22 Jump Street - Analysis and Review

It just keeps getting better and better

21 Jump Street took a lot of people by surprise. There were many who believed the fact that it exists as a cash grab. At the time, the announcement of casting Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum as the lead roles even had more people rolling their eyes. But then when it did finally came to the big screen, magic happened. Self-aware magic that made 21 Jump Street a really special film. It also proved that animation directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller can be a formidable force with live action films as well. They have been on a roll with their slate, and The Lego Movie proves that they know what they are doing. But can they match up to the movie that made them the powerhouses they are now?

The Plot

Undercover Officers Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) are once again thrown into the same exact scenario as the last movie because apparently the department believes that they only excel if they do the same thing. And they do the same thing. They infiltrate a school as students in order to hunt down a drug dealer who is supplying a new kind of drug. The difference? They're in college.

Analysis

Comedy sequels are really hard to do. The Hangover Part II was pretty much exactly the same as the first one. And just like I stated in the plot synopsis, 22 Jump Street is pretty much the same exact thing. Or at least it claims to be. But that is the difficulty about creating a good comedy sequel. They are extremely rare and when they do happen it usually comes off as, "Is this really necessary?" For the most part no one needed a sequel to The Hangover but it happened, and it was the exact same thing. 22 Jump Street however acknowledges and beats it over your head that this movie is exactly the same thing as the last one. But then again not really. But at least with this film they acknowledge and poke fun of not just the fact that they're doing a sequel but also make fun of sequels in general. The audience will probably understand the jokes about the Hollywood system when it comes to franchises, but probably won't even realize how much of a satire it is on franchises in general. This is a smart sequel to an already smart movie. And I'm talking about a comedy. The best comedies are smart, but a comedy sequel that is just as smart and just as funny as the previous is truly something special.

Review

It may be the exact same thing, but I also have to stress that there are enough twists and turns to make it not seem like it is. But to be fair it does feel like the same exact story. But to the genius that is directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller, it doesn't matter that its the same. This movie is ****ing hilarious! Incredibly so that one could easily look past the reused plot. Which is very easy to look past given the fact that it is a running joke in the movie that they are doing the same thing as the last one because it was successful. And it definitely is.

Jonah Hill has already established himself as a force in comedy and has gone on to prove that he can be great in the dramatic department. But if there is one person that has to be given praise it has to be Channing Tatum. Unlike some models turned actors, he actually improved over the years that he has been in the game. 21 Jump Street was definitely his breakout role despite having already been around and in the people's radar for many years prior. With the upcoming film Foxcatcher he shows that he is now capable of being a genuine dramatic actor from just a few seconds seen in a trailer. And this film proves that he has definitely become a force to be reckoned with in comedy. Tatum is amazing in this film. Everyone from the first film stepped up their game, but Tatum goes through the roof. He even has the best scene in the entire movie. When you see it, you'll know which one it is because you won't be able to stop laughing even after its over. Ice Cube plays an integral part in making that scene the best scene, but he definitely had some of the best moments in the film as well. 

The new supporting cast does well in the movie. Wyatt Russell plays Zook, a frat boy and kindred spirit to Tatum's Jenko. Their bromance just added more to the humor as it plays it up as a "love triangle" between Hill, Russell, and Tatum. Then there's the incredibly beautiful Amber Stevens as Maya, Hill's new love interest in the film who plays an integral part in Hill's development as a character as well as an integral part to the hilarious scene in the movie. Jillian Bell plays Maya's roommate and does become a one note joke in the movie, but when it escalates it escalates well. Peter Stormare plays the drug lord that Jenko and Schmidt are after, though it feels as though an actor of his caliber is underutilized for the role of the villain. Or wasn't really given enough to have a standout performance. Regardless, they all contributed into making this film hilarious and that is where it all really matters.

Final Thoughts

Yes, it is the same thing. Yes, it is a little bit different. Yes, Channing Tatum is now a full fledged actor. Yes, this movie will keep you laughing for a long time. It is the comedy sequel that equals or outshines the previous movie in almost every single way, Yes there was Austin Powers the Spy Who Shagged Me, but then there is also The Hangover Part II. Luckily for this sequel, it does not compare to either of those movies. To put things in perspective, I gave the previous movie an 8. For this...

SCORE: 8.5/10 - But for the hilarious factor the movie feels like a 9/10

Edge of Tomorrow - Analysis and Review

The Best Original Film This Summer 

I'm aware that this film is an adaptation of the Japanese novel, All You Need Is Kill, but my stance still stands. This is an original film in the sense that most audience members won't know that it is based on a book. There was no promotion of "based on..." in the trailers or promos and no huge outcry that the characters aren't Japanese or that the lead female is suppose to be American. So this is original to the general audience. Too bad the general audience doesn't like original... or Tom Cruise.

The Plot

When Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) gets drafted into the world's final strike against an alien invasion that has taken over Europe, he is one of the first to die during the storming of the beach. However, upon death he immediately wakes up the day before the invasion. He lives the invasion over and over again till he discovers that the resistance's greatest warrior, Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), once had this ability to relive the day. An ability he has stolen upon a killing a rare alien among the invasion force. With this ability and Rita's training, Cage must continue to relive the horrific atrocity of war in hopes of eventually finding a way to save the world from an alien menace that can turn back time.

Analysis

Did that Plot Synopsis hurt your head while reading it? Yeah, I tried to explain the plot without giving too much away. But a point that I want to analyze is the need for more original films and why the general audience doesn't want them.

The current age that we live in is the age of remakes, reboots, and comic books. If it isn't a well established franchise then there is a high chance that it won't do well. This is no exception. Film buffs and the more informed general audience member desire original films with some blind belief that an original film will be loved by the audience. Yes, there are some cases when the name attached to project involves Christopher Nolan. But what Tom Cruise has going against him in this film is his last sci-fi effort before this was not well received. I like Oblivion, but if people ever asked me if they should definitely see it my answer would be, "See it when you got nothing better to do and want to pass some time." The film left a bad vibe in people's thoughts. And this film looks like the prequel to Oblivion even though this film has ACTUAL ALIENS, which Oblivion was lacking. That's a minor spoiler for Oblivion by the way.

Which is why original films usually need that name to pull people in. And because of Oblivion, Tom Cruise's name was no longer a solid pull to get people to watch an original sci-fi film. The same can be said about Guillermo Del Toro's Pacific Rim. While it did do better than Edge of Tomorrow's opening numbers, it still didn't amount to what was expected. It did make enough to warrant the possibility of a sequel, but from the way Edge is tracking it doesn't seem like it might make back the budget for a long time. Which is a shame because this film is really good.

Review

This movie is good. I mean really good. It may not be knock your socks off good, but unless you can't stand Tom Cruise then you won't be able to see that this movie is good. The trailers don't really give an idea about Cruise's character. The trailers do show him being a badass soldier in an exo-suit and the concept of "Live, Die, Repeat." But what they don't show is that his character actually has a huge developing arc. His character is a coward. A deserter. Someone who was ordered to fight, but instead tries to find ways to run away only to wind up being put into the front lines of the battlefield. The ability to relive the day each time he dies and still retain his memories allows him to already know what's going to happen, making him seem like a badass who can kill several aliens without any training. It is actually nice to see Cruise play a role that is pretty much the opposite of the highly skilled and efficient Ethan Hunt character from his Mission Impossible series. And if you don't like Tom Cruise, you should know that he does get killed a lot in this movie.

Emily Blunt plays Rita, The Angel of Verdun or The Full Metal Bitch. I'll let you guess which nickname she hates the most. Given that the film is based on a Japanese novel that was adapted into a manga, I'm not surprised that the female character is the strongest or over powered. It is a common trope in Japanese fiction to have powerful female characters that are far more proficient than the male characters even to the point where they serve as their mentors. That is the case for Blunt's character in the film. The only thing that would completely have her fall in line with those female Japanese characters is if there was a scene in her underwear, which never happens. But she's still sexy. You'll know which part I'm talking about that showcases that fact. But back to the point, she's powerful and ultra serious. This is a role that Blunt has yet to play and she does it so well. She delivers a strong performance that convinces you she is the greatest soldier to walk the Earth. I don't even think she smiles at all throughout the whole film. Which one would think an ultra serious badass would just drag the film down, but it actually adds to the fun and humor.

Bill Paxton delivers a memorable performance as a commanding officer from Kentucky with Brendan Gleeson having a nice little bit of being the person responsible for Cruise getting into this mess. The rest of the cast come off as heavy cliches instead of the well thought out cliche characters that Cruise and Blunt portray. I'm being serious, the supporting cast besides Paxton and Gleeson were really nothing special because they're stereotypes. But their stereotypes doe help with the story... or maybe not.

The story is definitely an interesting one as it basically repeats the same two days over and over again at various different times. What is brilliant is the way it didn't feel like such a drag because it was repeating itself over and over again. Each time definitely felt different, mainly because of the journey that Cruise's Cage goes through from coward to near indestructible killing machine. It works out nicely despite probably a few moments when the whole repeating might get on one's nerve, but not on mine. So just fair warning. It does repeat.

I should mention the aliens real quick. To quote one of my favorite movie reviewers, these aliens are "metal tornadoes of death." While their designs may not be impressive the idea of them spinning and moving in an unpredictable fashion really does make them a very dangerous threat. You believe these things can kill you, unlike the stupid Chitauri in The Avengers.

Final Thoughts

This is a movie that has to be seen to believe. Sure I can say it is good, but to say more as to why it is amazing would probably spoil it for the viewer. Go see this film! I'm urging you. If you love sci-fi and hope for studio heads to take more chances on original films, then please support this film. It has a really good story, really good characters, and incredible action for action lovers. Plus, must I reiterate to Tom Cruise haters that he dies a lot in this movie?

SCORE: 8.9/10 - The best Tom Cruise Sci-Fi since his collaborations with Steven Spielberg

Why "The Lord of the Rings" film trilogy ruined Fairy Tale movies

2001, 2002, and 2003. Those three years would invigorate my love for the fantasy genre in a completely different way. Because those three years were the release of what will be considered one of the greatest film trilogies in movie history. That is Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings.

It was a film that took fantasy seriously and presented it as a drama with a fantastical setting. It breathed a believable life into these characters in a world that can almost be viewed as subdued fantasy. Magic is not common place and only limited. The races are given distinctive cultures. Everything was just masterfully done. It is thanks to this trilogy that it would pave the way for what can be considered the greatest fantasy series ever achieved on television: Game of Thrones.

However, in its wake, there haven't really been a lot of fantasy movie to come out as a result. Many people believed that the Star Wars effect would happen. If you don't know what that means, to put it simply when the original Star Wars became a mega hit a lot of studios starting making vaguely similar sci-fi films or start banking on sci-fi properties. That didn't really happen when The Lord of the Rings finished its run. Sure, there was the Harry Potter film series, but not really the classical fantasy that I'm talking about. Then again there was the Chronicles of Narnia which had a great first film then slowly began to degenerate with the later films. And then there was Eragon....amazing cast, but nice try. The strangest thing to happen from Lord of the Rings is that all of a sudden films began incorporating large armies in movies. Which I guess is what studios thought made those films work?

But let's get to the point that I'm pretty much building to. The Lord of the Rings ruined the fairy tale genre.

Small scale becomes LARGE SCALE

What? How is that possible? The reason why I say this is because of three major examples that I can think of: Snow White and the Huntsman, Jack the Giant Slayer, and Maleficent. Three films that are based on fairy tales that are not large scope by any means yet their films made them so.

Snow White and the Huntsman
The classic fairy tale about a young maiden whose beauty was the bane of a vain Queen has been told countless times. It is a simple story with a very small cast of characters. There is the Queen and the Magic Mirror on the side of villainy. Snow White, The Prince,  and the Dwarves represent the side of good. Then there is the Huntsman who becomes a wild card. It is a simple story about how one woman's vanity could cause harm onto others. But in this adaptation of Snow White, the story takes the dark tone but then magnifies it with Lord of the Rings tropes: the world has to be at stake; complex motivations drive the characters; there has to be a gigantic battle in the beginning and/or end. It is strange that the conceit now is to make Snow White some sort of warrior who can lead an army when she has no training whatsoever. All these liberties do make for visually pleasing film, but not exactly a great one. The performances are even questionable, ranging from strong to over the top to non-existent.

Jack the Giant Slayer
Another classic fairy tale, or rather two separate fairy tales rolled into one mainly because they both feature a character named Jack who deals with a Giant. It is a simple story, or rather the Jack and the Beanstalk story is. A boy buys some magic beans, the beans grow into a beanstalk, he climbs, he finds a magical goose, there's a giant, he climbs down, the giant chases, he cuts down the beanstalk, giant slain. There is a lot more added to this story along with borrowing elements of Jack the Giant Killer. In that story the young man in King Arthur's kingdom makes a living of killing giants. Obviously the idea of a kingdom getting attacked by a giant is borrowed, but enhanced in here as making them an army of giants. Jack is still our reluctant hero, but the small big world of the original story becomes overwhelming in this large world in a now even bigger story. Does this make it any better? Not really. At least the performances were great. But at the same time, "less is more."

Maleficent
Arguably one of the most iconic villains in not only Disney canon but in film history. The dark fairy godmother that was pure evil becomes a sympathetic character who has some motivations for being the way she is. Then of course there the overblown use of CGI to make a magical world and bring about creatures that are little more than decoration in a film that could've been put more simply. Also there is the gigantic battles that has now become a staple of fantasy films. While it is understandable why this story has them, one has to wonder did it really need all of them? Granted, even her original fairy tale counterpart wasn't complicated or misunderstood, she was just evil. That was something that seems to be lost in this film along with the overuse of needing to have gigantic armies crashing into each other. There is some gorgeous imagery and it is hard to deny that the only woman on the planet who can play Maleficent is Angeline Jolie, but again some things are better left simplified.

Fairy Tales are simple not epic

That is a common problem that I started developing towards these new wave of fairy tale inspired films. Usually there is just a hero or a heroine that has to confront a problem that only effects a town or a city. These days, it is not just the town it is potentially the entire human race. Granted, not all of them do that, but it always seems like the stakes are higher than they are suppose to be. That is something that I feel is missing. Or rather, I feel like what really is missing is the idea of personal fights. No armies. No extra monsters that don't add to the story other than just being there. Just a hero facing off against a villain. Each side surrounded by just a small group of allies instead of a massive army. That is something that the Fairy Tale Animated Disney films have done so well. Did Aladdin rally the people of Agrabah to storm the Sultan's castle? No, he just had his carpet and his monkey as allies. In Frozen there was no epic final battle where Elsa attacks an army. Beauty and the Beast straddled this line but not having an army but more of an angry mob. Even then the confrontation still resulted into personal fight between Beast and Gaston.

I know there is a need to bring these stories into an epic scale, but they are not epic stories. The Odyssey is an epic, Snow White's tale isn't. But with The Lord of the Rings, epic became synonymous with the Fantasy Genre so much so that even a small fairy tale has to be turned into an epic. That is not how Fairy Tales are and that's now how they work. And again, I'm not criticizing the way these films LOOK. In fact the filmmakers have the right tone and palette for their films but a completely unnecessary way of executing them.

Examples of Fairy Tale films done well with restraint

The Princess Bride

This is definitely one of the classic swashbuckling films as well as the classic fairy tale film. It keeps everything simple and small. There are no grand battles but there are grand fights which have a more mystifying effect than seeing two clashing armies. It is also a light hearted romp that joyfully takes the viewer through a grand adventure on a small scale. The Hero is a hero. And he is joined by a small band of allies in order to save the damsel who is perfectly capable of helping herself but not so overblown. The simplicity of this film is what adds to its charm. It really is what a modern fairy tale should be. Sure it is not dark and grim like the fairy tales of old, but it is not like it loses sight of that fact by dealing with dark subject matter. The performances are top notch and electrifying. Particularly Cary Elwes as Wesley and the now legendary performance of Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya. Heartwarming and dazzling with a tale that will surely make one believe in love. Or if you don't, its still entertaining.

Stardust

This is one of my favorite Fairy Tale stories, as well as my first exposure to one of my favorite directors: Matthew Vaughn. It is often hailed as being the successor to the flair of The Princess Bride and I would have to agree with whoever said that full heartedly. Based on a book by renowned Fantasy Author, Neil Gaiman, this story is a complicated fairy tale with many moving parts yet it still finds a way to be simple. It is not overblown, especially for a film that was made post Lord of the Rings. That is where I found the most enjoyment of this film. Other than a shocking twist involving a certain tough sky pirate, this film just gives off that flair of the whimsical swashbuckle that Pirates of the Caribbean held on to for a while but starting losing sight of it. The confrontation between the villain and the hero is once again very personal without too much over the top. It was just the right amount of borrowing the right elements from Lord of the Rings but not trying to imitate the epic storytelling.

Legend

Another one of my favorites and one that doesn't get a lot of recognition. This was Ridley Scott's only foray into the fantasy genre as he wanted to make a Disney story but in live action and darker. Sound like what directors are doing now right? Nope. What he meant was taking that simplistic nature of the Disney stories, but just bringing them to life. It is a hero of nature versus a villain of pure darkness. And what a villain this film had. Tim Curry displays a memorable performance as the film's central antagonist: DARKNESS! This villain is everything a villain in a fairy tale needs to be. Pure evil. Plain and simple. While it wasn't well received when it first premiered, this film developed a cult following that now sees it as an overlooked gem. People often laud the effects in the film, knowing that if it were made today it would be over blown and unnecessarily epic just like the first draft of its script. We'd be thankful if Legend remains the way it suppose to be: Legend.

Is it really a bad thing?

Seeing as how people flock to the theater in droves to see them, no. But filmmakers do seem to be losing sight of what makes a fairy tale strong. If it was any other fantasy genre, then this need to "Lord of the Rings it" is gladly welcomed. But for a fairy tale, it is best to remember that these stories are simple, but the ideas are grand. Not grand stories for a simple idea. Fairy Tales are not Epics, and they really shouldn't be.

Rurouni Kenshin (2012 Film) - Analysis and Review

Hey! Where's the U.S. Blu Ray Release?

That is the question that I asked myself when I first saw this film recently. How I did that, I will not say, but just know that when this film finally gets to the states I will BUY it. I'm currently writing this in the year 2014 when this film premiered in Japan and some U.S. cities in 2012 which to this day has still not been given a Blu Ray release in the U.S. Now I'm writing this review to pave way for the inevitable premier of its two sequels this year in August. And I can guarantee that I will not be able to see them here in the U.S. until later or through alternate means.

The Plot

When a wandering swordsman with a reverse blade enters the lives of a young dojo instructor, their world gets completely turned upside down when an opium drug dealer wants to claim the instructor's land for their own. It is up to this mysterious kind swordsman with a strange scar on his face to protect the instructor and those that the drug lord put in harm's way.

Analysis

I don't consider myself an otaku. That was me in Freshmen and Sophomore year in High School. But I do still love me some good anime. And what I always hoped for was a good live action adaptation. However, when this film was announced, I wasn't very interested. Anime and manga adaptations that I have seen prior to this film have always come off looking a little bit cheap. The storytelling was still there but it looks like the production values and cameras used were not up to par with what the story requires. Sometimes I would give those films the benefit of the doubt by just thinking maybe that's how Japanese films look like. But then I saw Japanese films that are not based on a manga or anime. They looked incredible. Which had me thinking, does Japan care about their anime properties enough? Sure, in manga and anime there is more room for storytelling and less money to spend on spectacular effects. But in a world where America is really starting to embrace the goldmine that is the comic book industry, would Japan finally start to pay more attention to their anime properties. From the looks of this film and the latest live action iteration of Lupin the 3rd premiering this year, it looks like it.

Though I am aware that this film was produced by the Japanese branch of Warner Bros. Pictures, which may have contributed a little bit as to why this movie looks like a legitimate movie. It even looks like a film made by the home American Warner Bros. studio, but with Japanese stars. Am I wrong in thinking this way? Because for all I know it was the Japanese studios intent on making it look like an incredible stand alone film. And from the looks of it, whoever idea it was, they succeeded.

Review

I remember seeing this anime when I was younger. Dubbed in English of course, but still had the story in tact mostly. I did read the first few volumes of the manga, so I knew what I was getting into. And I can tell immediately that this story was a mixture of the first story arc all rolled into one big plot. While hardcore purists will immediately be displeased by this. But for anime fans who are just happy to see their characters being brought to life on the big screen with a story that seems familiar yet new, this is definitely the movie they've been waiting for. As someone who remember very little, I can even say that I saw this as a viewer with almost no knowledge of the source material yet still enjoyed it. This is a really great movie.

The casting of this film is incredible, with character that really breathe life into these famous hand drawn characters. Takeru Satoh does an incredible job playing Himura Kenshin (the titular Rurouni Kenshin), the seemingly harmless man who gave up a life of violence yet is capable of switching on his badass fighting abilities when needed. A key component of the portrayal of Himura was someone who is able to switch back and forth between innocent and vicious which Satoh does extremely well. Emi Takei does an excellent job portraying the eager dojo instructor Kamiya Kauru. She exudes the right amount of brash thinking, hopeless romantic, yet mature young woman that her character is suppose to be. I could go on and on forever about the cast of this film as they all give really great performances that work well within the story of the film.

Some may be disappointed that the backstories of characters such as Myojin Yahiko, Takani Megumi, and fan favorite Sagara Sanosuke are not flushed out enough, but then again some of the other major players are not flushed out with other major players being left out in general. This is no way a detraction, as I said before, for how they were all utilized in this story it works perfectly fine. That is something that anime AND American comic book fans need to learn about adaptations: THEY CAN'T COVER EVERYTHING. The best filmmakers can do is to hope to craft a story that does the characters justice, and lucky for them they did.

And speaking about craft, this is the second manga/anime live action adaptation that looks really well done, but the first that I actually would consider looking extremely clean throughout the whole movie. I say this because the first film that I'm referring to is the 2010 film Space Battleship Yamato, which had extremely high production values but the CGI didn't look completely rendered and not smooth. Contrast with this film that didn't really need such things (though I have to wonder if Sanosuke's sword was CGI) it is a really beautifully crafted film. From the look, to the costumes, to the incredible sword fights. It found that line of being true to the design of the characters while at the same time grounding it in the historical reality that it is based on. Yes, the fight sequences are heightened, but not to an overblown extreme. I haven't seen samurai sword fighting done this way since 13 assassins, but this is heightened sword fighting that makes it incredible to watch. My props to director Keishi Otomo and his team for a great accomplishment

Final thoughts

An extremely well done film that is a definite crowd pleaser. The story is simple, yet anime fans will appreciate how much of their beloved story lines and character get nicely packed into this simple story. It is a definite good look at the future of anime/manga adaptations. If DeathNote was a stepping stone that led to the higher production values of Space Battleship Yamato then this film is definitely a giant leap to something good.

SCORE: 8/10 - This is a good film that definitely shows a promising future for anime 

NOAH - Movie vs Graphic Novel

There's always something different

**THIS ANALYSIS CONTAINS SPOILERS**

This is an analysis on the differences between the film and the graphic novel, NOT the actual Biblical account. For my thoughts on Biblical Film Adaptations see:

Film Adaptations - Going Biblical

AGAIN, this is an analysis and semi-review of the NOAH film and graphic novel.

If you are reading this, then I'm assuming you have seen the film or read the graphic novel or done both. However if you are reading this without having seeing the film or reading the graphic novel but still wish to do so then I advise seeking this article at a later time. If you do not care about seeing the film or reading the graphic novel...then go right on ahead.

My thoughts on the Film

I believed Noah is a great film that is also significantly flawed in a few places. Not so much the execution of wanting to show the madness of a family dealing with the pressures of being the sole survivors of an apocalypse, but rather character interactions. The motivations for the primary antagonist of the movie Tubal-Cain played by Ray Winstone are fairly one dimensional. He is very straightforward in his beliefs: we are the masters of the universe and God (The Creator) has abandoned us. He is the poison that infects the mind of Noah's son, Ham played by Logan Lerman, into plotting to betray Noah. His purpose really is just to be this antagonistic force for the story. He shows himself to be resilient to the point where when his army is killed by the flood he manages to break into the Ark before being drowned. No matter how one looks at it, he is a very straight forward character.

Then of course there is the case of Ham seeking out a wife among the savage army of survivors. He does so by finding a woman named Na'el played by Madison Davenport. She's given enough character to make the audience feel sorry for her when she ultimately gets caught in a bear trap. When Noah has the chance to save her, he does not, and instead leaves her to get trampled to death by an oncoming army.

The reason why I bring that up is because those parts of the film that I viewed as kind of weak are actually made stronger in the Graphic Novel.

My thoughts on the Graphic Novel

As an avid comic book reader, this is one of the most beautifully made graphic novels I got my hands on in a while. The real reason why I picked it up was mainly because the images that were shown to promote the production of the film were directly from the graphic novel. So I was expecting the film to live up to the visuals that I saw in those few images. From those few images and what I saw from the film, I thought Darren Aronofsky did a great job translating his vision from comic book to film. Was I too quick to judge? Apparently yes after reading the Graphic Novel.

As I stated, this is one of the most beautiful graphic novels I've seen. The story, is pretty much beat by beat exactly the same as the one in the film. So comparing which story is better is pretty much pointless. However in terms of which character motivation and development works out better, then that's where the clear distinction lies.

How the comic is better than the movie

Noah in the graphic novel may not be a vegetarian like his film counterpart. In the beginning of the film he stops some hunters from killing a mythical creature. In the graphic novel he stops a group of hunters from killing wooly rhinos for sport. He states that he doesn't mind them killing animals, but he does mind them wasting animals just to take a useless part of them. So he does wish that mankind can go about things differently as opposed to his film counterpart who seems rather indifferent about what humanity does.

When Noah starts to receive visions of a flood, his film counterpart seeks out his grandfather for advice. The graphic novel counterpart still seeks out his grandfather, but before doing so he does something I now realized I wished the film counterpart did: WARN THE SURVIVING HUMANS. Noah takes his eldest son Shem to the kingdom of the last surviving humans of the planet. There he asks permission of their king, Tubal-Cain, to speak before his people about the oncoming storm. He grants them permission. However as one would predict, no one believes Noah's preaching which leads the king to banish him from the Kingdom.

Of course this leads to the chase into the land of the Watchers and that's where the graphic novel realigns with the plot of the film. But that one scene of Noah preaching to humanity and that exchange with Tubal added more character and depth to both of these characters that was missing in the film. In the graphic novel it is clear that Noah is a good but conflicted man and that Tubal is a vile but just king who has some respect for Noah.

This carries over to the portion where they confront each other when the Ark is being built. In the film it was the first time these two meet, but in the graphic novel it is a plea for forgiveness. Tubal pleads with Noah to forgive him and his people for not listening to him. Noah tells Tubal to order his people to start building their own boats, but Tubal knows that they'll never have enough boats in time for the flood. So Tubal makes a deal with Noah that him and 25 other people of his choosing will be allowed entry onto the flood while the rest of his people die. Noah agrees to this only to buy more time to finish the Ark. This exchange is handled much better than in the film, but then again their interaction is far great in the graphic novel. But this interaction will help with another key plot point.

When Ham meets Na'el in the graphic novel, it is the same as the film. However what sets it apart is that the survivors find them and plot to hold them ransom so that Noah will allow them on the Ark. That is when Tubal-Cain comes to Ham and Na'el's rescue! With his royal guard, he saves Ham and Na'el from his own people believing that Noah would still hold up his end of the deal. However upon arrival it became clear that this was not the case. And so feeling betrayed by Noah, he channels the rage of his people directly at Noah instead of him for abandoning them. This small act is what makes the interaction of Ham saving and aiding Tubal in the attempted murder of Noah on board the Ark much more plausible. In the film their interaction prior to working together on the Ark was a small exchange that doesn't plausibly explain why the two would respect each other. But if Na'el was allowed passage on the Ark, then why would Ham help him still? 

Although she was allowed passage on the Ark when Tubal brings them, during the battle Noah deems that she needs to be removed. And so he coldly orders an angel to take her off the boat, with Noah's entire family watching in horror as he does this. It is unknown what happens to her, but it can only be referenced that she gets casted into the oncoming army. This displays the first signs of Noah's madness and exposes it to his family. That alone triggers a lot of distrust and would drive Ham to help Tubal in plotting the murder of his father.

In conclusion

It just makes more sense why Tubal-Cain is the villain that he is and why Ham would try to go about killing his father. And for those who believed that the Noah of the film was heartless, in the graphic novel he does indeed have a heart but his progression to madness is more gradual.

It is amazing that the director of the film could not even adapt faithfully his own graphic novel. And while I'm usually not a champion of the term "the book was better," in this instance I'd have to say that it clearly was.