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!

The Dark Knight Movie Review

When we last left our intrepid director, Christopher Nolan completely blew our minds with Batman Begins. He showed us that comic book movies can be more grounded and believable than what superhero movies have previously been. We were all psyched about the teaser at the conclusion of Batman Begins where Gordon shows Batman a “calling card” left by the new criminal in town. Finally, three years later, The Dark Knight (2008) hits theaters. We had high expectations, but we weren’t prepared for a movie this good.

It begins to appear as if Batman (Christian Bale), Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman), and District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) are making headway in their tireless battle against the remaining criminal organizations that plague Gotham City. Their partnership proves to be effective, but they soon find themselves prey to an unstoppable force of chaos. A psychotic criminal known only as “The Joker” (Heath Ledger) begins shaking things up, seeking to humiliate the forces of good and expose Batman’s secret identity. The Joker targets Dent and Gordon and contrives cruel tricks that pose moral dilemmas, while sending the people of Gotham into a panicked frenzy.

This movie is nothing short of amazing. The characters were complex, the story was fascinating, the acting was impeccable, the writing was phenomenal, and the direction was remarkable. The acting was so powerful that it doesn't let the outstanding special effects take center stage. For a superhero movie, it’s astounding how deeply the drama affects us.

The Joker has been Batman’s arch nemesis since the comic books came about and many actors have taken up the role, including Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, and Mark Hamil to name a few better known ones. I don’t follow the comic books, but I’d hazard a guess that there has not been a Joker quite like Heath Ledger, who posthumously earned an Academy Award for the role. The Joker in The Dark Knight was unquestionably evil. He wasn’t just bad; he was also completely creepy and insane! Ledger’s delivery was extraordinary and intense. Everything The Joker did was full of subtle quirks and blatant gestures that make us viewers genuinely uncomfortable. After The Joker’s first threat video is aired on Gotham’s news station, you could hear a pin drop; we are so stunned by Ledger’s performance of a genuine madman. The laugh is genuinely scary and at times sends a shiver down my spine.

Part of what sets this Joker apart from those before him is that all of his actions are sadistically designed to pose moral dilemmas for his enemies. Batman has a code of ethics that he adheres to, so The Joker makes a public announcement that he will kill public officials every day until Batman removes his mask and publicly reveals his identity. Towards the end of the movie, The Joker rigs two ferries with bombs and invites each one to blow up the other before they are blown up themselves. Batman, Commissioner Gordon, and Harvey Dent are posed with impossible ethical decisions, threatening the foundation of the Batman legend. There is enough meaty content in this film to philosophically analyze for days.

As for the scripting and dialogue, we get few of the usual jabs and banter most superhero movies have. The dialogue is psychologically evocative. Through dialogue we get an understanding of the situations and what the reasons for them are, all while developing the characters. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a script as well written as this one. I can’t help but relish it.

Comic book have been touching on deep fears, traumas, fantasies, and hopes for years. It wasn’t until recently that comic book movies have started reflecting this attitude. Nolan has again brought us a vision of Batman with a much broader scope of emotion than even the Tim Burton Batman movies did. These Batman movies have so much more gravity and are so relatable that you can’t help but be drawn into them. It’s not just about saving the world, or even the lives of innocent people. It’s about holding to your own code of conduct, doing what is right in your eyes, standing up to challenges, and not letting others get the better of you.

The Dark Knight was nothing short of amazing. I didn’t think movies were allowed to be as incredible as this one was. Once again, Christopher Nolan delivers a Batman movie that has a deep and meaningful story with interesting complex characters. It’s rare that a sequel is better than its predecessor, but this one certainly is! This one is worth owning. Go buy it right now. It is worth every penny. I have a copy on my shelf and you should, too.

Who is your favorite Joker so far? It could be from the movies, TV show, cartoons, or video games. Comment below and tell me why!

Batman Begins Movie Review

Batman movies have had a longstanding tradition of being totally silly. From the 1966 Batman movie with its “Shark Repellant” to Batman and Robin that attempts to be family friendly and silly. While making a family friendly movie isn’t bad, making a family friendly Batman movie is something like trying to make a family friendly version of The Godfather. You’re just going to besmirch the pervasive dark themes and complex characters. Fortunately, Christopher Nolan finally brought us the type of Batman story we’ve been expecting for decades with Batman Begins (2005).

Millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) still grieves the loss of his philanthropic parents to a senseless crime. While traveling the world to research the nature of evil, he is discovered by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) and Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) in China taking on petty thieves in a prison. They train Bruce how to fight evil and strike fear into the hearts of his enemies as a symbol rather than as a man. After Bruce learns of their plot to wipe out evil in his home city of Gotham, Bruce attempts to stop them and returns home. Back in his original surroundings, Bruce adopts the image of a bat to strike fear into criminals as the icon known as “Batman.” Things don’t stay quiet for long as the corrupt psychologist Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) works to pollute the water supply with a panic-inducing psychoactive drug that will cause the citizens of Gotham to tear themselves apart out of fear.

I admit to being a much bigger fan of the Marvel superheroes. Batman is probably the only DC hero I really like. Batman is one of DC Comic’s most legendary superheroes, second only to Superman. Tim Burton’s two Batman movies were good, but Batman Begins shows us Batman finally getting the treatment and respect he deserves. This is one of the greatest revamps given to a cultural icon.

Comic books that made it to the big screen have for a long while been rather silly romps of action and gratuitous special effects. Some of these movies are fun, but a bit hard to take very seriously. Batman Begins goes in a drastically different direction than its forbears. Everything is significantly more grounded; there are no crazy, over the top super powers or sci-fi gadgetry in this movie. There are fictional, but believable, hallucinogenic drugs. There is also an almost forgotten scientific genius at Wayne Corp. named Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) in research and development. He supplies Bruce with high-end military grade prototype gadgets that never went into production because they were not cost efficient. Coupled with Bruce’s ninja-like training, he is able to do some incredible stunts without pushing credibility over the edge.

All the other Batman movies have addressed why Bruce Wayne identifies with bats (childhood trauma) and hates evildoers (he witnessed his parents being killed by a mugger). We are so familiar with that aspect of Batman it almost seems cliché and redundant to reiterate it in another movie. Yet in Batman Begins these are major plot devices and are given significant weight and depth. It’s also fascinating to see how Bruce develops as a character and invents Batman as he goes along. He’s a bit of a slow learner, making clumsy mistakes and taking foolish risks as he starts out. Even after he has an established the “Batman” persona and disguise he still needs to call upon the aid of his family butler, Alfred (Michael Caine), to get him out of a bind.

Batman Begins is an amazingly good superhero movie. It doesn’t have the silly, flashy gloss of earlier films. Everything feels more grounded and believable than the average superhero movie. The characters are complex and interesting. The story is deep and meaningful. The imagery gets pretty intense, so I wouldn’t recommend showing it to younger viewers. There really isn’t anything negative I can say about this. It has become an instant classic, and it will be a long time before we accept a non-Christopher Nolan Batman. This one is definitely worth owning on Blu-Ray. I highly recommend seeing this if you haven’t already, and if you have, I would highly recommend seeing it again.

What’s your favorite non-Christopher Nolan Batman movie to date? Comment below and tell me why!