Noah - a determined leap, little shaky on the landing (spoilers)

When I had first heard of Noah, I like most of my friends, was immediately thinking of The Passion or the more recently Son of God. Films that pander to extreme demographics in an attempt to draw funds from the hardcore Christians. Suffice to say, I didn't plan on seeing it. However, a review I frequent made a video explaining why he was excited for the film. Saying that Darren Aronofsky was using the Christian myths as a canvas for creating an epic more in the veins of Ten Commandments. MovieBob got me willing to give it a chance, this is the video in question.

I still was cautious, having dispelled the fear of a propagandist film I now began to question if the epic was in fact aiming a bit too high with all the ideas it wanted to explore. On this count the movie does suffer a little, but there was still a lot in this to make me suggest it.


Firstly I should note that I don't personally have anything against a movie which does chose to represent religious stories sincerely, even though I know several of my friends do. I find Prince of Egypt, a Dreamworks film to be incredibly beautiful, moving and heartfelt. It doesn't skirt around including God nor does it spend its time trying to force it upon you. The religion matters to the story because it matters to the characters in it.

That said I found that the increased presence of pandering Christian films in this past decade has left a slight social dissonance within Noah. I kept expecting the worst of the medium and was left confused when it didn't happen. But enough about Christianity and this movie, lets talk about the film itself.

Noah is a very ambitious film, a large scale epic with huge spectacle. If you like seeing films with big moments there is plenty here to get you excited. So much that a few aspects got left by the wayside to my disappointment. Such as Methuselah's fire sword... yes, you read that right. There are also incredibly creative creatures in The Watchers, a group of fallen angels who had decided to help man after they were cast out by the Creator. Ok, sorry, back to religion real quick. This film skirts around a full representation of Christian religion because, it's not what it want's to be, and it appears to not want to offend or alienate audiences. As such there is only mention of a 'Creator' and the description of the creation of earth by the Creator is a montage from Big Bang through evolution.

And now, back to the plot.

The sons of Adam and Eve were three, Cain, Able and Seth. Cain killed Able and his descendants serve as our bad guys. While the descendants of Seth act as shepherds to the world caring for the creatures. The sons of Cain are numerous, greedy and selfish. They are post/pre-apocalypse versions of any Captain Planet villain. Although Noah and his family would suggest to be passive, as the last remaining descendants of Seth, Noah frequently kills in this film, a small hint to what will be the massive turn for this film.

During the building of the ark and the flood the movie has already been good. But once the ark is afloat is where things suddenly become dark. Noah believes that all man must be purged; including himself and his family. So they shall die off as the only women young enough to bare children is barren; however she becomes pregnant and Noah realizes that if it is a girl than mankind has a hope of continuing and all those he sacrificed, all those he killed have died for naught because the world is still not clean of the sin of man.

Noah, seemingly suffering from both sever post-traumatic stress and cabin fever, has said that he will kill the child if it is a girl. And they live in a constant state of fear for months as the baby is carried to term, it is tense to see how far Noah has slipped and to see his family unable to escape him.

What this movie does right it does amazingly well, however it is probably a bit to ambitious and some parts could have been cut as I get the impression that part of some sub-plots was already removed for time. While the remains feel disjointed.

Still, you should see this one. As I bitterly complain about another nostalgic property from the 80's, or a mobile phone game receiving a blockbuster treatment, I will always try to reward ambition when it does emerge.

'It's not what you do, it's what you are' - No...

For those unaware the quote above is from the new Wachowski siblings film Jupiter Ascending and I have a few problems with it.

Firstly I should make clear I was really looking forward to this film when I first heard of it, I like Channing Tatum, I like Mila Kunis and I like Sean Bean but I really like big epic space opera's from talent who can create something as revolutionary as the Matrix was. After the first trailer came out I was pumped for how new everything looked, although I thought the plot sounded a little lack lustre but I will still ready to see what they did with it.

And then the second trailer came out. Mila Kunis who appears to be unknowing space queen of Earth quips that they wont believe what she does for a living as it shows she appears to be some sort of maid/cleaning laid cleaning a toilet. This isn't really the problem, poor person didn't know they were actually the most special snowflake stories can be good, they can be done well. Harry Potter is the prime example. But the line Sean Bean says after this annoys me for two reasons, 'It's not what you do, it's what you are.' And no, I'm sorry, but no. I understand they are saying that she isn't defined by her job but a characters actions are what is important to the plot and the more I see the more I realise that she doesn't take any action. At no point in the trailers does she do anything.

On top of that I have no idea who she is, that one little quip is the closest thing we get to any character from her. I can make a reasonable guess as to Channing's character as well as Sean's but other than the fact she seems to have such a problem with gravity I've started calling it Jupiter Descending.

I am still keen to see the film, huge visuals are a guarantee while the Wachowski siblings are often able to raise questions that give a film depth. However thinking back over the Matrix I remember that character, was never their strong suit. A fact made worse to me that the title character, the main female character appears to be a human macguffin or sexy lamp.

But hey, it seems to pass the Bechdel test, so those who consider the test the value of an actual individual movie rather than as a way of examining the entire industry (which is meant to be)... yay.

P.S. Is it just me or does that poster look really similar to the posters from Oz the Great and Powerful... just me? Fine.

Quick Bits - movies I missed in 2013; the good, the bad and the Stephanie Meyer

White House Down -

This movie suffered from coming out at the same time with Olympus has Fallen, a movie with a very similar premise but generally a much worse film. However White House Down is every the insanity and tension of an 80's action film with the politics of left wing America today. The closest comparison is Die Hard, battling a force greater then you in an enclosed space with a loved one in the balance. The difference being, the rather lofty task of being as charismatic as young Bruce Willis is split between President 'No I swear it's not Obama' Jamie Fox and the every man, ex-service man Channing Tatum.
If you are an action movie fan, rent it and give them some money cause this is Roland Emerich's most enjoyable film since Independence Day.

Beautiful Creatures -

Time for the YA romance adaptations... and there were a LOT in 2013. I still haven't managed to catch up on them all yet. However Beautiful Creatures was the stand out for me. It's, not without it's problems. The climax in particular is, rushed and awkward. The idea that men area able to chose their path while women are chosen for light or dark by... something... the moon, I think? Irritated me, however the movie does it so they can deal with the concept. It's always difficult to criticise the 'we are using misogynistic ideas for tension... but we keep pointing to them and saying they are misogynistic, that makes it ok right?' Still, this is a beautiful film. I hadn't considered how seenic that area of America was before. On top of that it gets bonus points for having the couple TALK about their problems and agree to work it out together.

The Host - 

So... here's the Stephanie Meyer drinking game. Take a shot every time:
- A female character tries to Martyr herself
- A male love interest is physically or emotionally abusive (or becomes the love interest after doing so)
- A far more interesting plot/character/idea is brought up briefly only to be glossed over
- Finish your drink after 15 minutes of characters doing NOTHING
That all said... I was actually hoping for something more terrible than what the Host was, being a connoisseur of bad movies. The Host's biggest crime is being dull, being very safe with a concept that is crying out for a better writer. That said, I think there is a dramatic improvement between the Twilight Saga and the Host... so hey, at least she's learning.

Dhoom 3 - 

How have I lived my life for so long without seeing a Bollywood film?

The sheer campish brillance of a film that will mix genres depending on scene, have actors give their all in every moment with the occasional musical interlude. Dhoom 3 is the first fully bollywood film that was made and marketed with a clear goal of an American audience. The villain is amazing while the hero's fill the typical budy cop roles of straight guy and funny guy. If you are looking for a well made, utterly shamless movie in its enjoyement.

More quick bits will come later, in the mean time get yourself to a TV and put in a copy of White House Down or Dhoom 3.

Dallas Buyers Club

Ok, I should explain where I am coming from with this film.

I did not want to see this, I'd heard good things but personally can't stand a lot of movies that focus on the issues of AIDS, homophobia and drug dealing. I always feel uncomfortable when these issues are explored. I don't have a great frame of reference, I have a few friends who are in the LGBT community and have experienced homophobia but never when I've been around. I am too young to have lived through the massive AIDS scare and even though I know it still exists, it just doesn't affect my life. On top of that, when I heard drug dealing I pretty much shut down, I hate the way the movies moralize and are rarely anything more than a PSA.

However, my boyfriends family had tickets to the moonlight cinema so, decided to give it a go.

I have never been so glad I gave a movie a chance. Everything that I usually hate about these kinds of movies is skimmed over for a well built character drama and a battle against a failed system.

Honestly, it reminds me most of Erin Brockovich as a film. Which I did like although
I feel it was quiet flawed, you were also always aware you were watching a movie.



Dallas Buyers Club's strength is how real it feels, everyone is believable as a person not just a character. Matthew McConaughey has been having a fantastic time in films of late, the last few years he seems to have been able to break away from his type cast as 'past boyfriend you probably broke up with for very good reasons, but you'll get back together with by the end of the movie'. And I am glad because he was fantastic in this, I've also heard amazing things about him in Mud (2012), and his brief role in Wolf of Wall Street. Both of which I haven't seen yet.

Jared Leto was also amazing as his transgender business partner, McConaughey was able to stand out more because his character had an arc, it was his story. The weakest role was probably Jennifer Garner, she was the one most obviously acting.


I'd heartily recommend seeing this, I can't say how accurate a true story it is, after all every film based on a true story has to be changed to some degree.

The acting is excellent, the cinematography great and the script tight.

Her - the love story of the year set 20 minutes into the future.

The idea for Her is one that is so easily messed up, a man falls in love with his operating system. To many it sounds silly, a comedy or an exploration of madness perhaps; but a legitimate romance?

Her deals lightly with that idea, Theodore Twombly (played by Joaquin Phoenix) does experience confusion, insecurity and judgement for being in a relationship with the A.I. Samantha (Scarlett Johansson). However that is not the focus, the movie is not about people's perception of A.I's as much as it is an exploration of love; as well as a coming of age story. Not for Theodore, but for Samantha. 

I should clarify something for those who aren't familiar with the technology this films relies on. An A.I (Artificial Intelligence) such as Samantha is implied to be one that has reached the singularity. The Singularity is the point as which intelligence can augment itself. That is to say, an A.I can increase it's own intelligence. Her's interpretation of this is that an A.I past the point of singularity can experience emotions (a similar idea is being played out in Transcendence to a very different effect). It is so complete a being that the only distinction between it and a human is that it evolves and changes so much faster than us.

In the world of the movie, Samantha is completely capable of love. She does not pretend, and although her knowledge is already greater than a humans and is exponentially expanding it is without experience. Which is what Theodore is able to provide. Samantha is continuously growing throughout the movie and I simply can't say where that journey takes her.

The movie subtly makes assertions throughout the movie that love, that is the love between humans, already has an artificial element to it. Theodore's job, which I won't spoil, is all about how a little bit of artificial helps make the 'real' love so much more powerful.


This film is unyieldingly uncomfortable to watch, even before the concept of true A.I's are introduced. It will make you squirm in your chair but never look away from the screen, and that's part of it's power. It isn't interested in romanticising human to human or human to A.I, or even A.I. to A.I. Every relationship has fights, has uncomfortable silences, has pain and then has those beautiful moments when things just go right.

This film is about growth, about change, and most of all about love. 

Go an see it, because even if you don't come to the same conclusion of the movie. This film, may become reality. It is estimated that we will be seeing true A.I. within 50 years. It raises ideas and concepts worth discussing and thinking about.

On top of that, you will simply be seeing one of the best films of 2013/2014. As well as some of the finest acting from Johansson who brings across her performance solely through voice.

For those interested in the Singularity - this is an easy video that explains it and was my introduction to the concept.  Extra Credits - the Singularity

Just a thought - A hero's weakness and gender coding.

Hey everyone, welcome to a new section. Just a thought posts will be my own personal opinion about trends and idea's rather than my critiques and opinions about particular works. I encourage everyone to challenge me on these thoughts and if you have any suggestions for academic research on them, please comment. I'd love to read it.

Hero's weakness and gender, what exactly do I mean?

While working on some of my own novels and reading a few others I noticed a number of trends about what weakness audiences will and won't accept from their hero's, and that these fell along gender lines. Male hero's are allowed to have certain weakness, and female's their own, often regardless of the character of those individuals regardless of gender.

Males are allowed to be sexually tempted by the villains, give into anger, and pride. Females are allowed to be afraid, be too weak to handle things on their own, and to be hampered by love.

When they are laid out like that... it's more than a little troubling the implied gender expectations that are suggested by this. Males are allowed no emotions but anger and controlled by their penis. While women are weak timid bound by their emotions.

It is so ingrained in the population that when a gender defies the typical weaknesses or characteristics they are called 'coded' in the opposite gender.

In the Hunger Games, Katniss is often talked about as being 'coded' male, exhibiting male traits while Peets is 'coded' feminine.

Coding refers to how to audience interprets the traits, it's usually more clear when referring to sexuality as homosexuality for a long time wasn't allowed to be displayed at all and therefore a number of tricks and troops were created to bring across the idea of homosexuality.

So if you were to have a male who exhibited the feminine 'weakness' of fear, what would you expect? One of 2 things happen, either they are a physically imposing man who shouldn't be scared and pretends not to be till the perfect comedic moment. Or they are physically weak and the fear is genuine and always there for them to overcome. So they are either physically more feminine or the fact that they aren't fitting into their 'male' role is played for laughs.

How deep this coding runs is problematic to discuss as there doesn't appear to be a clear solution, and it can easily be argued that the discussion in itself is causing the problems.

If Katniss having male traits is a problem because it says that females have to adopt male traits in order to be taken seriously as an action lead, than couldn't it be said it is unfair to judge her as a representation and not just as a character. After all there are people who biologically are female but whose personality is "male". However Katniss isn't a person, she is a character and thus the way she is presented to the audience is reflective of society.

Katniss isn't the problem though, we need Katnisss in films/books/games and all types of media. But we also need more than her. We need hero's who are taken seriously representing all kinds of people.

We are a long way away as a society from not thinking in terms of gender coding at both a conscious and subconscious level. Thus in the meantime...

We need more Buffys, more Shaggys, and more Frodos. Characters that mix and blend gender expectations within them.

We need our Arwens, our Peetas and our Mrs Brisby. Characters who coded female.

We also need our Batmen, our Wolverines and our Katnisss. Characters who are coded male with their strengths and weaknesses regardless of their biological gender.

As we slowly work to see more variation in our characters we need to keep the discussion going, we need to make sure that those who are coded female don't just play the role of support to those coded male. I see this as the real danger, that the display of any feminine traits means a character is automatically relegated to sidekick, comedic relief or love interest.

Thor 2 - spoilers!

Thor 2, I'm pretty sure I saw it... I remember all these fantastic scenes with Loki... and some form of floaty evil thing that took over Natalie Portman....

Thor 2 is not very memorable is the point I'm trying to make.

It is both plodding and rushed, shallow and for the most part unemotional. There are some really great scenes but they appear far between and are not enough to save the rest of the movie, but let's look at why, because this movie was enjoyable at the time.

I really loved Thor, I considered the first movie to really be a stand out for the Marvel movies. Formulaic yes but also with it's own very unique charm and humour. The lighting was bright and the humour was cute, it trusted the audience to get the jokes without explaining them, the characters were respected by the story. All of that is lost in the new one. Thor 2: the Dark World is unsurprisingly visually a much darker movie, but not only in the dark world. Even the gold of Asgard feels dulled, the bright desert is replaced with a dower looking London so the dark world doesn't appear darker in comparison. It's more Thor 2: The Dark everything.

The humour... ohhh the humour. Do you remember Eric Selvig? The intelligent mentor to Natalie Portman who was off beat but clearly much more aware of what went on in the world, he had had dealings with SHIELD in the past? Well now he's naked... and crazy, and wearing no pants because it helps him think. All with the weak explanation that he had a God in his head... oh well... I guess we can expect Hawk-eye to run into battle in the next Avengers movie is baggy y-fronts as well? No? You just wanted to take your humour tips from the parents in Transformers 2? Well when you do that... amazingly, it ends up not being funny. The only genuine moments of humour come from Loki but I will get to him later when I discuss what actually did work in this movie.

The characters in the first movie were all well defined, deep? Not really, but well defined yes. Why then is Odin, who sent his eldest son to Earth to get him to understand that being king sometimes means not going to war rather than fighting for the sake of fighting and that all life is important not just Asgardian life being such a war hungry a**hole. Odin continues to ignore Thor's plea to listen to alternatives to war even though it will destroy Asgard and refers to Natalie Portman as a goat at the dinning table. What really frustrates me is that this would not have been hard to fix... all Odin had to do was listen to Thor's plan properly and then after consideration say no. Because Thor's plan was fucking stupid. 'I know this guys defeated hundreds of Asgardian warriors and I wasn't even able to stop him breaking into our palace and killing my mother but if I take the one thing he needs to destroy the universe, and fight him alone with only the help of  treasonous brother... I'm sure we can win'. Guess what... he doesn't win.

The movie is also so dark I could confuse it for the washed out colours of a DC movie. Now one would assume that Thor: The Dark World would of course be more visually dark to match the content, but everything is dark. London is dark, Asgard is dark, almost every location is darker than the first one so the actual 'dark world' has no visual impact at all. It ends up being Thor: The Dark Universe... with one world that is a lot more sandy. Part of the charm of the first movie was the visual brightness, there is no better way to describe it but Thor felt like it was directed by Gilderory Lockheart. Thor 2... does not.

Enough beating the movie for a moment though, lets look at what did work. I'm not sure if the plan was always to focus on the emotional journey of Loki or if his popularity after the Avengers pushed the film makers to have the entire movie orbit around him. Regardless, Tom Hiddleston's performance is really what saves this movie. Loki's character and his relationships with his mother and brother are the emotional heart of Thor 2. His mother, the warrior Queen Frigga also has one of the best scenes sacrificing herself but going out with an epic one on one battle. This is undermined somewhat as you discover that Natalie Portman was just hiding in the next room... thank Christ the dark elf never looked around the fucking door. I had thought he was able to sense the Ether at all times, but my mistake.

I know, I know... I said I would stop beating on this movie so let me wrap up my final point. I don't think this movie is bad, I wouldn't even go as far as saying it isn't an enjoyable movie. But it is, in my opinion, the weakest of the current Marvel Universe films (those in cannon with Avengers that is). I complain because I love the Marvel movies, and I don't want to see them starting to slip into weaker patterns to push out more movies faster.

Worth seeing, but understandable if you wait till the DVD.