Noah

(M) ★★★★

Director: Darren Aronofsky.

Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, Anthony Hopkins, Douglas Booth.

"It's raining soooo much!"

Darren Aronofsky moves in mysterious ways.

He's won swags of awards for films about wrestlers and ballet dancers (The Wrestler and Black Swan), confounded fans and critics with strange eon-spanning sci-fi (The Fountain), and made one of the bleakest and devastating addiction movies of all time (Requiem For A Dream).

It was more than a little surprising to hear his next film was a big budget take on the Biblical story of Noah, which sounded on paper to be more like something Roland Emmerich would do.

But the common thread of his work has been the theme of obsession, and it carries on in his ark tale.

Noah intriguingly has a bet each way on its subject matter - yes, all the animals turn up at Noah's boat and the earth floods, but as the story progresses you can't help but wonder if Noah has indeed been touched by God or whether he's just off his trolley. Is his holy task just that or has he become obsessed by it, and driven mad? Where does the voice of the Creator stop and the voices in his head start?

Riding this line between appeasing the faithful and making an interesting film with an internal logic for the questioning non-believers is one of the most interesting and appealing aspects of Noah (although I say that as a devout atheist).

The basic Biblical plot remains in tact - men are wicked, the world floods and wipes them out, Noah and his family survive in an ark with two of each animal.

But the film adds layers of the depth and, dare I say it, reality to the story, making it far more morally complex and fascinating than the few chapters of Genesis indicate. For example, if all these so-called wicked humans found out someone was building a giant boat, don't you think they'd be a little bit interested in what was going on? And don't you think they'd try to get on board when it starts raining a lot?

And how does Noah deal with the guilt of condemning all these people to death? And if God really wants to wipe out mankind, does that include Noah and his family? How does Noah know where God's will ends and his own interpretation begins?

There are liberties taken here that may displease the faithful. I'm still searching the Old Testament for references to giant four-armed rock monsters, Methuselah being a wizard, and hallucinogenic tea, but the biggest bet each way is in a scene where Noah narrates the Biblical creation tale while Aronofsky matches it to imagery telling the scientific version, from the Big Bang all the way through evolution. It's sure to rile more than a few Christians.

But Aronofsky is to be applauded for delving so deeply into his source text to create a natural-seeming world beyond the basics. There are plenty of theories about what the world was like in a biblically Old Testament sense, and Aronofsky touches on them. He treats his movie world like Peter Jackson treated Lord Of The Rings - he's read the appendices and wants you to feel like you're visiting a fantastical place made real.

The people in that world feel equally real. Crowe gives one of his most memorable performances to date, Connelly has some great moments, Hopkins coasts along as Methuselah, and Winstone is particularly nasty as the film's token villain, despite his Cockney grumble.

There are frustrating elements to Noah - a few dud lines, an overly bombastic score, and the way the plot stretches for closure and climax - but it provides a lot to think about. Beyond the moral complexities and religious ramifications, there is a pro-vegan and pro-environment message, and it hints at themes of climate change, man's place in the world, and the very nature of mankind and evil.

If there were no Hobbit movie coming out this year, Noah would be a serious contender for best fantasy film of the year.

Tracks

(M) ★★★★

Director: John Curran.

Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Adam Driver, Roly Mintuma, John Flaus.

"Just takin' my camels for a walk."

Anyone who has travelled through Australia's red centre will know it's a journey that is repetitive, sporadically dull, and seemingly endless.

It's also a trip that has to be seen to be believed, thanks to a beautifully alien landscape that is intriguing and somewhat mystical.

Fittingly, these sentiments equally summarise Tracks, the film about Robyn Davidson's 1977 trek from Alice Springs to the Indian Ocean.

The film, based on Davidson's book of the same name, sets up the story slowly as the young Australian woman (played by Wasikowska) arrives in central Australia and sets about learning the arts of camel breaking and wrangling.

Securing funding support from National Geographic, Davidson eventually sets out on the 1700-mile journey with four camels and a dog, enduring dust storms, feral camels, harsh conditions, and intermittent visits from a talkative photographer (Driver) along the way.

The who, what, where, when and how of Tracks is interesting, but the kicker is the why. What possesses a seemingly sensible young lady to Burke-and-Wills her way across the most hellish portion of the outback?

Tracks hints at varying theories and it's refreshing that the film never gets carried away with answering the 'why?' definitively. As frustrating as it might seem, the movie encourages you to make your own guesses from the evidence presented, and is all the more rewarding for it.

Wasikowska's performance is top-notch, not only carrying the film, but making Davidson believable and wonderfully multi-faceted, with those facets running the gamut from "stoic and determined" to "more than a little bit bonkers". The adventurous "camel lady" also comes off as either socially awkward or desperately quiet, and again, this adds to the mystery of why she does what she does.

But as mentioned previously, the film manages to be much like the landscape - intriguing yet repetitive, and mystical yet sporadically dull. Wasikowska probably lost count of the number of times director Curran said to her, "OK, Mia, in this shot you're going to be walking through the desert with your camels".

While this might not make for scintillating viewing, it does suit the subject matter perfectly and it's still interesting to watch. You won't be on the edge of your seat, but you'll feel a sense of release at the ending.

The film is also understated in its drama - the troubles Davidson faces are never exaggerated and it seems like the filmmakers have erred on the side of fidelity, making for a quiet and at-times meditative journey, as opposed to hamming up the life-and-death nature of her trip.

A lack of tension is slightly compensated for by the episodic nature of the story, so at least something is constantly breaking the monotony of watching Wasikowska walking with camels. It certainly helps that the landscape is stunning and that Curran and cinematographer Mandy Walker capture it in all its picturesque glory.

Visions of this landscape will stick with you, as will the subject matter. Upon leaving the cinema, it was tempting to think of it as "walking walking walking, met some Aborigines, walking walking walking, chased by camels, walking walking walking...".

But there's something that lingers about Tracks and seems more impressive with a bit of distance.

As an insight into a trip none of us are ever like to take, Tracks is fascinating. It's pace and repetition might put some people off, but for mine this is the perfect way to tell this strange-but-true tale.

The Monuments Men

(M) ★★

Director: George Clooney.

Cast: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin, Bill Murray, Bob Balaban, Hugh Bonneville.

Disposing of bodies is never easy.

There's a fake quote attributed to Winston Churchill that regularly does the rounds on Facebook and Twitter.

The story goes that when Churchill was asked whether England should cut its arts funding to boost the war effort during WWII, the prime minister responded; "Then what are we fighting for?".

It's a shame Churchill didn't actually say it (no one did - it's a total fabrication) as it would have been a perfect line for this based-on-fact tale of the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program run by the Allied forces.

The team - seven people here, but about 400 service members and civilians in reality - was tasked with venturing into the warzone to recover artworks stolen by the Nazis during their invasion of Europe.

Led by Frank Stokes (Clooney), the hodge-podge squad of art experts go through basic training before heading to the frontline to reclaim such artefacts as the Ghent altarpiece and Michaelangelo's Madonna of Bruges.

But these raiders of the lost art are racing against Hitler's "Nero decree", which sees his troops burn and destroy any works they can't take with them as they retreat, and the rapidly advancing Russian army, who are seeking to claim the pieces as war reparations.

As subject matter, it's brilliant. And look at that cast - buddies Clooney and Damon in their sixth film together, Oscar winners Dujardin and Blanchett in side roles, and much-loved comedy actors Goodman, Murray and Balaban. What could possibly go wrong?

The answer is the script, written by director-star Clooney and co-producer Grant Heslov. After a very clumsy start that introduces the characters without really letting us know them, the film wanders around without focus - the task facing the Monument Men is so broad that there is a lack of tension and drama, despite this being set in the middle of WWII.

Perhaps it's fitting, this wandering plot, as that's what the characters are doing. They're traipsing around war-torn Europe, unsure what they're looking for and unsure where to look for it. But as interesting as this might have been in Robert Edsel's source book, it makes for a far-from-compelling narrative here. It's an approach that's more scattershot than sniper rifle, and the resulting episodic nature doesn't excite.

The Monuments Men comes to life when Blanchett is on the screen as a French museum curator forced to work for the Nazis. It adds a sense of peril and her character is more layered, adding some much needed spark and depth to the film. And whereas the rest of the cast is in varying degrees of cruise control (particularly Murray and Clooney), Blanchett thrives in an admittedly meatier role.

Bonneville is also good as a down-on-his-luck Brit brought onto the team by Stokes, but the cast feels predominantly under-used with their characters underdeveloped. Murray's trademark deadpan and Goodman's usual bluster have been comedic gold in the past, but here so much potential evaporates between infrequent laughs.

Obviously, the subject matter is not a laughing matter, and Clooney devotes a lot of time and a fair bit of repetition to the film's central questions - "is saving art worth losing lives?" and "why is art important?". But with his selected cast (handpicked by Clooney, with each character written with each actor in mind), the film's predominantly light and airy tone, and the likeability of its characters and actors, it seems there is a missed opportunity to create a comedy or dramedy with a message.

Things pick up in the final 15 minutes when the plot finds its focus and the stakes are raised and you can't help but wish the rest of the film had that attitude, instead of just drifting by on Clooney's charm.

The Monuments Men is certainly not terrible and is in fact sporadically enjoyable - it's just disappointing that such a great cast and a wonderful fact-based men-on-a-mission story falls short of its potential.

300: Rise Of An Empire

(MA15+) ★★

Director: Noam Murro.

Cast: Sullivan Stapleton, Eva Green, Rodrigo Santoro, Callan Mulvey, Jack O'Connell, Lena Headey.

Shirts are for wimps. Obviously

Word of the day: "sidequel".

It's where a film (or TV series or book) takes place at the same time as its predecessing film.

So 300: Rise Of An Empire is the sidequel, not sequel, of Zack Snyder's violent historical reimagining of the Battle Of Thermopylae.

It's narrative arc begins before the 2007 film's setting and finishes after King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans have fought the forces of Persian god-king Xerxes at the Hot Gates, and looks at the greater war happening at the same time.

The focus is on Themistocles (Stapleton), who rises to prominence after leading the Greeks to victory over the Persians at the Battle Of Marathon and killing the Persian king Darius in the process.

Darius' son Xerxes (Santoro) is goaded into revenge by vicious general Artemisia (Green), who manufactures Xerxes' rise to god-king status and sets about orchestrating the Persian Empire's second invasion of Athens.

Based on a yet-to-be-published graphic novel by Frank Miller, Rise Of An Empire definitely strives for the same Miller-inspired visuals of Snyder's film (which was based on a graphic novel as well).

Computer-generated blood gushes, the amount of slow-motion probably adds 20 minutes to the film, and every background is drawn from the same visual effects pallette - the highly stylised look of 300 returns and it's one of the best aspects of this follow-up. It's definitely pretty to look at, in as much as this kind of cartoonish, over-the-top violence can be "pretty".

But as the limbs go flying and heads start rolling, so too do all notions of logic, physics and history. This is to be expected in a film where historical figures such as Xerxes and Artemisia are redrawn as an eight-foot-tall mutant and a goth wet dream respecitively, but when you draw a CG moon into the background that is about 100 times bigger than any moon you've ever seen, it tends to rip you away from the reality the filmmakers are trying to create.

This enormous moon is symbolic of where Rise Of An Empire goes wrong. There's over-the-top, and then there's just bafflingly insane. A pointless sex scene in the middle of the film is unintentionally hilarious, but the film can't muster enough of a sense of humour to salvage the moment and embrace how laughable it has become.

Other way-too-bonkers moments, such as using a horse in a naval encounter, are an attempt to one-up 300, but the film devolves into a vague repetition of sea-battle after sea-battle, all the while lacking the emotional core Gerard Butler and his Spartans provided in the first movie.

Aussie Sullivan Stapleton, adopting the faux-British accent we've come to expect in all historical films, does an admirable job with the endless soldier-stirring speeches he has to give, and if nothing else, here's hoping this sets him on a path to the A-list because there is plenty of potential in his performance.

Green also gets some serious credit for what is likely to be a love-it-or-hate-it performance. For my money, it's a memorable and enjoyably devilish turn as the warmongering warrior princess Artemesia, and Green saves Rise Of The Empire somewhat.

Fans of the first film will probably enjoy this return to Snyder (who's back as producer) and Miller's loose interpretation of the ancient Mediterranean, but even they will feel this is a disappointing follow-up.