Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

What happened, Ridley Scott? At one point in time I would have strongly considered the mastermind behind Alien and Blade Runner one of my favorite directors; his director’s cuts were stuff of legend (Blade Runner and Kingdom of Heaven to name a couple) and even if Robin Hood was a bit of a misstep, he was the master of swords and sandals flicks (Gladiator remains of the best examples of this genre). However, with his most recent film, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Ridley Scott has really made me question whether or not he might have lost the touch.

Exodus is of course the movie that has become infamous for its mostly all-white cast (in case you’re unaware this is a movie all about Egyptians, who almost certainly don’t look very white), which has caused more than a few people to boycott the film and the country of Egypt to ban it altogether. So just how bad is the casting, really? Well, let’s put it this way, the cast in any film, shouldn’t distract from the movie; in the case of Exodus, the casting is so off-putting, it was hard for me to concentrate on anything else. First of all, Joel Edgerton plays the role of Ramses, and for those who don’t know Joel Edgerton, he might possibly be the least pharaoh-like person to ever grace the movie screen, and the choice to cast Sigourney Weaver as his mother is even worse. These aren’t the only bizarrely miscast roles, however, there’s also Christian Bale as Moses (cue the “guy named Christian plays Moses” jokes) Aaron Paul as Joshua (who’s not even supposed to be in this story) and finally the casting of God himself, but more on that later. Remember, these people are supposed to be Egyptian (and Jewish) characters, and not only are they not remotely Egyptian or Hebrew, but they’re so far from it I can’t even take the film seriously. Literally, every scene looks like white people dressed in poor imitation Egyptian makeup shouting at each other with bizarre accents (are they supposed to be Egyptian accents? Or Egyptian-like English accents? I’m so confused). All of this might (but probably wouldn’t) be excusable, if the movie itself was actually entertaining, but alas, it is not.

Normally, I’m not one to be a stickler over changes from the original source material in an adaptation, as long as these changes are at least somewhat creative and bring new light to the story; I can safely say this is not the case with Exodus. I’m sure “fans” of the original story won’t appreciate many of the changes here, and I can’t say that I did either, mostly because they’re just plain disappointing. For example, the oft-referenced burning bush scene is completely ruined here; for whatever reason instead of god speaking to Moses through a burning bush, he instead stands next to a burning bush, while Moses takes an oddly timed mud spa bath (I know it doesn’t make sense, but this is what happens). Not only that, but the god in question is played by a rather unimpressive eight year-old boy with a bad haircut, which is far from inspired casting but I wouldn’t expect much else at this point.

Of course, one of the big moments of this story and thus the film is the ten plagues (which I’m all but certain have been condensed down into nine for this movie). Unfortunately, this is where the movie really stumbles. Instead of being the highlight of the story as it should be, it comes off formulaic and boring. Every plague is the same; show the plague; show the people reacting to the plague; show the pharaoh’s reaction; show the aftermath and lather, rinse, repeat. By the time the more visually impressive plagues come along I could hardly be bothered to be interested anymore, and those familiar with the story will most likely be disappointed in how little Moses has to do with any of it.

There’s plenty wrong with Ridley Scott’s latest effort, but honestly, it’s not even worth going into in any great detail. The red sea parting looks fine visually, but it’s nothing new, and the ending is somewhat anti-climactic (actually, it’s very anti-climactic, but I barely cared anymore at that point anyway). If you’re looking for a faithful adaptation, look elsewhere; if you’re looking for an exciting swords and sandals type epic, look elsewhere; seriously, just look elsewhere, period. If you want to watch a good adaption of this story, I suggest The Prince of Egypt, it’s on Netflix right now; or if you’re looking for good Ridley Scott, The Gladiator is on there too; but, ultimately, just anything besides Exodus: Gods and Kings.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 3.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528100/?ref_=nv_sr_1

The Fighter (2010)

It is rare in this day of sequels and remakes to find a quality film that is both original and engrossing, but the movie “The Fighter” definitely meets these standards in every way possible. While the story itself may not seem original at first (we’ve all seen the underdog boxer winning in the end in at least six Rocky movies) it is told in such a different way that it seems both fresh and familiar. The superb acting, directing, and story-telling all blend perfectly in a film that is neither melodramatic nor slow, but simply tells its story confidently the way it was meant to be told without trying to oversell it or “beef it up”.  One can only hope that other studios will take note and attempt to make more films like it, but alas this does not seem entirely likely.

 Many of us may have grown a bit tired of boxing films after all those Rocky films, which are admittedly pretty good boxing films, but still one grows tired of the same thing again and again. The Fighter, however, takes a much different approach than any of the Rocky films, as we really delve deep into the main character (Micky Ward). Rather than focusing on Micky Ward’s (played by an always charming Mark Wahlberg) training or his various fights as we often see in boxing movies, director David O. Russel chooses to focus more on Micky’s relationship with his family, especially with his brother Dicky (played by a remarkably thin Christian Bale here). The movie brings in several supporting characters and really makes us feel as if this story were really happening, and indeed the movie is in fact based upon a true story. Thankfully, Russel is very skilled at reminding us that this is in fact a real story without throwing it in our face. For example, when the movie begins it is presented in a documentary-type style, indeed there is a bit of a movie within a movie here before the film gradually transfers into a more typical film style.

 All of the characters are well rounded and we can see in each one of them their own selfish desires, even Micky is not immune to them. Neither is Micky’s girlfriend (the lovely Amy Adams), who seems to go overboard in her effort to separate him from his overbearing family. The film itself strives to teach its audience a few lessons, and it succeeds without ever really feeling preachy or melodramatic, which is quite an accomplishment unto itself.

Russell is truly effective at drawing us into the story, and to be honest I probably could have watched a film about any one of the various subplots and been satisfied, the boxing at the end really feels like icing on top of the cake. Of course, icing is often the best part of the cake, and that is truly the case in this film. Although we almost forget about Micky’s real goal amidst all the other drama, once the film reaches its climax we quickly realize this is the moment we have been waiting for all along.

Films like The Fighter seem to be rare now, but one can only wonder why. Perhaps there aren’t many special effects or much over-the-top action (although the fights at the end are plenty exciting), but the movie has what many other big films lack, a decent story and plot. The Fighter doesn’t try to make its story more than what it is with a loud blaring soundtrack or confusing dialogue and non-stop action, it simply tells its story, believing (correctly so) that it is good enough as is. Take note, Hollywood!

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 9.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0964517/?ref_=nv_sr_1