Fantasy, Future, and Hindsight: Maleficent, Edge of Tomorrow, & X-Men: Days of Future Past

     Film's amazing capability to transport us through audio and visuals has really gone on an escapist route in recent Hollywood. Although most of the films I choose to view in theatre are not random, I found myself indecisive the last few times since there were so many options that I knew would be worth getting lost in. With recent world events peppering the news with horrors near and far, Hollywood is trying hard to coat our emotional indigestion, perhaps a little too hard.

     The Summer Blockbuster season is always full of wonder, action, fire and thrills, but what happens when they get scrunched together? Does releasing a 'Summer Blockbuster' turn those directors into genre filmmakers? Or simply labelled as 'Corporate Creators', Amassing box office revenues for the deeper, darker Christmas Releases? To put it simply, it seems like this summer crammed too much action/sci-fi/fantasy into one lot, and it makes it too easy to forget what you actually went to watch. I like a more anticipated release, rather than an incomprehensible orgasm of explosions and special effects, (Not that I don't enjoy a good 'O' but, you know what I mean) Space it out a bit Hollywood.

     Now back to business!! My completely isolated critiques of 3 of summer's biggest movies!

Door Number 1- A re-telling of an old Disney classic spun around to a more maternal morality play about the demon/witch archetype, with none other than Angelina Jolie at the helm. MALEFICENT

Door Number 2- A Sci-fi, time-travel, space invader, action ride starring the daring and strong Emily Blunt and action-is-his-middle-name icon Tom Cruise. EDGE OF TOMORROW

Door Number 3- A comic book, time-travel, sequel to X-Men: First class. Crossing over the original X-Men trilogy and the new films together to rework some of the story dynamics for pending films to come. Studded with stars, and my favorite shape shifter, Jennifer Lawrence, I bring you.... X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST

MALEFICENT

     Based on Disney's original animated film Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent follows the storyline from a different perspective, from the pixie-turned-witch, Maleficent.

     Although there is much speculation that the film is trying to float upwards with the extremely obvious Disney-Feminism of Frozen  I did not find any terribly distracting or preachy themes throughout the film. Narratively the film played on common fairytale film tropes from older animated adaptations and used them in a live-action setting. Mixed with the colourful and hyper-fantasy design, the narrative and style mediums melded well with one another. This was quite prevalent with the three godmother fairies, who in my opinion, were particular character favorites.

     The overall story gives Maleficent a cornered-rat justification to her hostility to the human world, and her former love. This dynamic, although a tad two-dimensional at times, added a dynamic insight to the thoughts of an outcast creature; Much in the same way we sympathize with Edward Scissor-hands in the Tim Burton classic.

     Acting-Wise I found Angelina Jolie's performance perfect, mixing the delivery of a cartoon villain and a human character into a very honest portrayal. Unfortunately, due to the hybrid of family-adult audience genres left some of the lines a little too cartoon-esque, but Jolie Delivered with stride. Some special nods go to the darling Elle Fanning as Aurora, which now I could never re-imagine that role as anyone else but her; as well as Juno Temple, who plays one of the three fairy godmothers, although often on the Cinema sidelines, I honestly hope her quirky and spunky presence can get some bigger roles in the future.

     I was disappointed with the actualized villain in the film, Maleficent's former lover, played by District 9's Sharlto Copley. I believe my disappointment with his character was more the screenwriting rather than the acting. A villain is always supposed to be a mix of human, and maniacal, but with a purpose that they are convinced is right. In this case, his motivation to be oppressive felt more and more shallow. I am a great fan of villains, they spur the stakes and the story, and although we are led to believe we are following a Villain's Story, it makes Maleficent to be a lot more heroic yet self-pitious than she should be. The character of Stefan feels really juggernaut-esque, and that was probably the weakest point of the film.

     As for style and special effects, Maleficent does not disappoint, with fantastical creatures and elaborately armed and armored humans, the world within the film really does feel like it has jumped out of an old illustrated bedtime storybook.

     Overall a good watch with solid style, but a weak villain, which makes the film feel long at points.

EDGE OF TOMORROW

     Edge of tomorrow at first glance (and at first glance, I mean watching the trailer) seems like a more gritty mix of starship troopers and Groundhog Day. When put as such, it does not seem terribly appealing to those looking for a 'serious' action sci-fi. Edge of Tomorrow really does spice the film with a good mix of drama, time-travel, and just a pinch of ironic humor, which give it that self-realization that is needed to make the characters and story amicable enough to displace your belief.

     Casting for this film seemed very carefully played. Although you may think 'Sure, action movie, aliens and earth, must be Tom Cruise' I beg you take it back. This role, although action oriented, is a very big jump from his other characters since he plays a complete coward who needs to rise to his own gift/curse of reliving the same day. Cruise really shows us a different side to his enthusiastic acting style that allows us to really enjoy his character's shortcomings and progression. Emily Blunt, on the other hand, plays the other side of the coin, the poster-hero for the human forces. Ever since The Devil Wears Prada, I always felt she needed a role like this to see her in a situation that wasn't terribly polished and sleek. Although you may think 'Okay, strong female lead archetype, again' her role is more of a reminiscence of vintage war hero repute propaganda; The silent, dangerous, vanguard type. Not a role you see often headed by a Woman, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. This role, although a supporting one, was a really large supporting role that had depth flexibility, and Blunt delivered.

     For 'Groundhog Day-esque' films like Edge of Tomorrow, the editing and narrative needs to have a good mix of repetition yet exciting buildup. For those who find the repetitive medium as a cheapifyer of most repetitive narrative styles I would say that Edge of Tomorrow's story does not take this challenge lightly. There is a very intense set of stakes that take place in the film that prevent it from making Tom Cruise's ability seem expendable and over-powered. Which leads the film into a suspenseful third act.

     As for special effects, I have no complaints, they had a decent mix of real FX and CG which allowed the real grit of the mech suit technology to shine through. I really enjoyed the unique design and look of the alien invaders whose movements and tactics within the realm of the story were wonderfully detailed.

     I was recently made aware that the film actually was based off of a graphic novel. In comparison, I obviously have no opinion, but either way I would displace (As I would from any adaptation from literature) it from the novel for the sake of enjoyment over comparison. Regardless, it would be fun to be aware of the differences in plot.

     I thought this was a badass sci-fi flick, and one of the few that, although long, felt short. Which is a rarity.

X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST

     After what most fans (I was indifferent) called a ridiculous end to the original X-Men film trilogy, Marvel has now decided to throw together the casts of the original films with their younger counterparts. With the buzz from X-men: First Class's killer cast and great foreboding elements it seemed only natural to meld the characters of the past and the future together. Although a neat idea in theory, their tact to meld the two worlds was not very careful and seems rushed (I'll explain why in a bit). Fortunately, the initial cast of First Class and Hugh Jackman is strong enough to hold the film's downfalls and still maintain a decent and exciting adventure of historical intrigue, conspiracy, and character growth. 

      I will lay out my main complaints about the film before I get too happy about it. I know you more cynical film people will appreciate this. You're welcome.

     The narrative plots between the bleak and dangerous future and the Nixon era were not balanced for intrigue at all, turning the wonderful appearances of Sir Ian McKellen and Sir Patrick Stewart into a gimmick-like presence in the film. Much like blind hellennistic prophets spitting out foreboding remarks about the future and past, the epic pair served as a side note to the greater plot of the film which weighed heavily on the younger cast and the crowd favorite, Hugh Jackman. If these slivers of scenes were going to be used at all, it would have been better to just book-end the film with the future parts, and not riddle the present intrigue with bad attempts at 'raising the stakes' in the story. When you do time travel or parallel universes in films, you either follow one side, or all the periods equally like Inception or Timeline. 

     A great upset in small role casting goes to Mark Camacho who played President Nixon. Although I believe this was largely a casting problem rather than performance, no matter how hard they tried to make him look the part; by caricature or realist, he just did not fit the bill. Also, I am quite done with movies tapping into the Nixon Presidency as a centre point for period action/drama. When you cast a Nixon you either have to make him cartoony and jowly like they did in Watchmen, or go for the realist approach and really let the audience have the closest impression, which in my opinion was Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon. I know it is a small part to pick on, but it gets distracting.

     Due to the narrative style between time periods the film felt long. Which is never good. It had nothing to do with the scenes, or the performances, but rather the way they decided to chronologize (a word? It should be :p) the story.

NOW ABOUT THE STUFF I DID LIKE!!!! YAY! HAPPYFUNTIMEANDRAINBOWS!!!!

     Casting was magnificent but also expected. Although I was already a fan of Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique, I was pleasantly surprised at how much of a plot catalyst she was and her performances and fight scenes really stole the show for me. She is just a great Actress for this role and fun to watch. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender really took some great leaps to evoke the expressive facial and vocal nuances of their older counterparts. Throughout the film you could completely believe that these two rivals would become the characters that Stewart and McKellen have developed for years, and by adding their intense emotional and psychological feuds with adolescent resentment really packed a punch for the character development in the film. Although Wolverine is present throughout the film, he is more of a delegation between the past and the future (Due to is regenerative gifts) that is trying to make sure everyone gets along and fixes the crisis at hand. Honourable mention also goes to Peter Dinklage of Game Of Thrones fame, who enjoys a sycophantic scientist role and plays it with class and wonderful selfishness.

     It seems like I am really enjoying the special effects of all the films I have seen but in truth CG has come a long way in the last 10 years and now films are realizing how to make the right CG for the right style of film. Considering the comic book genre and the time periods, the consistency of the effects have been great throughout the X-Men and Wolverine franchises. I always get a kick out of Mystique's awesome transformation process, never gets old.

     Overall, as I said, the cast really carry this film with it's tactful writing for the respective characters, so it is definitely worth a watch. It just feels long. 

...and don't forget, at the VERY END of ALL the credits, there is a surprise for you Comic aficionados about the upcoming storm.


Thanks for the patience and I hope you have fun at the movies!!

Christian A.V. Petrozza

Back to Classic Portrayals: The Amazing Spider-man 2 & GODZILLA!!!!

     
     You all were probably hoping I would watch X-Men: Days of Future Past, and The Amazing Spider-man 2 back-to-back. Sorry to disappoint, but I just had to see GODZILLA!! (I want to spell it phonetically but some people might twitch.). Despite being a pairing of Disaster/Monster flick and Comic Superhero genres both films in fact shared one similar thing: They both told the story in their respected and loved original styles. So let's get started because I'm itching to tell, but do not fret, I will not spoil anything for you.



 
The Amazing Spider-man 2

     As much as I'd love to put on my thick-rimmed hipster glasses and hatefully compare this re-franchising to the Toby McGuire series, I cannot, in good conscience, do it. Honestly, when I watched Toby, Franco, Dunst and Dafoe in the first series I thought it was a lot of fun. I agree, the final installment was not my favorite but it wrapped up the storyline as much as they could have at the time. That being said, The Amazing Spider-man 2, just like The Amazing Spider-man, has continued the matured-yet-nostalgic essence of comic-book Spider-man. The style of the film is very deep seated in that classic childhood awe we once felt when we saw the illustrated feats and antics of Spider-man. 

     Casting, like the last one, was expanded and consistently fun and great! Andrew Garfield plays a consistent and tortured Spider-man who desperately tries to tackle his love life and crime-fighting persona for balance. Although this sequel dynamic often hurts superhero films, there was enough content to thread in both persona narratives without diverting from the intrigue and excitement of the pending drama storms. Speaking of the pending storms, the casting choices for Jamie Fox and Dane DeHann as the key antagonists made for an interesting mix of 'frenemy'-type drama. Jamie Fox dons an unlikely visage (and hair) to give a sympathetic and electrifying coming-to-power tale. I am used to seeing him in roles where he plays it cool, funky, or jazzy and I was getting tired of it; seeing him in this role makes me think he was getting tired of it too, and he kicked it out of the park with perfect original-yet-archetypal flare. Dane DeHann, is just wonderfully mysterious and grimy in his portrayal of Harry Osborne. Speaking of villains, I am not going to tell you who the side villain that book-ends the film, but it is a wonderfully entertaining surprise if you are a fan of quirky actors. As for more good-guy casting, Emma Stone is stunning and brilliant with impeccable comedic and dramatic timing. I want to go on about her but I simply can't. As they'd say in Dr. Who....Spoilers :3 . 

     Special Effects for this film really filled the senses and the way they did the dropping and swinging shots to complement the 3D. I felt a wonderfully lifting sense of vertigo at times that made the experience of swinging with Spider-man very breathtaking. Once Electro comes into the picture the effects take a dark, cyber-esque turn with amazing effects of electrical currents and blue sparks and auras. The effects really made it feel like a comic come to life, and the camera work and framing of the big effects shots really felt epic and ominous for some of the key showdowns. 

     I can't say anything about the story! But I must say it is well rounded, thrilling, and fun. It will make you laugh, cry, squeal with excitement and make you grasp your armrests.


GODZILLA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...
Sorry, I can never resist.

     Well, I must warn you, in order to really tell you how I feel about this you need to have seen the original Godzilla and the bad one made in the 90's that was a strange ripoff of Jurassic Park (the only good part was the beginning on the cargo ship with the dying man), well, maybe not, here goes.

     The original Godzilla, like most older films, had a slower build, pace, and narrative. It surrounded the fears and ominous dread that Japan had once suffered, and one of the biggest sources of energy the world uses. Nuclear Technology. This spawned a morality play monster flick about nature developing itself to fight back in the form of a prehistoric dragon-like demi-god, which is in great Japanese fashion. Anyway. 

     Godzilla at its core is a monster film that needs care to appease its fans and new viewers. No crazy shaky fight camera angles, no early reveals, and a lot of sciency build and intriguing, Michael Crichton-esque investigation bits. To let this story unfold to a wider, hollywood-prone audience this version added more American characters, but still within a Japanese context and locale; they personalized the stories of the event victims more, but did not overdo and alienate the reason we are all watching this (to see Godzilla kick ass and shoot colourful fire). In that respect, I feel 2014 Godzilla did a fantastic job of using the original feel of the franchise to re-animate this classic monster-flick.

     Casting. It is a monster movie, performances fall mainly to the wayside as far as audience attention is concerned but all the keys did their job well to move the story along and make you feel for them. Brian Cranston introduces the fear and determination to uncover the unknown while the grace and intense gravitas of Ken Watanabe (Japanese Clint/Neeson, and he is awesome in everything) makes you smile and giggle with excitement as he gives the epic explanation of who this iconic monster is, and it's purpose. Listening to him say Godzilla is by far one of the most satisfying and perfectly delivered things in this movie. I mean, we all love to shout it or whisper it intensely. Try it, you can't resist saying it without some epic urgency. 

     Special Effects and Music. I was impressed with how well and present the music was during the film. I am a fan of the classic emotional uses for music in films so to see a resurgence of character themes and inspirational fighting notes running through this film really make me happy and keep you very enthralled in the fun that is going to the movies. The special effects are used very well, and both Godzilla and his adversary are creatively re-imagined, look and move in their classic form of large throwing motions. Godzilla really allowed you to watch the fight from a distance so that you could enjoy the majesty of these titan-like creatures fighting in a city. There are still those fast badass 'oh-no-you-di'int' moments in the fights that give you an excited shock here and there, and they are not overused like most movies nowadays. 


     All in All, both films really expressed the filmmakers' attention to pleasing their fans of all generations, keeping it old school, yet updating them with effects and loveable casting. Well done. Both are very worth seeing in cinema. This summer definitely has plenty of films I need to catch up on. So off I go!! See you at the movies!!!!

Lots of Blue: Captain America: The Winter Soldier & Rio 2

     I would like to start this unlikely duo of critiques with a small giggle since this is quite a different type of pairing than I usually do when I go out to watch films in the cinema. It took me a little longer than usual to go out and watch my second film, but in doing so, with some really fun company, I was inclined to go see an animated film for a change. Now I know I went to go see 'The Lego Movie' but if you account for style and story (and have seen the film) You will know that it isn't your classic pixar-esque laugh-fest with wonderfully animated expressions that mildly resemble the celebrities who play the roles.

     I usually watch animated films when they come out on video(yes, I say video, because I'm old like that) or Netflix simply because I figure I'd save them for a blue day or when my Godsons come over for an impromptu visit. After such a long hiatus from watching Pixar-Esque films in the theatre, I have to say Rio 2 was an extremely entertaining and sweet treat.

RIO 2

     In the age where Television is winning over Movies in budget and narrative quality, films have had a meager push back with sequel-izing every franchise they can. People enjoy running into old friends when they pick up a book series, or watch their favorite show, and films are trying harder than ever to keep up with this 'friend nostalgia' that has trended with Television's rise. You didn't think I'd get so deep in a review of a children's film did you. HA!

     Despite my reservations about this sequel movement, RIO 2 really kept and raised its standard from the original film and added fun new characters that added, but did not crowd, the heart, spice, and hilarity that is expected from this romanticized vision of Brazil's culture and wildlife.

     I was quite happy to see the quality of voice talent range between the music, theatre, and television industries; the film was wonderfully cast. My particular favorites being the Villainous Nigel played by Jemaine Clement (of Flight of the Concords fame) and his new and adoring sidekick Gabi, a poisonous frog with Broadway pipes voiced perfectly by Kristin Chenoweth. Admittedly, these two stole the show in every damn scene and the way they animated Gabi's small, slick, shiny, and fuchsia-and-black, figure made for a wonderfully put together mix of realism and animated swagger. In terms of musical talent, I feel like there were more songs in this film than in the last one, but they played into the story and the characters very well. 

     Oh, and for you ladies out there, yes, Bruno Mars is in it, and he totally plays the character you'd expect. He is a lot of fun to laugh at and he does a great job. 

     I was pleasantly surprised at the continuity of charm, style, and increased flare of the film in comparison to the last. RIO 2 is definitely a fun film for adults and children, with themes and jokes that are integrated cleverly in a way most Disney films wouldn't even dare (Hint: Has to do with the amazon food chain, it's very entertaining). Go watch it, and bring someone who is tickled pink by Animated films. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

     Captain America: TWS was an action packed thrillride that kept up with this hero's franchise image as the patriotic-to-a-fault white knight of America. That being said, I found the story was catered towards an event-based story rather than Character base. This means that the drama and story were spurred mostly by the catastrophe and conspiracy rather than Captain America's character development. This was a good move since my main love for its preceding film had to do with the creation story of Captain America within the WWII landscape; now it was time to show him in action, ready and able to take on the next looming event. 

     I enjoyed the film's use of previous villain factions to bring back a sense of sinister and masonic wonder to the trouble ahead, this kept the story fun and comic-like while still remaining consistent with the metallic and matte visual palette of the picture. The way the filmmakers have created the world of Captain America on screen have really made me like him as a superhero, which I originally thought would be a tough sell considering his propagandist origins. 

     Although the main hero is often the focus of the entire film, I found Nick Fury to be the real scene stealer of the entire film. Ususally I chuckle and go 'here goes Sam L Jackson again, mofo this and mofo that' (With Django Unchained being the most amazing exception) But giving him a bigger role in the film with even an isolated chased/action scene made me really love the character and get into Samuel's presence as him. 

     My main complaint was the scale of the film and how it was weighed between action and story. The story seemed to throw chunks of action with story in the beginning, rising, middle, and end. but the gaps were so wide due to it's run time that the one thing keeping me really intrigued by the climactic final act was the Winter Soldier and Nick Fury. Meshing of action and story is always hard but I honestly hoped they would balance it a bit more in the film. All in all, I still enjoyed it. Perhaps a shorter run time may have added the duress to run the story in a less blocky fashion. 


Well, there you have it!!! Sorry for such a long wait! 

Christian A.V. Petrozza

A Clash of Epics: 300: Rise of an Empire & Noah

A Clash of Epics: 300: Rise of an Empire & Noah

     After an intensely long hiatus from Petrozza’s Ladder, I have decided to test the waters once more after much coaxing from fellow film friends and aficionados. After about a year and a half of putting reviews of films on my facebook profile I figure it is time to resurrect this old thing and put it to fun use. So enjoy.

     What better way to kick off this blog again than to start with a pairing of films that fall under my favorite genre, ye olde Sword and Sandal Epics!! Today we have what can be known as nothing else but a Parallequel to Frank Miller’s 300 and a creative and bold retelling of a Biblical Legend. Both films in their own right have surpassed and created new definitions to the genre of sword and sandal epics through their overall style and creative liberties with history and legend. So lower your sails and raise your shields, for when both epics take place on torrid waters, there is bound to be adventure!

300: Rise of an Empire

     As many a reviewer will tell you, Hollywood’s history of releasing a good sequel or prequel to a franchise film is quite a fickle beast, often smashing profits on to the rocks; that being said, 300:ROE takes a different and compelling narrative route, so as to not alienate the first time watcher and to still excite the eager 300 fan. 300 and 300:ROE run on PARALLEL STORYLINES!

     In making this genius move 300:ROE was able to introduce a slew of new ideas and styles to the battle epic, while still maintaining the ‘artfully violent’ medium that everyone devoured in the original picture. 300:ROE takes us away from the battle-hardened city-state of Sparta and over to the capitol of archaic democracy, Athens, now under threat by the tidal wave of Xerxes's onslaught.

     Unlike the original 300 Spartans, the motivations and philosophies of the Athenian soldier vary from our expected testosterone-driven hoplites who kick people into holes. The lead character is a warrior and naval commander hell-bent on the protection of all Greeks from this foreign invasion. Knowing he has an army made up of farmers, militia, and tradesmen, he must take his battles to the sea and use guile to overcome the armada of the film’s, and in my opinion, one of Hollywood’s most awesome female villains in a terribly long time, Artemisia.

     Now let’s move away from any more info on that (because the movie will tell you the rest) and on to some of the artistic and narrative choices. In 300 we saw some intense saturation and sepia tones of reds, maroons, and blacks, as well as a great use of artistically texturing blood in an almost matte style. This lent itself beautifully to the original Graphic Novel style of hard shadows, gory fights, and intense close-ups. 300:ROE has kept much of the style but changed the palette to justify the Athenian and naval theme with cold blue’s and turquoise tones. As an added dynamic, we notice the blood is given  a glossy shine. Much of the film takes place on torrid, stormy seas so I suppose they thought it was appropriate; However, I was not a fan of the glossy blood effect, it made those slow motion death strokes a little distracting, almost as if the blood had a shiny bald spot, but that is a small detail.

     As for narrative, 300:ROE builds the tension of its story alongside the battle of Thermopylae, yet still gaining intensity on its own front as the Athenians face sword and fire on land and sea. The film lends a creative and dynamic contrast to the first film by taking the battle to the water, which I believe was a much needed move. Too many sword and sandal battles happen on land, the only exception being pirate films, so it is very refreshing to see the use of naval tactics mixed with romantically artistic face to face combat.

     As for casting, I thought all the choices were great, it is good to see some familiar, yet not too familiar faces grace lead roles in the film such as Sullivan Stapleton and Hans Matheson. This really helped in acquiring a mystery and organic approach to developing a character through audience discovery. That being said, the woman who stole the entire show was the deadly and beautiful Eva Green as Artemisia. For a long time I have been disappointed at the ill or clumsy use of female characters, especially the villains, but for some reason, every time Eva Green graces the screen with her intense gaze and seductive yet foreboding voice I cannot help but wonder why she isn’t in more films. Green really captures the pent up vengeance of a tortured soul with the ambition, mythos, and military mind of a Hellenistic commander. Her presence on screen is powerful, and not because of her muscles! She is shown to be very short and slender in the film, so much of the fear she instills is in her Napoleonic ambition and wrath. It is hard to explain perfectly, but to be quite honest, we’d all be in serious trouble if her and Darth Vader ever got married. 

     Before I finish this, there’s a sex scene that really takes Oscar Wilde’s quote on Sex and Power very literally, and it is a great scene.

     Overall, this film was brilliant entertainment, I would argue just as good as 300. As for history people bitching and complaining about inaccuracies, I’m just going to sit here and stare at you for a bit and enjoy how much pain you are in over a film mainly based on a comic.

Noah

     I can honestly say that a new type of alternative genre has been born through the making of this film. Darren Aronofsky has taken some great liberties on an age old legend and brought new light to approaching religious tales. The secret? Don’t look at them as religion! Look at them as creation stories, myths, fables and legends, passed down over centuries to the point that they have entered the realm of fantasy, and that is exactly what he did. Noah has melded the gap between religious epics and the fantasy genre in a creative and moving dialogue through the dark controversial realms of fire and brimstone and good God, bad God (well in the bible’s chronology, the other way around :p).

     The overall design, lore, and narrative had a wonderful hybrid of fantastical themes that I would like to coin as…..

Wait for it….

BIBLE PUNK!!!!

     Now hear me out, I know there’s bible punk music, but that’s not what I mean. In the fantastical styles of cyber, and steam punk there now needs to be room for another alternative style. A style which uses angelic light as a volatile yet useable source of energy, and where the elemental beings cast out by ‘the creator’ still roam the earth as a tribe of rock ents (pretty much). The film also shows a pangea-like world that is caught in a pre-apocalyptic limbo of Iron Age industrialism (check out those iron welding helmets!) and creationist (in a hippie kind of way) guardians. It is actually a tonne cooler than it sounds and the special effects are astounding, it is certainly the kind of film you want to see in AVX.

     As for casting, I was quite surprised at the choice of Russell Crowe; although I love his work I did not expect him to be cast in this role, but once the story takes off you can really see that gentle giant-meets-raging bull surface in all the right parts. Emma Watson is also in it, and of course she is great in it but the film does not revolve around her, as I was worried it might, but she plays an integral role in testing Noah’s moral grounds. An honourable mention also goes to the very quirky role of Methuselah who is played by Anthony Hopkins, and Ray Winstone who plays the animalistic ‘son of cain’ Tubal. Everyone played their part well and although the film does stretch a whole 2 hours and 20 minutes the change in stakes and plot intensity give it a very seamless flow.

     So if you want to see what Waterworld could have been like if it was written in biblical times and then plunged into a new alternative fantasy genre, you should check it out. It was quite an intense and heavy film, minus the happy and preachy attitude that old bible films took (which doesn’t mean I don’t like Ben Hur or The 10 Commandments, they are still spectacular and unbeatable in their genre).

Well, that was a mouthful for an intro back to Petrozza’s ladder! Be sure to comment, like, subscribe, and all that good stuff.

Christian A.V. Petrozza