.  It took a few viewings before I picked up on it.  For almost the entire sequence, Elsa is moving from right to left across the screen.  Because we are a left to right reading society, right to left is often considered the "wrong" direction, or it implies moving backward.  (In The Hobbit, for example, the characters are almost always moving from left to right on their journey.)  So having Elsa move from right to left is a subtle, subconscious commentary within the film.  Yes, she is excited and feels free.  Yes, she is becoming empowered and confident.  She genuinely feels like she is on the right path.  And certainly her motivation of protecting Anna and Arendelle from herself is well-intentioned.  But ultimately, she is going the wrong way.

The audience has already begun to know what Elsa doesn't: that Arendelle is in a deep freeze.  Elsa may think she can be free from her past, but she will ultimately have to face not only her past but all her fears in order for everything to be set right.  Running away to be alone isn't the answer.  And I love that the sequence subtly shows that.

Quotable Quotes

• "A kingdom of isolation ... and it looks like I'm the queen."
• "My soul is spiraling in frozen fractals all around."
• "Let the storm rage on!  The cold never bothered me anyway."

ISFS