Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Torturro, Ben Kingsley, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul

Every time Ridley Scott makes a movie I consider it a gift from a cinematic god, so of course I was pumped when I heard that Scott would be directing this biblical ‘Magnus opus’, it seems right up his alley for various reasons. Number one is the fact that he is a master at making the fantastic believable, no matter how complex or how out there, he can make it real. This is something a lot of directors’ continually try to attempt yet fail horribly at; just take one look at Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C. (2008) and you’ll see what I mean. Secondly, Egyptian civilization, pyramids and huge columns have always formed a huge part of Ridley Scott’s film aesthetic. Actually, while watching certain scenes in Exodus, I got a few Blade Runner (1982) flashbacks. Take a look at Blade Runner again and you’ll see just how influenced by the Egyptian civilization Blade Runners art design was, you’ll see pyramids all over the place. So anyhow, with Exodus, Ridley Scott went from the futuristic pyramids seen in Blade Runner, to depicting the actual first pyramids ever made, which in a way brings Ridley Scott's cinematic career full circle.

From the pyramids in Blade Runner (1982) (above) to the pyramids in Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) (below)

Currently we’re going through a religious revival in Hollywood, I guess this is an attempt to infuse society with ‘belief’ as a way to reinforce religious ideals in society, something I’m completely against because I imagine, like John Lennon, a world without religion, where we can be the rulers of our own destiny. But  alas, we live in a world where the grand majority of people are under mind control, and religion plays a huge part of that. Yet, oddly enough I find these biblical movies fascinating anyways because I seem them for what they are, stories, fantasies meant to enlighten us entertain us and maybe show us a thing or two along the way; nothing more. So, this review comes from a non believer who still finds movies like this entertaining. I mean, I loved the heck out of Cecil B. Demille’s The Ten Commandments (1956)! That film is so entertaining, so theatrical and so freaking epic! Of course, Ridley Scott had a lot on his plate, he not only had the responsibility of pleasing all those millions of Christians out there by keeping things somewhat faithful to biblical cannon, he also had to turn in an entertaining film that surpasses anything we’d seen before in terms of spectacle. Question is, did he achieve it?

A lot of things went right with this movie, for example, its scope brought to mind those old biblical movies like Ben-Hur (1959) and Cleopatra (1963), these are films filled with thousands of extras and incredible sets, wardrobe an art direction. I’m happy to say that that’s the kind of film you get with Exodus: Gods and Kings. You certainly won’t feel like you are being short changed with this movie, you’ll see the millions up on the screen. The detail paid to minutiae, is amazing. The carvings on the swords, the thrones, the walls, is just stunning, you’ll believe this is the Egypt of the bible, the film is very convincing in my book.  

One of the things that matters the most for a film of this kind to be successful is that it has to be faithful to the bible, or else the core audience will boycott the movie. In this sense I predict that theaters will be packed with religious folks, as opposed to say a film like Noah (2014), which got everything wrong by changing the story around so much that it alienated its target audience. Religious people didn't get the Noah that they wanted, so they didn't exactly back the movie up, if anything some Christians went to see Noah simply to see how wrong Aronofsky got their beloved biblical tales. This does not happen with Exodus: Gods and Kings which sticks pretty closely to the bible. Sure Ridley Scott takes a few artistic liberties here and there, but overall the story you get is the story that’s in the bible. Moses becomes the leader of the Hebrews, becomes their savior and with gods help, he frees them from the oppressive choke of the Egyptians.

My only problem with the film is that the story is way too epic for one film. This story could have easily been divided into two or three films and it could have been told better. As it is, at times I felt like the story was going in fast forward, skipping important moments that you'd expect to see. We go through the ten plagues, suddenly boom, we’re traveling through the desert, suddenly boom, we’re at the red sea, and boom it’s Ten Commandments time. Biblical events feel rushed, and a lot of important moments where left out. For example, the moment in which Moses turns his staff into a snake, or the moment when the Israelites get tired of waiting for Moses to come down from Mount Sinai so they build their own god and start worshiping a golden calf, then god opens the ground and swallows them up for being unfaithful to him. Why leave stuff like that out? I guess the movie would have been  four hours long if they did, which is why I say this film could have easily been turned into two films.  This is the reason why DeMille’s The Ten Commandments (1956) was divided into two segments, with an interlude for you to go tinkle. In his version, DeMille didn’t cut corners, he told the full thing and took his sweet time to do it. He’s cut of the film is ten minutes short of four hours! The problem is that Scott decided to tell the tale in one film, and my opinion, the story suffered because of this. Ridley Scott either chose to tell an incomplete tale, or a lot of footage was left in the cutting room floor and we might get to see it eventually in a directors’ cut. Still, the film remains amazing, remains epic, it’s just missing certain key moments that only true Christian fanatics will notice were left out.

This film has gotten some heat because supposedly it’s emotionless, but I disagree; I actually think it had a lot of emotion. There are some truly tender moments between Moses and his wife where we see a kinder, gentler side to the great leader. I guess what people are referring to is that Ridley Scott decided to go with a more believable way of telling this story, he avoided augmenting the supernatural elements whenever he could. I mean, sure we see lots of miracles happen (the ten plagues are simply amazing) but Scott found a way to explain most of them scientifically, they aren't just magical events. Even the parting of the Red Sea seems like the tide simply goes down in intensity till the people can simply walk through, Moses doesn't use his staff like it was a magic wand on this one. I guess we could say the film isn’t overly dramatic or theatrical and whenever it can it simply avoids the supernatural. This might take some as a surprise, especially for those who are expecting a huge special effects driven film or operatic performances. Here the effects are used with subtlety, yet when they appear they are a true wonder. Performances are also toned down when compared to Charlton Heston’s old time theatrics.

I enjoyed the amazing cast here, the only downside is that we have a lot of good actors in minor roles. John Torturro plays the pharaoh which took me by surprise. Ben Kingsley plays a Hebrew elder, but again, so underused. I mean, here we got Sigourney Weaver doing next to nothing on this film, same goes for Aaron Paul, but whatever, I hear the original cut of this film was reportedly four hours long, so we might be seeing more of these actors on a directors’ cut of the film, who knows. Final words is, Ridley Scott had a huge tale to tell here and even with these compromises I've mentioned, we still got an amazing film that can be appreciated by both the Christians who want to see their fantasies brought to life on the silver screen and by those film lovers who just want to see a good film. This is without a doubt a strong film and if you ask me, one of the best of the year.

Rating:  5 out of 5

  

The Boxtrolls (2014)

The Box Trolls (2014)

Directors: Graham Anabelle, Anthony Stacchi

Voice Actors: Ben Kingsley, Jared Harris, Nick Frost, Tracy Morgan, Elle Fanning, Toni Collette, Simon Pegg, Isaac Hempstead Wright

I've always enjoyed the films that the guys at Laika produce because they pride themselves in making children’s films that opposed to 95% of children’s films made these days, actually have something to say. They have a brain to them. They don’t make empty crap, they actually make films that have substance. Take for example Coraline (2009), a film about a little girl who is unhappy with her family life, so she escapes to an alternate universe with alternate versions of mommy and daddy. They appear to be better, but are they? I’m still finding new themes every time I watch Coraline. For a children’s film it’s extremely layered, it’s a film that both parents and children can enjoy. Same can be said for Paranorman (2012), a film about a little boy who is having a hard time adjusting to the fact that he is just a little bit different than the rest of the kids in town; he can talk to the dead! And so, here comes The Boxtrolls; does it deliver the depth in themes that we've come to expect from Laika films?

Of course it does! This production company’s mission is to enlighten young minds; and so this time around the film takes place in a fictional town called Cheesebridge, a town where everybody loves cheese. The townspeople believe in these creatures called The Boxtrolls and according to town legend these Boxtrolls are murderous creatures that come out at night to steal and eat your children. We soon learn that these creatures aren't evil at all; they simply live on other people’s garbage. Whatever humans throw away, the Boxtrolls can find a use for. The Boxtrolls have raised a human boy amongst them whom they call ‘Eggs’ because the box he wears is a box of eggs. When Eggs grows into a teenager, he wants to see the world above. Will he ever learn that he is a human and not a Boxtroll? Will he ever meet his real parents? On top of things, the rich and powerful elite are scheming to eradicate the Boxtrolls forever! Will they achieve their goal? Or will the Boxtroll’s fight for their right to exist? 

So yes, once again we get a deep, heavy themed movie from Laika. This time around they've decided to address class issues. You see, in this film the Boxtrolls represent the poor, the underclass, those struggling to survive in the world and 'The White Hats' are members of high society whose only worry in life is eating the finest cheese and wearing finest clothes, the concerns of the people don't really matter to them. These White Hats see The Boxtrolls as a menace, a plague that should be eliminated. Not so different from what goes on in the world today, where the rich and powerful see the masses as a hindrance, as ‘monsters’ so to speak, as people they don’t even want to associate themselves with. This is why in the film The Boxtrolls are seen as hideous, but only because this is a myth that is propagated amongst the people. In reality, The Boxtrolls are harmless, even lovable. They all live inside their little boxes, which they hide in as soon as they sense danger. The symbolisms are quite clear when we look at it. The poor live inside “the box”, they hide from society, looking for their own comfort. But we learn through the film that what they need to do is think outside the box and fight for their right to coexist in this world. In this sense the film is extremely similar to Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927), the poor who live in the underworld and the rich who live above must find a way to understand each other. If I’m to draw comparison’s to other films, Little Monsters (1989), would be another one, in that one, the monsters also lived in some kind of underground alternate universe. Another similar one would be City of Ember (2008), which played with similar ideas.

And this is why I love Laika films. They address themes that kids should be exposed to and rarely are. I mean, I’m all for “believe in yourself” and “follow your dreams” (and there is some of that in this film) but there’s other themes that can be addressed to children, especially when we take in consideration the kind of complex world we live in, a world in which children deal with more diverse matters than the ones presented in what passes for children's films these days. This is why I always applaud children’s films that go a little further and don’t take our children for granted. Films like Wes Anderson’s Fantastic  Mr. Fox (2009) or Spike Jonze’s Where The Wild Things Are (2009), films that don’t treat children like idiots, which I think is something that modern society tends to do just a little too much. It is my opinion that children are very capable of grasping and learning concepts and ideas a whole lot faster than they are given credit for, so I’m all for children movies with brains,  especially ones that are as artful and as interesting to look at as the films that Laika is producing.

The cherry on the cake is the amazing stop motion animation which I just love to look at, to me stop motion animation, when done right, is eye candy. And trust me; these films are a true wonder! I still bow down to stop motion artist and I am glad this film making technique refuses to die. It works wonders in films of this kind, and I honestly hope that the folks at Laika never stop making their films, though I know these films are an endangered species. Still, I’m happy that every now and again a stop motion animated film pops up and I'm happy that they have not completely disappeared. To me the films that Laika is producing are as amazing as the films that Studio Ghibli produces, unique because not everybody is making them. Unique because they are old school and that makes them all the more special, true gems.

Rating:  5 out of 5   

Hugo (2011)

Title: Hugo (2011)

Director: Martin Scorcese

Cast: Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jude Law, Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz, , Christopher Lee, Emily Mortimer

Review:

Georges Melies was a genius back in his day; the guy was not only an accomplished illusionist, he was also one of the first film directors to use special effects in films. He is the filmmaker responsible for such important films as The Impossible Voyage (1904) and A Trip to the Moon (1902), the short film in which men travel to the moon on a bullet like rocket, and land on the moons eye. His films where filled with wizards, mermaids and adventurers; he was one of the first filmmakers to fall in love with the childlike wonderment of illusion and magic. He is also the focus of Martin Scorcese’s latest masterpiece, Hugo. And yeah, that’s right I used the ‘m’ word which is a status I reserve for those movies that are works of art, films that I enjoyed on every level, films that really ‘get to me’. Hugo was made by an extremely experienced director fully in control of the filmmaking tools at his disposal, ladies and gentlemen I speak of course of the great Martin Scorcese; who like the best filmmakers of the world, continues making amazing films even through his old age, and thank the film gods for that! Hugo is a beautiful film!

Hugo tells the tale of one Hugo Cabret, an orphan who’s really had a difficult time in life. He lives behind the giant clocks on a train station in France. No one knows that it’s a child that gives maintenance to the clocks on the train station, but it's Hugo behind it. When he isnt fixing clocks, he's working on a mechanical toy called an ‘automaton’. This automaton was a toy that he inherited from his father, when he died. Unfortunately,  Hugo's dad  never really finished working on it, and so, he never got it to work properly. It can write words on paper, and so Hugo believes that if he finishes fixing it, that it will write him a message from his dead father. Will Hugo ever discover the automaton’s message?

As you can see, Hugo is a film about an orphan, living on his own in the world, trying to survive as best as he can. The premise of the film brings to mind similar films like Oliver (1968) and Annie (1982);  you know films about kids who’s parents have died and have to either be brought up by the government in an orphanage or live on the streets, eating whatever food they can steal; scurrying through the city, running away from authority figures. Hugo is also one of those films that is about film itself.; it focuses a lot of its running time on the life of French filmmaker Georges Melies. In this way, by exploring the life of Melies, Martin Scorcese takes the opportunity to explore the nature of films and why we love them so much. Hugo is a film that is about cinema and the whole creative process behind making films. It’s about how much fun is had making a movie and the joy of having others see, enjoy and remember your work. It’s about why we enjoy going to the movies, why it’s our great escape. Why films are the stuff that dreams are made of, which is why it brought to mind an Italian film called Cinema Paradiso (1988) a film about a little kid who works in a movie theater, and falls in love with films so much that he eventually becomes a famous director. He also befriends and older man, same as in Hugo. By the way I highly recommend Cinema Paradiso to all film lovers out there, if you haven’t seen it, do yourselves a favor!  

Hugo is a very layered film, it’s not simplistic. Aside from commenting on all the things mentioned, it is also a film that speaks about humanity and how we are each essential parts of a big machine, the world. And how we all serve a purpose in this world; all we need to do is discover what that purpose is. If we don’t, we remain broken, incomplete. It’s a film that instills hope in ones heart to achieve our goals, and become everything we always wanted to become. One awesome moment has Hugo looking directly at the automaton and saying that the robot is waiting “to do what he came to do”, in this way Scorcese urges us to do the same. I love films like Hugo; family films that don’t  treat you or the children watching it like idiots. The themes Hugo addresses are relevant and important, it does a good job of placing beautiful and important ideas out there in the world and in childrens minds. And that’s really the best thing a director can do, use his story telling abilities to spread positive, life changing ideas out there in the world through their films. Scorcese is a filmmaker that's had his time in this world, and the film has that weight of a filmmaker who knows about life and so it’s not a film with paper thin themes, this is a film with something to say, a film filled with ideas picked up through a life time of experiences. I mean, the whole film is about trying to fix a toy robot that looks like a man, and what we need to fix is his heart. Hugo needs to fix the internal machinery of the automaton and find the key that will get it to work properly. “It isn’t going to be easy” one character says, but it can be done! Hugo is a film filled with hope for humanity and the idea that man can improve and become something better, that we can change, that we can evolve.

At one moment in the film, Isabelle (the girl who befriends Hugo) takes him to a bookstore. When she sees that he is not as excited as she is to be there she asks him “Don’t you LIKE books?” In this way, Scorcese takes the opportunity to praise the greatness of books, and the value he has for them. I love this about the film because in today’s IPad and IPhone filled world, where people aren’t even holding real books in their hands anymore, I appreciated the fact that Hugo was about enjoying going into a book store or library and searching for that perfect book to read, possibly with a loved one before going to bed. The kids in this film have questions about something and together, they go into this giant library, looking at books with wonderment in their eyes. Kudos to Scorcese for putting these ideas across, in my opinion, the importance of the printed word should not be taken for granted and this movie does a good job of placing an emphasis on this.

The visuals are nothing short of amazing, every scene is jam packed with details and color. It’s one of those films where France looks magical and vivid! Some scenes reminded me of a Fellini film, with its buoyant streets filled with life, love, food and music. And speaking of the visuals, Scorcese really took advantage of 3-D on this one; this is one of those films best experienced on 3-D, this is in my opinion some of the best 3-D I’ve seen since Cameron’s Avatar (2009), there is some real depth to these images, at times you really feel as if you’re walking through all those giant gears. You’ll feel like Charlie Chaplin rolling through the machinery in Modern Times (1936).  This is a film that uses 3-D the way it's meant to be used. I’ve already seen Hugo twice in theaters because number one, I loved it and I felt the need to take in these beautiful visuals and moving story one more time, and two, because I wanted to share this film with someone I loved, which is the same you should do.

Rating: 5 out of  5

Shutter Island (2010)

Title: Shutter Island (2010)

Director: Martin Scorcese

Writer: Laeta Kalogridis, based on the novel by Dennis Lehane

Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Max Von Sydow, Elias Koteas, Jackie Earle Haley, Emily Mortimer

Review:

Martin Scorcese is one of those directors who’s name is a household word. Scorcese is as much a star of his movies as his actors are. And this is not without merit for Scorcese is responsible for some of the best films ever made, including some of those fantastic films that were made during the 70s that still, to this day influence modern filmmakers. Films like Taxi Driver and Mean Streets. Both awesome films on their own right; both masterpieces. And both are only a small representation of what this great American filmmaker is capable of producing. His body of work is certainly an impressive one. And one that has never shown signs of diminishing in terms of quality of storytelling and filmmaking ability. In other words, Scorcese is a master. There’s no denying that. So, how did Shutter Island, his latest film, fare?

Scorcese, directing the hell out of Kingsley, DiCaprio and Ruffalo

Shutter Island is the story of one Teddy Daniels, federal marshal. He is visiting the incredibly mysterious Shutter Island, and island that is home to one of the most dangerous psychiatric wards in the world. A ward that houses the most criminally insane individuals on the planet, the ones that are deemed too dangerous to live in society. The ones that have committed the most heinous crimes. Teddy arrives to investigate the disappearance of one of the inmates. I mean, patients of the ward. It seems like she simply vanished from her cell! How did she disappear from her cell without a trace? How did she achieve this when her room was locked and her windows were barred up? Why did she leave without any shoes on? Where is she? Will she survive the fierce storm that’s forming outside? Will Teddy uncover the truth behind this ever evolving mystery?

And that’s a key word on this movie: mystery. It’s ever present, from the first frame of the film to the last. The whole film is drenched in atmosphere, like one of those old school horror movies where the storm never lets up. I personally love movies that do this because I really hate it when horror movies loose that spooky feeling. It makes you kind of wish they stretched it out for longer. But not with Shutter Island, with Shutter Island you get a constant spooky vibe, constant suspense, constant mystery, a constant ominous feeling. The psycho ward feels like one of those castles from the old horror movies, a castle at the end of the cliff. I tell you, that spooky feeling never lets up! The deeper the movie goes, the darker the mystery, the darker the film. The stronger the storm! If you love spooky old school horror movies, where the wind is howling all the time, and the storm looks like it’s never going to end, then Shutter Island is for you.

Thematically speaking though, I loved what this movie was trying to say. Filmmaking is a mirror of our society, which is an aspect of filmmaking that I love. I think its so interesting how we can communicate so much through films. I sometimes feel artists and filmmakers communicate with society in code, through their films. Saying important things that sometimes people don’t like to talk about, addressing themes and issues that need to be addressed and discussed. But sometimes filmmakers don’t like to be so obvious with what they are saying, so they’ll embellish their tales with complications, and drama. But at the core, you sometimes have to wonder while watching a film: what’s this filmmaker trying to communicate? What is he trying to say? Shutter Island is one of these movies. It’s not your typical spooky psychological thriller. Though it succeeds marvelously at being one, this movie is trying to communicate so much more then just a spooky scare.

At heart, Shutter Island is similar to Joel Schumacher’s Falling Down (1993). If you remember correctly, Schumacher’s Falling Down was about a guy (Michael Douglas in one of his finest roles ever) who is driven mad by the way things are set in society. He can’t take it anymore so he bolts and goes ballistic, lashing out against society. Shutter Island has that subversive vibe going for it. It criticizes the government for performing experiments on people, hideous experiments to see what makes people tick. This is one of those “us vs. them” movies, where every one acts just a little weird. Kind of like in Invasion of the Body Snatchers or The Wicker Man (1973). The kind of film where everyone is in on something, except our protagonist. You get the vibe from the very beginning that something is a little off on Shutter Island, and that everyone is acting just a little strange. Its one of those movies where “they” want to control and dominate you, and if you don’t play along, then you are going against the grain, and that cant be good for you. You have to either comply, play along, or be eradicated.

Mario Bava would be proud

In many ways, this film is kind of like a cautionary tale for people with a rebellious spirit, same as Falling Down was. Its trying to say, something might be going wrong, the government might be corrupt, and everything society holds true and certain is a lie, but you still gotta play ball or you are going down. But again, this is all embellished in the film. Which is probably why most people aren’t going to get it. This was probably the reason why after the film was over I heard some people saying the movie was crap. That’s the problem with today’s film going audience, they’ll go in droves to mindless crap like Transformers 2 (2009), but they’ll think that Shutter Island is a boring movie that has too many talky scenes. It doesn’t have that huge splash of an ending, with a lot of special effects.

And yeah, it’s true, this is a very cerebral film. It’s not a film about special effects, or grizzly deaths, or car explosions. This is a movie with a brain, with something to say. Proof of this films cerebral introspective nature is the films many nightmare/flashback sequences, which by the way I absolutley loved! Scorcese really went wild with the dreamsequences on this film, it gave the whole movie a very hallucinatory vibe that I really dug. And on top of that Shutter Island  has an excellent cast, and it was made by one of the most legendary filmmakers in the industry. I mean, as far as I’m concerned, Martin Scorcese has been on a roll and has never stopped ever since he started making movies. He has not given up like many directors have at his age. He continues making excellent films, with passion, drama and intrigue. That’s one thing this movie has a lot of, intrigue. By the way, the feeling of mystery in this movie is only augmented by the films amazing musical score. Martin Scorcese is a film director that has not forgotten the importance of music in a film! I thank the movie gods for that, especially in a movie of this kind. The music Scorcese chose for this film (composed of famous classical music tracks) kind of guided us through the roller coaster ride of emotions that both images and music conjure up. It’s as if the music was telling us how we should feel. I love that kind of score on a film! Very grand. Very classy. Just as grand and just as classy as the movie itself.

Rating: 5 out of 5