Change Your Image
samlichtenstein
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Noah (2014)
An impressive take on tricky source material
I write this review completely lacking context. I don't know the religious or secular literature on the theology or historiography of the Noah myth. I'm only halfway through watching the movie. But I'm already willing to give this an 8/10. This film is accurately described as "ambitious" in many places. It makes an attempt to engage with 3000-year old source material in a meaningful way, which is something that can't be said about many films. The degree to which it succeeds at this attempt is, of course, debatable, but I found the attempt compelling in and of itself.
There are many obvious points to criticize, but if we set aside the source material and the interpretation thereof, I find not too much to complain about. The technical direction of the film is fine, and evokes the grandeur of the Genesis story in quite a suitable way. Russell Crowe's performance is probably the weak link here -- it's a bit over the top, but it's not that bad. This is biblical material and that influences how one should "read" the "text"; elements of plot and character development are stylized, but I'm willing to view that as intentional. I liked the way the rock-angels are portrayed.
But what about the film as a whole, evaluated in its full cultural context? Well, any such evaluation depends upon what you think it aims to achieve. Personally I choose to read it as a commentary upon how the Deluge motif continues to inform our contemporary understanding of mankind's history, ethics, etc. In this regard I think the film succeeds completely. What is it saying? Are we supposed to be rooting for the rock angels as they kick ass against the descendants of Cain? What is the theological significance of the fact that Methuselah is a cannibalistic serial killer? Why, biologically, did the stab wound Hermione Granger received in her stomach as a child leave her unable to bear children? Only YHWH can answer these questions, but by raising them, Aronofsky has at least started the conversation, which is more than most of us can say.
Say what you want, this movie is visually stunning and its plot is anything but boring. Much like the world it celebrates. Also, I'd like an armored armadillo-dog as a pet.
Drei Sterne - Die Köche und die Sterne (2010)
An underrated gem?
This is a documentary where the subjects largely speak for themselves. It's not really about the Michelin guide or the challenge of achieving a *** rating. Rather, I interpret that as a framing device for a subtle character portrait of a handful of famous and not-so-famous (yet incredibly skilled) chefs. Those who are familiar -- Jean-Georges Vongerichten and Rene Redzepi were the ones I recognized -- are seen in a light somewhat different from Top Chef Masters, or even David Chang's "Mind of a Chef".
There are no startling revelations in this film about the business of producing elite cuisine. The most interesting thing I learned was that Edouard Michelin was rather visionary, in 2002, to implement a strategic plan to expand the global scope of the Michelin guide, including new editions for various Asian cities. (This call seems to have been unquestionably correct, with the benefit of hindsight.)
I was most intrigued by the variation among the chefs' personalities. The expressions on Elena Arzak's face as her father Juan pontificates are hilarious. Redzepi is almost *too* earnest. Vongerichten is ... pretty much exactly what you'd expect for a classically trained, Asian- influenced chef with an empire. Ishikawa is the one whose restaurant I want to eat at most.
This is definitely a small film, but enjoyable nonetheless. There is a perceptible hint of editorializing by the film-maker, but by and large he leaves viewers to draw what they wish from the people as he films them. That, I appreciated.