Exodus: Gods and Kings Review

In 2014 we had not one, but two Bible epics hit theaters. I never did get around to seeing Noah. I was interested in seen an updated version of the Moses story in Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) because the movie technology is such that elaborate, complex depictions of the ancient world can be shown to audiences in a way that couldn't have been done years ago. In the hands of director Ridley Scott, it has great potential. This movie does have the epic quality of old Bible epics back in the day, but it seemed to be lacking something to make a lasting effect on you.

Raised as brothers by Pharaoh Seti (John Tutrurro), Moses (Christian Bale) and Ramesses (Joel Edgerton) have a mutual respect and love for one another and have fought side by side defending their home country of Egypt. After Ramesses succeeds his father as Pharaoh, rumor of Moses being of Hebrew parents comes to Ramesses. Rather than give into the demands of Queen Tuya (Sigourney Weaver) to kill Moses, Ramesses exiles Moses from Egypt. Moses creates a new life in Midian where he meets Zipporah and eventually marries Zipporah (María Valverde). Years later Moses comes face to face with a burning bush and a boy called Malak (Issac Andrews), who tells Moses that he must free the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt. Reluctantly, Moses returns to Egypt and uses his military skills to try to free his people. But when Ramesses refuses to comply, God sends deadly plagues to the people of Egypt. Moses tries to keep the Hebrews out of the crossfire, but the conflict escalates pitting the two brothers against each other.

Now, the story of Moses has been around since roughly 1300 BCE. Even if you aren't affiliated with a Muslim or Judeo-Christian religion, you've had plenty of time to have heard this story before and I'm not going to avoid spoilers in a story that is well over three thousand years old.

It truly should go without saying that when a movie based on religious texts is made, creative liberties are taken. Were creative liberties not taken, there would be nearly no character development, no meaningful dialogue other than the most basic and direct communications, and likely no defining theme drawing the story together coherently. In Exodus: Gods and Kings some characters aren't what I have been told they are. Ramesses not so much a stubborn and prideful ruler who thought himself superior to God, he was more of a spoiled privileged brat who lacked the competence and foresight to lead a country. Moses wasn't a mighty man of faith but a military general who may be somewhat off his rocker, we see him grow in faith but it's not really there when he starts out. I was disappointed that we didn't see the two characters butting heads more often. Moses didn't go talk to Ramesses between each plague saying, "Let my people go!" They were at odds with one another, but we didn't see enough of them opposing each other specifically to get a feel for what becomes their broken relationship as brothers.

The way that God was depicted was particularly interesting. It was a small kid whom only Moses could see after sustaining a head injury. I don't think this was supposed to literally be God, but rather a abstract messenger through which God communicated to Moses. The kid's name is "Malak" which is the Semitic word for "angel." God in the Old Testament is often depicted as a god of vengeance and punishment; taking that into consideration, I could see why this messenger speaking for God would be depicted as a willful, angry, and petulant child. This may be a deal breaker for some viewers of faith; Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike see this story as foundational and might find this portrayal of God to be incompatible with scripture and deeply held beliefs. I didn't find it offensive. I thought it was an odd way to depict deity, but it was unique and creative and still kind of fits with this interpretation of the story. Yet there is a scene when Malak and Moses are talking and the things the boy says, though powerful and exquisitely delivered by the child actor, made me think, "Yeah, that's not the same God from The Bible. We went overboard here, Ridley."

While I often hear the way some of the plagues were depicted was inaccurate, I thought it was fascinating. The first plague was water turning to blood. This was illustrated not by Moses striking the river with his staff causing the water to turn into blood, but rather having crocodiles in the Nile go on a killing spree, killing nearly anything that moved in the water, causing the water to turn red from all the blood. This caused the plague of frogs which were escaping from the bloody water, which in turn let the insects multiply unhindered by their natural predators. It goes on like this, and I thought it was neat. It removes the divine intervention which is what was supposed to have caused the plagues. Even the parting of the Red Sea seemed to be caused by some kind of tsunami sea withdrawal that coincided with the escaping Hebrews with impeccable timing. It's another discrepancy that I appreciated the creativity of, but didn't see as something that would challenge someone's faith outright.

This was visually an incredible movie to watch. Egypt was as elaborate and detailed as I had hoped; it was shown to be a vast country with many inhabitants of all walks of life. The costumes of the Egyptians as well as the Hebrew slaves looked fantastic. The plagues were really interesting to see and the meticulous details that went into them made me grateful I wasn't watching the swarming locusts in 3-D. The free-flowing visual splendor is so gorgeous to behold that you feel transported into these ancient days watching this movie.

Exodus: Gods and Kings isn't one of Ridley Scott's greatest movies. It has its ups and downs, but lacks something to give it enough oomph to make it a truly memorable movie. It will likely fade from our collective consciousness before too long, much like Ridley Scott's Robin Hood did. The visuals were simply incredible and really sold the historical setting. The plagues and such were also amazing. Given how many faith-based movies are content to tell their audiences what to think or feel, it's satisfying to see one whose images alone are enough to compel an awestruck belief. The story is spiritually watered down. It doesn't preach to the audience, it doesn't tell us how to interpret things, and it even removes some of the divine influence these events are said to have. However, all the characters and symbols are present; we are left to interpret the story as a faith building story about God's influence, or simply as a tale that we have passed down for thousands of years. Overall I liked Exodus: Gods and Kings. It may not settle so well with some viewers, but it didn't go as far out in left field as I understand Noah did. I say this is worth watching even if you are not religiously inclined. Even if you are religiously inclined, I still say watch it but take it with a grain of salt. Understand that this is not scripture, but a film director's take on a very old story.

Are there other Bible stories or ancient texts you think would make a good movie? Comment below and let me know!

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole Movie Review

I've said in previous reviews that Zach Snyder's movies are often hit or miss, but his visual style is absolutely gorgeous to behold. That said, Snyder's animation debut was pretty exciting news. I finally got around to seeing Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010), and I think it somehow managed to be both hit and miss.

Soren (Jim Sturgess) is a young barn owl who is enthralled by the epic stories his father (Hugo Weaving) tells him of the Guardians of Ga'Hoole, a mythic band of winged warriors who fought a great battle to save owlkind from the evil Pure Ones. While Soren dreams of joining his heroes one day, his brother Kludd (Ryan Kwanten) scoffs at the notion. Kludd yearns to hunt, learn to fly, and earn his father's favor from his younger sibling. Kludd's eagerness causes both of the young owlets to fall from their treetop home and into the talons of The Pure Ones. The two discover the evil plot to abduct fledgling owls and raise them to become an army with which to conquer all of owlkind. Soren manages to escape with a few allies; Gylfie (Emily Barclay), Digger (David Wenham), and Twilight (Anthony LaPaglia). Together they set off to find the legendary heroes, the Warriors of Ga'Hoole to warn them of The Pure One's evil plot.

Zack Snyder's visually intense directing made Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole absolutely gorgeous to look at. Unlike most CGI animated movies which aim for a cartoony sort of look, The Owls of Ga'Hoole strived for a photorealistic art style. It was stunning! You could actually see the individual feathers on the owls fluttering in the wind, getting ruffled up during action scenes, and take on a different texture when they got wet. It is very difficult to animate hair and fur; a whole new program was created just to get Merida's hair to  look right in Pixar's Brave. There are so many feathered characters in The Owls of Ga'Hoole that it each scene must have taken ages to animate and look as good as they do in the movie. The photorealism extends to the sets and scenery, too. You could pause the movie at any time and the resulting still shot would look picturesque enough to frame and hang on the wall.

It came as no surprise to me that Zach Snyder's signature use of spontaneous moments of slow motion during action. He did this a lot in 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch. It's still a neat visual effect, and thankfully we don't get swamped with it. There were moments where I didn't understand why the slow motion effect was used, the scene didn't seem to justify using it. But there were other scenes such as when Soren was trying to fly through a rainstorm and tries to focus; everything slows down for a moment including the thousands of raindrops all around him. That looked really cool.

I only mentioned a few of the voice actors who appear in The Owls of Ga'Hoole above. Others include big name actors such as Joel Edgerton, Sam Neill, Helen Mirren, Abbie Cornish,  and Geoffrey Rush. There's nearly an all-star cast and they do great! The voice acting is spectacular. Hugo Weaving actually voices two characters, but it's done so well you'd hardly know they were the same actor.

The downside to The Owls of Ga'Hoole is the weak plot. The movie is based on Kathryn Lasky's book series and the movie received a lot of negative comments about the modified story. I haven't even heard of the books so I can't comment there, but it made fans of the books upset enough to mention it here. The story ended up being very predictable and vague on details.  The Pure Ones have some sort of magic metal "flecks" that they get from owl pellets (a mass of undigested parts of a birds food that some bird species occasionally regurgittaes). How that is magic and why that paralyzes enemies was totally lost to me. The characters were simple and predictable. So much of this movie has been done in dozens of other children's adventure movies that literally nothing surprises you in the least.

For being Zach Snyder's first animated feature, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole was not a bad attempt at an animated movie. The photorealistic animation was stellar to say the least, and the camera work was fantastic! The story and characters were so predictable that it's safe to say you've already seen this movies several times before, unless you're an 8-year-old. The movie seemed to try to go for a hard core edge while still being kid-friendly. This wouldn't be a bad family movie; the animation will likely captivate adult audiences while the simple characters and story are easy enough for younger kids to keep up with. Overall, I think I would have been just fine if I hadn't seen the movie at all. I don't think it's worth the money to purchase unless you truly value the impressive animation or have young kids who would enjoy an animated action movie.

Is there a director who has only done live action movies whom you'd love to see make an animated feature? I think a Quentin Tarantino movie would be crazy! Comment below and tell me who you'd like to see direct an animated feature!

The Great Gatsby Movie Review

Hollywood is notorious for making movies based on classic and bestselling novels and jazzing them up and twisting them around to appeal to audiences. The Great Gatsby (2013) looks pretty flashy for a movie based on a character driven story which a lot of people dreaded reading in high school. That aspect alone made me leery, but I was enticed by the visuals in the trailer so I saw it anyway.

In the spring of 1922, an era of loosening morals, glittering jazz, bootleg kings, and sky-rocketing stocks, would-be writer Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) leaves his Midwest town and moves to New York City. Chasing his own American Dream, Nick lands next door to a mysterious, party-giving millionaire, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Within eyesight across the bay lives Nick's cousin, Daisy (Carey Mulligan), and her unfaithful, blue-blooded husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). It is thus that Nick is drawn into the captivating world of the super rich, their illusions, loves, and deceits. As Nick bears witness, within and without the world he inhabits, he pens a tale of impossible love, incorruptible dreams, and high-octane tragedy.

The Great Gatsby is a character driven story. There's a lot of scenes that are dialogue driven, and they are well written. The script really is great and the dialogue for each character seems believable, sounds contemporary to the time period, and moves the story forward. These dialogue driven scenes are set against some phenomenal sets and costumes. It's not necessarily distracting, but it seems odd to have such rich visual detail in scenes that do little more than have characters talk with one another. Similar to my odd complaint about Funny Girl, the sets were huge, elaborate, and detailed, even if they were mostly digital. There are tons of sweeping camera shots and wide angles that capture a lot of background motion and detail. It seems gratuitous and "visually loud." I'm not sure how else to describe it. It looks amazing, no doubt about it, yet superfluous.

Look at this guy! How can you not love this guy?

Leonardo DiCaprio was an excellent choice for Jay Gatsby. Gatsby is supposed to be a likable character and I can't think of a role I've seen DiCaprio in where you didn't want to root for him. Nick describes Gatsby this way: "He had one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced, or seemed to face, the whole external world for an instant and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor. It understood you just as far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself." When we see Gatsby for the first time he gushes with charm and likeableness. DiCaprio plays to that character description astoundingly well. Also, he say "old sport" perfectly. Most everyone else's acting seemed overly dramatic and even silly at times. These are good actors, so I blame the director, Baz Luhrmann, for making them act that way.

I would have liked to hear music that was more in times with the 1920's. 20's swing and jazz music captivated the feel of the era. Instead, the music that was used was something called "Electro Swing." It combines old big band swing style music with some techno sounds and beats using synthesizers and electronic drum machines. I've only recently started hearing this niche music genre, and some of it isn't half bad. Unfortunately several of the specific songs used in Gatsby are half bad. I understand wanting to use a sound track that is both marketable to teenage movie goers and wanting to use music from the time period. Electro Swing is a logical choice. But the modern rap vocals used in several songs seem so painfully out of place for a movie set in the 20's that it made me wish they had simply stuck with actual 1920's music.

It's no secret that Hollywood butchers literature in the interest of ticket sales. The end result is a movie with the title of a good piece of literature which, more often than not, has little to do with said good literature. Once in a while we're thrown a curveball and we get a movie that actually holds true to the book it's based on. I have not read The Great Gatsby, but from what I understand, the movie manages to get the books' symbolism and themes across very well. It acts as a cautionary tale about the decadent downside of the American dream. There are themes of aspiring to start over again, social politics and the brutality and betrayal that comes with it, the perception of our own ideals and of those of other people. It comments on the excess of the rich, the recklessness of youth, and materialism and worldliness. With these themes well incorporated, The Great Gatsby does a splendid job of causing us to reflect on our own modern times and struggles.

The Great Gatsby was a good movie. The visuals were incredible, even if they were excessive. DiCaprio was excellent, as usual, and outshines the rest of the cast. The music could have been better if other songs within the same sub-genre had been used. The themes were beautifully incorporated, and should cause us to reflect upon our modern society. I saw The Great Gatsby in 2D, but there were several scenes that made me stop and think, "You know, that would probably look really cool in 3D." I'm glad I saw The Great Gatsby, but I didn't really enjoy it enough to want to own a copy. It's worth catching in theaters, possibly in 3D. Even if you don't catch it in theaters, it's worth the price to rent.

What's a classic piece of literature you would love to see made into a good quality movie? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Zero Dark Thirty Movie Review

Even though I don’t think it was too soon to make a movie about the bin Laden manhunt, I’m still surprised someone had the guts to do it. Zero Dark Thirty (2012) had a great opportunity to be politically skewed, so I wasn’t sure it would be worth the effort. However it is well done, and is up for several Oscar nominations including Best Picture and Best Actress.

Maya (Jessica Chastain) is a CIA operative whose first experience is in the interrogation of prisoners following the Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. on September 11^th, 2001. She is a reluctant participant in extreme duress applied to the detainees, but believes that the truth may only be obtained though such tactics. For several years, she is single-minded in her pursuit of leads to uncover the whereabouts of Al Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden. Finally in 2011, it appears that her work will pay off, and a U.S. Navy SEAL team is sent in to capture bin Laden. But only Maya is confident bin Laden is where she says he is. If she’s wrong, it will bring worldwide shame to the United States for breaking into a compound on the land of a nation that is tentatively an ally.

The 9/11 attacks are still an emotionally and politically charged subject and I feel as though there was no way to make this movie without offending someone to at least some degree. Yes, we see some CIA officers using torture and humiliation tactics to get information from prisoners at a black site. That is going to cause some people to cringe; they don’t want to see that and they won’t want to acknowledge that Americans were torturing prisoners for information. If that had been left out, other viewers would be offended and accuse the film of being biased, that Hollywood is trying to hide the truth, or that Zero Dark Thirty used rose-tinted camera lenses or something.

My biggest concern was that the movie would be politically skewed and would glorify President Obama and demonizing President Bush, or vice versa. This didn’t happen. In fact, mention of either President was minimal at most. It didn’t suggest that 9/11 was an inside job or anything. I was so relieved that Zero Dark Thirty was not so politically skewed and simply focused on objective facts.

I’m glad that this movie didn’t use big name actors. With two exceptions, I didn’t know a single actor. I recognized Joel Edgerton as the Red Squadron Team Leader from The Odd Life of Timothy Green and from Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith as young Uncle Lars. I also recognized John Barrowman from the Doctor Who and Torchwood TV shows. Because I didn’t recognize any of the actors, it made the movie seem more realistic; that is to say that it wasn’t made glamorous by adding big name actors or actors who look good and have no talent.

Okay, Jessica Chastain was in The Help, but I didn’t make that connection until looking up her filmography a couple of days afterwards. She was outstanding in Zero Dark Thirty. Early on she’s an uncertain and reserved individual, but she grows into this confident, powerful woman whom even upper level CIA personnel are hesitant to disagree with. Chastain carries the movie; it wouldn’t have been nearly as good without her. Her delivery is intense and powerful and simply blows you away. She’s got my vote for Best Actress.

Zero Dark Thirty has an episodic structure; it’s a string of short stories that usually center on Maya. Typically this sort of movie focuses on the marines, and not the government intelligence that leads the hunt for someone like bin Laden. This is largely about the people doing research, typing on their computers, making logical connections, and chasing paper trails. It’s almost like a whodunit sort of mystery, except that we know whodunit and we just need to find where he is. The story spans several years, other characters weave in and out of the story, and we see several Al Qaeda attacks that you’ll recognize if you watch the news at all. It’s very episodic, and at times focuses on the dull paperwork and other times on very tense action. We know how the movie ends, but there is still such a level of intensity and uncertainty that it holds you on the edge of your seat right up until the end.

Zero Dark Thirty is a great movie that fortunately remains objective and focuses on the behind-the-scenes events that lead up to defeating the notorious terrorist leader. There are some scenes, such as the torture scenes mentioned above, that are uncomfortable to watch and there is plenty of profanity. If you’re offended by such material, I don’t recommend watching this movie. However, I do encourage you to see it if you can tolerate several F-bombs and a few torture scenes. It’s a great movie with an excellent storyline and deep, meaningful characters. It’s suspenseful at times, and stressful in “paperwork” scenes. It’s just a great film. No wonder it’s been nominated for Oscar Awards.

Is there a major world event that has been shown on the news that you think would make a good movie? What is it and what would make it a good movie? Comment below and tell me why!

The Odd Life of Timothy Green Movie Review

While checking for showtimes of The Amazing Spider-Man I noticed another movie was in theaters that I hadn’t heard of before, The Odd Life of Timothy Green (2012). I’m not sure how I missed hearing about it; Disney generally spares no expense on letting their products be shouted from the rooftops. The trailer seemed interesting, so I went to see it. It’s exactly what the trailer said it was, and I have to say I liked it.

A childless couple, Cindy (Jennifer Garner) and Jim Green (Joel Edgerton) are told that every medical option has been explored and that they cannot have children of their own. Grief stricken, they go home and spend one last night with their dreams and wishes of having a child. They write down qualities they would like their ideal child to have, place the notes in a box, and bury it in their garden to put an end to their hopes. After a thunderstorm a ten year-old boy named Timothy (CJ Adams) arrives at their home, claiming the Greens as his parents. Strangest of all is the boy has leaves growing out of his legs around his ankles. Cindy and Jim take in Timothy for the time being and strive very hard to be the best possible parents to this odd, but good boy. They quickly find parenting to be a much more complicated and bigger challenge than they expected.

This is kind of a strange movie. It seems to be targeted towards kids, but there are a lot of themes in it that I really don’t think kids could grasp. You can’t really express to small kids the confusion a parent has when they don’t know whether to help their child or let them make their own mistakes. The story is driven by how people react to Timothy, but he’s not really the main character, Cindy and Jim are. Nevertheless, the story is simple and amusing enough that both parents and their children will enjoy the movie.

The Odd Life of Timothy Green is kind of a modern fairy tale for grownups in the sense of wish fulfillment, a journey of discovery, and a touch of magical influence. I couldn’t help but think of classic fairy tales that feature a childless couple who daily yearn for a child and then by some miraculous means, have a child. Jim and Cindy learn what being a parent is really like and that there is a lot more to it than simply providing basic necessities and love. While the story has some fantasy qualities to it, hardly anything magical occurs after Timothy shows up.

Good child actors are hard to come by. They are usually pretty unexpressive actors (like Quvenzhané Wallis in Beasts of theSouthern Wild) because they just aren’t old enough to know how to act, or they are so cute that no one cares that they don’t know how to act (like Shirley Temple). CJ Adams actually did a remarkable job in his delivery as Timothy Green. He was expressive without being melodramatic and lacked self awareness that most child actors have which weakens their performance. CJ’s performance felt very natural. He’s a pretty cute kid, too.

The Odd Life of Timothy Green really captivates old-time values. Although the movie has a present setting, it’s still about kids going outdoors to play, having community sporting events, autumnal colors, farm houses out in the rolling hills, khakis and polo shirts, birthday parties and swimming with friends. The only modern technology visible is in one scene where Cindy is trying to talk about being a parent to someone absorbed by their cell phone. The cell phone isn’t at fault; it’s just used as a means of illustrating how detached and busy the woman is from  taking care of her kids that she doesn’t really get to even know her kids. At any rate, it’s got a timeless, homey vibe that would make people of any age feel nostalgic for their childhood.

Like many Disney movies, The Odd Life of Timothy Green is very sweet. I didn’t think it was so sweet and sappy that it would dissuade me from enjoying it, but I could see some viewers feeling exasperated by the Normal Rockwell-style sentiment and sugary happiness. The movie has some truly lovely moments and, to be fair, a few that are a bit too saccharine to take very seriously.

Overall, I’d say The Odd Life of Timothy Green is an average movie. But being average is what gives the movie its charm. If you see it and think it’s too sappy and sweet, I could certainly see where you’re coming from. If you enjoy it as a cute movie about new a family awkwardly trying to fit into their new roles, I could sympathize most earnestly. I don’t think this is so much a kid’s movie; I do think kids would enjoy it, but not as much as their parents would. If you are a parent who genuinely loves your children, are hoping to be a parent soon, or even thinking of adopting, you will love this movie. If not, it’s still a cute film that is worth seeing someday. It wouldn’t be bad to see in theaters, but you’d be fine with renting it on DVD when it’s available. I wouldn’t mind owning my own copy on Blu-Ray, though it’s not a top priority.

Can you think of another movie that was targeted for kids, but where the main story would go right over their heads? Comment below and tell me about it!