Exodus: Gods and Kings (5/10): A disappointing Biblical adaptation from the talented Ridley Scott

“Follow me and you will be free. Stay and you will perish.”

Ridley Scott is always a director to look forward to when it comes to films. I know he has had his series of misses as of late, but with films like Alien and Blade Runner under his belt, you know his next film could become a classic. Alien is one of my favorite sci-fi films of all time and I even enjoyed Scott’s recent prequel, Prometheus, more than most audiences did. Exodus isn’t the first time Scott has tried to make an epic film because it is similar in scope to what he did with Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, and Robin Hood. Unfortunately, Exodus is the weakest of the four in my opinion. Scott has also experimented with different genres and last year’s The Counselor was proof of that. He’s even made some smaller films which I really enjoyed such as Matchstick Men which I was a huge fan of. I appreciate these smaller scale films more than when he tries to make these grandiose and epic ones. My major issue with this film revolves around the pacing because it felt so long and dull for most parts. It was as if Scott was aiming to direct an ambitious epic film and was trying to make it so grand that he got lost with the production and visuals of it and left out the actual narrative. There are several things I’d like to get out of the way before I actually review this film. First of all, if you are expecting a faithful adaptation to the Biblical story then Exodus isn’t a movie for you because Scott and the screenwriters took several liberties of their own (especially in the way Moses interacted with God and the Pharaoh). This is the second big budget film based on the Old Testament to come out last year, after Aronofsky directed Noah, which both took liberties from the original source material but in my opinion at least Aronofsky did something fresh and unique with the material, while Scott never manages to do so. Second, I don’t understand why we complaint so much about the casting of white actors and forget about the fact that the characters are all speaking in English. What is the point of casting all Egyptian and Hebrew actors and have them speak in English? At least Scott went all in and just cast famous actors without considering anything else.

It took me a while to get over the silliness of the opening sequences. On the one hand, Scott made a huge effort of recreating the Egyptian empire with huge production sets, but on the other the familiar faces of the actors kind of took me out of the film. Having John Turturro playing the Pharaoh and Sigourney Weaver his wife was difficult to visualize. I think Joel Edgerton is a great actor, but he wasn’t the right man for the role of Ramses. Christian Bale delivers as Moses and Ben Mendelssohn has the most campy scenes in the film but I think they helped to break the tedious tone of the film. Aaron Paul and Ben Kingsley are inexplicably underused. Despite the nice visuals (I don’t think they were groundbreaking), the story was poorly written and that is perhaps why some of these incredible actors didn’t have much to work with. There are some moments in the film where Moses is given some humanity, but whatever depth they tried to give the characters got lost in the visuals and the narrative. We know the story and have seen it played out several times in films before, so that is perhaps why I found some of the engaging scenes rather tedious because Scott doesn’t really do anything unique with the material. By the time the plagues take place we really don’t care for the characters and aren’t emotionally invested in them either. Yes, the scenes look great but there is nothing more there. I also expected a lot more from the parting of the Red Sea, but it simply was a forgettable scene. The only moment I felt some sort of emotion toward this dull film was with the dedication to his brother Tony during the end credits, but the film didn’t actually do anything for me. I was more emotionally engaged with the animated film The Prince of Egypt than I was with this. Skip the movie, read Exodus instead. 

My Review: Fading Gigolo (4/10)

"This could definitely be the beginning of a very beautiful relationship between the three of us."

Fading Gigolo is John Turturro's fifth turn at the director's chair for which he also starred and wrote the screenplay, although Woody Allen's participation in the film makes you wonder how much of a factor he was in the screenplay because there are several scenes that you know were influenced by him. Some of his classic trademarks are found in the script as he talks about death and sex in a quirky way. The plot is a bit ridiculous, especially when the subplots involving the Brooklyn Jewish community begin to take center stage midway through the film. As long as the story focused on the chemistry between Turturro and Allen the film seemed delightful and witty, but when the other characters began to get involved the film lost its focus and identity. It didn't work for me as neither a comedy nor a drama, but there are some solid scenes when the two lead actors are on screen together. 

I don't know how much influence Allen really had on Turturro's overall script, but unfortunately when the story centered on Turturro and the female characters it didn't really work well. The female characters seemed one dimensional and their dialogues were weak and awkward. It is a shame because Sharon Stone and Sofia Vergara are great actresses who could have lifted this film with stronger material to work with. The entire concept of this film is absurd, but Turturro almost pulled it off when the screenplay centered on his chemistry with Woody Allen. If the two would have shared more scenes together I think this would've been much more enjoyable. It is a very uneven film and one that has divided audiences. It's success might depend on how much of a Woody Allen fan you are. 

My Review: Transformers: The Dark Side of the Moon (4/10)

¨You may lose faith in us, but never in yourselves¨

Somehow after the third Transformers film I have managed to lose my faith in the highly successful blockbuster director Michael Bay and screenwriter Ehren Kruger who have turned one of my favorite cartoons into a terrible franchise. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the first Transformers and thought it was awesome to see those characters brought to the big screen, but the sequels just haven’t managed to live up to expectations and my faith in the series is long lost. As Optimus Prime states, at least I haven’t managed to lose my faith in myself. The special effects are extraordinary and we get plenty of action, but there is no character development whatsoever. The movie is exceedingly long (over two and a half hours) and not even with all that extra time do we get to see some character development. The final showdown is also extremely long, but I guess action fans won`t be disappointed because they get a lot of excellent fights and cool visuals. As for me, I would have liked a better story with more character development. I could have also used a bit more comedy; the jokes just get old after three films and I would`ve really enjoyed something fresh and original in the series instead of relying on John Turturro all over again for the funniest moments. There are some new additions to the franchise, some interesting actors, but none of them are enough to save the franchise. Transformers is one of those movies that is extremely loud and makes a lot of noise, but really never ends up saying anything at all.

Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is back again to save the world for a third time from the Decepticons, although this time he has a new girlfriend, Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley). He meets her at the White House after receiving a medal of honor from president Obama. Sam is out of college, but is having trouble finding a job, although he is living with Carly who is doing well at her new job working as an assistant for a rich man named Dylan (Patrick Dempsey). On the meantime, the Autobots are helping humans maintain peace between them while the Decepticons remain silent. Lennox (Josh Duhamel), who works with the Autobots, receives a call from Ukraine saying that they have found some form of alien life at a former radiation plant. The Decepticons seem to be searching for something and the answers can be found in the past: they have to do with man`s first arrival at the moon. A few select men at NASA have been hiding some key information about what really was hidden at the dark side of the moon: a Cybertronian spacecraft containing some dark secrets. Both Decepticons and Autobots begin a race to uncover this secret that could threaten life on Earth. Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ratchet, and the rest of the Autobots are back along with some new ones, while Megatron leads the Decepticon`s new army.  There are some plot twists so I do not want to give too much of it away, but the main focus of the film is almost entirely on the action and the almost hour long destruction of Chicago.

In this third film we discover that Optimus Prime isn’t the last remaining Prime after all since Sentinel Prime has been unconscious in the dark side of the moon during all these years. When Optimus Prime finds him he revives him with the Matrix; but Sentinel isn’t the only new character in this film, we also have Frances McDormand as Chief Mearing in charge of the NEST operation, the funny Ken Jeong as Jerry Wang, Sam`s co-worker who might know what NASA was hiding doing the trip to the moon, there is also John Malkovich as Sam`s new boss, and then there is Alan Tudyk as the Dutch who is Simmons`s personal assistant. Even though we have all these new characters (remember I also mentioned Carly who replaced Megan Fox, and her boss Dylan) the film still seems more of the same and lacks freshness and originality. None of these characters were able to bring something new to the franchise because the script was mediocre and the film relied solely on the spectacular visuals and action scenes. Much of what Michael Bay puts on film is eye-candy, that is the reason he brought Rosie Huntington-Whiteley to replace Fox as she isn’t much of an actress, but she is just as hot as Fox. I just wished Bay spent the same amount of time he does on the action scenes with the screenplay. The 3D visuals work really well in this film, especially with the action scenes and the destruction of Chicago, but the movie just felt way too long in my opinion. I`m also tired of the open ended finales which suggest there might be another sequel on the way, and wish they just brought closure to the Transformers franchise

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Cars 2 (5/10)

¨-Finn McMissile, British intelligence. -Tow Mater, average intelligence¨

I`m glad kids don`t read my reviews because they would probably disagree with everything I have to say about this film. The kids I saw the movie with in the theater had a blast and thought this was the best film they`ve seen. I on the other hand felt the story was really weak. When it comes to a Pixar film my expectations have grown exceedingly high, and they`re to blame for that because with Toy Story 3, Up, and Ratatouille I`ve come to love Pixar movies for their heartfelt stories. Cars 2 on the other hand is missing that important aspect: there is no heart in this film. The story is loaded with a lot of action, it’s simple, predictable, and the jokes are mostly targeted towards kids. Young audiences will be pleased, I`m ok with this as well, but I know Pixar can do much better. Cars 2 won`t remain in my mind like the characters from Toy Story or Up did. It is light entertainment and many adults will be unpleased with the movie. I know other adults will be glad that their kids enjoyed the film so much so they won`t have complaints about Cars, but for those of us who really enjoy these Pixar films on their own we know this movie just didn`t live up to expectations. It`s like the producers didn`t even try and relied on the known characters to entertain the audience without worrying about writing a better story. Kids love spy movies so all they did was turn Cars into an action spy movie and voila: we got Cars 2.

Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) has just won his fourth consecutive Piston Cup and is heading back to Radiator Springs after another successful season in racing. Doc Hudson is gone, but McQueen has dedicated yet another trophy to his mentor. Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) is the most excited about McQueen`s return, and Sally (Bonnie Hunt) is also glad to be back with her hubby. McQueen is looking forward to spending some quality time with them, but Mater convinces him to enter the World Grand Prix race which is being sponsored by multi billionaire Sir Miles Axlerod (Eddie Izzard). Miles has invented a new type of green fuel and the cars will be using it for the races. McQueen`s biggest competitor is Italian Formula 1 racecar, Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro), a cocky driver who drives the ladies crazy. The race however is only the subplot because once Mater arrives in Tokyo he is mistaken for a spy. Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) are British spies who are after Professor Z (Thomas Kretschmann) who seems to be trying to burn the Grand Prix by making the cars using the alternative fuel blow up. The British spies confuse Mater with an American spy and so he inadvertently becomes immersed in the action. Mater becomes the lead character in this film, and McQueen is just a supporting one.

John Lasseter and Brad Lewis couldn’t bring back the magic in Cars 2 that they had brought to their previous films. The first film wasn’t one of my favorites among Pixar movies, but it certainly is much better than this sequel. One of the major problems I had with it is that Mater took central stage and I don’t think his character had what it takes to be the lead. He was always meant to be just a supporting character for other more depth characters like Lightning McQueen. The visuals are stunning as always. There are some scenes in Tokyo, London, and Italy that are just breathtaking, but the story falls way too short. Cars 2 is entertaining, but it`s just missing everything that Pixar has accustomed us to. Little kids won’t be disappointed; they will have fun with all the espionage and explosions, but adults looking for a heartfelt film will be leaving wanting and expecting more. The fun was targeted almost exclusively for kids and some adults may find this movie lame and predictable. Other Pixar films have made us enjoy going to the movies with our kids, but this one might make adults think twice about going with their kids to the movies and perhaps sending them with their nanny`s the next time. I was disappointed with Cars 2, but only because Pixar has done way better in the past. It’s not terrible, just light entertaining fun for the children.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/