Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) – Review

Review: Exodus: Gods and Kings is a grand epic of spectacle, built around the changing relationship between two brothers and impressive visuals.

The film is about Moses and Ramses. Pharaoh Seti found baby Moses abandoned in a basket along the Nile river, deciding to raise him as his own along with his natural son Ramses. The two brothers grew up as princes, relying on it other in battle and life; however, as the brothers come into their own, Moses learns about his past – that he is actually of Jewish decent (a downtrodden people who are greatly abused as slaves by the Egyptians) – a truth he refuses to believe. Once Pharaoh Seti has died of illness and Ramses becomes leader of Egypt, enemies of Moses expose his secret. Always slightly fearing Moses’s power and the love his father showed him, Ramses ceases the opportunity to banish Moses. Far from Egypt, Moses struggles to accept the truth about himself and the new mission his people’s god has anointed him with – to set the Jewish people free in Egypt. Moses, now with newfound purpose, returns to Egypt to do just that, but Ramses will not make it easy on him.

Director Ridley Scott’s biblical epic feels very similar to his other religious epic Kingdom on Heaven. Exodus: Gods and Kings features impressive visuals, a massive scale and scope and very good central performances. Yet, like Kingdom of Heaven’s theatrical release, which was gutted of most of its character moments in favor of a shorter runtime, this film too seems to lack needed character moments for its supporting cast. Moses and Ramses have their moments, and the story does serve them well, but no one else is really given much to do (while the film still runs for around 150 minutes), leading me to believe that this too was streamlined for its theatrical release and somewhat expect a fuller, longer version of the film to be released for home consumption – keeping the runtime under a certain length allows the film to screen more times in a day, which theoretically translates to more box office, at the expense of creative expression/integrity (because Hollywood moviemaking is a business first, and that is especially true for massive blockbusters like this film). It is just too bad, as the film would have played a lot stronger with its supporting characters fleshed out and overall narrative given time to breath, allowing the emotion and drama to be more fully realized. As it is, the film works solely thanks to its impressive aesthetics and great leading performances.

Even at 150 minutes, the film is paced rather briskly (presumably thanks to much of the extra dramatic meat being cut out of Scott’s initial version). Time passes in chunks in between scenes in many instances, requiring viewers to pay extra attention or lose their place.

Scott is a very skilled filmmaker, and that is clear again with Exodus: Gods and Kings. Aesthetically, the film showcases the stark juxtaposition between the wealthy Egyptian lords and the impoverished slaves – possibly drawing comparisons to the ever-widening wealth gap in the western world (let alone the rest of the world). Some fear that if the struggling classes ever really found out how the very wealthy live, there would be a revolution. Maybe that sounds dramatic and far-fetched, but history shows us that it has happen again and again throughout time – this film detailing one of the most famous (along with its overlying religious aspects).

Scott takes a very evenhanded approach to religion in Kingdom of Heaven, treating Islam with respect and fairness, when many films focus more on the negative factions (something that seems to tinge many, if not all, religions). Here, Scott is less so. The Egyptians are portrayed as many villains are in many films of this nature – entitled, ambivalent and uncaring. The slaves are just that, not deserving a second thought. The slaves are a subspecies in their minds, existing only to benefit their interests, and thus do not deserve the same rights and freedoms. When the Jewish god unleashes the plagues upon the Egyptian people. They are bewildered, refusing to accept that this god is more powerful than their own, that these people should be set free. Ramses sees himself as a god on Earth. He just cannot accept that to be untrue, as it crushes his whole way of life, his whole belief system. The brisk pacing does not give Scott the opportunity to explore the Egyptians any further, leaving them mostly as seemingly out-of-touch, arrogant villains – even though there are certainly strong hints that Scott intended much more depth.

The portrayal of god in the film, as a young boy, is an interesting choice. In the story, god must do great and terrible things to the Egyptians. Things that seem cruel and viscous, but they are done because the Egyptians (and Ramses) just will not accept the truth of the circumstances, because it goes against everything they believe. I think Scott chose god to be seen as a small child to juxtapose the terror he must rain upon the Egyptians with the innocence of a small child. Although, at the same time, young children can also be the most cruel and vicious when left to their own devices. Without societal pressures and laws obstructing them, children have been shown to act sometimes without compassion (think of the classic example: Lord of the Flies), exhibiting our natural tendencies for survival, stronger oppressing the weaker. A childlike god, though capable of love and compassion, might also act when angered with unabated rage and cruelty.

In many ways, Exodus; Gods and Kings is a disappointing film, as Scott’s films always have so much promise (based on the great works of his past). It features all the ingredients to be something special and yet it is lacking – namely in dramatic weight and fuller supporting characters. Scott does do a good job with the central drama of the film, as Moses and Ramses are fleshed out and their narrative is compelling, but everything else feels incomplete – and it probably has do to with the film being revised down from its original longer version for theatrical release. As I said above, it is too bad. But, hopefully, the film as it was initially intended will be released later (as Kingdom of Heaven and Blade Runner’s director’s cut eventually were).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Ridley Scott makes fantastically impressive visual films. Exodus: Gods and Kings follows in that tradition. Visually speaking, it is quite entertaining on a spectacle level with a grand scope and scale. Scott also garners very good performances as well, and this too is true of this film. Despites the film’s commercial and critical failings, I do hope to see Scott’s director’s cut at some point (assuming it is released) and his next film The Martian, coming next year.

On a quick side note, with Exodus: Gods and Kings and Noah. It is interesting to see biblical stories being portrayed in a darker manner, stripping away some of the overly rosy arbitrage and getting right at the heart of what is actually transpiring. In each story, god’s actions directly result in the death of thousands (millions in Noah’s case) of people. The films do not just focus on the justification of these actions (be them teaching humanity a lesson or helping his people find freedom) but also on the gravity of the actions, which is much more compelling.

Back to the aesthetics, composer Alberto Iglesias provides a score for the film that tonally fits well and captures the flavor of the time and place. Cinematographer Dariusz Wolski’s photography is very good, as he uses mostly a more washed out color palate, which too fits the darker tone the film has. His work, along with production designer Arthur Max’s (whose sets, as always, are brilliant), also highlights the striking economic differences between the Egyptian lords, who are covered in clean whites and gold jewelry, inhabiting expansive homes, and the slaves, who are packed in dirty, crowded, cramped environments. The Egyptians are all very manicured and without facial hair (assuming I remember correctly) while the slaves are bearded and somewhat unkempt. Interestingly, Moses has a beard from the start, but it is much more groomed than any of the slaves’ beards. As he comes to accept his place among them as their leader, his beard becomes more unwieldy.

There are quite a few name actors in the film who have had their roles essentially cut out due to most of the supporting character work and excess drama being taken out. Aaron Paul, Sigourney Weaver and Ben Kingsley almost have nothing to do in the film (outside of a scene, here or there).  Indira Varma, Maria Valverde and John Turturro are good in small supporting roles. Ewen Bremner plays a scientist of sorts in the Egyptian court, explaining the logic behind the plagues, assuring that they are not acts from an angry god. He is just fantastic and goofy in the small role. Ben Mendelsohn, also in a small role, playing the corrupt Egyptian Viceroy Hegep, who outs Moses to Ramses, is wonderful as well. He is so smarmy and slimy. He is a great character actor – one of the best currently. Joel Edgerton is very good as Ramses, bringing the right mix of entitlement, compassion and utter bewilderment about what is happening to the role. In lesser hands, Ramses would have been a one dimensional, boring villain, but here he is a full character. Christian Bale is excellent as Moses (as he generally is in everything he does). He is able to convey the heartbreak of his deteriorating relationship with his brother and the pain of finding out the truth about himself. The scenes with god could have played as being a bit odd, Moses conversing with a young boy, but Bale plays the scenes with complete commitment. Despite the gutting the film seems to have gone through during its final edit, it still works thanks in most part of Bale’s great performance.

Summary & score: Exodus: Gods and Kings lacks emotional and dramatic depth, and yet it is still an entertaining, visually compelling and overall solid epic due to Ridley Scott’s fine directing and strong central characters (and great leading performances), overcoming its shortcomings. 7/10

Snowpiercer (2014) – Review

Review: Snowpiercer is on one hand a cool sci-fi film built on impressive visuals and great dystopian themes, but on the other hand it is a fairly ludicrous narrative that seems to leave a lot to be desired from a logic standpoint.

Global warming has become so bad on Earth that collectively the planet’s governments have decided to shoot a chemical into the atmosphere to cool down the planet. It backfires causing an eternal winter that is far too cold to sustain life; however, a brilliant man, Wilford, who loves trains, knew the consequences of the chemical. Prior to its use, Wilford built a global rail line with a train that runs as a self-sustaining system. Those onboard the train during the chemical’s dispersal are Earth’s only surviving humans, as the chemical agent immediately caused Earth to descend into a world-ending global winter, killing almost all life. Fast-forward seventeen years. A class system has developed on the train and the poorest live in terrible conditions. Lead by Curtis, the poor plan to violently revolt. They want to storm the rest of the train and take the engine and hold it hostage to stop their oppression and change their fortunes.

There are many things to like in writer-director Joon-ho Bong’s Snowpiercer, especially for sci-fi fans. The train is structured in such a manner so that to some extent it mirrors both the evolution of humanity from beast ravaging in the muck to elevated sophistication and the layers of today’s global class system. The train, from back to front, begins with the ultra-poor who are oppressed and abused. The poor live in darkness and are completely subservient to the upper classes for their food, healthcare, and all other manner of basic human needs/rights. In turn, they are treated with almost no regard, as if they are a subspecies. As one moves forward through the train, there are sections dedicated to incarceration, science, education, polite society, hedonism, and finally an all-powerful man at the front who controls the engine (the life force of the train and the society).

In this way, the film acts as a metaphor for our own society, one that sees the wealth and control of the very rich grow at the expense of everyone else. This metaphor works reasonably well and Bong uses it as the central driver of his narrative. The people in the back of the train are fed up at having nothing and revolt against the system that actively tries to keep them in their place – something our own class system also does very well (with programs like “the war on drugs” which effectively does nothing to lessen drug use, rather it efficiently keeps the poor centralized and impoverished). It also comments on the perception of the different classes. The people in the back of the train seem like honest hard working people who have just never been given a real chance, while those in front are more or less shown as ridiculous caricatures who lead frivolous lives.

In addition to the grand metaphor of the piece, Bong also does a good job making the film entertaining. The action scenes in particular are quite enjoyable, utilizing the great style of modern Asian fight sequences/choreography. Bong paces the film to continually move forward as well. There is narrative momentum, as Curtis and his people push their way up the train – each car offering something new. All this keeps the film engaging throughout.

The characters are overall reasonably well-done. It is easy for the audience to root for Curtis because of his station in life and drive to improve it. That is a very human want, relatable to everyone. The main supporting characters are not developed thoroughly, but are all given enough business to stand out and make an impression. They are each different enough to not blend together and feel bland.

Bong gives the audience almost everything they need: characters to root for and against, action scenes that are fun, interesting sci-fi themes, and a clear narrative goal; however, Snowpiercer has a few issues that take away from the film (although, I will say that these issues may not matter for many viewers; especially when the film is approached as pure entertainment). Mainly, the film seems to constantly test the limits of plausible believability and logical sense. There will be some spoilers that follow: characters seem to make decisions that make no sense – a few examples: Wilford claims that the train’s engine is a self-sustaining system and yet he requires children to perform tasks once equipment starts to breakdown. Eventually all the equipment will breakdown, which means that either Wilford is delusional about the future (due to some sort of religion-like mysticism surrounding the engine/system he has created) or just does not realize that this is not a permeate solution (due to mental detrition from prolonged isolation and claustrophobic conditions – it is probably a bit of both) . Either way, the train is eventually doomed. Namgoong Minsoo, the man who Curtis helps to escape from detention in exchange for helping him open the door between cars, also has his own plan. He believes that the weather outside is becoming warmer and that humans can now survive the elements. Thus, he wants to stop the train and go outside. This seems reasonable until his plan to do that becomes apparent. His plan is to forcefully blow the door off the train to both allow exit from the train and also to cause an avalanche to hasten the melting of the snow, the combination of which has an almost absolute probability of also destroying the train and all life onboard. Here again is the problem. His plan essentially leads to the end of humanity (just more rapidly than Wilford’s slow demise as things degrade).

But maybe this is the point of the film? Bong presents modern society though the microcosm of the train and then concludes that no matter what humanity is doomed regardless of its choices. When Curtis arrives at the engine, he has achieved his goal to reach the engine but his people have mostly been killed and it is clear that nothing will change onboard the train. All his effort is essentially fruitless. In humanity’s history the same is true. Regardless of wars, revolutions, technology, and so on, there has always been a global class system (although the percentage distribution of how many people inhabit each class shifts constantly up and down – though more or less holds its same overall shape). There are always those with a lot who oppress those with little. All the actions in the film thusly appear to be in vain, leaving the film lacking a meaningful resolution.

Bong’s ending showcases the train being wholly destroyed by the avalanche caused by Minsoo’s bomb on the train door; however, Minsoo’s daughter and another young boy survive and brave the cold together. They seem to be able to handle the chill, but Bong ends on a shot of a polar bear that notices the two young survivors.  Does the bear suggest that life can be sustained and goes on and that these two young people will work to repopulate the Earth or is the bear just going to eat them? It is unclear, as Bong leaves it open-ended. End of spoilers.

The logic of the film’s characters and ending will take many viewers out of the narrative. It seems to inherently make no sense, because it is contrary to our own survival instinct (something that is at our core as humans) and it is contrary to the initial premise – get to the front, make things better. It feels like a letdown on the promise of that premise.

Bong does employ what could have been an interesting twist to corrupt the initial premise, but by the time the twist is revealed it is too late. The narrative has already run its course and thus what could have been a powerful dramatic turn ends up making a minimal emotional impact on the audience (though, does effect Curtis’s final decisions).

Even more than the Snowpiercer’s character logic or the impotence of the twist maybe it is that the film feels a bit pointless at the end that is its greatest nemesis. Yes, it is entertaining and plays with some potent sci-fi themes and style, but if the audience feels indifferent at the end then it is all for nothing. Again, I do not think that everyone will be pulled out of the narrative by its issues, but they are prevalent enough to noticeability take away from the overall effectiveness and quality of the film as a whole.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Joon-ho Bong has a great style to his films. He does well garnering good performances and can also shooting engaging action. He has all the tools to make good films (like The Host and Mother); however, with Snowpiercer, he might have relied too much on trying to make a statement about humanity than actually making a fully compelling narrative, as the film completely loses all its momentum by the end and sort of goes out on a whimper. Even so, I am looking forward to seeing what he does next.

Marco Beltrami provides an adequate score that matches the tone of the film well. Kyung-pyo Hong’s cinematography is very good, as his lighting wonderfully gives the film a dystopian look and clearly differentiates each section of the train. Ondrej Nekvasil’s production design too is top notch. His sets for each section of the train are fantastic (I especially liked the school and the aquarium).

The cast is strong overall. Vlad Ivanov, Alison Pill, and Ewen Bremner are great is small supporting roles (each exhibiting a wonderful madness). Ah-sung Ko is good as Minsoo’s daughter Yona. She blends presumed-innocence with sudden maniacal brutality well. Tilda Swinton is brilliant as Mason, the mouthpiece for Wilford and the people in the front. Her whole character is so exaggerated and yet feels honest and dynamic, which speaks to her skill as an actress. Ed Harris sort of does his typical confident/unmovable yet slightly beaten down by circumstances authoritative figure performance with Wilford (it is something he does well and often). Kang-ho Song is great as Namgoong Minsoo. He gives the character a fun reluctant swagger. He does not seem to really care, but if pushed might be the toughest of them all (he sort of takes on the role type made famous by Charles Bronson’s character Harmonica in Once Upon a Time in the West). Chris Evans is very good as Curtis. He is sort of an everyman, which pulls the audience in and makes him relatable, but then he has a darker side and backstory to him, making him interesting.

Summary & score: Snowpiercer is ambitious and does a lot right, making it in many ways a good sci-fi film, but ultimately it loses too much momentum by the end and just sort of feels inconsequential in its final moments. 6/10

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) – Review

Review: Jack the Giant Slayer is a fairytale adventure film that is not sure exactly who its audience is – children or young adults. The film is a somewhat new take on the classic story of Jack and the Beanstalk. Here, Jack is a farm boy who dreams of more. Jack sets off to town to sell his house and wagon for supplies to help his uncle manage the farm, but ends up returning with only bean, whereby he is berated by his uncle. Meanwhile, a young princess Isabelle also longs for more in her life. She runs away from her castle home. Caught in the rain, she takes shelter in a small farm house, running into Jack. His beans, not fully accounted for, get wet and a massive beanstalk grows into the heavens, taking the princess with it – though, Jack falls from the soaring house in the calamity. Awakening to find the King and his guard looking for the princess, Jack and a few of the King’s finest men scale the beanstalk to find Isabelle. However, they discover a land ruled by man-eating giants – giants that have longed to leave their kingdom to feed on the world of men. This is now a rescue mission.

I think growing up in the 1980s with films like The Princess Bride, Labyrinth, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, The Secret of NIMH, Time Bandits, The Witches (though, this did come out in 1990), Legend, The Dark Crystal, The NeverEnding Story, and the Disney animated features (among others – like George Lucas’s adventure trilogies: Star Wars and Indiana Jones) has preconditioned me to love adventure fantasy films (or at least have some sort of nostalgic reaction to them). Thus, Jack the Giant Slayer was something I actually wanted to see (despite my complete lack of trust in director Bryan Singer and the poor job that New Line Cinema did marketing the film). Watching the film, however, I noticed that it has a very uneven tone. It is not sure if it wants to be a kids’ movie (action, but with mild violence and nothing too scary and a silly sense of humor) or something for young adults (more intense action and violence, more mature relationships and sense of humor – to some extent). The film sorted wanted to be both, and thus did not really work for either. It is too violent and scary for kids, and tonally too geared towards kids for young adults. It seems like it wanted to be this generation’s The Princess Bride (although, lacking the charm and magic of that film) but also made for fans that grew up with The Princess Bride.

The film, originally titled Jack the Giant Killer, was initially intended to be R-rated, but then New Line Cinema decide to rework it for a broader audience (as is often the case with big budget films). The problem is that the tone just does not work now, as it still has elements of that initial R-rated film mashed together with more kid-friendly stuff. In some moments the film is silly with goofy characters and jokes (like Roderick’s – the film’s villain – sidekick Wicke or the main giant General Fallon having a second head that is only there for comical effect, as it speaks and acts in a goofy manner), while in other moments the film has characters being eaten, murdered, and engaged in violent situations – often these moments happen within the same scene. In an attempt to appeal to everyone, the film (generally speaking) appeals to no one.

However, getting back to my un-bashful love of adventure fantasy, there is still a lot to like in the film. And, Singer keeps the film moving forward with decent pacing. Singer also develops the lead characters well. Jack and Isabelle are easy to root for, because their story is relatable to the audience, or at least very familiar in its narrative language. The supporting characters fall mostly into genre archetypes, but that is fine for this sort of light entertainment. Singer’s action is also entertaining (just, probably not suitable for kids). Overall, I did enjoy the film – but its issues do limit it considerably.

In addition to its uneven tone, the film’s narrative structure felt a bit strange in terms of the villain’s arc. Roderick is presented as the film’s main antagonist in the first act. Isabelle is being forced to marry him, even though she does not love him (which is one of the reasons she runs away, if not the main one). And, he is presented as an overall bad guy (in sort of a kid’s movie way – he just looks like a bad guy). His plan is to use the magic beans and a magic crown to not only bring the giants down from their kingdom, but also rule over them – using them to take over the world. He is clearly the character to root against. Yet, once the narrative gets up to the world of the giants, the main giant General Fallon is presented as the actual main antagonist and Roderick is merely only a catalyst to introduce the giants. But if that was the case, Roderick should have done his business in the first act so the audience could invest sooner in the struggle between Jack and Fallon. As it is, this antagonistic relationship does not really come about until about halfway through the film (and by then, the audience does not really care anymore).

The film also feels inauthentic in the way it treats Jack’s relationship with Isabelle. It goes out of its way to express that a princess can never marry a commoner (which Jack is), yet none of the characters frown upon the blatant budding of a relationship between them – even her father the King. Sure, he is grateful that he rescued her, but his seeming indifference to the complete collapsing of the governing social convention regarding his daughter feels off. Though, at this point, the narrative is so rushed that there is not really time to address barriers to Jack and Isabelle’s relationship.

The narrative is paced well enough, as Singer again keeps things moving forward and the film never feels like it is dragging. But, the structure of the story is the films weakest attribute. It has an overly long first act and rushed second and third acts. The characters and their relationships are not used to their full dramatic potential as well. This ultimately leaves the film unfulfilling both narratively and from a character perspective. Plus, the tacky add-on that ends the film is also laughable.

Jack the Giant Slayer is fun and entertaining, especially for fans of adventure fantasy films. However, it is encumbered by a multitude of narrative issues, holding it back from being among the genre’s better films.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Bryan Singer has now made eight feature films – some loved like The Usual Suspects and X2 (though, I would argue both are vastly overrated), but most disappointing. He continually makes films that have great potential and are indeed great in moments, but never come together as wholes. His next project is X-Men: Days of Future Past. As someone that really liked X-Men: First Class, I hope he finally reaches his potential (assuming it is there at all).

Singer works again with his frequent collaborators composer (and editor) John Ottman and cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel on Jack the Giant Slayer. Ottman delivers a good score that fits the adventure fantasy genre well, while Sigel’s photography is also strong. However, it is production designer Gavin Bocquet’s sets that really bring the world together. The overall look of the film is very much rooted in the classic genre pieces of the past. However, the animation (the film uses motion capture to create the giants) feels a bit out of place at times – but not enough to hurt the overall experience.

The cast is also a strong component of the film – maybe even the best part as the performances are good, and feel aligned with the genre (despite the uneven tone). Warwick Davis, Ewen Bremner (who is pretty funny), and Eddie Marsan are great in small supporting roles. Bill Nighy, as he always seems to, elevates General Fallon with his measured delivery in his voice-only role.  Ewan McGregor is a lot of fun as Elmont – the best of the King’s guard. He somewhat steals the film with his enthusiastic energy. Newcomer Eleanor Tomlinson is also a bright spot. She certainly has screen presence as Isabelle. It might have been more interesting to just see her adventure sans Jack. Nicholas Hoult is good in the film, but the character does not play to his strengths as an actor – playing characters with charisma, wit, some narcissism, and mischievousness to them. Here, Jack is too simple and good (and thus not that interesting).

Summary & score: Jack the Giant Slayer has a lot of grave narrative problem, yet still manages to be fun and entertaining (but only superficially). 6/10

Movie of the Week - Trainspotting

This week’s movie is Trainspotting (1996).

The film is a comedy/drama based on Irvine Welsh’s novel about a young man deeply immersed in the Edinburgh drug scene who tries to get out and get clean despite the allure of that around him, his friends, drugs, social situation. The film was the breakout hit for Danny Boyle (who won a best director Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire), which got him a deal with Fox and international exposure. Boyle worked with many of his early frequent collaborators on the film including: actor Ewan McGregor, writer John Hodge, producer Andrew Macdonald, cinematographer Brian Tufano, editor Masahiro Hirakubo, production designer Kave Quinn, and music by Underworld. This team helped shape the look and feel of most of Boyle’s work. The film has a great cast in addition to McGregor, especially Ewen Bremmer, Jonny Lee Miller, Kevin McKidd, Robert Carlyle, and then newcomer Kelly Macdonald. What makes the film great is its characters, its soundtrack, the dialogue – the experience of watching the film, being engrossed in the culture that the film portrays. Check out the trailer.

Trainspotting [Blu-ray/DVD]