Film Review | Captain America: The Winter Soldier

After the devastation of New York, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is still coming to terms with the changes of this world. But one thing’s for sure, the war he plunged into the arctic depths from is still very much the same war he woke up to. Now working for S.H.I.E.L.D., Rogers is hoping that the similarities would out-way the differences in the new world. But in a world full of war, who can you really fighting who?

The Story

Picking up from the first Captain America and Avengers films, CA: The Winter Soldier follows through the comic plots and opens up the world of S.H.I.E.L.D. as wells as other central characters. There are big character/plot developments for (and with) Agent Hill (Cobie Smulders), Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), which is fascinating in the greater scheme of The Avengers front. We also receive a new love interest for the Captain; Revenge’s Emily VanCamp makes an appearance as Kate – a.k.a. Agent 13.

The film engulfs the theme of technological advancement with the preservation of human minds via computer hard drives as well as cutting-edge weaponry that can wipe out masses in a “flick” of a switch. The idea in this film is annihilating the threat before it can even become a threat. With old enemies – even those who were once comrades – in play, this film questions who is good and who is evil?

The Cast

Chris Evans, I’ve always thought, captures the essence of a soldier who’s come back from – not just the dead – but also another time altogether, perfectly. Not only does Rogers have to overcome slight spurts of post-traumatic stress, he also has to come to terms with the fact that the past, though can manifest itself in the future, cannot be returned to. Evans understands the role and the fact that he has to bring the values of the 40s into the 21^st century. One thing I will commend the costume department for is this: Evans keeps his clothes on!

Scarlett Johansson, although retaining Black Widow’s kick-ass nature, is actually the main source of comic relief in this film. Her banter with Evans is playful and believable. Aside from her comedic streak, we see a different side to Johansson’s character in this film, which helps us really understand its attempts to tackle to philosophical battle of who truly is the ‘real’ enemy.

Samuel L. Jackson is brilliant as usual. Like Johansson, he gives you a few witty lines to laugh about. There are moments in this film where you really do feel for Fury as well, which is a good thing since we don’t really get to do that too often since he’s the leader of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Robert Redford takes on the role of Alexander Pierce, fellow head of S.H.I.E.L.D. Not wanting to give too much away, Redford plays an excellent dual role. There are times where you question him just as much as times where you completely trust him. His relationship with Fury is an important one and the conflicting feeling you get with Pierce is exactly why I loved the concept of this film.

Sebastian Stan you’ll recognise from the first film, and for those of you who follow the comics religiously, you’ll know exactly who he is in this film. For those of you who are simply watching the films as they come, you’ll catch on pretty quick. Stan delivers a brilliant performance as a conflicted soldier just as much as Evans. Though his character is much more tortured that the Captain, he truly depicts the questioning aspect of this film really well.

Anthony Mackie, Cobie Smulders and Emily VanCamp are all great supports in this film. Mackie is a brilliant “wing man” as Falcon – again, another great source for comic relief, while Smulders and VanCamp took a more serious portrayals of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents.

I just wanted to give Aussie, Callan Mulvey, a shout out for his brilliant appearance in this film. I knew he was freaky in Home and Away, but Mulvey was an outstanding double agent in this film along side the rest of Rogers’ former unit.

Overall, this is totally a guy’s film. Like Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 it’s jam packed with action, gunfire and explosions of epic proportions. Although, ladies I think you’ll appreciate it just as much – like Amy, the winner of my #sLBdayComp, said, “Chris Evans, enough said”. But seriously, I enjoyed it more than the first one – not just for Mr. Evans! My one warning is this, be ready for a few scenes trying to layout “Captain America vs. Hydra” plots in the film – they are important though. Otherwise, everyone go see it – although probably not in 3D, like I keep saying, people are in 3D a flat screen doesn’t change that fact.

sL Star Rating: ★★★★

Next on sL: The Amazing Spider-Man: Rise of Electro

FILM REVIEW | Divergent

Beatrice Prior (Shailene Woodley) has always known that Abnegation was never her home. Her heart is always longing to be outside the grey walls of her birthplace, but she has never known where her longing would take her. On the day of her aptitude test her mind is set on going with whatever her results suggest, yet a small piece inside her fears that her results would only affirm that Abnegation is her true identity.

With a cruel twist of fate, her results are inconclusive, no, worse. She is Divergent.

Not knowing what it means to be “Divergent,” Beatrice now has to hide to save her life – the only thing she knows for sure about being Divergent is that everyone wants you dead. With Dauntless as her heart’s desire, she abandons her faction and finds herself in the forefront of a civil war to maintain the fragile peace between the five factions.

The Story

If you haven’t read the book, it’s basically about a social system that works on the basis of groupings called, “factions”. I’m going to go all Mean Girls on you now to describe these groupings.

“Post-apocalypse Chicago is your central nervous system; you’ve got your: Dauntless (the brave); Amnesty (the peaceful), Candor (the honest); the greatest people you will ever meet – Abnegation (the selfless), and the worst, beware of the Erudite (the intelligent).”

Once the city’s children turn the age of sixteen they have a choice to either stay in their factions or leave to join another faction. The city’s motto is, “Faction Before Blood”. Leaving your faction means automatic shunning from your old faction.

Generally, the story was pretty much the same as the book. I have no qualms with the overall plot and progression of the film. I thought some parts that were vague in the book were brilliantly explained through the cinematography in the film. I particularly liked the simulations of Tris’ fear landscape – specifically speaking, I enjoyed watching how she overcomes each of her fears is portrayed through one seamless scene-by-scene progression.

One thing I was a little disappointed about was the ending. Although it was very close to the book, I was a little peeved that they didn’t stay true to who is supposed to be controlling the simulations and how it was undermined. Although I understood why in terms of the series’ progression, but I thought, since they’d been pretty much accurate up until that point, why change it?

The Cast

Shailene Woodley is great in her first big film. She was great lead in the sense that she had that awkward quirk that Tris needs as she progress through her initiation from Abnegation to Dauntless, but I’m not confident in her development as to how she will react to other simulations in the future. There is a fragility in her that Tris loses by the end of the book and I just didn’t see that in Woodley in this film. I hope she proves me wrong in the second film.

Theo James was a convincing Four. Although I pictured Four to be an African American – and that image played on my mind while I was watching the film – I thought James was stronger than Woodley in terms of his character presence. It’s not a brooding allure, it’s a real demand for attention through his facial expressions. There’s a real jadedness to his portrayal that made his character believable. Which is helpful considering I didn’t really like Four in the books – no offence Veronica Roth.

Jai Courtney was a brilliant Eric. Again I pictured Eric a little different – i.e. lankier and less domineering in looks – but Courtney did Australia proud as he plays one of the most evil characters I’ve ever encountered in fiction – both on screen and on paper. He was borderline Heathcliff in this film, yet retained the Erudite wit within his Dauntless figure. I loved that he found the balance between Eric’s old faction within his new faction.

Kate Winslet was a simply flawless in this film. The heartlessness of Jeanine in the books was definitely conveyed in the film. She did overshadow Woodley, but in such a way portrays the icy relationship between the characters in the book. Casting both Winslet and Woodley was perfect with the description that Roth writes in Divergent, where Tris says, “I kind of look like her.” The cinematography that allows their constant mirroring is a brilliant kudos to the casting of this film.

Overall, Divergent was accurate to the book. So whatever you thought of the book, you’ll think of the film. Everything you fell in-love with in the book, you’ll fall in-love with in the film. Everything you hated about the book, you’ll hate about the film. Everything you – well you get the idea: book = film. If you haven’t read the book, like the Hunger Games, it’ll just be a source of “more information” for you. I usually recommend reading the books, but when the film is as accurate as it gets, like the Twilight Saga, I think the Divergent Series will be one you can simply watch without reading the book.

sL Star Rating: ★★★

***

Guest Reviewer | Irene's Corner

The best part of the film would have to be the cast! I’m pretty impressed with the cast selection for this movie. I think they did really well with choosing actors who could portray the characters in the novel realistically. I was particularly impressed with Zoë Cravitz who plays, Christina. I think her portrayal of a “badass” bestfriend was commendable.

The worst part of the film would probably have to be the over theatrics.  Let’s just take a moment to think about the confrontation scene between Jeanine and Tris towards the end of the film – can you say cheesy or? For most parts of the movie the music is pretty bomb – particularly in the zip line scene – but all the overly orchestrated stuff was a tooootal bummer.

If I could change anything about this film, I would change the ending.

Irene's Star Rating: ★★★

Next: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

FILM REVIEW | Noah

Cast out of Eden, humanity was divided into Men and Followers; Men satisfied their carnal desires and Followers clung to their ancestry devotion to The Creator. With the division so distinct, The Creator grieves for his creation and decides to purify it with water. In order for the purification to come about, The Creator places his favour upon Noah and instructs him to build an ark to save the innocent dwelling the Earth.

Creation is about to come into destruction for replenishment.

The Story

Although the film’s director and writer, Darren Aronofsky, has claimed to have said that his film is “the most un-biblical re-telling of a biblical account”, I have to say that his liberty of using poetic license sees him adding more biblical attributes then he lets on. Where Aronofsky veers from the biblical story he borrows from the ancient Greek mythology. Zues and The Flood tells of a similar tale, but in this tale human kind are ‘accidently’ saved from Zues’ anger through a prophecy or whispers from a fish.

Regardless of which ancient account you prefer, the biggest controversy in this film is the rock formations – or damnations – referred to as ‘The Watchers’. This addition to either tale is simply another ploy for an excuse to play with some graphics or merely make a statement that fallen angels aren’t always demons. The closes reference to these ‘Watchers’ are the “Nephilim” (Gen 6:4) who, in the Hebrew, are known to be ‘sons of gods’. In the bible, The Nephilim are argued to be fallen angels who have intercourse with some of the women of Earth, which in turn populated the Earth with giants with super-human qualities.

In either case, if these beings were attractive enough to seduce women on Earth, they would not under any circumstance be covered in rock or be helping Noah. Furthermore, they are not accounted for as spectacular beings, in fact they’re accounted at the same time the writer of Genesis talks about the evil nature of men – if anything, they were an addition to the grievance that God had for creating the world. There has always been a clear distinction between angels and men in the bible, yet for some reason, Aronofky’s re-write gives these fallen creatures more redemptive qualities than that of his leading character.

With this controversy placed aside, let’s talk about the changes Aronofsky made to make Noah biblically unbiblical:

• God didn’t speak to Noah in dreams; he actually literally spoke to Noah. Being six hundred years-old (Gen 7:6) when he built the ark, that’s a long time to be walking faithfully with God (Gen 6:9). There is no doubt that by the time you’re six-hundred, you’d know exactly what God is saying to you. In saying that, the beautiful thing about this film is that it captures the different ways in which God does answer prayer: through silence, through miracles, through other people and through divine revelation.
• All of Noah’s sons had wives by the time God asked Noah to build the ark (Gen 7:6). People lived much longer in those days and if Noah was five hundred years old when he had Shem and the flood waters came a hundred years later, I’m definitely sure that a lot happens in a hundred years. This was simply an excuse for some dramatic tension to heighten the evil nature of man and bring out much more information about Ham’s linage after the flood.
• People were not attempting to get on the ark at all; in fact, the only reference to other people in the account is when it refers to their wickedness. The seclusion that Noah begins with in this film seems to be what it was like the entire time he built the ark. Later on Jesus himself says, “…they [the people other than Noah and his family] knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away.” (Matt 24:37) Sure you would notice a giant boat and animals but…
• As much as many portrayals would like to show that God brought the animals to Noah, the bible actually says, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. Take with you…” (Gen 7:1-2). “Go” and “take with you” are commands; God never says to Noah, “I will send the animals to you” he says to “go” and “take with you”. This means that God never intended for any one to see the ark nor the animals being loaded into the ark. Note the small number of animals that he takes: “male and female” and for some “seven pairs” (Gen 7:2-5). There was discreteness to the process.
• This discreteness also nullifies the other misinterpretations that the people of the time were mocking Noah for building the ark. In fact nowhere in the whole account does it say what the land was like; there were no famines, simply people going about their day-to-day business. Like Jesus said, no one “knew anything” except for Naoh.
• God closed the door to the ark (Gen 7:16) not Noah or the motion of the rising waters. If in any crazy circumstance that this was not what Aronofsky intended, I would like to bear to differ. The very fact that Noah is thrown in and there is a clear shot of the door closing with him inside rather than outside speaks volumes to the graciousness of God. It also highlights God’s graciousness later on when Noah fails to see his graciousness and speaks of suicide and attempts to commit murder. Which bring me to…
• The twins - *spoiler alert* - ok yes, the flood waters did go for 150 days (Gen 7:24), but there is no account of Ila bearing children on the ark. Not that this isn’t at all possible, but I just want to point out that having twin girls as a “further sign” of God wanting humanity on his new earth was completely unnecessary in the biblical account considering: 1) all three sons were married and 2)…
• God planned for Noah and his family to be in the bigger picture. He was walking with God and intimately knew God. Although I saw the humanity of Noah in this film, there was no need to go some of the lengths that Aronofsky did in terms of misunderstanding what God was asking of Noah in terms of the existence of humanity on Earth.
• This brings me to unnecessary addition of Noah being naked on the beach. In the bible, this is where we see Noah’s humanity. Genesis 9:20 sees Noah cultivating the earth and creating a vineyard to produce wine. We see that his weakness is not actually being unable to hear clearly from God, it’s actually too much wine. In the film, this scene is portrayed as a disappointment of a son towards his father; biblically, this is where we see Ham being cursed for his immaturity (Gen 9:24).
• The final inaccuracy is more a disappointment for the character of Ham. Though it’s accurate that the sons of Noah do eventually venture out and populate the earth in various locations (Gen 10), it seems odd to me that Ham would venture out alone. Sure Ila and Noah talk about him possibly coming back, but I think Ham was definitive in his long walk far from his family alone. It annoys me that the one thing he wanted in the film was a wife and when God provided for him he decides, “Nah, I’ll just go off on my own and try and populate the earth all on my own.” I find that impossible when the only hope you have of having decedents didn’t die in the flood, she’s actually just being nursed by your sister in-law – not to mention that he got to have first dibs on which twin he wanted as wife, being the oldest of the two single brothers and all.

 In saying all of that though, the majority of the film was accurate including:

• The creation and fall of man;
• Noah’s genealogy and linage;
• Why Noah was chosen;
• The size of the ark and
• The evil of mankind.

The Cast

Russell Crowe did an incredible portrayal of Noah. Crow brought out the humanity that we rarely read about in the mighty men of God. I thought his portrayal was a beautiful way of how most men and women of God feel in times of hardship. There’s delicateness in Noah that we see through crow, even in the times where he makes the wrong decision. It’s as thought Crow understood the burden just as much as the privilege to be chosen by The Creator to not only build the ark, but also be the father of nations and re-populate the Earth.

Jennifer Connelly was a beautiful support for Crow. Naameh is not spoken much of in the bible, but we did know she was faithful to not just Noah, but also to God, in the sense that she too built the ark and entered it. With Aronofsky’s additions to the film, Connelly ups the ante as she embodies the submissive wife and protective mother. My heart broke when she confronted Noah about his sickly decision to murder their first set of grandchildren. She was simply brilliant.

Emma Watson was a stunning Ila. Although I personally felt that Ila overshadowed her love interest – Douglass Booth – it does not take away from her brilliant performance of a beloved adopted daughter, and later wife and mother to the first children after the flood. I think she did an incredible job.

Logan Lerman did a great job holding the British accent for this film. Although I thought his character was the most inaccurate character, the inaccuracy had nothing to do with his excellent portrayal of Ham. Lerman understood the carnal and spiritual cravings of Ham and made you believe and feel for his character.

Douglass Booth was a great Shem. He was his father’s son in the sense that he did what his father asked of him and grew to become an excellent head of the family himself. I thought Booth didn’t have enough to work with and became Watson’s support rather than the other way around; nevertheless he did a great job.

Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of Noah’s grandfather, Methuselah, was great as far as I can tell. He was a great source of comic relief and plot twist, but in the end, his character was just an added bonus for Aronofsky’s re-write. Again, not that it changes how well Hopkins played a role – like most of the cast – that has no biblical specification.

Ray Winstone plays yet another character that embodies the horrific nature of mankind. Look, for a story to have excellent dramatic tension there has to be a villain and Tubal-cain was a perfect portrayal of evil in men. Winstone was perfectly disgusting, so much so that you understood why any Creator would want to wipe out such evil on the Earth.

Overall, I thought it was a beautiful film with some weighty inaccuracies. Look, if you mess with the original story you’ll end up with holes you’re going to be trying to fill. There weren’t many holes that weren’t left untouched. Although it looks like my list of inaccuracies out way the brilliance of this film, it’s only because I wanted to sift out some of the glamour in order to bring out the truth. In saying that, I will say that some of the re-write actually alludes to other stories in the bible, since this is the case, I couldn’t really be angry with Aronofsky’s attempt to bring this story to life without getting too biblical – if anything, it was even more biblical than he intended. If you’re a believer, I say, keep and open mind; see things that most people won’t see. And for those of you who just really want to watch the film because it’s a film with an A-list cast, I think you’ll enjoy it. It’s got action, drama and romance; there’s something for everyone regardless of what you believe.

sL Star Rating: ★★★

Coming Up: Divergent