'Calvary' - Movie Review

 

After a three month hiatus (apologies) - spent tackling the post-graduate beast - I felt I could not ignore the urge to review what will likely go down as one of my Movies Of The Year, Calvary. Acknowledgment must go to my lovely wife, who helped put this review together. You stay classy, Planet Earth.

My favourite films are those which dare to give plot the backseat treatment. When a character is unshackled, given license to roam, I often forget that there was a meaningful plot to begin with. It was only in the closing scenes of Calvary that I was reminded it was a whodunnit affair. I was so affected (and consumed) by Father Lavelle (Brendan Gleeson) and his flock that I had forgotten that there was a death threat levelled against the priest in the extraordinary opening scene.

We begin by following Father Lavelle into the confession booth, where we hear from a man who tragically reveals that he had been raped by a priest as a child. I expected to hear that it was Father Lavelle who had committed the crime, but what the unseen man went on to say was even more shocking. “There’s no point in killing a bad priest,” the man explains, “but killing a good one – that’d be a shock.” It’s then that we are told that Father Lavelle should expect to die the following Sunday, just long enough to “get his house in order”. From here we follow Father Lavelle as he goes about his duties over the next seven days – edging towards that fateful day.

 

John McDonagh’s debut directorial film The Guard showcased the Irishman’s ability to write and direct. It was a memorable film, one which dabbles in comedy and sees Brendan Gleeson take a role of authority. Calvary returns McDonagh and Gleeson to Ireland, yet this is a darker affair, one which mixes smart (and dark) British humour with the kind of drama and uncensored dialogue you would expect to find in a Hemingway novel. The deeper we dive into the closets of those that make up this coastal Irish town (County Sligo), the darker the film grows and the clearer we see McDonagh’s desire to “make a film about a good priest” (Empire Magazine Australia, July 2014, p28). What should be applauded is that this priest is not your stereotypical priest that rids himself of the world to guard himself from ever really entering the world. The rich and layered characterisation – and compelling contradictions – begin here with Father Lavelle and never let up.

It’s surely the exquisite writing of John McDonagh which draws in this brilliant British cast – some of whom only have one scene to leave their mark. All of the Father’s flock, from his suicidal daughter (played elegantly and thoughtfully by Kelly Reilly), to the local wife-bruising butcher (a mature Chris O’Dowd), to the jaded atheist doctor (my favourite Game of Thrones actor, Aidan Gillen), to the hedonistic African immigrant and his mistress (Isaach De Bankole and Orla O’Rourke), to my favourite “suspect” and secondary character, the detached and depressed wealthy businessman Michael Fitzgerald (a career-best Dylan Moran), are interesting and beat off potential “caricature” whispers. In truth, I absolutely love when British dramas bring this flair to characterisation and fill films with characters who are quirky, unique and perhaps sometimes over the top.

I can’t recall ever seeing Brendan Gleeson this commanding onscreen. He’s got an odd charm about him – perhaps we should put that down to his Irish heritage – and the relationship he is developing with McDonagh has many thinking back to Scorsese and De Niro. There’s definitely the same stoicism, which, again, gives way to moments of rage. What I find most compelling about Gleeson and his character in Calvary, however, is their refusal to paint the man-of-God character as just another thoughtless (and brainwashed) wonder. Integrity is spoken of in the movie quite a bit, and it is refreshing to see some of it in this priest. Instead of defending the sinful actions of the Catholic Church and despicable clergy, Father Lavelle affirms fault and wrongdoing, yet stands firm in his vocation. All of the torment, wrongdoing and grief in the film helps lead to the greater theme of forgiveness.

One of the key scenes to depict Father Lavelle’s integrity and ability to forgive is in his visit to a local criminal, Freddie Joyce. A convicted rapist and cannibal (played by Gleeson’s son, Domhnall Gleeson), Freddie is seen pleading with the Father for forgiveness. Lavelle doesn’t seem to think that the young man possesses remorse, yet he’s not one to tell the inmate that he’s destined for hell. In this we are taken aback by Lavelle’s ability to reach out to someone who has strayed beyond society’s line of forgiveness.

In fact, all of Lavelle’s flock are lost in some way – and many of them take their anger out on the priest – yet there is a respect and love for the Father’s steadfastness and integrity.  The scenes between Lavelle and his daughter somehow bring the film full spin and we come to deal with grief, loss and what it means to live in such a broken world. The remarkable turning point for Fiona Lavelle comes at the end of the film... but that’s something you’ll have to see for yourself.

McDonagh explains that Calvary is “quite a novelistic film”, which in today’s world means it will not be widely released, nor hugely sought after. Despite this, Calvary offers one of the best leading roles of 2014 and will also leave us eagerly anticipating McDonagh and Gleeson’s third film in the “Glorified Suicide Trilogy”. 

9/10

'Noah' - Movie Review

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. – Genesis 6:5-8

Director Darren Aronofsky has called Noah "the least biblical 'biblical movie' ever". There's definitely truth to this, as the film doesn't depict your typical flood-ark-Noah-restart story. Costing $125 million and spanning nearly two and a half hours, Noah is an epic. And Aronofsky's take on Noah and exploration of the character's obsession (and burden) will catch many off guard.
 

At the opening of the film we find a young Noah caught up in the violence of the age (which we are shown through the storyteller's retelling of what happened in the Garden of Eden: creation, temptation, 'the fall' and Cain murdering Abel). Immediately, we find ourselves thrusted into the story and the life of Noah. As the boy's father is murdered for daring to follow the ways of Seth, the powerful themes of injustice and good versus evil surface. The dark, depressing tone of the film is also cast, soon to intertwine with the obsessive character of Noah (Russell Crowe) and his oppressive creator. Bigger questions also arise, such as whether "the Creator" (the word 'God' is never used) will bring justice and triumph over evil, whether the Creator has abandoned mankind, and whether Noah's beliefs and actions are just.

As Noah's wife and sons try and keep up with the patriarch's distressed existence, while they scramble across the Eden-less landscape, issues arise surrounding Noah's relationship with the Creator. In the biblical narrative Noah is approached and spoken to by God. (God creates a covenant between himself and Noah. This covenant runs through to Christ, but is removed from the film.) Aronofsky and co-writer Ari Handel create Noah's manic obsession by removing Noah and God's dialogue and the covenant. Taking the place of this dialogue are vivid and frightening dreams about the destruction (and flooding!) of mankind. Experiencing the dreams firsthand with Noah allows us to feel Noah's pain and his burden. This is a real strength of the film, that we can connect, feel and engage, rather than sit back, scoff and judge.

 
The setting (much of the film was set in the wondrous lands of Iceland) gives the film a desolate and apocalyptic feel (think a biblical Mad Max). The barren land and wide shots help to emphasise the destruction mankind has wreaked and the distress the “innocent” feel. However, the Tolkienesque Watchers remove us from this state of wonder and make us think about what these... things remind us of. (I saw some Tree Beard, Rock Giants, Notre Dame Gargoyles and Transformers in these "fallen angels".) And other than convenient helpers to build the ark - and an action scene waiting to happen - what do these angelic-Ents offer? Their final battle scene, against the violent men of earth (for control of the ark), is exhilarating, fast paced and everything you could want in a Hollywood blockbuster. Yet, it is interesting to note that they don't appear in the trailer, likely to avoid pushing orthodox Christian audiences away. But there's something too formulaic, archetypal even, about these rock warriors. If Aronofsky is trying to take a different approach in making Noah, then these Watchers are distractions.

Environmentalist rage is poured on thick in Noah. It's pro-vegetarianism - there's a memorable line delivered when Noah tells his son that man eats meat because they have forgotten that "strength comes from the creator" - and all about sustainability and protecting creation. I would even say the film goes as far as to question the killing of animals and what our consumption reveals about mankind. The animals don't feature for long in this exhaustive film, though. In the 1966 film The Bible, Noah (John Huston) talks and relates to the animals. When the animals do eventually board the ark, it's peaceful, systematic and simple. Clearly, the animals are a fair bit more civilised than mankind, who rapes, pillages and kills in the name of self-interest. However, the animals are often unrecognisable (shall we put that down to evolution?) and the heavy CGI keeps us from really enjoying their presence. The ark, however, is a tremendous sight to behold, rebuking the dainty, weak ark we often construct in our minds. It's incredible to witness the rain come down and spark the ark into action. With that said, how does Tubal-Cain (a familiarly sinister Ray Winstone) manage to break into the ark and not cause a Titanic effect?

The most inventive scene in the film isn't found in the Watchers, or in the building or defending of the ark, but in the side story Noah tells his wife and children about creation and man's fall. It's a flashback scene which links evolution and the creation story. (I wondered at this point if Richard Dawkins would rage against the filmmaker.) Through a flashback, which follows the evolution of animals and creation, we are shown, rather than just being told, how mankind abandoned the Creator and set about destroying all that is good.

 
The casting of Noah and his wife Naaham had to hit the mark. The movie crumbles without an intense Noah and a strong Naaham. Crowe brings his grizzly beard (and attitude) to the proceedings, always a high point; and throughout is able to draw us in. What's also interesting is Noah's turn: his transformation into the anti-hero. Sure, he's no Tubal-Cain - who wastes no time to grabbing monologue moments to preach his pro-killing and meat eating views - but Noah goes from being righteous to doubtful and even mad. It's a brilliant move and daring to cast the patriarch in this darkness. It makes us wonder about the toll this “plan” would have had on Noah and the survivor's guilt they all would've felt.

Equally as daring is Connelly's emotional portrayal of a beleaguered and tested wife and mother. Battling between Noah's rage and her children's desire, Connelly delivers a moment of lip quivering power when she stands up and challenges Noah during the 40 days time on the ark.

Less powerful and complimentary is Anthony Hopkins's mumbling Yoda-esque role as Methuselah. Hopkins has perplexed me over the past few years, with his role in Marvel's Thor causing me to question whether the seasoned actor has lost the (acting) plot. Maybe he is better off picking berries?

There’s darkness in this film which surpasses what we witnessed in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004). Whereas, in Gibson’s film there is hope to be found in the saviour, God appears to offer Noah nothing but torture, and there is no hope (or covenant) underlying the plan. This darkness is perhaps best captured in the screams of those who were drowning outside the ark. Nothing will prepare audiences for the painstaking moment when the film cuts to a shot of a mass of people trying to climb a rock cliff to avoid drowning. It’s the most evocative image in a movie which doesn’t hold back. 

Perhaps it's best to reflect on the themes and larger questions behind Noah rather than the film itself. I went in expecting an obsession-fest, it's an Aronofsky mainstay and something I always enjoy, but the environmental message and theme of injustice are also worth thinking about. Perhaps more of a thinking man's success than a visual success, Noah is daring to re-evaluate and reflect on what can be described as a troubling story. There were points when I felt at arm’s length from Noah, but it's definitely worth a watch... and a chat.

 
7/10

'300: Rise of an Empire' - Movie Review

There are three things we need to remind ourselves of before we go and watch 300: Rise of an Empire.

1. There will be blood.
2. We shouldn't expect an accurate history lesson. 
3. The West is (apparently) righteous.

This is not your typical sequel. Rise of an Empire is more of a companion piece to go alongside Zack Snyder’s 2007 gore-fest, 300. This could even be described as the Athenian 300. And while we witness another showdown between the freedom - and now democracy - loving Greeks and the greedy, tyrannical and sadistic Persians, this new installment just isn't as thrilling. What is interesting is the decision to have this film play out before, during and after Leonidis and his men battle the golden (literally) King Xerxes (a digitally transformed Rodrigo Santoro).
 
My hope isn’t that one will brush up on Greek and Persian history going into 300. My hope is that this gore-fest might inspire someone to actually research the players and the period. Sorry lads, Artemisia’s real story is not what the 300 franchise conjured up. It had to be said.

 This is Eva Green’s movie, though, there’s no doubting that. From the moment we are introduced to Artemisia, who crafts, creates and in many ways controls the ‘God King’ (Xerxes), we know that she’s a woman who craves Greek blood. Her story injects much needed intrigue and venom. As recounted through the ordinary but essential exposition in the opening half hour, she’s a Greek born woman who was forced into sexual slavery by the Greeks, only to be taken in and trained by the Persians. And sure enough, out of destitution and slavery comes a woman whose skill and tactical brilliance matches her thirst for Greek blood. Obviously this makes proceedings fairly straight forward, but it matches what the franchise wants to do – make visual effect epics. She is to Persia what Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) is to Athens. This makes for a roaring (naval) showdown... which includes an intense pre-battle sex scene between the Athenian naval commander and the Persian naval commander.

What ultimately lets this side-sequel – or what co-producer Wesley Coller calls “an equal [movie]” – down is the fledgling narrative and dialogue. Enough with the cliche monologues! It’s too graphic novel for its own good. The events coincide with Leonidis and Xerxes’ battle at the Hot Gates, but it’s just not as captivating as 300. It's too much of a copy and not enough story. The Israeli director (Murro) appears to channel his inner-Snyder (who produced and co-wrote!) throughout.

 
At the end of the day, it's mind blowing action which we are paying to see. Heads splitting open, blood splattering across the screen, hunky men wielding weaponry! It gets to the point where you wonder why other movies don’t show more blood. In other action movies people just don’t bleed. And here they can’t stop bleeding. Then there are the abs, pectorals and all that crotch-cloth! I wouldn’t take my wife to see this in a million years. No, not because of the gore, but because of what she’s missing out on! I’m as hairy as a Greek, not that they are hairy here, but I sure don’t have those protruding... body parts. Did men actually look like this? Sure, the Spartans were fascist, muscle bound freaks, but what about the potters of Athens? 

It’s pleasing to see Aussie Sullivan Stapleton play the heroic Themistocles well. Sure, it doesn’t hurt to play the righteous and morally upright hero, but Stapleton is still able to act and look goooood. He creates intrigue for his character, and that’s about as much as you can ask for.

Eva Green will leave the blokes grunting and give the women something to cheer. Her character is well suited for a 300 bonanza. She steals the show and her battles scenes, across from Stapleton, are some of the best. A tip of the hat is also in order for Aussie cinematographer Simon Duggan (The Great Gatsby) who brought the action to life.

Go for the brutal violence, show-stopping action and Eva Green’s presence and you’ll have a ball. Go for a history and dialogue lesson and you’ll leave distraught. It’s all about action... and guilty pleasure.

6/10

P.S. Enough with the slo-mo violence!