File: D:/MariaDB Data/bestfilmreviews/wp_posts.ibd
�������� �[ � � � � ( f � � ���� ���� ���� ���� & & ���� ���� ���������������� ���� ���� ���������������� ���� ���� ���������������� ���� > ���������������� f ���������������� >���� ���������������� �[��� �������� �q� � �q��4_w �������� �[ ����� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �i� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ! ���� ���� � � � ��i�
! " # $ % & ' ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �i� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �i�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �i� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �i�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �i� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �i�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �i� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �i�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �[�k�� �������� �yrE� � �
� k JQ � � � 2 infimum supremum * ! u ) � L 1 � ` 9 � p A O � I�| f � p � c�yr�Z�� �������� # ��E� � -n�� � z� JR � r � � �infimum supremum �hello-world �home xabout (mcontact
0 �4-revision-v1
8 �5-revision-v1
@w6-revision-v1 H�home P
16 X V18
`�}4-autosave-v1
h 4-revision-v1
pJ4-revision-v1
x�G5-autosave-v1
�*5-revision-v1 & �
�blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review � 32-revision-v1 ! � 32-revision-v1 " � �32-revision-v1 #
���6-autosave-v1 %
�6-revision-v1 & ��blade_runner_ver8-jpg-ver2 ) ��rachel-deckard-2 * �hla2019 + ��32-revision-v1 , �[cinemascreen - ��cropped-cinemascreen-3-jpg 3 ��science-fiction 5 ��thirteen-days-of-epics 6 � t53-revision-v1 7 }54-revision-v1 8 57 9 ��58 : ��53-autosave-v1 < �53-revision-v1 =(�pellucidar-jungle2 > 0��blade-runner-2049-review B' 8�1blade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlg C @ 66-revision-v1 D HV53-revision-v1 E P �32-revision-v1 F
X 1-autosave-v1 G
` 1-revision-v1 I
h�1-revision-v1 K p �cropped-pellucidar-jungle2-jpg O x��32-autosave-v1 P� �32-revision-v1 Q9 ���cropped-cropped-cropped-cropped-films-hero-1260x600-1-jpg W � �cropped-cinemascreen-jpg Y ��32-revision-v1 ] � 94 ^ � 95 _ ��Z97 a� 101 e � �102 f � 66-autosave-v1 h ��66-revision-v1 i
��1-revision-v1 m
��4-revision-v1 q��13daysofepics-mkii r �54-autosave-v1 s� 54-revision-v1 t 54-revision-v1 u [54-revision-v1 v�the-ten-commandments y �121-revision-v1 { K54-revision-v1 | ( �troy ~ 0 9126-revision-v1 �8Y54-revision-v1 � @ :126-revision-v1 �H��126-autosave-v1 � P t126-revision-v1 � X7ten_commandments_ver3 � ` Q121-revision-v1 � h
Jtroy_ver7 � p �126-revision-v1 � x
Q121-revision-v1 � � �300-2 ����three_hundred_ver10_xlg � � V143-revision-v1 � � 54-revision-v1 � ���143-autosave-v1 � �
143-revision-v1 � � �126-revision-v1 � �
�alexander-revisited-cut � ���alexander_ver3 � � :152-revision-v1 ���152-autosave-v1 � � 9152-revision-v1 � �54-revision-v1 � � 152-revision-v1 ��Y152-revision-v1 � ���spartacus � poster � ��slavetorome � ��kirkdouglas � �olivier � �gracchuscaesar � ( g162-revision-v1 � 0 g54-revision-v1 � 8 cleopatra � @�cleopatra � H 9172-revision-v1 �Po54-revision-v1 � X �172-revision-v1 � ` Qquo-vadis �h P179-revision-v1 � p��179-autosave-v1 � x�bquovadis � ���179-revision-v1 �� ben-hur � ���benhur ���Tcap6 � � Hcap1 � � cap3 � � cap4 � ���cap5 � ���cap2 � � 9185-revision-v1 � � �54-revision-v1 �� 185-revision-v1 � � :185-revision-v1 � �185-autosave-v1 � ��185-revision-v1 � � gladiator � �Jgladiator � 9201-revision-v1 � �54-revision-v1 � N201-revision-v1 � �the-vikings �
(�thevikings � 0�209-revision-v1 � 8 `54-revision-v1 �@ el-cid � H -elcid � P�214-revision-v1 � X �54-revision-v1 � ` Jkingdom-of-heaven-directors-cut � h :219-revision-v1 � p�kingdomofheaven �x<219-revision-v1 � � �54-revision-v1 � ���babylon � ���eagle � ��$ptolemy � � 152-revision-v1 � ��152-revision-v1 � � henry-v � ��Ihenryv � � 231-revision-v1 � � 9231-revision-v1 � ��.54-revision-v1 � � C231-revision-v1 � � yhallowed-halls-of-horror �� 6241-revision-v1 � ��Xvan-helsing � � T244-revision-v1 � �0hallowed-halls-of-horror � K248 � 247-revision-v1 � �247-revision-v1 � 1252-2 � (�dracula_ver3_xlg � 0 252-revision-v1 � 8 ~252-revision-v1 @ ~247-revision-v1 H*mary-shelleys-frankenstein P�efrankenstein94 X j258-revision-v1 `��247-revision-v1 " h��cropped-cropped-cinemascreen-3-jpg
pb269
x�van_helsing_ver3 ��}121-autosave-v1 � 121-revision-v1 ���121-revision-v1 � 126-revision-v1 ��W126-revision-v1 ��143-revision-v1 �J152-revision-v1 � �jumanji �P287-revision-v1 " ��adventure-films #� ?291-revision-v1 $� 293 % �/295 ' �Y291-revision-v1 ( �|jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle ) ���all-the-money-in-the-world * :298-revision-v1 + ��298-autosave-v1 , 298-revision-v1 - ��298-revision-v1 . ��214-autosave-v1 / (*214-revision-v1 0 0�o297-revision-v1 6 8��the-shape-of-water 7 @ K311-revision-v1 8 H�|the-wild-west-2 > P .320 @ X .318-revision-v1 A `�322 B h� 318-revision-v1 C p 185-revision-v1 E x�w185-revision-v1 F ���219-autosave-v1 H � 219-revision-v1 I � 219-revision-v1 J ��c219-revision-v1 K ��152-revision-v1 L ��143-revision-v1 M �� 209-revision-v1 N ���172-revision-v1 O ��(the-lost-world-poster P ��the-lost-world-1925-review Q� \337-revision-v1 R �*king-kong-1993-review S ���kingkongposter T � �339-revision-v1 U ��291-autosave-v1 V � *mighty-joe-young-1949-review W �mightyjoeyoung49 X w343-revision-v1 Y w291-revision-v1 Z �king-kong-1976-review [ ��king_kong_76 \ ( �347-revision-v1 ] 0 c291-revision-v1 ^ 8� cinematicadventure _ @��ray-harryhausen-pictures ` H 291-revision-v1 a P m291-revision-v1 b X��elephantboy d `��elephant-boy f h�7358-revision-v1 g p�!291-revision-v1 h x��287-autosave-v1 j p
��"�"" ~
��) �� � �~� � + � ���+'[>�t��;
` %4
�
3�B_ c# ���?�u �������� # ��E� � :! �� � z� JS � � � 2 �infimum supremum 6postpublish��� � pagepublish���3 pagepublish���3 (�pagepublish���3 0 #revisioninherit���3
8 #revisioninherit���3 @ �revisioninherit���3
H (nav_menu_itempublish���3
P (nav_menu_itempublish���3
Xnav_menu_itempublish���3 ` Frevisioninherit����y h��revisioninherit��ҡ, p #revisioninherit���� x #revisioninherit���� � Brevisioninherit���� ��pagepublish���@� � #revisioninherit��� ! � #revisioninherit���4 " � #revisioninherit���� # � #revisioninherit���!y % � �revisioninherit���!� &
� %attachmentinherit���.� )
� %attachmentinherit���<� *
� Hattachmentinherit���>� + � �revisioninherit���@� ,
� %attachmentinherit���A� -
�?attachmentinherit���B9 3 � pagepublish���B� 5 � pagepublish���B� 6 � #revisioninherit���B� 7 �revisioninherit���B� 8
(nav_menu_itempublish���B� 9
�nav_menu_itempublish���B� : �revisioninherit���� < �revisioninherit���F� =
( Dattachmentinherit���w4 >0�pagepublish���h B
8 �attachmentinherit���! C @�Qrevisioninherit���h D H #revisioninherit���� E P Frevisioninherit��� FX�revisioninherit���s G ` #revisioninherit����m Ih Hrevisioninherit����
K
p kattachmentinherit���� O x #revisioninherit����Y P � mrevisioninherit����i Q
� %attachmentinherit����� W
��attachmentinherit����K Y � �revisioninherit���q ]
� (nav_menu_itempublish���� ^
� (nav_menu_itempublish���� _
� (nav_menu_itempublish���� a
� (nav_menu_itempublish���� e
�Vnav_menu_itempublish���� f� #revisioninherit���� h � #revisioninherit���� i � #revisioninherit���� m �revisioninherit��� � q
��attachmentinherit���+� r � #revisioninherit���,� s � #revisioninherit���,� t #revisioninherit���-7 u Brevisioninherit���-N v epagepublish���{4 y #revisioninherit���{4 { Brevisioninherit���{U | (�pagepublish���~� ~ 0 #revisioninherit���~� �8 #revisioninherit���~� � @ Frevisioninherit��� v � H�revisioninherit��^� � P Hrevisioninherit���4 �
X Hattachmentinherit���4c � ` Hrevisioninherit���4h �
h �attachmentinherit���Qq �p #revisioninherit���Q� � x grevisioninherit���Q� � � �pagepublish���yC �
� �attachmentinherit���x� � � #revisioninherit���yC � � Frevisioninherit���y� � ��revisioninherit��?m+ �� #revisioninherit���#� � � grevisioninherit���r� ��pagepublish���|� �
�attachmentinherit���y� � � Frevisioninherit���|� � ��revisioninherit��?k� � � #revisioninherit���} �� #revisioninherit���}* � � #revisioninherit���� � � �revisioninherit��ℎ � � pagepublish���v� �
%attachmentinherit���u� �
%attachmentinherit���u� �
%attachmentinherit���u� �
%attachmentinherit���v
�
�attachmentinherit���v� � ( #revisioninherit���v� �0 grevisioninherit���v� � 8 �pagepublish���}� �
@ �attachmentinherit���|� � H #revisioninherit���}� � P #revisioninherit���}� � X Brevisioninherit��挠 � ` �pagepublish���t� �h #revisioninherit���t� � p Hrevisioninherit���vB �
x gattachmentinherit���vT � �Erevisioninherit���v] ���pagepublish���� �
� %attachmentinherit���S �
� %attachmentinherit���d �
� %attachmentinherit���� �
� %attachmentinherit���
�
� %attachmentinherit���0 �
� %attachmentinherit���] �
�attachmentinherit���� � � #revisioninherit���� �� #revisioninherit���* � � #revisioninherit���� � � Frevisioninherit���� � � revisioninherit���+� � � grevisioninherit���� � � �pagepublish���� �
�attachmentinherit���
� � #revisioninherit���� � #revisioninherit���H � grevisioninherit���9 � �pagepublish��� � �
( �attachmentinherit��� � � 0 #revisioninherit��� � �8 grevisioninherit���
7 � @ �pagepublish���W �
H �attachmentinherit���E � P #revisioninherit���W � X Brevisioninherit���o �`bpagepublish��� � h Hrevisioninherit��� �
p kattachmentinherit��� X �x #revisioninherit��� ^ � � �revisioninherit��� v �
� %attachmentinherit���H �
� %attachmentinherit���� �
� �attachmentinherit���� � � #revisioninherit��� � � grevisioninherit���: � �pagepublish���y! �
��attachmentinherit���w �� #revisioninherit���y! � � #revisioninherit���yZ � � #revisioninherit���y� � � Brevisioninherit���zl ���postpublish��� � �� Brevisioninherit��� � � � Bpagepublish���!� � � jrevisioninherit���!� � �pagepublish���"[ �
�nav_menu_itempublish���"[ � #revisioninherit���"[ � grevisioninherit���"� � �pagepublish���Ab �
( �attachmentinherit���=h �0 #revisioninherit���Ab � 8 #revisioninherit���Aq @ grevisioninherit���A� H3pagepublish���J`
P kattachmentinherit���FN X #revisioninherit���J` ` �revisioninherit���J�
h Mattachmentinherit��^�7
p�nav_menu_itempublish��^��
x�attachmentinherit��^� � Frevisioninherit��^� ���revisioninherit��^�� � #revisioninherit��^� ��|revisioninherit��^�� � #revisioninherit��^�W � #revisioninherit��^�� � Brevisioninherit��^�� �postpublish���� � Brevisioninherit���� " �*pagepublish����Z # � srevisioninherit���� $
� (nav_menu_itempublish����Z %
��nav_menu_itempublish���� ' � arevisioninherit���� ( �3postpublish��9|� ) ���postpublish���� * Frevisioninherit���� + Frevisioninherit���9 , ��revisioninherit���d - #revisioninherit���A . #revisioninherit��� / ( #revisioninherit��� H 0 0 Brevisioninherit��9|� 68zpostpublish��B g 7 @ jrevisioninherit��B g 8 H�pagepublish��[t� >
P Knav_menu_itempublish��[t� @X Krevisioninherit��[t� A
`�dnav_menu_itempublish��[t� B h�revisioninherit��[t� C p #revisioninherit���+� Ex Frevisioninherit���, F � Frevisioninherit��?i� H ���revisioninherit��?g� I � #revisioninherit��?i� J��srevisioninherit��?j: K ��revisioninherit��?l� L� #revisioninherit��?mJ M � #revisioninherit��?p� N � grevisioninherit��?q O
� �attachmentinherit��?r� P � Bpostpublish��?st Q � grevisioninherit��?st R � �postpublish��?vI S
� �attachmentinherit��?t� T� �revisioninherit��?vI U ��revisioninherit��F� V � �postpublish��Cx W
�attachmentinherit��Cw� X #revisioninherit��Cx Y grevisioninherit��Cy; Z ?postpublish��C|O [
kattachmentinherit��C| \ ( #revisioninherit��C|O ]0��revisioninherit��C|� ^
8 %attachmentinherit��F�8 _
@ kattachmentinherit��F�y ` H #revisioninherit��F� a P grevisioninherit��F�� b
X��attachmentinherit��G 7 d `�^postpublish��G� f h #revisioninherit��G� g p #revisioninherit��G h x�nrevisioninherit��ae� j p � � z 4 � %�A��
�)��@Q � �
D!*g s�EA����� @t ����d ��z�
u
��� c# ��5< � �������� # ��E� � 4��� � z� JT � r � � infimum supremum ( T 0 ~
8 � @ H P X ~ ` h p� x ��X � � � ! � " � ? # � % �� & � ) � * � + �P , � - � 3 � 5 � ? 6 � T 5 7 a 6 8 9 ? : 5 < i 5 = ( >0 � B 8 B C@e B D H�C 5 E P i F X G ` I h& K p ? O x P � ? Q � W � * Y ��\ ]� ^ � * _ �� a � e �3 f � B h � � B i �� m � q � 6 r� 6 s � 6 t 6 u 6 v * 6 y � y { 6 | ( * 6 ~ 0 * ~ � 8 � 6 �@ ~ � H ~ � P ? ~ �X y � ` ? y � h ~ �p � ~ � x� y �� ? 6 � � � � � * � � � T 6 �� � � �� � � �� ~ � � i 6 � � � � � � �� � � � * � � � � 6 � � � � �/ � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � ( ? � �0 T 6 � 8 i � @ � � H * � � PP 6 �X� � � ` i � h � � p � � x � �� * � � �& � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � �� * � � � � 6 � � � � � � � � � ��� � �� i � � � * � � i 6 � * � � T �( � � 0� � �8 T 6 � @ T � H � � P� � � X i 6 � ` � �h � � p � � xU � � � � 6 �� � � � � � � � � � � � �� � �� ~ � � � �� � � � * � � �� 6 � � * � � � * � � * � � � * �� ? � � � � � � � � � T � � ( � � 0 � �8 ? � @ T � H T P X `�m � h
p
x � � y � y ��$ y � ~ ��� ~ �� � �v � � * �� " � * #� ? # $ � %� * ' �� # ( � ) � � * * + * , * - i * . � / (�h � 0 0�� ) 6 8 * 7 @ ? 7 8H > P * @X * > A ` B h � > C p � E x�� � F � � H � � I � � J �� � K ��| � L ��� � M ��� � N ��N � O � * Q P � * Q � * Q R� T S� S T � ? S U � T # V � T W W X ? W Y T # Z � [ [ \ ( � [ ]0 # ^ 8 # _ @ # ` H # a P T # b X d`�+ f h� f g p�� # h x�� j p_�(1�
^ � � <
�
@ � � �3 8�7�;z� f���iGu� � ��J���
� �
� �q�� � c# ����U� �������� # ��E� � <��� � � z� JU � � � 2 infimum supremum ( 0
8 @ H P X ` h p x � � � ! � " � # � % � & � ) � * � + � , � - � 3 � 5 � 6 � 7 8 9 : < =( > 0 B 8 C @ DH E P F X G ` Ih K p O x P � Q� W � Y � ] � ^� _ � a � e � f� h � i � m � q� r � s � t u v y { |( ~ 0 � 8 � @ �H � P � X � ` �h � p � x � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � �( � 0 � 8 � @ �H � P � X � ` �h � p � x � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � �( � 0 � 8 � @ �H � P � X � ` �h � p � x � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � �( � 0 � 8 @ H P X ` h
p
x � � � � � � � � � "� # � $ � % � '� ( � ) � * + , - . /( 0 0 6 8 7 @ 8H > P @ X A ` Bh C p E x F � H� I � J � K � L� M � N � O � P� Q � R � S � T� U � V � W X Y Z [ \( ] 0 ^ 8 _ @ `H a P b X d ` f h g p h x� j pp �t �x$�|(��,��0
�
�
4 � � 8 � � <
�
�
@ � � D��H��L��P��T �X�\�` �d � c# ����O �������� �ڌ
� 8m����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-41" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_ver8.jpg-ver2-337x500.jpg" alt="" width="337" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Ridley Scott</strong>
<strong>Written by: Hampton Fancher & David Webb Peoples</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Michael Deeley</strong>
<strong>Studio: The Ladd Company, The Shaw Brothers, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on: <em>Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?</em> by Philip K. Dick</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 25th June, 1982</strong>
<p style="text-align: left;">What is Sir Ridley Scott’s masterpiece? Is <i>Alien </i>the winner without a shadow of doubt? Or possibly the crowd-pleasing <i>Gladiator</i>? Perhaps one of the most agreed-upon candidates is the sci-fi noir classic <i>Blade Runner</i>. Speaking personally, I came into the fold quite recently. Before seeing it, all I knew was that it had incredible visuals, atmosphere and a solid cast. What I didn’t realise until recently was this film’s ability to grow on me to such a point where I had no hesitations in calling it a masterpiece and a three-way contender with the other two Ridley classics.</p>
Los Angeles, November 2019. Ex-police officer Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is detained by officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) and brought to his former supervisor, Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh). Deckard, whose job as a “blade runner” was to track down bioengineered beings known as replicants to kill or “retire”, is informed that four of them have come to Earth illegally. As Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 models, they only have a four-year lifespan and may have come to Earth to try and extend their lives.
Deckard watches a video of a blade runner named Holden (Morgan Paull) being shot by the test subject, Leon (Brion James), after he asks about Leon’s mother, thus revealing himself as a replicant. Bryant wants Deckard to retire Leon and the other three replicants: Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) and Pris (Daryl Hannah). Deckard meets with Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) and is introduced to his assistant, Rachael (Sean Young), an experimental Nexus-6 model who believes herself to be human. Rachael has been given false memories to provide an “emotional cushion”, and she is devastated to find out later on that her memories were implanted from Tyrell’s niece. Roy and Leon investigate a replicant eye-manufacturing laboratory and learn of J. F. Sebastian (William Sanderson), a gifted genetic designer who works closely with Tyrell. Pris locates him and manipulates J.F. in order to gain his trust and get closer to Tyrell. Deckard’s search for the replicants is pitted against their own search for their creator.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-42" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/rachel-deckard-2-500x208.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="208" />
The acting is excellent and tailors itself well to the type of film that this is. Ford disappears into the slick, laidback detective role, very much a Humphrey Bogart figure like Sam Spade, managing to put a lot of personality and nuance into the role. Young as Rachael has a fragility and mystery about her, seeming at times more human than Deckard. While both actors work well in their respective roles, I don’t find myself invested in the relationship between Deckard and Rachael, as it starts out very rough and uncouth, and there isn’t any real chemistry between Ford and Young. Hauer has an incredible presence as Batty, being poetic and charismatic yet believable as a highly-developed synthetic being, making him a great foil. Olmos is dependable as the exotic Gaff. Turkel has an air of businesslike slyness and genius to him as Tyrell. Hannah convincingly dances back and forth between the facade of naive young girl to determined and dangerous replicant. James fits into the role of the slow and unstable Leon. Sanderson does well as as J. F., having the personality and energy of a younger man within an older body. Cassidy has great sensuality and sheer physical prowess as Zhora, putting up a great fight against Ford. Walsh succeeds in making Bryant a sleazy and unpleasant jerkass, and James Hong as genetics engineer Hannibal Chew does a nice job in a limited role.
As soon as you behold the futuristic vision of Los Angeles, you are instantly drawn into its contrast of fiery light and darkness, tall spires and flying cars. The attention to detail is sublime; each setting has a unique character to it. Every main city location is filled with people, giving the city a lived-in quality. The rampant poverty, cramped marketplaces and torrential rain drive home the unpleasant characteristics of the urban sprawl. The balance of cleverly-constructed set work and real-life locations doubling for film environs is admirable. Naturally, all of it was achieved optically through miniatures and it takes your breath away. As photographic effects supervisors, Richard Yuricich, David Dryer and Douglas Trumbull lend their incredible talents to making the miniatures and optical effects look as seamless as possible. With 35mm film that captures the detail of the combined effects, it’s an example of the old ways still being the best ways. The most impressive of which is the Tyrell pyramid, conveying the size and presence of the building masterfully. The matte paintings blend organically into the real sets and really give the impression of a sprawling metropolis. Anything that would require digital technology, such as a car lifting off, is filmed first in-camera and optically blended into the vast setting.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-43" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LA2019-500x209.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="209" />
The cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth is some of the most beautiful in any movie, from the stunning exterior shots with their vivid contrast of light, dark and striking colour timing, to the composition of elements in the foreground and the background. The way the smoke and steam rises up in a simple scene of characters going about their business is all part of the style, and the style feeds into the greater subtext of the film. The angles from the ground or the darkened sky, as well as the futuristic art deco architecture, fuel the film noir aesthetic. The film contains visual homages to to <i>Metropolis</i>, <i>Citizen Kane</i>, <i>Taxi Driver</i>, <i>Apocalypse Now</i>, <i>The Maltese</i> Falcon,<i> </i>and <i>Shanghai Express</i> among others, effectively channelling the same visual language of classic cinema.
The score by Vangelis is one of a kind, mixing elegant electronic synth with ethereal singing, blending in flawlessly with the sound design, and when combined with the stunning visuals, it becomes almost overwhelming. His themes range from soft and melodic to fast-paced and exciting, and just plain otherworldly. It is a masterpiece in futuristic sci-fi film scores.
The dialogue has an old fashioned 1930s or 40s quality to it, which is appropriate for the poverty, segregation, war, and struggles that marked those decades. Despite the revisions provided by David Peoples to the original script by Hampton Fancher, it still feels like one cohesive piece, with most of the weaker scenes and dialogue excised from the 2007 Final Cut. Notably absent from this definitive edition is the Deckard narration that fills in all the expositional gaps, which ultimately took away from Deckard’s detective work and merely pointed out the obvious. We do open with a text crawl explaining the conflict between humans and replicants, but it is necessary to provide backstory and context for the rest of the film. <em>Blade Runner</em> walks a fine line between being an enclosed and intimate piece and yet something sweeping and epic. Still, it is a hard film to get into if you don’t really know what to expect.
The themes of pollution and overpopulation, as well as the death of animal life on Earth as seen in Philip K. Dick’s source novel, are woven throughout the film. The motif of animals is evident and tied very strongly to each of the characters. The slow and durable Leon is likened to a tortoise; the wild and charismatic Roy is a wolf and literally howls as he hunts Deckard in the finale; the lithe yet strong Zhora has an affinity for snakes; the survivor Pris is a raccoon (signified by the eye makeup); and the quiet and unassuming Sebastian is more mouse than man. The owl is shared by Tyrell as a sharp-eyed, cold and calculating character, and also by Rachael for her beauty and intelligence, being Tyrell’s kin to a certain extent. Each of these animal symbols are present or referred to in at least one scene. Lastly, as represented by the dream sequences and indicative of his unique status, there is Deckard’s correlation with a unicorn. Animals are more valued than humans or replicants in this future, but these characters ultimately have worth and aren’t mere commodities or livestock to be put down.
<img src="https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bladerunner_044a1.jpg" alt="Image result for blade runner los angeles hd" />
The enormous high rises convey the theme of social structure, or societal superiority based on vertical ascension; the higher-ups possess opulence, wealth and power, and the ground levels convey poverty, desperation and chaos. The massive Tyrrell building is an echo of the Mayan temple with ornate metal patterns lining the walls, distinguishing his presence as the creator and the most powerful individual in the film. The movie’s Los Angeles, with its permanent dark cloud of smog, billboards hundreds of feet high, and its street poverty living side by side with incredible wealth, may or may not come true, and this vision of the future is starting to appear in numerous cities across the globe. The pervasive influence of corporation is presented through the enticing adverts of a better life off-world, ringing very true of today’s commercially-driven society. The sort of darkness and cynicism that lingers over the film is of a melancholic and mournful sort while not falling into total nihilism. The hunter falls in love with the hunted, and in turn becomes hunted himself.
Despite their depiction as antagonists in the story, the replicants’ motivations are surprisingly sympathetic; the desire to achieve a greater sense of humanity and an extended lifespan. <i>Blade Runner </i>displays the replicants as a slave race deliberately designed to fail, right at the point when they finally understand what this means. We get our first taste of the cruelty bestowed upon them from the moment they’re created, with false memories to trick them into thinking they’re human only to find out their pasts as they “remembered” them were a lie. We see through Roy’s eyes just how horrible it is to be a creature who exists only to kill other creatures, or to be a sex slave before dying. At the end of the day, the replicants want all of the same things that we as a species take for granted. In another story, Roy would be the hero. Throughout the film, Batty goes through all of the stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. Mortality and identity are among the film’s most prominent themes. The “tears in rain” speech is without question one of the most tender, beautiful and elegiac scenes in cinema history, as Roy relinquishes life with a smile on his face, holding onto a living dove before passing on. In saving Deckard and accepting his fate, he understands humanity in his last moments better than anyone – what we see and do will pass into the ether with our inevitable fate.
Deckard questions his humanity and identity, thus wanting power and control over replicants as he asserts force on Rachael to show that “real” humans are the more dominant force of the two. He does indeed become softer and more understanding, however, supporting the theory confirmed by Ridley Scott that he could possibly be a replicant himself. It is such a brilliant contrast between a man who is dying and seeking meaning to his life and the detective who gains a deeper understanding of who he is after years of a non-life in Los Angeles. The ending suggests a never-ending struggle to survive. The ambiguity of Deckard as possibly being a replicant is part of the allure of the film’s mystery. He does exhibit reflective red eyes in one scene, similar to Rachael, and Gaff is constantly disrespecting him.
The question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant has remained a persistent subject of debate. His alcoholism, grumpy personality, occasional clumsiness, and other basic human vices muddy the possibility somewhat. The dreams he gets of a unicorn running through a forest add credence to the replicant angle, but also raise more questions such as where did this memory come from and why? As a character, Deckard is intelligent enough to realise just how bad things really are, moral enough to be disgusted by the state of the world and having to put down replicants, and yet flawed enough to do horrible things to survive. The central theme of the film, among others, is what makes us human and how the line between human and replicant is becoming increasingly blurred. As we ourselves are more enveloped by technology, the reverse is also true with artificial intelligence and other synthetic lifeforms becoming more identical to their real-life counterparts.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--yZeb7XhS--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1370997402044909604.gif" alt="Image result for tears in rain" width="800" height="331" />
The lasting legacy of <i>Blade Runner</i> extends from creating a whole new science fiction genre to captivating discussion between cinephiles, and is still gaining new fans to this day. Its aesthetic and arthouse directing sensibilities are now highly iconic and the cast and crew pushed themselves above and beyond what was expected of each of them, and the results are crystal clear. From humble beginnings as a cult favourite to a genre-defining classic with a high profile sequel on release, it’s been a long but worthwhile journey for <i>Blade Runner</i>.
Final Score: 5 / 5 �ڌk�� �������� �
� 3M����<p style="text-align: left;">What is Sir Ridley Scott’s masterpiece? Is <i>Alien </i>the winner without a shadow of doubt? Or possibly the crowd-pleasing <i>Gladiator</i>? Perhaps one of the most agreed-upon candidates is the sci-fi noir classic <i>Blade Runner</i>. Speaking personally, I came into the fold quite recently. Before seeing it, all I knew was that it had incredible visuals, atmosphere and a solid cast. What I didn’t realise until recently was this film’s ability to grow on me to such a point where I had no hesitations in calling it a masterpiece and a three-way contender with the other two Ridley classics.</p>
Los Angeles, November 2019. Ex-police officer Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is detained by officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) and brought to his former supervisor, Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh). Deckard, whose job as a “blade runner” was to track down bioengineered beings known as replicants to kill or “retire”, is informed that four of them have come to Earth illegally. As Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 models, they only have a four-year lifespan and may have come to Earth to try and extend their lives.
Deckard watches a video of a blade runner named Holden (Morgan Paull) being shot by the test subject, Leon (Brion James), after he asks about Leon’s mother, thus revealing himself as a replicant. Bryant wants Deckard to retire Leon and the other three replicants: Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) and Pris (Daryl Hannah). Deckard meets with Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) and is introduced to his assistant, Rachael (Sean Young), an experimental Nexus-6 model who believes herself to be human. Rachael has been given false memories to provide an “emotional cushion”, and she is devastated to find out later on that her memories were implanted from Tyrell’s niece. Roy and Leon investigate a replicant eye-manufacturing laboratory and learn of J. F. Sebastian (William Sanderson), a gifted genetic designer who works closely with Tyrell. Pris locates him and manipulates J.F. in order to gain his trust and get closer to Tyrell. Deckard’s search for the replicants is pitted against their own search for their creator.
The acting is excellent and tailors itself well to the type of film that this is. Ford disappears into the slick, laidback detective role, very much a Humphrey Bogart figure like Sam Spade, managing to put a lot of personality and nuance into the role. Young as Rachael has a fragility and mystery about her, seeming at times more human than Deckard. While both actors work well in their respective roles, I don’t find myself invested in the relationship between Deckard and Rachael, as it starts out very rough and uncouth, and there isn’t any real chemistry between Ford and Young. Hauer has an incredible presence as Batty, being poetic and charismatic yet believable as a highly-developed synthetic being, making him a great foil. Olmos is dependable as the exotic Gaff. Turkel has an air of businesslike slyness and genius to him as Tyrell. Hannah convincingly dances back and forth between the facade of naive young girl to determined and dangerous replicant. James fits into the role of the slow and unstable Leon. Sanderson does well as as J. F., having the personality and energy of a younger man within an older body. Cassidy has great sensuality and sheer physical prowess as Zhora, putting up a great fight against Ford. Walsh succeeds in making Bryant a sleazy and unpleasant jerkass, and James Hong as genetics engineer Hannibal Chew does a nice job in a limited role.
As soon as you behold the futuristic vision of Los Angeles, you are instantly drawn into its contrast of fiery light and darkness, tall spires and flying cars. The attention to detail is sublime; each setting has a unique character to it. Every main city location is filled with people, giving the city a lived-in quality. The rampant poverty, cramped marketplaces and torrential rain drive home the unpleasant characteristics of the urban sprawl. The balance of cleverly-constructed set work and real-life locations doubling for film environs is admirable. Naturally, all of it was achieved optically through miniatures and it takes your breath away. As photographic effects supervisors, Richard Yuricich, David Dryer and Douglas Trumbull lend their incredible talents to making the miniatures and optical effects look as seamless as possible. With 35mm film that captures the detail of the combined effects, it’s an example of the old ways still being the best ways. The most impressive of which is the Tyrell pyramid, conveying the size and presence of the building masterfully. The matte paintings blend organically into the real sets and really give the impression of a sprawling metropolis. Anything that would require digital technology, such as a car lifting off, is filmed first in-camera and optically blended into the vast setting.
The cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth is some of the most beautiful in any movie, from the stunning exterior shots with their vivid contrast of light, dark and striking colour timing, to the composition of elements in the foreground and the background. The way the smoke and steam rises up in a simple scene of characters going about their business is all part of the style, and the style feeds into the greater subtext of the film. The angles from the ground or the darkened sky, as well as the futuristic art deco architecture, fuel the film noir aesthetic. The film contains visual homages to to <i>Metropolis</i>, <i>Citizen Kane</i>, <i>Taxi Driver</i>, <i>Apocalypse Now</i>, <i>The Maltese</i> Falcon,<i> </i>and <i>Shanghai Express</i> among others, effectively channelling the same visual language of classic cinema.
The score by Vangelis is one of a kind, mixing elegant electronic synth with ethereal singing, blending in flawlessly with the sound design, and when combined with the stunning visuals, it becomes almost overwhelming. His themes range from soft and melodic to fast-paced and exciting, and just plain otherworldly. It is a masterpiece in futuristic sci-fi film scores.
The dialogue has an old fashioned 1930s or 40s quality to it, which is appropriate for the poverty, segregation, war, and struggles that marked those decades. Despite the revisions provided by David Peoples to the original script by Hampton Fancher, it still feels like one cohesive piece, with most of the weaker scenes and dialogue excised from the 2007 Final Cut. Notably absent from this definitive edition is the Deckard narration that fills in all the expositional gaps, which ultimately took away from Deckard’s detective work and merely pointed out the obvious. We do open with a text crawl explaining the conflict between humans and replicants, but it is necessary to provide backstory and context for the rest of the film. <em>Blade Runner</em> walks a fine line between being an enclosed and intimate piece and yet something sweeping and epic. Still, it is a hard film to get into if you don’t really know what to expect.
The themes of pollution and overpopulation, as well as the death of animal life on Earth as seen in Philip K. Dick’s source novel, are woven throughout the film. The motif of animals is evident and tied very strongly to each of the characters. The slow and durable Leon is likened to a tortoise; the wild and charismatic Roy is a wolf and literally howls as he hunts Deckard in the finale; the lithe yet strong Zhora has an affinity for snakes; the survivor Pris is a raccoon (signified by the eye makeup); and the quiet and unassuming Sebastian is more mouse than man. The owl is shared by Tyrell as a sharp-eyed, cold and calculating character, and also by Rachael for her beauty and intelligence, being Tyrell’s kin to a certain extent. Each of these animal symbols are present or referred to in at least one scene. Lastly, as represented by the dream sequences and indicative of his unique status, there is Deckard’s correlation with a unicorn. Animals are more valued than humans or replicants in this future, but these characters ultimately have worth and aren’t mere commodities or livestock to be put down.
The enormous high rises convey the theme of social structure, or societal superiority based on vertical ascension; the higher-ups possess opulence, wealth and power, and the ground levels convey poverty, desperation and chaos. The massive Tyrrell building is an echo of the Mayan temple with ornate metal patterns lining the walls, distinguishing his presence as the creator and the most powerful individual in the film. The movie’s Los Angeles, with its permanent dark cloud of smog, billboards hundreds of feet high, and its street poverty living side by side with incredible wealth, may or may not come true, and this vision of the future is starting to appear in numerous cities across the globe. The pervasive influence of corporation is presented through the enticing adverts of a better life off-world, ringing very true of today’s commercially-driven society. The sort of darkness and cynicism that lingers over the film is of a melancholic and mournful sort while not falling into total nihilism. The hunter falls in love with the hunted, and in turn becomes hunted himself.
Despite their depiction as antagonists in the story, the replicants’ motivations are surprisingly sympathetic; the desire to achieve a greater sense of humanity and an extended lifespan. <i>Blade Runner </i>displays the replicants as a slave race deliberately designed to fail, right at the point when they finally understand what this means. We get our first taste of the cruelty bestowed upon them from the moment they’re created, with false memories to trick them into thinking they’re human only to find out their pasts as they “remembered” them were a lie. We see through Roy’s eyes just how horrible it is to be a creature who exists only to kill other creatures, or to be a sex slave before dying. At the end of the day, the replicants want all of the same things that we as a species take for granted. In another story, Roy would be the hero. Throughout the film, Batty goes through all of the stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. Mortality and identity are among the film’s most prominent themes. The “tears in rain” speech is without question one of the most tender, beautiful and elegiac scenes in cinema history, as Roy relinquishes life with a smile on his face, holding onto a living dove before passing on. In saving Deckard and accepting his fate, he understands humanity in his last moments better than anyone – what we see and do will pass into the ether with our inevitable fate.
Deckard questions his humanity and identity, thus wanting power and control over replicants as he asserts force on Rachael to show that “real” humans are the more dominant force of the two. He does indeed become softer and more understanding, however, supporting the theory confirmed by Ridley Scott that he could possibly be a replicant himself. It is such a brilliant contrast between a man who is dying and seeking meaning to his life and the detective who gains a deeper understanding of who he is after years of a non-life in Los Angeles. The ending suggests a never-ending struggle to survive. The ambiguity of Deckard as possibly being a replicant is part of the allure of the film’s mystery. He does exhibit reflective red eyes in one scene, similar to Rachael, and Gaff is constantly disrespecting him.
The question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant has remained a persistent subject of debate. His alcoholism, grumpy personality, occasional clumsiness, and other basic human vices muddy the possibility somewhat. The dreams he gets of a unicorn running through a forest add credence to the replicant angle, but also raise more questions such as where did this memory come from and why? As a character, Deckard is intelligent enough to realise just how bad things really are, moral enough to be disgusted by the state of the world and having to put down replicants, and yet flawed enough to do horrible things to survive. The central theme of the film, among others, is what makes us human and how the line between human and replicant is becoming increasingly blurred. As we ourselves are more enveloped by technology, the reverse is also true with artificial intelligence and other synthetic lifeforms becoming more identical to their real-life counterparts.
The lasting legacy of <i>Blade Runner</i> extends from creating a whole new science fiction genre to captivating discussion between cinephiles, and is still gaining new fans to this day. Its aesthetic and arthouse directing sensibilities are now highly iconic and the cast and crew pushed themselves above and beyond what was expected of each of them, and the results are crystal clear. From humble beginnings as a cult favourite to a genre-defining classic with a high profile sequel on release, it’s been a long but worthwhile journey for <i>Blade Runner</i>. �;�gP
�������� �VY
� 3M����<p style="text-align: left;">What is Sir Ridley Scott’s masterpiece? Is <i>Alien </i>the winner without a shadow of doubt? Or possibly the crowd-pleasing <i>Gladiator</i>? Perhaps one of the most agreed-upon candidates is the sci-fi noir classic <i>Blade Runner</i>. Speaking personally, I came into the fold quite recently. Before seeing it, all I knew was that it had incredible visuals, atmosphere and a solid cast. What I didn’t realise until recently was this film’s ability to grow on me to such a point where I had no hesitations in calling it a masterpiece and a three-way contender with the other two Ridley classics.</p>
Los Angeles, November 2019. Ex-police officer Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is detained by officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) and brought to his former supervisor, Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh). Deckard, whose job as a “blade runner” was to track down bioengineered beings known as replicants to kill or “retire”, is informed that four of them have come to Earth illegally. As Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 models, they only have a four-year lifespan and may have come to Earth to try and extend their lives.
Deckard watches a video of a blade runner named Holden (Morgan Paull) being shot by the test subject, Leon (Brion James), after he asks about Leon’s mother, thus revealing himself as a replicant. Bryant wants Deckard to retire Leon and the other three replicants: Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) and Pris (Daryl Hannah). Deckard meets with Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) and is introduced to his assistant, Rachael (Sean Young), an experimental Nexus-6 model who believes herself to be human. Rachael has been given false memories to provide an “emotional cushion”, and she is devastated to find out later on that her memories were implanted from Tyrell’s niece. Roy and Leon investigate a replicant eye-manufacturing laboratory and learn of J. F. Sebastian (William Sanderson), a gifted genetic designer who works closely with Tyrell. Pris locates him and manipulates J.F. in order to gain his trust and get closer to Tyrell. Deckard’s search for the replicants is pitted against their own search for their creator.
The acting is excellent and tailors itself well to the type of film that this is. Ford disappears into the slick, laidback detective role, very much a Humphrey Bogart figure like Sam Spade, managing to put a lot of personality and nuance into the role. Young as Rachael has a fragility and mystery about her, seeming at times more human than Deckard. While both actors work well in their respective roles, I don’t find myself invested in the relationship between Deckard and Rachael, as it starts out very rough and uncouth, and there isn’t any real chemistry between Ford and Young. Hauer has an incredible presence as Batty, being poetic and charismatic yet believable as a highly-developed synthetic being, making him a great foil. Olmos is dependable as the exotic Gaff. Turkel has an air of businesslike slyness and genius to him as Tyrell. Hannah convincingly dances back and forth between the facade of naive young girl to determined and dangerous replicant. James fits into the role of the slow and unstable Leon. Sanderson does well as as J. F., having the personality and energy of a younger man within an older body. Cassidy has great sensuality and sheer physical prowess as Zhora, putting up a great fight against Ford. Walsh succeeds in making Bryant a sleazy and unpleasant jerkass, and James Hong as genetics engineer Hannibal Chew does a nice job in a limited role.
As soon as you behold the futuristic vision of Los Angeles, you are instantly drawn into its contrast of fiery light and darkness, tall spires and flying cars. The attention to detail is sublime; each setting has a unique character to it. Every main city location is filled with people, giving the city a lived-in quality. The rampant poverty, cramped marketplaces and torrential rain drive home the unpleasant characteristics of the urban sprawl. The balance of cleverly-constructed set work and real-life locations doubling for film environs is admirable. Naturally, all of it was achieved optically through miniatures and it takes your breath away. As photographic effects supervisors, Richard Yuricich, David Dryer and Douglas Trumbull lend their incredible talents to making the miniatures and optical effects look as seamless as possible. With 35mm film that captures the detail of the combined effects, it’s an example of the old ways still being the best ways. The most impressive of which is the Tyrell pyramid, conveying the size and presence of the building masterfully. The matte paintings blend organically into the real sets and really give the impression of a sprawling metropolis. Anything that would require digital technology, such as a car lifting off, is filmed first in-camera and optically blended into the vast setting.
The cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth is some of the most beautiful in any movie, from the stunning exterior shots with their vivid contrast of light, dark and striking colour timing, to the composition of elements in the foreground and the background. The way the smoke and steam rises up in a simple scene of characters going about their business is all part of the style, and the style feeds into the greater subtext of the film. The angles from the ground or the darkened sky, as well as the futuristic art deco architecture, fuel the film noir aesthetic. The film contains visual homages to to <i>Metropolis</i>, <i>Citizen Kane</i>, <i>Taxi Driver</i>, <i>Apocalypse Now</i>, <i>The Maltese</i> Falcon,<i> </i>and <i>Shanghai Express</i> among others, effectively channelling the same visual language of classic cinema.
The score by Vangelis is one of a kind, mixing elegant electronic synth with ethereal singing, blending in flawlessly with the sound design, and when combined with the stunning visuals, it becomes almost overwhelming. His themes range from soft and melodic to fast-paced and exciting, and just plain otherworldly. It is a masterpiece in futuristic sci-fi film scores.
The dialogue has an old fashioned 1930s or 40s quality to it, which is appropriate for the poverty, segregation, war, and struggles that marked those decades. Despite the revisions provided by David Peoples to the original script by Hampton Fancher, it still feels like one cohesive piece, with most of the weaker scenes and dialogue excised from the 2007 Final Cut. Notably absent from this definitive edition is the Deckard narration that fills in all the expositional gaps, which ultimately took away from Deckard’s detective work and merely pointed out the obvious. We do open with a text crawl explaining the conflict between humans and replicants, but it is necessary to provide backstory and context for the rest of the film. <em>Blade Runner</em> walks a fine line between being an enclosed and intimate piece and yet something sweeping and epic. Still, it is a hard film to get into if you don’t really know what to expect.
The themes of pollution and overpopulation, as well as the death of animal life on Earth as seen in Philip K. Dick’s source novel, are woven throughout the film. The motif of animals is evident and tied very strongly to each of the characters. The slow and durable Leon is likened to a tortoise; the wild and charismatic Roy is a wolf and literally howls as he hunts Deckard in the finale; the lithe yet strong Zhora has an affinity for snakes; the survivor Pris is a raccoon (signified by the eye makeup); and the quiet and unassuming Sebastian is more mouse than man. The owl is shared by Tyrell as a sharp-eyed, cold and calculating character, and also by Rachael for her beauty and intelligence, being Tyrell’s kin to a certain extent. Each of these animal symbols are present or referred to in at least one scene. Lastly, as represented by the dream sequences and indicative of his unique status, there is Deckard’s correlation with a unicorn. Animals are more valued than humans or replicants in this future, but these characters ultimately have worth and aren’t mere commodities or livestock to be put down.
The enormous high rises convey the theme of social structure, or societal superiority based on vertical ascension; the higher-ups possess opulence, wealth and power, and the ground levels convey poverty, desperation and chaos. The massive Tyrrell building is an echo of the Mayan temple with ornate metal patterns lining the walls, distinguishing his presence as the creator and the most powerful individual in the film. The movie’s Los Angeles, with its permanent dark cloud of smog, billboards hundreds of feet high, and its street poverty living side by side with incredible wealth, may or may not come true, and this vision of the future is starting to appear in numerous cities across the globe. The pervasive influence of corporation is presented through the enticing adverts of a better life off-world, ringing very true of today’s commercially-driven society. The sort of darkness and cynicism that lingers over the film is of a melancholic and mournful sort while not falling into total nihilism. The hunter falls in love with the hunted, and in turn becomes hunted himself.
Despite their depiction as antagonists in the story, the replicants’ motivations are surprisingly sympathetic; the desire to achieve a greater sense of humanity and an extended lifespan. <i>Blade Runner </i>displays the replicants as a slave race deliberately designed to fail, right at the point when they finally understand what this means. We get our first taste of the cruelty bestowed upon them from the moment they’re created, with false memories to trick them into thinking they’re human only to find out their pasts as they “remembered” them were a lie. We see through Roy’s eyes just how horrible it is to be a creature who exists only to kill other creatures, or to be a sex slave before dying. At the end of the day, the replicants want all of the same things that we as a species take for granted. In another story, Roy would be the hero. Throughout the film, Batty goes through all of the stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. Mortality and identity are among the film’s most prominent themes. The “tears in rain” speech is without question one of the most tender, beautiful and elegiac scenes in cinema history, as Roy relinquishes life with a smile on his face, holding onto a living dove before passing on. In saving Deckard and accepting his fate, he understands humanity in his last moments better than anyone – what we see and do will pass into the ether with our inevitable fate.
Deckard questions his humanity and identity, thus wanting power and control over replicants as he asserts force on Rachael to show that “real” humans are the more dominant force of the two. He does indeed become softer and more understanding, however, supporting the theory confirmed by Ridley Scott that he could possibly be a replicant himself. It is such a brilliant contrast between a man who is dying and seeking meaning to his life and the detective who gains a deeper understanding of who he is after years of a non-life in Los Angeles. The ending suggests a never-ending struggle to survive. The ambiguity of Deckard as possibly being a replicant is part of the allure of the film’s mystery. He does exhibit reflective red eyes in one scene, similar to Rachael, and Gaff is constantly disrespecting him.
The question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant has remained a persistent subject of debate. His alcoholism, grumpy personality, occasional clumsiness, and other basic human vices muddy the possibility somewhat. The dreams he gets of a unicorn running through a forest add credence to the replicant angle, but also raise more questions such as where did this memory come from and why? As a character, Deckard is intelligent enough to realise just how bad things really are, moral enough to be disgusted by the state of the world and having to put down replicants, and yet flawed enough to do horrible things to survive. The central theme of the film, among others, is what makes us human and how the line between human and replicant is becoming increasingly blurred. As we ourselves are more enveloped by technology, the reverse is also true with artificial intelligence and other synthetic lifeforms becoming more identical to their real-life counterparts.
The lasting legacy of <i>Blade Runner</i> extends from creating a whole new science fiction genre to captivating discussion between cinephiles, and is still gaining new fans to this day. Its aesthetic and arthouse directing sensibilities are now highly iconic and the cast and crew pushed themselves above and beyond what was expected of each of them, and the results are crystal clear. From humble beginnings as a cult favourite to a genre-defining classic with a high profile sequel on release, it’s been a long but worthwhile journey for <i>Blade Runner</i>. �VY.��{ �������� �
� 3U����
<p style="text-align: left;">What is Sir Ridley Scott’s masterpiece? Is <i>Alien </i>the winner without a shadow of doubt? Or possibly the crowd-pleasing <i>Gladiator</i>? Perhaps one of the most agreed-upon candidates is the sci-fi noir classic <i>Blade Runner</i>. Speaking personally, I came into the fold quite recently. Before seeing it, all I knew was that it had incredible visuals, atmosphere and a solid cast. What I didn’t realise until recently was this film’s ability to grow on me to such a point where I had no hesitations in calling it a masterpiece and a three-way contender with the other two Ridley classics.</p>
Los Angeles, November 2019. Ex-police officer Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is detained by officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) and brought to his former supervisor, Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh). Deckard, whose job as a “blade runner” was to track down bioengineered beings known as replicants to kill or “retire”, is informed that four of them have come to Earth illegally. As Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 models, they only have a four-year lifespan and may have come to Earth to try and extend their lives.
Deckard watches a video of a blade runner named Holden (Morgan Paull) being shot by the test subject, Leon (Brion James), after he asks about Leon’s mother, thus revealing himself as a replicant. Bryant wants Deckard to retire Leon and the other three replicants: Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) and Pris (Daryl Hannah). Deckard meets with Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) and is introduced to his assistant, Rachael (Sean Young), an experimental Nexus-6 model who believes herself to be human. Rachael has been given false memories to provide an “emotional cushion”, and she is devastated to find out later on that her memories were implanted from Tyrell’s niece. Roy and Leon investigate a replicant eye-manufacturing laboratory and learn of J. F. Sebastian (William Sanderson), a gifted genetic designer who works closely with Tyrell. Pris locates him and manipulates J.F. in order to gain his trust and get closer to Tyrell. Deckard’s search for the replicants is pitted against their own search for their creator.
The acting is excellent and tailors itself well to the type of film that this is. Ford disappears into the slick, laidback detective role, very much a Humphrey Bogart figure like Sam Spade, managing to put a lot of personality and nuance into the role. Young as Rachael has a fragility and mystery about her, seeming at times more human than Deckard. While both actors work well in their respective roles, I don’t find myself invested in the relationship between Deckard and Rachael, as it starts out very rough and uncouth, and there isn’t any real chemistry between Ford and Young. Hauer has an incredible presence as Batty, being poetic and charismatic yet believable as a highly-developed synthetic being, making him a great foil. Olmos is dependable as the exotic Gaff. Turkel has an air of businesslike slyness and genius to him as Tyrell. Hannah convincingly dances back and forth between the facade of naive young girl to determined and dangerous replicant. James fits into the role of the slow and unstable Leon. Sanderson does well as as J. F., having the personality and energy of a younger man within an older body. Cassidy has great sensuality and sheer physical prowess as Zhora, putting up a great fight against Ford. Walsh succeeds in making Bryant a sleazy and unpleasant jerkass, and James Hong as genetics engineer Hannibal Chew does a nice job in a limited role.
As soon as you behold the futuristic vision of Los Angeles, you are instantly drawn into its contrast of fiery light and darkness, tall spires and flying cars. The attention to detail is sublime; each setting has a unique character to it. Every main city location is filled with people, giving the city a lived-in quality. The rampant poverty, cramped marketplaces and torrential rain drive home the unpleasant characteristics of the urban sprawl. The balance of cleverly-constructed set work and real-life locations doubling for film environs is admirable. Naturally, all of it was achieved optically through miniatures and it takes your breath away. As photographic effects supervisors, Richard Yuricich, David Dryer and Douglas Trumbull lend their incredible talents to making the miniatures and optical effects look as seamless as possible. With 35mm film that captures the detail of the combined effects, it’s an example of the old ways still being the best ways. The most impressive of which is the Tyrell pyramid, conveying the size and presence of the building masterfully. The matte paintings blend organically into the real sets and really give the impression of a sprawling metropolis. Anything that would require digital technology, such as a car lifting off, is filmed first in-camera and optically blended into the vast setting.
The cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth is some of the most beautiful in any movie, from the stunning exterior shots with their vivid contrast of light, dark and striking colour timing, to the composition of elements in the foreground and the background. The way the smoke and steam rises up in a simple scene of characters going about their business is all part of the style, and the style feeds into the greater subtext of the film. The angles from the ground or the darkened sky, as well as the futuristic art deco architecture, fuel the film noir aesthetic. The film contains visual homages to to <i>Metropolis</i>, <i>Citizen Kane</i>, <i>Taxi Driver</i>, <i>Apocalypse Now</i>, <i>The Maltese</i> Falcon,<i> </i>and <i>Shanghai Express</i> among others, effectively channelling the same visual language of classic cinema.
The score by Vangelis is one of a kind, mixing elegant electronic synth with ethereal singing, blending in flawlessly with the sound design, and when combined with the stunning visuals, it becomes almost overwhelming. His themes range from soft and melodic to fast-paced and exciting, and just plain otherworldly. It is a masterpiece in futuristic sci-fi film scores.
The dialogue has an old fashioned 1930s or 40s quality to it, which is appropriate for the poverty, segregation, war, and struggles that marked those decades. Despite the revisions provided by David Peoples to the original script by Hampton Fancher, it still feels like one cohesive piece, with most of the weaker scenes and dialogue excised from the 2007 Final Cut. Notably absent from this definitive edition is the Deckard narration that fills in all the expositional gaps, which ultimately took away from Deckard’s detective work and merely pointed out the obvious. We do open with a text crawl explaining the conflict between humans and replicants, but it is necessary to provide backstory and context for the rest of the film. <em>Blade Runner</em> walks a fine line between being an enclosed and intimate piece and yet something sweeping and epic. Still, it is a hard film to get into if you don’t really know what to expect.
The themes of pollution and overpopulation, as well as the death of animal life on Earth as seen in Philip K. Dick’s source novel, are woven throughout the film. The motif of animals is evident and tied very strongly to each of the characters. The slow and durable Leon is likened to a tortoise; the wild and charismatic Roy is a wolf and literally howls as he hunts Deckard in the finale; the lithe yet strong Zhora has an affinity for snakes; the survivor Pris is a raccoon (signified by the eye makeup); and the quiet and unassuming Sebastian is more mouse than man. The owl is shared by Tyrell as a sharp-eyed, cold and calculating character, and also by Rachael for her beauty and intelligence, being Tyrell’s kin to a certain extent. Each of these animal symbols are present or referred to in at least one scene. Lastly, as represented by the dream sequences and indicative of his unique status, there is Deckard’s correlation with a unicorn. Animals are more valued than humans or replicants in this future, but these characters ultimately have worth and aren’t mere commodities or livestock to be put down.
The enormous high rises convey the theme of social structure, or societal superiority based on vertical ascension; the higher-ups possess opulence, wealth and power, and the ground levels convey poverty, desperation and chaos. The massive Tyrrell building is an echo of the Mayan temple with ornate metal patterns lining the walls, distinguishing his presence as the creator and the most powerful individual in the film. The movie’s Los Angeles, with its permanent dark cloud of smog, billboards hundreds of feet high, and its street poverty living side by side with incredible wealth, may or may not come true, and this vision of the future is starting to appear in numerous cities across the globe. The pervasive influence of corporation is presented through the enticing adverts of a better life off-world, ringing very true of today’s commercially-driven society. The sort of darkness and cynicism that lingers over the film is of a melancholic and mournful sort while not falling into total nihilism. The hunter falls in love with the hunted, and in turn becomes hunted himself.
Despite their depiction as antagonists in the story, the replicants’ motivations are surprisingly sympathetic; the desire to achieve a greater sense of humanity and an extended lifespan. <i>Blade Runner </i>displays the replicants as a slave race deliberately designed to fail, right at the point when they finally understand what this means. We get our first taste of the cruelty bestowed upon them from the moment they’re created, with false memories to trick them into thinking they’re human only to find out their pasts as they “remembered” them were a lie. We see through Roy’s eyes just how horrible it is to be a creature who exists only to kill other creatures, or to be a sex slave before dying. At the end of the day, the replicants want all of the same things that we as a species take for granted. In another story, Roy would be the hero. Throughout the film, Batty goes through all of the stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. Mortality and identity are among the film’s most prominent themes. The “tears in rain” speech is without question one of the most tender, beautiful and elegiac scenes in cinema history, as Roy relinquishes life with a smile on his face, holding onto a living dove before passing on. In saving Deckard and accepting his fate, he understands humanity in his last moments better than anyone – what we see and do will pass into the ether with our inevitable fate.
Deckard questions his humanity and identity, thus wanting power and control over replicants as he asserts force on Rachael to show that “real” humans are the more dominant force of the two. He does indeed become softer and more understanding, however, supporting the theory confirmed by Ridley Scott that he could possibly be a replicant himself. It is such a brilliant contrast between a man who is dying and seeking meaning to his life and the detective who gains a deeper understanding of who he is after years of a non-life in Los Angeles. The ending suggests a never-ending struggle to survive. The ambiguity of Deckard as possibly being a replicant is part of the allure of the film’s mystery. He does exhibit reflective red eyes in one scene, similar to Rachael, and Gaff is constantly disrespecting him.
The question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant has remained a persistent subject of debate. His alcoholism, grumpy personality, occasional clumsiness, and other basic human vices muddy the possibility somewhat. The dreams he gets of a unicorn running through a forest add credence to the replicant angle, but also raise more questions such as where did this memory come from and why? As a character, Deckard is intelligent enough to realise just how bad things really are, moral enough to be disgusted by the state of the world and having to put down replicants, and yet flawed enough to do horrible things to survive. The central theme of the film, among others, is what makes us human and how the line between human and replicant is becoming increasingly blurred. As we ourselves are more enveloped by technology, the reverse is also true with artificial intelligence and other synthetic lifeforms becoming more identical to their real-life counterparts.
The lasting legacy of <i>Blade Runner</i> extends from creating a whole new science fiction genre to captivating discussion between cinephiles, and is still gaining new fans to this day. Its aesthetic and arthouse directing sensibilities are now highly iconic and the cast and crew pushed themselves above and beyond what was expected of each of them, and the results are crystal clear. From humble beginnings as a cult favourite to a genre-defining classic with a high profile sequel on release, it’s been a long but worthwhile journey for <i>Blade Runner</i>. ݙ~�� �������� ��@
� 6����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-41" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_ver8.jpg-ver2-337x500.jpg" alt="" width="337" height="500" />
<p style="text-align: left;">What is Sir Ridley Scott’s masterpiece? Is <i>Alien </i>the winner without a shadow of doubt? Or possibly the crowd-pleasing <i>Gladiator</i>? Perhaps one of the most agreed-upon candidates is the sci-fi noir classic <i>Blade Runner</i>. Speaking personally, I came into the fold quite recently. Before seeing it, all I knew was that it had incredible visuals, atmosphere and a solid cast. What I didn’t realise until recently was this film’s ability to grow on me to such a point where I had no hesitations in calling it a masterpiece and a three-way contender with the other two Ridley classics.</p>
Los Angeles, November 2019. Ex-police officer Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is detained by officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) and brought to his former supervisor, Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh). Deckard, whose job as a “blade runner” was to track down bioengineered beings known as replicants to kill or “retire”, is informed that four of them have come to Earth illegally. As Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 models, they only have a four-year lifespan and may have come to Earth to try and extend their lives.
Deckard watches a video of a blade runner named Holden (Morgan Paull) being shot by the test subject, Leon (Brion James), after he asks about Leon’s mother, thus revealing himself as a replicant. Bryant wants Deckard to retire Leon and the other three replicants: Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) and Pris (Daryl Hannah). Deckard meets with Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) and is introduced to his assistant, Rachael (Sean Young), an experimental Nexus-6 model who believes herself to be human. Rachael has been given false memories to provide an “emotional cushion”, and she is devastated to find out later on that her memories were implanted from Tyrell’s niece. Roy and Leon investigate a replicant eye-manufacturing laboratory and learn of J. F. Sebastian (William Sanderson), a gifted genetic designer who works closely with Tyrell. Pris locates him and manipulates J.F. in order to gain his trust and get closer to Tyrell. Deckard’s search for the replicants is pitted against their own search for their creator.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-42" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/rachel-deckard-2-500x208.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="208" />
The acting is excellent and tailors itself well to the type of film that this is. Ford disappears into the slick, laidback detective role, very much a Humphrey Bogart figure like Sam Spade, managing to put a lot of personality and nuance into the role. Young as Rachael has a fragility and mystery about her, seeming at times more human than Deckard. While both actors work well in their respective roles, I don’t find myself invested in the relationship between Deckard and Rachael, as it starts out very rough and uncouth, and there isn’t any real chemistry between Ford and Young. Hauer has an incredible presence as Batty, being poetic and charismatic yet believable as a highly-developed synthetic being, making him a great foil. Olmos is dependable as the exotic Gaff. Turkel has an air of businesslike slyness and genius to him as Tyrell. Hannah convincingly dances back and forth between the facade of naive young girl to determined and dangerous replicant. James fits into the role of the slow and unstable Leon. Sanderson does well as as J. F., having the personality and energy of a younger man within an older body. Cassidy has great sensuality and sheer physical prowess as Zhora, putting up a great fight against Ford. Walsh succeeds in making Bryant a sleazy and unpleasant jerkass, and James Hong as genetics engineer Hannibal Chew does a nice job in a limited role.
As soon as you behold the futuristic vision of Los Angeles, you are instantly drawn into its contrast of fiery light and darkness, tall spires and flying cars. The attention to detail is sublime; each setting has a unique character to it. Every main city location is filled with people, giving the city a lived-in quality. The rampant poverty, cramped marketplaces and torrential rain drive home the unpleasant characteristics of the urban sprawl. The balance of cleverly-constructed set work and real-life locations doubling for film environs is admirable. Naturally, all of it was achieved optically through miniatures and it takes your breath away. As photographic effects supervisors, Richard Yuricich, David Dryer and Douglas Trumbull lend their incredible talents to making the miniatures and optical effects look as seamless as possible. With 35mm film that captures the detail of the combined effects, it’s an example of the old ways still being the best ways. The most impressive of which is the Tyrell pyramid, conveying the size and presence of the building masterfully. The matte paintings blend organically into the real sets and really give the impression of a sprawling metropolis. Anything that would require digital technology, such as a car lifting off, is filmed first in-camera and optically blended into the vast setting.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-43" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LA2019-500x209.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="209" />
The cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth is some of the most beautiful in any movie, from the stunning exterior shots with their vivid contrast of light, dark and striking colour timing, to the composition of elements in the foreground and the background. The way the smoke and steam rises up in a simple scene of characters going about their business is all part of the style, and the style feeds into the greater subtext of the film. The angles from the ground or the darkened sky, as well as the futuristic art deco architecture, fuel the film noir aesthetic. The film contains visual homages to to <i>Metropolis</i>, <i>Citizen Kane</i>, <i>Taxi Driver</i>, <i>Apocalypse Now</i>, <i>The Maltese</i> Falcon,<i> </i>and <i>Shanghai Express</i> among others, effectively channelling the same visual language of classic cinema.
The score by Vangelis is one of a kind, mixing elegant electronic synth with ethereal singing, blending in flawlessly with the sound design, and when combined with the stunning visuals, it becomes almost overwhelming. His themes range from soft and melodic to fast-paced and exciting, and just plain otherworldly. It is a masterpiece in futuristic sci-fi film scores.
The dialogue has an old fashioned 1930s or 40s quality to it, which is appropriate for the poverty, segregation, war, and struggles that marked those decades. Despite the revisions provided by David Peoples to the original script by Hampton Fancher, it still feels like one cohesive piece, with most of the weaker scenes and dialogue excised from the 2007 Final Cut. Notably absent from this definitive edition is the Deckard narration that fills in all the expositional gaps, which ultimately took away from Deckard’s detective work and merely pointed out the obvious. We do open with a text crawl explaining the conflict between humans and replicants, but it is necessary to provide backstory and context for the rest of the film. <em>Blade Runner</em> walks a fine line between being an enclosed and intimate piece and yet something sweeping and epic. Still, it is a hard film to get into if you don’t really know what to expect.
The themes of pollution and overpopulation, as well as the death of animal life on Earth as seen in Philip K. Dick’s source novel, are woven throughout the film. The motif of animals is evident and tied very strongly to each of the characters. The slow and durable Leon is likened to a tortoise; the wild and charismatic Roy is a wolf and literally howls as he hunts Deckard in the finale; the lithe yet strong Zhora has an affinity for snakes; the survivor Pris is a raccoon (signified by the eye makeup); and the quiet and unassuming Sebastian is more mouse than man. The owl is shared by Tyrell as a sharp-eyed, cold and calculating character, and also by Rachael for her beauty and intelligence, being Tyrell’s kin to a certain extent. Each of these animal symbols are present or referred to in at least one scene. Lastly, as represented by the dream sequences and indicative of his unique status, there is Deckard’s correlation with a unicorn. Animals are more valued than humans or replicants in this future, but these characters ultimately have worth and aren’t mere commodities or livestock to be put down.
<img src="https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bladerunner_044a1.jpg" alt="Image result for blade runner los angeles hd" />
The enormous high rises convey the theme of social structure, or societal superiority based on vertical ascension; the higher-ups possess opulence, wealth and power, and the ground levels convey poverty, desperation and chaos. The massive Tyrrell building is an echo of the Mayan temple with ornate metal patterns lining the walls, distinguishing his presence as the creator and the most powerful individual in the film. The movie’s Los Angeles, with its permanent dark cloud of smog, billboards hundreds of feet high, and its street poverty living side by side with incredible wealth, may or may not come true, and this vision of the future is starting to appear in numerous cities across the globe. The pervasive influence of corporation is presented through the enticing adverts of a better life off-world, ringing very true of today’s commercially-driven society. The sort of darkness and cynicism that lingers over the film is of a melancholic and mournful sort while not falling into total nihilism. The hunter falls in love with the hunted, and in turn becomes hunted himself.
Despite their depiction as antagonists in the story, the replicants’ motivations are surprisingly sympathetic; the desire to achieve a greater sense of humanity and an extended lifespan. <i>Blade Runner </i>displays the replicants as a slave race deliberately designed to fail, right at the point when they finally understand what this means. We get our first taste of the cruelty bestowed upon them from the moment they’re created, with false memories to trick them into thinking they’re human only to find out their pasts as they “remembered” them were a lie. We see through Roy’s eyes just how horrible it is to be a creature who exists only to kill other creatures, or to be a sex slave before dying. At the end of the day, the replicants want all of the same things that we as a species take for granted. In another story, Roy would be the hero. Throughout the film, Batty goes through all of the stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. Mortality and identity are among the film’s most prominent themes. The “tears in rain” speech is without question one of the most tender, beautiful and elegiac scenes in cinema history, as Roy relinquishes life with a smile on his face, holding onto a living dove before passing on. In saving Deckard and accepting his fate, he understands humanity in his last moments better than anyone – what we see and do will pass into the ether with our inevitable fate.
Deckard questions his humanity and identity, thus wanting power and control over replicants as he asserts force on Rachael to show that “real” humans are the more dominant force of the two. He does indeed become softer and more understanding, however, supporting the theory confirmed by Ridley Scott that he could possibly be a replicant himself. It is such a brilliant contrast between a man who is dying and seeking meaning to his life and the detective who gains a deeper understanding of who he is after years of a non-life in Los Angeles. The ending suggests a never-ending struggle to survive. The ambiguity of Deckard as possibly being a replicant is part of the allure of the film’s mystery. He does exhibit reflective red eyes in one scene, similar to Rachael, and Gaff is constantly disrespecting him.
The question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant has remained a persistent subject of debate. His alcoholism, grumpy personality, occasional clumsiness, and other basic human vices muddy the possibility somewhat. The dreams he gets of a unicorn running through a forest add credence to the replicant angle, but also raise more questions such as where did this memory come from and why? As a character, Deckard is intelligent enough to realise just how bad things really are, moral enough to be disgusted by the state of the world and having to put down replicants, and yet flawed enough to do horrible things to survive. The central theme of the film, among others, is what makes us human and how the line between human and replicant is becoming increasingly blurred. As we ourselves are more enveloped by technology, the reverse is also true with artificial intelligence and other synthetic lifeforms becoming more identical to their real-life counterparts.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--yZeb7XhS--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1370997402044909604.gif" alt="Image result for tears in rain" width="800" height="331" />
The lasting legacy of <i>Blade Runner</i> extends from creating a whole new science fiction genre to captivating discussion between cinephiles, and is still gaining new fans to this day. Its aesthetic and arthouse directing sensibilities are now highly iconic and the cast and crew pushed themselves above and beyond what was expected of each of them, and the results are crystal clear. From humble beginnings as a cult favourite to a genre-defining classic with a high profile sequel on release, it’s been a long but worthwhile journey for <i>Blade Runner</i>. ��@�]�
�������� ��
� /�����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-67" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlg-353x500.jpg" alt="" width="353" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Denis Villeneuve</strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Hampton Fancher & Michael Green</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Andrew A. Kosove, Broderick Johnson, Bud Yorkin, Cynthia Yorkin, Ridley Scott (Executive Producer)</strong>
<strong>Based on: Characters from <em>Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? </em></strong><strong>by Philip K. Dick</strong>
<strong>Studio: Alcon Entertainment, Scott Free Productions, Warner Bros. Pictures/Columbia Pictures </strong>
<strong>Release Date: 6th October 2017</strong>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The idea of a sequel to </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, a film which felt perfectly self contained in of itself, is something that many people have been cautiously optimistic about, myself included. You would need an idea that felt thematically and spiritually appropriate to such a sequel, and a director who is at the top of his game. Thankfully, that appears to be the case. Stepping down as director, Ridley Scott assumes the role of executive producer and passing the directorial reigns to Denis Villeneuve, who has demonstrated tremendous chops for science fiction after </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Arrival</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> and manages to craft what may well be the best possible version of a sequel in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner 2049</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Thirty years after the events in 2019, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) has vanished, the Tyrell Corporation has gone bankrupt and replaced by the much larger and more powerful replicant corporation headed by Niander Wallace (Jared Leto). While replicants have been integrated into society, discrimination against them is still rampant throughout society. The blade runners, are still in service to retire older replicant models. One of them K (Ryan Gosling), investigates the farm of an elusive replicant, Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista), whom he retires and discovers a flower in front of a tree and finds a buried box. He finds human remains inside. After learning the truth about the box’s contents, K is ordered to destroy all evidence related to the case by his superior, Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright), who believes the knowledge that this discovery presents would destabilize the already tenuous society of humans and replicants.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://indierevolver.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/deckard-br2-e1482163608106.png?w=800" alt="Related image" width="684" height="352" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The acting is very much in line with Villeneuve’s directing style; its subdued but knows when to get more fired up. Gosling is very much a solid successor to Deckard’s blade runner role, with a steely resolve and a lot of conflicting emotions; when they emerge he is able to nail flawlessly. Improving on even his performance in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Force Awakens</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, Ford portrays Deckard as a traumatized and bitter old man, but beneath that crusty shell he does show great emotion and subtle humanity. While not appearing until well into the second half of the film, he commands every scene. Anna de Armis has a great turn as Joi, K’s hologram companion, providing a convincing a manifestation of what artificial intelligence could become in our future; her bond with Gosling’s K is at once mystifying and at times endearing. Leto has a subtle sense of sinister mysticism and strangeness to him, using his voice to come across as more sibilant despite his blindness and frail appearance. Sylvia Hoeks features as a deadly replicant servant of Wallace named Luv, and gives her action scenes a lot of energy and ferocity. As a world weary and hardened police lieutenant, Wright makes the most of a fairly limited expositional role. Bautista has a pretty small but crucial role as the replicant Morton, and Carla Juri instills a lot of innocence and tenderness as the memory designer Dr. Ana Stelline.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The film captures the sense of scale and overwhelming darkness and strangeness of the future as envisioned by Ridley Scott, Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. The city sets and massive halls of the Wallace Corporation all look and feel like something out of the designs of Frank Gehry. There are visual homages to the original, with the abandoned Tyrell pyramid being dwarfed by the massive building of the Wallace Corporation that help to establish the changes to this world and a greater sense of menace. The fictional language of “cityspeak” is used more profusely, and it does its job of making it integral to the world of the movie and in turn builds up the believability of a futuristic world with changing languages.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://25o2zicw5jz372nu42fxtly6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Blade-Runner-2049-trailer.jpg" alt="Related image" width="737" height="393" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The massive visual effects sequences from the flying cars to city sprawls are incredibly consistent in feel and tone with a thirty-five year old movie. Some of the best material is the actualization of Joi’s holographic presence, creating a somewhat ghostlike aura and allowing for some creative visuals such as how she replicates the effect of rain falling on skin despite not being a physical being. The visual demonstration of the city of Los Angeles and garish, colourful signboards and holograms will elicit many smiles of approval from long time fans of Scott’s sci-fi opus. It’s almost absurd to compare the different sets of effects techniques between the two films, but I must indulge myself this once. The sense of tangibility and grit from the combination of sets and miniatures from the first film that left such a great impression on viewers was lightning in a bottle, and the fact that this comes close, yet not so close as to be a seamless pair, without using the same tools of the 80s is commendable.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The action scenes are sparse and spread out across the long running time, and are gratefully less dependent on flashy effects and editing and more focused on generating suspense and high tension. While there is implementation of CGI or pyrotechnics, none of it feels gratuitous and feels in keeping with the 80’s style of direction, with as much of it filmed in camera as possible. Any scene where Luv is hunting down or fighting K, or indeed any scene where she’s on screen, you get a real sense of danger from the way those scenes are directed and how she dominates each scene.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://www.sideshowtoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/blade-runner-2049.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="358" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Roger Deakins’ cinematography is remarkable, capturing the visual awe and desolation of the future, from the grey, bleak, dark cityscape, the desaturated lighting and sheer absence of life throughout. The use of shadows and contrast of colour in other scenes makes for. The use of fog and lighting help the visual effects feel organically integrated into each scene. While it’s hard to criticize cinematography as remarkable as what Deakins was able to capture, I do think the film feels slightly more in line with Villeneuve’s aesthetic for </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Arrival</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> than it does </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">. There is a lack of fine detail and stark contrast makes a few of the city scenes feel too devoid of life and character, but are otherwise perfect for the grey, barren wastelands around the city. </span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The score is a combined effort by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer alternates between industrial growls and rumbles, and the softer Vangelis themes are occasionally referenced but it’s clear that the new score is its own creature. There is no doubt that this score lends itself completely to the type of film that it is, but like many movie scores these days I don’t really see myself listening to it by itself.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The script by Fancher and Michael Green pursues the existential identity crisis of the original, following up on the theme of “more human to be human” and how much are we a product of our memories. The most touched on theme in the film is that of the replicants receiving recognition as human beings, and what we see raises a great deal of questions that feel pertinent to our world and our relationship with technology and where it could develop from such scenarios, with the possibility of the creation succeeding the declining creator. The relationships between humans, replicants and other forms of artificial intelligence make for some of the most fascinating narrative sequences in any film this year. The scenes with K and Joi are fascinatingly captivating and strange in their own way that you find yourself wondering if indeed this is what the future could hold between us as a species and our advanced technology. At times, I believed them as a couple more than the scenes between Deckard and Rachael in the original. The animal motif of the first film is presented in a more subdued lens, with the wooden horse being presented as a memento of K’s childhood memories. For those who recall the unicorn motif of the first film, this creates another layer of intrigue that pays off really well. </span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The sense of mystery throughout around the underlying premise of a replicant, and is faithful to the film noir aspect of the original film. Gosling does do more on-screen detecting than Deckard, as we follow him you feel like you’re unraveling the mystery with him, and are for the most part more emotionally connected to his journey. The use of flashbacks are intelligently interwoven to the point that it doesn’t feel like a lazy retread of the original, true to form for the film itself. If at one point you start to wonder if the film is being deliberately predictable, the rug gets pulled from under you you. There are certain twists and turns which screw with your expectations by making you too comfortable with any suppositions of the plot you may have had.</span>
This is a longer film than the original <i>Blade Runner,</i> and for me it did feel a bit too long. The pace is very slow, just like the original, and the more desolate dystopian future makes that pacing even more evident. You feel like you’re being tested by it all the way through, even if the final result is rewarding. There is one scene during K’s encounter with Deckard that recreates an Elvis Presley through holograms concert that I could not help but feel baffled by it. It felt very tonally dissonant and not as well shot as the vast majority of the film.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/blade-runner-2049.jpg" alt="Image result for blade runner 2049 screencaps" width="820" height="344" />
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner 2049 </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">builds upon the story of the first film, like all the best sequels, feeling like an organic follow up. Denis Villeneuve is developing an impressive directorial profile to line up. For me it achieves a great deal of balancing philosophical storytelling with emotional resonance, but doesn’t reach total satisfaction. In that sense, it runs the same gambit as the original. I do have my issues with the film but they are so small in comparison to the rest of the film, that it becomes more than the sum of its parts. </span>
Final Score: 4.5 / 5 ���s� �������� �J
� -z����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-67" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlg-353x500.jpg" alt="" width="353" height="500" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The idea of a sequel to </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, a film which felt perfectly self contained in of itself, is something that many people have been cautiously optimistic about, myself included. You would need an idea that felt thematically and spiritually appropriate to such a sequel, and a director who is at the top of his game. Thankfully, that appears to be the case. Stepping down as director, Ridley Scott assumes the role of executive producer and passing the directorial reigns to Denis Villeneuve, who has demonstrated tremendous chops for science fiction after </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Arrival</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> and manages to craft what may well be the best possible version of a sequel in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner 2049</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Thirty years after the events in 2019, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) has vanished, the Tyrell Corporation has gone bankrupt and replaced by the much larger and more powerful replicant corporation headed by Niander Wallace (Jared Leto). While replicants have been integrated into society, discrimination against them is still rampant throughout society. The blade runners, are still in service to retire older replicant models. One of them K (Ryan Gosling), investigates the farm of an elusive replicant, Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista), whom he retires and discovers a flower in front of a tree and finds a buried box. He finds human remains inside. After learning the truth about the box’s contents, K is ordered to destroy all evidence related to the case by his superior, Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright), who believes the knowledge that this discovery presents would destabilize the already tenuous society of humans and replicants.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://indierevolver.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/deckard-br2-e1482163608106.png?w=800" alt="Related image" width="684" height="352" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The acting is very much in line with Villeneuve’s directing style; its subdued but knows when to get more fired up. Gosling is very much a solid successor to Deckard’s blade runner role, with a steely resolve and a lot of conflicting emotions; when they emerge he is able to nail flawlessly. Improving on even his performance in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Force Awakens</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, Ford portrays Deckard as a traumatized and bitter old man, but beneath that crusty shell he does show great emotion and subtle humanity. While not appearing until well into the second half of the film, he commands every scene. Anna de Armis has a great turn as Joi, K’s hologram companion, providing a convincing a manifestation of what artificial intelligence could become in our future; her bond with Gosling’s K is at once mystifying and at times endearing. Leto has a subtle sense of sinister mysticism and strangeness to him, using his voice to come across as more sibilant despite his blindness and frail appearance. Sylvia Hoeks features as a deadly replicant servant of Wallace named Luv, and gives her action scenes a lot of energy and ferocity. As a world weary and hardened police lieutenant, Wright makes the most of a fairly limited expositional role. Bautista has a pretty small but crucial role as the replicant Morton, and Carla Juri instills a lot of innocence and tenderness as the memory designer Dr. Ana Stelline.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The film captures the sense of scale and overwhelming darkness and strangeness of the future as envisioned by Ridley Scott, Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. The city sets and massive halls of the Wallace Corporation all look and feel like something out of the designs of Frank Gehry. There are visual homages to the original, with the abandoned Tyrell pyramid being dwarfed by the massive building of the Wallace Corporation that help to establish the changes to this world and a greater sense of menace. The fictional language of “cityspeak” is used more profusely, and it does its job of making it integral to the world of the movie and in turn builds up the believability of a futuristic world with changing languages.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://25o2zicw5jz372nu42fxtly6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Blade-Runner-2049-trailer.jpg" alt="Related image" width="737" height="393" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The massive visual effects sequences from the flying cars to city sprawls are incredibly consistent in feel and tone with a thirty-five year old movie. Some of the best material is the actualization of Joi’s holographic presence, creating a somewhat ghostlike aura and allowing for some creative visuals such as how she replicates the effect of rain falling on skin despite not being a physical being. The visual demonstration of the city of Los Angeles and garish, colourful signboards and holograms will elicit many smiles of approval from long time fans of Scott’s sci-fi opus. It’s almost absurd to compare the different sets of effects techniques between the two films, but I must indulge myself this once. The sense of tangibility and grit from the combination of sets and miniatures from the first film that left such a great impression on viewers was lightning in a bottle, and the fact that this comes close, yet not so close as to be a seamless pair, without using the same tools of the 80s is commendable.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The action scenes are sparse and spread out across the long running time, and are gratefully less dependent on flashy effects and editing and more focused on generating suspense and high tension. While there is implementation of CGI or pyrotechnics, none of it feels gratuitous and feels in keeping with the 80’s style of direction, with as much of it filmed in camera as possible. Any scene where Luv is hunting down or fighting K, or indeed any scene where she’s on screen, you get a real sense of danger from the way those scenes are directed and how she dominates each scene.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://www.sideshowtoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/blade-runner-2049.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="358" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Roger Deakins’ cinematography is remarkable, capturing the visual awe and desolation of the future, from the grey, bleak, dark cityscape, the desaturated lighting and sheer absence of life throughout. The use of shadows and contrast of colour in other scenes makes for. The use of fog and lighting help the visual effects feel organically integrated into each scene. While it’s hard to criticize cinematography as remarkable as what Deakins was able to capture, I do think the film feels slightly more in line with Villeneuve’s aesthetic for </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Arrival</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> than it does </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">. There is a lack of fine detail and stark contrast makes a few of the city scenes feel too devoid of life and character, but are otherwise perfect for the grey, barren wastelands around the city. </span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The score is a combined effort by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer alternates between industrial growls and rumbles, and the softer Vangelis themes are occasionally referenced but it’s clear that the new score is its own creature. There is no doubt that this score lends itself completely to the type of film that it is, but like many movie scores these days I don’t really see myself listening to it by itself.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The script by Fancher and Michael Green pursues the existential identity crisis of the original, following up on the theme of “more human to be human” and how much are we a product of our memories. The most touched on theme in the film is that of the replicants receiving recognition as human beings, and what we see raises a great deal of questions that feel pertinent to our world and our relationship with technology and where it could develop from such scenarios, with the possibility of the creation succeeding the declining creator. The relationships between humans, replicants and other forms of artificial intelligence make for some of the most fascinating narrative sequences in any film this year. The scenes with K and Joi are fascinatingly captivating and strange in their own way that you find yourself wondering if indeed this is what the future could hold between us as a species and our advanced technology. At times, I believed them as a couple more than the scenes between Deckard and Rachael in the original. The animal motif of the first film is presented in a more subdued lens, with the wooden horse being presented as a memento of K’s childhood memories. For those who recall the unicorn motif of the first film, this creates another layer of intrigue that pays off really well. </span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The sense of mystery throughout around the underlying premise of a replicant, and is faithful to the film noir aspect of the original film. Gosling does do more on-screen detecting than Deckard, as we follow him you feel like you’re unraveling the mystery with him, and are for the most part more emotionally connected to his journey. The use of flashbacks are intelligently interwoven to the point that it doesn’t feel like a lazy retread of the original, true to form for the film itself. If at one point you start to wonder if the film is being deliberately predictable, the rug gets pulled from under you you. There are certain twists and turns which screw with your expectations by making you too comfortable with any suppositions of the plot you may have had.</span>
This is a longer film than the original <i>Blade Runner,</i> and for me it did feel a bit too long. The pace is very slow, just like the original, and the more desolate dystopian future makes that pacing even more evident. You feel like you’re being tested by it all the way through, even if the final result is rewarding. There is one scene during K’s encounter with Deckard that recreates an Elvis Presley through holograms concert that I could not help but feel baffled by it. It felt very tonally dissonant and not as well shot as the vast majority of the film.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/blade-runner-2049.jpg" alt="Image result for blade runner 2049 screencaps" width="820" height="344" />
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner 2049 </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">builds upon the story of the first film, like all the best sequels, feeling like an organic follow up. Denis Villeneuve is developing an impressive directorial profile to line up. For me it achieves a great deal of balancing philosophical storytelling with emotional resonance, but doesn’t reach total satisfaction. In that sense, it runs the same gambit as the original. I do have my issues with the film but they are so small in comparison to the rest of the film, that it becomes more than the sum of its parts. </span>
Final Score: 4.5 / 5 �J��� �������� ؆k
� 6���<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-41" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_ver8.jpg-ver2-337x500.jpg" alt="" width="337" height="500" />
<p style="text-align: left;">What is Sir Ridley Scott’s masterpiece? Is <i>Alien </i>the winner without a shadow of doubt? Or possibly the crowd-pleasing <i>Gladiator</i>? Perhaps one of the most agreed-upon candidates is the sci-fi noir classic <i>Blade Runner</i>. Speaking personally, I came into the fold quite recently. Before seeing it, all I knew was that it had incredible visuals, atmosphere and a solid cast. What I didn’t realise until recently was this film’s ability to grow on me to such a point where I had no hesitations in calling it a masterpiece and a three-way contender with the other two Ridley classics.</p>
Los Angeles, November 2019. Ex-police officer Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is detained by officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) and brought to his former supervisor, Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh). Deckard, whose job as a “blade runner” was to track down bioengineered beings known as replicants to kill or “retire”, is informed that four of them have come to Earth illegally. As Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 models, they only have a four-year lifespan and may have come to Earth to try and extend their lives.
Deckard watches a video of a blade runner named Holden (Morgan Paull) being shot by the test subject, Leon (Brion James), after he asks about Leon’s mother, thus revealing himself as a replicant. Bryant wants Deckard to retire Leon and the other three replicants: Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) and Pris (Daryl Hannah). Deckard meets with Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) and is introduced to his assistant, Rachael (Sean Young), an experimental Nexus-6 model who believes herself to be human. Rachael has been given false memories to provide an “emotional cushion”, and she is devastated to find out later on that her memories were implanted from Tyrell’s niece. Roy and Leon investigate a replicant eye-manufacturing laboratory and learn of J. F. Sebastian (William Sanderson), a gifted genetic designer who works closely with Tyrell. Pris locates him and manipulates J.F. in order to gain his trust and get closer to Tyrell. Deckard’s search for the replicants is pitted against their own search for their creator.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-42" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/rachel-deckard-2-500x208.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="208" />
The acting is excellent and tailors itself well to the type of film that this is. Ford disappears into the slick, laidback detective role, very much a Humphrey Bogart figure like Sam Spade, managing to put a lot of personality and nuance into the role. Young as Rachael has a fragility and mystery about her, seeming at times more human than Deckard. While both actors work well in their respective roles, I don’t find myself invested in the relationship between Deckard and Rachael, as it starts out very rough and uncouth, and there isn’t any real chemistry between Ford and Young. Hauer has an incredible presence as Batty, being poetic and charismatic yet believable as a highly-developed synthetic being, making him a great foil. Olmos is dependable as the exotic Gaff. Turkel has an air of businesslike slyness and genius to him as Tyrell. Hannah convincingly dances back and forth between the facade of naive young girl to determined and dangerous replicant. James fits into the role of the slow and unstable Leon. Sanderson does well as as J. F., having the personality and energy of a younger man within an older body. Cassidy has great sensuality and sheer physical prowess as Zhora, putting up a great fight against Ford. Walsh succeeds in making Bryant a sleazy and unpleasant jerkass, and James Hong as genetics engineer Hannibal Chew does a nice job in a limited role.
As soon as you behold the futuristic vision of Los Angeles, you are instantly drawn into its contrast of fiery light and darkness, tall spires and flying cars. The attention to detail is sublime; each setting has a unique character to it. Every main city location is filled with people, giving the city a lived-in quality. The rampant poverty, cramped marketplaces and torrential rain drive home the unpleasant characteristics of the urban sprawl. The balance of cleverly-constructed set work and real-life locations doubling for film environs is admirable. Naturally, all of it was achieved optically through miniatures and it takes your breath away. As photographic effects supervisors, Richard Yuricich, David Dryer and Douglas Trumbull lend their incredible talents to making the miniatures and optical effects look as seamless as possible. With 35mm film that captures the detail of the combined effects, it’s an example of the old ways still being the best ways. The most impressive of which is the Tyrell pyramid, conveying the size and presence of the building masterfully. The matte paintings blend organically into the real sets and really give the impression of a sprawling metropolis. Anything that would require digital technology, such as a car lifting off, is filmed first in-camera and optically blended into the vast setting.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-43" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LA2019-500x209.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="209" />
The cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth is some of the most beautiful in any movie, from the stunning exterior shots with their vivid contrast of light, dark and striking colour timing, to the composition of elements in the foreground and the background. The way the smoke and steam rises up in a simple scene of characters going about their business is all part of the style, and the style feeds into the greater subtext of the film. The angles from the ground or the darkened sky, as well as the futuristic art deco architecture, fuel the film noir aesthetic. The film contains visual homages to to <i>Metropolis</i>, <i>Citizen Kane</i>, <i>Taxi Driver</i>, <i>Apocalypse Now</i>, <i>The Maltese</i> Falcon,<i> </i>and <i>Shanghai Express</i> among others, effectively channelling the same visual language of classic cinema.
The score by Vangelis is one of a kind, mixing elegant electronic synth with ethereal singing, blending in flawlessly with the sound design, and when combined with the stunning visuals, it becomes almost overwhelming. His themes range from soft and melodic to fast-paced and exciting, and just plain otherworldly. It is a masterpiece in futuristic sci-fi film scores.
The dialogue has an old fashioned 1930s or 40s quality to it, which is appropriate for the poverty, segregation, war, and struggles that marked those decades. Despite the revisions provided by David Peoples to the original script by Hampton Fancher, it still feels like one cohesive piece, with most of the weaker scenes and dialogue excised from the 2007 Final Cut. Notably absent from this definitive edition is the Deckard narration that fills in all the expositional gaps, which ultimately took away from Deckard’s detective work and merely pointed out the obvious. We do open with a text crawl explaining the conflict between humans and replicants, but it is necessary to provide backstory and context for the rest of the film. <em>Blade Runner</em> walks a fine line between being an enclosed and intimate piece and yet something sweeping and epic. Still, it is a hard film to get into if you don’t really know what to expect.
The themes of pollution and overpopulation, as well as the death of animal life on Earth as seen in Philip K. Dick’s source novel, are woven throughout the film. The motif of animals is evident and tied very strongly to each of the characters. The slow and durable Leon is likened to a tortoise; the wild and charismatic Roy is a wolf and literally howls as he hunts Deckard in the finale; the lithe yet strong Zhora has an affinity for snakes; the survivor Pris is a raccoon (signified by the eye makeup); and the quiet and unassuming Sebastian is more mouse than man. The owl is shared by Tyrell as a sharp-eyed, cold and calculating character, and also by Rachael for her beauty and intelligence, being Tyrell’s kin to a certain extent. Each of these animal symbols are present or referred to in at least one scene. Lastly, as represented by the dream sequences and indicative of his unique status, there is Deckard’s correlation with a unicorn. Animals are more valued than humans or replicants in this future, but these characters ultimately have worth and aren’t mere commodities or livestock to be put down.
<img src="https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bladerunner_044a1.jpg" alt="Image result for blade runner los angeles hd" />
The enormous high rises convey the theme of social structure, or societal superiority based on vertical ascension; the higher-ups possess opulence, wealth and power, and the ground levels convey poverty, desperation and chaos. The massive Tyrrell building is an echo of the Mayan temple with ornate metal patterns lining the walls, distinguishing his presence as the creator and the most powerful individual in the film. The movie’s Los Angeles, with its permanent dark cloud of smog, billboards hundreds of feet high, and its street poverty living side by side with incredible wealth, may or may not come true, and this vision of the future is starting to appear in numerous cities across the globe. The pervasive influence of corporation is presented through the enticing adverts of a better life off-world, ringing very true of today’s commercially-driven society. The sort of darkness and cynicism that lingers over the film is of a melancholic and mournful sort while not falling into total nihilism. The hunter falls in love with the hunted, and in turn becomes hunted himself.
Despite their depiction as antagonists in the story, the replicants’ motivations are surprisingly sympathetic; the desire to achieve a greater sense of humanity and an extended lifespan. <i>Blade Runner </i>displays the replicants as a slave race deliberately designed to fail, right at the point when they finally understand what this means. We get our first taste of the cruelty bestowed upon them from the moment they’re created, with false memories to trick them into thinking they’re human only to find out their pasts as they “remembered” them were a lie. We see through Roy’s eyes just how horrible it is to be a creature who exists only to kill other creatures, or to be a sex slave before dying. At the end of the day, the replicants want all of the same things that we as a species take for granted. In another story, Roy would be the hero. Throughout the film, Batty goes through all of the stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. Mortality and identity are among the film’s most prominent themes. The “tears in rain” speech is without question one of the most tender, beautiful and elegiac scenes in cinema history, as Roy relinquishes life with a smile on his face, holding onto a living dove before passing on. In saving Deckard and accepting his fate, he understands humanity in his last moments better than anyone – what we see and do will pass into the ether with our inevitable fate.
Deckard questions his humanity and identity, thus wanting power and control over replicants as he asserts force on Rachael to show that “real” humans are the more dominant force of the two. He does indeed become softer and more understanding, however, supporting the theory confirmed by Ridley Scott that he could possibly be a replicant himself. It is such a brilliant contrast between a man who is dying and seeking meaning to his life and the detective who gains a deeper understanding of who he is after years of a non-life in Los Angeles. The ending suggests a never-ending struggle to survive. The ambiguity of Deckard as possibly being a replicant is part of the allure of the film’s mystery. He does exhibit reflective red eyes in one scene, similar to Rachael, and Gaff is constantly disrespecting him.
The question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant has remained a persistent subject of debate. His alcoholism, grumpy personality, occasional clumsiness, and other basic human vices muddy the possibility somewhat. The dreams he gets of a unicorn running through a forest add credence to the replicant angle, but also raise more questions such as where did this memory come from and why? As a character, Deckard is intelligent enough to realise just how bad things really are, moral enough to be disgusted by the state of the world and having to put down replicants, and yet flawed enough to do horrible things to survive. The central theme of the film, among others, is what makes us human and how the line between human and replicant is becoming increasingly blurred. As we ourselves are more enveloped by technology, the reverse is also true with artificial intelligence and other synthetic lifeforms becoming more identical to their real-life counterparts.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--yZeb7XhS--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1370997402044909604.gif" alt="Image result for tears in rain" width="800" height="331" />
The lasting legacy of <i>Blade Runner</i> extends from creating a whole new science fiction genre to captivating discussion between cinephiles, and is still gaining new fans to this day. Its aesthetic and arthouse directing sensibilities are now highly iconic and the cast and crew pushed themselves above and beyond what was expected of each of them, and the results are crystal clear. From humble beginnings as a cult favourite to a genre-defining classic with a high profile sequel on release, it’s been a long but worthwhile journey for <i>Blade Runner</i>.
Final Score: 5 / 5 ؆k�0|, ���� ��E� � ; �.� K JQ )infimum supremum %
� � � ��� �����<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>October</strong></span>
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-2049-review/Film Listingspublishopenopenhello-world�������� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=1� post� + �� 9 � ���3���#Welcome to BestFilmReviews! I am Oscar Stainton; writer, film geek and reviewer.
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/06/hello-world/Homepublishclosedclosedhome��_q��_q http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=4� page� + J� � � ���3���#This is my personal repository for my passion for movies. Whether they're reviews of bona fide classics, personal favourites and the occasional misfire.
There might be films I love that everyone loves, hated films where I agree with the prevailing views, or films where I go against the grain a little.
Enjoy your time here!Aboutpublishclosedclosedabout��� ��� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=5� page� + F ( � � ���3���#<a href="https://twitter.com/Albion_93">My Twitter Page: Albion_93</a>Contactpublishclosedclosedcontact���'ؙ��� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=6� page� D
�� 0J
� ���3���#Welcome to your site! This is your homepage, which is what most visitors will see when they come to your site for the first time.Homeinheritclosedclosed4-revision-v1���3���# http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/07/4-revision-v1/� revision� D
�� 8U � ���3���#You might be an artist who would like to introduce yourself and your work here or maybe you’re a business with a mission to describe.Aboutinheritclosedclosed5-revision-v1���3���# http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/07/5-revision-v1/� revision� D
�� @V � ���3���#This is a page with some basic contact information, such as an address and phone number. You might also try a plugin to add a contact form.Contactinheritclosedclosed6-revision-v1���3���# http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/07/6-revision-v1/� revision�
; H � � ���3���#Homepublishclosedclosedhome���3���# http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/07/home/� nav_menu_item�
9 P � � ���3���# publishclosedclosed16��^����^�� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/07/16/� nav_menu_item�
9 X � � ���3���# publishclosedclosed18���3���# http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/07/18/� nav_menu_item� D
/ ` � � ����y����yWelcome to BestFilmReviews! I am Oscar StaintonHomeinheritclosedclosed4-autosave-v1����y����y http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/4-autosave-v1/� revision� D
� h� � ��ҡ,��ґ,Welcome to BestFilmReviews! My name is Oscar Stainton, (a.k.a. Albion_93 on Twitter)
This is my personal repository for all things cinematic, whether they're reviews of bona fide classics, personal favourites or just films with unconventional opinions. Enjoy your time here!Homeinheritclosedclosed4-revision-v1��ҡ,��ґ, http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/4-revision-v1/� revision� D
P p � ������Welcome to BestFilmReviews! I am Oscar Stainton; writer, film geek and reviewer.Homeinheritclosedclosed4-revision-v1������ http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/4-revision-v1/� revision� D
V� x � ���ř����This is my personal repository for my passion for movies. Whether they're reviews of bona fide classics, personal favourites or just films with unconventional opinions.
There might be films I love that everyone loves, hated films where I agree with the prevailing views, or films where I go against the grain a little.
Enjoy your time here!Aboutinheritclosedclosed5-autosave-v1���ř���� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/5-autosave-v1/� revision� D
J� � � ���♝���This is my personal repository for my passion for movies. Whether they're reviews of bona fide classics, personal favourites and the occasional misfire.
There might be films I love that everyone loves, hated films where I agree with the prevailing views, or films where I go against the grain a little.
Enjoy your time here!Aboutinheritclosedclosed5-revision-v1���♝��� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/5-revision-v1/� revision� , & #� � � � ���@����0� � & 8mBlade Runner - The Final Cut Reviewpublishclosedclosedblade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review���q����q http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=32� page� E � � � ! � ��� ��� � & 3Minheritclosedclosed32-revision-v1��� ��� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/32-revision-v1/� revision� E *� � " � ���4���4 �
& 3MBlade Runner - The Final Cut (1982) Reviewinheritclosedclosed32-revision-v1���4���4 http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/32-revision-v1/� revision� E *� � # � �������� � & 3UBlade Runner - The Final Cut (1982) Reviewinheritclosedclosed32-revision-v1�������� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/32-revision-v1/� revision� D
�� �� % � ���!y���y<a href="https://twitter.com/Albion_93">This is a page with some basic contact information, such as an address and phone number. You might also try a plugin to add a contact form.</a>Contactinheritclosedclosed6-autosave-v1���!y���y http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/6-autosave-v1/� revision� D
F � & � ���!�����<a href="https://twitter.com/Albion_93">My Twitter Page: Albion_93</a>Contactinheritclosedclosed6-revision-v1���!����� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/6-revision-v1/� revision�
Z �� ) � ���.���� �blade_runner_ver8.jpg ver2inheritopenclosedblade_runner_ver8-jpg-ver2���.���� � http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_ver8.jpg-ver2.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg�
P � � * � ���<ᙝ�,�rachel-deckard-2inheritopenclosedrachel-deckard-2���<ᙝ�,� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/rachel-deckard-2.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg�
F � � + � ���>����.�LA2019inheritopenclosedla2019���>����.� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LA2019.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� E *� � , � ���@����0� � & 6�Blade Runner - The Final Cut (1982) Reviewinheritclosedclosed32-revision-v1���@����0� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/32-revision-v1/� revision�
L � � - � ���A����1�cinemascreeninheritopenclosedcinemascreen���A����1� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cinemascreen.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg�
V � 3 � ���B9���29cropped-cinemascreen-3.jpginheritopenclosedcropped-cinemascreen-3-jpg���B9���29 http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cropped-cinemascreen-3.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� , ߀ �� 5 � ���B����2�<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/">Blade Runner</a>
<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-2049-review/">Blade Runner 2049</a>
Science Fictionpublishclosedclosedscience-fiction����v� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=53� page� , � �� 6 � ���B����2�<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/spartacus/">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/cleopatra/">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/ben-hur/">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/quo-vadis/">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/gladiator/">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-vikings/">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/el-cid/">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/kingdom-of-heaven-directors-cut/">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/henry-v/">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>Thirteen Days of Epicspublishclosedclosedthirteen-days-of-epics���y����i� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=54� page� E � � 7 � ���B����2�Science Fictioninheritclosedclosed53-revision-v1���B����2� 5http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/53-revision-v1/� revision� E � 8 � ���B����2�Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���B����2� 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/54-revision-v1/� revision�
9 � 9 � ���B����2� publishclosedclosed57��^����^�� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/57/� nav_menu_item�
9 � : � ���B����2� publishclosedclosed58��^����^�� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/58/� nav_menu_item� E �� U < � ���ԙ��v�<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/">Blade Runner</a>
Blade Runner 2049Science Fictioninheritclosedclosed53-autosave-v1���ԙ��v� 5http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/53-autosave-v1/� revision� E m B = � ���F����6�<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/">Blade Runner</a>Science Fictioninheritclosedclosed53-revision-v1���F����6� 5http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/53-revision-v1/� revision�
R ( � > � ���w4���g4Pellucidar Jungle2inheritopenclosedpellucidar-jungle2���w4���g4 http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Pellucidar-Jungle2.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� , � 0 � B � ���h���vh �
& /�Blade Runner 2049 Reviewpublishclosedclosedblade-runner-2049-review�������� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=66� page�
g ' ' 83 C � ���!���u!blade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlginheritopenclosedblade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlg���!���u! Bhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlg.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� E � @ � D � ���h���vh � & -zBlade Runner 2049 Reviewinheritclosedclosed66-revision-v1���h���vh Bhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/66-revision-v1/� revision� E ߀H� E � ����v�<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/">Blade Runner</a>
<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-2049-review/">Blade Runner 2049</a>
Science Fictioninheritclosedclosed53-revision-v1����v� 5http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/53-revision-v1/� revision� E *� P F � ������w � & 6�Blade Runner - The Final Cut (1982) Reviewinheritclosedclosed32-revision-v1������w http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/32-revision-v1/� revision� D
� X� G � ���s���s<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>October</strong></span>
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-2049-review/Film Listingsinheritclosedclosed1-autosave-v1���s���s http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/1-autosave-v1/� revision� D
` � I � ����m���mFilm Listingsinheritclosedclosed1-revision-v1����m���m http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/1-revision-v1/� revision� D
�� h K � ����
���
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-2049-review/Film Listingsinheritclosedclosed1-revision-v1����
���
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/1-revision-v1/� revision� p4�0�,� � pJl
B
'C c�� �� �+yE� � 9U�* 43 ( JQ (infimum supremum
P � * � ���<ᙝ�,�rachel-deckard-2inheritopenclosedrachel-deckard-2���<ᙝ�,� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/rachel-deckard-2.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg�
F � + � ���>����.�LA2019inheritopenclosedla2019���>����.� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LA2019.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� E *� , � ���@����0� � & 6�Blade Runner - The Final Cut (1982) Reviewinheritclosedclosed32-revision-v1���@����0� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/32-revision-v1/� revision�
L ( � - � ���A����1�cinemascreeninheritopenclosedcinemascreen���A����1� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cinemascreen.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg�
V 0 3 � ���B9���29cropped-cinemascreen-3.jpginheritopenclosedcropped-cinemascreen-3-jpg���B9���29 http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cropped-cinemascreen-3.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� , ߀ 8� 5 � ���B����2�<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/">Blade Runner</a>
<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-2049-review/">Blade Runner 2049</a>
Science Fictionpublishclosedclosedscience-fiction����v� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=53� page� , � @� 6 � ���B����2�<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/spartacus/">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/cleopatra/">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/ben-hur/">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/quo-vadis/">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/gladiator/">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-vikings/">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/el-cid/">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/kingdom-of-heaven-directors-cut/">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/henry-v/">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>Thirteen Days of Epicspublishclosedclosedthirteen-days-of-epics���y����i� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=54� page� E H � 7 � ���B����2�Science Fictioninheritclosedclosed53-revision-v1���B����2� 5http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/53-revision-v1/� revision� E P � 8 � ���B����2�Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���B����2� 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/54-revision-v1/� revision�
9 X � 9 � ���B����2� publishclosedclosed57��^����^�� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/57/� nav_menu_item�
9 ` � : � ���B����2� publishclosedclosed58��^����^�� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/58/� nav_menu_item� E �� hU < � ���ԙ��v�<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/">Blade Runner</a>
Blade Runner 2049Science Fictioninheritclosedclosed53-autosave-v1���ԙ��v� 5http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/53-autosave-v1/� revision� E m pB = � ���F����6�<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/">Blade Runner</a>Science Fictioninheritclosedclosed53-revision-v1���F����6� 5http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/09/53-revision-v1/� revision�
R x � > � ���w4���g4Pellucidar Jungle2inheritopenclosedpellucidar-jungle2���w4���g4 http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Pellucidar-Jungle2.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� , � � � B � ���h���vh �
& /�Blade Runner 2049 Reviewpublishclosedclosedblade-runner-2049-review�������� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=66� page�
g ' ' �3 C � ���!���u!blade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlginheritopenclosedblade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlg���!���u! Bhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlg.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� E � � � D � ���h���vh � & -zBlade Runner 2049 Reviewinheritclosedclosed66-revision-v1���h���vh Bhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/66-revision-v1/� revision� E ߀ �� E � ����v�<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/">Blade Runner</a>
<a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-2049-review/">Blade Runner 2049</a>
Science Fictioninheritclosedclosed53-revision-v1����v� 5http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/53-revision-v1/� revision� E *� � F � ������w � & 6�Blade Runner - The Final Cut (1982) Reviewinheritclosedclosed32-revision-v1������w http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/32-revision-v1/� revision� D
� �� G � ���s���s<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>October</strong></span>
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-2049-review/Film Listingsinheritclosedclosed1-autosave-v1���s���s http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/1-autosave-v1/� revision� D
� � I � ����m���mFilm Listingsinheritclosedclosed1-revision-v1����m���m http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/1-revision-v1/� revision� D
�� �k K � ����
���
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-2049-review/Film Listingsinheritclosedclosed1-revision-v1����
���
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/1-revision-v1/� revision�
Z Z �n O � ��������http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cropped-Pellucidar-Jungle2.jpgcropped-Pellucidar-Jungle2.jpginheritopenclosedcropped-pellucidar-jungle2-jpg�������� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cropped-Pellucidar-Jungle2.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� E &� � P � ����Y����Y � & 8 Blade Runner - The Final Cut () Reviewinheritclosedclosed32-autosave-v1����Y����Y http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/32-autosave-v1/� revision� E &� � Q � ����i����i � & 8;Blade Runner - The Final Cut () Reviewinheritclosedclosed32-revision-v1����i����i http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/32-revision-v1/� revision�
u 9 9u �� W � ��������http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cropped-cropped-cropped-cropped-Films-Hero-1260x600-1.jpgcropped-cropped-cropped-cropped-Films-Hero-1260x600-1.jpginheritopenclosedcropped-cropped-cropped-cropped-films-hero-1260x600-1-jpg�������� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cropped-cropped-cropped-cropped-Films-Hero-1260x600-1.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg�
T � Y � ����K����Kcropped-cinemascreen.jpginheritopenclosedcropped-cinemascreen-jpg����K����K http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cropped-cinemascreen.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� E #� � � ] � ���q����q � & 8mBlade Runner - The Final Cut Reviewinheritclosedclosed32-revision-v1���q����q http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/32-revision-v1/� revision�
& � � ^ � ������� publishclosedclosed94���R���B http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=94� nav_menu_item�
& � � _ � ������� publishclosedclosed95���R���B http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=95� nav_menu_item�
& � a � ������� publishclosedclosed97��� ,���, http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=97� nav_menu_item�
' � e � ������� publishclosedclosed101���R���B http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=101� nav_menu_item�
' � f � ������� publishclosedclosed102��� -���- http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=102� nav_menu_item� E � � h � �������� � & /gBlade Runner 2049 Reviewinheritclosedclosed66-autosave-v1�������� Bhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/66-autosave-v1/� revision� E � � i � �������� � & /�Blade Runner 2049 Reviewinheritclosedclosed66-revision-v1�������� Bhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/66-revision-v1/� revision� D
�(� m � ��������<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>October</strong></span>
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982-review/
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/blade-runner-2049-review/Film Listingsinheritclosedclosed1-revision-v1�������� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/1-revision-v1/� revision� D
�� 0^ q � ��� �����Welcome to BestFilmReviews! I am Oscar Stainton; writer, film geek and reviewer.
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/06/hello-world/Homeinheritclosedclosed4-revision-v1��� ����� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/4-revision-v1/� revision�
R 8 � r � ���+֙���13DaysofEpics mkIIinheritopenclosed13daysofepics-mkii���+֙��� 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png� attachmentimage/png� E � @� s � ���,ԙ�� �<img class="size-medium wp-image-114 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII-500x301.png" alt="" width="500" height="301" />
<ol>
<li>The Ten Commandments -13<sup>th</sup> October</li>
<li>Troy -14<sup>th</sup> October</li>
<li>300 -15<sup>th</sup> October</li>
<li>Alexander -16<sup>th</sup> October</li>
<li>Spartacus -17<sup>th</sup> October</li>
<li>Cleopatra -18<sup>th</sup> October</li>
<li>Ben-Hur -19<sup>th</sup> October</li>
<li>Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</li>
<li>Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</li>
<li>The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</li>
<li>El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</li>
<li>Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</li>
<li>Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</li>
</ol>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-autosave-v1���,ԙ�� � 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/54-autosave-v1/� revision� E Y� H�= t � ���,���� �<img class="size-medium wp-image-114 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII-500x301.png" alt="" width="500" height="301" />
<p style="text-align: center;">The Ten Commandments -13<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Troy -14<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">300 -15<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Alexander -16<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Spartacus -17<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Cleopatra -18<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Ben-Hur -19<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���,���� � 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/54-revision-v1/� revision� p,-) & !D���L c�+y�4۸ �������� �%b
� 8 ����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-41" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_ver8.jpg-ver2-337x500.jpg" alt="" width="337" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Ridley Scott</strong>
<strong>Written by: Hampton Fancher & David Webb Peoples</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Michael Deeley</strong>
<strong>Studio: The Ladd Company, The Shaw Brothers, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on: Characters from<em> Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?</em> by Philip K. Dick</strong>
<p style="text-align: left;">What is Sir Ridley Scott’s masterpiece? Is <i>Alien </i>the winner without a shadow of doubt? Or possibly the crowd-pleasing <i>Gladiator</i>? Perhaps one of the most agreed-upon candidates is the sci-fi noir classic <i>Blade Runner</i>. Speaking personally, I came into the fold quite recently. Before seeing it, all I knew was that it had incredible visuals, atmosphere and a solid cast. What I didn’t realise until recently was this film’s ability to grow on me to such a point where I had no hesitations in calling it a masterpiece and a three-way contender with the other two Ridley classics.</p>
Los Angeles, November 2019. Ex-police officer Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is detained by officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) and brought to his former supervisor, Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh). Deckard, whose job as a “blade runner” was to track down bioengineered beings known as replicants to kill or “retire”, is informed that four of them have come to Earth illegally. As Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 models, they only have a four-year lifespan and may have come to Earth to try and extend their lives.
Deckard watches a video of a blade runner named Holden (Morgan Paull) being shot by the test subject, Leon (Brion James), after he asks about Leon’s mother, thus revealing himself as a replicant. Bryant wants Deckard to retire Leon and the other three replicants: Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) and Pris (Daryl Hannah). Deckard meets with Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) and is introduced to his assistant, Rachael (Sean Young), an experimental Nexus-6 model who believes herself to be human. Rachael has been given false memories to provide an “emotional cushion”, and she is devastated to find out later on that her memories were implanted from Tyrell’s niece. Roy and Leon investigate a replicant eye-manufacturing laboratory and learn of J. F. Sebastian (William Sanderson), a gifted genetic designer who works closely with Tyrell. Pris locates him and manipulates J.F. in order to gain his trust and get closer to Tyrell. Deckard’s search for the replicants is pitted against their own search for their creator.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-42" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/rachel-deckard-2-500x208.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="208" />
The acting is excellent and tailors itself well to the type of film that this is. Ford disappears into the slick, laidback detective role, very much a Humphrey Bogart figure like Sam Spade, managing to put a lot of personality and nuance into the role. Young as Rachael has a fragility and mystery about her, seeming at times more human than Deckard. While both actors work well in their respective roles, I don’t find myself invested in the relationship between Deckard and Rachael, as it starts out very rough and uncouth, and there isn’t any real chemistry between Ford and Young. Hauer has an incredible presence as Batty, being poetic and charismatic yet believable as a highly-developed synthetic being, making him a great foil. Olmos is dependable as the exotic Gaff. Turkel has an air of businesslike slyness and genius to him as Tyrell. Hannah convincingly dances back and forth between the facade of naive young girl to determined and dangerous replicant. James fits into the role of the slow and unstable Leon. Sanderson does well as as J. F., having the personality and energy of a younger man within an older body. Cassidy has great sensuality and sheer physical prowess as Zhora, putting up a great fight against Ford. Walsh succeeds in making Bryant a sleazy and unpleasant jerkass, and James Hong as genetics engineer Hannibal Chew does a nice job in a limited role.
As soon as you behold the futuristic vision of Los Angeles, you are instantly drawn into its contrast of fiery light and darkness, tall spires and flying cars. The attention to detail is sublime; each setting has a unique character to it. Every main city location is filled with people, giving the city a lived-in quality. The rampant poverty, cramped marketplaces and torrential rain drive home the unpleasant characteristics of the urban sprawl. The balance of cleverly-constructed set work and real-life locations doubling for film environs is admirable. Naturally, all of it was achieved optically through miniatures and it takes your breath away. As photographic effects supervisors, Richard Yuricich, David Dryer and Douglas Trumbull lend their incredible talents to making the miniatures and optical effects look as seamless as possible. With 35mm film that captures the detail of the combined effects, it’s an example of the old ways still being the best ways. The most impressive of which is the Tyrell pyramid, conveying the size and presence of the building masterfully. The matte paintings blend organically into the real sets and really give the impression of a sprawling metropolis. Anything that would require digital technology, such as a car lifting off, is filmed first in-camera and optically blended into the vast setting.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-43" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LA2019-500x209.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="209" />
The cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth is some of the most beautiful in any movie, from the stunning exterior shots with their vivid contrast of light, dark and striking colour timing, to the composition of elements in the foreground and the background. The way the smoke and steam rises up in a simple scene of characters going about their business is all part of the style, and the style feeds into the greater subtext of the film. The angles from the ground or the darkened sky, as well as the futuristic art deco architecture, fuel the film noir aesthetic. The film contains visual homages to to <i>Metropolis</i>, <i>Citizen Kane</i>, <i>Taxi Driver</i>, <i>Apocalypse Now</i>, <i>The Maltese</i> Falcon,<i> </i>and <i>Shanghai Express</i> among others, effectively channelling the same visual language of classic cinema.
The score by Vangelis is one of a kind, mixing elegant electronic synth with ethereal singing, blending in flawlessly with the sound design, and when combined with the stunning visuals, it becomes almost overwhelming. His themes range from soft and melodic to fast-paced and exciting, and just plain otherworldly. It is a masterpiece in futuristic sci-fi film scores.
The dialogue has an old fashioned 1930s or 40s quality to it, which is appropriate for the poverty, segregation, war, and struggles that marked those decades. Despite the revisions provided by David Peoples to the original script by Hampton Fancher, it still feels like one cohesive piece, with most of the weaker scenes and dialogue excised from the 2007 Final Cut. Notably absent from this definitive edition is the Deckard narration that fills in all the expositional gaps, which ultimately took away from Deckard’s detective work and merely pointed out the obvious. We do open with a text crawl explaining the conflict between humans and replicants, but it is necessary to provide backstory and context for the rest of the film. <em>Blade Runner</em> walks a fine line between being an enclosed and intimate piece and yet something sweeping and epic. Still, it is a hard film to get into if you don’t really know what to expect.
The themes of pollution and overpopulation, as well as the death of animal life on Earth as seen in Philip K. Dick’s source novel, are woven throughout the film. The motif of animals is evident and tied very strongly to each of the characters. The slow and durable Leon is likened to a tortoise; the wild and charismatic Roy is a wolf and literally howls as he hunts Deckard in the finale; the lithe yet strong Zhora has an affinity for snakes; the survivor Pris is a raccoon (signified by the eye makeup); and the quiet and unassuming Sebastian is more mouse than man. The owl is shared by Tyrell as a sharp-eyed, cold and calculating character, and also by Rachael for her beauty and intelligence, being Tyrell’s kin to a certain extent. Each of these animal symbols are present or referred to in at least one scene. Lastly, as represented by the dream sequences and indicative of his unique status, there is Deckard’s correlation with a unicorn. Animals are more valued than humans or replicants in this future, but these characters ultimately have worth and aren’t mere commodities or livestock to be put down.
<img src="https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bladerunner_044a1.jpg" alt="Image result for blade runner los angeles hd" />
The enormous high rises convey the theme of social structure, or societal superiority based on vertical ascension; the higher-ups possess opulence, wealth and power, and the ground levels convey poverty, desperation and chaos. The massive Tyrrell building is an echo of the Mayan temple with ornate metal patterns lining the walls, distinguishing his presence as the creator and the most powerful individual in the film. The movie’s Los Angeles, with its permanent dark cloud of smog, billboards hundreds of feet high, and its street poverty living side by side with incredible wealth, may or may not come true, and this vision of the future is starting to appear in numerous cities across the globe. The pervasive influence of corporation is presented through the enticing adverts of a better life off-world, ringing very true of today’s commercially-driven society. The sort of darkness and cynicism that lingers over the film is of a melancholic and mournful sort while not falling into total nihilism. The hunter falls in love with the hunted, and in turn becomes hunted himself.
Despite their depiction as antagonists in the story, the replicants’ motivations are surprisingly sympathetic; the desire to achieve a greater sense of humanity and an extended lifespan. <i>Blade Runner </i>displays the replicants as a slave race deliberately designed to fail, right at the point when they finally understand what this means. We get our first taste of the cruelty bestowed upon them from the moment they’re created, with false memories to trick them into thinking they’re human only to find out their pasts as they “remembered” them were a lie. We see through Roy’s eyes just how horrible it is to be a creature who exists only to kill other creatures, or to be a sex slave before dying. At the end of the day, the replicants want all of the same things that we as a species take for granted. In another story, Roy would be the hero. Throughout the film, Batty goes through all of the stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. Mortality and identity are among the film’s most prominent themes. The “tears in rain” speech is without question one of the most tender, beautiful and elegiac scenes in cinema history, as Roy relinquishes life with a smile on his face, holding onto a living dove before passing on. In saving Deckard and accepting his fate, he understands humanity in his last moments better than anyone – what we see and do will pass into the ether with our inevitable fate.
Deckard questions his humanity and identity, thus wanting power and control over replicants as he asserts force on Rachael to show that “real” humans are the more dominant force of the two. He does indeed become softer and more understanding, however, supporting the theory confirmed by Ridley Scott that he could possibly be a replicant himself. It is such a brilliant contrast between a man who is dying and seeking meaning to his life and the detective who gains a deeper understanding of who he is after years of a non-life in Los Angeles. The ending suggests a never-ending struggle to survive. The ambiguity of Deckard as possibly being a replicant is part of the allure of the film’s mystery. He does exhibit reflective red eyes in one scene, similar to Rachael, and Gaff is constantly disrespecting him.
The question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant has remained a persistent subject of debate. His alcoholism, grumpy personality, occasional clumsiness, and other basic human vices muddy the possibility somewhat. The dreams he gets of a unicorn running through a forest add credence to the replicant angle, but also raise more questions such as where did this memory come from and why? As a character, Deckard is intelligent enough to realise just how bad things really are, moral enough to be disgusted by the state of the world and having to put down replicants, and yet flawed enough to do horrible things to survive. The central theme of the film, among others, is what makes us human and how the line between human and replicant is becoming increasingly blurred. As we ourselves are more enveloped by technology, the reverse is also true with artificial intelligence and other synthetic lifeforms becoming more identical to their real-life counterparts.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--yZeb7XhS--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1370997402044909604.gif" alt="Image result for tears in rain" width="800" height="331" />
The lasting legacy of <i>Blade Runner</i> extends from creating a whole new science fiction genre to captivating discussion between cinephiles, and is still gaining new fans to this day. Its aesthetic and arthouse directing sensibilities are now highly iconic and the cast and crew pushed themselves above and beyond what was expected of each of them, and the results are crystal clear. From humble beginnings as a cult favourite to a genre-defining classic with a high profile sequel on release, it’s been a long but worthwhile journey for <i>Blade Runner</i>.
Final Score: 5 / 5 �%b;� Z �������� �a
� 8;����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-41" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_ver8.jpg-ver2-337x500.jpg" alt="" width="337" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Ridley Scott</strong>
<strong>Written by: Hampton Fancher & David Webb Peoples</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Michael Deeley</strong>
<strong>Studio: The Ladd Company, The Shaw Brothers, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on: <em>Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?</em> by Philip K. Dick</strong>
<p style="text-align: left;">What is Sir Ridley Scott’s masterpiece? Is <i>Alien </i>the winner without a shadow of doubt? Or possibly the crowd-pleasing <i>Gladiator</i>? Perhaps one of the most agreed-upon candidates is the sci-fi noir classic <i>Blade Runner</i>. Speaking personally, I came into the fold quite recently. Before seeing it, all I knew was that it had incredible visuals, atmosphere and a solid cast. What I didn’t realise until recently was this film’s ability to grow on me to such a point where I had no hesitations in calling it a masterpiece and a three-way contender with the other two Ridley classics.</p>
Los Angeles, November 2019. Ex-police officer Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is detained by officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) and brought to his former supervisor, Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh). Deckard, whose job as a “blade runner” was to track down bioengineered beings known as replicants to kill or “retire”, is informed that four of them have come to Earth illegally. As Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 models, they only have a four-year lifespan and may have come to Earth to try and extend their lives.
Deckard watches a video of a blade runner named Holden (Morgan Paull) being shot by the test subject, Leon (Brion James), after he asks about Leon’s mother, thus revealing himself as a replicant. Bryant wants Deckard to retire Leon and the other three replicants: Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) and Pris (Daryl Hannah). Deckard meets with Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) and is introduced to his assistant, Rachael (Sean Young), an experimental Nexus-6 model who believes herself to be human. Rachael has been given false memories to provide an “emotional cushion”, and she is devastated to find out later on that her memories were implanted from Tyrell’s niece. Roy and Leon investigate a replicant eye-manufacturing laboratory and learn of J. F. Sebastian (William Sanderson), a gifted genetic designer who works closely with Tyrell. Pris locates him and manipulates J.F. in order to gain his trust and get closer to Tyrell. Deckard’s search for the replicants is pitted against their own search for their creator.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-42" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/rachel-deckard-2-500x208.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="208" />
The acting is excellent and tailors itself well to the type of film that this is. Ford disappears into the slick, laidback detective role, very much a Humphrey Bogart figure like Sam Spade, managing to put a lot of personality and nuance into the role. Young as Rachael has a fragility and mystery about her, seeming at times more human than Deckard. While both actors work well in their respective roles, I don’t find myself invested in the relationship between Deckard and Rachael, as it starts out very rough and uncouth, and there isn’t any real chemistry between Ford and Young. Hauer has an incredible presence as Batty, being poetic and charismatic yet believable as a highly-developed synthetic being, making him a great foil. Olmos is dependable as the exotic Gaff. Turkel has an air of businesslike slyness and genius to him as Tyrell. Hannah convincingly dances back and forth between the facade of naive young girl to determined and dangerous replicant. James fits into the role of the slow and unstable Leon. Sanderson does well as as J. F., having the personality and energy of a younger man within an older body. Cassidy has great sensuality and sheer physical prowess as Zhora, putting up a great fight against Ford. Walsh succeeds in making Bryant a sleazy and unpleasant jerkass, and James Hong as genetics engineer Hannibal Chew does a nice job in a limited role.
As soon as you behold the futuristic vision of Los Angeles, you are instantly drawn into its contrast of fiery light and darkness, tall spires and flying cars. The attention to detail is sublime; each setting has a unique character to it. Every main city location is filled with people, giving the city a lived-in quality. The rampant poverty, cramped marketplaces and torrential rain drive home the unpleasant characteristics of the urban sprawl. The balance of cleverly-constructed set work and real-life locations doubling for film environs is admirable. Naturally, all of it was achieved optically through miniatures and it takes your breath away. As photographic effects supervisors, Richard Yuricich, David Dryer and Douglas Trumbull lend their incredible talents to making the miniatures and optical effects look as seamless as possible. With 35mm film that captures the detail of the combined effects, it’s an example of the old ways still being the best ways. The most impressive of which is the Tyrell pyramid, conveying the size and presence of the building masterfully. The matte paintings blend organically into the real sets and really give the impression of a sprawling metropolis. Anything that would require digital technology, such as a car lifting off, is filmed first in-camera and optically blended into the vast setting.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-43" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LA2019-500x209.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="209" />
The cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth is some of the most beautiful in any movie, from the stunning exterior shots with their vivid contrast of light, dark and striking colour timing, to the composition of elements in the foreground and the background. The way the smoke and steam rises up in a simple scene of characters going about their business is all part of the style, and the style feeds into the greater subtext of the film. The angles from the ground or the darkened sky, as well as the futuristic art deco architecture, fuel the film noir aesthetic. The film contains visual homages to to <i>Metropolis</i>, <i>Citizen Kane</i>, <i>Taxi Driver</i>, <i>Apocalypse Now</i>, <i>The Maltese</i> Falcon,<i> </i>and <i>Shanghai Express</i> among others, effectively channelling the same visual language of classic cinema.
The score by Vangelis is one of a kind, mixing elegant electronic synth with ethereal singing, blending in flawlessly with the sound design, and when combined with the stunning visuals, it becomes almost overwhelming. His themes range from soft and melodic to fast-paced and exciting, and just plain otherworldly. It is a masterpiece in futuristic sci-fi film scores.
The dialogue has an old fashioned 1930s or 40s quality to it, which is appropriate for the poverty, segregation, war, and struggles that marked those decades. Despite the revisions provided by David Peoples to the original script by Hampton Fancher, it still feels like one cohesive piece, with most of the weaker scenes and dialogue excised from the 2007 Final Cut. Notably absent from this definitive edition is the Deckard narration that fills in all the expositional gaps, which ultimately took away from Deckard’s detective work and merely pointed out the obvious. We do open with a text crawl explaining the conflict between humans and replicants, but it is necessary to provide backstory and context for the rest of the film. <em>Blade Runner</em> walks a fine line between being an enclosed and intimate piece and yet something sweeping and epic. Still, it is a hard film to get into if you don’t really know what to expect.
The themes of pollution and overpopulation, as well as the death of animal life on Earth as seen in Philip K. Dick’s source novel, are woven throughout the film. The motif of animals is evident and tied very strongly to each of the characters. The slow and durable Leon is likened to a tortoise; the wild and charismatic Roy is a wolf and literally howls as he hunts Deckard in the finale; the lithe yet strong Zhora has an affinity for snakes; the survivor Pris is a raccoon (signified by the eye makeup); and the quiet and unassuming Sebastian is more mouse than man. The owl is shared by Tyrell as a sharp-eyed, cold and calculating character, and also by Rachael for her beauty and intelligence, being Tyrell’s kin to a certain extent. Each of these animal symbols are present or referred to in at least one scene. Lastly, as represented by the dream sequences and indicative of his unique status, there is Deckard’s correlation with a unicorn. Animals are more valued than humans or replicants in this future, but these characters ultimately have worth and aren’t mere commodities or livestock to be put down.
<img src="https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bladerunner_044a1.jpg" alt="Image result for blade runner los angeles hd" />
The enormous high rises convey the theme of social structure, or societal superiority based on vertical ascension; the higher-ups possess opulence, wealth and power, and the ground levels convey poverty, desperation and chaos. The massive Tyrrell building is an echo of the Mayan temple with ornate metal patterns lining the walls, distinguishing his presence as the creator and the most powerful individual in the film. The movie’s Los Angeles, with its permanent dark cloud of smog, billboards hundreds of feet high, and its street poverty living side by side with incredible wealth, may or may not come true, and this vision of the future is starting to appear in numerous cities across the globe. The pervasive influence of corporation is presented through the enticing adverts of a better life off-world, ringing very true of today’s commercially-driven society. The sort of darkness and cynicism that lingers over the film is of a melancholic and mournful sort while not falling into total nihilism. The hunter falls in love with the hunted, and in turn becomes hunted himself.
Despite their depiction as antagonists in the story, the replicants’ motivations are surprisingly sympathetic; the desire to achieve a greater sense of humanity and an extended lifespan. <i>Blade Runner </i>displays the replicants as a slave race deliberately designed to fail, right at the point when they finally understand what this means. We get our first taste of the cruelty bestowed upon them from the moment they’re created, with false memories to trick them into thinking they’re human only to find out their pasts as they “remembered” them were a lie. We see through Roy’s eyes just how horrible it is to be a creature who exists only to kill other creatures, or to be a sex slave before dying. At the end of the day, the replicants want all of the same things that we as a species take for granted. In another story, Roy would be the hero. Throughout the film, Batty goes through all of the stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. Mortality and identity are among the film’s most prominent themes. The “tears in rain” speech is without question one of the most tender, beautiful and elegiac scenes in cinema history, as Roy relinquishes life with a smile on his face, holding onto a living dove before passing on. In saving Deckard and accepting his fate, he understands humanity in his last moments better than anyone – what we see and do will pass into the ether with our inevitable fate.
Deckard questions his humanity and identity, thus wanting power and control over replicants as he asserts force on Rachael to show that “real” humans are the more dominant force of the two. He does indeed become softer and more understanding, however, supporting the theory confirmed by Ridley Scott that he could possibly be a replicant himself. It is such a brilliant contrast between a man who is dying and seeking meaning to his life and the detective who gains a deeper understanding of who he is after years of a non-life in Los Angeles. The ending suggests a never-ending struggle to survive. The ambiguity of Deckard as possibly being a replicant is part of the allure of the film’s mystery. He does exhibit reflective red eyes in one scene, similar to Rachael, and Gaff is constantly disrespecting him.
The question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant has remained a persistent subject of debate. His alcoholism, grumpy personality, occasional clumsiness, and other basic human vices muddy the possibility somewhat. The dreams he gets of a unicorn running through a forest add credence to the replicant angle, but also raise more questions such as where did this memory come from and why? As a character, Deckard is intelligent enough to realise just how bad things really are, moral enough to be disgusted by the state of the world and having to put down replicants, and yet flawed enough to do horrible things to survive. The central theme of the film, among others, is what makes us human and how the line between human and replicant is becoming increasingly blurred. As we ourselves are more enveloped by technology, the reverse is also true with artificial intelligence and other synthetic lifeforms becoming more identical to their real-life counterparts.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--yZeb7XhS--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1370997402044909604.gif" alt="Image result for tears in rain" width="800" height="331" />
The lasting legacy of <i>Blade Runner</i> extends from creating a whole new science fiction genre to captivating discussion between cinephiles, and is still gaining new fans to this day. Its aesthetic and arthouse directing sensibilities are now highly iconic and the cast and crew pushed themselves above and beyond what was expected of each of them, and the results are crystal clear. From humble beginnings as a cult favourite to a genre-defining classic with a high profile sequel on release, it’s been a long but worthwhile journey for <i>Blade Runner</i>.
Final Score: 5 / 5 �a�S� �������� ٠�
� 8m����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-41" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_ver8.jpg-ver2-337x500.jpg" alt="" width="337" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Ridley Scott</strong>
<strong>Written by: Hampton Fancher & David Webb Peoples</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Michael Deeley</strong>
<strong>Studio: The Ladd Company, The Shaw Brothers, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on: <em>Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?</em> by Philip K. Dick</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 25th June, 1982</strong>
<p style="text-align: left;">What is Sir Ridley Scott’s masterpiece? Is <i>Alien </i>the winner without a shadow of doubt? Or possibly the crowd-pleasing <i>Gladiator</i>? Perhaps one of the most agreed-upon candidates is the sci-fi noir classic <i>Blade Runner</i>. Speaking personally, I came into the fold quite recently. Before seeing it, all I knew was that it had incredible visuals, atmosphere and a solid cast. What I didn’t realise until recently was this film’s ability to grow on me to such a point where I had no hesitations in calling it a masterpiece and a three-way contender with the other two Ridley classics.</p>
Los Angeles, November 2019. Ex-police officer Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is detained by officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) and brought to his former supervisor, Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh). Deckard, whose job as a “blade runner” was to track down bioengineered beings known as replicants to kill or “retire”, is informed that four of them have come to Earth illegally. As Tyrell Corporation Nexus-6 models, they only have a four-year lifespan and may have come to Earth to try and extend their lives.
Deckard watches a video of a blade runner named Holden (Morgan Paull) being shot by the test subject, Leon (Brion James), after he asks about Leon’s mother, thus revealing himself as a replicant. Bryant wants Deckard to retire Leon and the other three replicants: Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) and Pris (Daryl Hannah). Deckard meets with Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) and is introduced to his assistant, Rachael (Sean Young), an experimental Nexus-6 model who believes herself to be human. Rachael has been given false memories to provide an “emotional cushion”, and she is devastated to find out later on that her memories were implanted from Tyrell’s niece. Roy and Leon investigate a replicant eye-manufacturing laboratory and learn of J. F. Sebastian (William Sanderson), a gifted genetic designer who works closely with Tyrell. Pris locates him and manipulates J.F. in order to gain his trust and get closer to Tyrell. Deckard’s search for the replicants is pitted against their own search for their creator.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-42" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/rachel-deckard-2-500x208.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="208" />
The acting is excellent and tailors itself well to the type of film that this is. Ford disappears into the slick, laidback detective role, very much a Humphrey Bogart figure like Sam Spade, managing to put a lot of personality and nuance into the role. Young as Rachael has a fragility and mystery about her, seeming at times more human than Deckard. While both actors work well in their respective roles, I don’t find myself invested in the relationship between Deckard and Rachael, as it starts out very rough and uncouth, and there isn’t any real chemistry between Ford and Young. Hauer has an incredible presence as Batty, being poetic and charismatic yet believable as a highly-developed synthetic being, making him a great foil. Olmos is dependable as the exotic Gaff. Turkel has an air of businesslike slyness and genius to him as Tyrell. Hannah convincingly dances back and forth between the facade of naive young girl to determined and dangerous replicant. James fits into the role of the slow and unstable Leon. Sanderson does well as as J. F., having the personality and energy of a younger man within an older body. Cassidy has great sensuality and sheer physical prowess as Zhora, putting up a great fight against Ford. Walsh succeeds in making Bryant a sleazy and unpleasant jerkass, and James Hong as genetics engineer Hannibal Chew does a nice job in a limited role.
As soon as you behold the futuristic vision of Los Angeles, you are instantly drawn into its contrast of fiery light and darkness, tall spires and flying cars. The attention to detail is sublime; each setting has a unique character to it. Every main city location is filled with people, giving the city a lived-in quality. The rampant poverty, cramped marketplaces and torrential rain drive home the unpleasant characteristics of the urban sprawl. The balance of cleverly-constructed set work and real-life locations doubling for film environs is admirable. Naturally, all of it was achieved optically through miniatures and it takes your breath away. As photographic effects supervisors, Richard Yuricich, David Dryer and Douglas Trumbull lend their incredible talents to making the miniatures and optical effects look as seamless as possible. With 35mm film that captures the detail of the combined effects, it’s an example of the old ways still being the best ways. The most impressive of which is the Tyrell pyramid, conveying the size and presence of the building masterfully. The matte paintings blend organically into the real sets and really give the impression of a sprawling metropolis. Anything that would require digital technology, such as a car lifting off, is filmed first in-camera and optically blended into the vast setting.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-43" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LA2019-500x209.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="209" />
The cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth is some of the most beautiful in any movie, from the stunning exterior shots with their vivid contrast of light, dark and striking colour timing, to the composition of elements in the foreground and the background. The way the smoke and steam rises up in a simple scene of characters going about their business is all part of the style, and the style feeds into the greater subtext of the film. The angles from the ground or the darkened sky, as well as the futuristic art deco architecture, fuel the film noir aesthetic. The film contains visual homages to to <i>Metropolis</i>, <i>Citizen Kane</i>, <i>Taxi Driver</i>, <i>Apocalypse Now</i>, <i>The Maltese</i> Falcon,<i> </i>and <i>Shanghai Express</i> among others, effectively channelling the same visual language of classic cinema.
The score by Vangelis is one of a kind, mixing elegant electronic synth with ethereal singing, blending in flawlessly with the sound design, and when combined with the stunning visuals, it becomes almost overwhelming. His themes range from soft and melodic to fast-paced and exciting, and just plain otherworldly. It is a masterpiece in futuristic sci-fi film scores.
The dialogue has an old fashioned 1930s or 40s quality to it, which is appropriate for the poverty, segregation, war, and struggles that marked those decades. Despite the revisions provided by David Peoples to the original script by Hampton Fancher, it still feels like one cohesive piece, with most of the weaker scenes and dialogue excised from the 2007 Final Cut. Notably absent from this definitive edition is the Deckard narration that fills in all the expositional gaps, which ultimately took away from Deckard’s detective work and merely pointed out the obvious. We do open with a text crawl explaining the conflict between humans and replicants, but it is necessary to provide backstory and context for the rest of the film. <em>Blade Runner</em> walks a fine line between being an enclosed and intimate piece and yet something sweeping and epic. Still, it is a hard film to get into if you don’t really know what to expect.
The themes of pollution and overpopulation, as well as the death of animal life on Earth as seen in Philip K. Dick’s source novel, are woven throughout the film. The motif of animals is evident and tied very strongly to each of the characters. The slow and durable Leon is likened to a tortoise; the wild and charismatic Roy is a wolf and literally howls as he hunts Deckard in the finale; the lithe yet strong Zhora has an affinity for snakes; the survivor Pris is a raccoon (signified by the eye makeup); and the quiet and unassuming Sebastian is more mouse than man. The owl is shared by Tyrell as a sharp-eyed, cold and calculating character, and also by Rachael for her beauty and intelligence, being Tyrell’s kin to a certain extent. Each of these animal symbols are present or referred to in at least one scene. Lastly, as represented by the dream sequences and indicative of his unique status, there is Deckard’s correlation with a unicorn. Animals are more valued than humans or replicants in this future, but these characters ultimately have worth and aren’t mere commodities or livestock to be put down.
<img src="https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bladerunner_044a1.jpg" alt="Image result for blade runner los angeles hd" />
The enormous high rises convey the theme of social structure, or societal superiority based on vertical ascension; the higher-ups possess opulence, wealth and power, and the ground levels convey poverty, desperation and chaos. The massive Tyrrell building is an echo of the Mayan temple with ornate metal patterns lining the walls, distinguishing his presence as the creator and the most powerful individual in the film. The movie’s Los Angeles, with its permanent dark cloud of smog, billboards hundreds of feet high, and its street poverty living side by side with incredible wealth, may or may not come true, and this vision of the future is starting to appear in numerous cities across the globe. The pervasive influence of corporation is presented through the enticing adverts of a better life off-world, ringing very true of today’s commercially-driven society. The sort of darkness and cynicism that lingers over the film is of a melancholic and mournful sort while not falling into total nihilism. The hunter falls in love with the hunted, and in turn becomes hunted himself.
Despite their depiction as antagonists in the story, the replicants’ motivations are surprisingly sympathetic; the desire to achieve a greater sense of humanity and an extended lifespan. <i>Blade Runner </i>displays the replicants as a slave race deliberately designed to fail, right at the point when they finally understand what this means. We get our first taste of the cruelty bestowed upon them from the moment they’re created, with false memories to trick them into thinking they’re human only to find out their pasts as they “remembered” them were a lie. We see through Roy’s eyes just how horrible it is to be a creature who exists only to kill other creatures, or to be a sex slave before dying. At the end of the day, the replicants want all of the same things that we as a species take for granted. In another story, Roy would be the hero. Throughout the film, Batty goes through all of the stages of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. Mortality and identity are among the film’s most prominent themes. The “tears in rain” speech is without question one of the most tender, beautiful and elegiac scenes in cinema history, as Roy relinquishes life with a smile on his face, holding onto a living dove before passing on. In saving Deckard and accepting his fate, he understands humanity in his last moments better than anyone – what we see and do will pass into the ether with our inevitable fate.
Deckard questions his humanity and identity, thus wanting power and control over replicants as he asserts force on Rachael to show that “real” humans are the more dominant force of the two. He does indeed become softer and more understanding, however, supporting the theory confirmed by Ridley Scott that he could possibly be a replicant himself. It is such a brilliant contrast between a man who is dying and seeking meaning to his life and the detective who gains a deeper understanding of who he is after years of a non-life in Los Angeles. The ending suggests a never-ending struggle to survive. The ambiguity of Deckard as possibly being a replicant is part of the allure of the film’s mystery. He does exhibit reflective red eyes in one scene, similar to Rachael, and Gaff is constantly disrespecting him.
The question as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant has remained a persistent subject of debate. His alcoholism, grumpy personality, occasional clumsiness, and other basic human vices muddy the possibility somewhat. The dreams he gets of a unicorn running through a forest add credence to the replicant angle, but also raise more questions such as where did this memory come from and why? As a character, Deckard is intelligent enough to realise just how bad things really are, moral enough to be disgusted by the state of the world and having to put down replicants, and yet flawed enough to do horrible things to survive. The central theme of the film, among others, is what makes us human and how the line between human and replicant is becoming increasingly blurred. As we ourselves are more enveloped by technology, the reverse is also true with artificial intelligence and other synthetic lifeforms becoming more identical to their real-life counterparts.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--yZeb7XhS--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1370997402044909604.gif" alt="Image result for tears in rain" width="800" height="331" />
The lasting legacy of <i>Blade Runner</i> extends from creating a whole new science fiction genre to captivating discussion between cinephiles, and is still gaining new fans to this day. Its aesthetic and arthouse directing sensibilities are now highly iconic and the cast and crew pushed themselves above and beyond what was expected of each of them, and the results are crystal clear. From humble beginnings as a cult favourite to a genre-defining classic with a high profile sequel on release, it’s been a long but worthwhile journey for <i>Blade Runner</i>.
Final Score: 5 / 5 ٠�iQ �������� ���
� /g����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-67" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlg-353x500.jpg" alt="" width="353" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Denis Villeneuve</strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Hampton Fancher & Michael Green</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Andrew A. Kosove, Broderick Johnson, Bud Yorkin, Cynthia Yorkin, Ridley Scott (Executive Producer)</strong>
<strong>Based on: Characters from <em>Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? </em></strong><strong>by PhilipK. Dick</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 6th October 2017</strong>
<strong>Studio: Alcon Entertainment, Scott Free Productions, Warner Bros. Pictures/Columbia Pictures</strong>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The idea of a sequel to </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, a film which felt perfectly self contained in of itself, is something that many people have been cautiously optimistic about, myself included. You would need an idea that felt thematically and spiritually appropriate to such a sequel, and a director who is at the top of his game. Thankfully, that appears to be the case. Stepping down as director, Ridley Scott assumes the role of executive producer and passing the directorial reigns to Denis Villeneuve, who has demonstrated tremendous chops for science fiction after </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Arrival</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> and manages to craft what may well be the best possible version of a sequel in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner 2049</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Thirty years after the events in 2019, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) has vanished, the Tyrell Corporation has gone bankrupt and replaced by the much larger and more powerful replicant corporation headed by Niander Wallace (Jared Leto). While replicants have been integrated into society, discrimination against them is still rampant throughout society. The blade runners, are still in service to retire older replicant models. One of them K (Ryan Gosling), investigates the farm of an elusive replicant, Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista), whom he retires and discovers a flower in front of a tree and finds a buried box. He finds human remains inside. After learning the truth about the box’s contents, K is ordered to destroy all evidence related to the case by his superior, Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright), who believes the knowledge that this discovery presents would destabilize the already tenuous society of humans and replicants.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://indierevolver.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/deckard-br2-e1482163608106.png?w=800" alt="Related image" width="684" height="352" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The acting is very much in line with Villeneuve’s directing style; its subdued but knows when to get more fired up. Gosling is very much a solid successor to Deckard’s blade runner role, with a steely resolve and a lot of conflicting emotions; when they emerge he is able to nail flawlessly. Improving on even his performance in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Force Awakens</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, Ford portrays Deckard as a traumatized and bitter old man, but beneath that crusty shell he does show great emotion and subtle humanity. While not appearing until well into the second half of the film, he commands every scene. Anna de Armis has a great turn as Joi, K’s hologram companion, providing a convincing a manifestation of what artificial intelligence could become in our future; her bond with Gosling’s K is at once mystifying and at times endearing. Leto has a subtle sense of sinister mysticism and strangeness to him, using his voice to come across as more sibilant despite his blindness and frail appearance. Sylvia Hoeks features as a deadly replicant servant of Wallace named Luv, and gives her action scenes a lot of energy and ferocity. As a world weary and hardened police lieutenant, Wright makes the most of a fairly limited expositional role. Bautista has a pretty small but crucial role as the replicant Morton, and Carla Juri instills a lot of innocence and tenderness as the memory designer Dr. Ana Stelline.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The film captures the sense of scale and overwhelming darkness and strangeness of the future as envisioned by Ridley Scott, Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. The city sets and massive halls of the Wallace Corporation all look and feel like something out of the designs of Frank Gehry. There are visual homages to the original, with the abandoned Tyrell pyramid being dwarfed by the massive building of the Wallace Corporation that help to establish the changes to this world and a greater sense of menace. The fictional language of “cityspeak” is used more profusely, and it does its job of making it integral to the world of the movie and in turn builds up the believability of a futuristic world with changing languages.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://25o2zicw5jz372nu42fxtly6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Blade-Runner-2049-trailer.jpg" alt="Related image" width="737" height="393" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The massive visual effects sequences from the flying cars to city sprawls are incredibly consistent in feel and tone with a thirty-five year old movie. Some of the best material is the actualization of Joi’s holographic presence, creating a somewhat ghostlike aura and allowing for some creative visuals such as how she replicates the effect of rain falling on skin despite not being a physical being. The visual demonstration of the city of Los Angeles and garish, colourful signboards and holograms will elicit many smiles of approval from long time fans of Scott’s sci-fi opus. It’s almost absurd to compare the different sets of effects techniques between the two films, but I must indulge myself this once. The sense of tangibility and grit from the combination of sets and miniatures from the first film that left such a great impression on viewers was lightning in a bottle, and the fact that this comes close, yet not so close as to be a seamless pair, without using the same tools of the 80s is commendable.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The action scenes are sparse and spread out across the long running time, and are gratefully less dependent on flashy effects and editing and more focused on generating suspense and high tension. While there is implementation of CGI or pyrotechnics, none of it feels gratuitous and feels in keeping with the 80’s style of direction, with as much of it filmed in camera as possible. Any scene where Luv is hunting down or fighting K, or indeed any scene where she’s on screen, you get a real sense of danger from the way those scenes are directed and how she dominates each scene.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://www.sideshowtoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/blade-runner-2049.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="358" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Roger Deakins’ cinematography is remarkable, capturing the visual awe and desolation of the future, from the grey, bleak, dark cityscape, the desaturated lighting and sheer absence of life throughout. The use of shadows and contrast of colour in other scenes makes for. The use of fog and lighting help the visual effects feel organically integrated into each scene. While it’s hard to criticize cinematography as remarkable as what Deakins was able to capture, I do think the film feels slightly more in line with Villeneuve’s aesthetic for </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Arrival</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> than it does </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">. There is a lack of fine detail and stark contrast makes a few of the city scenes feel too devoid of life and character, but are otherwise perfect for the grey, barren wastelands around the city. </span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The score is a combined effort by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer alternates between industrial growls and rumbles, and the softer Vangelis themes are occasionally referenced but it’s clear that the new score is its own creature. There is no doubt that this score lends itself completely to the type of film that it is, but like many movie scores these days I don’t really see myself listening to it by itself.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The script by Fancher and Michael Green pursues the existential identity crisis of the original, following up on the theme of “more human to be human” and how much are we a product of our memories. The most touched on theme in the film is that of the replicants receiving recognition as human beings, and what we see raises a great deal of questions that feel pertinent to our world and our relationship with technology and where it could develop from such scenarios, with the possibility of the creation succeeding the declining creator. The relationships between humans, replicants and other forms of artificial intelligence make for some of the most fascinating narrative sequences in any film this year. The scenes with K and Joi are fascinatingly captivating and strange in their own way that you find yourself wondering if indeed this is what the future could hold between us as a species and our advanced technology. At times, I believed them as a couple more than the scenes between Deckard and Rachael in the original. The animal motif of the first film is presented in a more subdued lens, with the wooden horse being presented as a memento of K’s childhood memories. For those who recall the unicorn motif of the first film, this creates another layer of intrigue that pays off really well. </span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The sense of mystery throughout around the underlying premise of a replicant, and is faithful to the film noir aspect of the original film. Gosling does do more on-screen detecting than Deckard, as we follow him you feel like you’re unraveling the mystery with him, and are for the most part more emotionally connected to his journey. The use of flashbacks are intelligently interwoven to the point that it doesn’t feel like a lazy retread of the original, true to form for the film itself. If at one point you start to wonder if the film is being deliberately predictable, the rug gets pulled from under you you. There are certain twists and turns which screw with your expectations by making you too comfortable with any suppositions of the plot you may have had.</span>
This is a longer film than the original <i>Blade Runner,</i> and for me it did feel a bit too long. The pace is very slow, just like the original, and the more desolate dystopian future makes that pacing even more evident. You feel like you’re being tested by it all the way through, even if the final result is rewarding. There is one scene during K’s encounter with Deckard that recreates an Elvis Presley through holograms concert that I could not help but feel baffled by it. It felt very tonally dissonant and not as well shot as the vast majority of the film.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/blade-runner-2049.jpg" alt="Image result for blade runner 2049 screencaps" width="820" height="344" />
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner 2049 </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">builds upon the story of the first film, like all the best sequels, feeling like an organic follow up. Denis Villeneuve is developing an impressive directorial profile to line up. For me it achieves a great deal of balancing philosophical storytelling with emotional resonance, but doesn’t reach total satisfaction. In that sense, it runs the same gambit as the original. I do have my issues with the film but they are so small in comparison to the rest of the film, that it becomes more than the sum of its parts. </span>
Final Score: 4.5 / 5 ���I|�� �������� �|
� /�����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-67" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blade_runner_twenty_forty_nine_ver4_xlg-353x500.jpg" alt="" width="353" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Denis Villeneuve</strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Hampton Fancher & Michael Green</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Andrew A. Kosove, Broderick Johnson, Bud Yorkin, Cynthia Yorkin, Ridley Scott (Executive Producer)</strong>
<strong>Based on: Characters from <em>Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? </em></strong><strong>by Philip K. Dick</strong>
<strong>Studio: Alcon Entertainment, Scott Free Productions, Warner Bros. Pictures/Columbia Pictures </strong>
<strong>Release Date: 6th October 2017</strong>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The idea of a sequel to </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, a film which felt perfectly self contained in of itself, is something that many people have been cautiously optimistic about, myself included. You would need an idea that felt thematically and spiritually appropriate to such a sequel, and a director who is at the top of his game. Thankfully, that appears to be the case. Stepping down as director, Ridley Scott assumes the role of executive producer and passing the directorial reigns to Denis Villeneuve, who has demonstrated tremendous chops for science fiction after </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Arrival</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> and manages to craft what may well be the best possible version of a sequel in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner 2049</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Thirty years after the events in 2019, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) has vanished, the Tyrell Corporation has gone bankrupt and replaced by the much larger and more powerful replicant corporation headed by Niander Wallace (Jared Leto). While replicants have been integrated into society, discrimination against them is still rampant throughout society. The blade runners, are still in service to retire older replicant models. One of them K (Ryan Gosling), investigates the farm of an elusive replicant, Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista), whom he retires and discovers a flower in front of a tree and finds a buried box. He finds human remains inside. After learning the truth about the box’s contents, K is ordered to destroy all evidence related to the case by his superior, Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright), who believes the knowledge that this discovery presents would destabilize the already tenuous society of humans and replicants.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://indierevolver.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/deckard-br2-e1482163608106.png?w=800" alt="Related image" width="684" height="352" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The acting is very much in line with Villeneuve’s directing style; its subdued but knows when to get more fired up. Gosling is very much a solid successor to Deckard’s blade runner role, with a steely resolve and a lot of conflicting emotions; when they emerge he is able to nail flawlessly. Improving on even his performance in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Force Awakens</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, Ford portrays Deckard as a traumatized and bitter old man, but beneath that crusty shell he does show great emotion and subtle humanity. While not appearing until well into the second half of the film, he commands every scene. Anna de Armis has a great turn as Joi, K’s hologram companion, providing a convincing a manifestation of what artificial intelligence could become in our future; her bond with Gosling’s K is at once mystifying and at times endearing. Leto has a subtle sense of sinister mysticism and strangeness to him, using his voice to come across as more sibilant despite his blindness and frail appearance. Sylvia Hoeks features as a deadly replicant servant of Wallace named Luv, and gives her action scenes a lot of energy and ferocity. As a world weary and hardened police lieutenant, Wright makes the most of a fairly limited expositional role. Bautista has a pretty small but crucial role as the replicant Morton, and Carla Juri instills a lot of innocence and tenderness as the memory designer Dr. Ana Stelline.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The film captures the sense of scale and overwhelming darkness and strangeness of the future as envisioned by Ridley Scott, Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. The city sets and massive halls of the Wallace Corporation all look and feel like something out of the designs of Frank Gehry. There are visual homages to the original, with the abandoned Tyrell pyramid being dwarfed by the massive building of the Wallace Corporation that help to establish the changes to this world and a greater sense of menace. The fictional language of “cityspeak” is used more profusely, and it does its job of making it integral to the world of the movie and in turn builds up the believability of a futuristic world with changing languages.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://25o2zicw5jz372nu42fxtly6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Blade-Runner-2049-trailer.jpg" alt="Related image" width="737" height="393" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The massive visual effects sequences from the flying cars to city sprawls are incredibly consistent in feel and tone with a thirty-five year old movie. Some of the best material is the actualization of Joi’s holographic presence, creating a somewhat ghostlike aura and allowing for some creative visuals such as how she replicates the effect of rain falling on skin despite not being a physical being. The visual demonstration of the city of Los Angeles and garish, colourful signboards and holograms will elicit many smiles of approval from long time fans of Scott’s sci-fi opus. It’s almost absurd to compare the different sets of effects techniques between the two films, but I must indulge myself this once. The sense of tangibility and grit from the combination of sets and miniatures from the first film that left such a great impression on viewers was lightning in a bottle, and the fact that this comes close, yet not so close as to be a seamless pair, without using the same tools of the 80s is commendable.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The action scenes are sparse and spread out across the long running time, and are gratefully less dependent on flashy effects and editing and more focused on generating suspense and high tension. While there is implementation of CGI or pyrotechnics, none of it feels gratuitous and feels in keeping with the 80’s style of direction, with as much of it filmed in camera as possible. Any scene where Luv is hunting down or fighting K, or indeed any scene where she’s on screen, you get a real sense of danger from the way those scenes are directed and how she dominates each scene.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://www.sideshowtoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/blade-runner-2049.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="358" />
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Roger Deakins’ cinematography is remarkable, capturing the visual awe and desolation of the future, from the grey, bleak, dark cityscape, the desaturated lighting and sheer absence of life throughout. The use of shadows and contrast of colour in other scenes makes for. The use of fog and lighting help the visual effects feel organically integrated into each scene. While it’s hard to criticize cinematography as remarkable as what Deakins was able to capture, I do think the film feels slightly more in line with Villeneuve’s aesthetic for </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Arrival</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> than it does </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">. There is a lack of fine detail and stark contrast makes a few of the city scenes feel too devoid of life and character, but are otherwise perfect for the grey, barren wastelands around the city. </span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The score is a combined effort by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer alternates between industrial growls and rumbles, and the softer Vangelis themes are occasionally referenced but it’s clear that the new score is its own creature. There is no doubt that this score lends itself completely to the type of film that it is, but like many movie scores these days I don’t really see myself listening to it by itself.</span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The script by Fancher and Michael Green pursues the existential identity crisis of the original, following up on the theme of “more human to be human” and how much are we a product of our memories. The most touched on theme in the film is that of the replicants receiving recognition as human beings, and what we see raises a great deal of questions that feel pertinent to our world and our relationship with technology and where it could develop from such scenarios, with the possibility of the creation succeeding the declining creator. The relationships between humans, replicants and other forms of artificial intelligence make for some of the most fascinating narrative sequences in any film this year. The scenes with K and Joi are fascinatingly captivating and strange in their own way that you find yourself wondering if indeed this is what the future could hold between us as a species and our advanced technology. At times, I believed them as a couple more than the scenes between Deckard and Rachael in the original. The animal motif of the first film is presented in a more subdued lens, with the wooden horse being presented as a memento of K’s childhood memories. For those who recall the unicorn motif of the first film, this creates another layer of intrigue that pays off really well. </span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The sense of mystery throughout around the underlying premise of a replicant, and is faithful to the film noir aspect of the original film. Gosling does do more on-screen detecting than Deckard, as we follow him you feel like you’re unraveling the mystery with him, and are for the most part more emotionally connected to his journey. The use of flashbacks are intelligently interwoven to the point that it doesn’t feel like a lazy retread of the original, true to form for the film itself. If at one point you start to wonder if the film is being deliberately predictable, the rug gets pulled from under you you. There are certain twists and turns which screw with your expectations by making you too comfortable with any suppositions of the plot you may have had.</span>
This is a longer film than the original <i>Blade Runner,</i> and for me it did feel a bit too long. The pace is very slow, just like the original, and the more desolate dystopian future makes that pacing even more evident. You feel like you’re being tested by it all the way through, even if the final result is rewarding. There is one scene during K’s encounter with Deckard that recreates an Elvis Presley through holograms concert that I could not help but feel baffled by it. It felt very tonally dissonant and not as well shot as the vast majority of the film.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/blade-runner-2049.jpg" alt="Image result for blade runner 2049 screencaps" width="820" height="344" />
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Blade Runner 2049 </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">builds upon the story of the first film, like all the best sequels, feeling like an organic follow up. Denis Villeneuve is developing an impressive directorial profile to line up. For me it achieves a great deal of balancing philosophical storytelling with emotional resonance, but doesn’t reach total satisfaction. In that sense, it runs the same gambit as the original. I do have my issues with the film but they are so small in comparison to the rest of the film, that it becomes more than the sum of its parts. </span>
Final Score: 4.5 / 5 �|nm) L �Q�E� � ;L�$ :� ! " JQ )infimum supremum E Y� 6 u � ���-7��� 7<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-large" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII-1040x627.png" alt="" width="525" height="317" />
<p style="text-align: center;">The Ten Commandments -13<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Troy -14<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">300 -15<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Alexander -16<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Spartacus -17<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Cleopatra -18<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Ben-Hur -19<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���-7��� 7 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/54-revision-v1/� revision� E P� - v � ���-N��� N<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;">The Ten Commandments -13<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Troy -14<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">300 -15<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Alexander -16<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Spartacus -17<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Cleopatra -18<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Ben-Hur -19<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���-N��� N 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/10/54-revision-v1/� revision� - � � y � ���{4���k4 � & ;�The Ten Commandmentspublishclosedclosedthe-ten-commandments��_��_ 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=121� page� F � ( � { � ���{4���k4 � & 9�The Ten Commandmentsinheritclosedclosed121-revision-v1���{4���k4 yhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/13/121-revision-v1/� revision� E �� 0| | � ���{U���kU<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments -13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Troy -14<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">300 -15<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Alexander -16<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Spartacus -17<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Cleopatra -18<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Ben-Hur -19<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���{U���kU 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/13/54-revision-v1/� revision� - � 8 � ~ � ���~����n� � & 3�Troypublishclosedclosedtroy��^�W��^�W 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=126� page� F � @ � � � ���~����n� � & /�Troyinheritclosedclosed126-revision-v1���~����n� ~http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/14/126-revision-v1/� revision� E ބ H� � � ���~ڙ��n�<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments -13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy -14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">300 -15<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Alexander -16<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Spartacus -17<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Cleopatra -18<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Ben-Hur -19<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���~ڙ��n� 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/14/54-revision-v1/� revision� F � P � � � ��� v���pv � & /�Troyinheritclosedclosed126-revision-v1��� v���pv ~http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/15/126-revision-v1/� revision� F � X � � � ��^���^� � & 3VTroyinheritclosedclosed126-autosave-v1��^���^� ~http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/15/126-autosave-v1/� revision� F � ` � � � ���4���$ � & /�Troyinheritclosedclosed126-revision-v1���4���$ ~http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/15/126-revision-v1/� revision�
U h � � � ���4c���$cten_commandments_ver3inheritopenclosedten_commandments_ver3���4c���$c yhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ten_commandments_ver3.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � p � � � ���4h���$h � & 9�The Ten Commandmentsinheritclosedclosed121-revision-v1���4h���$h yhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/15/121-revision-v1/� revision�
I x � � � ���Qq���Aqtroy_ver7inheritopenclosedtroy_ver7���Qq���Aq ~http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/troy_ver7.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � � � � � ���Q����A� � & /�Troyinheritclosedclosed126-revision-v1���Q����A� ~http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/15/126-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ���Q����A� � ! & 9�The Ten Commandmentsinheritclosedclosed121-revision-v1���Q����A� yhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/15/121-revision-v1/� revision� - � � � � � ���yC���iC � " & '�300publishclosedclosed300-2��?mJ��?]J 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=143� page�
W � � � ���x����h�three_hundred_ver10_xlginheritopenclosedthree_hundred_ver10_xlg���x����h� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/three_hundred_ver10_xlg.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � � � � � ���yC���iC � # & %�300inheritclosedclosed143-revision-v1���yC���iC �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/15/143-revision-v1/� revision� E %� � � � ���y����i�<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���y����i� 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/15/54-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ��?m+��?]+ � $ & '300inheritclosedclosed143-autosave-v1��?m+��?]+ �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/16/143-autosave-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ���#����� � % & &�300inheritclosedclosed143-revision-v1���#����� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/16/143-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ���r����b� � & & 1UTroyinheritclosedclosed126-revision-v1���r����b� ~http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/16/126-revision-v1/� revision� - � � � � � ���|����l� � ' & I�Alexander - Revisited Cutpublishclosedclosedalexander-revisited-cut��?l���?\� 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=152� page�
N � � � � ���y����i�alexander_ver3inheritopenclosedalexander_ver3���y����i� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � � � � � ���|����l� � A & EAlexander - Revisited Cutinheritclosedclosed152-revision-v1���|����l� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/16/152-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ��?kꙩ?[� � C & I�Alexander - Revisited Cutinheritclosedclosed152-autosave-v1��?kꙩ?[� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/16/152-autosave-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ���}���m � E & E�Alexander - Revisited Cutinheritclosedclosed152-revision-v1���}���m �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/16/152-revision-v1/� revision� E w� �T � � ���}*���m*<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���}*���m* 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/16/54-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � �������r� � G & G@Alexander - Revisited Cutinheritclosedclosed152-revision-v1�������r� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/17/152-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � ��ℎ���t� � I & G?Alexander - Revisited Cutinheritclosedclosed152-revision-v1��ℎ���t� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/17/152-revision-v1/� revision� - � � � � ���v����f� � K & +�Spartacuspublishclosedclosedspartacus���v����f� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=162� page�
F � � � ���u����e�Posterinheritopenclosedposter���u����e� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Poster.png� attachmentimage/png�
K �� � � ���uי��e�SlavetoRomeinheritopenclosedslavetorome���uי��e� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SlavetoRome.png� attachmentimage/png� p/�,#_ � ,� � c�Q�7�� �������� �o�
� ;�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-133 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ten_commandments_ver3-327x500.jpg" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Cecil B. DeMille </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Aeneas MacKenzie, Jesse L. Lasky Jr., Jack Gariss, Fredric M. Frank</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Cecil B. DeMille </strong>
<strong>Studio: Cecil B. DeMille Productions, Paramount Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> The Book of Exodus</em></strong>
<strong>Release Date: 5th October, 1956</strong>
Despite not knowing fully what to expect, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> was a suitably epic experience from start to finish, and made me want to believe that the golden years of Hollywood could come again. As someone who has a strong admiration, nostalgia and affection for the animated epic <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>, I do feel somewhat foolish for putting off seeing the second and better known of Cecil B. DeMille’s adaptations of the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, I will only refer to that film on occasion to bring up how <em>The Ten Commandments</em> adapts the story of <em>Exodus</em> in its own way.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://content.moviery.com/87/009787/9.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt has ordered the death of all firstborn Hebrew males, but one mother, Yochebel (Martha Scott), saves her infant son by setting him adrift in a basket on the Nile. The Pharaoh’s daughter, Bithiah (Nina Foch), finds the basket and decides to adopt the boy, naming him Moses. However, her servant Memnet recognizes the baby’s Hebrew heritage and retains the Levite cloth he was wrapped in.
Prince Moses (Charlton Heston) grows up to become a successful general, and falls in love with Princess Nefretiri (Anne Baxter), but she must marry the next Pharaoh. While working on the building of a city for the jubilee of Pharaoh Sethi (Cedric Hardwicke), Moses meets the stonecutter Joshua (John Derek), and saves an elderly woman, revealed to be Yochebel, from being crushed, scolding the cruel master builder, Baka (Vincent Price). Moses reforms the treatment of slaves on the construction, but Prince Rameses (Yul Brynner) charges him with planning an insurrection. Nefretiri learns of Moses’ true parentage when Memnet shows the piece of Levite cloth, a shocked Moses follows Bithiah to Yochebel’s house where he meets his birth mother and family. Moses saves Joshua from death by strangling Baka, in vengeance for the Egyptian taking advances to Joshua’s love, Lilia (Debra Paget). Dathan (Edward G. Robinson) the overseer spies on this and rats Moses out to Rameses. Moses is banished to the desert and Rameses becomes the next Pharaoh. He joins a Bedouin tribe who worship the God of Abraham, and marries Sephora (Yvonne De Carlo), daughter of Jethro (Eduard Franz). After several years of peace, Moses sees the burning bush on the summit of Mount Sinai and hears the voice of God and vows to return to Egypt to free the Hebrews.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://cinemafanatic.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the_ten_commandments_yul_brynner_edward_g_robinson.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="605" height="338" />
The cast is phenomenal, with a fair bit of theatricality and scenery chewing that comes with the territory. Heston’s Moses has a commanding presence, confidence and charisma both as Prince of Egypt and as Deliverer, you believe that he has the wisdom and strength of spirit to inspire thousands to follow him, and it helps that he matches the classical look of Moses to a tee. Heston also provides the deep, booming voice of God as one would imagine Him in the Old Testament. Brynner portrays Rameses as a cold, vain and conniving man both as a prince and as Pharaoh, without a shred of regret in his manner and bearing barely concealing a quietly simmering rage for any moment of defiance. Both he and Heston are ideal foils for each other, both as confident in themselves as they are in their beliefs. The beautiful Baxter and is given a great many scenes to shine, possessing multi-layered chemistry with Heston and Brynner; you see past the beauty and royal charm to see the cold, vindictive woman beneath that.
De Carlo brings out Sephora’s strength and wisdom, and is an ideal opposite to Baxter’s Nefretiri. Heston and De Carlo act very well opposite each other and you do get a sense that Sephora really is the woman that Moses should be with, but I don’t think there’s much chemistry between them. Derek is a likable ally to Moses, channelling a bit of Errol Flynn in his youthful appearance and heroic stunts early on. Robinson has a great turn as the slimy and manipulative Dathan, and Price is very easy to detest as the cruel and lustful Baka. Hardwicke makes the most out Pharaoh Sethi, having a particularly strong, emotional scene with Heston when he is forced to banish his adopted son. Foch and Scott work wonderfully in the two mother figures to Moses. In other more small but crucial and well-acted roles, Paget is sweet and emotionally on point as Lilia, Franz as the jocular and kind Jethro, Judith Anderson as Memnet, and John Carradine and Olive Deering as Aaron and Miriam.
As a feast for the senses, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> is a mesmerizing achievement. With legions of extras and animals filling a multitude of sets, the vast scale of the film is astonishing. While not as detailed as more recent recreations of Ancient Egypt in other portrayals of the period, the colourful Old Hollywood look of the sets do have a certain charm to them. This isn’t so much a “real life” recreation of Ancient Egypt, but it feels dreamlike in a way that percolates through the whole film. The variety and colour of the costumes bring vibrancy to the big screen; looking faithful to the period for the most part but sometimes there are some that stick out like sore thumbs, such as the horned helmeted guards in the Egyptian palace
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments3.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="750" height="339" />
The cinematography by Loyal Griggs captures the vast, beautiful landscapes and intricate kingdom of Ancient Egypt, allowing the audience to appreciate the scale of the production. The use of colour, such as dark deep red skies to indicate tyranny and oppression and lighter colours to indicate hope enhance the impact of the imagery. We see the Egyptian palace become gradually drained of warmth and colour throughout the film, as though the realm itself had been bled by Rameses’ tyranny and as a reflection of Moses’ rejection of his former home.
John P. Fulton used a variety of practical and photographic effects to realize Ancient Egypt for a captivated audience. Fulton’s effects included the building of Sethi’s Jubilee treasure city, the Burning Bush, the fiery hail from a cloudless sky, the Angel of Death, the composites of the Exodus, the Pillar of Fire, the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the parting of the Red Sea as the final tour de force. But the most visually effective of the plagues is the long hanging black mist that symbolizes the tenth plague’s visitation upon Egypt; the slow way it glides across the streets has an unnerving effect. The gathering of clouds and the parting of the Red Sea are equally ambitious and incredible to behold. Other effects such as the subtle morphing effects on the snakes still intrigue me to this day. The visual portrayal of God and how he reveals himself to Moses is very faithful to traditional portrayals in classical artwork; the burning bush has a golden glow about it and the pillar of fire. But I have to admit, the pillar of fire reminds me of something out of Disney’s <em>Fantasia</em>. It’s artistically pleasing to be sure, but doesn’t quite feel “real”.
Considering these are special effects from the 1950s, one can’t help but marvel at their ambition and attention to detail. The burning bush and fiery columns of fire are depicted through animation, and while both are highly detailed and have a certain romantic quality to them. A lot of the visual effects, while impressive for the time, are somewhat dated. The optical effects splicing close-up sets with actors with the wide vistas area mixed bag, many of them work well enough but some could have used a bit more of a polish and suffer from prominent black outlines. Regardless, of these noticeable technical hiccups, they don’t detract from the experience in any way at all.
The score by Elmer Bernstein is as inspiring as it is powerful; with soaring, Wagnerian horns, trumpets and drums that conjure themes of freedom and righteous rebellion, the chief among these serves as the recurring heroic motif of the film. The gentler string melodies are well tailored to the intimate and emotional scenes and invoke something of a spiritual sense to them.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://earnthis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/capture4.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="699" height="393" />
The dialogue often lifts from the Book of <em>Exodus</em> and has a timeless appeal, but can sometimes dip into melodrama. The main source of humour comes from the dry interplay and banter between the royalty of Egypt, as well as some lighter moments provided by Sephora’s sisters or Dathan being rightfully put in his place. The flowery, poetic speeches from Moses and Rameses, while dated to many ears, work in my eyes to convey gravitas and antiquity of the setting.
The notion of family division is more emphasized rather than brotherly division. Moses and Rameses never act like brothers in any scene, and that makes their enmity more black and white and makes Rameses a more despicable character throughout. This works for the type of film it is with clearer cut heroes and villains. Moses and his adopted Egyptian family are shown to be flourishing while he’s ignorant of his Hebrew heritage, and when he is compelled to do right by his true people it puts a wedge between him and Sethi. The impact of that rift is felt through the performances and the heartbreak of Sethi and Bithiah. While it plays out well among the Egyptian royal family, it isn’t as keenly felt for Moses’ new family. Even when Moses and Sephora have their son together he spends much of the third act separate from his family, undercutting the parallels between his newfound family and his old Egyptian one. The depiction of both mothers as equally sympathetic and invested in Moses wellbeing does offer a kinder light to the Egyptian side of the conflict.
Moses’ own arc, amidst the physical transformations he undergoes from prince to wanderer and saviour, is the search for and discovery of belief in something greater than him to live up to. That for all the worldly power he could have used as prince and king, he was ultimately far more powerful because he had found faith. You get the sense that he is disappointed in God for not directly helping his people but you believe that the passage of time makes him a kinder man. The nature versus nurture theme does lean heavily towards nature here, as it seems as though Moses’ heritage afforded him greater compassion while the true-born Egyptian Ramses and Nefretiri are presented with all the ambition and duplicity of their position. His natural compassion allows for better treatment of the slaves without injuring the kingdom the way Rameses does as Pharaoh. You get an idea of the kind of stable but still fairer Egypt that Moses could have created were he Pharaoh. You do get the feeling that Rameses’ jealousy of Moses and barely subdued feelings of inadequacy are the driving factors for his anger and ambition. In allowing his vanity and contempt to rule him, Rameses is often the prognosticator of his own downfall
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://media-cdn.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2016/03/24/1458852051_0wJiVjLyp2--1-_t755_hde37d95367be0fab21949e1878952fc27ac3815d.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments moses" width="698" height="393" />
As one of the quintessential message movies, the aspect of faith is at the forefront of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. The advanced yet savage character of Ancient Egypt, where great monuments and cities are raised but death and cruelty are commonplace, makes the need for a unifying presence of decency and justice more compelling. It is, in DeMille’s own words, a story of the birth of freedom, that most basic human desire to live on one’s own terms, and is applied to all races, rather than forcibly submit to the whims of a tyrant. As the story about how the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, race is a fundamental theme within this story. As someone who lacks a strong connection to faith and to God, I found that the message of faith was not particularly subtle (or at least when compared to <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>), but it’s theatrical in a way that still relies on a lot of showing rather than telling. The applicability and truthfulness of the message itself still transcends how it’s delivered.
For all the strengths I have highlighter earlier, I do have a select few flaws with the film. The narration by DeMille himself helps to convey the vastness of the setting and allow us to truly feel as though we’re walking beside the characters of the piece. However, it can get somewhat self-important and the striking imagery is often enough to convey the themes of the story. At over three and a half hours long and filled with scenes of excellent cinematography but little going on, it’s a film that requires patience to experience it. While the Egyptian and Hebrew cast is primarily made of Caucasian actors, the passion on display and richness of the script and story makes it easy to invest in. Even if you had this same high calibre script and directorial vision, you could not pull such casting off again. The relegation of the other plagues to simple mentions was a bit disappointing, not to say the other visualizations of the plagues underwhelmed but the sense of desperation and urgency by seeing the totality of plagues beleaguering the kingdom is somewhat stifled.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments-07.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments red sea" width="601" height="337" />
While <em>The Prince of Egypt</em> emphasizes the strife between brothers while keeping the message of faith intact, the element of faith is more pronounced here and the belief in the rebuttal of tyranny and the value of all mankind, regardless of race or creed is more prominent. Despite what few quibbles I have, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> remains ambitious, inspiring and epic in every sense of the word. The message and themes can and still do transcend across barriers of belief and lives up to it’s ancient source material. �o렭.3 �������� ڭ
� 9�����<img class="img-responsive" src="http://www.impawards.com/1956/posters/ten_commandments_ver3.jpg" alt="The Ten Commandments Movie Poster" border="0" />
Despite not knowing fully what to expect, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> was a suitably epic experience from start to finish, and made me want to believe that the golden years of Hollywood could come again. As someone who has a strong admiration, nostalgia and affection for the animated epic <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>, I do feel somewhat foolish for putting off seeing the second and better known of Cecil B. DeMille’s adaptations of the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, I will only refer to that film on occasion to bring up how <em>The Ten Commandments</em> adapts the story of <em>Exodus</em> in its own way.
Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt has ordered the death of all firstborn Hebrew males, but one mother, Yochebel (Martha Scott), saves her infant son by setting him adrift in a basket on the Nile. The Pharaoh’s daughter, Bithiah (Nina Foch), finds the basket and decides to adopt the boy, naming him Moses. However, her servant Memnet recognizes the baby’s Hebrew heritage and retains the Levite cloth he was wrapped in.
Prince Moses (Charlton Heston) grows up to become a successful general, and falls in love with Princess Nefretiri (Anne Baxter), but she must marry the next Pharaoh. While working on the building of a city for the jubilee of Pharaoh Sethi (Cedric Hardwicke), Moses meets the stonecutter Joshua (John Derek), and saves an elderly woman, revealed to be Yochebel, from being crushed, scolding the cruel master builder, Baka (Vincent Price). Moses reforms the treatment of slaves on the construction, but Prince Rameses (Yul Brynner) charges him with planning an insurrection. Nefretiri learns of Moses’ true parentage when Memnet shows the piece of Levite cloth, a shocked Moses follows Bithiah to Yochebel’s house where he meets his birth mother and family. Moses saves Joshua from death by strangling Baka, in vengeance for the Egyptian taking advances to Joshua’s love, Lilia (Debra Paget). Dathan (Edward G. Robinson) the overseer spies on this and rats Moses out to Rameses. Moses is banished to the desert and Rameses becomes the next Pharaoh. He joins a Bedouin tribe who worship the God of Abraham, and marries Sephora (Yvonne De Carlo), daughter of Jethro (Eduard Franz). After several years of peace, Moses sees the burning bush on the summit of Mount Sinai and hears the voice of God and vows to return to Egypt to free the Hebrews.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://content.moviery.com/87/009787/9.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
The cast is phenomenal, with a fair bit of theatricality and scenery chewing that comes with the territory. Heston’s Moses has a commanding presence, confidence and charisma both as Prince of Egypt and as Deliverer, you believe that he has the wisdom and strength of spirit to inspire thousands to follow him, and it helps that he matches the classical look of Moses to a tee. Heston also provides the deep, booming voice of God as one would imagine Him in the Old Testament. Brynner portrays Rameses as a cold, vain and conniving man both as a prince and as Pharaoh, without a shred of regret in his manner and bearing barely concealing a quietly simmering rage for any moment of defiance. Both he and Heston are ideal foils for each other, both as confident in themselves as they are in their beliefs. The beautiful Baxter and is given a great many scenes to shine, possessing multi-layered chemistry with Heston and Brynner; you see past the beauty and royal charm to see the cold, vindictive woman beneath that.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://cinemafanatic.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the_ten_commandments_yul_brynner_edward_g_robinson.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="605" height="338" />
De Carlo brings out Sephora’s strength and wisdom, and is an ideal opposite to Baxter’s Nefretiri. Heston and De Carlo act very well opposite each other and you do get a sense that Sephora really is the woman that Moses should be with, but I don’t think there’s much chemistry between them. Derek is a likable ally to Moses, channelling a bit of Errol Flynn in his youthful appearance and heroic stunts early on. Robinson has a great turn as the slimy and manipulative Dathan, and Price is very easy to detest as the cruel and lustful Baka. Hardwicke makes the most out Pharaoh Sethi, having a particularly strong, emotional scene with Heston when he is forced to banish his adopted son. Foch and Scott work wonderfully in the two mother figures to Moses. In other more small but crucial and well-acted roles, Paget is sweet and emotionally on point as Lilia, Franz as the jocular and kind Jethro, Judith Anderson as Memnet, and John Carradine and Olive Deering as Aaron and Miriam.
As a feast for the senses, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> is a mesmerizing achievement. With legions of extras and animals filling a multitude of sets, the vast scale of the film is astonishing. While not as detailed as more recent recreations of Ancient Egypt in other portrayals of the period, the colourful Old Hollywood look of the sets do have a certain charm to them. This isn’t so much a “real life” recreation of Ancient Egypt, but it feels dreamlike in a way that percolates through the whole film. The variety and colour of the costumes bring vibrancy to the big screen; looking faithful to the period for the most part but sometimes there are some that stick out like sore thumbs, such as the horned helmeted guards in the Egyptian palace
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments3.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="750" height="339" />
The cinematography by Loyal Griggs captures the vast, beautiful landscapes and intricate kingdom of Ancient Egypt, allowing the audience to appreciate the scale of the production. The use of colour, such as dark deep red skies to indicate tyranny and oppression and lighter colours to indicate hope enhance the impact of the imagery. We see the Egyptian palace become gradually drained of warmth and colour throughout the film, as though the realm itself had been bled by Rameses’ tyranny and as a reflection of Moses’ rejection of his former home.
John P. Fulton used a variety of practical and photographic effects to realize Ancient Egypt for a captivated audience. Fulton’s effects included the building of Sethi’s Jubilee treasure city, the Burning Bush, the fiery hail from a cloudless sky, the Angel of Death, the composites of the Exodus, the Pillar of Fire, the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the parting of the Red Sea as the final tour de force. But the most visually effective of the plagues is the long hanging black mist that symbolizes the tenth plague’s visitation upon Egypt; the slow way it glides across the streets has an unnerving effect. The gathering of clouds and the parting of the Red Sea are equally ambitious and incredible to behold. Other effects such as the subtle morphing effects on the snakes still intrigue me to this day. The visual portrayal of God and how he reveals himself to Moses is very faithful to traditional portrayals in classical artwork; the burning bush has a golden glow about it and the pillar of fire. But I have to admit, the pillar of fire reminds me of something out of Disney’s <em>Fantasia</em>. It’s artistically pleasing to be sure, but doesn’t quite feel “real”.
Considering these are special effects from the 1950s, one can’t help but marvel at their ambition and attention to detail. The burning bush and fiery columns of fire are depicted through animation, and while both are highly detailed and have a certain romantic quality to them. A lot of the visual effects, while impressive for the time, are somewhat dated. The optical effects splicing close-up sets with actors with the wide vistas area mixed bag, many of them work well enough but some could have used a bit more of a polish and suffer from prominent black outlines. Regardless, of these noticeable technical hiccups, they don’t detract from the experience in any way at all.
The score by Elmer Bernstein is as inspiring as it is powerful; with soaring, Wagnerian horns, trumpets and drums that conjure themes of freedom and righteous rebellion, the chief among these serves as the recurring heroic motif of the film. The gentler string melodies are well tailored to the intimate and emotional scenes and invoke something of a spiritual sense to them.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://earnthis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/capture4.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="699" height="393" />
The dialogue often lifts from the Book of <em>Exodus</em> and has a timeless appeal, but can sometimes dip into melodrama. The main source of humour comes from the dry interplay and banter between the royalty of Egypt, as well as some lighter moments provided by Sephora’s sisters or Dathan being rightfully put in his place. The flowery, poetic speeches from Moses and Rameses, while dated to many ears, work in my eyes to convey gravitas and antiquity of the setting.
The notion of family division is more emphasized rather than brotherly division. Moses and Rameses never act like brothers in any scene, and that makes their enmity more black and white and makes Rameses a more despicable character throughout. This works for the type of film it is with clearer cut heroes and villains. Moses and his adopted Egyptian family are shown to be flourishing while he’s ignorant of his Hebrew heritage, and when he is compelled to do right by his true people it puts a wedge between him and Sethi. The impact of that rift is felt through the performances and the heartbreak of Sethi and Bithiah. While it plays out well among the Egyptian royal family, it isn’t as keenly felt for Moses’ new family. Even when Moses and Sephora have their son together he spends much of the third act separate from his family, undercutting the parallels between his newfound family and his old Egyptian one. The depiction of both mothers as equally sympathetic and invested in Moses wellbeing does offer a kinder light to the Egyptian side of the conflict.
Moses’ own arc, amidst the physical transformations he undergoes from prince to wanderer and saviour, is the search for and discovery of belief in something greater than him to live up to. That for all the worldly power he could have used as prince and king, he was ultimately far more powerful because he had found faith. You get the sense that he is disappointed in God for not directly helping his people but you believe that the passage of time makes him a kinder man. The nature versus nurture theme does lean heavily towards nature here, as it seems as though Moses’ heritage afforded him greater compassion while the true-born Egyptian Ramses and Nefretiri are presented with all the ambition and duplicity of their position. His natural compassion allows for better treatment of the slaves without injuring the kingdom the way Rameses does as Pharaoh. You get an idea of the kind of stable but still fairer Egypt that Moses could have created were he Pharaoh. You do get the feeling that Rameses’ jealousy of Moses and barely subdued feelings of inadequacy are the driving factors for his anger and ambition. In allowing his vanity and contempt to rule him, Rameses is often the prognosticator of his own downfall
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://media-cdn.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2016/03/24/1458852051_0wJiVjLyp2--1-_t755_hde37d95367be0fab21949e1878952fc27ac3815d.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments moses" width="698" height="393" />
As one of the quintessential message movies, the aspect of faith is at the forefront of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. The advanced yet savage character of Ancient Egypt, where great monuments and cities are raised but death and cruelty are commonplace, makes the need for a unifying presence of decency and justice more compelling. It is, in DeMille’s own words, a story of the birth of freedom, that most basic human desire to live on one’s own terms, and is applied to all races, rather than forcibly submit to the whims of a tyrant. As the story about how the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, race is a fundamental theme within this story. As someone who lacks a strong connection to faith and to God, I found that the message of faith was not particularly subtle (or at least when compared to <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>), but it’s theatrical in a way that still relies on a lot of showing rather than telling. The applicability and truthfulness of the message itself still transcends how it’s delivered.
For all the strengths I have highlighter earlier, I do have a select few flaws with the film. The narration by DeMille himself helps to convey the vastness of the setting and allow us to truly feel as though we’re walking beside the characters of the piece. However, it can get somewhat self-important and the striking imagery is often enough to convey the themes of the story. At over three and a half hours long and filled with scenes of excellent cinematography but little going on, it’s a film that requires patience to experience it. While the Egyptian and Hebrew cast is primarily made of Caucasian actors, the passion on display and richness of the script and story makes it easy to invest in. Even if you had this same high calibre script and directorial vision, you could not pull such casting off again. The relegation of the other plagues to simple mentions was a bit disappointing, not to say the other visualizations of the plagues underwhelmed but the sense of desperation and urgency by seeing the totality of plagues beleaguering the kingdom is somewhat stifled.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments-07.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments red sea" width="601" height="337" />
While <em>The Prince of Egypt</em> emphasizes the strife between brothers while keeping the message of faith intact, the element of faith is more pronounced here and the belief in the rebuttal of tyranny and the value of all mankind, regardless of race or creed is more prominent. Despite what few quibbles I have, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> remains ambitious, inspiring and epic in every sense of the word. The message and themes can and still do transcend across barriers of belief and lives up to it’s ancient source material. ڭ �]y5 �������� ��
� 3�����
<img class="size-medium wp-image-136 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/troy_ver7-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Wolfgang Petersen</strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: David Benioff</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Wolfgang Petersen, Diana Rathbun, Colin Wilson</strong>
<strong>Studio: Shepperton Studios, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> The Iliad</em> by Homer</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 14th May, 2004</strong>
<em>Troy</em> is a film I’ve been aware of for many years, but seldom had enough interest to see for myself, despite my interest in history and Greek mythology. At the time, the removal of the more obvious fantastical elements annoyed me. Having finally seen the version most preferred by director Wolfgang Petersen, I ultimately deem this to be a well-made and fairly entertaining action film suffering from issues of protagonist likability and inconsistent writing.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://movies.homeofthenutty.com/albums/TroyDCPart1/Troy0714.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
In the late 12th century BC, Achilles (Brad Pitt) is the greatest champion of King Agamemnon (Brian Cox) of Mycenae during the Trojan War. Meanwhile, Prince Hector (Eric Bana) of Troy and his younger brother Paris (Orlando Bloom) negotiate a peace treaty with Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), King of Sparta and younger brother of Agamemnon. Paris, however, is having a secret love affair with Menelaus' wife, Queen Helen (Diane Kruger), and smuggles her aboard their homebound vessel, enraging Hector. Upon learning of this, Menelaus meets with Agamemnon and asks his help in taking Troy. Agamemnon agrees, since it will give him control of the Aegean Sea. On Nestor (John Shrapnel), King of Pylos' advice, Agamemnon has Odysseus (Sean Bean), King of Ithaca, persuade Achilles to join them. In Troy, King Priam (Peter O'Toole) is dismayed when Hector and Paris bring Helen, but welcomes her as a guest and decides against sending her home, since Paris will likely follow her and be killed, choosing instead to meet the Greeks in open battle. Achilles leads his Myrmidons to take the Trojan beach, along with his cousin Patroclus (Garett Hedlund), and seizes the Temple of Apollo and claims Briseis, priestess of Apollo and cousin to Hector.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-3658.jpg" />
Like many of the epics I have seen, this has a great cast but the performances vary. Pitt certainly looks the part of Achilles and commits his energy and physical prowess to the many action scenes, overall it’s a good performance but sometimes his accent wanders a bit. Bana is on top form as Hector; his manner and bearing convey a brave, seasoned warrior prince with strong convictions and love for his family and kingdom driving all his actions, and like Pitt he is as much a powerhouse actor in battle. Cox is suitably despicable as the scenery-chewing Agamemnon, and Gleeson brings out a truly savage, leery and unsavoury quality to Menelaus, and both are believable as brothers. The ever-dependable Bean is sublime casting as Odysseus, with his dry wit and down to earth persona. It’s a shame he never got to play the character again in a full adaptation of <em>The Odessey</em>. O’Toole is magnificent as the tragic King Priam, he has all the composure of a mythical king and his emotional expressions speak volumes; any one of his crying scenes is a moving sight to behold. Julie Christie appears in one scene as Thetis, mother of Achilles, and conveys the pain of a mother brave enough to allow her son to choose his fate even if it means ever seeing him again. Byrne has many bittersweet scenes as the world-weary and resilient Briseis, and Saffron Burrows as Andromache; both ladies are wonderful actresses and do their best with what they’re given. On the weaker side of things, Bloom and Kruger are both really bland as Paris and Helen respectively, yes she is very beautiful but lacking in personality or conviction, Bloom’s Paris has similar faults but does resemble Bana enough to pass for his younger brother and is admittedly saddled with a thankless and hated role. Hedlund is passable as Patroclus, but does come off as whiny and ineffectual at times. Other acting veterans such as Julian Glover as King Triopas, James Cosmo as General Glaucus of Troy and Nigel Terry as the Trojan priest Archeptolemus all turn in great supporting performances
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/b0/9a/93b09ab734d2d8a95aeb1af6354b9ad4--minoan-film-stills.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="736" height="306" />
The strongest aspect of the film is the action scenes, and to Petersen’s credit they are very well realized. Using real life tactics employed by the Ancient Greeks and framed in a manner that allows the viewer to feel immersed in the thick of battle. In this more violent cut, the stab wounds and bloody slashes hold serious weight to them. Importantly, the gore works because it’s not done out of gratuity but as a demonstration of the price of war. The main fight between Achilles and Hector has some incredible choreography and an element of suspense to it, even when you know what fate awaits Hector. When it comes to the sack of Troy itself, Petersen’s direction brings out the injustice and sheer awfulness of the destruction of this beautiful city and its citizens by the Greeks.
There is a certain visual correspondence in the depiction of the Trojan army in contrast to the various Greek armies. The Trojans are adorned in beautiful silvery armour and blue tunics and uniforms, Achilles is also seen dressed in blue and his armour, as well as that of the other Myrmidons, has more of a shine to it. By contrast, the majority of Greek characters and their armies have more of a muddy brown look to their armour and uniforms, Agamemnon himself looking far more of a barbarian than the ones that the Greeks themselves would have called “barbarian.”
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/d7/6f/48d76fec11ae434ddab98643f956a070.jpg" alt="Image result for troy screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The cinematography by Roger Pratt captures the colour, vibrancy and enormity of the city of Troy, as well as the epic scale and brutality of the battles. Like many modern period epics, CGI is used to help heighten the film’s scale and most of it is well integrated. Sometimes the CGI is sometimes easy to spot, such as the massive Greek fleet sailing towards Troy or the necessary enlarging of the Greek army for various sweeping shots, but it is allowable given the greater emphasis on physical actors and locations for the vast majority of the film.
The score by James Horner is solid doesn’t rank among my favourites of his. While the background music is serviceable, it really flourishes in the battle scenes, particularly the heroic leitmotif which appears when Achilles and the Myrmidons are in the heat of battle. There are some creative flourishes like the celebratory horns of Troy or the playful cellos when Achilles and Patroclus are training. But the score is also littered with “Horner-isms” that have been heard in a lot of his other scores, particularly the ominous trumpet leitmotif for the Greek army. Overall, it’s not a bad score but one that could have been greater, had he more time to work at it. An addition to the music from the Director's Cut is the use of Danny Elfman’s theme for <em>Planet of the Apes </em>during the pivotal fight between Hector and Achilles. As someone who listens to a lot of film soundtracks, it is an odd decision to hear a familiar piece from a different film with a different composing style.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11400000/Hector-Andromache-hector-and-andromache-11440448-1920-800.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="342" />
The script by David Benioff is a broad and loose adaptation of Homer’s <em>Iliad</em>, and sometimes suffers from trying to take on aspects of the poem that wouldn’t work in a film. A lot of the dialogue is littered with straightforward exposition, sometimes repeating familiar themes and titles or stating what the audience can see or deduce for themselves. The attempt to include more Homeric speeches and mannerisms is also a mixed bag. Benioff and Petersen try to integrate the style of Homer into the dialogue but it often sounds a tad off from the weaker members of the cast. However, an elongated insult that worked best in Homer’s medium could be condensed on film to… unintentionally amusing results. Achilles’ angry “You sack of wine!” exclamation is one such example. Despite that, most of the characters get good development and leave an impression across the three hour running time, which fortuitously flows at a good pace despite that length.
The decision to focus on Achilles, as was the case in <em>The Iliad</em>, makes the film come dangerously close to lacking a strongly likable protagonist. For long stretches of time, Achilles is not very likeable at all because of his arrogance and vengeful behaviour, he is basically a mercenary in search of the one battle to make him a legend, only to find peace where he least expects to where he does soften up somewhat. Hector is very likable but is ultimately doomed before the whole story can conclude, Odysseus is off screen for a long time and the eloped couple don’t inspire any love from the audience. The decision to focus on the human element mostly works but there are some vague allusions to the presence of the gods. The scene with Thetis is the only scene that indicates the presence of gods and goddesses; she is presented walking in the shallow pool by the sea as a hint of her identity as a goddess of the sea. Achilles defaces the statue of Apollo and eventually loses his cousin, and ultimately cannot be with the woman he loves. So this leaves the possibility open that the gods are manipulating events unseen. The homosexual love between Achilles and Patroclus is sadly omitted in this film, and regardless on how you feel about such partnerships the relationship between these two men was one of the driving plot points for <em>The Iliad </em> and to water it down and alter their relationship to being cousins takes a lot of the dramatic punch out of the story.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-5671.jpg" />
There are noble heroes and incorrigible cowards on both sides, and the underlying tragedy comes from not only the destruction of the magnificent city but the fact that brave men are pitted against each other either in service of tyrants or doomed causes. Agamemnon fully buys into his deluded belief that he is unifying all of Greece underneath one banner, but there’s no doubt in any scene that he is a bloodthirsty warmonger and Troy is hardly a threat to the whole Aegean. Faith is also brought into question, as a reflection of the uncertainty of the early 2000s. The Trojan priests blindly worship the gods, and then thank them for all of their victories despite the efforts of the Trojan soldiers and this reaches a terrible conclusion in with the reveal of the infamous Trojan Horse. Both the priests and the soldiers were driven by abstract ideals into making decisions that cost a great many lives.
The element of fate and human flaws driving life-changing decisions is shown through. Every character ends up getting what they deserve, no more no less. Achilles wanted his name remembered and chased fame in spite of Agamemnon’s lack of honour. He got fame, but not without the price that came with it. Paris gave in to lust and desired a romantic escapade with Helen. He got what he asked for and the catastrophe that come with it. His name is effectively mud forever for inviting doom upon Troy and surviving while his brother fought and died valiantly. Hector, despite his moral character, still inadvertently contributed to the war coming to Troy. If he had done his duty, sailed back and returned Helen to Menelaus, then the war would not have happened. He killed Patroclus, though by accident, and thus faced retribution at the hands of Achilles. Odysseus designed a treacherous move against the Trojans, and paid ultimately for it for the next twenty years away from Ithaca.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-6275.jpg" />
Even at its best,<em> Troy</em> does feel like there is potential for a far more poetic and moving film than what we’re presented. Peterson’s direction, the cinematography, the costuming, and the effects are all to the standard that this epic story deserves, and the script itself is not too far from a truly great adaptation. Still, it is a good edition to the period piece epic genre and one I was pleased to enjoy. �餢/� �������� � i
� /�����<img class="img-responsive" src="http://www.impawards.com/2004/posters/troy_ver7.jpg" alt="Troy Movie Poster" border="0" />
<em>Troy</em> is a film I’ve been aware of for many years, but seldom had enough interest to see for myself, despite my interest in history and Greek mythology. At the time, the removal of the more obvious fantastical elements annoyed me. Having finally seen the version most preferred by director Wolfgang Petersen, I ultimately deem this to be a well-made and above average action film suffering from issues of protagonist likability and inconsistent writing.
In the late 12th century BC, Achilles (Brad Pitt) is the greatest champion of King Agamemnon (Brian Cox) of Mycenae during the Trojan War. Meanwhile, Prince Hector (Eric Bana) of Troy and his younger brother Paris (Orlando Bloom) negotiate a peace treaty with Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), King of Sparta and younger brother of Agamemnon. Paris, however, is having a secret love affair with Menelaus' wife, Queen Helen (Diane Kruger), and smuggles her aboard their homebound vessel, enraging Hector. Upon learning of this, Menelaus meets with Agamemnon and asks his help in taking Troy. Agamemnon agrees, since it will give him control of the Aegean Sea. On Nestor (John Shrapnel), King of Pylos' advice, Agamemnon has Odysseus (Sean Bean), King of Ithaca, persuade Achilles to join them. In Troy, King Priam (Peter O'Toole) is dismayed when Hector and Paris bring Helen, but welcomes her as a guest and decides against sending her home, since Paris will likely follow her and be killed, choosing instead to meet the Greeks in open battle. Achilles leads his Myrmidons to take the Trojan beach, along with his cousin Patroclus (Garett Hedlund), and seizes the Temple of Apollo and claims Briseis, priestess of Apollo and cousin to Hector.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://movies.homeofthenutty.com/albums/TroyDCPart1/Troy0714.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
Like many of the epics I have seen, this has a great cast but the performances vary. Pitt certainly looks the part of Achilles and commits his energy and physical prowess to the many action scenes, overall it’s a good performance but sometimes his accent wanders a bit. Bana is on top form as Hector; his manner and bearing convey a brave, seasoned warrior prince with strong convictions and love for his family and kingdom driving all his actions, and like Pitt he is as much a powerhouse actor in battle. Cox is suitably despicable as the scenery-chewing Agamemnon, and Gleeson brings out a truly savage, leery and unsavoury quality to Menelaus, and both are believable as brothers. The ever-dependable Bean is sublime casting as Odysseus, with his dry wit and down to earth persona. It’s a shame he never got to play the character again in a full adaptation of <em>The Odessey</em>. O’Toole is magnificent as the tragic King Priam, he has all the composure of a mythical king and his emotional expressions speak volumes; any one of his crying scenes is a moving sight to behold. Julie Christie appears in one scene as Thetis, mother of Achilles, and conveys the pain of a mother brave enough to allow her son to choose his fate even if it means ever seeing him again. Byrne has many bittersweet scenes as the world-weary and resilient Briseis, and Saffron Burrows as Andromache; both ladies are wonderful actresses and do their best with what they’re given. On the weaker side of things, Bloom and Kruger are both really bland as Paris and Helen respectively, yes she is very beautiful but lacking in personality or conviction, Bloom’s Paris has similar faults but does resemble Bana enough to pass for his younger brother and is admittedly saddled with a thankless and hated role. Hedlund is passable as Patroclus, but does come off as whiny and ineffectual at times. Other acting veterans such as Julian Glover as King Triopas, James Cosmo as General Glaucus of Troy and Nigel Terry as the Trojan priest Archeptolemus all turn in great supporting performances
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/b0/9a/93b09ab734d2d8a95aeb1af6354b9ad4--minoan-film-stills.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="736" height="306" />
The strongest aspect of the film is the action scenes, and to Petersen’s credit they are very well realized. Using real life tactics employed by the Ancient Greeks and framed in a manner that allows the viewer to feel immersed in the thick of battle. In this more violent cut, the stab wounds and bloody slashes hold serious weight to them. Importantly, the gore works because it’s not done out of gratuity but as a demonstration of the price of war. The main fight between Achilles and Hector has some incredible choreography and an element of suspense to it, even when you know what fate awaits Hector. When it comes to the sack of Troy itself, Petersen’s direction brings out the injustice and sheer awfulness of the destruction of this beautiful city and its citizens by the Greeks.
There is a certain visual correspondence in the depiction of the Trojan army in contrast to the various Greek armies. The Trojans are adorned in beautiful silvery armour and blue tunics and uniforms, Achilles is also seen dressed in blue and his armour, as well as that of the other Myrmidons, has more of a shine to it. By contrast, the majority of Greek characters and their armies have more of a muddy brown look to their armour and uniforms, Agamemnon himself looking far more of a barbarian than the ones that the Greeks themselves would have called “barbarian.”
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/d7/6f/48d76fec11ae434ddab98643f956a070.jpg" alt="Image result for troy screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The cinematography by Roger Pratt captures the colour, vibrancy and enormity of the city of Troy, as well as the epic scale and brutality of the battles. Like many modern period epics, CGI is used to help heighten the film’s scale and most of it is well integrated. Sometimes the CGI is sometimes easy to spot, such as the massive Greek fleet sailing towards Troy or the necessary enlarging of the Greek army for various sweeping shots, but it is allowable given the greater emphasis on physical actors and locations for the vast majority of the film.
The score by James Horner is solid doesn’t rank among his greatest hits. While the background music isn’t very memorable, it really flourishes in the battle scenes, particularly the heroic leitmotif which appears when Achilles and the Myrmidons are in the heat of battle. There are some creative flourishes like the celebratory horns of Troy or the playful cellos when Achilles and Patroclus are training. But the score is also littered with “Horner-isms” that have been heard in a lot of his other scores, particularly the ominous trumpet leitmotif for the Greek army. Overall, it’s not a bad score but one that could have been greater, had he more time to work at it. An addition to the music from the Director's Cut is the use of Danny Elfman’s theme for <em>Planet of the Apes </em>during the pivotal fight between Hector and Achilles. As someone who listens to a lot of film soundtracks, it is an odd decision to hear a familiar piece from a different film with a different compositional style.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11400000/Hector-Andromache-hector-and-andromache-11440448-1920-800.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="342" />
The script by David Benioff is a broad and loose adaptation of Homer’s <em>Iliad</em>, and sometimes suffers from trying to take on aspects of the poem that wouldn’t work in a film. A lot of the dialogue is littered with straightforward exposition, sometimes repeating familiar themes and titles or stating what the audience can see or deduce for themselves. The attempt to include more Homeric speeches and mannerisms is also a mixed bag. Benioff and Petersen try to integrate the style of Homer into the dialogue but it often sounds a tad off from the weaker members of the cast. However, an elongated insult that worked best in Homer’s medium could be condensed on film to… unintentionally amusing results. Achilles’ angry “You sack of wine!” exclamation is one such example. Despite that, most of the characters get good development and leave an impression across the three hour running time, which fortuitously flows at a good pace despite that length.
The decision to focus on Achilles, as was the case in <em>The Iliad</em>, makes the film come dangerously close to lacking a strongly likable protagonist. For long stretches of time, Achilles is not very likeable at all because of his arrogance and vengeful behaviour, he is basically a mercenary in search of the one battle to make him a legend, only to find peace where he least expects to where he does soften up somewhat. Hector is very likable but is ultimately doomed before the whole story can conclude, Odysseus is off screen for a long time and the eloped couple don’t inspire any love from the audience. The decision to focus on the human element mostly works but there are some vague allusions to the presence of the gods. The scene with Thetis is the only scene that indicates the presence of gods and goddesses; she is presented walking in the shallow pool by the sea as a hint of her identity as a goddess of the sea. Achilles defaces the statue of Apollo and eventually loses his cousin, and ultimately cannot be with the woman he loves. So this leaves the possibility open that the gods are manipulating events unseen.
There are noble heroes and incorrigible cowards on both sides, and the underlying tragedy comes from not only the destruction of the magnificent city but the fact that brave men are pitted against each other either in service of tyrants or doomed causes. Agamemnon fully buys into his deluded belief that he is unifying all of Greece underneath one banner, but there’s no doubt in any scene that he is a bloodthirsty warmonger and Troy is hardly a threat to the whole Aegean.
Faith is also brought into question, as a reflection of the uncertainty of the early 2000s. The Trojan priests blindly worship the gods, and then thank them for all of their victories despite the efforts of the Trojan soldiers and this reaches a terrible conclusion in with the reveal of the infamous Trojan Horse. Both the priests and the soldiers were driven by abstract ideals into making decisions that cost a great many lives.
The element of fate and human flaws driving life-changing decisions is shown through. Every character ends up getting what they deserve, no more no less. Achilles wanted his name remembered and chased fame in spite of Agamemnon’s lack of honour. He got fame, but not without the price that came with it. Paris gave in to lust and desired a romantic escapade with Helen. He got what he asked for and the catastrophe that come with it. His name is effectively mud forever for inviting doom upon Troy and surviving while his brother fought and died valiantly. Hector, despite his moral character, still inadvertently contributed to the war coming to Troy. If he had done his duty, sailed back and returned Helen to Menelaus, then the war would not have happened. He killed Patroclus, though by accident, and thus faced retribution at the hands of Achilles. Odysseus designed a treacherous move against the Trojans, and paid ultimately for it for the next twenty years away from Ithaca.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://media.tumblr.com/c80101dea33e77ff3d000508023b4f79/tumblr_inline_mtnv6iVlUv1qevymb.jpg" alt="Image result for troy myrmidons" width="500" height="218" />
Even at its best,<em> Troy</em> does feel like there is potential for a far more poetic and moving film than what we’re presented. Peterson’s direction, the cinematography, the costuming, and the effects are all to the standard that this epic story deserves, and the script itself is not too far from a truly great adaptation. Still, it is a good edition to the period piece epic genre and one I was pleased to enjoy. � ic�?� �������� �Uf
� /�����<img class="img-responsive" src="http://www.impawards.com/2004/posters/troy_ver7.jpg" alt="Troy Movie Poster" border="0" />
<em>Troy</em> is a film I’ve been aware of for many years, but seldom had enough interest to see for myself, despite my interest in history and Greek mythology. At the time, the removal of the more obvious fantastical elements annoyed me. Having finally seen the version most preferred by director Wolfgang Petersen, I ultimately deem this to be a well-made and fairly entertaining action film suffering from issues of protagonist likability and inconsistent writing.
In the late 12th century BC, Achilles (Brad Pitt) is the greatest champion of King Agamemnon (Brian Cox) of Mycenae during the Trojan War. Meanwhile, Prince Hector (Eric Bana) of Troy and his younger brother Paris (Orlando Bloom) negotiate a peace treaty with Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), King of Sparta and younger brother of Agamemnon. Paris, however, is having a secret love affair with Menelaus' wife, Queen Helen (Diane Kruger), and smuggles her aboard their homebound vessel, enraging Hector. Upon learning of this, Menelaus meets with Agamemnon and asks his help in taking Troy. Agamemnon agrees, since it will give him control of the Aegean Sea. On Nestor (John Shrapnel), King of Pylos' advice, Agamemnon has Odysseus (Sean Bean), King of Ithaca, persuade Achilles to join them. In Troy, King Priam (Peter O'Toole) is dismayed when Hector and Paris bring Helen, but welcomes her as a guest and decides against sending her home, since Paris will likely follow her and be killed, choosing instead to meet the Greeks in open battle. Achilles leads his Myrmidons to take the Trojan beach, along with his cousin Patroclus (Garett Hedlund), and seizes the Temple of Apollo and claims Briseis, priestess of Apollo and cousin to Hector.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://movies.homeofthenutty.com/albums/TroyDCPart1/Troy0714.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
Like many of the epics I have seen, this has a great cast but the performances vary. Pitt certainly looks the part of Achilles and commits his energy and physical prowess to the many action scenes, overall it’s a good performance but sometimes his accent wanders a bit. Bana is on top form as Hector; his manner and bearing convey a brave, seasoned warrior prince with strong convictions and love for his family and kingdom driving all his actions, and like Pitt he is as much a powerhouse actor in battle. Cox is suitably despicable as the scenery-chewing Agamemnon, and Gleeson brings out a truly savage, leery and unsavoury quality to Menelaus, and both are believable as brothers. The ever-dependable Bean is sublime casting as Odysseus, with his dry wit and down to earth persona. It’s a shame he never got to play the character again in a full adaptation of <em>The Odessey</em>. O’Toole is magnificent as the tragic King Priam, he has all the composure of a mythical king and his emotional expressions speak volumes; any one of his crying scenes is a moving sight to behold. Julie Christie appears in one scene as Thetis, mother of Achilles, and conveys the pain of a mother brave enough to allow her son to choose his fate even if it means ever seeing him again. Byrne has many bittersweet scenes as the world-weary and resilient Briseis, and Saffron Burrows as Andromache; both ladies are wonderful actresses and do their best with what they’re given. On the weaker side of things, Bloom and Kruger are both really bland as Paris and Helen respectively, yes she is very beautiful but lacking in personality or conviction, Bloom’s Paris has similar faults but does resemble Bana enough to pass for his younger brother and is admittedly saddled with a thankless and hated role. Hedlund is passable as Patroclus, but does come off as whiny and ineffectual at times. Other acting veterans such as Julian Glover as King Triopas, James Cosmo as General Glaucus of Troy and Nigel Terry as the Trojan priest Archeptolemus all turn in great supporting performances
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/b0/9a/93b09ab734d2d8a95aeb1af6354b9ad4--minoan-film-stills.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="736" height="306" />
The strongest aspect of the film is the action scenes, and to Petersen’s credit they are very well realized. Using real life tactics employed by the Ancient Greeks and framed in a manner that allows the viewer to feel immersed in the thick of battle. In this more violent cut, the stab wounds and bloody slashes hold serious weight to them. Importantly, the gore works because it’s not done out of gratuity but as a demonstration of the price of war. The main fight between Achilles and Hector has some incredible choreography and an element of suspense to it, even when you know what fate awaits Hector. When it comes to the sack of Troy itself, Petersen’s direction brings out the injustice and sheer awfulness of the destruction of this beautiful city and its citizens by the Greeks.
There is a certain visual correspondence in the depiction of the Trojan army in contrast to the various Greek armies. The Trojans are adorned in beautiful silvery armour and blue tunics and uniforms, Achilles is also seen dressed in blue and his armour, as well as that of the other Myrmidons, has more of a shine to it. By contrast, the majority of Greek characters and their armies have more of a muddy brown look to their armour and uniforms, Agamemnon himself looking far more of a barbarian than the ones that the Greeks themselves would have called “barbarian.”
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/d7/6f/48d76fec11ae434ddab98643f956a070.jpg" alt="Image result for troy screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The cinematography by Roger Pratt captures the colour, vibrancy and enormity of the city of Troy, as well as the epic scale and brutality of the battles. Like many modern period epics, CGI is used to help heighten the film’s scale and most of it is well integrated. Sometimes the CGI is sometimes easy to spot, such as the massive Greek fleet sailing towards Troy or the necessary enlarging of the Greek army for various sweeping shots, but it is allowable given the greater emphasis on physical actors and locations for the vast majority of the film.
The score by James Horner is solid doesn’t rank among his greatest hits. While the background music isn’t very memorable, it really flourishes in the battle scenes, particularly the heroic leitmotif which appears when Achilles and the Myrmidons are in the heat of battle. There are some creative flourishes like the celebratory horns of Troy or the playful cellos when Achilles and Patroclus are training. But the score is also littered with “Horner-isms” that have been heard in a lot of his other scores, particularly the ominous trumpet leitmotif for the Greek army. Overall, it’s not a bad score but one that could have been greater, had he more time to work at it. An addition to the music from the Director's Cut is the use of Danny Elfman’s theme for <em>Planet of the Apes </em>during the pivotal fight between Hector and Achilles. As someone who listens to a lot of film soundtracks, it is an odd decision to hear a familiar piece from a different film with a different compositional style.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11400000/Hector-Andromache-hector-and-andromache-11440448-1920-800.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="342" />
The script by David Benioff is a broad and loose adaptation of Homer’s <em>Iliad</em>, and sometimes suffers from trying to take on aspects of the poem that wouldn’t work in a film. A lot of the dialogue is littered with straightforward exposition, sometimes repeating familiar themes and titles or stating what the audience can see or deduce for themselves. The attempt to include more Homeric speeches and mannerisms is also a mixed bag. Benioff and Petersen try to integrate the style of Homer into the dialogue but it often sounds a tad off from the weaker members of the cast. However, an elongated insult that worked best in Homer’s medium could be condensed on film to… unintentionally amusing results. Achilles’ angry “You sack of wine!” exclamation is one such example. Despite that, most of the characters get good development and leave an impression across the three hour running time, which fortuitously flows at a good pace despite that length.
The decision to focus on Achilles, as was the case in <em>The Iliad</em>, makes the film come dangerously close to lacking a strongly likable protagonist. For long stretches of time, Achilles is not very likeable at all because of his arrogance and vengeful behaviour, he is basically a mercenary in search of the one battle to make him a legend, only to find peace where he least expects to where he does soften up somewhat. Hector is very likable but is ultimately doomed before the whole story can conclude, Odysseus is off screen for a long time and the eloped couple don’t inspire any love from the audience. The decision to focus on the human element mostly works but there are some vague allusions to the presence of the gods. The scene with Thetis is the only scene that indicates the presence of gods and goddesses; she is presented walking in the shallow pool by the sea as a hint of her identity as a goddess of the sea. Achilles defaces the statue of Apollo and eventually loses his cousin, and ultimately cannot be with the woman he loves. So this leaves the possibility open that the gods are manipulating events unseen.
There are noble heroes and incorrigible cowards on both sides, and the underlying tragedy comes from not only the destruction of the magnificent city but the fact that brave men are pitted against each other either in service of tyrants or doomed causes. Agamemnon fully buys into his deluded belief that he is unifying all of Greece underneath one banner, but there’s no doubt in any scene that he is a bloodthirsty warmonger and Troy is hardly a threat to the whole Aegean.
Faith is also brought into question, as a reflection of the uncertainty of the early 2000s. The Trojan priests blindly worship the gods, and then thank them for all of their victories despite the efforts of the Trojan soldiers and this reaches a terrible conclusion in with the reveal of the infamous Trojan Horse. Both the priests and the soldiers were driven by abstract ideals into making decisions that cost a great many lives.
The element of fate and human flaws driving life-changing decisions is shown through. Every character ends up getting what they deserve, no more no less. Achilles wanted his name remembered and chased fame in spite of Agamemnon’s lack of honour. He got fame, but not without the price that came with it. Paris gave in to lust and desired a romantic escapade with Helen. He got what he asked for and the catastrophe that come with it. His name is effectively mud forever for inviting doom upon Troy and surviving while his brother fought and died valiantly. Hector, despite his moral character, still inadvertently contributed to the war coming to Troy. If he had done his duty, sailed back and returned Helen to Menelaus, then the war would not have happened. He killed Patroclus, though by accident, and thus faced retribution at the hands of Achilles. Odysseus designed a treacherous move against the Trojans, and paid ultimately for it for the next twenty years away from Ithaca.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://media.tumblr.com/c80101dea33e77ff3d000508023b4f79/tumblr_inline_mtnv6iVlUv1qevymb.jpg" alt="Image result for troy myrmidons" width="500" height="218" />
Even at its best,<em> Troy</em> does feel like there is potential for a far more poetic and moving film than what we’re presented. Peterson’s direction, the cinematography, the costuming, and the effects are all to the standard that this epic story deserves, and the script itself is not too far from a truly great adaptation. Still, it is a good edition to the period piece epic genre and one I was pleased to enjoy. �Uf� � �������� ۋ�
� 3V����
<img class="size-medium wp-image-136 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/troy_ver7-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Wolfgang Petersen</strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: David Benioff</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Wolfgang Petersen, Diana Rathbun, Colin Wilson</strong>
<strong>Studio: Shepperton Studios, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> The Iliad</em> by Homer</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 14th May, 2004</strong>
<em>Troy</em> is a film I’ve been aware of for many years, but seldom had enough interest to see for myself, despite my interest in history and Greek mythology. At the time, the removal of the more obvious fantastical elements annoyed me. Having finally seen the version most preferred by director Wolfgang Petersen, I ultimately deem this to be a well-made and fairly entertaining action film suffering from issues of protagonist likability and inconsistent writing.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://movies.homeofthenutty.com/albums/TroyDCPart1/Troy0714.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
In the late 12th century BC, Achilles (Brad Pitt) is the greatest champion of King Agamemnon (Brian Cox) of Mycenae during the Trojan War. Meanwhile, Prince Hector (Eric Bana) of Troy and his younger brother Paris (Orlando Bloom) negotiate a peace treaty with Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), King of Sparta and younger brother of Agamemnon. Paris, however, is having a secret love affair with Menelaus' wife, Queen Helen (Diane Kruger), and smuggles her aboard their homebound vessel, enraging Hector. Upon learning of this, Menelaus meets with Agamemnon and asks his help in taking Troy. Agamemnon agrees, since it will give him control of the Aegean Sea. On Nestor (John Shrapnel), King of Pylos' advice, Agamemnon has Odysseus (Sean Bean), King of Ithaca, persuade Achilles to join them. In Troy, King Priam (Peter O'Toole) is dismayed when Hector and Paris bring Helen, but welcomes her as a guest and decides against sending her home, since Paris will likely follow her and be killed, choosing instead to meet the Greeks in open battle. Achilles leads his Myrmidons to take the Trojan beach, along with his cousin Patroclus (Garett Hedlund), and seizes the Temple of Apollo and claims Briseis, priestess of Apollo and cousin to Hector.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-3658.jpg" />
Like many of the epics I have seen, this has a great cast but the performances vary. Pitt certainly looks the part of Achilles and commits his energy and physical prowess to the many action scenes, overall it’s a good performance but sometimes his accent wanders a bit. Bana is on top form as Hector; his manner and bearing convey a brave, seasoned warrior prince with strong convictions and love for his family and kingdom driving all his actions, and like Pitt he is as much a powerhouse actor in battle. Cox is suitably despicable as the scenery-chewing Agamemnon, and Gleeson brings out a truly savage, leery and unsavoury quality to Menelaus, and both are believable as brothers. The ever-dependable Bean is sublime casting as Odysseus, with his dry wit and down to earth persona. It’s a shame he never got to play the character again in a full adaptation of <em>The Odessey</em>. O’Toole is magnificent as the tragic King Priam, he has all the composure of a mythical king and his emotional expressions speak volumes; any one of his crying scenes is a moving sight to behold. Julie Christie appears in one scene as Thetis, mother of Achilles, and conveys the pain of a mother brave enough to allow her son to choose his fate even if it means ever seeing him again. Byrne has many bittersweet scenes as the world-weary and resilient Briseis, and Saffron Burrows as Andromache; both ladies are wonderful actresses and do their best with what they’re given. On the weaker side of things, Bloom and Kruger are both really bland as Paris and Helen respectively, yes she is very beautiful but lacking in personality or conviction, Bloom’s Paris has similar faults but does resemble Bana enough to pass for his younger brother and is admittedly saddled with a thankless and hated role. Hedlund is passable as Patroclus, but does come off as whiny and ineffectual at times. Other acting veterans such as Julian Glover as King Triopas, James Cosmo as General Glaucus of Troy and Nigel Terry as the Trojan priest Archeptolemus all turn in great supporting performances
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/b0/9a/93b09ab734d2d8a95aeb1af6354b9ad4--minoan-film-stills.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="736" height="306" />
The strongest aspect of the film is the action scenes, and to Petersen’s credit they are very well realized. Using real life tactics employed by the Ancient Greeks and framed in a manner that allows the viewer to feel immersed in the thick of battle. In this more violent cut, the stab wounds and bloody slashes hold serious weight to them. Importantly, the gore works because it’s not done out of gratuity but as a demonstration of the price of war. The main fight between Achilles and Hector has some incredible choreography and an element of suspense to it, even when you know what fate awaits Hector. When it comes to the sack of Troy itself, Petersen’s direction brings out the injustice and sheer awfulness of the destruction of this beautiful city and its citizens by the Greeks.
There is a certain visual correspondence in the depiction of the Trojan army in contrast to the various Greek armies. The Trojans are adorned in beautiful silvery armour and blue tunics and uniforms, Achilles is also seen dressed in blue and his armour, as well as that of the other Myrmidons, has more of a shine to it. By contrast, the majority of Greek characters and their armies have more of a muddy brown look to their armour and uniforms, Agamemnon himself looking far more of a barbarian than the ones that the Greeks themselves would have called “barbarian.”
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/d7/6f/48d76fec11ae434ddab98643f956a070.jpg" alt="Image result for troy screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The cinematography by Roger Pratt captures the colour, vibrancy and enormity of the city of Troy, as well as the epic scale and brutality of the battles. Like many modern period epics, CGI is used to help heighten the film’s scale and most of it is well integrated. Sometimes the CGI is sometimes easy to spot, such as the massive Greek fleet sailing towards Troy or the necessary enlarging of the Greek army for various sweeping shots, but it is allowable given the greater emphasis on physical actors and locations for the vast majority of the film.
The score by James Horner is solid doesn’t rank among my favourites of his. While the background music is serviceable, it really flourishes in the battle scenes, particularly the heroic leitmotif which appears when Achilles and the Myrmidons are in the heat of battle. There are some creative flourishes like the celebratory horns of Troy or the playful cellos when Achilles and Patroclus are training. But the score is also littered with “Horner-isms” that have been heard in a lot of his other scores, particularly the ominous trumpet leitmotif for the Greek army. Overall, it’s not a bad score but one that could have been greater, had he more time to work at it. An addition to the music from the Director's Cut is the use of Danny Elfman’s theme for <em>Planet of the Apes </em>during the pivotal fight between Hector and Achilles. As someone who listens to a lot of film soundtracks, it is an odd decision to hear a familiar piece from a different film with a different composing style.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11400000/Hector-Andromache-hector-and-andromache-11440448-1920-800.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="342" />
The script by David Benioff is a broad and loose adaptation of Homer’s <em>Iliad</em>, and sometimes suffers from trying to take on aspects of the poem that wouldn’t work in a film. A lot of the dialogue is littered with straightforward exposition, sometimes repeating familiar themes and titles or stating what the audience can see or deduce for themselves. The attempt to include more Homeric speeches and mannerisms is also a mixed bag. Benioff and Petersen try to integrate the style of Homer into the dialogue but it often sounds a tad off from the weaker members of the cast. However, an elongated insult that worked best in Homer’s medium could be condensed on film to… unintentionally amusing results. Achilles’ angry “You sack of wine!” exclamation is one such example. Despite that, most of the characters get good development and leave an impression across the three hour running time, which fortuitously flows at a good pace despite that length.
The decision to focus on Achilles, as was the case in <em>The Iliad</em>, makes the film come dangerously close to lacking a strongly likable protagonist. For long stretches of time, Achilles is not very likeable at all because of his arrogance and vengeful behaviour, he is basically a mercenary in search of the one battle to make him a legend, only to find peace where he least expects to where he does soften up somewhat. Hector is very likable but is ultimately doomed before the whole story can conclude, Odysseus is off screen for a long time and the eloped couple don’t inspire any love from the audience. The decision to focus on the human element mostly works but there are some vague allusions to the presence of the gods. The scene with Thetis is the only scene that indicates the presence of gods and goddesses; she is presented walking in the shallow pool by the sea as a hint of her identity as a goddess of the sea. Achilles defaces the statue of Apollo and eventually loses his cousin, and ultimately cannot be with the woman he loves. So this leaves the possibility open that the gods are manipulating events unseen. The homosexual love between Achilles and Patroclus is sadly omitted in this film, and regardless on how you feel about such partnerships the relationship between these two men was one of the driving plot points for <em>The Iliad </em> and to water it down and alter their relationship to being cousins takes a lot of the dramatic punch out of the story.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-5671.jpg" />
There are noble heroes and incorrigible cowards on both sides, and the underlying tragedy comes from not only the destruction of the magnificent city but the fact that brave men are pitted against each other either in service of tyrants or doomed causes. Agamemnon fully buys into his deluded belief that he is unifying all of Greece underneath one banner, but there’s no doubt in any scene that he is a bloodthirsty warmonger and Troy is hardly a threat to the whole Aegean. Faith is also brought into question, as a reflection of the uncertainty of the early 2000s. The Trojan priests blindly worship the gods, and then thank them for all of their victories despite the efforts of the Trojan soldiers and this reaches a terrible conclusion in with the reveal of the infamous Trojan Horse. Both the priests and the soldiers were driven by abstract ideals into making decisions that cost a great many lives.
The element of fate and human flaws driving life-changing decisions is shown through. Every character ends up getting what they deserve, no more no less. Achilles wanted his name remembered and chased fame in spite of Agamemnon’s lack of honour. He got fame, but not without the price that came with it. Paris gave in to lust and desired a romantic escapade with Helen. He got what he asked for and the catastrophe that come with it. His name is effectively mud forever for inviting doom upon Troy and surviving while his brother fought and died valiantly. Hector, despite his moral character, still inadvertently contributed to the war coming to Troy. If he had done his duty, sailed back and returned Helen to Menelaus, then the war would not have happened. He killed Patroclus, though by accident, and thus faced retribution at the hands of Achilles. Odysseus designed a treacherous move against the Trojans, and paid ultimately for it for the next twenty years away from Ithaca.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-6275.jpg" />
Even at its best,<em> Troy</em> does feel like there is potential for a far more poetic and moving film than what we’re presented. Peterson’s direction, the cinematography, the costuming, and the effects are all to the standard that this epic story deserves, and the script itself is not too far from a truly great adaptation. Still, it is a good edition to the period piece epic genre and one I was pleased to enjoy. ۋ���� �������� ۾�
� /�����<img class="img-responsive" src="http://www.impawards.com/2004/posters/troy_ver7.jpg" alt="Troy Movie Poster" border="0" />
<em>Troy</em> is a film I’ve been aware of for many years, but seldom had enough interest to see for myself, despite my interest in history and Greek mythology. At the time, the removal of the more obvious fantastical elements annoyed me. Having finally seen the version most preferred by director Wolfgang Petersen, I ultimately deem this to be a well-made and fairly entertaining action film suffering from issues of protagonist likability and inconsistent writing.
In the late 12th century BC, Achilles (Brad Pitt) is the greatest champion of King Agamemnon (Brian Cox) of Mycenae during the Trojan War. Meanwhile, Prince Hector (Eric Bana) of Troy and his younger brother Paris (Orlando Bloom) negotiate a peace treaty with Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), King of Sparta and younger brother of Agamemnon. Paris, however, is having a secret love affair with Menelaus' wife, Queen Helen (Diane Kruger), and smuggles her aboard their homebound vessel, enraging Hector. Upon learning of this, Menelaus meets with Agamemnon and asks his help in taking Troy. Agamemnon agrees, since it will give him control of the Aegean Sea. On Nestor (John Shrapnel), King of Pylos' advice, Agamemnon has Odysseus (Sean Bean), King of Ithaca, persuade Achilles to join them. In Troy, King Priam (Peter O'Toole) is dismayed when Hector and Paris bring Helen, but welcomes her as a guest and decides against sending her home, since Paris will likely follow her and be killed, choosing instead to meet the Greeks in open battle. Achilles leads his Myrmidons to take the Trojan beach, along with his cousin Patroclus (Garett Hedlund), and seizes the Temple of Apollo and claims Briseis, priestess of Apollo and cousin to Hector.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://movies.homeofthenutty.com/albums/TroyDCPart1/Troy0714.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
Like many of the epics I have seen, this has a great cast but the performances vary. Pitt certainly looks the part of Achilles and commits his energy and physical prowess to the many action scenes, overall it’s a good performance but sometimes his accent wanders a bit. Bana is on top form as Hector; his manner and bearing convey a brave, seasoned warrior prince with strong convictions and love for his family and kingdom driving all his actions, and like Pitt he is as much a powerhouse actor in battle. Cox is suitably despicable as the scenery-chewing Agamemnon, and Gleeson brings out a truly savage, leery and unsavoury quality to Menelaus, and both are believable as brothers. The ever-dependable Bean is sublime casting as Odysseus, with his dry wit and down to earth persona. It’s a shame he never got to play the character again in a full adaptation of <em>The Odessey</em>. O’Toole is magnificent as the tragic King Priam, he has all the composure of a mythical king and his emotional expressions speak volumes; any one of his crying scenes is a moving sight to behold. Julie Christie appears in one scene as Thetis, mother of Achilles, and conveys the pain of a mother brave enough to allow her son to choose his fate even if it means ever seeing him again. Byrne has many bittersweet scenes as the world-weary and resilient Briseis, and Saffron Burrows as Andromache; both ladies are wonderful actresses and do their best with what they’re given. On the weaker side of things, Bloom and Kruger are both really bland as Paris and Helen respectively, yes she is very beautiful but lacking in personality or conviction, Bloom’s Paris has similar faults but does resemble Bana enough to pass for his younger brother and is admittedly saddled with a thankless and hated role. Hedlund is passable as Patroclus, but does come off as whiny and ineffectual at times. Other acting veterans such as Julian Glover as King Triopas, James Cosmo as General Glaucus of Troy and Nigel Terry as the Trojan priest Archeptolemus all turn in great supporting performances
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/b0/9a/93b09ab734d2d8a95aeb1af6354b9ad4--minoan-film-stills.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="736" height="306" />
The strongest aspect of the film is the action scenes, and to Petersen’s credit they are very well realized. Using real life tactics employed by the Ancient Greeks and framed in a manner that allows the viewer to feel immersed in the thick of battle. In this more violent cut, the stab wounds and bloody slashes hold serious weight to them. Importantly, the gore works because it’s not done out of gratuity but as a demonstration of the price of war. The main fight between Achilles and Hector has some incredible choreography and an element of suspense to it, even when you know what fate awaits Hector. When it comes to the sack of Troy itself, Petersen’s direction brings out the injustice and sheer awfulness of the destruction of this beautiful city and its citizens by the Greeks.
There is a certain visual correspondence in the depiction of the Trojan army in contrast to the various Greek armies. The Trojans are adorned in beautiful silvery armour and blue tunics and uniforms, Achilles is also seen dressed in blue and his armour, as well as that of the other Myrmidons, has more of a shine to it. By contrast, the majority of Greek characters and their armies have more of a muddy brown look to their armour and uniforms, Agamemnon himself looking far more of a barbarian than the ones that the Greeks themselves would have called “barbarian.”
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/d7/6f/48d76fec11ae434ddab98643f956a070.jpg" alt="Image result for troy screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The cinematography by Roger Pratt captures the colour, vibrancy and enormity of the city of Troy, as well as the epic scale and brutality of the battles. Like many modern period epics, CGI is used to help heighten the film’s scale and most of it is well integrated. Sometimes the CGI is sometimes easy to spot, such as the massive Greek fleet sailing towards Troy or the necessary enlarging of the Greek army for various sweeping shots, but it is allowable given the greater emphasis on physical actors and locations for the vast majority of the film.
The score by James Horner is solid doesn’t rank among my favourites of his. While the background music is serviceable, it really flourishes in the battle scenes, particularly the heroic leitmotif which appears when Achilles and the Myrmidons are in the heat of battle. There are some creative flourishes like the celebratory horns of Troy or the playful cellos when Achilles and Patroclus are training. But the score is also littered with “Horner-isms” that have been heard in a lot of his other scores, particularly the ominous trumpet leitmotif for the Greek army. Overall, it’s not a bad score but one that could have been greater, had he more time to work at it. An addition to the music from the Director's Cut is the use of Danny Elfman’s theme for <em>Planet of the Apes </em>during the pivotal fight between Hector and Achilles. As someone who listens to a lot of film soundtracks, it is an odd decision to hear a familiar piece from a different film with a different composing style.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11400000/Hector-Andromache-hector-and-andromache-11440448-1920-800.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="342" />
The script by David Benioff is a broad and loose adaptation of Homer’s <em>Iliad</em>, and sometimes suffers from trying to take on aspects of the poem that wouldn’t work in a film. A lot of the dialogue is littered with straightforward exposition, sometimes repeating familiar themes and titles or stating what the audience can see or deduce for themselves. The attempt to include more Homeric speeches and mannerisms is also a mixed bag. Benioff and Petersen try to integrate the style of Homer into the dialogue but it often sounds a tad off from the weaker members of the cast. However, an elongated insult that worked best in Homer’s medium could be condensed on film to… unintentionally amusing results. Achilles’ angry “You sack of wine!” exclamation is one such example. Despite that, most of the characters get good development and leave an impression across the three hour running time, which fortuitously flows at a good pace despite that length.
The decision to focus on Achilles, as was the case in <em>The Iliad</em>, makes the film come dangerously close to lacking a strongly likable protagonist. For long stretches of time, Achilles is not very likeable at all because of his arrogance and vengeful behaviour, he is basically a mercenary in search of the one battle to make him a legend, only to find peace where he least expects to where he does soften up somewhat. Hector is very likable but is ultimately doomed before the whole story can conclude, Odysseus is off screen for a long time and the eloped couple don’t inspire any love from the audience. The decision to focus on the human element mostly works but there are some vague allusions to the presence of the gods. The scene with Thetis is the only scene that indicates the presence of gods and goddesses; she is presented walking in the shallow pool by the sea as a hint of her identity as a goddess of the sea. Achilles defaces the statue of Apollo and eventually loses his cousin, and ultimately cannot be with the woman he loves. So this leaves the possibility open that the gods are manipulating events unseen.
There are noble heroes and incorrigible cowards on both sides, and the underlying tragedy comes from not only the destruction of the magnificent city but the fact that brave men are pitted against each other either in service of tyrants or doomed causes. Agamemnon fully buys into his deluded belief that he is unifying all of Greece underneath one banner, but there’s no doubt in any scene that he is a bloodthirsty warmonger and Troy is hardly a threat to the whole Aegean.
Faith is also brought into question, as a reflection of the uncertainty of the early 2000s. The Trojan priests blindly worship the gods, and then thank them for all of their victories despite the efforts of the Trojan soldiers and this reaches a terrible conclusion in with the reveal of the infamous Trojan Horse. Both the priests and the soldiers were driven by abstract ideals into making decisions that cost a great many lives.
The element of fate and human flaws driving life-changing decisions is shown through. Every character ends up getting what they deserve, no more no less. Achilles wanted his name remembered and chased fame in spite of Agamemnon’s lack of honour. He got fame, but not without the price that came with it. Paris gave in to lust and desired a romantic escapade with Helen. He got what he asked for and the catastrophe that come with it. His name is effectively mud forever for inviting doom upon Troy and surviving while his brother fought and died valiantly. Hector, despite his moral character, still inadvertently contributed to the war coming to Troy. If he had done his duty, sailed back and returned Helen to Menelaus, then the war would not have happened. He killed Patroclus, though by accident, and thus faced retribution at the hands of Achilles. Odysseus designed a treacherous move against the Trojans, and paid ultimately for it for the next twenty years away from Ithaca.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://media.tumblr.com/c80101dea33e77ff3d000508023b4f79/tumblr_inline_mtnv6iVlUv1qevymb.jpg" alt="Image result for troy myrmidons" width="500" height="218" />
Even at its best,<em> Troy</em> does feel like there is potential for a far more poetic and moving film than what we’re presented. Peterson’s direction, the cinematography, the costuming, and the effects are all to the standard that this epic story deserves, and the script itself is not too far from a truly great adaptation. Still, it is a good edition to the period piece epic genre and one I was pleased to enjoy. ۾�O�< �������� �%
� 9����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-133" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ten_commandments_ver3-327x500.jpg" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
Despite not knowing fully what to expect, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> was a suitably epic experience from start to finish, and made me want to believe that the golden years of Hollywood could come again. As someone who has a strong admiration, nostalgia and affection for the animated epic <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>, I do feel somewhat foolish for putting off seeing the second and better known of Cecil B. DeMille’s adaptations of the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, I will only refer to that film on occasion to bring up how <em>The Ten Commandments</em> adapts the story of <em>Exodus</em> in its own way.
Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt has ordered the death of all firstborn Hebrew males, but one mother, Yochebel (Martha Scott), saves her infant son by setting him adrift in a basket on the Nile. The Pharaoh’s daughter, Bithiah (Nina Foch), finds the basket and decides to adopt the boy, naming him Moses. However, her servant Memnet recognizes the baby’s Hebrew heritage and retains the Levite cloth he was wrapped in.
Prince Moses (Charlton Heston) grows up to become a successful general, and falls in love with Princess Nefretiri (Anne Baxter), but she must marry the next Pharaoh. While working on the building of a city for the jubilee of Pharaoh Sethi (Cedric Hardwicke), Moses meets the stonecutter Joshua (John Derek), and saves an elderly woman, revealed to be Yochebel, from being crushed, scolding the cruel master builder, Baka (Vincent Price). Moses reforms the treatment of slaves on the construction, but Prince Rameses (Yul Brynner) charges him with planning an insurrection. Nefretiri learns of Moses’ true parentage when Memnet shows the piece of Levite cloth, a shocked Moses follows Bithiah to Yochebel’s house where he meets his birth mother and family. Moses saves Joshua from death by strangling Baka, in vengeance for the Egyptian taking advances to Joshua’s love, Lilia (Debra Paget). Dathan (Edward G. Robinson) the overseer spies on this and rats Moses out to Rameses. Moses is banished to the desert and Rameses becomes the next Pharaoh. He joins a Bedouin tribe who worship the God of Abraham, and marries Sephora (Yvonne De Carlo), daughter of Jethro (Eduard Franz). After several years of peace, Moses sees the burning bush on the summit of Mount Sinai and hears the voice of God and vows to return to Egypt to free the Hebrews.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://content.moviery.com/87/009787/9.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
The cast is phenomenal, with a fair bit of theatricality and scenery chewing that comes with the territory. Heston’s Moses has a commanding presence, confidence and charisma both as Prince of Egypt and as Deliverer, you believe that he has the wisdom and strength of spirit to inspire thousands to follow him, and it helps that he matches the classical look of Moses to a tee. Heston also provides the deep, booming voice of God as one would imagine Him in the Old Testament. Brynner portrays Rameses as a cold, vain and conniving man both as a prince and as Pharaoh, without a shred of regret in his manner and bearing barely concealing a quietly simmering rage for any moment of defiance. Both he and Heston are ideal foils for each other, both as confident in themselves as they are in their beliefs. The beautiful Baxter and is given a great many scenes to shine, possessing multi-layered chemistry with Heston and Brynner; you see past the beauty and royal charm to see the cold, vindictive woman beneath that.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://cinemafanatic.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the_ten_commandments_yul_brynner_edward_g_robinson.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="605" height="338" />
De Carlo brings out Sephora’s strength and wisdom, and is an ideal opposite to Baxter’s Nefretiri. Heston and De Carlo act very well opposite each other and you do get a sense that Sephora really is the woman that Moses should be with, but I don’t think there’s much chemistry between them. Derek is a likable ally to Moses, channelling a bit of Errol Flynn in his youthful appearance and heroic stunts early on. Robinson has a great turn as the slimy and manipulative Dathan, and Price is very easy to detest as the cruel and lustful Baka. Hardwicke makes the most out Pharaoh Sethi, having a particularly strong, emotional scene with Heston when he is forced to banish his adopted son. Foch and Scott work wonderfully in the two mother figures to Moses. In other more small but crucial and well-acted roles, Paget is sweet and emotionally on point as Lilia, Franz as the jocular and kind Jethro, Judith Anderson as Memnet, and John Carradine and Olive Deering as Aaron and Miriam.
As a feast for the senses, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> is a mesmerizing achievement. With legions of extras and animals filling a multitude of sets, the vast scale of the film is astonishing. While not as detailed as more recent recreations of Ancient Egypt in other portrayals of the period, the colourful Old Hollywood look of the sets do have a certain charm to them. This isn’t so much a “real life” recreation of Ancient Egypt, but it feels dreamlike in a way that percolates through the whole film. The variety and colour of the costumes bring vibrancy to the big screen; looking faithful to the period for the most part but sometimes there are some that stick out like sore thumbs, such as the horned helmeted guards in the Egyptian palace
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments3.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="750" height="339" />
The cinematography by Loyal Griggs captures the vast, beautiful landscapes and intricate kingdom of Ancient Egypt, allowing the audience to appreciate the scale of the production. The use of colour, such as dark deep red skies to indicate tyranny and oppression and lighter colours to indicate hope enhance the impact of the imagery. We see the Egyptian palace become gradually drained of warmth and colour throughout the film, as though the realm itself had been bled by Rameses’ tyranny and as a reflection of Moses’ rejection of his former home.
John P. Fulton used a variety of practical and photographic effects to realize Ancient Egypt for a captivated audience. Fulton’s effects included the building of Sethi’s Jubilee treasure city, the Burning Bush, the fiery hail from a cloudless sky, the Angel of Death, the composites of the Exodus, the Pillar of Fire, the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the parting of the Red Sea as the final tour de force. But the most visually effective of the plagues is the long hanging black mist that symbolizes the tenth plague’s visitation upon Egypt; the slow way it glides across the streets has an unnerving effect. The gathering of clouds and the parting of the Red Sea are equally ambitious and incredible to behold. Other effects such as the subtle morphing effects on the snakes still intrigue me to this day. The visual portrayal of God and how he reveals himself to Moses is very faithful to traditional portrayals in classical artwork; the burning bush has a golden glow about it and the pillar of fire. But I have to admit, the pillar of fire reminds me of something out of Disney’s <em>Fantasia</em>. It’s artistically pleasing to be sure, but doesn’t quite feel “real”.
Considering these are special effects from the 1950s, one can’t help but marvel at their ambition and attention to detail. The burning bush and fiery columns of fire are depicted through animation, and while both are highly detailed and have a certain romantic quality to them. A lot of the visual effects, while impressive for the time, are somewhat dated. The optical effects splicing close-up sets with actors with the wide vistas area mixed bag, many of them work well enough but some could have used a bit more of a polish and suffer from prominent black outlines. Regardless, of these noticeable technical hiccups, they don’t detract from the experience in any way at all.
The score by Elmer Bernstein is as inspiring as it is powerful; with soaring, Wagnerian horns, trumpets and drums that conjure themes of freedom and righteous rebellion, the chief among these serves as the recurring heroic motif of the film. The gentler string melodies are well tailored to the intimate and emotional scenes and invoke something of a spiritual sense to them.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://earnthis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/capture4.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="699" height="393" />
The dialogue often lifts from the Book of <em>Exodus</em> and has a timeless appeal, but can sometimes dip into melodrama. The main source of humour comes from the dry interplay and banter between the royalty of Egypt, as well as some lighter moments provided by Sephora’s sisters or Dathan being rightfully put in his place. The flowery, poetic speeches from Moses and Rameses, while dated to many ears, work in my eyes to convey gravitas and antiquity of the setting.
The notion of family division is more emphasized rather than brotherly division. Moses and Rameses never act like brothers in any scene, and that makes their enmity more black and white and makes Rameses a more despicable character throughout. This works for the type of film it is with clearer cut heroes and villains. Moses and his adopted Egyptian family are shown to be flourishing while he’s ignorant of his Hebrew heritage, and when he is compelled to do right by his true people it puts a wedge between him and Sethi. The impact of that rift is felt through the performances and the heartbreak of Sethi and Bithiah. While it plays out well among the Egyptian royal family, it isn’t as keenly felt for Moses’ new family. Even when Moses and Sephora have their son together he spends much of the third act separate from his family, undercutting the parallels between his newfound family and his old Egyptian one. The depiction of both mothers as equally sympathetic and invested in Moses wellbeing does offer a kinder light to the Egyptian side of the conflict.
Moses’ own arc, amidst the physical transformations he undergoes from prince to wanderer and saviour, is the search for and discovery of belief in something greater than him to live up to. That for all the worldly power he could have used as prince and king, he was ultimately far more powerful because he had found faith. You get the sense that he is disappointed in God for not directly helping his people but you believe that the passage of time makes him a kinder man. The nature versus nurture theme does lean heavily towards nature here, as it seems as though Moses’ heritage afforded him greater compassion while the true-born Egyptian Ramses and Nefretiri are presented with all the ambition and duplicity of their position. His natural compassion allows for better treatment of the slaves without injuring the kingdom the way Rameses does as Pharaoh. You get an idea of the kind of stable but still fairer Egypt that Moses could have created were he Pharaoh. You do get the feeling that Rameses’ jealousy of Moses and barely subdued feelings of inadequacy are the driving factors for his anger and ambition. In allowing his vanity and contempt to rule him, Rameses is often the prognosticator of his own downfall
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://media-cdn.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2016/03/24/1458852051_0wJiVjLyp2--1-_t755_hde37d95367be0fab21949e1878952fc27ac3815d.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments moses" width="698" height="393" />
As one of the quintessential message movies, the aspect of faith is at the forefront of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. The advanced yet savage character of Ancient Egypt, where great monuments and cities are raised but death and cruelty are commonplace, makes the need for a unifying presence of decency and justice more compelling. It is, in DeMille’s own words, a story of the birth of freedom, that most basic human desire to live on one’s own terms, and is applied to all races, rather than forcibly submit to the whims of a tyrant. As the story about how the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, race is a fundamental theme within this story. As someone who lacks a strong connection to faith and to God, I found that the message of faith was not particularly subtle (or at least when compared to <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>), but it’s theatrical in a way that still relies on a lot of showing rather than telling. The applicability and truthfulness of the message itself still transcends how it’s delivered.
For all the strengths I have highlighter earlier, I do have a select few flaws with the film. The narration by DeMille himself helps to convey the vastness of the setting and allow us to truly feel as though we’re walking beside the characters of the piece. However, it can get somewhat self-important and the striking imagery is often enough to convey the themes of the story. At over three and a half hours long and filled with scenes of excellent cinematography but little going on, it’s a film that requires patience to experience it. While the Egyptian and Hebrew cast is primarily made of Caucasian actors, the passion on display and richness of the script and story makes it easy to invest in. Even if you had this same high calibre script and directorial vision, you could not pull such casting off again. The relegation of the other plagues to simple mentions was a bit disappointing, not to say the other visualizations of the plagues underwhelmed but the sense of desperation and urgency by seeing the totality of plagues beleaguering the kingdom is somewhat stifled.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments-07.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments red sea" width="601" height="337" />
While <em>The Prince of Egypt</em> emphasizes the strife between brothers while keeping the message of faith intact, the element of faith is more pronounced here and the belief in the rebuttal of tyranny and the value of all mankind, regardless of race or creed is more prominent. Despite what few quibbles I have, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> remains ambitious, inspiring and epic in every sense of the word. The message and themes can and still do transcend across barriers of belief and lives up to it’s ancient source material. �%�]� �������� �1?
� /���
<img class="size-medium wp-image-136 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/troy_ver7-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<em>Troy</em> is a film I’ve been aware of for many years, but seldom had enough interest to see for myself, despite my interest in history and Greek mythology. At the time, the removal of the more obvious fantastical elements annoyed me. Having finally seen the version most preferred by director Wolfgang Petersen, I ultimately deem this to be a well-made and fairly entertaining action film suffering from issues of protagonist likability and inconsistent writing.
In the late 12th century BC, Achilles (Brad Pitt) is the greatest champion of King Agamemnon (Brian Cox) of Mycenae during the Trojan War. Meanwhile, Prince Hector (Eric Bana) of Troy and his younger brother Paris (Orlando Bloom) negotiate a peace treaty with Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), King of Sparta and younger brother of Agamemnon. Paris, however, is having a secret love affair with Menelaus' wife, Queen Helen (Diane Kruger), and smuggles her aboard their homebound vessel, enraging Hector. Upon learning of this, Menelaus meets with Agamemnon and asks his help in taking Troy. Agamemnon agrees, since it will give him control of the Aegean Sea. On Nestor (John Shrapnel), King of Pylos' advice, Agamemnon has Odysseus (Sean Bean), King of Ithaca, persuade Achilles to join them. In Troy, King Priam (Peter O'Toole) is dismayed when Hector and Paris bring Helen, but welcomes her as a guest and decides against sending her home, since Paris will likely follow her and be killed, choosing instead to meet the Greeks in open battle. Achilles leads his Myrmidons to take the Trojan beach, along with his cousin Patroclus (Garett Hedlund), and seizes the Temple of Apollo and claims Briseis, priestess of Apollo and cousin to Hector.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://movies.homeofthenutty.com/albums/TroyDCPart1/Troy0714.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
Like many of the epics I have seen, this has a great cast but the performances vary. Pitt certainly looks the part of Achilles and commits his energy and physical prowess to the many action scenes, overall it’s a good performance but sometimes his accent wanders a bit. Bana is on top form as Hector; his manner and bearing convey a brave, seasoned warrior prince with strong convictions and love for his family and kingdom driving all his actions, and like Pitt he is as much a powerhouse actor in battle. Cox is suitably despicable as the scenery-chewing Agamemnon, and Gleeson brings out a truly savage, leery and unsavoury quality to Menelaus, and both are believable as brothers. The ever-dependable Bean is sublime casting as Odysseus, with his dry wit and down to earth persona. It’s a shame he never got to play the character again in a full adaptation of <em>The Odessey</em>. O’Toole is magnificent as the tragic King Priam, he has all the composure of a mythical king and his emotional expressions speak volumes; any one of his crying scenes is a moving sight to behold. Julie Christie appears in one scene as Thetis, mother of Achilles, and conveys the pain of a mother brave enough to allow her son to choose his fate even if it means ever seeing him again. Byrne has many bittersweet scenes as the world-weary and resilient Briseis, and Saffron Burrows as Andromache; both ladies are wonderful actresses and do their best with what they’re given. On the weaker side of things, Bloom and Kruger are both really bland as Paris and Helen respectively, yes she is very beautiful but lacking in personality or conviction, Bloom’s Paris has similar faults but does resemble Bana enough to pass for his younger brother and is admittedly saddled with a thankless and hated role. Hedlund is passable as Patroclus, but does come off as whiny and ineffectual at times. Other acting veterans such as Julian Glover as King Triopas, James Cosmo as General Glaucus of Troy and Nigel Terry as the Trojan priest Archeptolemus all turn in great supporting performances
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/b0/9a/93b09ab734d2d8a95aeb1af6354b9ad4--minoan-film-stills.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="736" height="306" />
The strongest aspect of the film is the action scenes, and to Petersen’s credit they are very well realized. Using real life tactics employed by the Ancient Greeks and framed in a manner that allows the viewer to feel immersed in the thick of battle. In this more violent cut, the stab wounds and bloody slashes hold serious weight to them. Importantly, the gore works because it’s not done out of gratuity but as a demonstration of the price of war. The main fight between Achilles and Hector has some incredible choreography and an element of suspense to it, even when you know what fate awaits Hector. When it comes to the sack of Troy itself, Petersen’s direction brings out the injustice and sheer awfulness of the destruction of this beautiful city and its citizens by the Greeks.
There is a certain visual correspondence in the depiction of the Trojan army in contrast to the various Greek armies. The Trojans are adorned in beautiful silvery armour and blue tunics and uniforms, Achilles is also seen dressed in blue and his armour, as well as that of the other Myrmidons, has more of a shine to it. By contrast, the majority of Greek characters and their armies have more of a muddy brown look to their armour and uniforms, Agamemnon himself looking far more of a barbarian than the ones that the Greeks themselves would have called “barbarian.”
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/d7/6f/48d76fec11ae434ddab98643f956a070.jpg" alt="Image result for troy screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The cinematography by Roger Pratt captures the colour, vibrancy and enormity of the city of Troy, as well as the epic scale and brutality of the battles. Like many modern period epics, CGI is used to help heighten the film’s scale and most of it is well integrated. Sometimes the CGI is sometimes easy to spot, such as the massive Greek fleet sailing towards Troy or the necessary enlarging of the Greek army for various sweeping shots, but it is allowable given the greater emphasis on physical actors and locations for the vast majority of the film.
The score by James Horner is solid doesn’t rank among my favourites of his. While the background music is serviceable, it really flourishes in the battle scenes, particularly the heroic leitmotif which appears when Achilles and the Myrmidons are in the heat of battle. There are some creative flourishes like the celebratory horns of Troy or the playful cellos when Achilles and Patroclus are training. But the score is also littered with “Horner-isms” that have been heard in a lot of his other scores, particularly the ominous trumpet leitmotif for the Greek army. Overall, it’s not a bad score but one that could have been greater, had he more time to work at it. An addition to the music from the Director's Cut is the use of Danny Elfman’s theme for <em>Planet of the Apes </em>during the pivotal fight between Hector and Achilles. As someone who listens to a lot of film soundtracks, it is an odd decision to hear a familiar piece from a different film with a different composing style.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11400000/Hector-Andromache-hector-and-andromache-11440448-1920-800.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="342" />
The script by David Benioff is a broad and loose adaptation of Homer’s <em>Iliad</em>, and sometimes suffers from trying to take on aspects of the poem that wouldn’t work in a film. A lot of the dialogue is littered with straightforward exposition, sometimes repeating familiar themes and titles or stating what the audience can see or deduce for themselves. The attempt to include more Homeric speeches and mannerisms is also a mixed bag. Benioff and Petersen try to integrate the style of Homer into the dialogue but it often sounds a tad off from the weaker members of the cast. However, an elongated insult that worked best in Homer’s medium could be condensed on film to… unintentionally amusing results. Achilles’ angry “You sack of wine!” exclamation is one such example. Despite that, most of the characters get good development and leave an impression across the three hour running time, which fortuitously flows at a good pace despite that length.
The decision to focus on Achilles, as was the case in <em>The Iliad</em>, makes the film come dangerously close to lacking a strongly likable protagonist. For long stretches of time, Achilles is not very likeable at all because of his arrogance and vengeful behaviour, he is basically a mercenary in search of the one battle to make him a legend, only to find peace where he least expects to where he does soften up somewhat. Hector is very likable but is ultimately doomed before the whole story can conclude, Odysseus is off screen for a long time and the eloped couple don’t inspire any love from the audience. The decision to focus on the human element mostly works but there are some vague allusions to the presence of the gods. The scene with Thetis is the only scene that indicates the presence of gods and goddesses; she is presented walking in the shallow pool by the sea as a hint of her identity as a goddess of the sea. Achilles defaces the statue of Apollo and eventually loses his cousin, and ultimately cannot be with the woman he loves. So this leaves the possibility open that the gods are manipulating events unseen.
There are noble heroes and incorrigible cowards on both sides, and the underlying tragedy comes from not only the destruction of the magnificent city but the fact that brave men are pitted against each other either in service of tyrants or doomed causes. Agamemnon fully buys into his deluded belief that he is unifying all of Greece underneath one banner, but there’s no doubt in any scene that he is a bloodthirsty warmonger and Troy is hardly a threat to the whole Aegean.
Faith is also brought into question, as a reflection of the uncertainty of the early 2000s. The Trojan priests blindly worship the gods, and then thank them for all of their victories despite the efforts of the Trojan soldiers and this reaches a terrible conclusion in with the reveal of the infamous Trojan Horse. Both the priests and the soldiers were driven by abstract ideals into making decisions that cost a great many lives.
The element of fate and human flaws driving life-changing decisions is shown through. Every character ends up getting what they deserve, no more no less. Achilles wanted his name remembered and chased fame in spite of Agamemnon’s lack of honour. He got fame, but not without the price that came with it. Paris gave in to lust and desired a romantic escapade with Helen. He got what he asked for and the catastrophe that come with it. His name is effectively mud forever for inviting doom upon Troy and surviving while his brother fought and died valiantly. Hector, despite his moral character, still inadvertently contributed to the war coming to Troy. If he had done his duty, sailed back and returned Helen to Menelaus, then the war would not have happened. He killed Patroclus, though by accident, and thus faced retribution at the hands of Achilles. Odysseus designed a treacherous move against the Trojans, and paid ultimately for it for the next twenty years away from Ithaca.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://media.tumblr.com/c80101dea33e77ff3d000508023b4f79/tumblr_inline_mtnv6iVlUv1qevymb.jpg" alt="Image result for troy myrmidons" width="500" height="218" />
Even at its best,<em> Troy</em> does feel like there is potential for a far more poetic and moving film than what we’re presented. Peterson’s direction, the cinematography, the costuming, and the effects are all to the standard that this epic story deserves, and the script itself is not too far from a truly great adaptation. Still, it is a good edition to the period piece epic genre and one I was pleased to enjoy. �1?\/� !�������� �n{
� 9����<img class="size-medium wp-image-133 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ten_commandments_ver3-327x500.jpg" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
Despite not knowing fully what to expect, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> was a suitably epic experience from start to finish, and made me want to believe that the golden years of Hollywood could come again. As someone who has a strong admiration, nostalgia and affection for the animated epic <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>, I do feel somewhat foolish for putting off seeing the second and better known of Cecil B. DeMille’s adaptations of the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, I will only refer to that film on occasion to bring up how <em>The Ten Commandments</em> adapts the story of <em>Exodus</em> in its own way.
Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt has ordered the death of all firstborn Hebrew males, but one mother, Yochebel (Martha Scott), saves her infant son by setting him adrift in a basket on the Nile. The Pharaoh’s daughter, Bithiah (Nina Foch), finds the basket and decides to adopt the boy, naming him Moses. However, her servant Memnet recognizes the baby’s Hebrew heritage and retains the Levite cloth he was wrapped in.
Prince Moses (Charlton Heston) grows up to become a successful general, and falls in love with Princess Nefretiri (Anne Baxter), but she must marry the next Pharaoh. While working on the building of a city for the jubilee of Pharaoh Sethi (Cedric Hardwicke), Moses meets the stonecutter Joshua (John Derek), and saves an elderly woman, revealed to be Yochebel, from being crushed, scolding the cruel master builder, Baka (Vincent Price). Moses reforms the treatment of slaves on the construction, but Prince Rameses (Yul Brynner) charges him with planning an insurrection. Nefretiri learns of Moses’ true parentage when Memnet shows the piece of Levite cloth, a shocked Moses follows Bithiah to Yochebel’s house where he meets his birth mother and family. Moses saves Joshua from death by strangling Baka, in vengeance for the Egyptian taking advances to Joshua’s love, Lilia (Debra Paget). Dathan (Edward G. Robinson) the overseer spies on this and rats Moses out to Rameses. Moses is banished to the desert and Rameses becomes the next Pharaoh. He joins a Bedouin tribe who worship the God of Abraham, and marries Sephora (Yvonne De Carlo), daughter of Jethro (Eduard Franz). After several years of peace, Moses sees the burning bush on the summit of Mount Sinai and hears the voice of God and vows to return to Egypt to free the Hebrews.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://content.moviery.com/87/009787/9.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
The cast is phenomenal, with a fair bit of theatricality and scenery chewing that comes with the territory. Heston’s Moses has a commanding presence, confidence and charisma both as Prince of Egypt and as Deliverer, you believe that he has the wisdom and strength of spirit to inspire thousands to follow him, and it helps that he matches the classical look of Moses to a tee. Heston also provides the deep, booming voice of God as one would imagine Him in the Old Testament. Brynner portrays Rameses as a cold, vain and conniving man both as a prince and as Pharaoh, without a shred of regret in his manner and bearing barely concealing a quietly simmering rage for any moment of defiance. Both he and Heston are ideal foils for each other, both as confident in themselves as they are in their beliefs. The beautiful Baxter and is given a great many scenes to shine, possessing multi-layered chemistry with Heston and Brynner; you see past the beauty and royal charm to see the cold, vindictive woman beneath that.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://cinemafanatic.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the_ten_commandments_yul_brynner_edward_g_robinson.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="605" height="338" />
De Carlo brings out Sephora’s strength and wisdom, and is an ideal opposite to Baxter’s Nefretiri. Heston and De Carlo act very well opposite each other and you do get a sense that Sephora really is the woman that Moses should be with, but I don’t think there’s much chemistry between them. Derek is a likable ally to Moses, channelling a bit of Errol Flynn in his youthful appearance and heroic stunts early on. Robinson has a great turn as the slimy and manipulative Dathan, and Price is very easy to detest as the cruel and lustful Baka. Hardwicke makes the most out Pharaoh Sethi, having a particularly strong, emotional scene with Heston when he is forced to banish his adopted son. Foch and Scott work wonderfully in the two mother figures to Moses. In other more small but crucial and well-acted roles, Paget is sweet and emotionally on point as Lilia, Franz as the jocular and kind Jethro, Judith Anderson as Memnet, and John Carradine and Olive Deering as Aaron and Miriam.
As a feast for the senses, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> is a mesmerizing achievement. With legions of extras and animals filling a multitude of sets, the vast scale of the film is astonishing. While not as detailed as more recent recreations of Ancient Egypt in other portrayals of the period, the colourful Old Hollywood look of the sets do have a certain charm to them. This isn’t so much a “real life” recreation of Ancient Egypt, but it feels dreamlike in a way that percolates through the whole film. The variety and colour of the costumes bring vibrancy to the big screen; looking faithful to the period for the most part but sometimes there are some that stick out like sore thumbs, such as the horned helmeted guards in the Egyptian palace
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments3.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="750" height="339" />
The cinematography by Loyal Griggs captures the vast, beautiful landscapes and intricate kingdom of Ancient Egypt, allowing the audience to appreciate the scale of the production. The use of colour, such as dark deep red skies to indicate tyranny and oppression and lighter colours to indicate hope enhance the impact of the imagery. We see the Egyptian palace become gradually drained of warmth and colour throughout the film, as though the realm itself had been bled by Rameses’ tyranny and as a reflection of Moses’ rejection of his former home.
John P. Fulton used a variety of practical and photographic effects to realize Ancient Egypt for a captivated audience. Fulton’s effects included the building of Sethi’s Jubilee treasure city, the Burning Bush, the fiery hail from a cloudless sky, the Angel of Death, the composites of the Exodus, the Pillar of Fire, the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the parting of the Red Sea as the final tour de force. But the most visually effective of the plagues is the long hanging black mist that symbolizes the tenth plague’s visitation upon Egypt; the slow way it glides across the streets has an unnerving effect. The gathering of clouds and the parting of the Red Sea are equally ambitious and incredible to behold. Other effects such as the subtle morphing effects on the snakes still intrigue me to this day. The visual portrayal of God and how he reveals himself to Moses is very faithful to traditional portrayals in classical artwork; the burning bush has a golden glow about it and the pillar of fire. But I have to admit, the pillar of fire reminds me of something out of Disney’s <em>Fantasia</em>. It’s artistically pleasing to be sure, but doesn’t quite feel “real”.
Considering these are special effects from the 1950s, one can’t help but marvel at their ambition and attention to detail. The burning bush and fiery columns of fire are depicted through animation, and while both are highly detailed and have a certain romantic quality to them. A lot of the visual effects, while impressive for the time, are somewhat dated. The optical effects splicing close-up sets with actors with the wide vistas area mixed bag, many of them work well enough but some could have used a bit more of a polish and suffer from prominent black outlines. Regardless, of these noticeable technical hiccups, they don’t detract from the experience in any way at all.
The score by Elmer Bernstein is as inspiring as it is powerful; with soaring, Wagnerian horns, trumpets and drums that conjure themes of freedom and righteous rebellion, the chief among these serves as the recurring heroic motif of the film. The gentler string melodies are well tailored to the intimate and emotional scenes and invoke something of a spiritual sense to them.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://earnthis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/capture4.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="699" height="393" />
The dialogue often lifts from the Book of <em>Exodus</em> and has a timeless appeal, but can sometimes dip into melodrama. The main source of humour comes from the dry interplay and banter between the royalty of Egypt, as well as some lighter moments provided by Sephora’s sisters or Dathan being rightfully put in his place. The flowery, poetic speeches from Moses and Rameses, while dated to many ears, work in my eyes to convey gravitas and antiquity of the setting.
The notion of family division is more emphasized rather than brotherly division. Moses and Rameses never act like brothers in any scene, and that makes their enmity more black and white and makes Rameses a more despicable character throughout. This works for the type of film it is with clearer cut heroes and villains. Moses and his adopted Egyptian family are shown to be flourishing while he’s ignorant of his Hebrew heritage, and when he is compelled to do right by his true people it puts a wedge between him and Sethi. The impact of that rift is felt through the performances and the heartbreak of Sethi and Bithiah. While it plays out well among the Egyptian royal family, it isn’t as keenly felt for Moses’ new family. Even when Moses and Sephora have their son together he spends much of the third act separate from his family, undercutting the parallels between his newfound family and his old Egyptian one. The depiction of both mothers as equally sympathetic and invested in Moses wellbeing does offer a kinder light to the Egyptian side of the conflict.
Moses’ own arc, amidst the physical transformations he undergoes from prince to wanderer and saviour, is the search for and discovery of belief in something greater than him to live up to. That for all the worldly power he could have used as prince and king, he was ultimately far more powerful because he had found faith. You get the sense that he is disappointed in God for not directly helping his people but you believe that the passage of time makes him a kinder man. The nature versus nurture theme does lean heavily towards nature here, as it seems as though Moses’ heritage afforded him greater compassion while the true-born Egyptian Ramses and Nefretiri are presented with all the ambition and duplicity of their position. His natural compassion allows for better treatment of the slaves without injuring the kingdom the way Rameses does as Pharaoh. You get an idea of the kind of stable but still fairer Egypt that Moses could have created were he Pharaoh. You do get the feeling that Rameses’ jealousy of Moses and barely subdued feelings of inadequacy are the driving factors for his anger and ambition. In allowing his vanity and contempt to rule him, Rameses is often the prognosticator of his own downfall
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://media-cdn.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2016/03/24/1458852051_0wJiVjLyp2--1-_t755_hde37d95367be0fab21949e1878952fc27ac3815d.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments moses" width="698" height="393" />
As one of the quintessential message movies, the aspect of faith is at the forefront of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. The advanced yet savage character of Ancient Egypt, where great monuments and cities are raised but death and cruelty are commonplace, makes the need for a unifying presence of decency and justice more compelling. It is, in DeMille’s own words, a story of the birth of freedom, that most basic human desire to live on one’s own terms, and is applied to all races, rather than forcibly submit to the whims of a tyrant. As the story about how the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, race is a fundamental theme within this story. As someone who lacks a strong connection to faith and to God, I found that the message of faith was not particularly subtle (or at least when compared to <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>), but it’s theatrical in a way that still relies on a lot of showing rather than telling. The applicability and truthfulness of the message itself still transcends how it’s delivered.
For all the strengths I have highlighter earlier, I do have a select few flaws with the film. The narration by DeMille himself helps to convey the vastness of the setting and allow us to truly feel as though we’re walking beside the characters of the piece. However, it can get somewhat self-important and the striking imagery is often enough to convey the themes of the story. At over three and a half hours long and filled with scenes of excellent cinematography but little going on, it’s a film that requires patience to experience it. While the Egyptian and Hebrew cast is primarily made of Caucasian actors, the passion on display and richness of the script and story makes it easy to invest in. Even if you had this same high calibre script and directorial vision, you could not pull such casting off again. The relegation of the other plagues to simple mentions was a bit disappointing, not to say the other visualizations of the plagues underwhelmed but the sense of desperation and urgency by seeing the totality of plagues beleaguering the kingdom is somewhat stifled.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments-07.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments red sea" width="601" height="337" />
While <em>The Prince of Egypt</em> emphasizes the strife between brothers while keeping the message of faith intact, the element of faith is more pronounced here and the belief in the rebuttal of tyranny and the value of all mankind, regardless of race or creed is more prominent. Despite what few quibbles I have, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> remains ambitious, inspiring and epic in every sense of the word. The message and themes can and still do transcend across barriers of belief and lives up to it’s ancient source material. �n{�~� "�������� ܘ�
� '�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-144 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/three_hundred_ver10_xlg-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Zack Snyder </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: , Kurt Johnstad, Michael B. Gordon</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Mark Canton, Bernie Goldmann, Gianni Nunnari, Jeffrey Silver,
</strong>
<strong>Studio: Legendary Pictures, Virtual Studios, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> 300</em> by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 9th March, 2007</strong>
Despite appearances, <em>300</em> is the sort of film that sells itself as a pretty mindless action film, delivers on that in spades, but manages to do so in a visually creative and surprisingly self-aware fashion without necessarily being “about more” like many films in this genre. It’s a deceptively simple concept that’s executed better than one would expect.
The story is framed as a tale recited by the Spartan soldier, Dilios (David Wenham), to a Spartan army. In 478 BC, messengers of the Persian Empire arrive at the gates of Sparta demanding “earth and water” as a token of submission to King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). King Leonidas I (Gerard Butler) responds my killing the messengers, effectively declaring war on Persia. He visits the Ephors, proposing a strategy to drive back the numerically superior Persians. The Ephors, having been bribed by messengers from Xerxes, consult the Oracle and decree that Sparta will not go to war during the Carneia Festival. Nevertheless, Leonidas gathers three hundred of his best soldiers in the guise of his personal bodyguard. At Thermopylae, Leonidas encounters the deformed Spartan Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), who despite his wishes is unable to fight in formation due to his deformity and has no choice but to leave embittered and angry. Using their superior fighting skills and the Hot Gates to their advantage, the Spartans repel wave after wave of the Persian army, meanwhile Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rouse the Spartans to aid their king and outmanoeuvre the schemes of the corrupt Spartan politician, Theron (Dominic West).
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wYpqhdIXMpk/U6YuoTemerI/AAAAAAAAAJw/BxQXrquMtuk/s1600/300-movie-screencaps_com-3133.jpg" alt="Image result for 300 screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The majority of the acting in this film is of the over the top variety. Butler practically devours the scenery as the epically loud, possibly mad Leonidas, but still delivers on the quieter and more subtle scenes. Headey is particularly strong and compelling as Gorgo, having a fiery determination that simmers beneath her elegance; in a film that’s very male dominated her performance allows her to stand toe to toe with the warriors and kings in this film. Santoro is imposing and charismatic as Xerxes, leaving a strong impression despite not having a lot of screen time. Wenham nails Dilios as the scarred storyteller and provides necessary narration to the film. Among the Spartan troops, Vincent Regan has a lot of emotional scenes as Captain Artemis, and Michael Fassbender appears as the wild yet skilled Stelios in one of his earliest major film roles, both give really good performances for basically being standard warrior side characters. West is a slimy and thoroughly detestable political figure as Theron, and Peter Mensah is memorable as the Persian messenger.
As one of the most noteworthy things people watch this film for, the action is beautifully shot, revelling in the primal Spartans on display, each individual frame looks like a Renaissance painting in motion with the combined gritty style of the graphic novel. The cinematography by Larry Fong is incredible, his visuals have great depth of field, contrast and an instantly recognizable dark and grim but still eye-catching colour palette, and this would define Fong as a master of stylized and gritty fictional worlds for many years to come. There’s no doubt that 300 is successful in being faithful to the aesthetic and panels of Frank Miller’s Spartan epic.
A combination of martial arts techniques were employed to make the action scenes more flowing and dynamic, in addition to the historic phalanx formation which is only used in the early stages of the battle. Obviously the Spartans did not walk into battle half naked and had bronze armour of their own, but the Persians really did wear little to no armour in addition to a simple uniform, and had highly inadequate weaponry and shields and mainly relied on overwhelming numbers. I mention this because despite the exaggerated imagery of the film, the very core of the concept of highly trained warriors against legions of barely trained slave-fighters is given greater emphasis.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AjqImSjaYiM/UEKlLKSQ3cI/AAAAAAAAC9o/35qXF_BwPNs/s1600/wb16.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="341" />
This is an example of filming on a green screen environment done well, rather than being photorealistic but the stylized and exaggerated aesthetic is very pleasing to the eye. What set work is present for the town of Sparta itself or other locations is fairly minimal but does its job well enough. The CGI backgrounds and landscapes still look pretty good, while the creatures are obviously digital creations but in a way that works within the context of this film. The CGI blood is gratuitous, often to the point of hilarity, and yet it goes with the tone. In not aiming to be photorealistic they’re able to get away with a lot more absurd and crazy imagery and sequences. The makeup on the Persian elite forces and Ephialtes is very hideous and monstrous, comparable to the work done by Weta Workshop. Its not the only time Snyder vaguely alludes to the fantasy films of Peter Jackson.
The score by Tyler Bates is a combination of heavy chorus singing, guitar music, percussive drums and heavy metal. This bizarre concoction works for the type of film that this is, and there are a number of striking cues such as ‘Returns a King’ when the choir swells to enormous proportions. This cue is closely based off one of the tracks from the film <em>Titus</em> by Eliot Goldenthal, and whether or not you feel this is copying another composer’s work too blatantly you can’t deny its impact.
It is historically authentic and bat-crap crazy at the same time, thanks to the framing device of Delios recounting and embellishing the story for his Spartan audience, explaining why the Persians and Ephialtes are portrayed as more monstrous than human. Other such liberties include the fact that Xerxes was not an androgynous giant, the Immortals were not deformed Samurai warriors, they didn’t use rhinos and elephants at Thermopylae, and Ephialtes was not a deformed hunchback. Miller and Snyder use the prologue to introduce the concept of the <em>agoge</em> and the brutal militaristic lifestyle of Spartans to weed out the weak and produce invulnerable warriors. Right off the bat, you see the kinds of cruelties inflicted on the Spartan boys to make them the kind of warriors we see in the film, but this is hardly a sympathetic city state. Had the balance been off and the film could have come across as a case of pitting one lesser evil against a much greater one, but we gain a connection to the Spartan warriors because of the very real human connections shared as brothers in arms, as fathers and sons and husbands and wives. The script is laden with the laconic sensibilities of the Spartans, as written down by both Frank Miller and Lynn Varley in the original graphic novel. It’s impressive that many quotable lines have emerged from this film.
Maybe it’s just me, but I found more allusions to <em>The Lord of the Rings</em> than anyone could simply write off as coincidence. Such examples include the presentation of Ephialtes as a skulking, treacherous Gollum-like character, several Persian monsters resembling Orcs and Uruk-Hai, and the depiction of wolves and elephants as more like Wargs and Oliphaunts from Middle-earth. Whether these are intentional similarities on Snyder’s part or not, it’s interesting to see how one expresses affection for one’s artistic influences in their own work.
Obviously the plot about a smaller, scrappier army going up against a host numbering many hundred thousand strong in defence of home, family, honour and freedom is a tale as old as the hills. But here it takes on a somewhat different form: the Spartans are presented as a culture with a religion and mythology, with Delios likening them to Hercules as a shared ancestor, but they don’t adhere to it in the same dogmatic and superstitious degree as the Persians who perceive Xerxes as a living god-king. Whether or not Xerxes thinks he really is a god-king, the image of divine power he projects and indeed how the Spartan audience perceive him his paramount so the theme of rationality versus superstition. The Ephors are presented as just as monstrous and deformed as the Persians, as relics from a bygone era of superstition and blind mysticism and worship of the gods. While none of these elements are brought up in great detail, they are lingering in the background of the story.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://urancientworldincinema.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/elephants.png" alt="Image result for 300 elephants" width="820" height="380" />
Ultimately, <em>300</em> is a film that’s able to succeed by eschewing pretentiousness. <em>Troy</em> and <em>Alexander</em> are more realistic looking films with a commendable level of historical accuracy, but both also aspire for greatness and because of that higher level of expectation, even with their best merits, they ultimately fall short of their intended marks. <em>300</em> by comparison is a case where a fairly simplistic story is given such a strong sense of visual and directing identity that its entertainment factor ends up outweighing its flaws or visual departures from historical fact. ܘ�-;Ď #�������� ��
� %����<img class="size-medium wp-image-144 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/three_hundred_ver10_xlg-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
Despite appearances, <em>300</em> is the sort of film that sells itself as a pretty mindless action film, delivers on that in spades, but manages to do so in a visually creative and surprisingly self-aware fashion without necessarily being “about more” like many films in this genre. It’s a deceptively simple concept that’s executed better than one would expect.
The story is framed as a tale recited by the Spartan soldier, Dilios (David Wenham), to a Spartan army. In 478 BC, messengers of the Persian Empire arrive at the gates of Sparta demanding “earth and water” as a token of submission to King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). King Leonidas I (Gerard Butler) responds my killing the messengers, effectively declaring war on Persia. He visits the Ephors, proposing a strategy to drive back the numerically superior Persians. The Ephors, having been bribed by messengers from Xerxes, consult the Oracle and decree that Sparta will not go to war during the Carneia Festival. Nevertheless, Leonidas gathers three hundred of his best soldiers in the guise of his personal bodyguard. At Thermopylae, Leonidas encounters the deformed Spartan Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), who despite his wishes is unable to fight in formation due to his deformity and has no choice but to leave embittered and angry. Using their superior fighting skills and the Hot Gates to their advantage, the Spartans repel wave after wave of the Persian army, meanwhile Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rouse the Spartans to aid their king and outmanoeuvre the schemes of the corrupt Spartan politician, Theron (Dominic West).
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wYpqhdIXMpk/U6YuoTemerI/AAAAAAAAAJw/BxQXrquMtuk/s1600/300-movie-screencaps_com-3133.jpg" alt="Image result for 300 screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The majority of the acting in this film is of the over the top variety. Butler practically devours the scenery as the epically loud, possibly mad Leonidas, but still delivers on the quieter and more subtle scenes. Headey is particularly strong and compelling as Gorgo, having a fiery determination that simmers beneath her elegance; in a film that’s very male dominated her performance allows her to stand toe to toe with the warriors and kings in this film. Santoro is imposing and charismatic as Xerxes, leaving a strong impression despite not having a lot of screen time. Wenham nails Dilios as the scarred storyteller and provides necessary narration to the film. Among the Spartan troops, Vincent Regan has a lot of emotional scenes as Captain Artemis, and Michael Fassbender appears as the wild yet skilled Stelios in one of his earliest major film roles, both give really good performances for basically being standard warrior side characters. West is a slimy and thoroughly detestable political figure as Theron, and Peter Mensah is memorable as the Persian messenger.
As one of the most noteworthy things people watch this film for, the action is beautifully shot, revelling in the primal Spartans on display, each individual frame looks like a Renaissance painting in motion with the combined gritty style of the graphic novel. The cinematography by Larry Fong is incredible, his visuals have great depth of field, contrast and an instantly recognizable dark and grim but still eye-catching colour palette, and this would define Fong as a master of stylized and gritty fictional worlds for many years to come. There’s no doubt that 300 is successful in being faithful to the aesthetic and panels of Frank Miller’s Spartan epic.
A combination of martial arts techniques were employed to make the action scenes more flowing and dynamic, in addition to the historic phalanx formation which is only used in the early stages of the battle. Obviously the Spartans did not walk into battle half naked and had bronze armour of their own, but the Persians really did wear little to no armour in addition to a simple uniform, and had highly inadequate weaponry and shields and mainly relied on overwhelming numbers. I mention this because despite the exaggerated imagery of the film, the very core of the concept of highly trained warriors against legions of barely trained slave-fighters is given greater emphasis
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AjqImSjaYiM/UEKlLKSQ3cI/AAAAAAAAC9o/35qXF_BwPNs/s1600/wb16.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="341" />
This is an example of filming on a green screen environment done well, rather than being photorealistic but the stylized and exaggerated aesthetic is very pleasing to the eye. What set work is present for the town of Sparta itself or other locations is fairly minimal but does its job well enough. The CGI backgrounds and landscapes still look pretty good, while the creatures are obviously digital creations but in a way that works within the context of this film. The CGI blood is gratuitous, often to the point of hilarity, and yet it goes with the tone. In not aiming to be photorealistic they’re able to get away with a lot more absurd and crazy imagery and sequences.
The score by Tyler Bates is a combination of heavy chorus singing, guitar music, percussive drums and heavy metal. This bizarre concoction works for the type of film that this is, and there are a number of striking cues such as ‘Returns a King’ when the choir swells to enormous proportions. This cue is closely based off one of the tracks from the film <em>Titus</em> by Eliot Goldenthal, and whether or not you feel this is copying another composer’s work too blatantly you can’t deny its impact.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://clawtv.cn396iwnnfhyi.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/youtu.be-UrIbxk7idYA-2.jpg" alt="Image result for 300 screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
It is historically authentic and bat-crap crazy at the same time, thanks to the framing device of Delios recounting and embellishing the story for his Spartan audience, explaining why the Persians and Ephialtes are portrayed as more monstrous than human. Other such liberties include the fact that Xerxes was not an androgynous giant, the Immortals were not deformed Samurai warriors, they didn’t use rhinos and elephants at Thermopylae, and Ephialtes was not a deformed hunchback. Miller and Snyder use the prologue to introduce the concept of the <em>agoge</em> and the brutal militaristic lifestyle of Spartans to weed out the weak and produce invulnerable warriors. Right off the bat, you see the kinds of cruelties inflicted on the Spartan boys to make them the kind of warriors we see in the film, but this is hardly a sympathetic city state. Had the balance been off and the film could have come across as a case of pitting one lesser evil against a much greater one, but we gain a connection to the Spartan warriors because of the very real human connections shared as brothers in arms, as fathers and sons and husbands and wives. The script is laden with the laconic sensibilities of the Spartans, as written down by both Frank Miller and Lynn Varley in the original graphic novel. It’s impressive that many quotable lines have emerged from this film.
Maybe it’s just me, but I found more allusions to <em>The Lord of the Rings</em> than anyone could simply write off as coincidence. Such examples include the presentation of Ephialtes as a skulking, treacherous Gollum-like character, several Persian monsters resembling Orcs and Uruk-Hai, and the depiction of wolves and elephants as more like Wargs and Oliphaunts from Middle-earth. Whether these are intentional similarities on Snyder’s part or not, it’s interesting to see how one expresses affection for one’s artistic influences in their own work.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://urancientworldincinema.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/elephants.png" alt="Image result for 300 elephants" width="820" height="380" />
Obviously the plot about a smaller, scrappier army going up against a host numbering many hundred thousand strong in defence of home, family, honour and freedom is a tale as old as the hills. But here it takes on a somewhat different form: the Spartans are presented as a culture with a religion and mythology, with Delios likening them to Hercules as a shared ancestor, but they don’t adhere to it in the same dogmatic and superstitious degree as the Persians who perceive Xerxes as a living god-king. Whether or not Xerxes thinks he really is a god-king, the image of divine power he projects and indeed how the Spartan audience perceive him his paramount so the theme of rationality versus superstition. The Ephors are presented as just as monstrous and deformed as the Persians, as relics from a bygone era of superstition and blind mysticism and worship of the gods. While none of these elements are brought up in great detail, they are lingering in the background of the story.
Ultimately, <em>300</em> is a film that’s able to succeed by eschewing pretentiousness. <em>Troy</em> and <em>Alexander</em> are more realistic looking films with a commendable level of historical accuracy, but both also aspire for greatness and because of that higher level of expectation, even with their best merits, they ultimately fall short of their intended marks. <em>300</em> by comparison is a case where a fairly simplistic story is given such a strong sense of visual and directing identity that its entertainment factor ends up outweighing its flaws or visual departures from historical fact. �����} $�������� ��~
� '����<img class="size-medium wp-image-144 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/three_hundred_ver10_xlg-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Zack Snyder </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: , Kurt Johnstad, Michael B. Gordon</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Mark Canton, Bernie Goldmann, Gianni Nunnari, Jeffrey Silver,
</strong>
<strong>Studio: Legendary Pictures, Virtual Studios, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> 300</em> by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 9th March, 2007</strong>
Despite appearances, <em>300</em> is the sort of film that sells itself as a pretty mindless action film, delivers on that in spades, but manages to do so in a visually creative and surprisingly self-aware fashion without necessarily being “about more” like many films in this genre. It’s a deceptively simple concept that’s executed better than one would expect.
The story is framed as a tale recited by the Spartan soldier, Dilios (David Wenham), to a Spartan army. In 478 BC, messengers of the Persian Empire arrive at the gates of Sparta demanding “earth and water” as a token of submission to King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). King Leonidas I (Gerard Butler) responds my killing the messengers, effectively declaring war on Persia. He visits the Ephors, proposing a strategy to drive back the numerically superior Persians. The Ephors, having been bribed by messengers from Xerxes, consult the Oracle and decree that Sparta will not go to war during the Carneia Festival. Nevertheless, Leonidas gathers three hundred of his best soldiers in the guise of his personal bodyguard. At Thermopylae, Leonidas encounters the deformed Spartan Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), who despite his wishes is unable to fight in formation due to his deformity and has no choice but to leave embittered and angry. Using their superior fighting skills and the Hot Gates to their advantage, the Spartans repel wave after wave of the Persian army, meanwhile Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rouse the Spartans to aid their king and outmanoeuvre the schemes of the corrupt Spartan politician, Theron (Dominic West).
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wYpqhdIXMpk/U6YuoTemerI/AAAAAAAAAJw/BxQXrquMtuk/s1600/300-movie-screencaps_com-3133.jpg" alt="Image result for 300 screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The majority of the acting in this film is of the over the top variety. Butler practically devours the scenery as the epically loud, possibly mad Leonidas, but still delivers on the quieter and more subtle scenes. Headey is particularly strong and compelling as Gorgo, having a fiery determination that simmers beneath her elegance; in a film that’s very male dominated her performance allows her to stand toe to toe with the warriors and kings in this film. Santoro is imposing and charismatic as Xerxes, leaving a strong impression despite not having a lot of screen time. Wenham nails Dilios as the scarred storyteller and provides necessary narration to the film. Among the Spartan troops, Vincent Regan has a lot of emotional scenes as Captain Artemis, and Michael Fassbender appears as the wild yet skilled Stelios in one of his earliest major film roles, both give really good performances for basically being standard warrior side characters. West is a slimy and thoroughly detestable political figure as Theron, and Peter Mensah is memorable as the Persian messenger.
As one of the most noteworthy things people watch this film for, the action is beautifully shot, revelling in the primal Spartans on display, each individual frame looks like a Renaissance painting in motion with the combined gritty style of the graphic novel. The cinematography by Larry Fong is incredible, his visuals have great depth of field, contrast and an instantly recognizable dark and grim but still eye-catching colour palette, and this would define Fong as a master of stylized and gritty fictional worlds for many years to come. There’s no doubt that 300 is successful in being faithful to the aesthetic and panels of Frank Miller’s Spartan epic.
A combination of martial arts techniques were employed to make the action scenes more flowing and dynamic, in addition to the historic phalanx formation which is only used in the early stages of the battle. Obviously the Spartans did not walk into battle half naked and had bronze armour of their own, but the Persians really did wear little to no armour in addition to a simple uniform, and had highly inadequate weaponry and shields and mainly relied on overwhelming numbers. I mention this because despite the exaggerated imagery of the film, the very core of the concept of highly trained warriors against legions of barely trained slave-fighters is given greater emphasis.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AjqImSjaYiM/UEKlLKSQ3cI/AAAAAAAAC9o/35qXF_BwPNs/s1600/wb16.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="341" />
This is an example of filming on a green screen environment done well, rather than being photorealistic but the stylized and exaggerated aesthetic is very pleasing to the eye. What set work is present for the town of Sparta itself or other locations is fairly minimal but does its job well enough. The CGI backgrounds and landscapes still look pretty good, while the creatures are obviously digital creations but in a way that works within the context of this film. The CGI blood is gratuitous, often to the point of hilarity, and yet it goes with the tone. In not aiming to be photorealistic they’re able to get away with a lot more absurd and crazy imagery and sequences. The makeup on the Persian elite forces and Ephialtes is very hideous and monstrous, comparable to the work done by Weta Workshop. Its not the only time Snyder vaguely alludes to the fantasy films of Peter Jackson.
The score by Tyler Bates is a combination of heavy chorus singing, guitar music, percussive drums and heavy metal. This bizarre concoction works for the type of film that this is, and there are a number of striking cues such as ‘Returns a King’ when the choir swells to enormous proportions. This cue is closely based off one of the tracks from the film <em>Titus</em> by Eliot Goldenthal, and whether or not you feel this is copying another composer’s work too blatantly you can’t deny its impact.
It is historically authentic and bat-crap crazy at the same time, thanks to the framing device of Delios recounting and embellishing the story for his Spartan audience, explaining why the Persians and Ephialtes are portrayed as more monstrous than human. Other such liberties include the fact that Xerxes was not an androgynous giant, the Immortals were not deformed Samurai warriors, they didn’t use rhinos and elephants at Thermopylae, and Ephialtes was not a deformed hunchback. Miller and Snyder use the prologue to introduce the concept of the <em>agoge</em> and the brutal militaristic lifestyle of Spartans to weed out the weak and produce invulnerable warriors. Right off the bat, you see the kinds of cruelties inflicted on the Spartan boys to make them the kind of warriors we see in the film, but this is hardly a sympathetic city state. Had the balance been off and the film could have come across as a case of pitting one lesser evil against a much greater one, but we gain a connection to the Spartan warriors because of the very real human connections shared as brothers in arms, as fathers and sons and husbands and wives. The script is laden with the laconic sensibilities of the Spartans, as written down by both Frank Miller and Lynn Varley in the original graphic novel. It’s impressive that many quotable lines have emerged from this film.
Maybe it’s just me, but I found more allusions to <em>The Lord of the Rings</em> than anyone could simply write off as coincidence. Such examples include the presentation of Ephialtes as a skulking, treacherous Gollum-like character, several Persian monsters resembling Orcs and Uruk-Hai, and the depiction of wolves and elephants as more like Wargs and Oliphaunts from Middle-earth. Whether these are intentional similarities on Snyder’s part or not, it’s interesting to see how one expresses affection for one’s artistic influences in their own work.
Obviously the plot about a smaller, scrappier army going up against a host numbering many hundred thousand strong in defence of home, family, honour and freedom is a tale as old as the hills. But here it takes on a somewhat different form: the Spartans are presented as a culture with a religion and mythology, with Delios likening them to Hercules as a shared ancestor, but they don’t adhere to it in the same dogmatic and superstitious degree as the Persians who perceive Xerxes as a living god-king. Whether or not Xerxes thinks he really is a god-king, the image of divine power he projects and indeed how the Spartan audience perceive him his paramount so the theme of rationality versus superstition. The Ephors are presented as just as monstrous and deformed as the Persians, as relics from a bygone era of superstition and blind mysticism and worship of the gods. While none of these elements are brought up in great detail, they are lingering in the background of the story.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://urancientworldincinema.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/elephants.png" alt="Image result for 300 elephants" width="820" height="380" />
Ultimately, <em>300</em> is a film that’s able to succeed by eschewing pretentiousness. <em>Troy</em> and <em>Alexander</em> are more realistic looking films with a commendable level of historical accuracy, but both also aspire for greatness and because of that higher level of expectation, even with their best merits, they ultimately fall short of their intended marks. <em>300</em> by comparison is a case where a fairly simplistic story is given such a strong sense of visual and directing identity that its entertainment factor ends up outweighing its flaws or visual departures from historical fact. ��~��% %�������� � �
� &�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-144 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/three_hundred_ver10_xlg-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
Despite appearances, <em>300</em> is the sort of film that sells itself as a pretty mindless action film, delivers on that in spades, but manages to do so in a visually creative and surprisingly self-aware fashion without necessarily being “about more” like many films in this genre. It’s a deceptively simple concept that’s executed better than one would expect.
The story is framed as a tale recited by the Spartan soldier, Dilios (David Wenham), to a Spartan army. In 478 BC, messengers of the Persian Empire arrive at the gates of Sparta demanding “earth and water” as a token of submission to King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). King Leonidas I (Gerard Butler) responds my killing the messengers, effectively declaring war on Persia. He visits the Ephors, proposing a strategy to drive back the numerically superior Persians. The Ephors, having been bribed by messengers from Xerxes, consult the Oracle and decree that Sparta will not go to war during the Carneia Festival. Nevertheless, Leonidas gathers three hundred of his best soldiers in the guise of his personal bodyguard. At Thermopylae, Leonidas encounters the deformed Spartan Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), who despite his wishes is unable to fight in formation due to his deformity and has no choice but to leave embittered and angry. Using their superior fighting skills and the Hot Gates to their advantage, the Spartans repel wave after wave of the Persian army, meanwhile Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rouse the Spartans to aid their king and outmanoeuvre the schemes of the corrupt Spartan politician, Theron (Dominic West).
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wYpqhdIXMpk/U6YuoTemerI/AAAAAAAAAJw/BxQXrquMtuk/s1600/300-movie-screencaps_com-3133.jpg" alt="Image result for 300 screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The majority of the acting in this film is of the over the top variety. Butler practically devours the scenery as the epically loud, possibly mad Leonidas, but still delivers on the quieter and more subtle scenes. Headey is particularly strong and compelling as Gorgo, having a fiery determination that simmers beneath her elegance; in a film that’s very male dominated her performance allows her to stand toe to toe with the warriors and kings in this film. Santoro is imposing and charismatic as Xerxes, leaving a strong impression despite not having a lot of screen time. Wenham nails Dilios as the scarred storyteller and provides necessary narration to the film. Among the Spartan troops, Vincent Regan has a lot of emotional scenes as Captain Artemis, and Michael Fassbender appears as the wild yet skilled Stelios in one of his earliest major film roles, both give really good performances for basically being standard warrior side characters. West is a slimy and thoroughly detestable political figure as Theron, and Peter Mensah is memorable as the Persian messenger.
As one of the most noteworthy things people watch this film for, the action is beautifully shot, revelling in the primal Spartans on display, each individual frame looks like a Renaissance painting in motion with the combined gritty style of the graphic novel. The cinematography by Larry Fong is incredible, his visuals have great depth of field, contrast and an instantly recognizable dark and grim but still eye-catching colour palette, and this would define Fong as a master of stylized and gritty fictional worlds for many years to come. There’s no doubt that 300 is successful in being faithful to the aesthetic and panels of Frank Miller’s Spartan epic.
A combination of martial arts techniques were employed to make the action scenes more flowing and dynamic, in addition to the historic phalanx formation which is only used in the early stages of the battle. Obviously the Spartans did not walk into battle half naked and had bronze armour of their own, but the Persians really did wear little to no armour in addition to a simple uniform, and had highly inadequate weaponry and shields and mainly relied on overwhelming numbers. I mention this because despite the exaggerated imagery of the film, the very core of the concept of highly trained warriors against legions of barely trained slave-fighters is given greater emphasis.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AjqImSjaYiM/UEKlLKSQ3cI/AAAAAAAAC9o/35qXF_BwPNs/s1600/wb16.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="341" />
This is an example of filming on a green screen environment done well, rather than being photorealistic but the stylized and exaggerated aesthetic is very pleasing to the eye. What set work is present for the town of Sparta itself or other locations is fairly minimal but does its job well enough. The CGI backgrounds and landscapes still look pretty good, while the creatures are obviously digital creations but in a way that works within the context of this film. The CGI blood is gratuitous, often to the point of hilarity, and yet it goes with the tone. In not aiming to be photorealistic they’re able to get away with a lot more absurd and crazy imagery and sequences. The makeup on the Persian elite forces and Ephialtes is very hideous and monstrous, comparable to the work done by Weta Workshop. Its not the only time Snyder vaguely alludes to the fantasy films of Peter Jackson.
The score by Tyler Bates is a combination of heavy chorus singing, guitar music, percussive drums and heavy metal. This bizarre concoction works for the type of film that this is, and there are a number of striking cues such as ‘Returns a King’ when the choir swells to enormous proportions. This cue is closely based off one of the tracks from the film <em>Titus</em> by Eliot Goldenthal, and whether or not you feel this is copying another composer’s work too blatantly you can’t deny its impact.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://clawtv.cn396iwnnfhyi.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/youtu.be-UrIbxk7idYA-2.jpg" alt="Image result for 300 screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
It is historically authentic and bat-crap crazy at the same time, thanks to the framing device of Delios recounting and embellishing the story for his Spartan audience, explaining why the Persians and Ephialtes are portrayed as more monstrous than human. Other such liberties include the fact that Xerxes was not an androgynous giant, the Immortals were not deformed Samurai warriors, they didn’t use rhinos and elephants at Thermopylae, and Ephialtes was not a deformed hunchback. Miller and Snyder use the prologue to introduce the concept of the <em>agoge</em> and the brutal militaristic lifestyle of Spartans to weed out the weak and produce invulnerable warriors. Right off the bat, you see the kinds of cruelties inflicted on the Spartan boys to make them the kind of warriors we see in the film, but this is hardly a sympathetic city state. Had the balance been off and the film could have come across as a case of pitting one lesser evil against a much greater one, but we gain a connection to the Spartan warriors because of the very real human connections shared as brothers in arms, as fathers and sons and husbands and wives. The script is laden with the laconic sensibilities of the Spartans, as written down by both Frank Miller and Lynn Varley in the original graphic novel. It’s impressive that many quotable lines have emerged from this film.
Maybe it’s just me, but I found more allusions to <em>The Lord of the Rings</em> than anyone could simply write off as coincidence. Such examples include the presentation of Ephialtes as a skulking, treacherous Gollum-like character, several Persian monsters resembling Orcs and Uruk-Hai, and the depiction of wolves and elephants as more like Wargs and Oliphaunts from Middle-earth. Whether these are intentional similarities on Snyder’s part or not, it’s interesting to see how one expresses affection for one’s artistic influences in their own work.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://urancientworldincinema.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/elephants.png" alt="Image result for 300 elephants" width="820" height="380" />
Obviously the plot about a smaller, scrappier army going up against a host numbering many hundred thousand strong in defence of home, family, honour and freedom is a tale as old as the hills. But here it takes on a somewhat different form: the Spartans are presented as a culture with a religion and mythology, with Delios likening them to Hercules as a shared ancestor, but they don’t adhere to it in the same dogmatic and superstitious degree as the Persians who perceive Xerxes as a living god-king. Whether or not Xerxes thinks he really is a god-king, the image of divine power he projects and indeed how the Spartan audience perceive him his paramount so the theme of rationality versus superstition. The Ephors are presented as just as monstrous and deformed as the Persians, as relics from a bygone era of superstition and blind mysticism and worship of the gods. While none of these elements are brought up in great detail, they are lingering in the background of the story.
Ultimately, <em>300</em> is a film that’s able to succeed by eschewing pretentiousness. <em>Troy</em> and <em>Alexander</em> are more realistic looking films with a commendable level of historical accuracy, but both also aspire for greatness and because of that higher level of expectation, even with their best merits, they ultimately fall short of their intended marks. <em>300</em> by comparison is a case where a fairly simplistic story is given such a strong sense of visual and directing identity that its entertainment factor ends up outweighing its flaws or visual departures from historical fact. � �=��� &�������� �QW
� 1U����
<img class="size-medium wp-image-136 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/troy_ver7-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<em>Troy</em> is a film I’ve been aware of for many years, but seldom had enough interest to see for myself, despite my interest in history and Greek mythology. At the time, the removal of the more obvious fantastical elements annoyed me. Having finally seen the version most preferred by director Wolfgang Petersen, I ultimately deem this to be a well-made and fairly entertaining action film suffering from issues of protagonist likability and inconsistent writing.
In the late 12th century BC, Achilles (Brad Pitt) is the greatest champion of King Agamemnon (Brian Cox) of Mycenae during the Trojan War. Meanwhile, Prince Hector (Eric Bana) of Troy and his younger brother Paris (Orlando Bloom) negotiate a peace treaty with Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), King of Sparta and younger brother of Agamemnon. Paris, however, is having a secret love affair with Menelaus' wife, Queen Helen (Diane Kruger), and smuggles her aboard their homebound vessel, enraging Hector. Upon learning of this, Menelaus meets with Agamemnon and asks his help in taking Troy. Agamemnon agrees, since it will give him control of the Aegean Sea. On Nestor (John Shrapnel), King of Pylos' advice, Agamemnon has Odysseus (Sean Bean), King of Ithaca, persuade Achilles to join them. In Troy, King Priam (Peter O'Toole) is dismayed when Hector and Paris bring Helen, but welcomes her as a guest and decides against sending her home, since Paris will likely follow her and be killed, choosing instead to meet the Greeks in open battle. Achilles leads his Myrmidons to take the Trojan beach, along with his cousin Patroclus (Garett Hedlund), and seizes the Temple of Apollo and claims Briseis, priestess of Apollo and cousin to Hector.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://movies.homeofthenutty.com/albums/TroyDCPart1/Troy0714.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
Like many of the epics I have seen, this has a great cast but the performances vary. Pitt certainly looks the part of Achilles and commits his energy and physical prowess to the many action scenes, overall it’s a good performance but sometimes his accent wanders a bit. Bana is on top form as Hector; his manner and bearing convey a brave, seasoned warrior prince with strong convictions and love for his family and kingdom driving all his actions, and like Pitt he is as much a powerhouse actor in battle. Cox is suitably despicable as the scenery-chewing Agamemnon, and Gleeson brings out a truly savage, leery and unsavoury quality to Menelaus, and both are believable as brothers. The ever-dependable Bean is sublime casting as Odysseus, with his dry wit and down to earth persona. It’s a shame he never got to play the character again in a full adaptation of <em>The Odessey</em>. O’Toole is magnificent as the tragic King Priam, he has all the composure of a mythical king and his emotional expressions speak volumes; any one of his crying scenes is a moving sight to behold. Julie Christie appears in one scene as Thetis, mother of Achilles, and conveys the pain of a mother brave enough to allow her son to choose his fate even if it means ever seeing him again. Byrne has many bittersweet scenes as the world-weary and resilient Briseis, and Saffron Burrows as Andromache; both ladies are wonderful actresses and do their best with what they’re given. On the weaker side of things, Bloom and Kruger are both really bland as Paris and Helen respectively, yes she is very beautiful but lacking in personality or conviction, Bloom’s Paris has similar faults but does resemble Bana enough to pass for his younger brother and is admittedly saddled with a thankless and hated role. Hedlund is passable as Patroclus, but does come off as whiny and ineffectual at times. Other acting veterans such as Julian Glover as King Triopas, James Cosmo as General Glaucus of Troy and Nigel Terry as the Trojan priest Archeptolemus all turn in great supporting performances
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/b0/9a/93b09ab734d2d8a95aeb1af6354b9ad4--minoan-film-stills.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="736" height="306" />
The strongest aspect of the film is the action scenes, and to Petersen’s credit they are very well realized. Using real life tactics employed by the Ancient Greeks and framed in a manner that allows the viewer to feel immersed in the thick of battle. In this more violent cut, the stab wounds and bloody slashes hold serious weight to them. Importantly, the gore works because it’s not done out of gratuity but as a demonstration of the price of war. The main fight between Achilles and Hector has some incredible choreography and an element of suspense to it, even when you know what fate awaits Hector. When it comes to the sack of Troy itself, Petersen’s direction brings out the injustice and sheer awfulness of the destruction of this beautiful city and its citizens by the Greeks.
There is a certain visual correspondence in the depiction of the Trojan army in contrast to the various Greek armies. The Trojans are adorned in beautiful silvery armour and blue tunics and uniforms, Achilles is also seen dressed in blue and his armour, as well as that of the other Myrmidons, has more of a shine to it. By contrast, the majority of Greek characters and their armies have more of a muddy brown look to their armour and uniforms, Agamemnon himself looking far more of a barbarian than the ones that the Greeks themselves would have called “barbarian.”
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/d7/6f/48d76fec11ae434ddab98643f956a070.jpg" alt="Image result for troy screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The cinematography by Roger Pratt captures the colour, vibrancy and enormity of the city of Troy, as well as the epic scale and brutality of the battles. Like many modern period epics, CGI is used to help heighten the film’s scale and most of it is well integrated. Sometimes the CGI is sometimes easy to spot, such as the massive Greek fleet sailing towards Troy or the necessary enlarging of the Greek army for various sweeping shots, but it is allowable given the greater emphasis on physical actors and locations for the vast majority of the film.
The score by James Horner is solid doesn’t rank among my favourites of his. While the background music is serviceable, it really flourishes in the battle scenes, particularly the heroic leitmotif which appears when Achilles and the Myrmidons are in the heat of battle. There are some creative flourishes like the celebratory horns of Troy or the playful cellos when Achilles and Patroclus are training. But the score is also littered with “Horner-isms” that have been heard in a lot of his other scores, particularly the ominous trumpet leitmotif for the Greek army. Overall, it’s not a bad score but one that could have been greater, had he more time to work at it. An addition to the music from the Director's Cut is the use of Danny Elfman’s theme for <em>Planet of the Apes </em>during the pivotal fight between Hector and Achilles. As someone who listens to a lot of film soundtracks, it is an odd decision to hear a familiar piece from a different film with a different composing style.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11400000/Hector-Andromache-hector-and-andromache-11440448-1920-800.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="342" />
The script by David Benioff is a broad and loose adaptation of Homer’s <em>Iliad</em>, and sometimes suffers from trying to take on aspects of the poem that wouldn’t work in a film. A lot of the dialogue is littered with straightforward exposition, sometimes repeating familiar themes and titles or stating what the audience can see or deduce for themselves. The attempt to include more Homeric speeches and mannerisms is also a mixed bag. Benioff and Petersen try to integrate the style of Homer into the dialogue but it often sounds a tad off from the weaker members of the cast. However, an elongated insult that worked best in Homer’s medium could be condensed on film to… unintentionally amusing results. Achilles’ angry “You sack of wine!” exclamation is one such example. Despite that, most of the characters get good development and leave an impression across the three hour running time, which fortuitously flows at a good pace despite that length.
The decision to focus on Achilles, as was the case in <em>The Iliad</em>, makes the film come dangerously close to lacking a strongly likable protagonist. For long stretches of time, Achilles is not very likeable at all because of his arrogance and vengeful behaviour, he is basically a mercenary in search of the one battle to make him a legend, only to find peace where he least expects to where he does soften up somewhat. Hector is very likable but is ultimately doomed before the whole story can conclude, Odysseus is off screen for a long time and the eloped couple don’t inspire any love from the audience. The decision to focus on the human element mostly works but there are some vague allusions to the presence of the gods. The scene with Thetis is the only scene that indicates the presence of gods and goddesses; she is presented walking in the shallow pool by the sea as a hint of her identity as a goddess of the sea. Achilles defaces the statue of Apollo and eventually loses his cousin, and ultimately cannot be with the woman he loves. So this leaves the possibility open that the gods are manipulating events unseen.
The homosexual love between Achilles and Patroclus is sadly omitted in this film, and regardless on how you feel about such partnerships the relationship between these two men was one of the driving plot points for <em>The Iliad </em> and to water it down and alter their relationship to being cousins takes a lot of the dramatic punch out of the story.
There are noble heroes and incorrigible cowards on both sides, and the underlying tragedy comes from not only the destruction of the magnificent city but the fact that brave men are pitted against each other either in service of tyrants or doomed causes. Agamemnon fully buys into his deluded belief that he is unifying all of Greece underneath one banner, but there’s no doubt in any scene that he is a bloodthirsty warmonger and Troy is hardly a threat to the whole Aegean.
Faith is also brought into question, as a reflection of the uncertainty of the early 2000s. The Trojan priests blindly worship the gods, and then thank them for all of their victories despite the efforts of the Trojan soldiers and this reaches a terrible conclusion in with the reveal of the infamous Trojan Horse. Both the priests and the soldiers were driven by abstract ideals into making decisions that cost a great many lives.
The element of fate and human flaws driving life-changing decisions is shown through. Every character ends up getting what they deserve, no more no less. Achilles wanted his name remembered and chased fame in spite of Agamemnon’s lack of honour. He got fame, but not without the price that came with it. Paris gave in to lust and desired a romantic escapade with Helen. He got what he asked for and the catastrophe that come with it. His name is effectively mud forever for inviting doom upon Troy and surviving while his brother fought and died valiantly. Hector, despite his moral character, still inadvertently contributed to the war coming to Troy. If he had done his duty, sailed back and returned Helen to Menelaus, then the war would not have happened. He killed Patroclus, though by accident, and thus faced retribution at the hands of Achilles. Odysseus designed a treacherous move against the Trojans, and paid ultimately for it for the next twenty years away from Ithaca.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://media.tumblr.com/c80101dea33e77ff3d000508023b4f79/tumblr_inline_mtnv6iVlUv1qevymb.jpg" alt="Image result for troy myrmidons" width="500" height="218" />
Even at its best,<em> Troy</em> does feel like there is potential for a far more poetic and moving film than what we’re presented. Peterson’s direction, the cinematography, the costuming, and the effects are all to the standard that this epic story deserves, and the script itself is not too far from a truly great adaptation. Still, it is a good edition to the period piece epic genre and one I was pleased to enjoy. �QW�;v '�������� ݠ
� ?� @<img class="size-medium wp-image-153 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Oliver Stone </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Oliver Stone, Christopher Kyle, Laeta Kalogridis</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Thomas Schühly, Jon Kilik, Iain Smith, Moritz Borman</strong>
<strong>Studio: Intermedia Films, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 24th November, 2004</strong>
Oliver Stone’s <em>Alexander</em> is a fascinating creature of a film; one that I have already a curious liking for yet one I cannot deny its many flaws. It’s a strange film that alternates between being a striking vision of Antiquity and a bizarre acid trip of excess and strange direction choices that makes <em>300</em> look tame by comparison. You can tell Oliver Stone poured all his heart and soul into the telling of Alexander’s story and sticking true to the history. For this review, I will look at the ‘Revisited’ cut; it’s the longest (therefore also the most challenging) but also one with perhaps the most to offer as a biopic and an epic recounting the life and exploits of one of history’s greatest conquerors.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.oliverstone.com/images/made/uploads/images/alexander-revisited_460_380_tl_2_tr_2_s_c1_center_top.png" alt="Image result for alexander revisited" width="460" height="380" />
In Alexandria, Egypt, 283 BC, Pharaoh Ptolemy I (Anthony Hopkins) recites his memoirs alongside Alexander to his scribe Cadmus, serving as the framing device for the film with Ptolemy as the narrator, alluding to other events off-screen while the film focuses on some of the key moments in the life of Alexander. In this edition, we are introduced to Alexander (Colin Farrell) in 331 BC just before the Battle of Gaugamela against King Darius III of the Persian Empire. Among his loyal generals are Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Antigonus (Ian Beattie), Cleitus (Gary Stretch), Parmenion (John Kavanagh), Philotas (Joseph Morgan), and the younger Ptolemy (Elliot Cowan). The battle commences, and despite the Persians’ overwhelming numbers, Alexander wins the day through superior tactics and claiming Babylon in the name of Macedonia. He confides with Hephaistion of his ambitions to travel to and conquer the far corners of the world.
Between these exploits, we see flashbacks<span style="font-size: 1rem;"> Alexander’s life as a young prince (Connor Paolo) and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and his tutor Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His already tenuous relationship with his father King Philip II (Val Kilmer) is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydice, the niece of Attalus. After the assassination of Philip, Eurydice’s claim to the throne is destroyed; Alexander becomes king and fulfils his father’s intended campaign to conquer Persia.</span>
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/21/Alexander-Gaugamela.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 screencaps" width="779" height="323" />
The acting has been a subject of debate and ridicule, with many of the key actors attracting criticism for their performances. I myself can enjoy such theatrical performances, having seen a number of Greek plays where this type of acting is commonplace. Farrell looks the part of Alexander and sportingly throws himself into the action scenes, and he does have a fair few scenes that show off his confidence and passionate leadership well, but not enough. Because Farrell has more of an everyman quality to him, he doesn’t nail the enormous charisma you think would be associated with a great leader of men. In other scenes he becomes like a character in a Greek play with over the top expressions and mood swings, the worst of which happen with Jolie’s Olympias. Speaking of which, Jolie is another strange casting as Olympias, overdoing her Albanian accent, eating up the scenery and being very unsettling and not in a fun way. Kilmer has some good scenes with both Alexander actors, and his Irish accent seemed to work well enough, but when he goes into over the top drunken rants it’s almost as bad as Jolie.
Leto gives an okay performance as the calm, as<span style="font-size: 1rem;">suaging Hephaistion to Farrell’s wildly passionate Alexander; however they don’t have enough chemistry to really believe that they’re lovers. Despite some good scenes in the first half, Hephaistion seldom has much screen time with Alexander in the second half and we mostly get longing stares between the couple. Hopkins provides a solemn, soothing narration to the film and conveys the memory of a man who has seen the world and is thinking of his youth with nostalgia. Rosario Dawson does a good job as the Bactrian princess, Roxana, holding her own despite having very limited screen time. Plummer gives a lot of worldly personality as Aristotle, having a great scene with the young Greeks who would follow Alexander. Cowan (w</span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">ho looks like he could reasonably pass for a young Anthony Hopkins), Kavanagh, Morgan and Stretch all function well as generals to Alexander, but sometimes go for theatrics like some of the A-listers. </span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Familiar faces appearing in surprising early roles include Toby Kebbell as Pausanias, the killer of Philip, Ian Beattie as General Antigonus, Rory McCann as Craterus the soldier. In brief but impressionable roles include Tim Piggot-Smith as the omen reader, and Brian Blessed is a welcome sight as young Alexander’s wrestling tutor.</span>
This is a very well-polished film, on par with the likes of <em>Gladiator</em>, <em>Troy</em> and <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> for technical prowess. For the vast majority of the film, the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic. The hot orange colours of Gaugamela and vibrant colours of Babylon and Bactria capture the exotic look of the eastern countries. The pastoral hills and town of Pellas, Macedonia have a lush pastoral purity to them, and the verdant jungles and temples of India are beautifully shot with a greater level of contrast and colour. He excels in capturing the vastness and insanity of the battles. There is one area where the cinematography jumps the gun badly which I will highlight later.<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://sentsmemory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/babylon.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander babylon" width="776" height="319" />
The realization of the great Babylon through massive sets and CGI is stunning, and surprisingly much of it holds up. In fact, the locations, sets, art direction, sound design, and the overall splendour of its visuals almost make me want to recommend viewing <em>Alexander</em> on that level. A lot of work and detail has gone into the making of the weapons, armour and costumes ranging from the plainer togas and uniforms of the Macedonians to the and rich, opulent, colourful attire of the various eastern cultures. Admittedly, the makeup on Kilmer’s Philip and blond locks of Farrell’s Alexander do leave much to be desired. And the CGI eagle close-ups don’t look at all real, definitely a case of being too ambitious with the VFX.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Elephant.jpg" alt="Related image" width="762" height="316" />
The Battle of Gaugamela is an incredible achievement in historical battle filmmaking, Stone films as much of the vast Macedonian and Persian armies in-camera as possible, with impressive wide shots of the Macedonian phalanxes, Persian infantry battalions, Persian chariots and the cavalry on both sides. CGI is used to give a sense of scale of both armies, but is primarily used from a bird’s eye view and only when necessary. The fighting is filmed at close quarters and has a frenetic energy and character to it, emulating the chaos of ancient warfare. The action scenes are bloody and shocking to behold, but no less than one should expect considering this period of warfare. Comparing Gaugamela to Hydaspes in India, it’s clear how much worse and bloodier a battle it was as the Greeks find themselves further away from home. The elephants gave me goose-bumps they thundered into view and laid waste to the Greek phalanx, and we see soldiers tossed about, gored and crushed underfoot. I keep wondering “how did they do it?” with the use of very real and very dangerous elephants and hundreds of armed extras in such an enclosed environment. If nothing else, both of these battles deserve far more attention for their prowess of execution. There is no escaping the hellishness of war, and no glorification of its aftermath.
The score by Vangelis is one of his most overlooked and finest I have heard, with a versatile array of atmospheric ethnic instrumentations that invoke the ancient world. The score soars to heroic heights that rival Hans Zimmer’s score for <em>Gladiator</em> at the Battle of Gaugamela, and for the many softer scenes it shows a melancholic, soulful quality that sets it apart from other scores in this genre. The closing credits theme ‘Titans’ has a mythic, inspiring personality to it that fires up the imagination with images of battle and victory.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.californiaherps.com/films/filmimages/alexander3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie philip" width="760" height="319" />
The film operates on two timelines, one chronicling Alexander’s eastern conquests up until his death in Babylon, and another that follows Alexander from his youth to becoming king of Macedonia. The use of a stylized map of the ancient world, in addition to Ptolemy’s narration, is a useful tool to help the audience keep track of Alexander’s conquests. On a storytelling level, introducing Alexander through the Battle of Gaugamela is an effective hook and allows us to see the Macedonian conqueror at his prime as one would imagine him, before we see more of what he was as a prince. The tone subtly shifts from one of mythic and heroic character to a darker tone, stripped of the glorification of Alexander in the first act. Similarly, the battles become more bloody and hellish to reflect this gradual shift. The Revisited Cut plays up the idea that Darius arranged the assassination of Philip in the first act, giving legitimacy to Alexander’s invasion, and this idea of stripped away over time as a ruse created by Alexander to fire the Greeks up for war. The contrast of scenes allow for a greater contrast of where Alexander came from and how and why he met his end.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Darius.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie hd screencaps" width="762" height="316" />
However, this structure is not without its problems. Before the Battle of Gaugamela, we’re introduced to Alexander’s generals at a breakneck speed at a rushed pace, and only half of them are forgotten about as the film rolls on. This has a similar problem to <em>Troy</em> in attempting to integrate the Homeric hymns ascribing qualities to the generals that sound pretentious in English. The enemy armies at Gaugamela and Hydaspes are one-dimensional and ultimately function as basic obstacles, so you don’t really root for the Greeks to triumph as much as you would compare to the Spartans and the Persians in <em>300</em> or to understand the drama and sometimes shared heroism and ideals on both sides like in <em>Troy</em>. There just isn’t much personality given to the Persians, Bactrians or Indians.
Oddities are aplenty here, some work and others unsurprisingly don’t. The choice to give the Macedonian characters Irish accents, while strange at first, eventually ceased to bother me as it was an effective method of establishing differences between the more civilized Greeks with upper class English accents. Stranger examples that include the use of a lion’s roar overlaid over the cheering Macedonian army at Gaugamela, and the approaching elephants' footsteps literally make the earth tremble and they themselves sound more monster than animal. Whole sequences are filmed to show off dancing girls and various pleasures of the flesh; beautifully shot to be sure but pretty much exist for their own sake.
<img class=" wp-image-226 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Babylon-500x208.png" alt="" width="705" height="293" />
Then there are some flat out goofy scenes like Alexander and his men interacting with monkeys in India as though they were a tribe of their own, even Hopkins’ venerable narration can't save it. Strange edits, such as jarring alternating shots between characters and scene transitions such as the Battle of Hydaspes take even me out of the movie. The strangest of all is the Battle of Hydaspes in which the whole battle turns to a horrific magenta red netherworld of insanity when Bucephalus is killed in battle. Stone really should not have gone for this visual decision as it makes the battle more difficult to perceive and falls into melodrama. The writing between Alexander and Olympias is dripping with oedipal and Freudian scenes, and yes it’s as gross as you would expect, and the fact that Jolie hardly ages while Alexander lives into his thirties doesn’t help matters. In the many scenes where tempers flare and fight break out amongst the characters, helped with alcohol, this is where the film's melodrama really becomes its undoing. Tempers flare again when a ragged and exhausted Alexander is forced to quell a mutiny in his army, and it’s difficult to watch because of how needlessly over the top it is.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected problems with <em>Alexander </em>is Alexander himself for one key reason. What <em>Gladiator</em> had is a relatable, underdog hero like Russell Crowe’s Maximus. <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> had a stunning ensemble cast to compensate for the shortcomings in its main lead. The Alexander of <em>Alexander</em> is more like Joaquin Phoenix’s tortured Prince Commodus: a young man born into privilege and haunted by ruling class family dysfunction and neurosis, and most of the people he’s surrounded with don’t have the charm or likability to hold the film together. Most people just aren’t going to find as much to root for in this kind of character. Had Ptolemy been the main character and been a witness to the highs and lows of Alexander's career, maybe the film would have had more of a stable foundation from a main character standpoint.
<img class=" wp-image-227 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Eagle-500x210.png" alt="" width="702" height="295" />
There are three prominent animal symbols in the film. The eagle, which is a symbol of Zeus, is a frequent companion of Alexander’s conquests as an omen for victory, and is seen when Alexander first rides Bucephalus. Eagle heraldry appears in Babylon, and one last time an eagle hallucination appears just before he dies, as though Zeus himself had descended to take him. Snakes are another recurring motif, as extensions of Olympias’ sensualized treatment of her young son, just as a snake wraps its coils around its human bearer. They are symbols of the cult of Dionysus, whom Olympias was a part of. Living snakes and snake symbols are presented whenever Alexander feels vulnerability or sickness, and manifest as a hallucination of Olympias as a Gorgon. Roxana wears snake arm braces, establishing parallels between Alexander and Roxana and his parents, indicating a repetition of history. While it is very blatant, the image of the snake killing the eagle as it flies is an obvious indication that Olympias’ manipulations and toxic attitude ultimately killed her son. With hardly any dialogue, Alexander and his horse Bucephalus becomes a legitimate highlight of tݠB�q @�������� ݠ
�
#����he film. Bucephalus also plays a similar role to these animal symbols, as a symbol of his virility, health and passion for conquest. When Bucephalus is killed in battle, Alexander’s resolve to conquer is destroyed as well.
<img class=" wp-image-228 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ptolemy-500x211.png" alt="" width="699" height="295" />
The life of Alexander echoes many of the Greek mythic heroes, and Stone seems to indicate that Alexander was the last of these men to rise and fall in such a fashion. The theme of mythology appears first as a series of speeches about heroes from Philip to young Alexander, but this becomes integral to the core of the film. We see Alexander atop Bucephalus charge a rampaging elephant, and the two animals rear on their hind legs and in an image that looks like something out of high fantasy. The way Stone shoots Alexander's triumphs in which there is something almost divine about them, the animal motifs, and the exotic locales seem even more wondrous to the audience. That's where it occurred to me; <em>Alexander</em> is about myth-making, and how myths are born and how the pursuit of greatness and eternal glory will always invoke a great cost. Using Ptolemy’s account as a framing device, as he struggles to reconcile Alexander’s towering legacy with the man he was in life, we understand why the film indulges in such theatrical excess – because it is an extension of Ptolemy’s mythmaking. That no matter his failings in life or the manner in which he died, Alexander still created left a legacy that endures more than any story so that he himself has become mythicized by history. Just as Achilles lived fast and died gloriously, so does Alexander.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tnoxNlxIQI/UfvOw63KYrI/AAAAAAAAJSo/TSwA09gNpWk/s1600/Alexander+3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 philip" width="615" height="393" />
While the Revisited cut of <em>Alexander</em> provided a better film than I dared to expect, it is hampered by many of the same flaws that plague the theatrical cut, namely its many bizarre apparitions of style, flawed writing and many excessively over the top performances. I don’t take any shame in saying it’s a better movie than the reputation that preceded it and that I enjoyed it enough to see it again and study it properly. While I don't expect my analysis of the film to go over well with everyone, I hope I have encouraged a few curious people to investigate for themselves. <em>Fortune favours the bold</em>. ݠ�T� A�������� ��
� ?� B<img class="size-medium wp-image-153 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
Oliver Stone’s <em>Alexander</em> is a fascinating creature of a film; one that I have already a curious liking for yet one I cannot deny its many flaws. It’s a strange film that alternates between being a striking vision of Antiquity and a bizarre acid trip of excess and strange direction choices that makes <em>300</em> look tame by comparison. You can tell Oliver Stone poured all his heart and soul into the telling of Alexander’s story and sticking true to the history. For this review, I will look at the ‘Revisited’ cut; it’s the longest (therefore also the most challenging) but also one with perhaps the most to offer as a biopic and an epic recounting the life and exploits of one of history’s greatest conquerors.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oliverstone.com/images/made/uploads/images/alexander-revisited_460_380_tl_2_tr_2_s_c1_center_top.png" alt="Image result for alexander revisited" width="460" height="380" />
In Alexandria, Egypt, 283 BC, Pharaoh Ptolemy I (Anthony Hopkins) recites his memoirs alongside Alexander to his scribe Cadmus, serving as the framing device for the film with Ptolemy as the narrator, alluding to other events off-screen while the film focuses on some of the key moments in the life of Alexander. In this edition, we are introduced to Alexander (Colin Farrell) in 331 BC just before the Battle of Gaugamela against King Darius III of the Persian Empire. Among his loyal generals are Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Antigonus (Ian Beattie), Cleitus (Gary Stretch), Parmenion (John Kavanagh), Philotas (Joseph Morgan), and the younger Ptolemy (Elliot Cowan). The battle commences, and despite the Persians’ overwhelming numbers, Alexander wins the day through superior tactics and claiming Babylon in the name of Macedonia. He confides with Hephaistion of his ambitions to travel to and conquer the far corners of the world.
Between these exploits, we see flashbacks<span style="font-size: 1rem;"> Alexander’s life as a young prince (Connor Paolo) and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and his tutor Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His already tenuous relationship with his father King Philip II (Val Kilmer) is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydice, the niece of Attalus. After the assassination of Philip, Eurydice’s claim to the throne is destroyed; Alexander becomes king and fulfils his father’s intended campaign to conquer Persia.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/21/Alexander-Gaugamela.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 screencaps" width="820" height="340" />
The acting has been a subject of debate and ridicule, with many of the key actors attracting criticism for their performances. I myself can enjoy such theatrical performances, having seen a number of Greek plays where this type of acting is commonplace. Farrell looks the part of Alexander and sportingly throws himself into the action scenes, and he does have a fair few scenes that show off his confidence and passionate leadership well, but not enough. Because Farrell has more of an everyman quality to him, he doesn’t nail the enormous charisma you think would be associated with a great leader of men. In other scenes he becomes like a character in a Greek play with over the top expressions and mood swings, the worst of which happen with Jolie’s Olympias. Speaking of which, Jolie is another strange casting as Olympias, overdoing her Albanian accent, eating up the scenery and being very unsettling and not in a fun way. Kilmer has some good scenes with Paolo’s young Alexander, and his Irish accent didn’t bother me much, but when he goes into over the top drunken rants it’s almost as bad as Jolie.
Leto gives an okay performance as the calm, as<span style="font-size: 1rem;">suaging Hephaistion to Farrell’s wildly passionate Alexander; however they don’t have enough chemistry to really believe that they’re lovers. Despite some good scenes in the first half, Hephaistion seldom has much screen time with Alexander in the second half and we mostly get longing stares between the couple. Hopkins provides a solemn, soothing narration to the film and conveys the memory of a man who has seen the world and is thinking of his youth with nostalgia. Rosario Dawson does a good job as the Bactrian princess, Roxana, holding her own despite having very limited screen time. Plummer gives a lot of worldly personality as Aristotle, having a great scene with the young Greeks who would follow Alexander. Cowan (w</span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">ho looks like he could reasonably pass for a young Anthony Hopkins), Kavanagh, Morgan and Stretch all function well as generals to Alexander, but sometimes go for theatrics like some of the A-listers. </span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Familiar faces appearing in surprising early roles include Toby Kebbell as Pausanias, the killer of Philip, Ian Beattie as General Antigonus, Rory McCann as Craterus the soldier. In brief but impressionable roles include Tim Piggot-Smith as the omen reader, and Brian Blessed is a welcome sight as young Alexander’s wrestling tutor.</span><img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_hPShBL2RBA/UMqqzpS1_0I/AAAAAAAAAD0/p22BR0hA6_A/s1600/alexanderrevisited20047.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 gaugamela" width="755" height="393" />
This is a very well-polished film, on par with the likes of <em>Gladiator</em>, <em>Troy</em> and <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> for technical prowess. For the vast majority of the film, the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic. The hot orange colours of Gaugamela and vibrant colours of Babylon and Bactria capture the exotic look of the eastern countries. The pastoral hills and town of Pellas, Macedonia have a lush pastoral purity to them, and the verdant jungles and temples of India are beautifully shot with a greater level of contrast and colour. He excels in capturing the vastness and insanity of the battles. There is one area where the cinematography jumps the gun badly which I will highlight later.<img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://sentsmemory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/babylon.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander babylon" width="820" height="337" />
The realization of the great Babylon through massive sets and CGI is stunning, and surprisingly much of it holds up. In fact, the locations, sets, art direction, sound design, and the overall splendour of its visuals almost make me want to recommend viewing <em>Alexander</em> on that level. A lot of work and detail has gone into the making of the weapons, armour and costumes ranging from the plainer togas and uniforms of the Macedonians to the and rich, opulent, colourful attire of the various eastern cultures. Admittedly, the makeup on Kilmer’s Philip and blond locks of Farrell’s Alexander do leave much to be desired. And the CGI eagle close-ups don’t look at all real, definitely a case of being too ambitious with the VFX.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Elephant.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="340" />
The Battle of Gaugamela is an incredible achievement in historical battle filmmaking, Stone films as much of the vast Macedonian and Persian armies in-camera as possible, with impressive wide shots of the Macedonian phalanxes, Persian infantry battalions, Persian chariots and the cavalry on both sides. CGI is used to give a sense of scale of both armies, but is primarily used from a bird’s eye view and only when necessary. The fighting is filmed at close quarters and has a frenetic energy and character to it, emulating the chaos of ancient warfare. The action scenes are bloody and shocking to behold, but no less than one should expect considering this period of warfare. Comparing Gaugamela to Hydaspes in India, it’s clear how much worse and bloodier a battle it was as the Greeks find themselves further away from home. The elephants gave me goose-bumps they thundered into view and laid waste to the Greek phalanx, and we see soldiers tossed about, gored and crushed underfoot. I keep wondering “how did they do it?” with the use of very real and very dangerous elephants and hundreds of armed extras in such an enclosed environment. If nothing else, both of these battles deserve far more attention for their prowess of execution. There is no escaping the hellishness of war, and no glorification of its aftermath.
The score by Vangelis is one of his most overlooked and finest I have heard, with a versatile array of atmospheric ethnic instrumentations that invoke the ancient world. The score soars to heroic heights that rival Hans Zimmer’s score for <em>Gladiator</em> at the Battle of Gaugamela, and for the many softer scenes it shows a melancholic, soulful quality that sets it apart from other scores in this genre. The closing credits theme ‘Titans’ has a mythic, inspiring personality to it that fires up the imagination with images of battle and victory.
The film operates on two timelines, one chronicling Alexander’s eastern conquests up until his death in Babylon, and another that follows Alexander from his youth to becoming king of Macedonia. The use of a stylized map of the ancient world, in addition to Ptolemy’s narration, is a useful tool to help the audience keep track of Alexander’s conquests. On a storytelling level, introducing Alexander through the Battle of Gaugamela is an effective hook and allows us to see the Macedonian conqueror at his prime as one would imagine him, before we see more of what he was as a prince. The tone subtly shifts from one of mythic and heroic character to a darker tone, stripped of the glorification of Alexander in the first act. Similarly, the battles become more bloody and hellish to reflect this gradual shift. The Revisited Cut plays up the idea that Darius arranged the assassination of Philip in the first act, giving legitimacy to Alexander’s invasion, and this idea of stripped away over time as a ruse created by Alexander to fire the Greeks up for war. The contrast of scenes allow for a greater contrast of where Alexander came from and how and why he met his end.
However, this structure is not without its problems. Before the Battle of Gaugamela, we’re introduced to Alexander’s generals at a breakneck speed at a rushed pace, and only half of them are forgotten about as the film rolls on. This has a similar problem to <em>Troy</em> in attempting to integrate the Homeric hymns ascribing qualities to the generals that sound pretentious in English. The enemy armies at Gaugamela and Hydaspes are one-dimensional and ultimately function as basic obstacles, so you don’t really root for the Greeks to triumph as much as you would compare to the Spartans and the Persians in <em>300</em> or to understand the drama and sometimes shared heroism and ideals on both sides like in <em>Troy</em>. There just isn’t much personality given to the Persians, Bactrians or Indians.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YoGEmJX1vAw/VLScrW-YJII/AAAAAAAV9pM/jIOvDunTbC4/s1600/Alexander-2004-MSS-22749.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 hd screencaps" width="820" height="348" />
Oddities are aplenty here, some work and others unsurprisingly don’t. The choice to give the Macedonian characters Irish accents, while strange at first, eventually ceased to bother me as it was an effective method of establishing differences between the more civilized Greeks with upper class English accents. The use of a lion’s roar overlaid over the cheering Macedonian army at Gaugamela. The approaching elephants' footsteps literally make the earth tremble and they themselves sound more monster than animal. Whole sequences are filmed to show off dancing girls and various pleasures of the flesh; beautifully shot to be sure but pretty much exist for their own sake.
Then there are some flat out goofy scenes like Alexander and his men interacting with monkeys in India as though they were a tribe of their own, even Hopkins’ venerable narration can't save it. Strange edits, such as jarring alternating shots between characters and scene transitions such as the Battle of Hydaspes take even me out of the movie. The strangest of all is the Battle of Hydaspes in which the whole battle turns to a horrific magenta red netherworld of insanity when Bucephalus is killed in battle. Stone really should not have gone for this visual decision as it makes the battle more difficult to perceive and falls into melodrama. The writing between Alexander and Olympias is dripping with oedipal and Freudian scenes, and yes it’s as gross as you would expect, and the fact that Jolie hardly ages while Alexander lives into his thirties doesn’t help matters. In the many scenes where tempers flare and fight break out amongst the characters, helped with alcohol, this is where the film's melodrama really becomes its undoing. Tempers flare again when a ragged and exhausted Alexander is forced to quell a mutiny in his army, and it’s difficult to watch because of how needlessly over the top it is.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected problems with <em>Alexander </em>is Alexander himself for one key reason. What <em>Gladiator</em> had is a relatable, underdog hero like Russell Crowe’s Maximus. <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> had a stunning ensemble cast to compensate for the shortcomings in its main lead. The Alexander of <em>Alexander</em> is more like Joaquin Phoenix’s tortured Prince Commodus: a young man born into privilege and haunted by ruling class family dysfunction and neurosis, and most of the people he’s surrounded with don’t have the charm or likability to hold the film together. Most people just aren’t going to find as much to root for in this kind of character. Had Ptolemy been the main character and been a witness to the highs and lows of Alexander's career, maybe the film would have had more of a stable foundation from a main character standpoint.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-154" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/eagle-500x281.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="281" />
There are three prominent animal symbols in the film. The eagle, which is a symbol of Zeus, is a frequent companion of Alexander’s conquests as an omen for victory, and is seen when Alexander first rides Bucephalus. Eagle heraldry appears in Babylon, and one last time an eagle hallucination appears just before he dies, as though Zeus himself had descended to take him. Snakes are another recurring motif, as extensions of Olympias’ sensualized treatment of her young son, just as a snake wraps its coils around its human bearer. They are symbols of the cult of Dionysus, whom Olympias was a part of. Living snakes and snake symbols are presented whenever Alexander feels vulnerability or sickness, and manifest as a hallucination of Olympias as a Gorgon. Roxana wears snake arm braces, establishing parallels between Alexander and Roxana and his parents, indicating a repetition of history. While it is very blatant, the image of the snake killing the eagle as it flies is an obvious indication that Olympias’ manipulations and toxic attitude ultimately killed her son. With hardly any dialogue, Alexander and his horse Bucephalus becomes a legitimate highlight of the film. Bucephalus also plays a similar role to these animal symbols, as a symbol of his virility, health and passion for conquest. When Bucephalus is killed in battle, Alexander’s resolve to conquer is destroyed as well.
The life of Alexander echoes many of the Greek mythic heroes, and Stone seems to indicate that Alexander was the last of these men to rise and fall in such a fashion. The theme of mythology appears first as a series of speeches about heroes from Philip to young Alexander, but this ��J�Wf B�������� ��
� F����becomes integral to the core of the film. <em>Alexander</em> is essentially about myth-making, how myths are born and how the pursuit of greatness and eternal glory will always invoke a great cost. Just as Achilles lived fast and died gloriously, so does Alexander. Using Ptolemy’s account as a framing device, as he struggles to reconcile Alexander’s towering legacy with the man he was in life, we understand why the film indulges in such theatrical excess – because it is an extension of Ptolemy’s mythmaking. That no matter his failings in life or the manner in which he died, Alexander still created left a legacy that endures more than any story so that he himself has become mythicized by history.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tnoxNlxIQI/UfvOw63KYrI/AAAAAAAAJSo/TSwA09gNpWk/s1600/Alexander+3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 philip" width="615" height="393" />
While the Revisited cut of <em>Alexander</em> provided a better film than I dared to expect, it is hampered by many of the same flaws that plague the theatrical cut, namely its many bizarre apparitions of style, flawed writing and many excessively over the top performances. I don’t take any shame in saying it’s a better movie than the reputation that preceded it and that I enjoyed it enough to see it again and study it properly. ���1ކ C�������� �8\
� ?� D<img class="size-medium wp-image-153 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Oliver Stone </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Oliver Stone, Christopher Kyle, Laeta Kalogridis</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Thomas Schühly, Jon Kilik, Iain Smith, Moritz Borman</strong>
<strong>Studio: Intermedia Films, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 24th November, 2004</strong>
Oliver Stone’s <em>Alexander</em> is a fascinating creature of a film; one that I have already a curious liking for yet one I cannot deny its many flaws. It’s a strange film that alternates between being a striking vision of Antiquity and a bizarre acid trip of excess and strange direction choices that makes <em>300</em> look tame by comparison. You can tell Oliver Stone poured all his heart and soul into the telling of Alexander’s story and sticking true to the history. For this review, I will look at the ‘Revisited’ cut; it’s the longest (therefore also the most challenging) but also one with perhaps the most to offer as a biopic and an epic recounting the life and exploits of one of history’s greatest conquerors.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.oliverstone.com/images/made/uploads/images/alexander-revisited_460_380_tl_2_tr_2_s_c1_center_top.png" alt="Image result for alexander revisited" width="460" height="380" />
In Alexandria, Egypt, 283 BC, Pharaoh Ptolemy I (Anthony Hopkins) recites his memoirs alongside Alexander to his scribe Cadmus, serving as the framing device for the film with Ptolemy as the narrator, alluding to other events off-screen while the film focuses on some of the key moments in the life of Alexander. In this edition, we are introduced to Alexander (Colin Farrell) in 331 BC just before the Battle of Gaugamela against King Darius III of the Persian Empire. Among his loyal generals are Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Antigonus (Ian Beattie), Cleitus (Gary Stretch), Parmenion (John Kavanagh), Philotas (Joseph Morgan), and the younger Ptolemy (Elliot Cowan). The battle commences, and despite the Persians’ overwhelming numbers, Alexander wins the day through superior tactics and claiming Babylon in the name of Macedonia. He confides with Hephaistion of his ambitions to travel to and conquer the far corners of the world.
Between these exploits, we see flashbacks<span style="font-size: 1rem;"> Alexander’s life as a young prince (Connor Paolo) and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and his tutor Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His already tenuous relationship with his father King Philip II (Val Kilmer) is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydice, the niece of Attalus. After the assassination of Philip, Eurydice’s claim to the throne is destroyed; Alexander becomes king and fulfils his father’s intended campaign to conquer Persia.</span>
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/21/Alexander-Gaugamela.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 screencaps" width="779" height="323" />
The acting has been a subject of debate and ridicule, with many of the key actors attracting criticism for their performances. I myself can enjoy such theatrical performances, having seen a number of Greek plays where this type of acting is commonplace. Farrell looks the part of Alexander and sportingly throws himself into the action scenes, and he does have a fair few scenes that show off his confidence and passionate leadership well, but not enough. Because Farrell has more of an everyman quality to him, he doesn’t nail the enormous charisma you think would be associated with a great leader of men. In other scenes he becomes like a character in a Greek play with over the top expressions and mood swings, the worst of which happen with Jolie’s Olympias. Speaking of which, Jolie is another strange casting as Olympias, overdoing her Albanian accent, eating up the scenery and being very unsettling and not in a fun way. Kilmer has some good scenes with both Alexander actors, and his Irish accent seemed to work well enough, but when he goes into over the top drunken rants it’s almost as bad as Jolie.
Leto gives an okay performance as the calm, as<span style="font-size: 1rem;">suaging Hephaistion to Farrell’s wildly passionate Alexander; however they don’t have enough chemistry to really believe that they’re lovers. Despite some good scenes in the first half, Hephaistion seldom has much screen time with Alexander in the second half and we mostly get longing stares between the couple. Hopkins provides a solemn, soothing narration to the film and conveys the memory of a man who has seen the world and is thinking of his youth with nostalgia. Rosario Dawson does a good job as the Bactrian princess, Roxana, holding her own despite having very limited screen time. Plummer gives a lot of worldly personality as Aristotle, having a great scene with the young Greeks who would follow Alexander. Cowan (w</span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">ho looks like he could reasonably pass for a young Anthony Hopkins), Kavanagh, Morgan and Stretch all function well as generals to Alexander, but sometimes go for theatrics like some of the A-listers. </span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Familiar faces appearing in surprising early roles include Toby Kebbell as Pausanias, the killer of Philip, Ian Beattie as General Antigonus, Rory McCann as Craterus the soldier. In brief but impressionable roles include Tim Piggot-Smith as the omen reader, and Brian Blessed is a welcome sight as young Alexander’s wrestling tutor.</span>
This is a very well-polished film, on par with the likes of <em>Gladiator</em>, <em>Troy</em> and <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> for technical prowess. For the vast majority of the film, the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic. The hot orange colours of Gaugamela and vibrant colours of Babylon and Bactria capture the exotic look of the eastern countries. The pastoral hills and town of Pellas, Macedonia have a lush pastoral purity to them, and the verdant jungles and temples of India are beautifully shot with a greater level of contrast and colour. He excels in capturing the vastness and insanity of the battles. There is one area where the cinematography jumps the gun badly which I will highlight later.<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://sentsmemory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/babylon.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander babylon" width="776" height="319" />
The realization of the great Babylon through massive sets and CGI is stunning, and surprisingly much of it holds up. In fact, the locations, sets, art direction, sound design, and the overall splendour of its visuals almost make me want to recommend viewing <em>Alexander</em> on that level. A lot of work and detail has gone into the making of the weapons, armour and costumes ranging from the plainer togas and uniforms of the Macedonians to the and rich, opulent, colourful attire of the various eastern cultures. Admittedly, the makeup on Kilmer’s Philip and blond locks of Farrell’s Alexander do leave much to be desired. And the CGI eagle close-ups don’t look at all real, definitely a case of being too ambitious with the VFX.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Elephant.jpg" alt="Related image" width="762" height="316" />
The Battle of Gaugamela is an incredible achievement in historical battle filmmaking, Stone films as much of the vast Macedonian and Persian armies in-camera as possible, with impressive wide shots of the Macedonian phalanxes, Persian infantry battalions, Persian chariots and the cavalry on both sides. CGI is used to give a sense of scale of both armies, but is primarily used from a bird’s eye view and only when necessary. The fighting is filmed at close quarters and has a frenetic energy and character to it, emulating the chaos of ancient warfare. The action scenes are bloody and shocking to behold, but no less than one should expect considering this period of warfare. Comparing Gaugamela to Hydaspes in India, it’s clear how much worse and bloodier a battle it was as the Greeks find themselves further away from home. The elephants gave me goose-bumps they thundered into view and laid waste to the Greek phalanx, and we see soldiers tossed about, gored and crushed underfoot. I keep wondering “how did they do it?” with the use of very real and very dangerous elephants and hundreds of armed extras in such an enclosed environment. If nothing else, both of these battles deserve far more attention for their prowess of execution. There is no escaping the hellishness of war, and no glorification of its aftermath.
The score by Vangelis is one of his most overlooked and finest I have heard, with a versatile array of atmospheric ethnic instrumentations that invoke the ancient world. The score soars to heroic heights that rival Hans Zimmer’s score for <em>Gladiator</em> at the Battle of Gaugamela, and for the many softer scenes it shows a melancholic, soulful quality that sets it apart from other scores in this genre. The closing credits theme ‘Titans’ has a mythic, inspiring personality to it that fires up the imagination with images of battle and victory.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.californiaherps.com/films/filmimages/alexander3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie philip" width="760" height="319" />
The film operates on two timelines, one chronicling Alexander’s eastern conquests up until his death in Babylon, and another that follows Alexander from his youth to becoming king of Macedonia. The use of a stylized map of the ancient world, in addition to Ptolemy’s narration, is a useful tool to help the audience keep track of Alexander’s conquests. On a storytelling level, introducing Alexander through the Battle of Gaugamela is an effective hook and allows us to see the Macedonian conqueror at his prime as one would imagine him, before we see more of what he was as a prince. The tone subtly shifts from one of mythic and heroic character to a darker tone, stripped of the glorification of Alexander in the first act. Similarly, the battles become more bloody and hellish to reflect this gradual shift. The Revisited Cut plays up the idea that Darius arranged the assassination of Philip in the first act, giving legitimacy to Alexander’s invasion, and this idea of stripped away over time as a ruse created by Alexander to fire the Greeks up for war. The contrast of scenes allow for a greater contrast of where Alexander came from and how and why he met his end.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Darius.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie hd screencaps" width="762" height="316" />
However, this structure is not without its problems. Before the Battle of Gaugamela, we’re introduced to Alexander’s generals at a breakneck speed at a rushed pace, and only half of them are forgotten about as the film rolls on. This has a similar problem to <em>Troy</em> in attempting to integrate the Homeric hymns ascribing qualities to the generals that sound pretentious in English. The enemy armies at Gaugamela and Hydaspes are one-dimensional and ultimately function as basic obstacles, so you don’t really root for the Greeks to triumph as much as you would compare to the Spartans and the Persians in <em>300</em> or to understand the drama and sometimes shared heroism and ideals on both sides like in <em>Troy</em>. There just isn’t much personality given to the Persians, Bactrians or Indians.
Oddities are aplenty here, some work and others unsurprisingly don’t. The choice to give the Macedonian characters Irish accents, while strange at first, eventually ceased to bother me as it was an effective method of establishing differences between the more civilized Greeks with upper class English accents. Stranger examples that include the use of a lion’s roar overlaid over the cheering Macedonian army at Gaugamela, and the approaching elephants' footsteps literally make the earth tremble and they themselves sound more monster than animal. Whole sequences are filmed to show off dancing girls and various pleasures of the flesh; beautifully shot to be sure but pretty much exist for their own sake.
<img class=" wp-image-226 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Babylon-500x208.png" alt="" width="705" height="293" />
Then there are some flat out goofy scenes like Alexander and his men interacting with monkeys in India as though they were a tribe of their own, even Hopkins’ venerable narration can't save it. Strange edits, such as jarring alternating shots between characters and scene transitions such as the Battle of Hydaspes take even me out of the movie. The strangest of all is the Battle of Hydaspes in which the whole battle turns to a horrific magenta red netherworld of insanity when Bucephalus is killed in battle. Stone really should not have gone for this visual decision as it makes the battle more difficult to perceive and falls into melodrama. The writing between Alexander and Olympias is dripping with oedipal and Freudian scenes, and yes it’s as gross as you would expect, and the fact that Jolie hardly ages while Alexander lives into his thirties doesn’t help matters. In the many scenes where tempers flare and fight break out amongst the characters, helped with alcohol, this is where the film's melodrama really becomes its undoing. Tempers flare again when a ragged and exhausted Alexander is forced to quell a mutiny in his army, and it’s difficult to watch because of how needlessly over the top it is.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected problems with <em>Alexander </em>is Alexander himself for one key reason. What <em>Gladiator</em> had is a relatable, underdog hero like Russell Crowe’s Maximus. <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> had a stunning ensemble cast to compensate for the shortcomings in its main lead. The Alexander of <em>Alexander</em> is more like Joaquin Phoenix’s tortured Prince Commodus: a young man born into privilege and haunted by ruling class family dysfunction and neurosis, and most of the people he’s surrounded with don’t have the charm or likability to hold the film together. Most people just aren’t going to find as much to root for in this kind of character. Had Ptolemy been the main character and been a witness to the highs and lows of Alexander's career, maybe the film would have had more of a stable foundation from a main character standpoint.
<img class=" wp-image-227 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Eagle-500x210.png" alt="" width="702" height="295" />
There are three prominent animal symbols in the film. The eagle, which is a symbol of Zeus, is a frequent companion of Alexander’s conquests as an omen for victory, and is seen when Alexander first rides Bucephalus. Eagle heraldry appears in Babylon, and one last time an eagle hallucination appears just before he dies, as though Zeus himself had descended to take him. Snakes are another recurring motif, as extensions of Olympias’ sensualized treatment of her young son, just as a snake wraps its coils around its human bearer. They are symbols of the cult of Dionysus, whom Olympias was a part of. Living snakes and snake symbols are presented whenever Alexander feels vulnerability or sickness, and manifest as a hallucination of Olympias as a Gorgon. Roxana wears snake arm braces, establishing parallels between Alexander and Roxana and his parents, indicating a repetition of history. While it is very blatant, the image of the snake killing the eagle as it flies is an obvious indication that Olympias’ manipulations and toxic attitude ultimately killed her son. With hardly any dialogue, Alexander and his horse Bucephalus becomes a legitimate highlight of the film. Bucephalus also plays a similar role to these a�8\��� D�������� �8\
� ���nimal symbols, as a symbol of his virility, health and passion for conquest. When Bucephalus is killed in battle, Alexander’s resolve to conquer is destroyed as well.
<img class=" wp-image-228 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ptolemy-500x211.png" alt="" width="699" height="295" />
The life of Alexander echoes many of the Greek mythic heroes, and Stone seems to indicate that Alexander was the last of these men to rise and fall in such a fashion. The theme of mythology appears first as a series of speeches about heroes from Philip to young Alexander, but this becomes integral to the core of the film. We see Alexander atop Bucephalus charge a rampaging elephant, and the two animals rear on their hind legs and in an image that looks like something out of high fantasy. The way Stone shoots Alexander's triumphs in which there is something almost divine about them, the animal motifs, and the exotic locales seem even more wondrous to the audience. That's where it occurred to me; <em>Alexander</em> is about myth-making, and how myths are born and how the pursuit of greatness and eternal glory will always invoke a great cost. Using Ptolemy’s account as a framing device, as he struggles to reconcile Alexander’s towering legacy with the man he was in life, we understand why the film indulges in such theatrical excess – because it is an extension of Ptolemy’s mythmaking. That no matter his failings in life or the manner in which he died, Alexander still created left a legacy that endures more than any story so that he himself has become mythicized by history. Just as Achilles lived fast and died gloriously, so does Alexander.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tnoxNlxIQI/UfvOw63KYrI/AAAAAAAAJSo/TSwA09gNpWk/s1600/Alexander+3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 philip" width="615" height="393" />
While the Revisited cut of <em>Alexander</em> provided a better film than I dared to expect, it is hampered by many of the same flaws that plague the theatrical cut, namely its many bizarre apparitions of style, flawed writing and many excessively over the top performances. I don’t take any shame in saying it’s a better movie than the reputation that preceded it and that I enjoyed it enough to see it again and study it properly. While I don't expect my analysis of the film to go over well with everyone, I hope I have encouraged a few curious people to investigate for themselves. <em>Fortune favours the bold</em>. �8\��Q E�������� ނ*
� ?� F<img class="size-medium wp-image-153 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
Oliver Stone’s <em>Alexander</em> is a fascinating creature of a film; one that I have already a curious liking for yet one I cannot deny its many flaws. It’s a strange film that alternates between being a striking vision of Antiquity and a bizarre acid trip of excess and strange direction choices that makes <em>300</em> look tame by comparison. You can tell Oliver Stone poured all his heart and soul into the telling of Alexander’s story and sticking true to the history. For this review, I will look at the ‘Revisited’ cut; it’s the longest (therefore also the most challenging) but also one with perhaps the most to offer as a biopic and an epic recounting the life and exploits of one of history’s greatest conquerors.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oliverstone.com/images/made/uploads/images/alexander-revisited_460_380_tl_2_tr_2_s_c1_center_top.png" alt="Image result for alexander revisited" width="460" height="380" />
In Alexandria, Egypt, 283 BC, Pharaoh Ptolemy I (Anthony Hopkins) recites his memoirs alongside Alexander to his scribe Cadmus, serving as the framing device for the film with Ptolemy as the narrator, alluding to other events off-screen while the film focuses on some of the key moments in the life of Alexander. In this edition, we are introduced to Alexander (Colin Farrell) in 331 BC just before the Battle of Gaugamela against King Darius III of the Persian Empire. Among his loyal generals are Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Antigonus (Ian Beattie), Cleitus (Gary Stretch), Parmenion (John Kavanagh), Philotas (Joseph Morgan), and the younger Ptolemy (Elliot Cowan). The battle commences, and despite the Persians’ overwhelming numbers, Alexander wins the day through superior tactics and claiming Babylon in the name of Macedonia. He confides with Hephaistion of his ambitions to travel to and conquer the far corners of the world.
Between these exploits, we see flashbacks<span style="font-size: 1rem;"> Alexander’s life as a young prince (Connor Paolo) and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and his tutor Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His already tenuous relationship with his father King Philip II (Val Kilmer) is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydice, the niece of Attalus. After the assassination of Philip, Eurydice’s claim to the throne is destroyed; Alexander becomes king and fulfils his father’s intended campaign to conquer Persia.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/21/Alexander-Gaugamela.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 screencaps" width="820" height="340" />
The acting has been a subject of debate and ridicule, with many of the key actors attracting criticism for their performances. I myself can enjoy such theatrical performances, having seen a number of Greek plays where this type of acting is commonplace. Farrell looks the part of Alexander and sportingly throws himself into the action scenes, and he does have a fair few scenes that show off his confidence and passionate leadership well, but not enough. Because Farrell has more of an everyman quality to him, he doesn’t nail the enormous charisma you think would be associated with a great leader of men. In other scenes he becomes like a character in a Greek play with over the top expressions and mood swings, the worst of which happen with Jolie’s Olympias. Speaking of which, Jolie is another strange casting as Olympias, overdoing her Albanian accent, eating up the scenery and being very unsettling and not in a fun way. Kilmer has some good scenes with Paolo’s young Alexander, and his Irish accent didn’t bother me much, but when he goes into over the top drunken rants it’s almost as bad as Jolie.
Leto gives an okay performance as the calm, as<span style="font-size: 1rem;">suaging Hephaistion to Farrell’s wildly passionate Alexander; however they don’t have enough chemistry to really believe that they’re lovers. Despite some good scenes in the first half, Hephaistion seldom has much screen time with Alexander in the second half and we mostly get longing stares between the couple. Hopkins provides a solemn, soothing narration to the film and conveys the memory of a man who has seen the world and is thinking of his youth with nostalgia. Rosario Dawson does a good job as the Bactrian princess, Roxana, holding her own despite having very limited screen time. Plummer gives a lot of worldly personality as Aristotle, having a great scene with the young Greeks who would follow Alexander. Cowan (w</span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">ho looks like he could reasonably pass for a young Anthony Hopkins), Kavanagh, Morgan and Stretch all function well as generals to Alexander, but sometimes go for theatrics like some of the A-listers. </span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Familiar faces appearing in surprising early roles include Toby Kebbell as Pausanias, the killer of Philip, Ian Beattie as General Antigonus, Rory McCann as Craterus the soldier. In brief but impressionable roles include Tim Piggot-Smith as the omen reader, and Brian Blessed is a welcome sight as young Alexander’s wrestling tutor.</span><img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_hPShBL2RBA/UMqqzpS1_0I/AAAAAAAAAD0/p22BR0hA6_A/s1600/alexanderrevisited20047.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 gaugamela" width="755" height="393" />
This is a very well-polished film, on par with the likes of <em>Gladiator</em>, <em>Troy</em> and <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> for technical prowess. For the vast majority of the film, the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic. The hot orange colours of Gaugamela and vibrant colours of Babylon and Bactria capture the exotic look of the eastern countries. The pastoral hills and town of Pellas, Macedonia have a lush pastoral purity to them, and the verdant jungles and temples of India are beautifully shot with a greater level of contrast and colour. He excels in capturing the vastness and insanity of the battles. There is one area where the cinematography jumps the gun badly which I will highlight later.<img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://sentsmemory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/babylon.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander babylon" width="820" height="337" />
The realization of the great Babylon through massive sets and CGI is stunning, and surprisingly much of it holds up. In fact, the locations, sets, art direction, sound design, and the overall splendour of its visuals almost make me want to recommend viewing <em>Alexander</em> on that level. A lot of work and detail has gone into the making of the weapons, armour and costumes ranging from the plainer togas and uniforms of the Macedonians to the and rich, opulent, colourful attire of the various eastern cultures. Admittedly, the makeup on Kilmer’s Philip and blond locks of Farrell’s Alexander do leave much to be desired. And the CGI eagle close-ups don’t look at all real, definitely a case of being too ambitious with the VFX.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Elephant.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="340" />
The Battle of Gaugamela is an incredible achievement in historical battle filmmaking, Stone films as much of the vast Macedonian and Persian armies in-camera as possible, with impressive wide shots of the Macedonian phalanxes, Persian infantry battalions, Persian chariots and the cavalry on both sides. CGI is used to give a sense of scale of both armies, but is primarily used from a bird’s eye view and only when necessary. The fighting is filmed at close quarters and has a frenetic energy and character to it, emulating the chaos of ancient warfare. The action scenes are bloody and shocking to behold, but no less than one should expect considering this period of warfare. Comparing Gaugamela to Hydaspes in India, it’s clear how much worse and bloodier a battle it was as the Greeks find themselves further away from home. The elephants gave me goose-bumps they thundered into view and laid waste to the Greek phalanx, and we see soldiers tossed about, gored and crushed underfoot. I keep wondering “how did they do it?” with the use of very real and very dangerous elephants and hundreds of armed extras in such an enclosed environment. If nothing else, both of these battles deserve far more attention for their prowess of execution. There is no escaping the hellishness of war, and no glorification of its aftermath.
The score by Vangelis is one of his most overlooked and finest I have heard, with a versatile array of atmospheric ethnic instrumentations that invoke the ancient world. The score soars to heroic heights that rival Hans Zimmer’s score for <em>Gladiator</em> at the Battle of Gaugamela, and for the many softer scenes it shows a melancholic, soulful quality that sets it apart from other scores in this genre. The closing credits theme ‘Titans’ has a mythic, inspiring personality to it that fires up the imagination with images of battle and victory.
The film operates on two timelines, one chronicling Alexander’s eastern conquests up until his death in Babylon, and another that follows Alexander from his youth to becoming king of Macedonia. The use of a stylized map of the ancient world, in addition to Ptolemy’s narration, is a useful tool to help the audience keep track of Alexander’s conquests. On a storytelling level, introducing Alexander through the Battle of Gaugamela is an effective hook and allows us to see the Macedonian conqueror at his prime as one would imagine him, before we see more of what he was as a prince. The tone subtly shifts from one of mythic and heroic character to a darker tone, stripped of the glorification of Alexander in the first act. Similarly, the battles become more bloody and hellish to reflect this gradual shift. The Revisited Cut plays up the idea that Darius arranged the assassination of Philip in the first act, giving legitimacy to Alexander’s invasion, and this idea of stripped away over time as a ruse created by Alexander to fire the Greeks up for war. The contrast of scenes allow for a greater contrast of where Alexander came from and how and why he met his end.
However, this structure is not without its problems. Before the Battle of Gaugamela, we’re introduced to Alexander’s generals at a breakneck speed at a rushed pace, and only half of them are forgotten about as the film rolls on. This has a similar problem to <em>Troy</em> in attempting to integrate the Homeric hymns ascribing qualities to the generals that sound pretentious in English. The enemy armies at Gaugamela and Hydaspes are one-dimensional and ultimately function as basic obstacles, so you don’t really root for the Greeks to triumph as much as you would compare to the Spartans and the Persians in <em>300</em> or to understand the drama and sometimes shared heroism and ideals on both sides like in <em>Troy</em>. There just isn’t much personality given to the Persians, Bactrians or Indians.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YoGEmJX1vAw/VLScrW-YJII/AAAAAAAV9pM/jIOvDunTbC4/s1600/Alexander-2004-MSS-22749.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 hd screencaps" width="820" height="348" />
Oddities are aplenty here, some work and others unsurprisingly don’t. The choice to give the Macedonian characters Irish accents, while strange at first, eventually ceased to bother me as it was an effective method of establishing differences between the more civilized Greeks with upper class English accents. The use of a lion’s roar overlaid over the cheering Macedonian army at Gaugamela. The approaching elephants' footsteps literally make the earth tremble and they themselves sound more monster than animal. Whole sequences are filmed to show off dancing girls and various pleasures of the flesh; beautifully shot to be sure but pretty much exist for their own sake.
Then there are some flat out goofy scenes like Alexander and his men interacting with monkeys in India as though they were a tribe of their own, even Hopkins’ venerable narration can't save it. Strange edits, such as jarring alternating shots between characters and scene transitions such as the Battle of Hydaspes take even me out of the movie. The strangest of all is the Battle of Hydaspes in which the whole battle turns to a horrific magenta red netherworld of insanity when Bucephalus is killed in battle. Stone really should not have gone for this visual decision as it makes the battle more difficult to perceive and falls into melodrama. The writing between Alexander and Olympias is dripping with oedipal and Freudian scenes, and yes it’s as gross as you would expect, and the fact that Jolie hardly ages while Alexander lives into his thirties doesn’t help matters. In the many scenes where tempers flare and fight break out amongst the characters, helped with alcohol, this is where the film's melodrama really becomes its undoing. Tempers flare again when a ragged and exhausted Alexander is forced to quell a mutiny in his army, and it’s difficult to watch because of how needlessly over the top it is.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected problems with <em>Alexander </em>is Alexander himself for one key reason. What <em>Gladiator</em> had is a relatable, underdog hero like Russell Crowe’s Maximus. <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> had a stunning ensemble cast to compensate for the shortcomings in its main lead. The Alexander of <em>Alexander</em> is more like Joaquin Phoenix’s tortured Prince Commodus: a young man born into privilege and haunted by ruling class family dysfunction and neurosis, and most of the people he’s surrounded with don’t have the charm or likability to hold the film together. Most people just aren’t going to find as much to root for in this kind of character. Had Ptolemy been the main character and been a witness to the highs and lows of Alexander's career, maybe the film would have had more of a stable foundation from a main character standpoint.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-154" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/eagle-500x281.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="281" />
There are three prominent animal symbols in the film. The eagle, which is a symbol of Zeus, is a frequent companion of Alexander’s conquests as an omen for victory, and is seen when Alexander first rides Bucephalus. Eagle heraldry appears in Babylon, and one last time an eagle hallucination appears just before he dies, as though Zeus himself had descended to take him. Snakes are another recurring motif, as extensions of Olympias’ sensualized treatment of her young son, just as a snake wraps its coils around its human bearer. They are symbols of the cult of Dionysus, whom Olympias was a part of. Living snakes and snake symbols are presented whenever Alexander feels vulnerability or sickness, and manifest as a hallucination of Olympias as a Gorgon. Roxana wears snake arm braces, establishing parallels between Alexander and Roxana and his parents, indicating a repetition of history. While it is very blatant, the image of the snake killing the eagle as it flies is an obvious indication that Olympias’ manipulations and toxic attitude ultimately killed her son. With hardly any dialogue, Alexander and his horse Bucephalus becomes a legitimate highlight of the film. Bucephalus also plays a similar role to these animal symbols, as a symbol of his virility, health and passion for conquest. When Bucephalus is killed in battle, Alexander’s resolve to conquer is destroyed as well.
The life of Alexander echoes many of the Greek mythic heroes, and Stone seems to indicate that Alexander was the last of these men to rise and fall in such a fashion. The theme of mythology appears first as a series of speeches about heroes from Philip to young Alexander, but this ނ*�ʼn F�������� ނ*
� ����becomes integral to the core of the film. <em>Alexander</em> is essentially about myth-making, how myths are born and how the pursuit of greatness and eternal glory will always invoke a great cost. Just as Achilles lived fast and died gloriously, so does Alexander. Using Ptolemy’s account as a framing device, as he struggles to reconcile Alexander’s towering legacy with the man he was in life, we understand why the film indulges in such theatrical excess – because it is an extension of Ptolemy’s mythmaking. That no matter his failings in life or the manner in which he died, Alexander still created left a legacy that endures more than any story so that he himself has become mythicized by history.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tnoxNlxIQI/UfvOw63KYrI/AAAAAAAAJSo/TSwA09gNpWk/s1600/Alexander+3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 philip" width="615" height="393" />
While the Revisited cut of <em>Alexander</em> provided a better film than I dared to expect, it is hampered by many of the same flaws that plague the theatrical cut, namely its many bizarre apparitions of style, flawed writing and many excessively over the top performances. I don’t take any shame in saying it’s a better movie than the reputation that preceded it and that I enjoyed it enough to see it again and study it properly. While I don't expect my analysis of the film to go over well with everyone, I hope I have encouraged a few curious people to investigate for themselves. <em>Fortune favours the bold</em>. ނ*2D> G�������� ��2
� ?� H<img class="size-medium wp-image-153 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
Oliver Stone’s <em>Alexander</em> is a fascinating creature of a film; one that I have already a curious liking for yet one I cannot deny its many flaws. It’s a strange film that alternates between being a striking vision of Antiquity and a bizarre acid trip of excess and strange direction choices that makes <em>300</em> look tame by comparison. You can tell Oliver Stone poured all his heart and soul into the telling of Alexander’s story and sticking true to the history. For this review, I will look at the ‘Revisited’ cut; it’s the longest (therefore also the most challenging) but also one with perhaps the most to offer as a biopic and an epic recounting the life and exploits of one of history’s greatest conquerors.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oliverstone.com/images/made/uploads/images/alexander-revisited_460_380_tl_2_tr_2_s_c1_center_top.png" alt="Image result for alexander revisited" width="460" height="380" />
In Alexandria, Egypt, 283 BC, Pharaoh Ptolemy I (Anthony Hopkins) recites his memoirs alongside Alexander to his scribe Cadmus, serving as the framing device for the film with Ptolemy as the narrator, alluding to other events off-screen while the film focuses on some of the key moments in the life of Alexander. In this edition, we are introduced to Alexander (Colin Farrell) in 331 BC just before the Battle of Gaugamela against King Darius III of the Persian Empire. Among his loyal generals are Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Antigonus (Ian Beattie), Cleitus (Gary Stretch), Parmenion (John Kavanagh), Philotas (Joseph Morgan), and the younger Ptolemy (Elliot Cowan). The battle commences, and despite the Persians’ overwhelming numbers, Alexander wins the day through superior tactics and claiming Babylon in the name of Macedonia. He confides with Hephaistion of his ambitions to travel to and conquer the far corners of the world.
Between these exploits, we see flashbacks<span style="font-size: 1rem;"> Alexander’s life as a young prince (Connor Paolo) and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and his tutor Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His already tenuous relationship with his father King Philip II (Val Kilmer) is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydice, the niece of Attalus. After the assassination of Philip, Eurydice’s claim to the throne is destroyed; Alexander becomes king and fulfils his father’s intended campaign to conquer Persia.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/21/Alexander-Gaugamela.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 screencaps" width="820" height="340" />
The acting has been a subject of debate and ridicule, with many of the key actors attracting criticism for their performances. I myself can enjoy such theatrical performances, having seen a number of Greek plays where this type of acting is commonplace. Farrell looks the part of Alexander and sportingly throws himself into the action scenes, and he does have a fair few scenes that show off his confidence and passionate leadership well, but not enough. Because Farrell has more of an everyman quality to him, he doesn’t nail the enormous charisma you think would be associated with a great leader of men. In other scenes he becomes like a character in a Greek play with over the top expressions and mood swings, the worst of which happen with Jolie’s Olympias. Speaking of which, Jolie is another strange casting as Olympias, overdoing her Albanian accent, eating up the scenery and being very unsettling and not in a fun way. Kilmer has some good scenes with Paolo’s young Alexander, and his Irish accent didn’t bother me much, but when he goes into over the top drunken rants it’s almost as bad as Jolie.
Leto gives an okay performance as the calm, as<span style="font-size: 1rem;">suaging Hephaistion to Farrell’s wildly passionate Alexander; however they don’t have enough chemistry to really believe that they’re lovers. Despite some good scenes in the first half, Hephaistion seldom has much screen time with Alexander in the second half and we mostly get longing stares between the couple. Hopkins provides a solemn, soothing narration to the film and conveys the memory of a man who has seen the world and is thinking of his youth with nostalgia. Rosario Dawson does a good job as the Bactrian princess, Roxana, holding her own despite having very limited screen time. Plummer gives a lot of worldly personality as Aristotle, having a great scene with the young Greeks who would follow Alexander. Cowan (w</span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">ho looks like he could reasonably pass for a young Anthony Hopkins), Kavanagh, Morgan and Stretch all function well as generals to Alexander, but sometimes go for theatrics like some of the A-listers. </span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Familiar faces appearing in surprising early roles include Toby Kebbell as Pausanias, the killer of Philip, Ian Beattie as General Antigonus, Rory McCann as Craterus the soldier. In brief but impressionable roles include Tim Piggot-Smith as the omen reader, and Brian Blessed is a welcome sight as young Alexander’s wrestling tutor.</span><img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_hPShBL2RBA/UMqqzpS1_0I/AAAAAAAAAD0/p22BR0hA6_A/s1600/alexanderrevisited20047.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 gaugamela" width="755" height="393" />
This is a very well-polished film, on par with the likes of <em>Gladiator</em>, <em>Troy</em> and <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> for technical prowess. For the vast majority of the film, the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic. The hot orange colours of Gaugamela and vibrant colours of Babylon and Bactria capture the exotic look of the eastern countries. The pastoral hills and town of Pellas, Macedonia have a lush pastoral purity to them, and the verdant jungles and temples of India are beautifully shot with a greater level of contrast and colour. He excels in capturing the vastness and insanity of the battles. There is one area where the cinematography jumps the gun badly which I will highlight later.<img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://sentsmemory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/babylon.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander babylon" width="820" height="337" />
The realization of the great Babylon through massive sets and CGI is stunning, and surprisingly much of it holds up. In fact, the locations, sets, art direction, sound design, and the overall splendour of its visuals almost make me want to recommend viewing <em>Alexander</em> on that level. A lot of work and detail has gone into the making of the weapons, armour and costumes ranging from the plainer togas and uniforms of the Macedonians to the and rich, opulent, colourful attire of the various eastern cultures. Admittedly, the makeup on Kilmer’s Philip and blond locks of Farrell’s Alexander do leave much to be desired. And the CGI eagle close-ups don’t look at all real, definitely a case of being too ambitious with the VFX.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Elephant.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="340" />
The Battle of Gaugamela is an incredible achievement in historical battle filmmaking, Stone films as much of the vast Macedonian and Persian armies in-camera as possible, with impressive wide shots of the Macedonian phalanxes, Persian infantry battalions, Persian chariots and the cavalry on both sides. CGI is used to give a sense of scale of both armies, but is primarily used from a bird’s eye view and only when necessary. The fighting is filmed at close quarters and has a frenetic energy and character to it, emulating the chaos of ancient warfare. The action scenes are bloody and shocking to behold, but no less than one should expect considering this period of warfare. Comparing Gaugamela to Hydaspes in India, it’s clear how much worse and bloodier a battle it was as the Greeks find themselves further away from home. The elephants gave me goose-bumps they thundered into view and laid waste to the Greek phalanx, and we see soldiers tossed about, gored and crushed underfoot. I keep wondering “how did they do it?” with the use of very real and very dangerous elephants and hundreds of armed extras in such an enclosed environment. If nothing else, both of these battles deserve far more attention for their prowess of execution. There is no escaping the hellishness of war, and no glorification of its aftermath.
The score by Vangelis is one of his most overlooked and finest I have heard, with a versatile array of atmospheric ethnic instrumentations that invoke the ancient world. The score soars to heroic heights that rival Hans Zimmer’s score for <em>Gladiator</em> at the Battle of Gaugamela, and for the many softer scenes it shows a melancholic, soulful quality that sets it apart from other scores in this genre. The closing credits theme ‘Titans’ has a mythic, inspiring personality to it that fires up the imagination with images of battle and victory.
The film operates on two timelines, one chronicling Alexander’s eastern conquests up until his death in Babylon, and another that follows Alexander from his youth to becoming king of Macedonia. The use of a stylized map of the ancient world, in addition to Ptolemy’s narration, is a useful tool to help the audience keep track of Alexander’s conquests. On a storytelling level, introducing Alexander through the Battle of Gaugamela is an effective hook and allows us to see the Macedonian conqueror at his prime as one would imagine him, before we see more of what he was as a prince. The tone subtly shifts from one of mythic and heroic character to a darker tone, stripped of the glorification of Alexander in the first act. Similarly, the battles become more bloody and hellish to reflect this gradual shift. The Revisited Cut plays up the idea that Darius arranged the assassination of Philip in the first act, giving legitimacy to Alexander’s invasion, and this idea of stripped away over time as a ruse created by Alexander to fire the Greeks up for war. The contrast of scenes allow for a greater contrast of where Alexander came from and how and why he met his end.
However, this structure is not without its problems. Before the Battle of Gaugamela, we’re introduced to Alexander’s generals at a breakneck speed at a rushed pace, and only half of them are forgotten about as the film rolls on. This has a similar problem to <em>Troy</em> in attempting to integrate the Homeric hymns ascribing qualities to the generals that sound pretentious in English. The enemy armies at Gaugamela and Hydaspes are one-dimensional and ultimately function as basic obstacles, so you don’t really root for the Greeks to triumph as much as you would compare to the Spartans and the Persians in <em>300</em> or to understand the drama and sometimes shared heroism and ideals on both sides like in <em>Troy</em>. There just isn’t much personality given to the Persians, Bactrians or Indians.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YoGEmJX1vAw/VLScrW-YJII/AAAAAAAV9pM/jIOvDunTbC4/s1600/Alexander-2004-MSS-22749.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 hd screencaps" width="820" height="348" />
Oddities are aplenty here, some work and others unsurprisingly don’t. The choice to give the Macedonian characters Irish accents, while strange at first, eventually ceased to bother me as it was an effective method of establishing differences between the more civilized Greeks with upper class English accents. The use of a lion’s roar overlaid over the cheering Macedonian army at Gaugamela. The approaching elephants' footsteps literally make the earth tremble and they themselves sound more monster than animal. Whole sequences are filmed to show off dancing girls and various pleasures of the flesh; beautifully shot to be sure but pretty much exist for their own sake.
Then there are some flat out goofy scenes like Alexander and his men interacting with monkeys in India as though they were a tribe of their own, even Hopkins’ venerable narration can't save it. Strange edits, such as jarring alternating shots between characters and scene transitions such as the Battle of Hydaspes take even me out of the movie. The strangest of all is the Battle of Hydaspes in which the whole battle turns to a horrific magenta red netherworld of insanity when Bucephalus is killed in battle. Stone really should not have gone for this visual decision as it makes the battle more difficult to perceive and falls into melodrama. The writing between Alexander and Olympias is dripping with oedipal and Freudian scenes, and yes it’s as gross as you would expect, and the fact that Jolie hardly ages while Alexander lives into his thirties doesn’t help matters. In the many scenes where tempers flare and fight break out amongst the characters, helped with alcohol, this is where the film's melodrama really becomes its undoing. Tempers flare again when a ragged and exhausted Alexander is forced to quell a mutiny in his army, and it’s difficult to watch because of how needlessly over the top it is.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected problems with <em>Alexander </em>is Alexander himself for one key reason. What <em>Gladiator</em> had is a relatable, underdog hero like Russell Crowe’s Maximus. <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> had a stunning ensemble cast to compensate for the shortcomings in its main lead. The Alexander of <em>Alexander</em> is more like Joaquin Phoenix’s tortured Prince Commodus: a young man born into privilege and haunted by ruling class family dysfunction and neurosis, and most of the people he’s surrounded with don’t have the charm or likability to hold the film together. Most people just aren’t going to find as much to root for in this kind of character. Had Ptolemy been the main character and been a witness to the highs and lows of Alexander's career, maybe the film would have had more of a stable foundation from a main character standpoint.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-154" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/eagle-500x281.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="281" />
There are three prominent animal symbols in the film. The eagle, which is a symbol of Zeus, is a frequent companion of Alexander’s conquests as an omen for victory, and is seen when Alexander first rides Bucephalus. Eagle heraldry appears in Babylon, and one last time an eagle hallucination appears just before he dies, as though Zeus himself had descended to take him. Snakes are another recurring motif, as extensions of Olympias’ sensualized treatment of her young son, just as a snake wraps its coils around its human bearer. They are symbols of the cult of Dionysus, whom Olympias was a part of. Living snakes and snake symbols are presented whenever Alexander feels vulnerability or sickness, and manifest as a hallucination of Olympias as a Gorgon. Roxana wears snake arm braces, establishing parallels between Alexander and Roxana and his parents, indicating a repetition of history. While it is very blatant, the image of the snake killing the eagle as it flies is an obvious indication that Olympias’ manipulations and toxic attitude ultimately killed her son. With hardly any dialogue, Alexander and his horse Bucephalus becomes a legitimate highlight of the film. Bucephalus also plays a similar role to these animal symbols, as a symbol of his virility, health and passion for conquest. When Bucephalus is killed in battle, Alexander’s resolve to conquer is destroyed as well.
The life of Alexander echoes many of the Greek mythic heroes, and Stone seems to indicate that Alexander was the last of these men to rise and fall in such a fashion. The theme of mythology appears first as a series of speeches about heroes from Philip to young Alexander, but this ��2��Ʉ H�������� ��2
� v����becomes integral to the core of the film. We see Alexander atop Bucephalus charge a rampaging elephant, and the two animals rear on their hind legs and in an image that looks like something out of high fantasy. The way Stone shoots Alexander's triumphs in which there is something almost divine about them, the animal motifs, and the exotic locales seem even more wondrous to the audience. That's where it occurred to me; <em>Alexander</em> is about myth-making, and how myths are born and how the pursuit of greatness and eternal glory will always invoke a great cost. Using Ptolemy’s account as a framing device, as he struggles to reconcile Alexander’s towering legacy with the man he was in life, we understand why the film indulges in such theatrical excess – because it is an extension of Ptolemy’s mythmaking. That no matter his failings in life or the manner in which he died, Alexander still created left a legacy that endures more than any story so that he himself has become mythicized by history. Just as Achilles lived fast and died gloriously, so does Alexander.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tnoxNlxIQI/UfvOw63KYrI/AAAAAAAAJSo/TSwA09gNpWk/s1600/Alexander+3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 philip" width="615" height="393" />
While the Revisited cut of <em>Alexander</em> provided a better film than I dared to expect, it is hampered by many of the same flaws that plague the theatrical cut, namely its many bizarre apparitions of style, flawed writing and many excessively over the top performances. I don’t take any shame in saying it’s a better movie than the reputation that preceded it and that I enjoyed it enough to see it again and study it properly. While I don't expect my analysis of the film to go over well with everyone, I hope I have encouraged a few curious people to investigate for themselves. <em>Fortune favours the bold</em>. ��2EI:� I�������� � \
� ?� J<img class="size-medium wp-image-153 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
Oliver Stone’s <em>Alexander</em> is a fascinating creature of a film; one that I have already a curious liking for yet one I cannot deny its many flaws. It’s a strange film that alternates between being a striking vision of Antiquity and a bizarre acid trip of excess and strange direction choices that makes <em>300</em> look tame by comparison. You can tell Oliver Stone poured all his heart and soul into the telling of Alexander’s story and sticking true to the history. For this review, I will look at the ‘Revisited’ cut; it’s the longest (therefore also the most challenging) but also one with perhaps the most to offer as a biopic and an epic recounting the life and exploits of one of history’s greatest conquerors.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oliverstone.com/images/made/uploads/images/alexander-revisited_460_380_tl_2_tr_2_s_c1_center_top.png" alt="Image result for alexander revisited" width="460" height="380" />
In Alexandria, Egypt, 283 BC, Pharaoh Ptolemy I (Anthony Hopkins) recites his memoirs alongside Alexander to his scribe Cadmus, serving as the framing device for the film with Ptolemy as the narrator, alluding to other events off-screen while the film focuses on some of the key moments in the life of Alexander. In this edition, we are introduced to Alexander (Colin Farrell) in 331 BC just before the Battle of Gaugamela against King Darius III of the Persian Empire. Among his loyal generals are Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Antigonus (Ian Beattie), Cleitus (Gary Stretch), Parmenion (John Kavanagh), Philotas (Joseph Morgan), and the younger Ptolemy (Elliot Cowan). The battle commences, and despite the Persians’ overwhelming numbers, Alexander wins the day through superior tactics and claiming Babylon in the name of Macedonia. He confides with Hephaistion of his ambitions to travel to and conquer the far corners of the world.
Between these exploits, we see flashbacks<span style="font-size: 1rem;"> Alexander’s life as a young prince (Connor Paolo) and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and his tutor Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His already tenuous relationship with his father King Philip II (Val Kilmer) is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydice, the niece of Attalus. After the assassination of Philip, Eurydice’s claim to the throne is destroyed; Alexander becomes king and fulfils his father’s intended campaign to conquer Persia.</span>
<img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/21/Alexander-Gaugamela.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 screencaps" width="820" height="340" />
The acting has been a subject of debate and ridicule, with many of the key actors attracting criticism for their performances. I myself can enjoy such theatrical performances, having seen a number of Greek plays where this type of acting is commonplace. Farrell looks the part of Alexander and sportingly throws himself into the action scenes, and he does have a fair few scenes that show off his confidence and passionate leadership well, but not enough. Because Farrell has more of an everyman quality to him, he doesn’t nail the enormous charisma you think would be associated with a great leader of men. In other scenes he becomes like a character in a Greek play with over the top expressions and mood swings, the worst of which happen with Jolie’s Olympias. Speaking of which, Jolie is another strange casting as Olympias, overdoing her Albanian accent, eating up the scenery and being very unsettling and not in a fun way. Kilmer has some good scenes with both Alexander actors, and his Irish accent seemed to work well enough, but when he goes into over the top drunken rants it’s almost as bad as Jolie.
Leto gives an okay performance as the calm, as<span style="font-size: 1rem;">suaging Hephaistion to Farrell’s wildly passionate Alexander; however they don’t have enough chemistry to really believe that they’re lovers. Despite some good scenes in the first half, Hephaistion seldom has much screen time with Alexander in the second half and we mostly get longing stares between the couple. Hopkins provides a solemn, soothing narration to the film and conveys the memory of a man who has seen the world and is thinking of his youth with nostalgia. Rosario Dawson does a good job as the Bactrian princess, Roxana, holding her own despite having very limited screen time. Plummer gives a lot of worldly personality as Aristotle, having a great scene with the young Greeks who would follow Alexander. Cowan (w</span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">ho looks like he could reasonably pass for a young Anthony Hopkins), Kavanagh, Morgan and Stretch all function well as generals to Alexander, but sometimes go for theatrics like some of the A-listers. </span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Familiar faces appearing in surprising early roles include Toby Kebbell as Pausanias, the killer of Philip, Ian Beattie as General Antigonus, Rory McCann as Craterus the soldier. In brief but impressionable roles include Tim Piggot-Smith as the omen reader, and Brian Blessed is a welcome sight as young Alexander’s wrestling tutor.</span><img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_hPShBL2RBA/UMqqzpS1_0I/AAAAAAAAAD0/p22BR0hA6_A/s1600/alexanderrevisited20047.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 gaugamela" width="755" height="393" />
This is a very well-polished film, on par with the likes of <em>Gladiator</em>, <em>Troy</em> and <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> for technical prowess. For the vast majority of the film, the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic. The hot orange colours of Gaugamela and vibrant colours of Babylon and Bactria capture the exotic look of the eastern countries. The pastoral hills and town of Pellas, Macedonia have a lush pastoral purity to them, and the verdant jungles and temples of India are beautifully shot with a greater level of contrast and colour. He excels in capturing the vastness and insanity of the battles. There is one area where the cinematography jumps the gun badly which I will highlight later.<img class="irc_mi" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://sentsmemory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/babylon.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander babylon" width="820" height="337" />
The realization of the great Babylon through massive sets and CGI is stunning, and surprisingly much of it holds up. In fact, the locations, sets, art direction, sound design, and the overall splendour of its visuals almost make me want to recommend viewing <em>Alexander</em> on that level. A lot of work and detail has gone into the making of the weapons, armour and costumes ranging from the plainer togas and uniforms of the Macedonians to the and rich, opulent, colourful attire of the various eastern cultures. Admittedly, the makeup on Kilmer’s Philip and blond locks of Farrell’s Alexander do leave much to be desired. And the CGI eagle close-ups don’t look at all real, definitely a case of being too ambitious with the VFX.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Elephant.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="340" />
The Battle of Gaugamela is an incredible achievement in historical battle filmmaking, Stone films as much of the vast Macedonian and Persian armies in-camera as possible, with impressive wide shots of the Macedonian phalanxes, Persian infantry battalions, Persian chariots and the cavalry on both sides. CGI is used to give a sense of scale of both armies, but is primarily used from a bird’s eye view and only when necessary. The fighting is filmed at close quarters and has a frenetic energy and character to it, emulating the chaos of ancient warfare. The action scenes are bloody and shocking to behold, but no less than one should expect considering this period of warfare. Comparing Gaugamela to Hydaspes in India, it’s clear how much worse and bloodier a battle it was as the Greeks find themselves further away from home. The elephants gave me goose-bumps they thundered into view and laid waste to the Greek phalanx, and we see soldiers tossed about, gored and crushed underfoot. I keep wondering “how did they do it?” with the use of very real and very dangerous elephants and hundreds of armed extras in such an enclosed environment. If nothing else, both of these battles deserve far more attention for their prowess of execution. There is no escaping the hellishness of war, and no glorification of its aftermath.
The score by Vangelis is one of his most overlooked and finest I have heard, with a versatile array of atmospheric ethnic instrumentations that invoke the ancient world. The score soars to heroic heights that rival Hans Zimmer’s score for <em>Gladiator</em> at the Battle of Gaugamela, and for the many softer scenes it shows a melancholic, soulful quality that sets it apart from other scores in this genre. The closing credits theme ‘Titans’ has a mythic, inspiring personality to it that fires up the imagination with images of battle and victory.
The film operates on two timelines, one chronicling Alexander’s eastern conquests up until his death in Babylon, and another that follows Alexander from his youth to becoming king of Macedonia. The use of a stylized map of the ancient world, in addition to Ptolemy’s narration, is a useful tool to help the audience keep track of Alexander’s conquests. On a storytelling level, introducing Alexander through the Battle of Gaugamela is an effective hook and allows us to see the Macedonian conqueror at his prime as one would imagine him, before we see more of what he was as a prince. The tone subtly shifts from one of mythic and heroic character to a darker tone, stripped of the glorification of Alexander in the first act. Similarly, the battles become more bloody and hellish to reflect this gradual shift. The Revisited Cut plays up the idea that Darius arranged the assassination of Philip in the first act, giving legitimacy to Alexander’s invasion, and this idea of stripped away over time as a ruse created by Alexander to fire the Greeks up for war. The contrast of scenes allow for a greater contrast of where Alexander came from and how and why he met his end.
However, this structure is not without its problems. Before the Battle of Gaugamela, we’re introduced to Alexander’s generals at a breakneck speed at a rushed pace, and only half of them are forgotten about as the film rolls on. This has a similar problem to <em>Troy</em> in attempting to integrate the Homeric hymns ascribing qualities to the generals that sound pretentious in English. The enemy armies at Gaugamela and Hydaspes are one-dimensional and ultimately function as basic obstacles, so you don’t really root for the Greeks to triumph as much as you would compare to the Spartans and the Persians in <em>300</em> or to understand the drama and sometimes shared heroism and ideals on both sides like in <em>Troy</em>. There just isn’t much personality given to the Persians, Bactrians or Indians.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YoGEmJX1vAw/VLScrW-YJII/AAAAAAAV9pM/jIOvDunTbC4/s1600/Alexander-2004-MSS-22749.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 hd screencaps" width="820" height="348" />
Oddities are aplenty here, some work and others unsurprisingly don’t. The choice to give the Macedonian characters Irish accents, while strange at first, eventually ceased to bother me as it was an effective method of establishing differences between the more civilized Greeks with upper class English accents. The use of a lion’s roar overlaid over the cheering Macedonian army at Gaugamela. The approaching elephants' footsteps literally make the earth tremble and they themselves sound more monster than animal. Whole sequences are filmed to show off dancing girls and various pleasures of the flesh; beautifully shot to be sure but pretty much exist for their own sake.
Then there are some flat out goofy scenes like Alexander and his men interacting with monkeys in India as though they were a tribe of their own, even Hopkins’ venerable narration can't save it. Strange edits, such as jarring alternating shots between characters and scene transitions such as the Battle of Hydaspes take even me out of the movie. The strangest of all is the Battle of Hydaspes in which the whole battle turns to a horrific magenta red netherworld of insanity when Bucephalus is killed in battle. Stone really should not have gone for this visual decision as it makes the battle more difficult to perceive and falls into melodrama. The writing between Alexander and Olympias is dripping with oedipal and Freudian scenes, and yes it’s as gross as you would expect, and the fact that Jolie hardly ages while Alexander lives into his thirties doesn’t help matters. In the many scenes where tempers flare and fight break out amongst the characters, helped with alcohol, this is where the film's melodrama really becomes its undoing. Tempers flare again when a ragged and exhausted Alexander is forced to quell a mutiny in his army, and it’s difficult to watch because of how needlessly over the top it is.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected problems with <em>Alexander </em>is Alexander himself for one key reason. What <em>Gladiator</em> had is a relatable, underdog hero like Russell Crowe’s Maximus. <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> had a stunning ensemble cast to compensate for the shortcomings in its main lead. The Alexander of <em>Alexander</em> is more like Joaquin Phoenix’s tortured Prince Commodus: a young man born into privilege and haunted by ruling class family dysfunction and neurosis, and most of the people he’s surrounded with don’t have the charm or likability to hold the film together. Most people just aren’t going to find as much to root for in this kind of character. Had Ptolemy been the main character and been a witness to the highs and lows of Alexander's career, maybe the film would have had more of a stable foundation from a main character standpoint.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-154" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/eagle-500x281.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="281" />
There are three prominent animal symbols in the film. The eagle, which is a symbol of Zeus, is a frequent companion of Alexander’s conquests as an omen for victory, and is seen when Alexander first rides Bucephalus. Eagle heraldry appears in Babylon, and one last time an eagle hallucination appears just before he dies, as though Zeus himself had descended to take him. Snakes are another recurring motif, as extensions of Olympias’ sensualized treatment of her young son, just as a snake wraps its coils around its human bearer. They are symbols of the cult of Dionysus, whom Olympias was a part of. Living snakes and snake symbols are presented whenever Alexander feels vulnerability or sickness, and manifest as a hallucination of Olympias as a Gorgon. Roxana wears snake arm braces, establishing parallels between Alexander and Roxana and his parents, indicating a repetition of history. While it is very blatant, the image of the snake killing the eagle as it flies is an obvious indication that Olympias’ manipulations and toxic attitude ultimately killed her son. With hardly any dialogue, Alexander and his horse Bucephalus becomes a legitimate highlight of the film. Bucephalus also plays a similar role to these animal symbols, as a symbol of his virility, health and passion for conquest. When Bucephalus is killed in battle, Alexander’s resolve to conquer is destroyed as well.
The life of Alexander echoes many of the Greek mythic heroes, and Stone seems to indicate that Alexander was the last of these men to rise and fall in such a fashion. The theme of mythology appears first as a series of speeches about heroes from Philip to young Alexander, but this b� \�� � J�������� � \
� u����ecomes integral to the core of the film. We see Alexander atop Bucephalus charge a rampaging elephant, and the two animals rear on their hind legs and in an image that looks like something out of high fantasy. The way Stone shoots Alexander's triumphs in which there is something almost divine about them, the animal motifs, and the exotic locales seem even more wondrous to the audience. That's where it occurred to me; <em>Alexander</em> is about myth-making, and how myths are born and how the pursuit of greatness and eternal glory will always invoke a great cost. Using Ptolemy’s account as a framing device, as he struggles to reconcile Alexander’s towering legacy with the man he was in life, we understand why the film indulges in such theatrical excess – because it is an extension of Ptolemy’s mythmaking. That no matter his failings in life or the manner in which he died, Alexander still created left a legacy that endures more than any story so that he himself has become mythicized by history. Just as Achilles lived fast and died gloriously, so does Alexander.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tnoxNlxIQI/UfvOw63KYrI/AAAAAAAAJSo/TSwA09gNpWk/s1600/Alexander+3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 philip" width="615" height="393" />
While the Revisited cut of <em>Alexander</em> provided a better film than I dared to expect, it is hampered by many of the same flaws that plague the theatrical cut, namely its many bizarre apparitions of style, flawed writing and many excessively over the top performances. I don’t take any shame in saying it’s a better movie than the reputation that preceded it and that I enjoyed it enough to see it again and study it properly. While I don't expect my analysis of the film to go over well with everyone, I hope I have encouraged a few curious people to investigate for themselves. <em>Fortune favours the bold</em>. � \���� K�������� �M�
� +���<img class="size-medium wp-image-163 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Poster-331x500.png" alt="" width="331" height="500" />
<em>Spartacus</em> is something of an outlier in Stanley Kubrick’s filmography; it’s more conventional and not as much inundated in his famous directorial style. While this is something of a conventional film compared to his later works, following the then popular trend of sword and sandal epics, it’s still a great achievement and a necessary success story that allowed Kubrick to go onto other projects. In addition to his distinctive direction, <em>Spartacus</em> thrives thanks to its tremendous scale, emotional resonance, well integrated visual metaphors, a great anchoring performance by Kirk Douglas, and memorable supporting actors as the duplicitous Roman senators.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-164" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SlavetoRome-500x223.png" alt="" width="500" height="223" />
In the 1st century BC, a proud and gifted slave to the corrupt Roman Republic named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is sentenced to fight as a gladiator for his rebellious behaviour. He is trained at a school run by the sycophantic Roman businessman Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov), and Spartacus is trained by Marcellus (Charles McGraw) to become a great fighter. Amid the abuse, Spartacus forms a quiet relationship with a serving woman named Varinia (Jean Simmons), whom he refuses to rape when she is sent to “entertain” him in his cell.
Batiatus receives a visit from the Roman senator Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier), who aims to become dictator of Rome. Crassus buys Varinia on a whim, and for the amusement of his companions arranges for Spartacus and three others to fight in pairs. When Spartacus is disarmed, his opponent, an African named Draba (Woody Strode), spares his life in a burst of compassion and attacks the Roman audience, but is killed by an arena guard and Crassus. The next day, Batiatus takes Varinia away to Crassus’s house in Rome. Enraged to breaking point, Spartacus kills Marcellus and their fight escalates into a riot. The gladiators overwhelm their guards and escape into the Italian countryside. Countless other slaves join the group, including a slave entertainer named Antoninus (Tony Curtis), and one of the new arrivals is Varinia, who escaped while being delivered to Crassus. Meanwhile, the Roman Senate becomes increasingly alarmed as Spartacus defeats the multiple armies it sends against him.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-165" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/KirkDouglas-500x224.png" alt="" width="500" height="224" />
Douglas gives an incredible performance as Spartacus, when at first he appears to lack dialogue and acts only through his eyes the emotion coming from him is overwhelming, and as the leader of the slaves’ rebellion he summons a lot of charisma and charm so that you believe he could hold this vast army of freed slaves together. The beautiful, elegant Simmons performs well as the resilient but spirited Varinia, who conveys a great deal of emotion and thought through her expressions and eyes like Douglas. The romance formed between them works really well, going from tense and uncertain when they first meet to very tender and endearing scenes up until the end. Ustinov’s challenge is the convincingly go from a shallow, cynical, contemptible slave-owner to one who starts to show more depth and emotional growth. The renowned Olivier gives an arrogant, chilling and cruel presence as Crassus, and despite his aged appearance you believe this man would always have his way no matter what. Charles Laughton lights up the scene as a scheming, witty yet surprisingly dignified populist Senator Gracchus, trading words with his rival senators with panache. The historical tension between Olivier and Laughton percolated soundly into their scenes together. Curtis shows a lot of repressed pain and loyalty as Antoninus, and provides some fine singing to the role. Despite his limited appearance, Strode captivates as the conflicted slave Draba, with the same level of subtle yet emotive facial acting of his peers. McGraw is particularly despicable as the slave master, and John Gavin gives an air of ambitiousness as the young Julius Caesar.
The battle scenes are shot with competent flourish and creatively use military tactics, with the chaos of war infused throughout the climax. The aftermath of battle is a vision of death and desolation stretching as far as the eye can see, and the strength of that image alone is enough to convey the tragedy of this loss. Kubrick filmed the battle scenes in a way that demonstrates the violence with solid emotion and a clinical sense of purpose, there is still a fair bit of blood and certainly more than a film of the 60s would have allowed. The frenetic gladiator riot is tense and engaging as you see barely armoured men take on heavily armed guards. However, the one to one struggles are arguably more tense and engaging. The first fight between Douglas and Strobe is remarkably tense for a scene that occurs very early in the film because of the believable friendship formed between these two men, after being built up by an earlier fight which they can only perceive through a peep hole, as they hear the sound of clashing metal and the gasp of a dying gladiator.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/spartacus-1960-pic-5.jpg" alt="Image result for spartacus 1960 battle scenes" width="500" height="227" />
Russell Metty’s cinematography captures the wide landscapes, demonstrative of the size and beauty of the landscapes and multitudinous hosts. The single point perspective shots and visual compositional shots would become trademark techniques Kubrick would use in later films, and to add depth and scale to both the intimate character moments and battle scenes.
The costume work is detailed and intricate for the Romans, and appropriately simple and drab for the liberated slaves. The set work ranges from very competent and professional to looking a touch bland at times, such as the very plain and generic looking senate house interior. Filming in Italian villages where the architecture looks as though it could pass for a Roman city allows Kubrick to gain a degree of authenticity; however I did notice some shots where the houses in the background looked far too modern for this setting. The matte paintings of Rome, the sea and a number of landscapes are well crafted, with some shots admittedly looking better than others.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-166" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Olivier-500x226.png" alt="" width="500" height="226" />
Alex North’s score is a versatile and excellent achievement. It’s appropriately bombastic and rousing, invoking the pomp and military might of Ancient Rome, and manages to tug at the heartstrings with plenty of soothing romantic melodies. In addition to matching the action scenes very well, the music compliments the expressions of the actors perfectly, telling the story far in a far more emotive way than if there were dialogue there.
While not the most interesting or indeed flawed of main characters, Spartacus’ appeal as a protagonist lies in his moral strength and inspirational character. Mercy is presented as a double edged sword in this film; Draba is killed for sparing Spartacus despite the order was to fight to the death. But the mercy Spartacus receives from Draba inspires him to ultimately resist and extend that back towards captured Romans being forced to fight to the death. He furthermore spares the life of a Roman general to tell the senate what has transpired, even though it would motivate the Senate to take further action against him. Mercy re-emerges in a much darker reflection of Spartacus’ fight with Draba near the end when he is force to fight and kill one of his friends and allies to spare them a long, painful death on the crucifix despite his friend’s equal insistence
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-167" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GracchusCaesar-500x225.png" alt="" width="500" height="225" />
Resistance against slavery and racism, classicism, free will and solidarity against oppression were very pertinent in the 1960’s and this film taps into that zeitgeist. We see men and women walking together in Spartacus’ group as equals, and a sense of fellowship shown among men of different race and peace within family units. Draba’s heroic sacrifice as the linchpin to the beginning of the rebellion took what was no doubt a serious risk in a film of this genre by showing a black man sacrificing himself in a way that would help motivate the main hero to action. Dalton Trumbo’s screenplay based on the novel by Howard Fast was the first successfully filmed screenplay to feature after being blacklisted for ten years, with the support of Douglas going against studio rules. I mention this because the film demonstrates that shared level of solidarity amongst rebels against a corrupt system, giving some legitimacy to what we see in the film.
The story of Spartacus reverses the Jesus myth: instead of getting sold out by his followers and dying a on the cross, Spartacus is protected by his troops, who are prepared to endure crucifixion rather than reveal their leader. The narration foreshadows the rise of Christianity and the fall of the Roman Empire (which would not happen for about four more centuries), and this was forced upon by The Hays Code to make the movie look conservative. I do have a problem with the voiceover narration drawing comparisons to Christianity and the abolition of slavery because it adds a layer of subtext to a film set long before the birth and death of Christ and seems out of place in a society where Rome was still a pagan culture. What stops it from annoying me is that the transition from lowly slave to courageous leader and seeing how he affects the people around him is so well done and so effective that you are cheering for these rebels despite knowing that their endeavour is still doomed. The iconic scene where the captured slaves stand up and proclaim “I’m Spartacus!” is still an inspiring scene, beautifully shot and emotionally impacting, supporting those themes of fellowship and solidarity no matter what fate has in store for you.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://media.giphy.com/media/SEjdWnLUeFhRe/giphy.gif" alt="Related image" width="462" height="214" />
Despite its fairly standard plot, characters and thematic conceits, <em>Spartacus</em> is still a classical and entertaining epic. In fact, it’s this simplicity that inspiring how future film makers would bring to life period piece epics from <em>Dances with Wolves</em> to <em>Gladiator</em>, and those are just a few examples of this film’s legacy. The film conveys both the hopelessness and hope of Spartacus’ rebellion with sincerity and deft direction, resulting in a highly satisfying experience. �M�Gn� L ` �2gE� �
8��' 7� $ % JQ (infimum supremum
K � � � ���u뙝�e�KirkDouglasinheritopenclosedkirkdouglas���u뙝�e� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/KirkDouglas.png� attachmentimage/png�
G � � � ���v
���f
Olivierinheritopenclosedolivier���v
���f
�http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Olivier.png� attachmentimage/png�
N � � � ���v����f�Gracchus&Caesarinheritopenclosedgracchuscaesar���v����f� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GracchusCaesar.png� attachmentimage/png� F � ( � � � ���v����f� � M & +�Spartacusinheritclosedclosed162-revision-v1���v����f� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/17/162-revision-v1/� revision� E �� 0� � � ���vؙ��f�<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/spartacus/">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���vؙ��f� 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/17/54-revision-v1/� revision� - � 8 � � � ���}����m� � N & )�Cleopatrapublishclosedclosedcleopatra��?q ��?a http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=172� page�
I @ � � � ���|����l�Cleopatrainheritopenclosedcleopatra���|����l� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cleopatra.png� attachmentimage/png� F � H � � � ���}����m� � O & +�Cleopatrainheritclosedclosed172-revision-v1���}����m� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/18/172-revision-v1/� revision� E �� P� � � ���}����m�<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/spartacus/">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/cleopatra/">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���}����m� 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/18/54-revision-v1/� revision� F � X � � � ��挠���|� � P & +�Cleopatrainheritclosedclosed172-revision-v1��挠���|� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/19/172-revision-v1/� revision� - � ` � � � ���tҙ��d� � Q & '�Quo Vadispublishclosedclosedquo-vadis���v]���f] http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=179� page� F � h � � � ���tҙ��d� � R & &�Quo Vadisinheritclosedclosed179-revision-v1���tҙ��d� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/20/179-revision-v1/� revision� F � p � � � ���vB���fB � S & &�Quo Vadisinheritclosedclosed179-autosave-v1���vB���fB �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/20/179-autosave-v1/� revision�
H x � � � ���vT���fTQuoVadisinheritopenclosedquovadis���vT���fT �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/QuoVadis.png� attachmentimage/png� F � � � � � ���v]���f] � T & '�Quo Vadisinheritclosedclosed179-revision-v1���v]���f] �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/20/179-revision-v1/� revision� - � � � � � �������� � U & 1Ben-Hurpublishclosedclosedben-hur���, ��� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=185� page�
F � � � � ���S���uSBenHurinheritopenclosedbenhur���S���uS �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BenHur.png� attachmentimage/png�
D � � � � ���d���dCap6inheritopenclosedcap6���d���d �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap6.png� attachmentimage/png�
D � � � � ���ə���Cap1inheritopenclosedcap1���ə��� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap1.png� attachmentimage/png�
D � � � � ���
���
Cap3inheritopenclosedcap3���
���
�http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap3.png� attachmentimage/png�
D � � � � ���0���0Cap4inheritopenclosedcap4���0���0 �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap4.png� attachmentimage/png�
D � � � � ���]���]Cap5inheritopenclosedcap5���]���] �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap5.png� attachmentimage/png�
D � � � � ��������Cap2inheritopenclosedcap2�������� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap2.png� attachmentimage/png� F � � � � � �������� � V & 2.Ben-Hurinheritclosedclosed185-revision-v1�������� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/21/185-revision-v1/� revision� E �� �b � � ���*���*<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/spartacus/">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/cleopatra/">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/ben-hur/">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/quo-vadis/">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���*���* 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/21/54-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � �������� � W & 26Ben-Hurinheritclosedclosed185-revision-v1�������� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/21/185-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � �������� � X & 2;Ben-Hurinheritclosedclosed185-revision-v1�������� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/21/185-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ���+����� � Y & 0�Ben-Hurinheritclosedclosed185-autosave-v1���+����� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/21/185-autosave-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ���鶙��ٶ � Z & 4Ben-Hurinheritclosedclosed185-revision-v1���鶙��ٶ �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/21/185-revision-v1/� revision� - � � � � � ���ꙝ� � � [ & >�Gladiatorpublishclosedclosedgladiator���9���9 http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=201� page�
I � � � ���
����z�Gladiatorinheritopenclosedgladiator���
����z� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Gladiator.png� attachmentimage/png� F � � � � ���ꙝ� � � \ & ;Gladiatorinheritclosedclosed201-revision-v1���ꙝ� � �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/22/201-revision-v1/� revision� E Ɇ � � � ���H���H<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/spartacus/">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/cleopatra/">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/ben-hur/">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/quo-vadis/">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/gladiator/">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���H���H 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/22/54-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � ���9���9 � ] & >�Gladiatorinheritclosedclosed201-revision-v1���9���9 �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/22/201-revision-v1/� revision� - � � � � ��� ��|� � ^ & !The Vikingspublishclosedclosedthe-vikings��?p���?`� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=209� page�
J
( � � � ��� ș��{�TheVikingsinheritopenclosedthevikings��� ș��{� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TheVikings.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � 0ȅ � � ��� ��|� � _ & #]The Vikingsinheritclosedclosed209-revision-v1��� ��|� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/23/209-revision-v1/� revision� p,�)u g F*� 9! c�2g�Z� M�������� ߃,
� +���<img class="size-medium wp-image-163 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Poster-331x500.png" alt="" width="331" height="500" />
<em>Spartacus</em> is something of an outlier in Stanley Kubrick’s filmography; it’s more conventional and not as much inundated in his famous directorial style. While this is something of a conventional film compared to his later works, following the then popular trend of sword and sandal epics, it’s still a great achievement and a necessary success story that allowed Kubrick to go onto other projects. In addition to his distinctive direction, <em>Spartacus</em> thrives thanks to its tremendous scale, emotional resonance, well integrated visual metaphors, a great anchoring performance by Kirk Douglas, and memorable supporting actors as the duplicitous Roman senators.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-164" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SlavetoRome-500x223.png" alt="" width="500" height="223" />
In the 1st century BC, a proud and gifted slave to the corrupt Roman Republic named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is sentenced to fight as a gladiator for his rebellious behaviour. He is trained at a school run by the sycophantic Roman businessman Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov), and Spartacus is trained by Marcellus (Charles McGraw) to become a great fighter. Amid the abuse, Spartacus forms a quiet relationship with a serving woman named Varinia (Jean Simmons), whom he refuses to rape when she is sent to “entertain” him in his cell.
Batiatus receives a visit from the Roman senator Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier), who aims to become dictator of Rome. Crassus buys Varinia on a whim, and for the amusement of his companions arranges for Spartacus and three others to fight in pairs. When Spartacus is disarmed, his opponent, an African named Draba (Woody Strode), spares his life in a burst of compassion and attacks the Roman audience, but is killed by an arena guard and Crassus. The next day, Batiatus takes Varinia away to Crassus’s house in Rome. Enraged to breaking point, Spartacus kills Marcellus and their fight escalates into a riot. The gladiators overwhelm their guards and escape into the Italian countryside. Countless other slaves join the group, including a slave entertainer named Antoninus (Tony Curtis), and one of the new arrivals is Varinia, who escaped while being delivered to Crassus. Meanwhile, the Roman Senate becomes increasingly alarmed as Spartacus defeats the multiple armies it sends against him.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-165" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/KirkDouglas-500x224.png" alt="" width="500" height="224" />
Douglas gives an incredible performance as Spartacus, when at first he appears to lack dialogue and acts only through his eyes the emotion coming from him is overwhelming, and as the leader of the slaves’ rebellion he summons a lot of charisma and charm so that you believe he could hold this vast army of freed slaves together. The beautiful, elegant Simmons performs well as the resilient but spirited Varinia, who conveys a great deal of emotion and thought through her expressions and eyes like Douglas. The romance formed between them works really well, going from tense and uncertain when they first meet to very tender and endearing scenes up until the end. Ustinov’s challenge is the convincingly go from a shallow, cynical, contemptible slave-owner to one who starts to show more depth and emotional growth. The renowned Olivier gives an arrogant, chilling and cruel presence as Crassus, and despite his aged appearance you believe this man would always have his way no matter what. Charles Laughton lights up the scene as a scheming, witty yet surprisingly dignified populist Senator Gracchus, trading words with his rival senators with panache. The historical tension between Olivier and Laughton percolated soundly into their scenes together. Curtis shows a lot of repressed pain and loyalty as Antoninus, and provides some fine singing to the role. Despite his limited appearance, Strode captivates as the conflicted slave Draba, with the same level of subtle yet emotive facial acting of his peers. McGraw is particularly despicable as the slave master, and John Gavin gives an air of ambitiousness as the young Julius Caesar.
The battle scenes are shot with competent flourish and creatively use military tactics, with the chaos of war infused throughout the climax. The aftermath of battle is a vision of death and desolation stretching as far as the eye can see, and the strength of that image alone is enough to convey the tragedy of this loss. Kubrick filmed the battle scenes in a way that demonstrates the violence with solid emotion and a clinical sense of purpose, there is still a fair bit of blood and certainly more than a film of the 60s would have allowed. The frenetic gladiator riot is tense and engaging as you see barely armoured men take on heavily armed guards. However, the one to one struggles are arguably more tense and engaging. The first fight between Douglas and Strobe is remarkably tense for a scene that occurs very early in the film because of the believable friendship formed between these two men, after being built up by an earlier fight which they can only perceive through a peep hole, as they hear the sound of clashing metal and the gasp of a dying gladiator.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/spartacus-1960-pic-5.jpg" alt="Image result for spartacus 1960 battle scenes" width="500" height="227" />
Russell Metty’s cinematography captures the wide landscapes, demonstrative of the size and beauty of the landscapes and multitudinous hosts. The single point perspective shots and visual compositional shots would become trademark techniques Kubrick would use in later films, and to add depth and scale to both the intimate character moments and battle scenes.
The costume work is detailed and intricate for the Romans, and appropriately simple and drab for the liberated slaves. The set work ranges from very competent and professional to looking a touch bland at times, such as the very plain and generic looking senate house interior. Filming in Italian villages where the architecture looks as though it could pass for a Roman city allows Kubrick to gain a degree of authenticity; however I did notice some shots where the houses in the background looked far too modern for this setting. The matte paintings of Rome, the sea and a number of landscapes are well crafted, with some shots admittedly looking better than others.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-166" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Olivier-500x226.png" alt="" width="500" height="226" />
Alex North’s score is a versatile and excellent achievement. It’s appropriately bombastic and rousing, invoking the pomp and military might of Ancient Rome, and manages to tug at the heartstrings with plenty of soothing romantic melodies. In addition to matching the action scenes very well, the music compliments the expressions of the actors perfectly, telling the story far in a far more emotive way than if there were dialogue there.
While not the most interesting or indeed flawed of main characters, Spartacus’ appeal as a protagonist lies in his moral strength and inspirational character. Mercy is presented as a double edged sword in this film; Draba is killed for sparing Spartacus despite the order was to fight to the death. But the mercy Spartacus receives from Draba inspires him to ultimately resist and extend that back towards captured Romans being forced to fight to the death. He furthermore spares the life of a Roman general to tell the senate what has transpired, even though it would motivate the Senate to take further action against him. Mercy re-emerges in a much darker reflection of Spartacus’ fight with Draba near the end when he is force to fight and kill one of his friends and allies to spare them a long, painful death on the crucifix despite his friend’s equal insistence
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-167" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GracchusCaesar-500x225.png" alt="" width="500" height="225" />
Resistance against slavery and racism, classicism, free will and solidarity against oppression were very pertinent in the 1960’s and this film taps into that zeitgeist. We see men and women walking together in Spartacus’ group as equals, and a sense of fellowship shown among men of different race and peace within family units. Draba’s heroic sacrifice as the linchpin to the beginning of the rebellion took what was no doubt a serious risk in a film of this genre by showing a black man sacrificing himself in a way that would help motivate the main hero to action. Dalton Trumbo’s screenplay based on the novel by Howard Fast was the first successfully filmed screenplay to feature after being blacklisted for ten years, with the support of Douglas going against studio rules. I mention this because the film demonstrates that shared level of solidarity amongst rebels against a corrupt system, giving some legitimacy to what we see in the film.
The story of Spartacus reverses the Jesus myth: instead of getting sold out by his followers and dying a on the cross, Spartacus is protected by his troops, who are prepared to endure crucifixion rather than reveal their leader. The narration foreshadows the rise of Christianity and the fall of the Roman Empire (which would not happen for about four more centuries), and this was forced upon by The Hays Code to make the movie look conservative. I do have a problem with the voiceover narration drawing comparisons to Christianity and the abolition of slavery because it adds a layer of subtext to a film set long before the birth and death of Christ and seems out of place in a society where Rome was still a pagan culture. What stops it from annoying me is that the transition from lowly slave to courageous leader and seeing how he affects the people around him is so well done and so effective that you are cheering for these rebels despite knowing that their endeavour is still doomed. The iconic scene where the captured slaves stand up and proclaim “I’m Spartacus!” is still an inspiring scene, beautifully shot and emotionally impacting, supporting those themes of fellowship and solidarity no matter what fate has in store for you.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://media.giphy.com/media/SEjdWnLUeFhRe/giphy.gif" alt="Related image" width="462" height="214" />
Despite its fairly standard plot, characters and thematic conceits, <em>Spartacus</em> is still a classical and entertaining epic. In fact, it’s this simplicity that inspiring how future film makers would bring to life period piece epics from <em>Dances with Wolves</em> to <em>Gladiator</em>, and those are just a few examples of this film’s legacy. The film conveys both the hopelessness and hope of Spartacus’ rebellion with sincerity and deft direction, resulting in a highly satisfying experience. ߃,ݽ�� N�������� ߶{
� )�����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-173" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cleopatra-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
As one of the last of these period epics to be made in the golden age of Hollywood, <em>Cleopatra</em> was certainly a fine way to go out. Starring the incomparable Elizabeth Taylor as the titular queen, this romantic epic is a struggle between its ponderous weight and sumptuous vision of the ancient world bolstered by its magnetic cast. However, where it falters for me is its relatively light substance struggling to emerge through an inordinately paced but very visually arresting epic.
After the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC, where Julius Caesar (Rex Harrison) has defeated Pompey the Great in a brutal civil war for control of the Roman Republic, Pompey flees to Egypt, hoping to enlist the support of the young Pharaoh Ptolemy XIII (Richard O'Sullivan) and his sister Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor). Caesar follows him to Egypt, under the pretext of being named the executor of the will of their father, Ptolemy XII. Much to his dismay, Caesar is given Pompey’s head as a gift, as the highly manipulated pharaoh was convinced by his chief eunuch Pothinus (Gregoire Aslan) that this act would endear him to Caesar.
Caesar stays in one of the palaces along with his generals Agrippa (Andrew Kier) and Rufio (Martin Landau), where a slave named Apollodorus (Cesare Danova) brings him a gift. The suspicious Caesar unrolls the rug and finds Cleopatra herself concealed within. He is intrigued with her beauty and warm personality, and she convinces him to restore her throne from her younger brother, warning him that Ptolemy has surrounded the palace. To gain control of the harbour, Caesar orders the Egyptian fleet burned. The fire spreads to the city, destroying the famous Library of Alexandria to the fury of Cleopatra, but in the heat of their quarrel their passion for one another grows. The next day, Ptolemy’s offensive collapses and Caesar is in effective control of the kingdom. With Ptolemy and his court deposed, Cleopatra is crowned Queen of Egypt. The two scheme to follow in the footsteps of Alexander the Great to rule the known world, and together have a son named Caesarion whom Caesar declares as his heir to both Rome and Egypt.
Appearing twenty minutes into her own film, Taylor is the life blood of the film; she’s sly, brash, elegant and majestic, filling every single scene she appears in with sensual grace, even when she has to let loose and her shouts fill the palace halls. Harrison is highly charismatic and entertaining as Caesar, and conveys the taciturn wit of a proud, tactical man. Coming into his own in the second half of the film, Richard Burton has an air of authority and dry dignity to his Mark Antony, and when he explodes into fury and passion it’s a powerful sight to behold. Gwen Watford has an emotional and sombre turn as Calpurnia, the spurned wife of Caesar. Roddy McDowall’s taciturn Octavian is suitably cold and ambitious, and despite having less screen time than Burton and Harrison he comes into his own with a masterful, savage performance. McDowall and Burton engage in the same levels of political intrigue and verbal sparring seen in <em>Spartacus</em>. Landau and Kier are dependable as loyal and strong Roman Generals. Jean Marsh’s brief turn as Octavia has an understated air of tragedy as the Roman noblewoman spurned by Antony. O’Sullivan is fittingly arrogant and bratty as the young Ptolemy XIII, same with Aslan as the grovelling character of Pothinus, making for a fine contrast against Cleopatra. Kenneth Haigh conveys a respectful and just Brutus as a man thrust into infamy by his peers, and Danova puts in a lot of character as the loyal servant to Cleopatra.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/CleopatraAlexandriaBaja.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra alexandria" width="820" height="364" />
The realization of the city of Alexandria is remarkable, from the sprawling marketplaces, palace, temples and famous lighthouse. As one of the most expensive movies of its time, it certainly appears that every cent is on screen. This is one of the most immersive period settings I’ve seen. The sheer number and variety to the sets, filled with well adorned extras is a prominent feather in this film’s cap. Cleopatra’s arrival into Rome is a wondrous display of colour, vitality and the excess of Antiquity. The matte paintings and miniatures used to widen the city vistas still look great today. As a demonstration of opulence, the elaborate, nine-minute parade of heralds, chariots, dancers, soldiers and musicians passes by, culminating in Cleopatra’s entrance on a towering replica of a sphinx is still a sight to behold for its incredible scope.
The costumes and suits of armour are, mostly, up to a very high standard. With over sixty costumes allocated to Ms Taylor’s wardrobe, one can certainly admire the breadth of material befitting a Pharaoh of Egypt. I’m not wholly fond of Caesar’s golden breastplate as it looks rather cheap compared to his militaristic armour and imperial purple robes of state. The Roman shields are overdesigned in some scenes and don’t gel with the rest of the scene. The use of painted Roman frescoes to thread the events together is a stylistically appropriate device, and pays tribute to the artistic styles of the period.
The cinematography by Leon Shamroy, capturing the vast vistas of the Egyptian desert and Alexandria, is beautiful to behold. The battle scenes are elaborate but not as epic in scope, focusing on a few battalions at a time. Even in unexciting scenes we have a huge amount of things to see within the frame, especially in exterior scenes where Cleopatra is welcomed in Rome and a great procession is held in her honour. The action scenes, though there are not that many in the film, are well shot and well-choreographed. The breaking of the Siege of Alexandria is a fine demonstration of the Roman army. The Battle of Actium is another epic treat of military set pieces, with the model ships and optical effects shots blending well with the real ships. All this mayhem and death is contrasted by the shots of Antony despairingly giving into drink.
At nearly four hours long, pacing issues are abound. There is no doubt of this film’s epic scope but it just feels a tad excessive in showing off every slow yet visually impressive scene, and as sluggish as the slaves dragging the sphynx replica into Rome.
Alex North’s score takes on a more exotic flair, while still largely based on heavy use of strings and trumpets, it still retains enough of an Ancient Egyptian sound to it. There is still a lot of the militaristic drum beats and trumpets, as well as more haunting moments. It gets particularly dark and disturbing as Cleopatra witnesses the murder of Caesar by the senate.
The dialogue has a natural sounding Shakespearean tinge to it, with plenty of character exchanging snarky remarks or bursting with theatrical uproar. Unlike many historical epics where the larger than life characters seem unapproachable, there's a refreshing naturalness to the portrayals in this outing which make Cleopatra rather improbably accessible, given its setting and opulence. All three main characters are portrayed as scheming, power-hungry politicians and warlords, seeking only personal gain with the masses as helpless or enamoured spectators and nothing more. This is matched only by the equally duplicitous antagonist Octavian. But the charisma of the actors and the fact that they themselves are easily undone in the end, revealing their humanity when they’re at their weakest, makes them more human in our eyes.
Amidst Cleopatra’s struggle to retain her power and the independence of her kingdom against the juggernaut of Roman power is the love she bears for two of Rome’s greatest men that drives this story on. We see a dynamic change of dynamics between the two men with the queen of Egypt; Cleopatra and Caesar do not get along at first when their enormous egos clash, and the jives and joking reminiscent of a quarrelling father and daughter gradually matures into something more classy and palatable despite the age difference. Both have poetic and shrewd minds, so it makes sense that they gravitate towards one another and their chemistry has both tension and sensuality to them. Her relationship with Anthony is more bitter and filled with ire, but also passion and carnal attraction. While Antony is not Caesar's intellectual equal it makes him feel more out of his depth in the political world. He himself confesses that he is more a soldier than a leader. Despite his disciplined exterior, it is illustrated that Antony is more susceptible to his emotions and lust than Caesar, and that jealousy of his old master and friend helps to fuel his inevitable downfall.
The contrast between the two empires helps to drive the turbulent relationships between Cleopatra and her Roman suitors, and the destruction caused by such liaisons. At first, she is resentful of the idea of “Roman greatness built upon Egyptian greatness” as her city burns due to Caesar’s negligence. Divine comparisons and hypocrisy is touched on when cold Roman logic clashes against Egyptian spirituality, despite Caesar’s own claim of descent from a Roman goddess as Cleopatra claims to be the reincarnation of Isis. Over time, she starts to appreciate the idea that there is more to the world than just her beloved Egypt. It’s fitting that when Caesar is stabbed, he’s next to the memorial of Pompey, as it was in history, and serves as a divine vengeance for the fallen Pompey. The sense of despair and anarchy that sweeps Rome at Caesar’s funeral is of a frenetic sort, while the sombreness of the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra are more melancholic and resigned, reflective of the fates they chose versus the one Caesar fell to.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://nowreviewing.com/CleoTomb.jpg" alt="Related image" width="600" height="273" />
Compared to other epics that came before it, <em>Cleopatra</em> tries to be far more ambitious than it needed to be. In doing, the film becomes tedious in a few areas; however the performances should keep you involved. Ultimately, Cleopatra is a beautifully shot and well written romantic epic about three would-be empire builders and the world turning about to conquer them before they could claim it for themselves. ߶{(�N O�������� ��n
� +���<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-173" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cleopatra-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
As one of the last of these period epics to be made in the golden age of Hollywood, <em>Cleopatra</em> was certainly a fine way to go out. Starring the incomparable Elizabeth Taylor as the titular queen, this romantic epic is a struggle between its ponderous weight and sumptuous vision of the ancient world bolstered by its magnetic cast. However, where it falters for me is its relatively light substance struggling to emerge through an inordinately paced but very visually arresting epic.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.rockshockpop.com/screencaps/Cleopatra/06-1.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
After the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC, where Julius Caesar (Rex Harrison) has defeated Pompey the Great in a brutal civil war for control of the Roman Republic, Pompey flees to Egypt, hoping to enlist the support of the young Pharaoh Ptolemy XIII (Richard O'Sullivan) and his sister Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor). Caesar follows him to Egypt, under the pretext of being named the executor of the will of their father, Ptolemy XII. Much to his dismay, Caesar is given Pompey’s head as a gift, as the highly manipulated pharaoh was convinced by his chief eunuch Pothinus (Gregoire Aslan) that this act would endear him to Caesar.
Caesar stays in one of the palaces along with his generals Agrippa (Andrew Kier) and Rufio (Martin Landau), where a slave named Apollodorus (Cesare Danova) brings him a gift. The suspicious Caesar unrolls the rug and finds Cleopatra herself concealed within. He is intrigued with her beauty and warm personality, and she convinces him to restore her throne from her younger brother, warning him that Ptolemy has surrounded the palace. To gain control of the harbour, Caesar orders the Egyptian fleet burned. The fire spreads to the city, destroying the famous Library of Alexandria to the fury of Cleopatra, but in the heat of their quarrel their passion for one another grows. The next day, Ptolemy’s offensive collapses and Caesar is in effective control of the kingdom. With Ptolemy and his court deposed, Cleopatra is crowned Queen of Egypt. The two scheme to follow in the footsteps of Alexander the Great to rule the known world, and together have a son named Caesarion whom Caesar declares as his heir to both Rome and Egypt.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.rockshockpop.com/screencaps/Cleopatra/09-1.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
Appearing twenty minutes into her own film, Taylor is the life blood of the film; she’s sly, brash, elegant and majestic, filling every single scene she appears in with sensual grace, even when she has to let loose and her shouts fill the palace halls. Harrison is highly charismatic and entertaining as Caesar, and conveys the taciturn wit of a proud, tactical man. Coming into his own in the second half of the film, Richard Burton has an air of authority and dry dignity to his Mark Antony, and when he explodes into fury and passion it’s a powerful sight to behold. Gwen Watford has an emotional and sombre turn as Calpurnia, the spurned wife of Caesar. Roddy McDowall’s taciturn Octavian is suitably cold and ambitious, and despite having less screen time than Burton and Harrison he comes into his own with a masterful, savage performance. McDowall and Burton engage in the same levels of political intrigue and verbal sparring seen in <em>Spartacus</em>. Landau and Kier are dependable as loyal and strong Roman Generals. Jean Marsh’s brief turn as Octavia has an understated air of tragedy as the Roman noblewoman spurned by Antony. O’Sullivan is fittingly arrogant and bratty as the young Ptolemy XIII, same with Aslan as the grovelling character of Pothinus, making for a fine contrast against Cleopatra. Kenneth Haigh conveys a respectful and just Brutus as a man thrust into infamy by his peers, and Danova puts in a lot of character as the loyal servant to Cleopatra.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/CleopatraAlexandriaBaja.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra alexandria" width="820" height="364" />
The realization of the city of Alexandria is remarkable, from the sprawling marketplaces, palace, temples and famous lighthouse. As one of the most expensive movies of its time, it certainly appears that every cent is on screen. This is one of the most immersive period settings I’ve seen. The sheer number and variety to the sets, filled with well adorned extras is a prominent feather in this film’s cap. Cleopatra’s arrival into Rome is a wondrous display of colour, vitality and the excess of Antiquity. The matte paintings and miniatures used to widen the city vistas still look great today. As a demonstration of opulence, the elaborate, nine-minute parade of heralds, chariots, dancers, soldiers and musicians passes by, culminating in Cleopatra’s entrance on a towering replica of a sphinx is still a sight to behold for its incredible scope.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://caps.pictures/196/3-cleopatra/full/cleopatra-movie-screencaps.com-1271.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
The costumes and suits of armour are, mostly, up to a very high standard. With over sixty costumes allocated to Ms Taylor’s wardrobe, one can certainly admire the breadth of material befitting a Pharaoh of Egypt. I’m not wholly fond of Caesar’s golden breastplate as it looks rather cheap compared to his militaristic armour and imperial purple robes of state. The Roman shields are overdesigned in some scenes and don’t gel with the rest of the scene. The use of painted Roman frescoes to thread the events together is a stylistically appropriate device, and pays tribute to the artistic styles of the period.
The cinematography by Leon Shamroy, capturing the vast vistas of the Egyptian desert and Alexandria, is beautiful to behold. The battle scenes are elaborate but not as epic in scope, focusing on a few battalions at a time. Even in unexciting scenes we have a huge amount of things to see within the frame, especially in exterior scenes where Cleopatra is welcomed in Rome and a great procession is held in her honour. The action scenes, though there are not that many in the film, are well shot and well-choreographed. The breaking of the Siege of Alexandria is a fine demonstration of the Roman army. The Battle of Actium is another epic treat of military set pieces, with the model ships and optical effects shots blending well with the real ships. All this mayhem and death is contrasted by the shots of Antony despairingly giving into drink.
At nearly four hours long, pacing issues are abound. There is no doubt of this film’s epic scope but it just feels a tad excessive in showing off every slow yet visually impressive scene, and as sluggish as the slaves dragging the sphynx replica into Rome.
Alex North’s score takes on a more exotic flair, while still largely based on heavy use of strings and trumpets, it still retains enough of an Ancient Egyptian sound to it. There is still a lot of the militaristic drum beats and trumpets, as well as more haunting moments. It gets particularly dark and disturbing as Cleopatra witnesses the murder of Caesar by the senate.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://ferdyonfilms.com/Cleo12.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra 1963 rome" width="576" height="261" />
The dialogue has a natural sounding Shakespearean tinge to it, with plenty of character exchanging snarky remarks or bursting with theatrical uproar. Unlike many historical epics where the larger than life characters seem unapproachable, there's a refreshing naturalness to the portrayals in this outing which make Cleopatra rather improbably accessible, given its setting and opulence. All three main characters are portrayed as scheming, power-hungry politicians and warlords, seeking only personal gain with the masses as helpless or enamoured spectators and nothing more. This is matched only by the equally duplicitous antagonist Octavian. But the charisma of the actors and the fact that they themselves are easily undone in the end, revealing their humanity when they’re at their weakest, makes them more human in our eyes.
Amidst Cleopatra’s struggle to retain her power and the independence of her kingdom against the juggernaut of Roman power is the love she bears for two of Rome’s greatest men that drives this story on. We see a dynamic change of dynamics between the two men with the queen of Egypt; Cleopatra and Caesar do not get along at first when their enormous egos clash, and the jives and joking reminiscent of a quarrelling father and daughter gradually matures into something more classy and palatable despite the age difference. Both have poetic and shrewd minds, so it makes sense that they gravitate towards one another and their chemistry has both tension and sensuality to them. Her relationship with Anthony is more bitter and filled with ire, but also passion and carnal attraction. While Antony is not Caesar's intellectual equal it makes him feel more out of his depth in the political world. He himself confesses that he is more a soldier than a leader. Despite his disciplined exterior, it is illustrated that Antony is more susceptible to his emotions and lust than Caesar, and that jealousy of his old master and friend helps to fuel his inevitable downfall.
The contrast between the two empires helps to drive the turbulent relationships between Cleopatra and her Roman suitors, and the destruction caused by such liaisons. At first, she is resentful of the idea of “Roman greatness built upon Egyptian greatness” as her city burns due to Caesar’s negligence. Divine comparisons and hypocrisy is touched on when cold Roman logic clashes against Egyptian spirituality, despite Caesar’s own claim of descent from a Roman goddess as Cleopatra claims to be the reincarnation of Isis. Over time, she starts to appreciate the idea that there is more to the world than just her beloved Egypt. It’s fitting that when Caesar is stabbed, he’s next to the memorial of Pompey, as it was in history, and serves as a divine vengeance for the fallen Pompey. The sense of despair and anarchy that sweeps Rome at Caesar’s funeral is of a frenetic sort, while the sombreness of the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra are more melancholic and resigned, reflective of the fates they chose versus the one Caesar fell to.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://nowreviewing.com/CleoTomb.jpg" alt="Related image" width="600" height="273" />
Compared to other epics that came before it, <em>Cleopatra</em> tries to be far too ambitious than it needed to be. In doing, the film becomes tedious in a few areas; however the performances should keep you involved. Ultimately, Cleopatra is a beautifully shot and well written romantic epic about three would-be empire builders and the world turning about to conquer them before they could claim it for themselves. ��n�IY� P�������� � �
� +���<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-173" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cleopatra-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
As one of the last of these period epics to be made in the golden age of Hollywood, <em>Cleopatra</em> was certainly a fine way to go out. Starring the incomparable Elizabeth Taylor as the titular queen, this romantic epic is a struggle between its ponderous weight and sumptuous vision of the ancient world bolstered by its magnetic cast. However, where it falters for me is its relatively light substance struggling to emerge through an inordinately paced but very visually arresting epic.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.rockshockpop.com/screencaps/Cleopatra/06-1.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
After the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC, where Julius Caesar (Rex Harrison) has defeated Pompey the Great in a brutal civil war for control of the Roman Republic, Pompey flees to Egypt, hoping to enlist the support of the young Pharaoh Ptolemy XIII (Richard O'Sullivan) and his sister Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor). Caesar follows him to Egypt, under the pretext of being named the executor of the will of their father, Ptolemy XII. Much to his dismay, Caesar is given Pompey’s head as a gift, as the highly manipulated pharaoh was convinced by his chief eunuch Pothinus (Gregoire Aslan) that this act would endear him to Caesar.
Caesar stays in one of the palaces along with his generals Agrippa (Andrew Kier) and Rufio (Martin Landau), where a slave named Apollodorus (Cesare Danova) brings him a gift. The suspicious Caesar unrolls the rug and finds Cleopatra herself concealed within. He is intrigued with her beauty and warm personality, and she convinces him to restore her throne from her younger brother, warning him that Ptolemy has surrounded the palace. To gain control of the harbour, Caesar orders the Egyptian fleet burned. The fire spreads to the city, destroying the famous Library of Alexandria to the fury of Cleopatra, but in the heat of their quarrel their passion for one another grows. The next day, Ptolemy’s offensive collapses and Caesar is in effective control of the kingdom. With Ptolemy and his court deposed, Cleopatra is crowned Queen of Egypt. The two scheme to follow in the footsteps of Alexander the Great to rule the known world, and together have a son named Caesarion whom Caesar declares as his heir to both Rome and Egypt.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.rockshockpop.com/screencaps/Cleopatra/09-1.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
Appearing twenty minutes into her own film, Taylor is the life blood of the film; she’s sly, brash, elegant and majestic, filling every single scene she appears in with sensual grace, even when she has to let loose and her shouts fill the palace halls. Harrison is highly charismatic and entertaining as Caesar, and conveys the taciturn wit of a proud, tactical man. Coming into his own in the second half of the film, Richard Burton has an air of authority and dry dignity to his Mark Antony, and when he explodes into fury and passion it’s a powerful sight to behold. Gwen Watford has an emotional and sombre turn as Calpurnia, the spurned wife of Caesar. Roddy McDowall’s taciturn Octavian is suitably cold and ambitious, and despite having less screen time than Burton and Harrison he comes into his own with a masterful, savage performance. McDowall and Burton engage in the same levels of political intrigue and verbal sparring seen in <em>Spartacus</em>. Landau and Kier are dependable as loyal and strong Roman Generals. Jean Marsh’s brief turn as Octavia has an understated air of tragedy as the Roman noblewoman spurned by Antony. O’Sullivan is fittingly arrogant and bratty as the young Ptolemy XIII, same with Aslan as the grovelling character of Pothinus, making for a fine contrast against Cleopatra. Kenneth Haigh conveys a respectful and just Brutus as a man thrust into infamy by his peers, and Danova puts in a lot of character as the loyal servant to Cleopatra.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/CleopatraAlexandriaBaja.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra alexandria" width="820" height="364" />
The realization of the city of Alexandria is remarkable, from the sprawling marketplaces, palace, temples and famous lighthouse. As one of the most expensive movies of its time, it certainly appears that every cent is on screen. This is one of the most immersive period settings I’ve seen. The sheer number and variety to the sets, filled with well adorned extras is a prominent feather in this film’s cap. Cleopatra’s arrival into Rome is a wondrous display of colour, vitality and the excess of Antiquity. The matte paintings and miniatures used to widen the city vistas still look great today. As a demonstration of opulence, the elaborate, nine-minute parade of heralds, chariots, dancers, soldiers and musicians passes by, culminating in Cleopatra’s entrance on a towering replica of a sphinx is still a sight to behold for its incredible scope.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://caps.pictures/196/3-cleopatra/full/cleopatra-movie-screencaps.com-1271.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
The costumes and suits of armour are, mostly, up to a very high standard. With over sixty costumes allocated to Ms Taylor’s wardrobe, one can certainly admire the breadth of material befitting a Pharaoh of Egypt. I’m not wholly fond of Caesar’s golden breastplate as it looks rather cheap compared to his militaristic armour and imperial purple robes of state. The Roman shields are overdesigned in some scenes and don’t gel with the rest of the scene. The use of painted Roman frescoes to thread the events together is a stylistically appropriate device, and pays tribute to the artistic styles of the period.
The cinematography by Leon Shamroy, capturing the vast vistas of the Egyptian desert and Alexandria, is beautiful to behold. The battle scenes are elaborate but not as epic in scope, focusing on a few battalions at a time. Even in unexciting scenes we have a huge amount of things to see within the frame, especially in exterior scenes where Cleopatra is welcomed in Rome and a great procession is held in her honour. The action scenes, though there are not that many in the film, are well shot and well-choreographed. The breaking of the Siege of Alexandria is a fine demonstration of the Roman army. The Battle of Actium is another epic treat of military set pieces, with the model ships and optical effects shots blending well with the real ships. All this mayhem and death is contrasted by the shots of Antony despairingly giving into drink.
At nearly four hours long, pacing issues are abound. There is no doubt of this film’s epic scope but it just feels a tad excessive in showing off every slow yet visually impressive scene, and as sluggish as the slaves dragging the sphynx replica into Rome.
Alex North’s score takes on a more exotic flair, while still largely based on heavy use of strings and trumpets, it still retains enough of an Ancient Egyptian sound to it. There is still a lot of the militaristic drum beats and trumpets, as well as more haunting moments. It gets particularly dark and disturbing as Cleopatra witnesses the murder of Caesar by the senate.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://ferdyonfilms.com/Cleo12.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra 1963 rome" width="576" height="261" />
The dialogue has a natural sounding Shakespearean tinge to it, with plenty of character exchanging snarky remarks or bursting with theatrical uproar. Unlike many historical epics where the larger than life characters seem unapproachable, there's a refreshing naturalness to the portrayals in this outing which make Cleopatra rather improbably accessible, given its setting and opulence. All three main characters are portrayed as scheming, power-hungry politicians and warlords, seeking only personal gain with the masses as helpless or enamoured spectators and nothing more. This is matched only by the equally duplicitous antagonist Octavian. But the charisma of the actors and the fact that they themselves are easily undone in the end, revealing their humanity when they’re at their weakest, makes them more human in our eyes.
Amidst Cleopatra’s struggle to retain her power and the independence of her kingdom against the juggernaut of Roman power is the love she bears for two of Rome’s greatest men that drives this story on. We see a dynamic change of dynamics between the two men with the queen of Egypt; Cleopatra and Caesar do not get along at first when their enormous egos clash, and the jives and joking reminiscent of a quarrelling father and daughter gradually matures into something more classy and palatable despite the age difference. Both have poetic and shrewd minds, so it makes sense that they gravitate towards one another and their chemistry has both tension and sensuality to them. Her relationship with Anthony is more bitter and filled with ire, but also passion and carnal attraction. While Antony is not Caesar's intellectual equal it makes him feel more out of his depth in the political world. He himself confesses that he is more a soldier than a leader. Despite his disciplined exterior, it is illustrated that Antony is more susceptible to his emotions and lust than Caesar, and that jealousy of his old master and friend helps to fuel his inevitable downfall.
The contrast between the two empires helps to drive the turbulent relationships between Cleopatra and her Roman suitors, and the destruction caused by such liaisons. At first, she is resentful of the idea of “Roman greatness built upon Egyptian greatness” as her city burns due to Caesar’s negligence. Divine comparisons and hypocrisy is touched on when cold Roman logic clashes against Egyptian spirituality, despite Caesar’s own claim of descent from a Roman goddess as Cleopatra claims to be the reincarnation of Isis. Over time, she starts to appreciate the idea that there is more to the world than just her beloved Egypt. It’s fitting that when Caesar is stabbed, he’s next to the memorial of Pompey, as it was in history, and serves as a divine vengeance for the fallen Pompey. The sense of despair and anarchy that sweeps Rome at Caesar’s funeral is of a frenetic sort, while the sombreness of the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra are more melancholic and resigned, reflective of the fates they chose versus the one Caesar fell to.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://nowreviewing.com/CleoTomb.jpg" alt="Related image" width="600" height="273" />
Compared to other epics that came before it, <em>Cleopatra</em> tries to be far more ambitious than it needed to be. In doing, the film becomes tedious in a few areas; however the performances should keep you involved. Ultimately, Cleopatra is a beautifully shot and well written romantic epic about three would-be empire builders and the world turning about to conquer them before they could claim it for themselves. � ��*�� Q�������� �F�
� '�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-183 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/QuoVadis-333x500.png" alt="" width="333" height="500" />
Back in 1951, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer was on the verge of bankruptcy, and these days the film that was truly responsible for saving the studio and helping to usher in the sword and sandal epic. Mervyn LeRoy’s <em>Quo Vadis</em> resonated well with audiences in the fifties, but today it does feel somewhat lacking and old fashioned enough to the point where it doesn’t retain the levels of entertainment that the likes of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>,<em> Spartacus</em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em> have retained over the decades.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-05.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="524" height="393" />
Roman military commander, Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor), returns to the capital from the wars and reunites with his senator uncle, Gaius Petronius (Leo Genn). He falls in love with a devout Christian, Lygia (Deborah Kerr), and slowly becomes intrigued by her religion. Their love story is told against the broader historical background of early Christianity and its persecution by Nero (Peter Ustinov). Though she grew up Roman as the adopted daughter of a retired general, Aulus Plautius (Felix Aylmer), Lygia is technically a hostage of Rome. Marcus persuades Nero to give her to him for services rendered. Lygia resents this, but still falls in love with Marcus, however he cannot fathom the depths or meaning of her faith. Meanwhile, Nero’s ambitions become increasingly insane. When he burns Rome to build a new one in its place, Empress Poppaea (Patricia Laffan) suggests throwing the blame on the Christians to placate the Roman mob. Marcus tries to save Lygia and her family, but Nero captures them and all the Christians, condemning them to be killed in the arena.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-02.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="524" height="393" />
Taylor makes for a strong, good looking lead, but is rather wooden in comparison to the supporting cast. Kerr is charming and emotionally driven as Lygia but she does show a fitting level of resistance to Marcus’ boorish attitude. The romance is of the old fashioned, somewhat plodding variety that doesn’t hold the attention of modern tastes. Ustinov is fun and theatrical as the capricious, effeminate and self-absorbed emperor, which makes his acts of evil and insanity all he more shocking, and because he receives more screen time than our leads he keeps the film’s energy up. Genn is crafty and relatively likable as the wry senator Petronius, managing to garner a few scene stealing scenes. Finlay Currie conveys the calm defiance and hopefulness of Peter the Apostle, and Abraham Sofaer as Paul has a soothing quality to their voice and a dignified bearing. Buddy Baer acquits himself well as the strong, stoic Ursus, pulling off his feats of strength to great effect. Laffan is a despicable and sly as Empress Poppaea, and gets to be as theatrical as Nero does on occasion. Ralph Truman is intimidating and loathsome as Tigellinus. Marina Berti as the slave girl Eunice has a gentle innocence to her. Other supporting roles provided by Aylmer and Nicholas Hannen as Seneca play their parts well.
As one of the first films to feature a cast our thousands and an epic production design to match, <em>Quo Vadis</em> does a great job in framing the enormity of Rome and the opulence of its ruling class. Without the level of detail put into the design of 1<sup>st</sup> century Rome espoused by this film, thus inspiring many examples to follow, the sword and sandal genre wouldn’t have taken off as it did. The costumes, of which thirty thousand were commissioned for this film, are varied, colourful and appealing, and convey the social status of the characters well. However, the armour and weapons are rather fake-looking and anachronistic compared to later films in this genre. What little sword play there is isn’t very well shot or directed, but since its flawed presentation is fortunately brief.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tw5hXrbf1kg/TJKlFS-4v7I/AAAAAAAACD0/2RKlJMgA85M/s1600/Quo+Vadis7.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis rome burns" width="553" height="393" />
As far as standout sequences go, the burning of Rome, both from a distance and on a ground level is a great achievement, and channels the hellish desperation and panic of that terrible disaster. The Roman arena is a well realized combination of sets and matte paintings, and lions beset upon the singing Christians is still an effective scene due to the build-up and callousness of their captors and onlookers, and the despair of their fellow prisoners. For the climax, the battle between the bull and the giant Ursus and its outcome is all done in camera and incredible to behold.
The cinematography, though somewhat hindered by the 1.37:1 aspect ratio, makes effective use of as much of the setting as possible. With the proliferation of technicolour, the whole film looks very pleasing to the eyes. The film is steeped in that sense of 1950s camp that also permeated <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. Being filmed in the Italian countryside itself with its cypresses, hills and fields offers for some lovely natural vistas and an extra level of attempted authenticity, but a sharp eye will probably notice the pylon lines in the distance.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-03.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="537" height="393" />
While undoubtedly impressive for the time, modern eyes may spot lots of obvious blue-screening, particularly during the chariot battle as Marcus hastens back to Rome. The sequence is still fast paced and exciting, but the quality of the spliced footage is still what it is. Also the backdrop for the burning red sky is clearly a large painted curtain. This is one area where mate paintings could have benefitted it. I have praised many matte paintings over this series, and while this is an older film than most I’ve looked at this does have more evident matte paintings than others. Some of the better ones are within Rome itself, but they still appear the most dated out of all the films I’ve seen in this genre so far.
Miklós Rózsa turns out another top rate score, while this one is not as refined and touching as his score for <em>Ben-Hur</em>, the choir singing “Quo Vadis” and the triumph march are standout pieces. Some tracks do come across as melodramatic and out of place, however.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-06.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="554" height="393" />
Its length and lingering over extensive set pieces such as the fire of Rome or monologue scenes such as those with Peter the Apostle do make the film drag. Much of the dialogue has that old fashioned style of diction and delivery, and while I expected this film to feel dated this was an area where the film felt too ponderous for me to enjoy fully.
While later films like <em>Cleopatra</em> would infuse humanity in power hungry warlords and despots, <em>Quo Vadis</em> is barefaced in the depiction of the higher ups, from the Emperor and Empress to their senators and captain of the Praetorian Guard are vile manipulators and worthy of the evil fate that ultimately seizes them. Singing is frequently contrasted by the lone tone-deaf caterwauling of Nero against the harmonious, unified singing of the Christians. Furthermore, Nero’s pride at his own singing abilities (or lack thereof) is contrasted by the condemned Christians who only sing as a final swansong before death. As such, the morality of this setting is of a black and white nature, which dilutes the character of Rome itself.
In terms of smaller, incidental flaws, it does strike me as odd that Petronius is uncle to Marcus, since Genn is only six years older than Taylor, and so it seems odd that they didn’t cast an older actor to play Marcus’ uncle. There are a number of brief but very melodramatic moments, such as the slave girl Eunice kissing a bust of her kind master and lover Petronius.
As far as themes go, the film tries to dig into the pagan and Christian conflicts and relations within Rome, and the possibility of unification by faith and virtue rather than conquest and subjugation. The film skirts the line of portraying Christians as virtuous and just and all Roman pagans as immoral men by granting Nero more scenes of pure villainy that make the people of Rome, of all faiths, the victims in his megalomania. Marcus starts off as arrogant and ruthless but showing a softer side to him that develops as he himself is changed by Lygia and the Christians, and does become more noble and self-sacrificing while still essentially Roman. The framing of Marcus as a boorish and sexist soldier, though expected of this character, puts him at a distance with the audience for much of the film. The transition of a man of action to becoming a man of thought and belief is a gradual one, and ultimately he doesn’t have as much influence on the progression of the plot as Nero does.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tw5hXrbf1kg/TJKlFhte78I/AAAAAAAACD4/lrmLwoweb2Y/s1600/Quo+Vadis8.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis arena" width="553" height="393" />
As a showcase for the Roman world in all its decadent glory in eye-popping technicolour, <em>Quo Vadis </em>is a triumph. But on the whole, it passes for a decent period drama held together by its ambitious technicolour visuals and standout performances from Ustinov, Genn and Laffan. I’d only really recommend this to film fans that have cut their teeth on more famous sword and sandal classics and purveyors of 50’s cinema, but this one doesn’t really hold up. �F���� R�������� �p'
� &����Back in 1951, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer was on the verge of bankruptcy, and these days the film that was truly responsible for saving the studio and helping to usher in the sword and sandal epic. Mervyn LeRoy’s <em>Quo Vadis</em> resonated well with audiences in the fifties, but today it does feel somewhat lacking and old fashioned enough to the point where it doesn’t retain the levels of entertainment that the likes of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>,<em> Spartacus</em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em> have retained over the decades.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-05.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="524" height="393" />
Roman military commander, Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor), returns to the capital from the wars and reunites with his senator uncle, Gaius Petronius (Leo Genn). He falls in love with a devout Christian, Lygia (Deborah Kerr), and slowly becomes intrigued by her religion. Their love story is told against the broader historical background of early Christianity and its persecution by Nero (Peter Ustinov). Though she grew up Roman as the adopted daughter of a retired general, Aulus Plautius (Felix Aylmer), Lygia is technically a hostage of Rome. Marcus persuades Nero to give her to him for services rendered. Lygia resents this, but still falls in love with Marcus, however he cannot fathom the depths or meaning of her faith. Meanwhile, Nero’s ambitions become increasingly insane. When he burns Rome to build a new one in its place, Empress Poppaea (Patricia Laffan) suggests throwing the blame on the Christians to placate the Roman mob. Marcus tries to save Lygia and her family, but Nero captures them and all the Christians, condemning them to be killed in the arena.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-02.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="524" height="393" />
Taylor makes for a strong, good looking lead, but is rather wooden in comparison to the supporting cast. Kerr is charming and emotionally driven as Lygia but she does show a fitting level of resistance to Marcus’ boorish attitude. The romance is of the old fashioned, somewhat plodding variety that doesn’t hold the attention of modern tastes. Ustinov is fun and theatrical as the capricious, effeminate and self-absorbed emperor, which makes his acts of evil and insanity all he more shocking, and because he receives more screen time than our leads he keeps the film’s energy up. Genn is crafty and relatively likable as the wry senator Petronius, managing to garner a few scene stealing scenes. Finlay Currie conveys the calm defiance and hopefulness of Peter the Apostle, and Abraham Sofaer as Paul has a soothing quality to their voice and a dignified bearing. Buddy Baer acquits himself well as the strong, stoic Ursus, pulling off his feats of strength to great effect. Laffan is a despicable and sly as Empress Poppaea, and gets to be as theatrical as Nero does on occasion. Ralph Truman is intimidating and loathsome as Tigellinus. Marina Berti as the slave girl Eunice has a gentle innocence to her. Other supporting roles provided by Aylmer and Nicholas Hannen as Seneca play their parts well.
As one of the first films to feature a cast our thousands and an epic production design to match, <em>Quo Vadis</em> does a great job in framing the enormity of Rome and the opulence of its ruling class. Without the level of detail put into the design of 1<sup>st</sup> century Rome espoused by this film, thus inspiring many examples to follow, the sword and sandal genre wouldn’t have taken off as it did. The costumes, of which thirty thousand were commissioned for this film, are varied, colourful and appealing, and convey the social status of the characters well. However, the armour and weapons are rather fake-looking and anachronistic compared to later films in this genre. What little sword play there is isn’t very well shot or directed, but since its flawed presentation is fortunately brief.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tw5hXrbf1kg/TJKlFS-4v7I/AAAAAAAACD0/2RKlJMgA85M/s1600/Quo+Vadis7.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis rome burns" width="553" height="393" />
As far as standout sequences go, the burning of Rome, both from a distance and on a ground level is a great achievement, and channels the hellish desperation and panic of that terrible disaster. The Roman arena is a well realized combination of sets and matte paintings, and lions beset upon the singing Christians is still an effective scene due to the build-up and callousness of their captors and onlookers, and the despair of their fellow prisoners. For the climax, the battle between the bull and the giant Ursus and its outcome is all done in camera and incredible to behold.
The cinematography, though somewhat hindered by the 1.37:1 aspect ratio, makes effective use of as much of the setting as possible. With the proliferation of technicolour, the whole film looks very pleasing to the eyes. The film is steeped in that sense of 1950s camp that also permeated <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. Being filmed in the Italian countryside itself with its cypresses, hills and fields offers for some lovely natural vistas and an extra level of attempted authenticity, but a sharp eye will probably notice the pylon lines in the distance.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-03.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="537" height="393" />
While undoubtedly impressive for the time, modern eyes may spot lots of obvious blue-screening, particularly during the chariot battle as Marcus hastens back to Rome. The sequence is still fast paced and exciting, but the quality of the spliced footage is still what it is. Also the backdrop for the burning red sky is clearly a large painted curtain. This is one area where mate paintings could have benefitted it. I have praised many matte paintings over this series, and while this is an older film than most I’ve looked at this does have more evident matte paintings than others. Some of the better ones are within Rome itself, but they still appear the most dated out of all the films I’ve seen in this genre so far.
Miklós Rózsa turns out another top rate score, while this one is not as refined and touching as his score for <em>Ben-Hur</em>, the choir singing “Quo Vadis” and the triumph march are standout pieces. Some tracks do come across as melodramatic and out of place, however.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-06.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="554" height="393" />
Its length and lingering over extensive set pieces such as the fire of Rome or monologue scenes such as those with Peter the Apostle do make the film drag. Much of the dialogue has that old fashioned style of diction and delivery, and while I expected this film to feel dated this was an area where the film felt too ponderous for me to enjoy fully.
While later films like <em>Cleopatra</em> would infuse humanity in power hungry warlords and despots, <em>Quo Vadis</em> is barefaced in the depiction of the higher ups, from the Emperor and Empress to their senators and captain of the Praetorian Guard are vile manipulators and worthy of the evil fate that ultimately seizes them. Singing is frequently contrasted by the lone tone-deaf caterwauling of Nero against the harmonious, unified singing of the Christians. Furthermore, Nero’s pride at his own singing abilities (or lack thereof) is contrasted by the condemned Christians who only sing as a final swansong before death. As such, the morality of this setting is of a black and white nature, which dilutes the character of Rome itself.
In terms of smaller, incidental flaws, it does strike me as odd that Petronius is uncle to Marcus, since Genn is only six years older than Taylor, and so it seems odd that they didn’t cast an older actor to play Marcus’ uncle. There are a number of brief but very melodramatic moments, such as the slave girl Eunice kissing a bust of her kind master and lover Petronius.
As far as themes go, the film tries to dig into the pagan and Christian conflicts and relations within Rome, and the possibility of unification by faith and virtue rather than conquest and subjugation. The film skirts the line of portraying Christians as virtuous and just and all Roman pagans as immoral men by granting Nero more scenes of pure villainy that make the people of Rome, of all faiths, the victims in his megalomania. Marcus starts off as arrogant and ruthless but showing a softer side to him that develops as he himself is changed by Lygia and the Christians, and does become more noble and self-sacrificing while still essentially Roman. The framing of Marcus as a boorish and sexist soldier, though expected of this character, puts him at a distance with the audience for much of the film. The transition of a man of action to becoming a man of thought and belief is a gradual one, and ultimately he doesn’t have as much influence on the progression of the plot as Nero does.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tw5hXrbf1kg/TJKlFhte78I/AAAAAAAACD4/lrmLwoweb2Y/s1600/Quo+Vadis8.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis arena" width="553" height="393" />
As a showcase for the Roman world in all its decadent glory in eye-popping technicolour, <em>Quo Vadis </em>is a triumph. But on the whole, it passes for a decent period drama held together by its ambitious technicolour visuals and standout performances from Ustinov, Genn and Laffan. I’d only really recommend this to film fans that have cut their teeth on more famous sword and sandal classics and purveyors of 50’s cinema, but this one doesn’t really hold up. �p'�(0� S�������� �
� &�����
Back in 1951, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer was on the verge of bankruptcy, and these days the film that was truly responsible for saving the studio and helping to usher in the sword and sandal epic. Mervyn LeRoy’s <em>Quo Vadis</em> resonated well with audiences in the fifties, but today it does feel somewhat lacking and old fashioned enough to the point where it doesn’t retain the levels of entertainment that the likes of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>,<em> Spartacus</em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em> have retained over the decades.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-05.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="524" height="393" />
Roman military commander, Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor), returns to the capital from the wars and reunites with his senator uncle, Gaius Petronius (Leo Genn). He falls in love with a devout Christian, Lygia (Deborah Kerr), and slowly becomes intrigued by her religion. Their love story is told against the broader historical background of early Christianity and its persecution by Nero (Peter Ustinov). Though she grew up Roman as the adopted daughter of a retired general, Aulus Plautius (Felix Aylmer), Lygia is technically a hostage of Rome. Marcus persuades Nero to give her to him for services rendered. Lygia resents this, but still falls in love with Marcus, however he cannot fathom the depths or meaning of her faith. Meanwhile, Nero’s ambitions become increasingly insane. When he burns Rome to build a new one in its place, Empress Poppaea (Patricia Laffan) suggests throwing the blame on the Christians to placate the Roman mob. Marcus tries to save Lygia and her family, but Nero captures them and all the Christians, condemning them to be killed in the arena.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-02.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="524" height="393" />
Taylor makes for a strong, good looking lead, but is rather wooden in comparison to the supporting cast. Kerr is charming and emotionally driven as Lygia but she does show a fitting level of resistance to Marcus’ boorish attitude. The romance is of the old fashioned, somewhat plodding variety that doesn’t hold the attention of modern tastes. Ustinov is fun and theatrical as the capricious, effeminate and self-absorbed emperor, which makes his acts of evil and insanity all he more shocking, and because he receives more screen time than our leads he keeps the film’s energy up. Genn is crafty and relatively likable as the wry senator Petronius, managing to garner a few scene stealing scenes. Finlay Currie conveys the calm defiance and hopefulness of Peter the Apostle, and Abraham Sofaer as Paul has a soothing quality to their voice and a dignified bearing. Buddy Baer acquits himself well as the strong, stoic Ursus, pulling off his feats of strength to great effect. Laffan is a despicable and sly as Empress Poppaea, and gets to be as theatrical as Nero does on occasion. Ralph Truman is intimidating and loathsome as Tigellinus. Marina Berti as the slave girl Eunice has a gentle innocence to her. Other supporting roles provided by Aylmer and Nicholas Hannen as Seneca play their parts well.
As one of the first films to feature a cast our thousands and an epic production design to match, <em>Quo Vadis</em> does a great job in framing the enormity of Rome and the opulence of its ruling class. Without the level of detail put into the design of 1<sup>st</sup> century Rome espoused by this film, thus inspiring many examples to follow, the sword and sandal genre wouldn’t have taken off as it did. The costumes, of which thirty thousand were commissioned for this film, are varied, colourful and appealing, and convey the social status of the characters well. However, the armour and weapons are rather fake-looking and anachronistic compared to later films in this genre. What little sword play there is isn’t very well shot or directed, but since its flawed presentation is fortunately brief.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tw5hXrbf1kg/TJKlFS-4v7I/AAAAAAAACD0/2RKlJMgA85M/s1600/Quo+Vadis7.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis rome burns" width="553" height="393" />
As far as standout sequences go, the burning of Rome, both from a distance and on a ground level is a great achievement, and channels the hellish desperation and panic of that terrible disaster. The Roman arena is a well realized combination of sets and matte paintings, and lions beset upon the singing Christians is still an effective scene due to the build-up and callousness of their captors and onlookers, and the despair of their fellow prisoners. For the climax, the battle between the bull and the giant Ursus and its outcome is all done in camera and incredible to behold.
The cinematography, though somewhat hindered by the 1.37:1 aspect ratio, makes effective use of as much of the setting as possible. With the proliferation of technicolour, the whole film looks very pleasing to the eyes. The film is steeped in that sense of 1950s camp that also permeated <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. Being filmed in the Italian countryside itself with its cypresses, hills and fields offers for some lovely natural vistas and an extra level of attempted authenticity, but a sharp eye will probably notice the pylon lines in the distance.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-03.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="537" height="393" />
While undoubtedly impressive for the time, modern eyes may spot lots of obvious blue-screening, particularly during the chariot battle as Marcus hastens back to Rome. The sequence is still fast paced and exciting, but the quality of the spliced footage is still what it is. Also the backdrop for the burning red sky is clearly a large painted curtain. This is one area where mate paintings could have benefitted it. I have praised many matte paintings over this series, and while this is an older film than most I’ve looked at this does have more evident matte paintings than others. Some of the better ones are within Rome itself, but they still appear the most dated out of all the films I’ve seen in this genre so far.
Miklós Rózsa turns out another top rate score, while this one is not as refined and touching as his score for <em>Ben-Hur</em>, the choir singing “Quo Vadis” and the triumph march are standout pieces. Some tracks do come across as melodramatic and out of place, however.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-06.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="554" height="393" />
Its length and lingering over extensive set pieces such as the fire of Rome or monologue scenes such as those with Peter the Apostle do make the film drag. Much of the dialogue has that old fashioned style of diction and delivery, and while I expected this film to feel dated this was an area where the film felt too ponderous for me to enjoy fully.
While later films like <em>Cleopatra</em> would infuse humanity in power hungry warlords and despots, <em>Quo Vadis</em> is barefaced in the depiction of the higher ups, from the Emperor and Empress to their senators and captain of the Praetorian Guard are vile manipulators and worthy of the evil fate that ultimately seizes them. Singing is frequently contrasted by the lone tone-deaf caterwauling of Nero against the harmonious, unified singing of the Christians. Furthermore, Nero’s pride at his own singing abilities (or lack thereof) is contrasted by the condemned Christians who only sing as a final swansong before death. As such, the morality of this setting is of a black and white nature, which dilutes the character of Rome itself.
In terms of smaller, incidental flaws, it does strike me as odd that Petronius is uncle to Marcus, since Genn is only six years older than Taylor, and so it seems odd that they didn’t cast an older actor to play Marcus’ uncle. There are a number of brief but very melodramatic moments, such as the slave girl Eunice kissing a bust of her kind master and lover Petronius.
As far as themes go, the film tries to dig into the pagan and Christian conflicts and relations within Rome, and the possibility of unification by faith and virtue rather than conquest and subjugation. The film skirts the line of portraying Christians as virtuous and just and all Roman pagans as immoral men by granting Nero more scenes of pure villainy that make the people of Rome, of all faiths, the victims in his megalomania. Marcus starts off as arrogant and ruthless but showing a softer side to him that develops as he himself is changed by Lygia and the Christians, and does become more noble and self-sacrificing while still essentially Roman. The framing of Marcus as a boorish and sexist soldier, though expected of this character, puts him at a distance with the audience for much of the film. The transition of a man of action to becoming a man of thought and belief is a gradual one, and ultimately he doesn’t have as much influence on the progression of the plot as Nero does.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tw5hXrbf1kg/TJKlFhte78I/AAAAAAAACD4/lrmLwoweb2Y/s1600/Quo+Vadis8.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis arena" width="553" height="393" />
As a showcase for the Roman world in all its decadent glory in eye-popping technicolour, <em>Quo Vadis </em>is a triumph. But on the whole, it passes for a decent period drama held together by its ambitious technicolour visuals and standout performances from Ustinov, Genn and Laffan. I’d only really recommend this to film fans that have cut their teeth on more famous sword and sandal classics and purveyors of 50’s cinema, but this one doesn’t really hold up. �D�Z� T�������� ��
� '�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-183 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/QuoVadis-333x500.png" alt="" width="333" height="500" />
Back in 1951, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer was on the verge of bankruptcy, and these days the film that was truly responsible for saving the studio and helping to usher in the sword and sandal epic. Mervyn LeRoy’s <em>Quo Vadis</em> resonated well with audiences in the fifties, but today it does feel somewhat lacking and old fashioned enough to the point where it doesn’t retain the levels of entertainment that the likes of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>,<em> Spartacus</em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em> have retained over the decades.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-05.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="524" height="393" />
Roman military commander, Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor), returns to the capital from the wars and reunites with his senator uncle, Gaius Petronius (Leo Genn). He falls in love with a devout Christian, Lygia (Deborah Kerr), and slowly becomes intrigued by her religion. Their love story is told against the broader historical background of early Christianity and its persecution by Nero (Peter Ustinov). Though she grew up Roman as the adopted daughter of a retired general, Aulus Plautius (Felix Aylmer), Lygia is technically a hostage of Rome. Marcus persuades Nero to give her to him for services rendered. Lygia resents this, but still falls in love with Marcus, however he cannot fathom the depths or meaning of her faith. Meanwhile, Nero’s ambitions become increasingly insane. When he burns Rome to build a new one in its place, Empress Poppaea (Patricia Laffan) suggests throwing the blame on the Christians to placate the Roman mob. Marcus tries to save Lygia and her family, but Nero captures them and all the Christians, condemning them to be killed in the arena.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-02.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="524" height="393" />
Taylor makes for a strong, good looking lead, but is rather wooden in comparison to the supporting cast. Kerr is charming and emotionally driven as Lygia but she does show a fitting level of resistance to Marcus’ boorish attitude. The romance is of the old fashioned, somewhat plodding variety that doesn’t hold the attention of modern tastes. Ustinov is fun and theatrical as the capricious, effeminate and self-absorbed emperor, which makes his acts of evil and insanity all he more shocking, and because he receives more screen time than our leads he keeps the film’s energy up. Genn is crafty and relatively likable as the wry senator Petronius, managing to garner a few scene stealing scenes. Finlay Currie conveys the calm defiance and hopefulness of Peter the Apostle, and Abraham Sofaer as Paul has a soothing quality to their voice and a dignified bearing. Buddy Baer acquits himself well as the strong, stoic Ursus, pulling off his feats of strength to great effect. Laffan is a despicable and sly as Empress Poppaea, and gets to be as theatrical as Nero does on occasion. Ralph Truman is intimidating and loathsome as Tigellinus. Marina Berti as the slave girl Eunice has a gentle innocence to her. Other supporting roles provided by Aylmer and Nicholas Hannen as Seneca play their parts well.
As one of the first films to feature a cast our thousands and an epic production design to match, <em>Quo Vadis</em> does a great job in framing the enormity of Rome and the opulence of its ruling class. Without the level of detail put into the design of 1<sup>st</sup> century Rome espoused by this film, thus inspiring many examples to follow, the sword and sandal genre wouldn’t have taken off as it did. The costumes, of which thirty thousand were commissioned for this film, are varied, colourful and appealing, and convey the social status of the characters well. However, the armour and weapons are rather fake-looking and anachronistic compared to later films in this genre. What little sword play there is isn’t very well shot or directed, but since its flawed presentation is fortunately brief.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tw5hXrbf1kg/TJKlFS-4v7I/AAAAAAAACD0/2RKlJMgA85M/s1600/Quo+Vadis7.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis rome burns" width="553" height="393" />
As far as standout sequences go, the burning of Rome, both from a distance and on a ground level is a great achievement, and channels the hellish desperation and panic of that terrible disaster. The Roman arena is a well realized combination of sets and matte paintings, and lions beset upon the singing Christians is still an effective scene due to the build-up and callousness of their captors and onlookers, and the despair of their fellow prisoners. For the climax, the battle between the bull and the giant Ursus and its outcome is all done in camera and incredible to behold.
The cinematography, though somewhat hindered by the 1.37:1 aspect ratio, makes effective use of as much of the setting as possible. With the proliferation of technicolour, the whole film looks very pleasing to the eyes. The film is steeped in that sense of 1950s camp that also permeated <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. Being filmed in the Italian countryside itself with its cypresses, hills and fields offers for some lovely natural vistas and an extra level of attempted authenticity, but a sharp eye will probably notice the pylon lines in the distance.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-03.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="537" height="393" />
While undoubtedly impressive for the time, modern eyes may spot lots of obvious blue-screening, particularly during the chariot battle as Marcus hastens back to Rome. The sequence is still fast paced and exciting, but the quality of the spliced footage is still what it is. Also the backdrop for the burning red sky is clearly a large painted curtain. This is one area where mate paintings could have benefitted it. I have praised many matte paintings over this series, and while this is an older film than most I’ve looked at this does have more evident matte paintings than others. Some of the better ones are within Rome itself, but they still appear the most dated out of all the films I’ve seen in this genre so far.
Miklós Rózsa turns out another top rate score, while this one is not as refined and touching as his score for <em>Ben-Hur</em>, the choir singing “Quo Vadis” and the triumph march are standout pieces. Some tracks do come across as melodramatic and out of place, however.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.oscarchamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1951-Quo-Vadis-06.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis screencaps" width="554" height="393" />
Its length and lingering over extensive set pieces such as the fire of Rome or monologue scenes such as those with Peter the Apostle do make the film drag. Much of the dialogue has that old fashioned style of diction and delivery, and while I expected this film to feel dated this was an area where the film felt too ponderous for me to enjoy fully.
While later films like <em>Cleopatra</em> would infuse humanity in power hungry warlords and despots, <em>Quo Vadis</em> is barefaced in the depiction of the higher ups, from the Emperor and Empress to their senators and captain of the Praetorian Guard are vile manipulators and worthy of the evil fate that ultimately seizes them. Singing is frequently contrasted by the lone tone-deaf caterwauling of Nero against the harmonious, unified singing of the Christians. Furthermore, Nero’s pride at his own singing abilities (or lack thereof) is contrasted by the condemned Christians who only sing as a final swansong before death. As such, the morality of this setting is of a black and white nature, which dilutes the character of Rome itself.
In terms of smaller, incidental flaws, it does strike me as odd that Petronius is uncle to Marcus, since Genn is only six years older than Taylor, and so it seems odd that they didn’t cast an older actor to play Marcus’ uncle. There are a number of brief but very melodramatic moments, such as the slave girl Eunice kissing a bust of her kind master and lover Petronius.
As far as themes go, the film tries to dig into the pagan and Christian conflicts and relations within Rome, and the possibility of unification by faith and virtue rather than conquest and subjugation. The film skirts the line of portraying Christians as virtuous and just and all Roman pagans as immoral men by granting Nero more scenes of pure villainy that make the people of Rome, of all faiths, the victims in his megalomania. Marcus starts off as arrogant and ruthless but showing a softer side to him that develops as he himself is changed by Lygia and the Christians, and does become more noble and self-sacrificing while still essentially Roman. The framing of Marcus as a boorish and sexist soldier, though expected of this character, puts him at a distance with the audience for much of the film. The transition of a man of action to becoming a man of thought and belief is a gradual one, and ultimately he doesn’t have as much influence on the progression of the plot as Nero does.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tw5hXrbf1kg/TJKlFhte78I/AAAAAAAACD4/lrmLwoweb2Y/s1600/Quo+Vadis8.jpg" alt="Image result for quo vadis arena" width="553" height="393" />
As a showcase for the Roman world in all its decadent glory in eye-popping technicolour, <em>Quo Vadis </em>is a triumph. But on the whole, it passes for a decent period drama held together by its ambitious technicolour visuals and standout performances from Ustinov, Genn and Laffan. I’d only really recommend this to film fans that have cut their teeth on more famous sword and sandal classics and purveyors of 50’s cinema, but this one doesn’t really hold up. �� ^� U�������� ��
� 1����<img class="size-medium wp-image-186 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BenHur-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
<em>Ben-Hur</em> is easily one of the greatest works of drama, spectacle, entertainment and sheer emotional storytelling that I have witnessed in my life. It lives up to its reputation as winner of eleven Academy Awards and then some, and managed to work its magic for someone who hadn’t seen this film in their formative years. It’s Wyler’s grounded, intellectually sincere direction yet larger than life scope that helps it to transcend the sometimes dismissive label of “message movie” to be something that can truly mean all things to all people regardless of belief. Like other classical epics by the likes of Cecil B. DeMille and David Lean, its the delicate balancing act between the intimate and the spectacle that Ben-Hur finds its most lasting impact, allowing it to transcend its inherent religious sentiment.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur021.jpg" />
In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O’Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah, but is committed to another. Judah’s childhood friend, the Roman citizen Messala (Stephen Boyd), is now a tribune. After several years away from Jerusalem, Messala returns as the new commander of the Roman garrison. Messala believes in the glory of Rome and its imperial power, while Judah is devoted to his faith and the freedom of the Jewish people. This difference causes tension between the friends, and results in their split after Messala issues an ultimatum to Judah. During the parade for the new governor of Judea, loose tiles fall from the roof of Judah's house. The governor is thrown from his spooked horse and nearly killed. Although Messala knows this was an accident, he condemns Judah to the galleys and imprisons Miriam and Tirzah. Judah swears to take revenge.
After three years as a galley slave, Judah is assigned to the flagship of the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins), who has been charged with destroying a fleet of Macedonian pirates. Arrius admires Judah's determination and self-discipline, and offers to train him as a gladiator or charioteer. Judah declines the offer, declaring that God will aid him in his quest for vengeance. When the Roman fleet encounters the Macedonians, Arrius orders all the rowers except Judah to be chained to their oars. Arrius’ galley is rammed and sunk, but Judah unchains the other rowers, and rescues Arrius. In despair, Arrius wrongly believes the battle ended in defeat and attempts to commit suicide but Judah stops him. They are rescued, and Arrius is credited with the Roman fleet’s victory. Consul Arrius returns to Rome with Judah as his guest, and both are honoured by Emperor Tiberius (George Relph)
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur093.jpg" />
Heston delivers one of his finest emotionally driven performances in his career, illuminating the warmth of a kind-hearted prince but also the fierce rage that seems barely contained at the slightest provocation. Boyd is fantastic as the treacherous Messala, a man with a great deal of charisma and charm but balanced with great arrogance and contempt and a physical and vocal presence to match Heston. Both actors have a believable brotherly bond and they show the subtle changes from best friends to hated enemies. Hawkins gives gravitas, iron authority and world-weariness to Quintus Arrius and becomes very liable in his own way. Harareet gives a spirited performance with a great deal of emotional range and subtle expressions, and you do believe there is love between Esther and Judah. Scott and O’Donnell are equally sympathetic and sweet as Miriam and Tirzah respectively, and leave an impression despite their limited screen time. Jaffe is sympathetic as Simonides, and Griffith is charming, boisterous and exuberant as Sheik Ilderim. Relph has a brief but memorable role as the venerable Emperor Tiberius. Some quibbles about his accent aside, Finlay Currie does a great job as narrator and as one of Wise Men, Balthasar. Frank Thring portrays Pontius Pilate as a level headed and relatively decent man despite the part he plays in the condemnation of Christ.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur293.jpg" />
The cinematography by Robert L. Surtees on MGM’s legendary Camera 65 and epically wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio is a beautiful feast for the eyes. The use of lighting gives each location a unique sense of atmosphere, ranging from the brightly lit Jerusalem, bleakly hot deserts, to the dark, dank galley of the roman ship or dark, cold hallways of the Roman fort. This is a case where capturing as much of the scenery and cast of thousands necessitates this kind of camera work. The breadth and depth of field and sublime colour demand to be seen on the largest screen possible. One of the greatest visual master strokes of the film is the fact that you do not see Jesus’ face, but the impact of his presence is tantalising. The fact that his name is never spoken also keeps it subtle, but also more mystical, intriguing and yet more real at the same time because you see him through other characters’ perspectives.
The vast and elaborate sets populated with well adorned extras bring the life and colour of Jerusalem to life. They don't look like sets; they look like real locations with history and tangibility to them. The matte paintings for the sky do look rather like paintings rather than the real thing, but that is no insult on the quality work. Other matte paintings used to expand the vistas of Palestine, Jerusalem and Rome are some of the finest ever committed to film. The miniature ships are shot in a way that allows the scale of the conflict to still seem massive and terrible. The editing, cinematography and succession of practical effects maintain the illusion of a massive naval battle.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur464.jpg" />
The chariot race is one of the most perfect sequences ever put to film, the build-up with the epic fanfares, the slow pace taking in the spectacular circus and charioteers walking in step just before they break out into a spirited gallop. The fact that it's all shot in camera, without any music, with no doubt multiple takes and a serious risk to both man and beast involved, including what looked like some serious injuries on set, only adds to the breath-taking wonder of this scene. The variety of camera angles and occasionally cutting to the cheering crowd keeps the scene dynamic and engaging without going overboard with the editing. The emotions run high as Messala desperately races against his old brother Judah, madly whipping his horses and ramming his chariot while Judah needs no such cruelty to spur his horses on. It still holds up beautifully today and cannot possibly be topped.
I’ve had the pleasure of listening to many Miklós Rózsa scores in this series, but this is in my eyes his crowning achievement. The breadth and variety of music is legendary, and each piece is memorable in its own right. The bombastic Parade of Charioteers theme, the militaristic Roman marching themes, touching romantic melodies, the tragic strings for Miriam and Tirzah, the modest yet uplifting theme for Jesus, and triumphant choruses can make the hearts of viewers soar with wonder. Similarly, the restraint on certain scenes where the music dials back to let the performances speak for themselves is just as commendable.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur432.jpg" />
Apart from some necessary narration and a few pieces of cursory dialogue, the prologue depicting the Nativity is perfect, and its visual power in the imagery presented from the Star, to the three kings, the watching shepherds and the town of Bethlehem beneath the stars have a lush, painterly feeling to them, even as we follow the three kings and see the birthplace of Jesus. The music accompanying the scene is suitably tender and quietly joyful.
Despite its epic length, Wyler uses every minute of the film wisely. Character beats are appropriately set up and flow naturally into the next scene. We see how well matched Judah and Messala are intellectually and physically, get a sense of how close their families were as children and how much Messala has changed, and we see the seeds of doubt sown before the two break apart. Despite his charisma and affable initial appearance, the film intelligently shows the darkening side of Messala with each new scene, until he is shown to be one of the most realistic and despicable villains to grace the silver screen. The fact that Messala still speaks to Judah like this is all just a game to him twists the knife even more. They very tentatively hint that there was more between Judah and Messala when the latter jokes about “unrequited love” when the former is reluctant to throw his lot in with the Romans so easily.
Judah is the sort of idealistic hero who is just flawed enough to believably exist. He knows when to be loyal to his ideals and when to bide his time respectfully in the company of Emperor Tiberius and Arrius. It’s ironic that he ends up treading the path that Messala desperately sought by the Emperor’s side, and he achieves this by being a good man and holding back from the easy path of murder. One good turn deserves another and mercy begets mercy. But Judah has his share of flaws. When faced with further complications to his mission, he is quick to anger and let that rage manifest for long stretches of time. The notion of brotherly betrayal, you buy into the love and friendship between them and thus the pain that rips them apart is all the more painful. The film is somewhat ambivalent on the whether it was the innate corruption of Rome that turned Messala into the villain he is in the film or whether he really was just a corrupt man, since we see opportunities for him to take the high road and bury the hatchet but he chooses self-advancement at every turn.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur197.jpg" />
Vengeance gave Ben-Hur no satisfaction, and all that rage is shifted from the dying Messala to Rome itself. The bitterness was so deep rooted that Esther tells him point blank that he's becoming like Messala, and his hatred and bitterness is eating away at him, more so as he watches the suffering inflicted upon Jesus as he carries the cross. The simple act of kindness from Jesus to Ben-Hur remained with him for four years and allowed him to hold onto his humanity and to repay kindness with kindness when given the chance to see that same carpenter’s son again. Even when Ben-Hur realizes that he cannot live by hate anymore, there are consequences of that feud, he lost his brother and eschewed his Roman name of Arrius to start again.
The ending of <em>Ben-Hur</em> with the healing rain is portrayed as nothing short of a miracle, and works for symbolic purposes because this had been built up to since the beginning with the Nativity and the encounters with and allusions to Jesus sprinkled throughout the film. Just as the hate that was twisting and warping Ben-Hur inside was stripped away and healed when he had a genuine encounter with Jesus and kept him from going over the edge. The message of forgiveness and relinquishing hate was effective because it was subtle and emotionally sincere to what had been seen and felt earlier in the film.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur286.jpg" />
Overall, <em>Ben-Hur </em>is a magnificent film with just as much of a far reach in terms of technical achievement as well as storytelling prowess. Like with <em>The Ten Commandments</em> and that film’s sincerity and strength in the message it sought to convey, <em>Ben-Hur</em> derives greater strength from its earnest yet grandiose approach to the thematic material and respect for its audience. It was one of the best films of 1959 and is still a ground-breaking classic to this day precisely because it continues to move and inspire audiences to this day.
Final Score: 5 / 5 ���'�� V�������� �5�
� 2.����<img class="size-medium wp-image-186 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BenHur-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
<em>Ben-Hur</em> is easily one of the greatest works of drama, spectacle, entertainment and sheer emotional storytelling that I have witnessed in my life. It lives up to its reputation as winner of eleven Academy Awards and then some, and managed to work its magic for someone who hadn’t seen this film in their formative years. It’s Wyler’s grounded, intellectually sincere direction yet larger than life scope that helps it to transcend the sometimes dismissive label of “message movie” to be something that can truly mean all things to all people regardless of belief.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://staticmass.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dvd_ben.jpg" alt="Image result for ben hur nativity" width="820" height="273" />
In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O’Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah, but is committed to another. Judah’s childhood friend, the Roman citizen Messala (Stephen Boyd), is now a tribune. After several years away from Jerusalem, Messala returns as the new commander of the Roman garrison. Messala believes in the glory of Rome and its imperial power, while Judah is devoted to his faith and the freedom of the Jewish people. This difference causes tension between the friends, and results in their split after Messala issues an ultimatum to Judah. During the parade for the new governor of Judea, loose tiles fall from the roof of Judah's house. The governor is thrown from his spooked horse and nearly killed. Although Messala knows this was an accident, he condemns Judah to the galleys and imprisons Miriam and Tirzah. Judah swears to take revenge.
After three years as a galley slave, Judah is assigned to the flagship of the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins), who has been charged with destroying a fleet of Macedonian pirates. Arrius admires Judah's determination and self-discipline, and offers to train him as a gladiator or charioteer. Judah declines the offer, declaring that God will aid him in his quest for vengeance. When the Roman fleet encounters the Macedonians, Arrius orders all the rowers except Judah to be chained to their oars. Arrius’ galley is rammed and sunk, but Judah unchains the other rowers, and rescues Arrius. In despair, Arrius wrongly believes the battle ended in defeat and attempts to commit suicide but Judah stops him. They are rescued, and Arrius is credited with the Roman fleet’s victory. Consul Arrius returns to Rome with Judah as his guest, and both are honoured by Emperor Tiberius (George Relph)
<img class="size-medium wp-image-187 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap6-500x189.png" alt="" width="500" height="189" />
Heston delivers one of his finest emotionally driven performances in his career, illuminating the warmth of a kind-hearted prince but also the fierce rage that seems barely contained at the slightest provocation. Boyd is fantastic as the treacherous Messala, a man with a great deal of charisma and charm but balanced with great arrogance and contempt and a physical and vocal presence to match Heston. Both actors have a believable brotherly bond and they show the subtle changes from best friends to hated enemies. Hawkins gives gravitas, iron authority and world-weariness to Quintus Arrius and becomes very liable in his own way. Harareet gives a spirited performance with a great deal of emotional range and subtle expressions, and you do believe there is love between Esther and Judah. Scott and O’Donnell are equally sympathetic and sweet as Miriam and Tirzah respectively, and leave an impression despite their limited screen time. Jaffe is sympathetic as Simonides, and Griffith is charming and likeable as Sheik Ilderim. Relph has a brief but memorable role as the venerable Emperor Tiberius. Some quibbles about his accent aside, Finlay Currie does a great job as narrator and as one of Wise Men, Balthasar. Frank Thring portrays Pontius Pilate as a level headed and relatively decent man despite the part he plays in the condemnation of Christ.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-188 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap1-500x187.png" alt="" width="500" height="187" />
The cinematography by Robert L. Surtees on MGM’s legendary Camera 65 and epically wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio is a beautiful feast for the eyes. The use of lighting gives each location a unique sense of atmosphere, ranging from the brightly lit Jerusalem, bleakly hot deserts, to the dark, dank galley of the roman ship or dark, cold hallways of the Roman fort. This is a case where capturing as much of the scenery and cast of thousands necessitates this kind of camera work. The breadth and depth of field and sublime colour demand to be seen on the largest screen possible. One of the greatest visual master strokes of the film is the fact that you do not see Jesus’ face, but the impact of his presence is tantalising. The fact that his name is never spoken also keeps it subtle, but also more mystical, intriguing and yet more real at the same time because you see him through other characters’ perspectives.
The vast and elaborate sets populated with well adorned extras bring the life and colour of Jerusalem to life. They don't look like sets; they look like real locations with history and tangibility to them. The matte paintings for the sky do look rather like paintings rather than the real thing, but that is no insult on the quality work. Other matte paintings used to expand the vistas of Palestine, Jerusalem and Rome are some of the finest ever committed to film. The miniature ships are shot in a way that allows the scale of the conflict to still seem massive and terrible. The editing, cinematography and succession of practical effects maintain the illusion of a massive naval battle.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-189 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap3-500x185.png" alt="" width="500" height="185" />
The chariot race is one of the most perfect sequences ever put to film, the build-up with the epic fanfares, the slow pace taking in the spectacular circus and charioteers walking in step just before they break out into a spirited gallop. The fact that it's all shot in camera, without any music, with no doubt multiple takes and a serious risk to both man and beast involved, including what looked like some serious injuries on set, only adds to the breath-taking wonder of this scene. The variety of camera angles and occasionally cutting to the cheering crowd keeps the scene dynamic and engaging without going overboard with the editing. The emotions run high as Messala desperately races against his old brother Judah, madly whipping his horses and ramming his chariot while Judah needs no such cruelty to spur his horses on. It still holds up beautifully today and cannot possibly be topped.
I’ve had the pleasure of listening to many Miklós Rózsa scores in this series, but this is in my eyes his crowning achievement. The breadth and variety of music is legendary, and each piece is memorable in its own right. The bombastic Parade of Charioteers theme, the militaristic Roman marching themes, touching romantic melodies, the tragic strings for Miriam and Tirzah, the modest yet uplifting theme for Jesus, and triumphant choruses can make the hearts of viewers soar with wonder. Similarly, the restraint on certain scenes where the music dials back to let the performances speak for themselves is just as commendable.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-190 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap4-500x188.png" alt="" width="500" height="188" />
Apart from some necessary narration and a few pieces of cursory dialogue, the prologue depicting the Nativity is perfect, and its visual power in the imagery presented from the Star, to the three kings, the watching shepherds and the town of Bethlehem beneath the stars have a lush, painterly feeling to them, even as we follow the three kings and see the birthplace of Jesus. The music accompanying the scene is suitably tender and quietly joyful.
Despite its epic length, Wyler uses every minute of the film wisely. Character beats are appropriately set up and flow naturally into the next scene. We see how well matched Judah and Messala are intellectually and physically, get a sense of how close their families were as children and how much Messala has changed, and we see the seeds of doubt sown before the two break apart. Despite his charisma and affable initial appearance, the film intelligently shows the darkening side of Messala with each new scene, until he is shown to be one of the most realistic and despicable villains to grace the silver screen. The fact that Messala still speaks to Judah like this is all just a game to him twists the knife even more. They very tentatively hint that there was more between Judah and Messala when the latter jokes about “unrequited love” when the former is reluctant to throw his lot in with the Romans so easily.
Judah is the sort of idealistic hero who is just flawed enough to believably exist. He knows when to be loyal to his ideals and when to bide his time respectfully in the company of Emperor Tiberius and Arrius. It’s ironic that he ends up treading the path that Messala desperately sought by the Emperor’s side, and he achieves this by being a good man and holding back from the easy path of murder. One good turn deserves another and mercy begets mercy. But Judah has his share of flaws. When faced with further complications to his mission, he is quick to anger and let that rage manifest for long stretches of time. The notion of brotherly betrayal, you buy into the love and friendship between them and thus the pain that rips them apart is all the more painful. The film is somewhat ambivalent on the whether it was the innate corruption of Rome that turned Messala into the villain he is in the film or whether he really was just a corrupt man, since we see opportunities for him to take the high road and bury the hatchet but he chooses self-advancement at every turn.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-191 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap5-500x185.png" alt="" width="500" height="185" />
Vengeance gave Ben-Hur no satisfaction, and all that rage is shifted from the dying Messala to Rome itself. The bitterness was so deep rooted that Esther tells him point blank that he's becoming like Messala, and his hatred and bitterness is eating away at him, more so as he watches the suffering inflicted upon Jesus as he carries the cross. The simple act of kindness from Jesus to Ben-Hur remained with him for four years and allowed him to hold onto his humanity and to repay kindness with kindness when given the chance to see that same carpenter’s son again. Even when Ben-Hur realizes that he cannot live by hate anymore, there are consequences of that feud, he lost his brother and eschewed his Roman name of Arrius to start again.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-192 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap2-500x186.png" alt="" width="500" height="186" />
The ending of <em>Ben-Hur</em> with the healing rain is portrayed as nothing short of a miracle, and works for symbolic purposes because this had been built up to since the beginning with the Nativity and the encounters with and allusions to Jesus sprinkled throughout the film. Just as the hate that was twisting and warping Ben-Hur inside was stripped away and healed when he had a genuine encounter with Jesus and kept him from going over the edge. The message of forgiveness and relinquishing hate was effective because it was subtle and emotionally sincere to what had been seen and felt earlier in the film.
Overall, <em>Ben-Hur </em>is a magnificent film with just as much of a far reach in terms of technical achievement as well as storytelling prowess. Like with <em>The Ten Commandments</em> and that film’s sincerity and strength in the message it sought to convey, <em>Ben-Hur</em> derives greater strength from its earnest yet grandiose approach to the thematic material and respect for its audience. It was one of the best films of 1959 and is still a ground-breaking classic to this day precisely because it continues to move and inspire audiences to this day. �5�~K�� W�������� �r�
� 26����<img class="size-medium wp-image-186 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BenHur-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
<em>Ben-Hur</em> is easily one of the greatest works of drama, spectacle, entertainment and sheer emotional storytelling that I have witnessed in my life. It lives up to its reputation as winner of eleven Academy Awards and then some, and managed to work its magic for someone who hadn’t seen this film in their formative years. It’s Wyler’s grounded, intellectually sincere direction yet larger than life scope that helps it to transcend the sometimes dismissive label of “message movie” to be something that can truly mean all things to all people regardless of belief.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://staticmass.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dvd_ben.jpg" alt="Image result for ben hur nativity" width="820" height="273" />
In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O’Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah, but is committed to another. Judah’s childhood friend, the Roman citizen Messala (Stephen Boyd), is now a tribune. After several years away from Jerusalem, Messala returns as the new commander of the Roman garrison. Messala believes in the glory of Rome and its imperial power, while Judah is devoted to his faith and the freedom of the Jewish people. This difference causes tension between the friends, and results in their split after Messala issues an ultimatum to Judah. During the parade for the new governor of Judea, loose tiles fall from the roof of Judah's house. The governor is thrown from his spooked horse and nearly killed. Although Messala knows this was an accident, he condemns Judah to the galleys and imprisons Miriam and Tirzah. Judah swears to take revenge.
After three years as a galley slave, Judah is assigned to the flagship of the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins), who has been charged with destroying a fleet of Macedonian pirates. Arrius admires Judah's determination and self-discipline, and offers to train him as a gladiator or charioteer. Judah declines the offer, declaring that God will aid him in his quest for vengeance. When the Roman fleet encounters the Macedonians, Arrius orders all the rowers except Judah to be chained to their oars. Arrius’ galley is rammed and sunk, but Judah unchains the other rowers, and rescues Arrius. In despair, Arrius wrongly believes the battle ended in defeat and attempts to commit suicide but Judah stops him. They are rescued, and Arrius is credited with the Roman fleet’s victory. Consul Arrius returns to Rome with Judah as his guest, and both are honoured by Emperor Tiberius (George Relph)
<img class="size-medium wp-image-187 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap6-500x189.png" alt="" width="500" height="189" />
Heston delivers one of his finest emotionally driven performances in his career, illuminating the warmth of a kind-hearted prince but also the fierce rage that seems barely contained at the slightest provocation. Boyd is fantastic as the treacherous Messala, a man with a great deal of charisma and charm but balanced with great arrogance and contempt and a physical and vocal presence to match Heston. Both actors have a believable brotherly bond and they show the subtle changes from best friends to hated enemies. Hawkins gives gravitas, iron authority and world-weariness to Quintus Arrius and becomes very liable in his own way. Harareet gives a spirited performance with a great deal of emotional range and subtle expressions, and you do believe there is love between Esther and Judah. Scott and O’Donnell are equally sympathetic and sweet as Miriam and Tirzah respectively, and leave an impression despite their limited screen time. Jaffe is sympathetic as Simonides, and Griffith is charming, boisterous and loud as Sheik Ilderim. Relph has a brief but memorable role as the venerable Emperor Tiberius. Some quibbles about his accent aside, Finlay Currie does a great job as narrator and as one of Wise Men, Balthasar. Frank Thring portrays Pontius Pilate as a level headed and relatively decent man despite the part he plays in the condemnation of Christ.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-188 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap1-500x187.png" alt="" width="500" height="187" />
The cinematography by Robert L. Surtees on MGM’s legendary Camera 65 and epically wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio is a beautiful feast for the eyes. The use of lighting gives each location a unique sense of atmosphere, ranging from the brightly lit Jerusalem, bleakly hot deserts, to the dark, dank galley of the roman ship or dark, cold hallways of the Roman fort. This is a case where capturing as much of the scenery and cast of thousands necessitates this kind of camera work. The breadth and depth of field and sublime colour demand to be seen on the largest screen possible. One of the greatest visual master strokes of the film is the fact that you do not see Jesus’ face, but the impact of his presence is tantalising. The fact that his name is never spoken also keeps it subtle, but also more mystical, intriguing and yet more real at the same time because you see him through other characters’ perspectives.
The vast and elaborate sets populated with well adorned extras bring the life and colour of Jerusalem to life. They don't look like sets; they look like real locations with history and tangibility to them. The matte paintings for the sky do look rather like paintings rather than the real thing, but that is no insult on the quality work. Other matte paintings used to expand the vistas of Palestine, Jerusalem and Rome are some of the finest ever committed to film. The miniature ships are shot in a way that allows the scale of the conflict to still seem massive and terrible. The editing, cinematography and succession of practical effects maintain the illusion of a massive naval battle.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-189 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap3-500x185.png" alt="" width="500" height="185" />
The chariot race is one of the most perfect sequences ever put to film, the build-up with the epic fanfares, the slow pace taking in the spectacular circus and charioteers walking in step just before they break out into a spirited gallop. The fact that it's all shot in camera, without any music, with no doubt multiple takes and a serious risk to both man and beast involved, including what looked like some serious injuries on set, only adds to the breath-taking wonder of this scene. The variety of camera angles and occasionally cutting to the cheering crowd keeps the scene dynamic and engaging without going overboard with the editing. The emotions run high as Messala desperately races against his old brother Judah, madly whipping his horses and ramming his chariot while Judah needs no such cruelty to spur his horses on. It still holds up beautifully today and cannot possibly be topped.
I’ve had the pleasure of listening to many Miklós Rózsa scores in this series, but this is in my eyes his crowning achievement. The breadth and variety of music is legendary, and each piece is memorable in its own right. The bombastic Parade of Charioteers theme, the militaristic Roman marching themes, touching romantic melodies, the tragic strings for Miriam and Tirzah, the modest yet uplifting theme for Jesus, and triumphant choruses can make the hearts of viewers soar with wonder. Similarly, the restraint on certain scenes where the music dials back to let the performances speak for themselves is just as commendable.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-190 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap4-500x188.png" alt="" width="500" height="188" />
Apart from some necessary narration and a few pieces of cursory dialogue, the prologue depicting the Nativity is perfect, and its visual power in the imagery presented from the Star, to the three kings, the watching shepherds and the town of Bethlehem beneath the stars have a lush, painterly feeling to them, even as we follow the three kings and see the birthplace of Jesus. The music accompanying the scene is suitably tender and quietly joyful.
Despite its epic length, Wyler uses every minute of the film wisely. Character beats are appropriately set up and flow naturally into the next scene. We see how well matched Judah and Messala are intellectually and physically, get a sense of how close their families were as children and how much Messala has changed, and we see the seeds of doubt sown before the two break apart. Despite his charisma and affable initial appearance, the film intelligently shows the darkening side of Messala with each new scene, until he is shown to be one of the most realistic and despicable villains to grace the silver screen. The fact that Messala still speaks to Judah like this is all just a game to him twists the knife even more. They very tentatively hint that there was more between Judah and Messala when the latter jokes about “unrequited love” when the former is reluctant to throw his lot in with the Romans so easily.
Judah is the sort of idealistic hero who is just flawed enough to believably exist. He knows when to be loyal to his ideals and when to bide his time respectfully in the company of Emperor Tiberius and Arrius. It’s ironic that he ends up treading the path that Messala desperately sought by the Emperor’s side, and he achieves this by being a good man and holding back from the easy path of murder. One good turn deserves another and mercy begets mercy. But Judah has his share of flaws. When faced with further complications to his mission, he is quick to anger and let that rage manifest for long stretches of time. The notion of brotherly betrayal, you buy into the love and friendship between them and thus the pain that rips them apart is all the more painful. The film is somewhat ambivalent on the whether it was the innate corruption of Rome that turned Messala into the villain he is in the film or whether he really was just a corrupt man, since we see opportunities for him to take the high road and bury the hatchet but he chooses self-advancement at every turn.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-191 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap5-500x185.png" alt="" width="500" height="185" />
Vengeance gave Ben-Hur no satisfaction, and all that rage is shifted from the dying Messala to Rome itself. The bitterness was so deep rooted that Esther tells him point blank that he's becoming like Messala, and his hatred and bitterness is eating away at him, more so as he watches the suffering inflicted upon Jesus as he carries the cross. The simple act of kindness from Jesus to Ben-Hur remained with him for four years and allowed him to hold onto his humanity and to repay kindness with kindness when given the chance to see that same carpenter’s son again. Even when Ben-Hur realizes that he cannot live by hate anymore, there are consequences of that feud, he lost his brother and eschewed his Roman name of Arrius to start again.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-192 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap2-500x186.png" alt="" width="500" height="186" />
The ending of <em>Ben-Hur</em> with the healing rain is portrayed as nothing short of a miracle, and works for symbolic purposes because this had been built up to since the beginning with the Nativity and the encounters with and allusions to Jesus sprinkled throughout the film. Just as the hate that was twisting and warping Ben-Hur inside was stripped away and healed when he had a genuine encounter with Jesus and kept him from going over the edge. The message of forgiveness and relinquishing hate was effective because it was subtle and emotionally sincere to what had been seen and felt earlier in the film.
Overall, <em>Ben-Hur </em>is a magnificent film with just as much of a far reach in terms of technical achievement as well as storytelling prowess. Like with <em>The Ten Commandments</em> and that film’s sincerity and strength in the message it sought to convey, <em>Ben-Hur</em> derives greater strength from its earnest yet grandiose approach to the thematic material and respect for its audience. It was one of the best films of 1959 and is still a ground-breaking classic to this day precisely because it continues to move and inspire audiences to this day. �r� j�� X�������� ��
� 2;����<img class="size-medium wp-image-186 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BenHur-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
<em>Ben-Hur</em> is easily one of the greatest works of drama, spectacle, entertainment and sheer emotional storytelling that I have witnessed in my life. It lives up to its reputation as winner of eleven Academy Awards and then some, and managed to work its magic for someone who hadn’t seen this film in their formative years. It’s Wyler’s grounded, intellectually sincere direction yet larger than life scope that helps it to transcend the sometimes dismissive label of “message movie” to be something that can truly mean all things to all people regardless of belief.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://staticmass.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dvd_ben.jpg" alt="Image result for ben hur nativity" width="820" height="273" />
In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O’Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah, but is committed to another. Judah’s childhood friend, the Roman citizen Messala (Stephen Boyd), is now a tribune. After several years away from Jerusalem, Messala returns as the new commander of the Roman garrison. Messala believes in the glory of Rome and its imperial power, while Judah is devoted to his faith and the freedom of the Jewish people. This difference causes tension between the friends, and results in their split after Messala issues an ultimatum to Judah. During the parade for the new governor of Judea, loose tiles fall from the roof of Judah's house. The governor is thrown from his spooked horse and nearly killed. Although Messala knows this was an accident, he condemns Judah to the galleys and imprisons Miriam and Tirzah. Judah swears to take revenge.
After three years as a galley slave, Judah is assigned to the flagship of the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins), who has been charged with destroying a fleet of Macedonian pirates. Arrius admires Judah's determination and self-discipline, and offers to train him as a gladiator or charioteer. Judah declines the offer, declaring that God will aid him in his quest for vengeance. When the Roman fleet encounters the Macedonians, Arrius orders all the rowers except Judah to be chained to their oars. Arrius’ galley is rammed and sunk, but Judah unchains the other rowers, and rescues Arrius. In despair, Arrius wrongly believes the battle ended in defeat and attempts to commit suicide but Judah stops him. They are rescued, and Arrius is credited with the Roman fleet’s victory. Consul Arrius returns to Rome with Judah as his guest, and both are honoured by Emperor Tiberius (George Relph)
<img class="size-medium wp-image-187 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap6-500x189.png" alt="" width="500" height="189" />
Heston delivers one of his finest emotionally driven performances in his career, illuminating the warmth of a kind-hearted prince but also the fierce rage that seems barely contained at the slightest provocation. Boyd is fantastic as the treacherous Messala, a man with a great deal of charisma and charm but balanced with great arrogance and contempt and a physical and vocal presence to match Heston. Both actors have a believable brotherly bond and they show the subtle changes from best friends to hated enemies. Hawkins gives gravitas, iron authority and world-weariness to Quintus Arrius and becomes very liable in his own way. Harareet gives a spirited performance with a great deal of emotional range and subtle expressions, and you do believe there is love between Esther and Judah. Scott and O’Donnell are equally sympathetic and sweet as Miriam and Tirzah respectively, and leave an impression despite their limited screen time. Jaffe is sympathetic as Simonides, and Griffith is charming, boisterous and exuberant as Sheik Ilderim. Relph has a brief but memorable role as the venerable Emperor Tiberius. Some quibbles about his accent aside, Finlay Currie does a great job as narrator and as one of Wise Men, Balthasar. Frank Thring portrays Pontius Pilate as a level headed and relatively decent man despite the part he plays in the condemnation of Christ.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-188 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap1-500x187.png" alt="" width="500" height="187" />
The cinematography by Robert L. Surtees on MGM’s legendary Camera 65 and epically wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio is a beautiful feast for the eyes. The use of lighting gives each location a unique sense of atmosphere, ranging from the brightly lit Jerusalem, bleakly hot deserts, to the dark, dank galley of the roman ship or dark, cold hallways of the Roman fort. This is a case where capturing as much of the scenery and cast of thousands necessitates this kind of camera work. The breadth and depth of field and sublime colour demand to be seen on the largest screen possible. One of the greatest visual master strokes of the film is the fact that you do not see Jesus’ face, but the impact of his presence is tantalising. The fact that his name is never spoken also keeps it subtle, but also more mystical, intriguing and yet more real at the same time because you see him through other characters’ perspectives.
The vast and elaborate sets populated with well adorned extras bring the life and colour of Jerusalem to life. They don't look like sets; they look like real locations with history and tangibility to them. The matte paintings for the sky do look rather like paintings rather than the real thing, but that is no insult on the quality work. Other matte paintings used to expand the vistas of Palestine, Jerusalem and Rome are some of the finest ever committed to film. The miniature ships are shot in a way that allows the scale of the conflict to still seem massive and terrible. The editing, cinematography and succession of practical effects maintain the illusion of a massive naval battle.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-189 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap3-500x185.png" alt="" width="500" height="185" />
The chariot race is one of the most perfect sequences ever put to film, the build-up with the epic fanfares, the slow pace taking in the spectacular circus and charioteers walking in step just before they break out into a spirited gallop. The fact that it's all shot in camera, without any music, with no doubt multiple takes and a serious risk to both man and beast involved, including what looked like some serious injuries on set, only adds to the breath-taking wonder of this scene. The variety of camera angles and occasionally cutting to the cheering crowd keeps the scene dynamic and engaging without going overboard with the editing. The emotions run high as Messala desperately races against his old brother Judah, madly whipping his horses and ramming his chariot while Judah needs no such cruelty to spur his horses on. It still holds up beautifully today and cannot possibly be topped.
I’ve had the pleasure of listening to many Miklós Rózsa scores in this series, but this is in my eyes his crowning achievement. The breadth and variety of music is legendary, and each piece is memorable in its own right. The bombastic Parade of Charioteers theme, the militaristic Roman marching themes, touching romantic melodies, the tragic strings for Miriam and Tirzah, the modest yet uplifting theme for Jesus, and triumphant choruses can make the hearts of viewers soar with wonder. Similarly, the restraint on certain scenes where the music dials back to let the performances speak for themselves is just as commendable.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-190 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap4-500x188.png" alt="" width="500" height="188" />
Apart from some necessary narration and a few pieces of cursory dialogue, the prologue depicting the Nativity is perfect, and its visual power in the imagery presented from the Star, to the three kings, the watching shepherds and the town of Bethlehem beneath the stars have a lush, painterly feeling to them, even as we follow the three kings and see the birthplace of Jesus. The music accompanying the scene is suitably tender and quietly joyful.
Despite its epic length, Wyler uses every minute of the film wisely. Character beats are appropriately set up and flow naturally into the next scene. We see how well matched Judah and Messala are intellectually and physically, get a sense of how close their families were as children and how much Messala has changed, and we see the seeds of doubt sown before the two break apart. Despite his charisma and affable initial appearance, the film intelligently shows the darkening side of Messala with each new scene, until he is shown to be one of the most realistic and despicable villains to grace the silver screen. The fact that Messala still speaks to Judah like this is all just a game to him twists the knife even more. They very tentatively hint that there was more between Judah and Messala when the latter jokes about “unrequited love” when the former is reluctant to throw his lot in with the Romans so easily.
Judah is the sort of idealistic hero who is just flawed enough to believably exist. He knows when to be loyal to his ideals and when to bide his time respectfully in the company of Emperor Tiberius and Arrius. It’s ironic that he ends up treading the path that Messala desperately sought by the Emperor’s side, and he achieves this by being a good man and holding back from the easy path of murder. One good turn deserves another and mercy begets mercy. But Judah has his share of flaws. When faced with further complications to his mission, he is quick to anger and let that rage manifest for long stretches of time. The notion of brotherly betrayal, you buy into the love and friendship between them and thus the pain that rips them apart is all the more painful. The film is somewhat ambivalent on the whether it was the innate corruption of Rome that turned Messala into the villain he is in the film or whether he really was just a corrupt man, since we see opportunities for him to take the high road and bury the hatchet but he chooses self-advancement at every turn.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-191 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap5-500x185.png" alt="" width="500" height="185" />
Vengeance gave Ben-Hur no satisfaction, and all that rage is shifted from the dying Messala to Rome itself. The bitterness was so deep rooted that Esther tells him point blank that he's becoming like Messala, and his hatred and bitterness is eating away at him, more so as he watches the suffering inflicted upon Jesus as he carries the cross. The simple act of kindness from Jesus to Ben-Hur remained with him for four years and allowed him to hold onto his humanity and to repay kindness with kindness when given the chance to see that same carpenter’s son again. Even when Ben-Hur realizes that he cannot live by hate anymore, there are consequences of that feud, he lost his brother and eschewed his Roman name of Arrius to start again.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-192 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap2-500x186.png" alt="" width="500" height="186" />
The ending of <em>Ben-Hur</em> with the healing rain is portrayed as nothing short of a miracle, and works for symbolic purposes because this had been built up to since the beginning with the Nativity and the encounters with and allusions to Jesus sprinkled throughout the film. Just as the hate that was twisting and warping Ben-Hur inside was stripped away and healed when he had a genuine encounter with Jesus and kept him from going over the edge. The message of forgiveness and relinquishing hate was effective because it was subtle and emotionally sincere to what had been seen and felt earlier in the film.
Overall, <em>Ben-Hur </em>is a magnificent film with just as much of a far reach in terms of technical achievement as well as storytelling prowess. Like with <em>The Ten Commandments</em> and that film’s sincerity and strength in the message it sought to convey, <em>Ben-Hur</em> derives greater strength from its earnest yet grandiose approach to the thematic material and respect for its audience. It was one of the best films of 1959 and is still a ground-breaking classic to this day precisely because it continues to move and inspire audiences to this day. ��l�� Y�������� �ۈ
� 0�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-186 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BenHur-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
<em>Ben-Hur</em> is easily one of the greatest works of drama, spectacle, entertainment and sheer emotional storytelling that I have witnessed in my life. It lives up to its reputation as winner of eleven Academy Awards and then some, and managed to work its magic for someone who hadn’t seen this film in their formative years. It’s Wyler’s grounded, intellectually sincere direction yet larger than life scope that helps it to transcend the sometimes dismissive label of “message movie” to be something that can truly mean all things to all people regardless of belief. Like other classical epics by the likes of Cecil B. DeMille and David Lean, its the delicate balancing act between the intimate and the spectacle that Ben-Hur finds its most lasting impact, allowing it to transcend its inherent religious sentiment.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur021.jpg" />
In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O’Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah, but is committed to another. Judah’s childhood friend, the Roman citizen Messala (Stephen Boyd), is now a tribune. After several years away from Jerusalem, Messala returns as the new commander of the Roman garrison. Messala believes in the glory of Rome and its imperial power, while Judah is devoted to his faith and the freedom of the Jewish people. This difference causes tension between the friends, and results in their split after Messala issues an ultimatum to Judah. During the parade for the new governor of Judea, loose tiles fall from the roof of Judah's house. The governor is thrown from his spooked horse and nearly killed. Although Messala knows this was an accident, he condemns Judah to the galleys and imprisons Miriam and Tirzah. Judah swears to take revenge.
After three years as a galley slave, Judah is assigned to the flagship of the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins), who has been charged with destroying a fleet of Macedonian pirates. Arrius admires Judah's determination and self-discipline, and offers to train him as a gladiator or charioteer. Judah declines the offer, declaring that God will aid him in his quest for vengeance. When the Roman fleet encounters the Macedonians, Arrius orders all the rowers except Judah to be chained to their oars. Arrius’ galley is rammed and sunk, but Judah unchains the other rowers, and rescues Arrius. In despair, Arrius wrongly believes the battle ended in defeat and attempts to commit suicide but Judah stops him. They are rescued, and Arrius is credited with the Roman fleet’s victory. Consul Arrius returns to Rome with Judah as his guest, and both are honoured by Emperor Tiberius (George Relph)
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur093.jpg" />
Heston delivers one of his finest emotionally driven performances in his career, illuminating the warmth of a kind-hearted prince but also the fierce rage that seems barely contained at the slightest provocation. Boyd is fantastic as the treacherous Messala, a man with a great deal of charisma and charm but balanced with great arrogance and contempt and a physical and vocal presence to match Heston. Both actors have a believable brotherly bond and they show the subtle changes from best friends to hated enemies. Hawkins gives gravitas, iron authority and world-weariness to Quintus Arrius and becomes very liable in his own way. Harareet gives a spirited performance with a great deal of emotional range and subtle expressions, and you do believe there is love between Esther and Judah. Scott and O’Donnell are equally sympathetic and sweet as Miriam and Tirzah respectively, and leave an impression despite their limited screen time. Jaffe is sympathetic as Simonides, and Griffith is charming, boisterous and exuberant as Sheik Ilderim. Relph has a brief but memorable role as the venerable Emperor Tiberius. Some quibbles about his accent aside, Finlay Currie does a great job as narrator and as one of Wise Men, Balthasar. Frank Thring portrays Pontius Pilate as a level headed and relatively decent man despite the part he plays in the condemnation of Christ.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur293.jpg" />
The cinematography by Robert L. Surtees on MGM’s legendary Camera 65 and epically wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio is a beautiful feast for the eyes. The use of lighting gives each location a unique sense of atmosphere, ranging from the brightly lit Jerusalem, bleakly hot deserts, to the dark, dank galley of the roman ship or dark, cold hallways of the Roman fort. This is a case where capturing as much of the scenery and cast of thousands necessitates this kind of camera work. The breadth and depth of field and sublime colour demand to be seen on the largest screen possible. One of the greatest visual master strokes of the film is the fact that you do not see Jesus’ face, but the impact of his presence is tantalising. The fact that his name is never spoken also keeps it subtle, but also more mystical, intriguing and yet more real at the same time because you see him through other characters’ perspectives.
The vast and elaborate sets populated with well adorned extras bring the life and colour of Jerusalem to life. They don't look like sets; they look like real locations with history and tangibility to them. The matte paintings for the sky do look rather like paintings rather than the real thing, but that is no insult on the quality work. Other matte paintings used to expand the vistas of Palestine, Jerusalem and Rome are some of the finest ever committed to film. The miniature ships are shot in a way that allows the scale of the conflict to still seem massive and terrible. The editing, cinematography and succession of practical effects maintain the illusion of a massive naval battle.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur464.jpg" />
The chariot race is one of the most perfect sequences ever put to film, the build-up with the epic fanfares, the slow pace taking in the spectacular circus and charioteers walking in step just before they break out into a spirited gallop. The fact that it's all shot in camera, without any music, with no doubt multiple takes and a serious risk to both man and beast involved, including what looked like some serious injuries on set, only adds to the breath-taking wonder of this scene. The variety of camera angles and occasionally cutting to the cheering crowd keeps the scene dynamic and engaging without going overboard with the editing. The emotions run high as Messala desperately races against his old brother Judah, madly whipping his horses and ramming his chariot while Judah needs no such cruelty to spur his horses on. It still holds up beautifully today and cannot possibly be topped.
I’ve had the pleasure of listening to many Miklós Rózsa scores in this series, but this is in my eyes his crowning achievement. The breadth and variety of music is legendary, and each piece is memorable in its own right. The bombastic Parade of Charioteers theme, the militaristic Roman marching themes, touching romantic melodies, the tragic strings for Miriam and Tirzah, the modest yet uplifting theme for Jesus, and triumphant choruses can make the hearts of viewers soar with wonder. Similarly, the restraint on certain scenes where the music dials back to let the performances speak for themselves is just as commendable.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur432.jpg" />
Apart from some necessary narration and a few pieces of cursory dialogue, the prologue depicting the Nativity is perfect, and its visual power in the imagery presented from the Star, to the three kings, the watching shepherds and the town of Bethlehem beneath the stars have a lush, painterly feeling to them, even as we follow the three kings and see the birthplace of Jesus. The music accompanying the scene is suitably tender and quietly joyful.
Despite its epic length, Wyler uses every minute of the film wisely. Character beats are appropriately set up and flow naturally into the next scene. We see how well matched Judah and Messala are intellectually and physically, get a sense of how close their families were as children and how much Messala has changed, and we see the seeds of doubt sown before the two break apart. Despite his charisma and affable initial appearance, the film intelligently shows the darkening side of Messala with each new scene, until he is shown to be one of the most realistic and despicable villains to grace the silver screen. The fact that Messala still speaks to Judah like this is all just a game to him twists the knife even more. They very tentatively hint that there was more between Judah and Messala when the latter jokes about “unrequited love” when the former is reluctant to throw his lot in with the Romans so easily.
Judah is the sort of idealistic hero who is just flawed enough to believably exist. He knows when to be loyal to his ideals and when to bide his time respectfully in the company of Emperor Tiberius and Arrius. It’s ironic that he ends up treading the path that Messala desperately sought by the Emperor’s side, and he achieves this by being a good man and holding back from the easy path of murder. One good turn deserves another and mercy begets mercy. But Judah has his share of flaws. When faced with further complications to his mission, he is quick to anger and let that rage manifest for long stretches of time. The notion of brotherly betrayal, you buy into the love and friendship between them and thus the pain that rips them apart is all the more painful. The film is somewhat ambivalent on the whether it was the innate corruption of Rome that turned Messala into the villain he is in the film or whether he really was just a corrupt man, since we see opportunities for him to take the high road and bury the hatchet but he chooses self-advancement at every turn.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur197.jpg" />
Vengeance gave Ben-Hur no satisfaction, and all that rage is shifted from the dying Messala to Rome itself. The bitterness was so deep rooted that Esther tells him point blank that he's becoming like Messala, and his hatred and bitterness is eating away at him, more so as he watches the suffering inflicted upon Jesus as he carries the cross. The simple act of kindness from Jesus to Ben-Hur remained with him for four years and allowed him to hold onto his humanity and to repay kindness with kindness when given the chance to see that same carpenter’s son again. Even when Ben-Hur realizes that he cannot live by hate anymore, there are consequences of that feud, he lost his brother and eschewed his Roman name of Arrius to start again.
The ending of <em>Ben-Hur</em> with the healing rain is portrayed as nothing short of a miracle, and works for symbolic purposes because this had been built up to since the beginning with the Nativity and the encounters with and allusions to Jesus sprinkled throughout the film. Just as the hate that was twisting and warping Ben-Hur inside was stripped away and healed when he had a genuine encounter with Jesus and kept him from going over the edge. The message of forgiveness and relinquishing hate was effective because it was subtle and emotionally sincere to what had been seen and felt earlier in the film.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur655.jpg" />
Overall, <em>Ben-Hur </em>is a magnificent film with just as much of a far reach in terms of technical achievement as well as storytelling prowess. Like with <em>The Ten Commandments</em> and that film’s sincerity and strength in the message it sought to convey, <em>Ben-Hur</em> derives greater strength from its earnest yet grandiose approach to the thematic material and respect for its audience. It was one of the best films of 1959 and is still a ground-breaking classic to this day precisely because it continues to move and inspire audiences to this day. �ۈ�P� Z�������� ��
� 4����<img class="size-medium wp-image-186 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BenHur-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
<em>Ben-Hur</em> is easily one of the greatest works of drama, spectacle, entertainment and sheer emotional storytelling that I have witnessed in my life. It lives up to its reputation as winner of eleven Academy Awards and then some, and managed to work its magic for someone who hadn’t seen this film in their formative years. It’s Wyler’s grounded, intellectually sincere direction yet larger than life scope that helps it to transcend the sometimes dismissive label of “message movie” to be something that can truly mean all things to all people regardless of belief. Like other classical epics by the likes of Cecil B. DeMille and David Lean, its the delicate balancing act between the intimate and the spectacle that Ben-Hur finds its most lasting impact, allowing it to trasncend its inherent religious sentiment.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://staticmass.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dvd_ben.jpg" alt="Image result for ben hur nativity" width="820" height="273" />
In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O’Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah, but is committed to another. Judah’s childhood friend, the Roman citizen Messala (Stephen Boyd), is now a tribune. After several years away from Jerusalem, Messala returns as the new commander of the Roman garrison. Messala believes in the glory of Rome and its imperial power, while Judah is devoted to his faith and the freedom of the Jewish people. This difference causes tension between the friends, and results in their split after Messala issues an ultimatum to Judah. During the parade for the new governor of Judea, loose tiles fall from the roof of Judah's house. The governor is thrown from his spooked horse and nearly killed. Although Messala knows this was an accident, he condemns Judah to the galleys and imprisons Miriam and Tirzah. Judah swears to take revenge.
After three years as a galley slave, Judah is assigned to the flagship of the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins), who has been charged with destroying a fleet of Macedonian pirates. Arrius admires Judah's determination and self-discipline, and offers to train him as a gladiator or charioteer. Judah declines the offer, declaring that God will aid him in his quest for vengeance. When the Roman fleet encounters the Macedonians, Arrius orders all the rowers except Judah to be chained to their oars. Arrius’ galley is rammed and sunk, but Judah unchains the other rowers, and rescues Arrius. In despair, Arrius wrongly believes the battle ended in defeat and attempts to commit suicide but Judah stops him. They are rescued, and Arrius is credited with the Roman fleet’s victory. Consul Arrius returns to Rome with Judah as his guest, and both are honoured by Emperor Tiberius (George Relph)
<img class="size-medium wp-image-187 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap6-500x189.png" alt="" width="500" height="189" />
Heston delivers one of his finest emotionally driven performances in his career, illuminating the warmth of a kind-hearted prince but also the fierce rage that seems barely contained at the slightest provocation. Boyd is fantastic as the treacherous Messala, a man with a great deal of charisma and charm but balanced with great arrogance and contempt and a physical and vocal presence to match Heston. Both actors have a believable brotherly bond and they show the subtle changes from best friends to hated enemies. Hawkins gives gravitas, iron authority and world-weariness to Quintus Arrius and becomes very liable in his own way. Harareet gives a spirited performance with a great deal of emotional range and subtle expressions, and you do believe there is love between Esther and Judah. Scott and O’Donnell are equally sympathetic and sweet as Miriam and Tirzah respectively, and leave an impression despite their limited screen time. Jaffe is sympathetic as Simonides, and Griffith is charming, boisterous and exuberant as Sheik Ilderim. Relph has a brief but memorable role as the venerable Emperor Tiberius. Some quibbles about his accent aside, Finlay Currie does a great job as narrator and as one of Wise Men, Balthasar. Frank Thring portrays Pontius Pilate as a level headed and relatively decent man despite the part he plays in the condemnation of Christ.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-188 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap1-500x187.png" alt="" width="500" height="187" />
The cinematography by Robert L. Surtees on MGM’s legendary Camera 65 and epically wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio is a beautiful feast for the eyes. The use of lighting gives each location a unique sense of atmosphere, ranging from the brightly lit Jerusalem, bleakly hot deserts, to the dark, dank galley of the roman ship or dark, cold hallways of the Roman fort. This is a case where capturing as much of the scenery and cast of thousands necessitates this kind of camera work. The breadth and depth of field and sublime colour demand to be seen on the largest screen possible. One of the greatest visual master strokes of the film is the fact that you do not see Jesus’ face, but the impact of his presence is tantalising. The fact that his name is never spoken also keeps it subtle, but also more mystical, intriguing and yet more real at the same time because you see him through other characters’ perspectives.
The vast and elaborate sets populated with well adorned extras bring the life and colour of Jerusalem to life. They don't look like sets; they look like real locations with history and tangibility to them. The matte paintings for the sky do look rather like paintings rather than the real thing, but that is no insult on the quality work. Other matte paintings used to expand the vistas of Palestine, Jerusalem and Rome are some of the finest ever committed to film. The miniature ships are shot in a way that allows the scale of the conflict to still seem massive and terrible. The editing, cinematography and succession of practical effects maintain the illusion of a massive naval battle.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-189 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap3-500x185.png" alt="" width="500" height="185" />
The chariot race is one of the most perfect sequences ever put to film, the build-up with the epic fanfares, the slow pace taking in the spectacular circus and charioteers walking in step just before they break out into a spirited gallop. The fact that it's all shot in camera, without any music, with no doubt multiple takes and a serious risk to both man and beast involved, including what looked like some serious injuries on set, only adds to the breath-taking wonder of this scene. The variety of camera angles and occasionally cutting to the cheering crowd keeps the scene dynamic and engaging without going overboard with the editing. The emotions run high as Messala desperately races against his old brother Judah, madly whipping his horses and ramming his chariot while Judah needs no such cruelty to spur his horses on. It still holds up beautifully today and cannot possibly be topped.
I’ve had the pleasure of listening to many Miklós Rózsa scores in this series, but this is in my eyes his crowning achievement. The breadth and variety of music is legendary, and each piece is memorable in its own right. The bombastic Parade of Charioteers theme, the militaristic Roman marching themes, touching romantic melodies, the tragic strings for Miriam and Tirzah, the modest yet uplifting theme for Jesus, and triumphant choruses can make the hearts of viewers soar with wonder. Similarly, the restraint on certain scenes where the music dials back to let the performances speak for themselves is just as commendable.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-190 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap4-500x188.png" alt="" width="500" height="188" />
Apart from some necessary narration and a few pieces of cursory dialogue, the prologue depicting the Nativity is perfect, and its visual power in the imagery presented from the Star, to the three kings, the watching shepherds and the town of Bethlehem beneath the stars have a lush, painterly feeling to them, even as we follow the three kings and see the birthplace of Jesus. The music accompanying the scene is suitably tender and quietly joyful.
Despite its epic length, Wyler uses every minute of the film wisely. Character beats are appropriately set up and flow naturally into the next scene. We see how well matched Judah and Messala are intellectually and physically, get a sense of how close their families were as children and how much Messala has changed, and we see the seeds of doubt sown before the two break apart. Despite his charisma and affable initial appearance, the film intelligently shows the darkening side of Messala with each new scene, until he is shown to be one of the most realistic and despicable villains to grace the silver screen. The fact that Messala still speaks to Judah like this is all just a game to him twists the knife even more. They very tentatively hint that there was more between Judah and Messala when the latter jokes about “unrequited love” when the former is reluctant to throw his lot in with the Romans so easily.
Judah is the sort of idealistic hero who is just flawed enough to believably exist. He knows when to be loyal to his ideals and when to bide his time respectfully in the company of Emperor Tiberius and Arrius. It’s ironic that he ends up treading the path that Messala desperately sought by the Emperor’s side, and he achieves this by being a good man and holding back from the easy path of murder. One good turn deserves another and mercy begets mercy. But Judah has his share of flaws. When faced with further complications to his mission, he is quick to anger and let that rage manifest for long stretches of time. The notion of brotherly betrayal, you buy into the love and friendship between them and thus the pain that rips them apart is all the more painful. The film is somewhat ambivalent on the whether it was the innate corruption of Rome that turned Messala into the villain he is in the film or whether he really was just a corrupt man, since we see opportunities for him to take the high road and bury the hatchet but he chooses self-advancement at every turn.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-191 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap5-500x185.png" alt="" width="500" height="185" />
Vengeance gave Ben-Hur no satisfaction, and all that rage is shifted from the dying Messala to Rome itself. The bitterness was so deep rooted that Esther tells him point blank that he's becoming like Messala, and his hatred and bitterness is eating away at him, more so as he watches the suffering inflicted upon Jesus as he carries the cross. The simple act of kindness from Jesus to Ben-Hur remained with him for four years and allowed him to hold onto his humanity and to repay kindness with kindness when given the chance to see that same carpenter’s son again. Even when Ben-Hur realizes that he cannot live by hate anymore, there are consequences of that feud, he lost his brother and eschewed his Roman name of Arrius to start again.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-192 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cap2-500x186.png" alt="" width="500" height="186" />
The ending of <em>Ben-Hur</em> with the healing rain is portrayed as nothing short of a miracle, and works for symbolic purposes because this had been built up to since the beginning with the Nativity and the encounters with and allusions to Jesus sprinkled throughout the film. Just as the hate that was twisting and warping Ben-Hur inside was stripped away and healed when he had a genuine encounter with Jesus and kept him from going over the edge. The message of forgiveness and relinquishing hate was effective because it was subtle and emotionally sincere to what had been seen and felt earlier in the film.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://images.vozpopuli.com/2014/12/09/marabilias/cultura/Imagen-pelicula-Ben-Hur_760134047_2383730_2824x1024.png" alt="Image result for ben hur chariot race" width="541" height="196" />
Overall, <em>Ben-Hur </em>is a magnificent film with just as much of a far reach in terms of technical achievement as well as storytelling prowess. Like with <em>The Ten Commandments</em> and that film’s sincerity and strength in the message it sought to convey, <em>Ben-Hur</em> derives greater strength from its earnest yet grandiose approach to the thematic material and respect for its audience. It was one of the best films of 1959 and is still a ground-breaking classic to this day precisely because it continues to move and inspire audiences to this day. ���� [�������� �T�
� >����<img class="size-medium wp-image-202 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Gladiator-329x500.png" alt="" width="329" height="500" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>What we do in life echoes in eternity.</em></p>
<em>Gladiator</em> was the first sword and sandal epic since <em>The Fall of the Roman Empire </em>in 1964. While not the most accurate of the historical epics I’ve seen so far, it is one of the most entertaining and well executed I have seen of the lot. This was the first Ridley Scott film I saw as a child (long before his sci-fi classics of <em>Alien</em> and <em>Blade Runner</em>), and it set him up in my eyes as a modern day Cecil B. DeMille, the master of the epic. He officially brought a genre back from the dead and reinstated himself. He was able to make you feel like you’re in Ancient Rome, and make the world feel alive, combined with a compelling story of revenge and justice.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_3125.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
In AD 180, Hispano-Roman General Maximus Decimus Meridius (Russell Crowe) intends to return to his home after he leads the Roman army to victory against the Germanic tribes near Vindobona. Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) tells Maximus that his own son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), is unfit to succeed and that he wishes Maximus to succeed him as regent to help save Rome from corruption. When Commodus is told of the plane, he murders his father.
Commodus announces he is the new Emperor and asks Maximus for his loyalty, which he refuses. Maximus is arrested by Praetorian Guard, sentenced to death and told that his family will meet him in the afterlife. However, Maximus kills his captors and rides across for his home near Trujillo, only to find it burning and his family murdered. Maximus buries his family, and is found collapsed by slavers who take him to the Roman province of Zucchabar, where he is sold to a gladiator trainer named Proximo (Oliver Reed). Although reluctant at first, Maximus fights in local tournaments and make friends with two other gladiators: Juba (Djimon Hounsou), a Numidian; and Hagen (Ralf Möller), a German. His military skills help him win matches and gain recognition from other gladiators and the crowd. Proximo takes his gladiators to fight in Rome’s Colosseum, affording Maximus a chance to come face to face with Commodus, who is growing increasingly mad with power and lustfully attracted to his sister, Lucilla (Connie Nielsen).
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_1542.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
Crowe’s performance as Maximus is fully worthy of his Academy Award for Best Actor, as a disciplined soldier his eyes convey a great deal of barely contained emotion without need for much dialogue; his subtle expressions and the way he goes about being a soldier, slave and a gladiator visually inform us of his character. He <strong>is</strong> Maximus. Phoenix plays Commodus to perfection, with terrific emotional scenes and yet has an unpredictable, frightening presence and a lot of creepy scenes. Something about his eyes and face just seems naturally unsettling and evil. Nielsen is just as good as Crowe, Phoenix and Harris, she has the ladylike grace down perfectly, and when she has to play the part of loyal sister to the emperor and keep her composure up when confronted by Maximus and Commodus she does so incredibly well. Harris is terrific as Marcus Aurelius, where his great age lends credence to the image of the wise, world-weary philosopher emperor, his scenes are all the more poignant when you consider that he passed away two years after this film Harris conveys the world-weariness of an Emperor who has seen nearly twenty years of war. Reed in his last ever role is a total blast as Proximo, he lends himself well to the sardonic and pessimistic former gladiator, nostalgic for his glory days. Derek Jacobi’s thespian experience is a welcome addition, naturally blending into the role of wise senator. Hounsou’s Juba is a pretty cool supporting character, handing himself well in the action scenes and forming a brotherly bond with Crowe’s Maximus. Considering that he’s a bodybuilder and strongman first and actor second, Möller does a very good job in this supporting role as the Germanic gladiator, Hagen. Spencer Treat Clark is likable and sympathetic as the young Lucius, David Hemmings is entertaining as the announcer Cassius, David Schofield is memorable as the corrupt Senator Falco, Omid Djalili has a brief but humorous turn as the slave trader, Tommy Flanagan as the loyal soldier Cicero.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_2408.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The score by Hans Zimmer is by far one of his greatest achievements. While comparisons have been made to ‘Mars: Bringer of War’ from Gustav Holst’s ‘The Planets’, it effectively conveys the might of the Roman Empire and its armies. The use of the duduk, drums and guitars give character to the arid regions of the film while mighty horns and strings give character to Rome itself. The eerie, mysterious theme for Commodus, called “Progeny” gives a great first impression and sets the tone for the whole film as one of intrigue and struggle. While the long musical cues for the main battle sequences are heroic, thrilling, chest-pumping pieces, it’s a bit funny to hear a version of his not-yet-made <em>Pirates of the Caribbean</em> theme. The gentle and melancholic recurring theme for Maximus and his family is expressed through “Earth” and the lovely and heart wrenching song “Now We Are Free” performed by Lisa Gerrard, which still moves me to tears every single time. While it doesn’t have the same level of melodic character and brassy grandeur of the scores by Miklós Rózsa, the score is unique and yet appropriately fitting for the setting to transport you into that world and conveys the emotions of the characters. Zimmer’s score added so much to the film that it’s impossible to imagine another in its place.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_3815.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The cinematography by John Mathieson is sublime. With a few simple shots, Scott establishes what sort of character Maximus is, how he understands his place in the world, and foreshadows fate in an organic and subtle way. The panning shots combined with the music depicting the size of the Roman armies and of Rome’s vaulted architecture. Scott’s vision of Rome combine with Mathieson’s camera skill looks like the work of Renaissance artistry and yet very organic and lived in at the same time. You see buildings that look older and buildings that look more recent crammed together, just as the city would have been. There is wonderful atmosphere throughout the film, notably the cold blue hues of the Germania scenes, the warm orange tones at the victory banquet, and the lush greens of Spain and Italy.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_0389.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The battle scenes are some of the best in any film, combining the volleys of arrows and catapult fire and advancing legionnaires. Real life amputees and real looking dummies with blood-bags were used to depict the bloody carnage of the battle, the brutality and visceral nature of the battle is flawlessly executed. While it’s over quickly, it feels like an anti-war moment; the blood, dirt and carnage blend together to create a very sobering scene. This was one of the last instances of using real live animals in a period piece action scene; those tigers in the fight between Maximus and Tigris would be CGI if <em>Gladiator</em> was made today. The CGI holds up one hundred percent from its debut in 2000, the wide shots of Ancient Rome, the compositing between the CGI vistas and physical sets are seamless. The use of practical elements and CGI composited together expand the scale of the battle. The depiction of the gladiatorial games is nothing short of horrific, with death coming swiftly, brutally and without warning, just as it would have been.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_5935.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The plot was influenced by three notable films of the sword-and-sandal genre, <em>The Fall of the Roman Empire</em>, <em>Spartacus</em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em>. While the story of a man falling from a position of power, living in exile, and climbing up the ladder for revenge or justice has been done in The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur, the content and execution of the formula in this film is what makes it worthwhile. This is one instance where execution tops originality. The script has many memorable quotes littered throughout, from Proximo’s words of wisdom to his gladiators to Maximus’ revelation to Commodus and the whole Coliseum. The humour is subtle, and interwoven throughout thanks to the expressions and delivery of the actors. The romance between Maximus and Lucilla is subdued but appropriate for their respective positions, as its more unrequited love on Lucilla’s part and a lot is implied in the dialogue but Maximus’ honour and loyalty to his wife keeps their relationship relatively pure.
Additional scenes from the extended cut such as Maximus inspecting his men reminds the audience that there’s still a bloody aftermath and the wounded to tend to, and shows that he’s more at home with the soldiers than he is in the Senate. The additional scenes allow one minor gladiator, revealed to be a former scribe, to be fleshed out a bit more so that when he wets himself before dying its genuinely tragic rather than just a cheap gag, which by itself didn’t detract from the film’s tone. Another good point of the extended edition is the fact that we actually see Commodus’ spies patrol the streets and survey Maximus’ allies. While the theatrical cut is a great film in its own right, these additional scenes do slow it down somewhat and are more or less optional.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_6077.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The film offers up a mirror to consumer society, and how susceptible the general population is to distraction and spectacle. There are comparisons to be made between the frenzy of the Games and the gladiators to modern day sports and media entertainment, the celebrity machine and their manipulative and immoral masters. If this were a story was set in modern times with a young sports player caught in the midst of business politics, it would still be relevant and pertinent. Even the Coliseum speaker behaves like a studio executive, and Ridley is possibly making light of some anonymous studio bigwigs Scott would have worked with. Commodus knows this, and he knows what kind of power it can bring, using the games as an illusion to deceive the people of Rome, entertaining them at the expense of their future. Proximo realizes it too, describing himself as a mere “entertainer” interested in giving the people the bloody spectacle they crave.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_1849.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
That “dream of Rome” Marcus Aurelius refers to is the politically ideal situation of a Roman Republic, an unstated nation of conscience. Maximus exemplifies the best which that Rome has to offer; wisdom, justice, fortitude and temperance, living for the safety of others even when his life has been taken from him. The ending suggests that the corruption in the empire has been defeated and Rome can become a republic again. But truthfully, even though the film hints at this fervently for the sake of a satisfying conclusion, there are still corrupt senators shown to still be alive by the end and already a financial mess left by funding the games. The final visual is of a sunset over the city, as though to suggest that Rome has entered the twilight years of its dominance despite the defiance of Maximus, thus making it more bittersweet and a touch tragic.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://remembranceofpicturespast.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/capture81.jpg" alt="Image result for Architectural rendering" width="820" height="350" />
The battle between the vast Roman army and smaller Germanic army serves as a metaphor for Maximus’ eventual own resistance against Roman power under Commodus. Once again the best kinds of villains are the ones where you understand why they are as we see them, due to the lack of relationship with his father and being constantly overshadowed by the talented General Maximus. Commodus frequently refers to Maximus as his brother and that they’ve known each other since childhood, hinting at a possible brotherhood between the two men, which gives Commodus’ betrayal another layer of injustice to it. He has all this power but doesn’t know how to use it, and nothing to show for his rule. As the film progresses, Commodus looks increasingly pale and vampiric, and his emotional state becomes more inhuman and paranoid, the make-up to create the impression that he’s slowly turning to stone as he becomes more and more evil. One final key contrast between Maximus and Commodus is how they deal with death; Maximus actively seeks death and reunite with his family in the afterlife before renewing his purpose, helped by Juba’s advice, to take his revenge with honour before death. Commodus seeks immortality through legacy of the games and his desired progeny with Lucilla to “last a thousand years”, and when he is faced with death he is overcome with fear despite having dealt death to hundreds in his reign.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H3tvRNMiKuk/WTCtRtzXDKI/AAAAAAAARWU/3t42BBYFBg8Gx2SnhDrmlw0jDiZclqmNgCLcB/s1600/alien_return.jpg" alt="Image result for gladiator now we are free" width="820" height="349" />
In May 2016, my brother and I saw <em>Gladiator</em> with a live orchestra in the Royal Albert Hall and it was euphorically epic, the way the music from the orchestra rose up with its mighty choir like Jupiter himself commanding the clouds to thunder. The thing that amazed me about seeing it last year at the Albert Hall was its sheer power to bedazzle audiences 16 years after its release; the standing ovation was very long and utterly heartfelt. That’s when I realized why Gladiator is my personal favourite of Ridley Scott’s very best work, because of its emotional transcendence. It’s a simple story of a man’s fall from grace and rise to exact revenge, told so well and with such epic and yet personal scope that you are taken on a rollercoaster of emotions. It’s more emotionally resonant than <em>Blade Runner </em>and more thought provoking than <em>Alien</em>. An unconventional viewpoint to many, I'm sure but one I stand by.
<em>Gladiator </em>is an absolutely inspiring, powerful and moving epic in every sense of the word. Despite the historical inaccuracies, the drama of the period is still beautifully conveyed through the direction, script, action and visuals. I always get wrapped up in the story, the characters, the setting and showed that we can do take audiences to fantastic new worlds, ancient or fantastical, with the technology and talent of the time. Even years after the phase has died down, <em>Gladiator</em> is a great film that inspired millions to read up on Roman history and want to revisit the Antiquity he presented. It is the modern classic of Ancient Rome, epic filmmaking at its finest. �TߋTj� \�������� ┇
� ;����<img class="size-medium wp-image-202 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Gladiator-329x500.png" alt="" width="329" height="500" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>What we do in life echoes in eternity.</em></p>
<em>Gladiator</em> was the first sword and sandal epic since <em>The Fall of the Roman Empire </em>in 1964. While not the most accurate of the historical epics I’ve seen so far, it is one of the most entertaining and well executed I have seen of the lot. This was the first Ridley Scott film I saw as a child (long before his sci-fi classics of <em>Alien</em> and <em>Blade Runner</em>), and it set him up in my eyes as a modern day Cecil B. DeMille, the master of the epic. He officially brought a genre back from the dead and reinstated himself. He was able to make you feel like you’re in Ancient Rome, and make the world feel alive, combined with a compelling story of revenge and justice.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_3125.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
In AD 180, Hispano-Roman General Maximus Decimus Meridius (Russell Crowe) intends to return to his home after he leads the Roman army to victory against the Germanic tribes near Vindobona. Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) tells Maximus that his own son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), is unfit to succeed and that he wishes Maximus to succeed him as regent to help save Rome from corruption. When Commodus is told of the plane, he murders his father.
Commodus announces he is the new Emperor and asks Maximus for his loyalty, which he refuses. Maximus is arrested by Praetorian Guard, sentenced to death and told that his family will meet him in the afterlife. However, Maximus kills his captors and rides across for his home near Trujillo, only to find it burning and his family murdered. Maximus buries his family, and is found collapsed by slavers who take him to the Roman province of Zucchabar, where he is sold to a gladiator trainer named Proximo (Oliver Reed). Although reluctant at first, Maximus fights in local tournaments and make friends with two other gladiators: Juba (Djimon Hounsou), a Numidian; and Hagen (Ralf Möller), a German. His military skills help him win matches and gain recognition from other gladiators and the crowd. Proximo takes his gladiators to fight in Rome’s Colosseum, affording Maximus a chance to come face to face with Commodus, who is growing increasingly mad with power and lustfully attracted to his sister, Lucilla (Connie Nielsen).
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_1542.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
Crowe’s performance as Maximus is fully worthy of his Academy Award for Best Actor, as a disciplined soldier his eyes convey a great deal of barely contained emotion without need for much dialogue; his subtle expressions and the way he goes about being a soldier, slave and a gladiator visually inform us of his character. He <strong>is</strong> Maximus. Phoenix plays Commodus to perfection, with terrific emotional scenes and yet has an unpredictable, frightening presence and a lot of creepy scenes. Something about his eyes and face just seems naturally unsettling and evil. Nielsen is just as good as Crowe, Phoenix and Harris, she has the ladylike grace down perfectly, and when she has to play the part of loyal sister to the emperor and keep her composure up when confronted by Maximus and Commodus she does so incredibly well. Harris is terrific as Marcus Aurelius, where his great age lends credence to the image of the wise, world-weary philosopher emperor, his scenes are all the more poignant when you consider that he passed away two years after this film Harris conveys the world-weariness of an Emperor who has seen nearly twenty years of war. Reed in his last ever role is a total blast as Proximo, he lends himself well to the sardonic and pessimistic former gladiator, nostalgic for his glory days. Derek Jacobi’s thespian experience is a welcome addition, naturally blending into the role of wise senator. Hounsou’s Juba is a pretty cool supporting character, handing himself well in the action scenes and forming a brotherly bond with Crowe’s Maximus. Considering that he’s a bodybuilder and strongman first and actor second, Möller does a very good job in this supporting role as the Germanic gladiator, Hagen. Spencer Treat Clark is likable and sympathetic as the young Lucius, David Hemmings is entertaining as the announcer Cassius, David Schofield is memorable as the corrupt Senator Falco, Omid Djalili has a brief but humorous turn as the slave trader, Tommy Flanagan as the loyal soldier Cicero.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_2408.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The score by Hans Zimmer is by far one of his greatest achievements. While comparisons have been made to ‘Mars: Bringer of War’ from Gustav Holst’s ‘The Planets’, it effectively conveys the might of the Roman Empire and its armies. The use of the duduk, drums and guitars give character to the arid regions of the film while mighty horns and strings give character to Rome itself. The eerie, mysterious theme for Commodus, called “Progeny” gives a great first impression and sets the tone for the whole film as one of intrigue and struggle. While the long musical cues for the main battle sequences are heroic, thrilling, chest-pumping pieces, it’s a bit funny to hear a version of his not-yet-made <em>Pirates of the Caribbean</em> theme. The gentle and melancholic recurring theme for Maximus and his family is expressed through “Earth” and the lovely and heart wrenching song “Now We Are Free” performed by Lisa Gerrard, which still moves me to tears every single time. While it doesn’t have the same level of melodic character and brassy grandeur of the scores by Miklós Rózsa, the score is unique and yet appropriately fitting for the setting to transport you into that world and conveys the emotions of the characters. Zimmer’s score added so much to the film that it’s impossible to imagine another in its place.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_3815.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The cinematography by John Mathieson is sublime. With a few simple shots, Scott establishes what sort of character Maximus is, how he understands his place in the world, and foreshadows fate in an organic and subtle way. The panning shots combined with the music depicting the size of the Roman armies and of Rome’s vaulted architecture. Scott’s vision of Rome combine with Mathieson’s camera skill looks like the work of Renaissance artistry and yet very organic and lived in at the same time. You see buildings that look older and buildings that look more recent crammed together, just as the city would have been. There is wonderful atmosphere throughout the film, notably the cold blue hues of the Germania scenes, the warm orange tones at the victory banquet, and the lush greens of Spain and Italy.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_0389.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The battle scenes are some of the best in any film, combining the volleys of arrows and catapult fire and advancing legionnaires. Real life amputees and real looking dummies with blood-bags were used to depict the bloody carnage of the battle, the brutality and visceral nature of the battle is flawlessly executed. While it’s over quickly, it feels like an anti-war moment; the blood, dirt and carnage blend together to create a very sobering scene. This was one of the last instances of using real live animals in a period piece action scene; those tigers in the fight between Maximus and Tigris would be CGI if <em>Gladiator</em> was made today. The CGI holds up one hundred percent from its debut in 2000, the wide shots of Ancient Rome, the compositing between the CGI vistas and physical sets are seamless. The use of practical elements and CGI composited together expand the scale of the battle. The depiction of the gladiatorial games is nothing short of horrific, with death coming swiftly, brutally and without warning, just as it would have been.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_5935.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The plot was influenced by three notable films of the sword-and-sandal genre, <em>The Fall of the Roman Empire</em>, <em>Spartacus</em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em>. While the story of a man falling from a position of power, living in exile, and climbing up the ladder for revenge or justice has been done in The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur, the content and execution of the formula in this film is what makes it worthwhile. This is one instance where execution tops originality. The script has many memorable quotes littered throughout, from Proximo’s words of wisdom to his gladiators to Maximus’ revelation to Commodus and the whole Coliseum. The humour is subtle, and interwoven throughout thanks to the expressions and delivery of the actors. The romance between Maximus and Lucilla is subdued but appropriate for their respective positions, as its more unrequited love on Lucilla’s part and a lot is implied in the dialogue but Maximus’ honour and loyalty to his wife keeps their relationship relatively pure.
Additional scenes from the extended cut such as Maximus inspecting his men reminds the audience that there’s still a bloody aftermath and the wounded to tend to, and shows that he’s more at home with the soldiers than he is in the Senate. The additional scenes allow one minor gladiator, revealed to be a former scribe, to be fleshed out a bit more so that when he wets himself before dying its genuinely tragic rather than just a cheap gag, which by itself didn’t detract from the film’s tone. Another good point of the extended edition is the fact that we actually see Commodus’ spies patrol the streets and survey Maximus’ allies. While the theatrical cut is a great film in its own right, these additional scenes do slow it down somewhat and are more or less optional.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_6077.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The film offers up a mirror to consumer society, and how susceptible the general population is to distraction and spectacle. There are comparisons to be made between the frenzy of the Games and the gladiators to modern day sports and media entertainment, the celebrity machine and their manipulative and immoral masters. If this were a story was set in modern times with a young sports player caught in the midst of business politics, it would still be relevant and pertinent. Even the Coliseum speaker behaves like a studio executive, and Ridley is possibly making light of some anonymous studio bigwigs Scott would have worked with. Commodus knows this, and he knows what kind of power it can bring, using the games as an illusion to deceive the people of Rome, entertaining them at the expense of their future. Proximo realizes it too, describing himself as a mere “entertainer” interested in giving the people the bloody spectacle they crave.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_1849.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
That “dream of Rome” Marcus Aurelius refers to is the politically ideal situation of a Roman Republic, an unstated nation of conscience. Maximus exemplifies the best which that Rome has to offer; wisdom, justice, fortitude and temperance, living for the safety of others even when his life has been taken from him. The ending suggests that the corruption in the empire has been defeated and Rome can become a republic again. But truthfully, even though the film hints at this fervently for the sake of a satisfying conclusion, there are still corrupt senators shown to still be alive by the end and already a financial mess left by funding the games. The final visual is of a sunset over the city, as though to suggest that Rome has entered the twilight years of its dominance despite the defiance of Maximus, thus making it more bittersweet and a touch tragic.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://remembranceofpicturespast.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/capture81.jpg" alt="Image result for Architectural rendering" width="820" height="350" />
The battle between the vast Roman army and smaller Germanic army serves as a metaphor for Maximus’ eventual own resistance against Roman power under Commodus. Once again the best kinds of villains are the ones where you understand why they are as we see them, due to the lack of relationship with his father and being constantly overshadowed by the talented General Maximus. Commodus frequently refers to Maximus as his brother and that they’ve known each other since childhood, hinting at a possible brotherhood between the two men, which gives Commodus’ betrayal another layer of injustice to it. He has all this power but doesn’t know how to use it, and nothing to show for his rule. As the film progresses, Commodus looks increasingly pale and vampiric, and his emotional state becomes more inhuman and paranoid, the make-up to create the impression that he’s slowly turning to stone as he becomes more and more evil. One final key contrast between Maximus and Commodus is how they deal with death; Maximus actively seeks death and reunite with his family in the afterlife before renewing his purpose, helped by Juba’s advice, to take his revenge with honour before death. Commodus seeks immortality through legacy of the games and his desired progeny with Lucilla to “last a thousand years”, and when he is faced with death he is overcome with fear despite having dealt death to hundreds in his reign.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H3tvRNMiKuk/WTCtRtzXDKI/AAAAAAAARWU/3t42BBYFBg8Gx2SnhDrmlw0jDiZclqmNgCLcB/s1600/alien_return.jpg" alt="Image result for gladiator now we are free" width="820" height="349" />
<em>Gladiator </em>is an absolutely inspiring, powerful and moving epic in every sense of the word. Despite the historical inaccuracies, the drama of the period is still beautifully conveyed through the direction, script, action and visuals. I always get wrapped up in the story, the characters, the setting and showed that we can do take audiences to fantastic new worlds, ancient or fantastical, with the technology and talent of the time. Even years after the phase has died down, <em>Gladiator</em> is a great film that inspired millions to read up on Roman history and want to revisit the Antiquity he presented. It is the modern classic of Ancient Rome, epic filmmaking at its finest. ┇��� ]�������� ��
� >����<img class="size-medium wp-image-202 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Gladiator-329x500.png" alt="" width="329" height="500" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>What we do in life echoes in eternity.</em></p>
<em>Gladiator</em> was the first sword and sandal epic since <em>The Fall of the Roman Empire </em>in 1964. While not the most accurate of the historical epics I’ve seen so far, it is one of the most entertaining and well executed I have seen of the lot. This was the first Ridley Scott film I saw as a child (long before his sci-fi classics of <em>Alien</em> and <em>Blade Runner</em>), and it set him up in my eyes as a modern day Cecil B. DeMille, the master of the epic. He officially brought a genre back from the dead and reinstated himself. He was able to make you feel like you’re in Ancient Rome, and make the world feel alive, combined with a compelling story of revenge and justice.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_3125.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
In AD 180, Hispano-Roman General Maximus Decimus Meridius (Russell Crowe) intends to return to his home after he leads the Roman army to victory against the Germanic tribes near Vindobona. Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) tells Maximus that his own son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), is unfit to succeed and that he wishes Maximus to succeed him as regent to help save Rome from corruption. When Commodus is told of the plane, he murders his father.
Commodus announces he is the new Emperor and asks Maximus for his loyalty, which he refuses. Maximus is arrested by Praetorian Guard, sentenced to death and told that his family will meet him in the afterlife. However, Maximus kills his captors and rides across for his home near Trujillo, only to find it burning and his family murdered. Maximus buries his family, and is found collapsed by slavers who take him to the Roman province of Zucchabar, where he is sold to a gladiator trainer named Proximo (Oliver Reed). Although reluctant at first, Maximus fights in local tournaments and make friends with two other gladiators: Juba (Djimon Hounsou), a Numidian; and Hagen (Ralf Möller), a German. His military skills help him win matches and gain recognition from other gladiators and the crowd. Proximo takes his gladiators to fight in Rome’s Colosseum, affording Maximus a chance to come face to face with Commodus, who is growing increasingly mad with power and lustfully attracted to his sister, Lucilla (Connie Nielsen).
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_1542.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
Crowe’s performance as Maximus is fully worthy of his Academy Award for Best Actor, as a disciplined soldier his eyes convey a great deal of barely contained emotion without need for much dialogue; his subtle expressions and the way he goes about being a soldier, slave and a gladiator visually inform us of his character. He <strong>is</strong> Maximus. Phoenix plays Commodus to perfection, with terrific emotional scenes and yet has an unpredictable, frightening presence and a lot of creepy scenes. Something about his eyes and face just seems naturally unsettling and evil. Nielsen is just as good as Crowe, Phoenix and Harris, she has the ladylike grace down perfectly, and when she has to play the part of loyal sister to the emperor and keep her composure up when confronted by Maximus and Commodus she does so incredibly well. Harris is terrific as Marcus Aurelius, where his great age lends credence to the image of the wise, world-weary philosopher emperor, his scenes are all the more poignant when you consider that he passed away two years after this film Harris conveys the world-weariness of an Emperor who has seen nearly twenty years of war. Reed in his last ever role is a total blast as Proximo, he lends himself well to the sardonic and pessimistic former gladiator, nostalgic for his glory days. Derek Jacobi’s thespian experience is a welcome addition, naturally blending into the role of wise senator. Hounsou’s Juba is a pretty cool supporting character, handing himself well in the action scenes and forming a brotherly bond with Crowe’s Maximus. Considering that he’s a bodybuilder and strongman first and actor second, Möller does a very good job in this supporting role as the Germanic gladiator, Hagen. Spencer Treat Clark is likable and sympathetic as the young Lucius, David Hemmings is entertaining as the announcer Cassius, David Schofield is memorable as the corrupt Senator Falco, Omid Djalili has a brief but humorous turn as the slave trader, Tommy Flanagan as the loyal soldier Cicero.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_2408.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The score by Hans Zimmer is by far one of his greatest achievements. While comparisons have been made to ‘Mars: Bringer of War’ from Gustav Holst’s ‘The Planets’, it effectively conveys the might of the Roman Empire and its armies. The use of the duduk, drums and guitars give character to the arid regions of the film while mighty horns and strings give character to Rome itself. The eerie, mysterious theme for Commodus, called “Progeny” gives a great first impression and sets the tone for the whole film as one of intrigue and struggle. While the long musical cues for the main battle sequences are heroic, thrilling, chest-pumping pieces, it’s a bit funny to hear a version of his not-yet-made <em>Pirates of the Caribbean</em> theme. The gentle and melancholic recurring theme for Maximus and his family is expressed through “Earth” and the lovely and heart wrenching song “Now We Are Free” performed by Lisa Gerrard, which still moves me to tears every single time. While it doesn’t have the same level of melodic character and brassy grandeur of the scores by Miklós Rózsa, the score is unique and yet appropriately fitting for the setting to transport you into that world and conveys the emotions of the characters. Zimmer’s score added so much to the film that it’s impossible to imagine another in its place.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_3815.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The cinematography by John Mathieson is sublime. With a few simple shots, Scott establishes what sort of character Maximus is, how he understands his place in the world, and foreshadows fate in an organic and subtle way. The panning shots combined with the music depicting the size of the Roman armies and of Rome’s vaulted architecture. Scott’s vision of Rome combine with Mathieson’s camera skill looks like the work of Renaissance artistry and yet very organic and lived in at the same time. You see buildings that look older and buildings that look more recent crammed together, just as the city would have been. There is wonderful atmosphere throughout the film, notably the cold blue hues of the Germania scenes, the warm orange tones at the victory banquet, and the lush greens of Spain and Italy.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_0389.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The battle scenes are some of the best in any film, combining the volleys of arrows and catapult fire and advancing legionnaires. Real life amputees and real looking dummies with blood-bags were used to depict the bloody carnage of the battle, the brutality and visceral nature of the battle is flawlessly executed. While it’s over quickly, it feels like an anti-war moment; the blood, dirt and carnage blend together to create a very sobering scene. This was one of the last instances of using real live animals in a period piece action scene; those tigers in the fight between Maximus and Tigris would be CGI if <em>Gladiator</em> was made today. The CGI holds up one hundred percent from its debut in 2000, the wide shots of Ancient Rome, the compositing between the CGI vistas and physical sets are seamless. The use of practical elements and CGI composited together expand the scale of the battle. The depiction of the gladiatorial games is nothing short of horrific, with death coming swiftly, brutally and without warning, just as it would have been.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_5935.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The plot was influenced by three notable films of the sword-and-sandal genre, <em>The Fall of the Roman Empire</em>, <em>Spartacus</em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em>. While the story of a man falling from a position of power, living in exile, and climbing up the ladder for revenge or justice has been done in The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur, the content and execution of the formula in this film is what makes it worthwhile. This is one instance where execution tops originality. The script has many memorable quotes littered throughout, from Proximo’s words of wisdom to his gladiators to Maximus’ revelation to Commodus and the whole Coliseum. The humour is subtle, and interwoven throughout thanks to the expressions and delivery of the actors. The romance between Maximus and Lucilla is subdued but appropriate for their respective positions, as its more unrequited love on Lucilla’s part and a lot is implied in the dialogue but Maximus’ honour and loyalty to his wife keeps their relationship relatively pure.
Additional scenes from the extended cut such as Maximus inspecting his men reminds the audience that there’s still a bloody aftermath and the wounded to tend to, and shows that he’s more at home with the soldiers than he is in the Senate. The additional scenes allow one minor gladiator, revealed to be a former scribe, to be fleshed out a bit more so that when he wets himself before dying its genuinely tragic rather than just a cheap gag, which by itself didn’t detract from the film’s tone. Another good point of the extended edition is the fact that we actually see Commodus’ spies patrol the streets and survey Maximus’ allies. While the theatrical cut is a great film in its own right, these additional scenes do slow it down somewhat and are more or less optional.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_6077.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The film offers up a mirror to consumer society, and how susceptible the general population is to distraction and spectacle. There are comparisons to be made between the frenzy of the Games and the gladiators to modern day sports and media entertainment, the celebrity machine and their manipulative and immoral masters. If this were a story was set in modern times with a young sports player caught in the midst of business politics, it would still be relevant and pertinent. Even the Coliseum speaker behaves like a studio executive, and Ridley is possibly making light of some anonymous studio bigwigs Scott would have worked with. Commodus knows this, and he knows what kind of power it can bring, using the games as an illusion to deceive the people of Rome, entertaining them at the expense of their future. Proximo realizes it too, describing himself as a mere “entertainer” interested in giving the people the bloody spectacle they crave.
<img class="image" src="http://screencapped.org/movie/g/albums/movies/gladiator/caps/Gladiator_1849.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
That “dream of Rome” Marcus Aurelius refers to is the politically ideal situation of a Roman Republic, an unstated nation of conscience. Maximus exemplifies the best which that Rome has to offer; wisdom, justice, fortitude and temperance, living for the safety of others even when his life has been taken from him. The ending suggests that the corruption in the empire has been defeated and Rome can become a republic again. But truthfully, even though the film hints at this fervently for the sake of a satisfying conclusion, there are still corrupt senators shown to still be alive by the end and already a financial mess left by funding the games. The final visual is of a sunset over the city, as though to suggest that Rome has entered the twilight years of its dominance despite the defiance of Maximus, thus making it more bittersweet and a touch tragic.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://remembranceofpicturespast.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/capture81.jpg" alt="Image result for Architectural rendering" width="820" height="350" />
The battle between the vast Roman army and smaller Germanic army serves as a metaphor for Maximus’ eventual own resistance against Roman power under Commodus. Once again the best kinds of villains are the ones where you understand why they are as we see them, due to the lack of relationship with his father and being constantly overshadowed by the talented General Maximus. Commodus frequently refers to Maximus as his brother and that they’ve known each other since childhood, hinting at a possible brotherhood between the two men, which gives Commodus’ betrayal another layer of injustice to it. He has all this power but doesn’t know how to use it, and nothing to show for his rule. As the film progresses, Commodus looks increasingly pale and vampiric, and his emotional state becomes more inhuman and paranoid, the make-up to create the impression that he’s slowly turning to stone as he becomes more and more evil. One final key contrast between Maximus and Commodus is how they deal with death; Maximus actively seeks death and reunite with his family in the afterlife before renewing his purpose, helped by Juba’s advice, to take his revenge with honour before death. Commodus seeks immortality through legacy of the games and his desired progeny with Lucilla to “last a thousand years”, and when he is faced with death he is overcome with fear despite having dealt death to hundreds in his reign.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H3tvRNMiKuk/WTCtRtzXDKI/AAAAAAAARWU/3t42BBYFBg8Gx2SnhDrmlw0jDiZclqmNgCLcB/s1600/alien_return.jpg" alt="Image result for gladiator now we are free" width="820" height="349" />
In May 2016, my brother and I saw <em>Gladiator</em> with a live orchestra in the Royal Albert Hall and it was euphorically epic, the way the music from the orchestra rose up with its mighty choir like Jupiter himself commanding the clouds to thunder. The thing that amazed me about seeing it last year at the Albert Hall was its sheer power to bedazzle audiences 16 years after its release; the standing ovation was very long and utterly heartfelt. That’s when I realized why Gladiator is my personal favourite of Ridley Scott’s very best work, because of its emotional transcendence. It’s a simple story of a man’s fall from grace and rise to exact revenge, told so well and with such epic and yet personal scope that you are taken on a rollercoaster of emotions. It’s more emotionally resonant than <em>Blade Runner </em>and more thought provoking than <em>Alien</em>. An unconventional viewpoint to many, I'm sure but one I stand by.
<em>Gladiator </em>is an absolutely inspiring, powerful and moving epic in every sense of the word. Despite the historical inaccuracies, the drama of the period is still beautifully conveyed through the direction, script, action and visuals. I always get wrapped up in the story, the characters, the setting and showed that we can do take audiences to fantastic new worlds, ancient or fantastical, with the technology and talent of the time. Even years after the phase has died down, <em>Gladiator</em> is a great film that inspired millions to read up on Roman history and want to revisit the Antiquity he presented. It is the modern classic of Ancient Rome, epic filmmaking at its finest. �� y� ^�������� �l
� !����<img class="size-medium wp-image-210 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TheVikings-317x500.jpg" alt="" width="317" height="500" />
Richard Fleischer’s barbarian spectacle is perhaps one of the more simple historical action films I’ve reviewed, but is a pleasantly brisk and fun affair. It indulges in all of the key aspects of Viking life, from the sailing, feasting, singing, pillaging, besieging of enemy castles and rivalries between hot-headed individuals within the community. Richard Fleischer’s keen direction, Kirk Douglas’ fiery performance, (mostly) top rate production values and excellent finale make the film worth checking out for any historical film lover.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://annyas.com/screenshots/images/1958/v-rf-01.jpg" alt="Image result for the vikings 1958 screencaps" width="640" height="272" />
The King of Northumbria is killed during a Viking raid led by the fearsome Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine). Because the king had died childless, his corrupt cousin Aella (Frank Thring) takes the throne. The king's widow, however, is pregnant with what she knows is Ragnar’s child because he had raped her during that fateful raid, and to protect the infant from her cousin-in-law's ambitions, she sends him off to Italy. By a twist of fate, the ship is intercepted by the Vikings, who are unaware of the child's kinship, and enslave him.
The boy grows into a young man named Eric (Tony Curtis). His parentage is finally discovered by Lord Egbert (James Donald), a Northumbrian nobleman opposed to Aella. While seeking sanctuary with the Vikings in Norway, Egbert recognises the Northumbrian royal sword's pommel stone on an amulet around Eric’s neck, placed there by Eric’s mother when he was a child, but tells no one. Eric incurs the wrath of Ragnar’s legitimate son and heir, Einar (Kirk Douglas), after the former orders his falcon to attack Einar, taking out one of his eyes. Eric is saved from immediate execution when the royal soothsayer Kitala (Eileen Way) warns that Odin will curse whoever kills him. He is left in a tidal pool to drown with the rising tide by Ragnar’s decree to avoid the curse, but after Kitala calls out to Odin making Erik himself to invoke his mercy, a strong wind shifts and forces the water away, saving him. Lord Egbert then claims him as his slave property to protect his rights, before Einar can return and finish him. They learn of the arranged marriage between King Aella and Princess Morgana (Janet Leigh) of Wales, and plot to kidnap the princess to ransom her in exchange for riches
Despite his position as one of the film’s several antagonists, Douglas is the most memorable and magnetic character in the film, and is clearly having fun as a dynamic, ferocious warrior with a twisted adventuresome spirit. Curtis is not particularly memorable as Eric despite being the main character, but does okay in the fight scenes and in his bitter rivalry with Douglas. Leigh does well as Morgana, and both she and Curtis go through the expected beats of romance between them. Borgnine does his best to give depth to the bloodthirsty Ragnar, and is similarly charismatic as Douglas is as his character’s son. Thring is suitably detestable and slimy as Aella, and an interesting contrast with his performance as Pontius Pilate in <em>Ben-Hur</em>. Eileen Way has a lot of good scenes as the eccentric soothsayer, and Donald is surprisingly engaging as Egbert, being quite likable and sharp-witted. Alexander Knox is also quite likable as Father Godwin.
While the action appears in short bursts during the first act and comes into swing in the third act, it feels more swashbuckling and spirited than anything you would associate with the most infamous raiders of the Dark Ages. The siege of Aella’s castle has good build-up and gets you excited for the battle to begin. While anachronistic, the use of the real Fort de la Latte in north-east Brittany, France is as good excuse as any to have a pretty well staged siege battle. For a PG rated film, there is still a fair amount of violence and a high kill count. The costumes armour and shields look pretty good, but the swords on the extras seldom look up to snuff. Fortunately, the final duel between Eric and Einar is a very satisfying sequence, with real swords, energetic editing and quickly mounting tension.
The elaborate set for the Viking mead hall with its timbered walls, tapestries, shields and messy banquet tables is a treat to behold. The use of real long-ships to sail the fjords, recreated in great detail, gives the film a sense of authenticity and realness. An animated sequence depicting the life and times of the Vikings in the vein of the Bayeux Tapestry, and while it’s a fairly simple piece of narration the visual communication still works.
The cinematography by Jack Cardiff frames the epic Norwegian landscape and the viking ships beautifully, the richness of colour is eye-catching without being as overwhelming as the technicolour spectacle of something like <em>Quo Vadis</em>. The world of The Vikings feels crisp, cold and raw, but nevertheless pure and filled with life. The film is at its most suspenseful when the Viking ships have to sail through fog, and the ominous string accompaniments and low trumpeting horns add atmosphere to the piece. There are many gorgeous shots of the Norwegian fjords and mountains, combined with Nascimbene’s music that successfully instils that sense of Nordic mythology. The film feels epic and operatic without any of the filmmaking tools we take for granted in modern blockbusters.
The score by Mario Nascimbene is a solid one; the main theme has a Wagnerian flavour to it, with complex strings and trumpet arrangements that echo that type of music. There is one sequence where the music develops into something more fun and upbeat, along the lines of the score to <em>The Adventures of Robin Hood</em>. However, there isn’t much variety and the main theme is used perhaps a bit too often.
The few truly morally good characters are powerless in this barbaric world, while the most powerful characters all display a shade of corruption and nastiness. Eric and Morgana are more or less the victims of the more manipulative or bloodthirsty characters, but are not very interesting. Still, the film does maintain an Errol Flynn sense of lightness and fun to its approach, certain scenes of characters mucking about (like Einar and his crew running across their ship’s outstretched oars) or the Vikings’ revelling in their mead hall.
The film takes a while to really get started, the scenes of intrigue in the Anglo-Saxon court are important to frame the rest of the plot but aren’t that interesting. It’s interesting that after spending much of the film at each other's throats, Eric and Einar are willing to set their feud aside to deal with a common enemy, and is the most interesting aspect of the film that doesn’t involve Vikings doing what they do best. Such was the character of rivalries between the early medieval kingdoms, forming and breaking alliances. Ultimately, Ragnar and Einar’s Viking warriors come off as a more spirited and therefore marginally likable crowd than the scheming, grovelling characters in service to Aella, no different from their king.
Although Morgana is presented as a devout Christian and Eric seeks romance with her despite his belief in the Norse gods, the film is otherwise Pagan in character. There is even a sense that the Norse gods are watching over certain characters, with Eric calling upon Odin's help when he is close to drowning, and seemingly the tides being pushed back by the wind. Even the dynamic of half-brothers coming to blows and not knowing that they share the same father feels very much in line with the Norse family sagas of old.
Ultimately, <em>The Vikings </em>is a fun, unpretentious and well-made film in its own right that delivers on what it promises and manages to evoke a sense of adventure from the period, albeit in a somewhat heightened lens. It does feel like a fairly typical old fashioned Hollywood adventure film but one with enough strong elements that make it worth a revisit. It isn’t high art like some of the historical epics I’ve reviewed, but it isn’t completely without something brainier under that strong, muscular outset. �l�8P� _�������� �)�
� #]����<img class="size-medium wp-image-210 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TheVikings-317x500.jpg" alt="" width="317" height="500" />
Richard Fleischer’s barbarian spectacle is perhaps one of the more simple historical action films I’ve reviewed, but is a pleasantly brisk and fun affair. It indulges in all of the key aspects of Viking life, from the sailing, feasting, singing, pillaging, besieging of enemy castles and rivalries between hot-headed individuals within the community. Richard Fleischer’s keen direction, Kirk Douglas’ fiery performance, (mostly) top rate production values and excellent finale make the film worth checking out for any historical film lover.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://annyas.com/screenshots/images/1958/v-rf-01.jpg" alt="Image result for the vikings 1958 screencaps" width="640" height="272" />
The King of Northumbria is killed during a Viking raid led by the fearsome Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine). Because the king had died childless, his corrupt cousin Aella (Frank Thring) takes the throne. The king's widow, however, is pregnant with what she knows is Ragnar’s child because he had raped her during that fateful raid, and to protect the infant from her cousin-in-law's ambitions, she sends him off to Italy. By a twist of fate, the ship is intercepted by the Vikings, who are unaware of the child's kinship, and enslave him.
The boy grows into a young man named Eric (Tony Curtis). His parentage is finally discovered by Lord Egbert (James Donald), a Northumbrian nobleman opposed to Aella. While seeking sanctuary with the Vikings in Norway, Egbert recognises the Northumbrian royal sword's pommel stone on an amulet around Eric’s neck, placed there by Eric’s mother when he was a child, but tells no one. Eric incurs the wrath of Ragnar’s legitimate son and heir, Einar (Kirk Douglas), after the former orders his falcon to attack Einar, taking out one of his eyes. Eric is saved from immediate execution when the royal soothsayer Kitala (Eileen Way) warns that Odin will curse whoever kills him. He is left in a tidal pool to drown with the rising tide by Ragnar’s decree to avoid the curse, but after Kitala calls out to Odin making Erik himself to invoke his mercy, a strong wind shifts and forces the water away, saving him. Lord Egbert then claims him as his slave property to protect his rights, before Einar can return and finish him. They learn of the arranged marriage between King Aella and Princess Morgana (Janet Leigh) of Wales, and plot to kidnap the princess to ransom her in exchange for riches
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.rockshockpop.com/screencaps/VikingsKino/02-1.jpg" alt="Image result for the vikings 1958 screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
Despite his position as one of the film’s several antagonists, Douglas is the most memorable and magnetic character in the film, and is clearly having fun as a dynamic, ferocious warrior with a twisted adventuresome spirit. Curtis is not particularly memorable as Eric despite being the main character, but does okay in the fight scenes and in his bitter rivalry with Douglas. Leigh does well as Morgana, and both she and Curtis go through the expected beats of romance between them. Borgnine does his best to give depth to the bloodthirsty Ragnar, and is similarly charismatic as Douglas is as his character’s son. Thring is suitably detestable and slimy as Aella, and an interesting contrast with his performance as Pontius Pilate in <em>Ben-Hur</em>. Eileen Way has a lot of good scenes as the eccentric soothsayer, and Donald is surprisingly engaging as Egbert, being quite likable and sharp-witted. Alexander Knox is also quite likable as Father Godwin.
While the action appears in short bursts during the first act and comes into swing in the third act, it feels more swashbuckling and spirited than anything you would associate with the most infamous raiders of the Dark Ages. The siege of Aella’s castle has good build-up and gets you excited for the battle to begin. While anachronistic, the use of the real Fort de la Latte in north-east Brittany, France is as good excuse as any to have a pretty well staged siege battle. For a PG rated film, there is still a fair amount of violence and a high kill count. The costumes armour and shields look pretty good, but the swords on the extras seldom look up to snuff. Fortunately, the final duel between Eric and Einar is a very satisfying sequence, with real swords, energetic editing and quickly mounting tension.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.rockshockpop.com/screencaps/VikingsKino/07-1.jpg" alt="Image result for the vikings 1958 screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
The elaborate set for the Viking mead hall with its timbered walls, tapestries, shields and messy banquet tables is a treat to behold. The use of real long-ships to sail the fjords, recreated in great detail, gives the film a sense of authenticity and realness. An animated sequence depicting the life and times of the Vikings in the vein of the Bayeux Tapestry, and while it’s a fairly simple piece of narration the visual communication still works.
The cinematography by Jack Cardiff frames the epic Norwegian landscape and the viking ships beautifully, the richness of colour is eye-catching without being as overwhelming as the technicolour spectacle of something like <em>Quo Vadis</em>. The world of The Vikings feels crisp, cold and raw, but nevertheless pure and filled with life. The film is at its most suspenseful when the Viking ships have to sail through fog, and the ominous string accompaniments and low trumpeting horns add atmosphere to the piece. There are many gorgeous shots of the Norwegian fjords and mountains, combined with Nascimbene’s music that successfully instils that sense of Nordic mythology. The film feels epic and operatic without any of the filmmaking tools we take for granted in modern blockbusters.
The score by Mario Nascimbene is a solid one; the main theme has a Wagnerian flavour to it, with complex strings and trumpet arrangements that echo that type of music. There is one sequence where the music develops into something more fun and upbeat, along the lines of the score to <em>The Adventures of Robin Hood</em>. However, there isn’t much variety and the main theme is used perhaps a bit too often.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.rockshockpop.com/screencaps/VikingsKino/10-1.jpg" alt="Related image" width="699" height="393" />
The few truly morally good characters are powerless in this barbaric world, while the most powerful characters all display a shade of corruption and nastiness. Eric and Morgana are more or less the victims of the more manipulative or bloodthirsty characters, but are not very interesting. Still, the film does maintain an Errol Flynn sense of lightness and fun to its approach, certain scenes of characters mucking about (like Einar and his crew running across their ship’s outstretched oars) or the Vikings’ revelling in their mead hall.
The film takes a while to really get started, the scenes of intrigue in the Anglo-Saxon court are important to frame the rest of the plot but aren’t that interesting. It’s interesting that after spending much of the film at each other's throats, Eric and Einar are willing to set their feud aside to deal with a common enemy, and is the most interesting aspect of the film that doesn’t involve Vikings doing what they do best. Such was the character of rivalries between the early medieval kingdoms, forming and breaking alliances. Ultimately, Ragnar and Einar’s Viking warriors come off as a more spirited and therefore marginally likable crowd than the scheming, grovelling characters in service to Aella, no different from their king.
Although Morgana is presented as a devout Christian and Eric seeks romance with her despite his belief in the Norse gods, the film is otherwise Pagan in character. There is even a sense that the Norse gods are watching over certain characters, with Eric calling upon Odin's help when he is close to drowning, and seemingly the tides being pushed back by the wind. Even the dynamic of half-brothers coming to blows and not knowing that they share the same father feels very much in line with the Norse family sagas of old.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.rockshockpop.com/screencaps/VikingsKino/04-1.jpg" alt="Image result for the vikings 1958 screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
Ultimately, <em>The Vikings </em>is a fun, unpretentious and well-made film in its own right that delivers on what it promises and manages to evoke a sense of adventure from the period, albeit in a somewhat heightened lens. It does feel like a fairly typical old fashioned Hollywood adventure film but one with enough strong elements that make it worth a revisit. It isn’t high art like some of the historical epics I’ve reviewed, but it isn’t completely without something brainier under that strong, muscular outset. �)�Z�� ` L p �"�E� � ;q� 9� JQ )infimum supremum E � � � � ���
7���}7<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/spartacus/">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/cleopatra/">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/ben-hur/">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/quo-vadis/">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/gladiator/">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-vikings/">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���
7���}7 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/23/54-revision-v1/� revision� - � � � � ���W���W � a & *jEl Cidpublishclosedclosedel-cid��� H��� H http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=214� page�
E � � � ���E���EElCidinheritopenclosedelcid���E���E �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ElCid.png� attachmentimage/png� F � ( � � � ���W���W � b & *�El Cidinheritclosedclosed214-revision-v1���W���W �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/214-revision-v1/� revision� E P� 0- � � ���o���o<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/spartacus/">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/cleopatra/">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/ben-hur/">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/quo-vadis/">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/gladiator/">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-vikings/">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/el-cid/">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���o���o 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/54-revision-v1/� revision� - "� 8 � � � ��� ��� � c & 7 Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cutpublishclosedclosedkingdom-of-heaven-directors-cut��?j:��?Z: http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=219� page� F "� @ � � � ��� ��� � d & =IKingdom of Heaven - Director's Cutinheritclosedclosed219-revision-v1��� ��� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/219-revision-v1/� revision�
O H � � � ��� X���Xkingdomofheaveninheritopenclosedkingdomofheaven��� X���X �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/kingdomofheaven.png� attachmentimage/png� F "� P � � � ��� ^���^ � e & =�Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cutinheritclosedclosed219-revision-v1��� ^���^ �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/219-revision-v1/� revision� E �� X� � � ��� v���v<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/spartacus/">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/cleopatra/">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/ben-hur/">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/quo-vadis/">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/gladiator/">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-vikings/">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/el-cid/">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/kingdom-of-heaven-directors-cut/">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1��� v���v 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/54-revision-v1/� revision�
G ` � � � ���H���HBabyloninheritopenclosedbabylon���H���H �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Babylon.png� attachmentimage/png�
E h � � � ��������Eagleinheritopenclosedeagle�������� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Eagle.png� attachmentimage/png�
G p � � � ��������Ptolemyinheritopenclosedptolemy�������� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ptolemy.png� attachmentimage/png� F � x � � � ������ � f & I:Alexander - Revisited Cutinheritclosedclosed152-revision-v1������ �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/152-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ���:���: � h & I&Alexander - Revisited Cutinheritclosedclosed152-revision-v1���:���: �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/152-revision-v1/� revision� - � � � � � ���y!���i! � j & ,�Henry Vpublishclosedclosedhenry-v���zl���jl http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=231� page�
F � � � � ���w���gHenryVinheritopenclosedhenryv���w���g �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/HenryV.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � � � � � ���y!���i! � k & ,�Henry Vinheritclosedclosed231-revision-v1���y!���i! �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/231-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ���yZ���iZ � l & ,�Henry Vinheritclosedclosed231-revision-v1���yZ���iZ �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/231-revision-v1/� revision� E � �� � � ���y����i�<img class="aligncenter wp-image-114 size-full" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/13DaysofEpics-mkII.png" alt="" width="1150" height="693" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-ten-commandments/">The Ten Commandments - 13<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/troy/">Troy - 14<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/300-2/">300 - 15<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/alexander-revisited-cut/">Alexander - 16<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/spartacus/">Spartacus - 17<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/cleopatra/">Cleopatra - 18<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/ben-hur/">Ben-Hur - 19<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/quo-vadis/">Quo Vadis - 20<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/gladiator/">Gladiator - 21<sup>st</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/the-vikings/">The Vikings - 22<sup>nd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/el-cid/">El Cid - 23<sup>rd</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/kingdom-of-heaven-directors-cut/">Kingdom of Heaven - 24<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/henry-v/">Henry V - 25<sup>th</sup> October</a></p>Thirteen Days of Epicsinheritclosedclosed54-revision-v1���y����i� 6http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/54-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � � ���zl���jl � m & ,�Henry Vinheritclosedclosed231-revision-v1���zl���jl �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/25/231-revision-v1/� revision� ' C !� �' � � ��� ���� �<ul>
<li>The Horror of Dracula</li>
<li>The Curse of Frankenstein</li>
<li>Bram Stoker's Dracula</li>
<li>Mary Shelley's Frankenstein</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/van-helsing/">Van Helsing</a></li>
<li>Dracula Untold</li>
</ul>Hallowed Halls of Horrorpublishopenopenhallowed-halls-of-horror
http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/van-helsing/��� ���� � http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=241� post� F !� � � � ��� ���� �<ul>
<li>The Horror of Dracula</li>
<li>The Curse of Frankenstein</li>
<li>Bram Stoker's Dracula</li>
<li>Mary Shelley's Frankenstein</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/van-helsing/">Van Helsing</a></li>
<li>Dracula Untold</li>
</ul>Hallowed Halls of Horrorinheritclosedclosed241-revision-v1��� ���� � �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/241-revision-v1/� revision� - � � � � � ���!陝�!� � n & %�Van Helsingpublishclosedclosedvan-helsing���!陝�!� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=244� page� F � � � � � ���!陝�!� � o & %�Van Helsinginheritclosedclosed244-revision-v1���!陝�!� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/244-revision-v1/� revision� - �� �w � � ���"[���"[<ul>
<li>The Horror of Dracula</li>
<li>The Curse of Frankenstein</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/252-2/">Bram Stoker's Dracula</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/mary-shelleys-frankenstein/">Mary Shelley's Frankenstein</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/van-helsing/">Van Helsing</a></li>
<li>Dracula Untold</li>
</ul>Hallowed Halls of Horrorpublishclosedclosedhallowed-halls-of-horror���J����J� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=247� page�
: � � � � ���"[���"[ publishclosedclosed248���"[���"[ http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/248/� nav_menu_item� F Ѐ �Ɯ � � ���"[���"[<ul>
<li>The Horror of Dracula</li>
<li>The Curse of Frankenstein</li>
<li>Bram Stoker's Dracula</li>
<li>Mary Shelley's Frankenstein</li>
<li>Van Helsing</li>
<li>Dracula Untold</li>
</ul>Hallowed Halls of Horrorinheritclosedclosed247-revision-v1���"[���"[ �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/247-revision-v1/� revision� p4�'!#� @
c�"�1Z�d a�������� �_e
� *j����<img class="size-medium wp-image-215 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ElCid-329x500.png" alt="" width="329" height="500" />
<em>El Cid</em> is one of those films which I know was a well-respected success story at the time of its release and one that carries the label of classic, but not one I hear mentioned in the same conversations as <em>Spartacus </em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em>. In giving the film a watch, I felt that there was certainly a lot to admire and wish people would take more notice of; from Heston’s passionate performance to the themes of unification against fanaticism set against a sumptuous production. However, it does have its flaws that keep it from reaching its full potential.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/attachments/el-cid4-jpg.7887/" alt="Image result for el cid screencaps" width="640" height="277" />
Don Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (Charlton Heston), on the way to his wedding with Doña Ximena (Sophia Loren), rescues a Spanish town from an invading Moorish army. Two of the Emirs, Al-Mu’tamin of Zaragoza (Douglas Wilmer) and Al-Kadir of Valencia (Frank Thring) of Valencia, are captured. After escorting his prisoners to Vivar and seeing that peace will not come from others' bloodthirsty desire for revenge, Rodrigo releases the Moors on condition that they pledge never again to attack King Ferdinand of Castile’s (Ralph Truman) lands. The Emirs proclaim him “El Cid” (meaning “the lord” and swear allegiance to him. For this act of mercy, Don Rodrigo is accused of treason by Count Ordóñez (Raf Vallone).
When the charge is repeated in court, they are supported by Ximena's father, Count Gormaz (Andrew Cruickshank), the king’s champion. Rodrigo's aged father, Don Diego (Michael Hordern), once himself the champion, angrily calls Gormaz a liar. Gormaz strikes Don Diego with a glove, challenging him to a duel. Rodrigo asks Gormaz to come meet privately, begging him several times to “have pity” and instead ask Diego for forgiveness for accusing Rodrigo of treason. Gormaz refuses, and Rodrigo kills him in a duel, to which Ximena swears revenge. Rodrigo wins the approval of King Ferdinand, collecting tribute from Moorish vassals. On the death of Ferdinand, his younger son, Prince Alfonso (John Fraser), tells the elder son Prince Sancho (Gary Raymond), that Ferdinand divided the kingdom: Castile to Sancho, Asturias and León to Alfonso, and Calahorra to their sister, Princess Urraca (Geneviève Page). Sancho refuses to accept anything but an undivided kingdom as his birth right, knowing Ferdinand would have been manipulated by the treacherous Urraca. General Ibn Yusuf (Herbert Lom) takes note of the strife, and plots to push the siblings into war against one another that would allow him to take over all of Spain.
Heston lends himself well to the chivalrous, kind-hearted knight Rodrigo, you really believe in the righteous fury that drives him to keep justice in an unjust realm. Loren is captivating and electrifying as Ximena, having a similar graceful and spirited air of Catherine Zeta Jones in <em>The Mask of Zorro </em>about her. Raymond as Prince Sancho and Fraser as Alfonso both have an air of magisterial entitlement and self-importance, with Fraser showing a wider range with intense fury and moments of humility. Despite appearing for a short time, Truman puts on a fine figure of a king. Page is as manipulative and cold as she is beautiful as Doña Urraca, and her relationship with her brother Alfonso portrayed as rather toxic with hints towards incest. Cruickshank does well as the stubborn, temperamental, short-sighted Count Gormaz, and in contrast to him is Hordern as the proud but kindly old father of Rodrigo. Vallone shows a dynamic turn as a misguided knight with an initially untrustworthy character. Wilmer has gravitas and jovial charisma as Mu’tamin. Thring puts on a good show as a slippery Moorish lord. Lom has a tremendous voice and presence as General Ibn Yusuf, the fury and merciless nature in his eyes make him a fierce presence on screen.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ebmfnob7ItY/maxresdefault.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="349" />
The beautiful Romanesque palace and cathedral sets and real life location shoots are all top notch, capturing that romantic vision of the Middle Ages splendidly. The division of the filming on location in Spain and some studio work in Rome is virtually indistinguishable. The vast array of extras to play peasants, soldiers and knights is very impressive, and the cinematography by Robert Krasker does well to capture the vast Spanish plains and the beautiful city of Valencia. There is a camp and faintly dreamlike quality to the whole production, with its striking colours, its vast ensemble committing to their roles, and how much it commits to its hero as a paragon of virtue and strength. You could not see a film this unabashedly romantic in style and approach. The battle scenes in the latter half are played more for splendour and rousing spectacle, while still depicting the Spanish victory as a hard-won triumph. But what spectacles they are indeed, and the finale packs a definite punch as I effectively seals the legend of The Cid in one’s memory with its closing shot. Anthony Mann pulls of a gorgeous film with many pieces working together, and deserves credit for that.
A lot of effort was put into making the fight scenes engaging and truthful to the ideals of medieval chivalry and medieval war. The duel between Rodrigo and Gormaz has a mesmerizing flow and cadence to it, the lack of music for the first half allows for the clashing of steel to leave a greater impact. The jousting tournament is shot and edited at a face yet still reasonable pace, allowing you to soak in the classic medieval tourney imagery you associate with the era. However, it did lose me when Rodrigo managed to sustain using a saddle for a shield for a good period of time, coming across as unbelievable.
The score by Miklós Rózsa has a lovely Spanish flair to it with romantic guitars and oboes, emotional string quartets and mighty trumpet sections that soar as greatly as those in <em>Ben-Hur</em>, but can at times become a touch melodramatic for its own good when it matches the theatrical emotions of the characters. For the most part it conveys the emotions of the characters and the tension between them very well and is a vital aspect of the storytelling. On a simpler level, the rhythmic five-beat drumming of Ibn Yusuf’s army conveys fear and menace very effectively.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://p0.storage.canalblog.com/02/08/110219/92152789_o.png" alt="Image result for el cid 1961" width="820" height="356" />
The script excels in building up the moral strength of Rodrigo in his legendary status as “The Cid” and the importance of a knight to be all things a knight can be in order to inspire men and move kings to do great things for their realms. This is similar to the appeal of Moses as a man who could believably inspire thousands of men in <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. However, there is some problems with this; after Rodrigo has killed Gormaz in a duel to the death he still tries to win back Ximena’s affection despite several instances where she’s made her hate for him clear, even to the point of requesting a marriage blessing from th eking. This is where the modern adage of “no means no” doesn’t carry any meaning in either this period or the mind-set with which this was written. There comes a point where you accept the melodrama and values dissonance for what it is, no more. But it is often uneven with the delivery of exposition or repetition of statements, such as Gormaz’s incessant need to remind us that he’s Ximena’s father. Writing flaws like that hold it back from a perfect score.
The Christian aspect of <em>El Cid</em> is prominently displayed in Rodrigo’s honour, sense of justice, and unyielding forgiveness, and holding that all men must be accountable for these aspects of life. Like Judah Ben-Hur and Moses, when he is pushed to his limit he comes close to breaking but the way he is able to recover himself when others are able to act according to their desire to see Spain free, inspired by his example. The portrayal of the Moors and Muslims in this film is somewhat unbalanced, as there are several who are portrayed as out and out bad guys and notable individuals who support Rodrigo’s mission to defend Spain from Ibn Yusuf. The black hosts of Ibn Yusuf are viewed as nothing less than a merciless enemy force bent on destruction. The strangeness of their alliance is pointed out by Mu’tamin as something that both Christians and Moors would call wrong. Ultimately, it’s in this unlikely unity between faiths that prevent fanaticism from laying waste to Spain. While well-intentioned, it’s not especially well fleshed out or developed to the point where you believe in the friendship between Rodrigo and Mu’tamin as much as one should.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://mindreels.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/el-cid-252550l.jpg" alt="Image result for el cid 1961" width="820" height="349" />
The romance between Rodrigo and Ximena experiences many stages of life, from youthful infatuation, to hate-filled bitterness, and finally a sense of hard-won mutual respect and genuine love. For long stretches of their time together, Ximena hates him for the killing of her father, and this feels somewhat more truthful to the medieval world where arranged marriages dominated noble society and the ideal of courtly love was a matter of fantasy or childish play. Only when they are forced to abandon their places in the Castile court do they find freedom and peace, only for the Muslim invasion to shatter that again. It’s this dynamic turn of relationship dynamics and the ways in which the world intercedes that make the romance work and easy to root for.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://alchetron.com/cdn/El-Cid-film-images-a3921236-595e-4d92-b1da-ac720ef4b38.jpg" alt="Image result for el cid final scene" width="698" height="393" />
While the details of historical accuracy in <em>El Cid</em> are highly debatable, there is no doubt that the romantic and chivalric spirit of medieval poetry is strongly distilled in this film. It is something of a unique film for being both a Hollywood epic set in medieval times before CGI would alter the course of historical film making in many ways, and it is worth checking out for its many merits. It might not be the strongest of Heston’s triad of epics, and certainly the least exposed of the bunch, but it does a great job commemorating the epic legend of Spain’s greatest knight.
�_e#��� b�������� �Q
� *���<img class="size-medium wp-image-215 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ElCid-329x500.png" alt="" width="329" height="500" />
<em>El Cid</em> is one of those films which I know was a well-respected success story at the time of its release and one that carries the label of classic, but not one I hear mentioned in the same conversations as <em>Spartacus </em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em>. In giving the film a watch, I felt that there was certainly a lot to admire and wish people would take more notice of; from Heston’s passionate performance to the themes of unification against fanaticism set against a sumptuous production. However, it does have its flaws that keep it from reaching its full potential.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/attachments/el-cid4-jpg.7887/" alt="Image result for el cid screencaps" width="640" height="277" />
Don Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (Charlton Heston), on the way to his wedding with Doña Ximena (Sophia Loren), rescues a Spanish town from an invading Moorish army. Two of the Emirs, Al-Mu’tamin of Zaragoza (Douglas Wilmer) and Al-Kadir of Valencia (Frank Thring) of Valencia, are captured. After escorting his prisoners to Vivar and seeing that peace will not come from others' bloodthirsty desire for revenge, Rodrigo releases the Moors on condition that they pledge never again to attack King Ferdinand of Castile’s (Ralph Truman) lands. The Emirs proclaim him “El Cid” (meaning “the lord” and swear allegiance to him. For this act of mercy, Don Rodrigo is accused of treason by Count Ordóñez (Raf Vallone).
When the charge is repeated in court, they are supported by Ximena's father, Count Gormaz (Andrew Cruickshank), the king’s champion. Rodrigo's aged father, Don Diego (Michael Hordern), once himself the champion, angrily calls Gormaz a liar. Gormaz strikes Don Diego with a glove, challenging him to a duel. Rodrigo asks Gormaz to come meet privately, begging him several times to “have pity” and instead ask Diego for forgiveness for accusing Rodrigo of treason. Gormaz refuses, and Rodrigo kills him in a duel, to which Ximena swears revenge. Rodrigo wins the approval of King Ferdinand, collecting tribute from Moorish vassals. On the death of Ferdinand, his younger son, Prince Alfonso (John Fraser), tells the elder son Prince Sancho (Gary Raymond), that Ferdinand divided the kingdom: Castile to Sancho, Asturias and León to Alfonso, and Calahorra to their sister, Princess Urraca (Geneviève Page). Sancho refuses to accept anything but an undivided kingdom as his birth right, knowing Ferdinand would have been manipulated by the treacherous Urraca. General Ibn Yusuf (Herbert Lom) takes note of the strife, and plots to push the siblings into war against one another that would allow him to take over all of Spain.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LMZV3T6xWOY/maxresdefault.jpg" alt="Image result for el cid 1961" width="699" height="393" />
Heston lends himself well to the chivalrous, kind-hearted knight Rodrigo, you really believe in the righteous fury that drives him to keep justice in an unjust realm. Loren is captivating and electrifying as Ximena, having a similar graceful and spirited air of Catherine Zeta Jones in <em>The Mask of Zorro </em>about her. Raymond as Prince Sancho and Fraser as Alfonso both have an air of magisterial entitlement and self-importance, with Fraser showing a wider range with intense fury and moments of humility. Despite appearing for a short time, Truman puts on a fine figure of a king. Page is as manipulative and cold as she is beautiful as Doña Urraca, and her relationship with her brother Alfonso portrayed as rather toxic with hints towards incest. Cruickshank does well as the stubborn, temperamental, short-sighted Count Gormaz, and in contrast to him is Hordern as the proud but kindly old father of Rodrigo. Vallone shows a dynamic turn as a misguided knight with an initially untrustworthy character. Wilmer has gravitas and jovial charisma as Mu’tamin. Thring puts on a good show as a slippery Moorish lord. Lom has a tremendous voice and presence as General Ibn Yusuf, the fury and merciless nature in his eyes make him a fierce presence on screen.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ebmfnob7ItY/maxresdefault.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="349" />
The beautiful Romanesque palace and cathedral sets and real life location shoots are all top notch, capturing that romantic vision of the Middle Ages splendidly. The division of the filming on location in Spain and some studio work in Rome is virtually indistinguishable. The vast array of extras to play peasants, soldiers and knights is very impressive, and the cinematography by Robert Krasker does well to capture the vast Spanish plains and the beautiful city of Valencia. There is a camp and faintly dreamlike quality to the whole production, with its striking colours, its vast ensemble committing to their roles, and how much it commits to its hero as a paragon of virtue and strength. You could not see a film this unabashedly romantic in style and approach. The battle scenes in the latter half are played more for splendour and rousing spectacle, while still depicting the Spanish victory as a hard-won triumph. But what spectacles they are indeed, and the finale packs a definite punch as I effectively seals the legend of The Cid in one’s memory with its closing shot. Anthony Mann pulls of a gorgeous film with many pieces working together, and deserves credit for that.
A lot of effort was put into making the fight scenes engaging and truthful to the ideals of medieval chivalry and medieval war. The duel between Rodrigo and Gormaz has a mesmerizing flow and cadence to it, the lack of music for the first half allows for the clashing of steel to leave a greater impact. The jousting tournament is shot and edited at a face yet still reasonable pace, allowing you to soak in the classic medieval tourney imagery you associate with the era. However, it did lose me when Rodrigo managed to sustain using a saddle for a shield for a good period of time, coming across as unbelievable.
The score by Miklós Rózsa has a lovely Spanish flair to it with romantic guitars and oboes, emotional string quartets and mighty trumpet sections that soar as greatly as those in <em>Ben-Hur</em>, but can at times become a touch melodramatic for its own good when it matches the theatrical emotions of the characters. For the most part it conveys the emotions of the characters and the tension between them very well and is a vital aspect of the storytelling. On a simpler level, the rhythmic five-beat drumming of Ibn Yusuf’s army conveys fear and menace very effectively.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://p0.storage.canalblog.com/02/08/110219/92152789_o.png" alt="Image result for el cid 1961" width="820" height="356" />
The script excels in building up the moral strength of Rodrigo in his legendary status as “The Cid” and the importance of a knight to be all things a knight can be in order to inspire men and move kings to do great things for their realms. This is similar to the appeal of Moses as a man who could believably inspire thousands of men in <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. However, there is some problems with this; after Rodrigo has killed Gormaz in a duel to the death he still tries to win back Ximena’s affection despite several instances where she’s made her hate for him clear, even to the point of requesting a marriage blessing from th eking. This is where the modern adage of “no means no” doesn’t carry any meaning in either this period or the mind-set with which this was written. There comes a point where you accept the melodrama and values dissonance for what it is, no more. But it is often uneven with the delivery of exposition or repetition of statements, such as Gormaz’s incessant need to remind us that he’s Ximena’s father. Writing flaws like that hold it back from a perfect score.
The Christian aspect of <em>El Cid</em> is prominently displayed in Rodrigo’s honour, sense of justice, and unyielding forgiveness, and holding that all men must be accountable for these aspects of life. Like Judah Ben-Hur and Moses, when he is pushed to his limit he comes close to breaking but the way he is able to recover himself when others are able to act according to their desire to see Spain free, inspired by his example. The portrayal of the Moors and Muslims in this film is somewhat unbalanced, as there are several who are portrayed as out and out bad guys and notable individuals who support Rodrigo’s mission to defend Spain from Ibn Yusuf. The black hosts of Ibn Yusuf are viewed as nothing less than a merciless enemy force bent on destruction. The strangeness of their alliance is pointed out by Mu’tamin as something that both Christians and Moors would call wrong. Ultimately, it’s in this unlikely unity between faiths that prevent fanaticism from laying waste to Spain. While well-intentioned, it’s not especially well fleshed out or developed to the point where you believe in the friendship between Rodrigo and Mu’tamin as much as one should.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://mindreels.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/el-cid-252550l.jpg" alt="Image result for el cid 1961" width="820" height="349" />
The romance between Rodrigo and Ximena experiences many stages of life, from youthful infatuation, to hate-filled bitterness, and finally a sense of hard-won mutual respect and genuine love. For long stretches of their time together, Ximena hates him for the killing of her father, and this feels somewhat more truthful to the medieval world where arranged marriages dominated noble society and the ideal of courtly love was a matter of fantasy or childish play. Only when they are forced to abandon their places in the Castile court do they find freedom and peace, only for the Muslim invasion to shatter that again. It’s this dynamic turn of relationship dynamics and the ways in which the world intercedes that make the romance work and easy to root for.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://alchetron.com/cdn/El-Cid-film-images-a3921236-595e-4d92-b1da-ac720ef4b38.jpg" alt="Image result for el cid final scene" width="698" height="393" />
While the details of historical accuracy in <em>El Cid</em> are highly debatable, there is no doubt that the romantic and chivalric spirit of medieval poetry is strongly distilled in this film. It is something of a unique film for being both a Hollywood epic set in medieval times before CGI would alter the course of historical film making in many ways, and it is worth checking out for its many merits. It might not be the strongest of Heston’s triad of epics, and certainly the least exposed of the bunch, but it does a great job commemorating the epic legend of Spain’s greatest knight.
�Qè; c�������� ��K
� 7 ����<img class="size-medium wp-image-222 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/kingdomofheaven-327x500.png" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
There are times when I am worried that a film I love won’t hold up the way I hoped it would, or I discover a new series of flaws in it that reduce it in my eyes. Thankfully, this isn’t one of those. I think the Director’s Cut of <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is a classic waiting to garner more love in the future. For this review, I am addressing the only the Director’s Cut. While I wrote a shorter review when I first joined Letterboxd, I felt compelled to elaborate my thoughts on this film. I believe <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is one of Ridley Scott’s more misunderstood films, with a message and themes that people need to take to heart regardless of faith or view on the world, for risk of repeating history.
In 1184 France, Balian (Orlando Bloom) the village blacksmith is in mourning for the death of his wife and stillborn child. Returning Crusader, Baron Godrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson), arrives in the village to declare his parentage to his only son, Balian, inviting Balian to accompany him to Jerusalem. Balian refuses at first, claiming his place is in the village, but when his half-brother the local preist reveals that he mutilated his wife’s corpse, Balian kills him in a fit of rage, burning his smithy down. Seeking absolution for his own sins as well as those of his dead wife who is damned in the eyes of the Church for committing suicide, Balian agrees to join Godfrey. Godfrey is mortally wounded in an ambush from knights sworn to the village lord. He survives for several days before succumbing to fever in Messina. Before he dies, he knights Balian and declares him his son and heir.
Balian eventually arrives in Jerusalem and allies himself with the dying masked leper king, Baldwin IV (Edward Norton) and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) the Marshall of Jerusalem. This puts him at odds with his father’s enemy, Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and the fanatical Templar Order let by Reynald of Chatillion (Brendan Gleeson). However, Baldwin’s sister and the mother to the king’s young heir, Princess Sibylla (Eva Green) takes a strong liking to Balian but their relationship is threatened by impending war. Arab leader Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) has amassed an army of 200,000 men to take back Jerusalem from the Christians who have occupied it for a century.
One of the strengths of this cast is that they look like they belong in the medieval setting. Bloom as an actor is only ever as good as his scripts, and here he plays Balian as a very emotionally distant and despondent man who grows into a courageous leader, it’s the sort of role that fits his acting capabilities even though there are actors with greater gravitas. The mesmerising Green gives me butterflies in my stomach every time she smiles, she has many emotionally charged scenes, equal parts powerful and fragile, it’s from her that I get a real sense of chemistry between her and Bloom, it’s very understated and feels genuine enough. Neeson plays the part of Godfrey wonderfully, as a man laden with regret and in search of forgiveness, communicating much through his eyes and expressions. David Thewlis typifies the ideal knight as the unnamed Hospitaller, appearing very kind and fatherly, forming a believable friendship with Neeson’s and Bloom’s characters. Csokas plays Guy with all the arrogance, contempt and unpleasant character one would imagine of a medieval lord, holding his own among this star-studded cast. Sheen is very despicable and slippery as the snivelling priest, and could pass for Bloom’s half-brother. Irons is an impressionable badass, he brings his trademark dry, snarky humour to a character with gravitas and severity to him. Edward Norton is incredible as King Baldwin, conveying his emotions and convictions beautifully from behind a silver mask with his body language, having a serene mysticism to his vocal performance. Gleeson walks the line between being theatrically insane and surprisingly subtle in his plotting and cold-blooded killer, he knows what he is. Syrian actor Massoud portrays a proud and powerful and cunning yet respectable Saladin with an incredible presence. Alexander Siddig does a great job as Imad ad-Din, Saladin’s chancellor; and Kevin McKidd’s unnamed English Sergeant is a likable tough guy. Some notable <em>Game of Thrones</em> alumni make appearances, such as Iain Glenn as Richard the Lionheart, Robert Pugh as the French village lord, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as the lord’s son.
As expected from a Ridley Scott film, the production values are some of the best ever put to film; the Middle Ages has never looked more alive and authentic before one’s eyes. This puts to shame other films that try to pass for the same period, such as <em>Braveheart</em>. The use of costuming and heraldry to identify certain factions, such as the Templars, the Hospitallers, the men at arms of Ibelin and the knights of Jerusalem is very well integrated. There is so much attention to detail in each set that you’d have to pause the film to soak it all in. Weta Workshop lent their craftsmanship to the creation of the vast armies of Christian and Muslim knights and men-at-arms, with chainmail armour that looks far superior to anything that has come before. The film remains squarely focused on the tangible, with CGI being used only as a tool to enhance the story by creating vast cities and armies, immersing us into the world. Scott captures the beauty and harshness of the Holy Land.
John Mathieson’s cinematography ranges from the bitter blue hues of winter and the murky indoor oranges in France; this is contrasted with the warmer colours of Palestine and Jerusalem. The picturesque shots of the sea, the desert and Jerusalem itself have a painterly quality to them, known from Scott’s incredible eye for visuals. Shooting on location and taking advantage of an actual castle gives another level of authenticity and realness to the film. The film draws you in with its atmosphere and sombre visuals of the barren hills, dark clouds and harsh blizzards. You get the sense of a true Dark Age, full of superstition and conflicts of interests with regards to faith.
The action scenes have grit and brutality to them that surpasses what we saw in Scott’s other historical epics. This is where the violence of the times should be put on display. The Siege of Jerusalem is depicted as nothing less than sheer brutality, the chaos and hopelessness of the battle is conveyed in every scene. Every scene is created with an overwhelming atmosphere of death and carnage. By that same token, Scott knows when to hold back and not show certain scenes like the Battle of Hattin, saving the audience’s palette for the Siege of Jerusalem. The senselessness and waste of life of war is visually demonstrated in the Templars’ attack on the unarmed caravan and the weakened Jerusalem army marching towards Hattin, to its death. This is an area where restraint makes the aftermath of the slaughter have a greater impact.
The score by Harry Gregson-Williams is excellent; tremendous use of instrumentations native to the period that accentuate the mood. You get a sense of the medieval world right from the opening shot. The use of haunting choirs, some of it sounding like church music and some of it like mosque chanting add further atmosphere to the film. Similar to <em>Troy</em>, there is a scene where music from another film is used in a crucial moment; here it is the use of Jerry Goldsmith’s score from <em>The 13<sup>th</sup> Warrior</em> for when Balian knights the remaining men at arms of Jerusalem. While it is a noticeably different style of music, it is highly effective.
The socio-political machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. We understand that Balian had experience fighting in war hence his effectiveness as a commander in the final battle, and the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving he<span style="font-size: 1rem;">r son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.</span>
Balian and Guy are presented as complete opposites of each other, where Balian builds peace between the Christians, Muslims and Jews on his land, Guy pillages Muslim caravans. Where Balian seeks and gives mercy, Guy is largely without it. The theme of mercy repaying mercy resurfaces here as Balian spares Imad ad-Din and so is shown mercy in return when he’s faced with death, and this helps Balian when he is first captured by Saladin’s army and when he is negotiating again with Saladin himself.
Vital additions of the Director’s Cut is the mention that Balian knows about siege engines and fighting on horseback, as well as a training exercise with Godfrey, which is at least better setup than simply thrusting him into the action with no build up at all. The sociopolitical machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. The the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife is also a much better hook for the character to take the crusade. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving her son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.
<em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is sometimes labelled anti-Christian, but that to me seems like simplification. There’s a lot of grey area in the depiction of Christians and Muslims and their tenuous cohabitation, as such the film makes a definite case in which there are good Christians and bad Christians. Yes the crusading side has villains like Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillon, but it also has King Baldwin, Godfrey, Tiberias and the Hospitaller. On the Muslim side, Saladin Imad ad-Din are both portrayed positively, yet there are also warmongers like the Muslim general who smirks whenever Christians are killed, the Arab warrior who tries to take Balian’s horse, and the Arab trader who says he will not offend God by associating with Christians yet still takes Christian gold. It shows the good and the bad on both sides. To me, the film isn’t anti-Christian or anti-Muslim, its anti-fanaticism and anti-tyranny, advocating the idea of the “kingdom of conscience” where a man is what he makes himself to be. The phrase “God wills it” is used by both Templars and Muslims to spur the war on, as an excuse to justify their actions. Basic human decency and the ability to balance good with bad in all of us, and how each person chooses to go about with those good and bad parts. Just because men claim to do things in the name of God doesn’t mean they truly represent the faith they claim to espouse, and only want the convenience of being able to blame something else.
When Balian survives the shipwreck, it could be sheer luck or because God spared him for greater purpose, and its open to individual interpretation. The fact the Hospitaller doesn’t have a name, is always around to give Balian crucial advice, resembles the medieval image of an angel, also gives credence to the possibility that he is literal Guardian Angel, watching over Balian up until the time comes when he has to lead the Jerusalem garrison in defence of the city. Another interesting scene in which Balian voices his lack of belief to the Hospitaller by making a bush catch fire by casting a stone at it, and when the Hospitaller disappears. The knight always appears to Balian at a time of need before riding with the Jerusalem army to Hattin. Scott keeps it ambiguous enough to allow for personal interpretation.
In addition to being a character drama than a straightforward revenge story, <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> differs from <em>Gladiator</em> in many ways. It’s not as funny as <em>Gladiator</em>, but you do get some subtle jokes in character banter and a few oddities from Reynald. It does steep us so much in the time and the place, that the unique tone and energy <em>Gladiator </em>had is no longer in evidence. In doing so, it carves out its own identity with its own set of themes to communicate. It holds up a mirror to our own society, using a historical setting to give context to our own time. It’s the sort of film that generates discussion and how people relate to and engage with matters of faith and engaging with other people on a deeper level. I believe any film that can generate deep discussions of this nature out of mutual respect deserves my admiration.
Ultimately, I believe this film has aged like a fine wine, and I hope over time it engenders further interest about the middle ages as it did to me. It’s very entertaining, but very emotional and its themes are resonant to this day. Ridley Scott has had the last laugh because it’s the version that everyone will recommend over the theatrical release. It remains my favourite medieval war epic, and still an overlooked gem in my opinion. ��K�a�R d�������� �:
� =I����
There are times when I am worried that a film I love won’t hold up the way I hoped it would, or I discover a new series of flaws in it that reduce it in my eyes. Thankfully, this isn’t one of those. I think the Director’s Cut of <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is a classic waiting to garner more love in the future. For this review, I am addressing the only the Director’s Cut. While I wrote a shorter review when I first joined Letterboxd, I felt compelled to elaborate my thoughts on this film. I believe <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is one of Ridley Scott’s more misunderstood films, with a message and themes that people need to take to heart regardless of faith or view on the world, for risk of repeating history.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_00083.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
In 1184 France, Balian (Orlando Bloom) the village blacksmith is in mourning for the death of his wife and stillborn child. Returning Crusader, Baron Godrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson), arrives in the village to declare his parentage to his only son, Balian, inviting Balian to accompany him to Jerusalem. Balian refuses at first, claiming his place is in the village, but when his half-brother the local preist reveals that he mutilated his wife’s corpse, Balian kills him in a fit of rage, burning his smithy down. Seeking absolution for his own sins as well as those of his dead wife who is damned in the eyes of the Church for committing suicide, Balian agrees to join Godfrey. Godfrey is mortally wounded in an ambush from knights sworn to the village lord. He survives for several days before succumbing to fever in Messina. Before he dies, he knights Balian and declares him his son and heir.
Balian eventually arrives in Jerusalem and allies himself with the dying masked leper king, Baldwin IV (Edward Norton) and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) the Marshall of Jerusalem. This puts him at odds with his father’s enemy, Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and the fanatical Templar Order let by Reynald of Chatillion (Brendan Gleeson). However, Baldwin’s sister and the mother to the king’s young heir, Princess Sibylla (Eva Green) takes a strong liking to Balian but their relationship is threatened by impending war. Arab leader Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) has amassed an army of 200,000 men to take back Jerusalem from the Christians who have occupied it for a century.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_01418.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
One of the strengths of this cast is that they look like they belong in the medieval setting. Bloom as an actor is only ever as good as his scripts, and here he plays Balian as a very emotionally distant and despondent man who grows into a courageous leader, it’s the sort of role that fits his acting capabilities even though there are actors with greater gravitas. The mesmerising Green gives me butterflies in my stomach every time she smiles, she has many emotionally charged scenes, equal parts powerful and fragile, it’s from her that I get a real sense of chemistry between her and Bloom, it’s very understated and feels genuine enough. Neeson plays the part of Godfrey wonderfully, as a man laden with regret and in search of forgiveness, communicating much through his eyes and expressions. David Thewlis typifies the ideal knight as the unnamed Hospitaller, appearing very kind and fatherly, forming a believable friendship with Neeson’s and Bloom’s characters. Csokas plays Guy with all the arrogance, contempt and unpleasant character one would imagine of a medieval lord, holding his own among this star-studded cast. Sheen is very despicable and slippery as the snivelling priest, and could pass for Bloom’s half-brother. Irons is an impressionable badass, he brings his trademark dry, snarky humour to a character with gravitas and severity to him. Edward Norton is incredible as King Baldwin, conveying his emotions and convictions beautifully from behind a silver mask with his body language, having a serene mysticism to his vocal performance. Gleeson walks the line between being theatrically insane and surprisingly subtle in his plotting and cold-blooded killer, he knows what he is. Syrian actor Massoud portrays a proud and powerful and cunning yet respectable Saladin with an incredible presence. Alexander Siddig does a great job as Imad ad-Din, Saladin’s chancellor; and Kevin McKidd’s unnamed English Sergeant is a likable tough guy. Some notable <em>Game of Thrones</em> alumni make appearances, such as Iain Glenn as Richard the Lionheart, Robert Pugh as the French village lord, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as the lord’s son.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_00428.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
As expected from a Ridley Scott film, the production values are some of the best ever put to film; the Middle Ages has never looked more alive and authentic before one’s eyes. This puts to shame other films that try to pass for the same period, such as <em>Braveheart</em>. The use of costuming and heraldry to identify certain factions, such as the Templars, the Hospitallers, the men at arms of Ibelin and the knights of Jerusalem is very well integrated. There is so much attention to detail in each set that you’d have to pause the film to soak it all in. Weta Workshop lent their craftsmanship to the creation of the vast armies of Christian and Muslim knights and men-at-arms, with chainmail armour that looks far superior to anything that has come before. The film remains squarely focused on the tangible, with CGI being used only as a tool to enhance the story by creating vast cities and armies, immersing us into the world. Scott captures the beauty and harshness of the Holy Land.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_02662.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
John Mathieson’s cinematography ranges from the bitter blue hues of winter and the murky indoor oranges in France; this is contrasted with the warmer colours of Palestine and Jerusalem. The picturesque shots of the sea, the desert and Jerusalem itself have a painterly quality to them, known from Scott’s incredible eye for visuals. Shooting on location and taking advantage of an actual castle gives another level of authenticity and realness to the film. The film draws you in with its atmosphere and sombre visuals of the barren hills, dark clouds and harsh blizzards. You get the sense of a true Dark Age, full of superstition and conflicts of interests with regards to faith.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_05130.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The action scenes have grit and brutality to them that surpasses what we saw in Scott’s other historical epics. This is where the violence of the times should be put on display. The Siege of Jerusalem is depicted as nothing less than sheer brutality, the chaos and hopelessness of the battle is conveyed in every scene. Every scene is created with an overwhelming atmosphere of death and carnage. By that same token, Scott knows when to hold back and not show certain scenes like the Battle of Hattin, saving the audience’s palette for the Siege of Jerusalem. The senselessness and waste of life of war is visually demonstrated in the Templars’ attack on the unarmed caravan and the weakened Jerusalem army marching towards Hattin, to its death. This is an area where restraint makes the aftermath of the slaughter have a greater impact.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_04870.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The score by Harry Gregson-Williams is excellent; tremendous use of instrumentations native to the period that accentuate the mood. You get a sense of the medieval world right from the opening shot. The use of haunting choirs, some of it sounding like church music and some of it like mosque chanting add further atmosphere to the film. Similar to <em>Troy</em>, there is a scene where music from another film is used in a crucial moment; here it is the use of Jerry Goldsmith’s score from <em>The 13<sup>th</sup> Warrior</em> for when Balian knights the remaining men at arms of Jerusalem. While it is a noticeably different style of music, it is highly effective.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_06814.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The socio-political machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. We understand that Balian had experience fighting in war hence his effectiveness as a commander in the final battle, and the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving he<span style="font-size: 1rem;">r son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.</span>
<img class="image" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_05594.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
Balian and Guy are presented as complete opposites of each other, where Balian builds peace between the Christians, Muslims and Jews on his land, Guy pillages Muslim caravans. Where Balian seeks and gives mercy, Guy is largely without it. The theme of mercy repaying mercy resurfaces here as Balian spares Imad ad-Din and so is shown mercy in return when he’s faced with death, and this helps Balian when he is first captured by Saladin’s army and when he is negotiating again with Saladin himself.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_06607.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
Vital additions of the Director’s Cut is the mention that Balian knows about siege engines and fighting on horseback, as well as a training exercise with Godfrey, which is at least better setup than simply thrusting him into the action with no build up at all. The sociopolitical machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. The the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife is also a much better hook for the character to take the crusade. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving her son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_06621.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
<em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is sometimes labelled anti-Christian, but that to me seems like simplification. There’s a lot of grey area in the depiction of Christians and Muslims and their tenuous cohabitation, as such the film makes a definite case in which there are good Christians and bad Christians. Yes the crusading side has villains like Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillon, but it also has King Baldwin, Godfrey, Tiberias and the Hospitaller. On the Muslim side, Saladin Imad ad-Din are both portrayed positively, yet there are also warmongers like the Muslim general who smirks whenever Christians are killed, the Arab warrior who tries to take Balian’s horse, and the Arab trader who says he will not offend God by associating with Christians yet still takes Christian gold. It shows the good and the bad on both sides. To me, the film isn’t anti-Christian or anti-Muslim, its anti-fanaticism and anti-tyranny, advocating the idea of the “kingdom of conscience” where a man is what he makes himself to be. The phrase “God wills it” is used by both Templars and Muslims to spur the war on, as an excuse to justify their actions. Basic human decency and the ability to balance good with bad in all of us, and how each person chooses to go about with those good and bad parts. Just because men claim to do things in the name of God doesn’t mean they truly represent the faith they claim to espouse, and only want the convenience of being able to blame something else.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_06784.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
When Balian survives the shipwreck, it could be sheer luck or because God spared him for greater purpose, and its open to individual interpretation. The fact the Hospitaller doesn’t have a name, is always around to give Balian crucial advice, resembles the medieval image of an angel, also gives credence to the possibility that he is literal Guardian Angel, watching over Balian up until the time comes when he has to lead the Jerusalem garrison in defence of the city. Another interesting scene in which Balian voices his lack of belief to the Hospitaller by making a bush catch fire by casting a stone at it, and when the Hospitaller disappears. The knight always appears to Balian at a time of need before riding with the Jerusalem army to Hattin. Scott keeps it ambiguous enough to allow for personal interpretation.
In addition to being a character drama than a straightforward revenge story, <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> differs from <em>Gladiator</em> in many ways. It’s not as funny as <em>Gladiator</em>, but you do get some subtle jokes in character banter and a few oddities from Reynald. It does steep us so much in the time and the place, that the momentum that <em>Gladiator </em>had is lost. In doing so, it carves out its own identity with its own set of themes to communicate. It holds up a mirror to our own society, using a historical setting to give context to our own time. It’s the sort of film that generates discussion and how people relate to and engage with matters of faith and engaging with other people on a deeper level. I believe any film that can generate deep discussions of this nature out of mutual respect deserves my admiration.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_08098.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
Ultimately, I believe this film has aged like a fine wine, and I hope over time it engenders further interest about the middle ages as it did to me. It’s very entertaining, but very emotional and its themes are resonant to this day. Ridley Scott has had the last laugh because it’s the version that everyone will recommend over the theatrical release. It remains my favourite medieval war epic, and still an overlooked gem in my opinion. �:�_� e�������� �U
� =�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-222 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/kingdomofheaven-327x500.png" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
There are times when I am worried that a film I love won’t hold up the way I hoped it would, or I discover a new series of flaws in it that reduce it in my eyes. Thankfully, this isn’t one of those. I think the Director’s Cut of <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is a classic waiting to garner more love in the future. For this review, I am addressing the only the Director’s Cut. While I wrote a shorter review when I first joined Letterboxd, I felt compelled to elaborate my thoughts on this film. I believe <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is one of Ridley Scott’s more misunderstood films, with a message and themes that people need to take to heart regardless of faith or view on the world, for risk of repeating history.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_00083.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
In 1184 France, Balian (Orlando Bloom) the village blacksmith is in mourning for the death of his wife and stillborn child. Returning Crusader, Baron Godrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson), arrives in the village to declare his parentage to his only son, Balian, inviting Balian to accompany him to Jerusalem. Balian refuses at first, claiming his place is in the village, but when his half-brother the local preist reveals that he mutilated his wife’s corpse, Balian kills him in a fit of rage, burning his smithy down. Seeking absolution for his own sins as well as those of his dead wife who is damned in the eyes of the Church for committing suicide, Balian agrees to join Godfrey. Godfrey is mortally wounded in an ambush from knights sworn to the village lord. He survives for several days before succumbing to fever in Messina. Before he dies, he knights Balian and declares him his son and heir.
Balian eventually arrives in Jerusalem and allies himself with the dying masked leper king, Baldwin IV (Edward Norton) and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) the Marshall of Jerusalem. This puts him at odds with his father’s enemy, Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and the fanatical Templar Order let by Reynald of Chatillion (Brendan Gleeson). However, Baldwin’s sister and the mother to the king’s young heir, Princess Sibylla (Eva Green) takes a strong liking to Balian but their relationship is threatened by impending war. Arab leader Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) has amassed an army of 200,000 men to take back Jerusalem from the Christians who have occupied it for a century.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_01418.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
One of the strengths of this cast is that they look like they belong in the medieval setting. Bloom as an actor is only ever as good as his scripts, and here he plays Balian as a very emotionally distant and despondent man who grows into a courageous leader, it’s the sort of role that fits his acting capabilities even though there are actors with greater gravitas. The mesmerising Green gives me butterflies in my stomach every time she smiles, she has many emotionally charged scenes, equal parts powerful and fragile, it’s from her that I get a real sense of chemistry between her and Bloom, it’s very understated and feels genuine enough. Neeson plays the part of Godfrey wonderfully, as a man laden with regret and in search of forgiveness, communicating much through his eyes and expressions. David Thewlis typifies the ideal knight as the unnamed Hospitaller, appearing very kind and fatherly, forming a believable friendship with Neeson’s and Bloom’s characters. Csokas plays Guy with all the arrogance, contempt and unpleasant character one would imagine of a medieval lord, holding his own among this star-studded cast. Sheen is very despicable and slippery as the snivelling priest, and could pass for Bloom’s half-brother. Irons is an impressionable badass, he brings his trademark dry, snarky humour to a character with gravitas and severity to him. Edward Norton is incredible as King Baldwin, conveying his emotions and convictions beautifully from behind a silver mask with his body language, having a serene mysticism to his vocal performance. Gleeson walks the line between being theatrically insane and surprisingly subtle in his plotting and cold-blooded killer, he knows what he is. Syrian actor Massoud portrays a proud and powerful and cunning yet respectable Saladin with an incredible presence. Alexander Siddig does a great job as Imad ad-Din, Saladin’s chancellor; and Kevin McKidd’s unnamed English Sergeant is a likable tough guy. Some notable <em>Game of Thrones</em> alumni make appearances, such as Iain Glenn as Richard the Lionheart, Robert Pugh as the French village lord, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as the lord’s son.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_00428.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
As expected from a Ridley Scott film, the production values are some of the best ever put to film; the Middle Ages has never looked more alive and authentic before one’s eyes. This puts to shame other films that try to pass for the same period, such as <em>Braveheart</em>. The use of costuming and heraldry to identify certain factions, such as the Templars, the Hospitallers, the men at arms of Ibelin and the knights of Jerusalem is very well integrated. There is so much attention to detail in each set that you’d have to pause the film to soak it all in. Weta Workshop lent their craftsmanship to the creation of the vast armies of Christian and Muslim knights and men-at-arms, with chainmail armour that looks far superior to anything that has come before. The film remains squarely focused on the tangible, with CGI being used only as a tool to enhance the story by creating vast cities and armies, immersing us into the world. Scott captures the beauty and harshness of the Holy Land.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_02662.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
John Mathieson’s cinematography ranges from the bitter blue hues of winter and the murky indoor oranges in France; this is contrasted with the warmer colours of Palestine and Jerusalem. The picturesque shots of the sea, the desert and Jerusalem itself have a painterly quality to them, known from Scott’s incredible eye for visuals. Shooting on location and taking advantage of an actual castle gives another level of authenticity and realness to the film. The film draws you in with its atmosphere and sombre visuals of the barren hills, dark clouds and harsh blizzards. You get the sense of a true Dark Age, full of superstition and conflicts of interests with regards to faith.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_05130.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The action scenes have grit and brutality to them that surpasses what we saw in Scott’s other historical epics. This is where the violence of the times should be put on display. The Siege of Jerusalem is depicted as nothing less than sheer brutality, the chaos and hopelessness of the battle is conveyed in every scene. Every scene is created with an overwhelming atmosphere of death and carnage. By that same token, Scott knows when to hold back and not show certain scenes like the Battle of Hattin, saving the audience’s palette for the Siege of Jerusalem. The senselessness and waste of life of war is visually demonstrated in the Templars’ attack on the unarmed caravan and the weakened Jerusalem army marching towards Hattin, to its death. This is an area where restraint makes the aftermath of the slaughter have a greater impact.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_04870.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The score by Harry Gregson-Williams is excellent; tremendous use of instrumentations native to the period that accentuate the mood. You get a sense of the medieval world right from the opening shot. The use of haunting choirs, some of it sounding like church music and some of it like mosque chanting add further atmosphere to the film. Similar to <em>Troy</em>, there is a scene where music from another film is used in a crucial moment; here it is the use of Jerry Goldsmith’s score from <em>The 13<sup>th</sup> Warrior</em> for when Balian knights the remaining men at arms of Jerusalem. While it is a noticeably different style of music, it is highly effective.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_06814.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
The socio-political machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. We understand that Balian had experience fighting in war hence his effectiveness as a commander in the final battle, and the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving he<span style="font-size: 1rem;">r son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.</span>
<img class="image" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_05594.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
Balian and Guy are presented as complete opposites of each other, where Balian builds peace between the Christians, Muslims and Jews on his land, Guy pillages Muslim caravans. Where Balian seeks and gives mercy, Guy is largely without it. The theme of mercy repaying mercy resurfaces here as Balian spares Imad ad-Din and so is shown mercy in return when he’s faced with death, and this helps Balian when he is first captured by Saladin’s army and when he is negotiating again with Saladin himself.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_06607.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
Vital additions of the Director’s Cut is the mention that Balian knows about siege engines and fighting on horseback, as well as a training exercise with Godfrey, which is at least better setup than simply thrusting him into the action with no build up at all. The sociopolitical machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. The the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife is also a much better hook for the character to take the crusade. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving her son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_06621.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
<em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is sometimes labelled anti-Christian, but that to me seems like simplification. There’s a lot of grey area in the depiction of Christians and Muslims and their tenuous cohabitation, as such the film makes a definite case in which there are good Christians and bad Christians. Yes the crusading side has villains like Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillon, but it also has King Baldwin, Godfrey, Tiberias and the Hospitaller. On the Muslim side, Saladin Imad ad-Din are both portrayed positively, yet there are also warmongers like the Muslim general who smirks whenever Christians are killed, the Arab warrior who tries to take Balian’s horse, and the Arab trader who says he will not offend God by associating with Christians yet still takes Christian gold. It shows the good and the bad on both sides. To me, the film isn’t anti-Christian or anti-Muslim, its anti-fanaticism and anti-tyranny, advocating the idea of the “kingdom of conscience” where a man is what he makes himself to be. The phrase “God wills it” is used by both Templars and Muslims to spur the war on, as an excuse to justify their actions. Basic human decency and the ability to balance good with bad in all of us, and how each person chooses to go about with those good and bad parts. Just because men claim to do things in the name of God doesn’t mean they truly represent the faith they claim to espouse, and only want the convenience of being able to blame something else.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_06784.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
When Balian survives the shipwreck, it could be sheer luck or because God spared him for greater purpose, and its open to individual interpretation. The fact the Hospitaller doesn’t have a name, is always around to give Balian crucial advice, resembles the medieval image of an angel, also gives credence to the possibility that he is literal Guardian Angel, watching over Balian up until the time comes when he has to lead the Jerusalem garrison in defence of the city. Another interesting scene in which Balian voices his lack of belief to the Hospitaller by making a bush catch fire by casting a stone at it, and when the Hospitaller disappears. The knight always appears to Balian at a time of need before riding with the Jerusalem army to Hattin. Scott keeps it ambiguous enough to allow for personal interpretation.
In addition to being a character drama than a straightforward revenge story, <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> differs from <em>Gladiator</em> in many ways. It’s not as funny as <em>Gladiator</em>, but you do get some subtle jokes in character banter and a few oddities from Reynald. It does steep us so much in the time and the place, that the momentum that <em>Gladiator </em>had is lost. In doing so, it carves out its own identity with its own set of themes to communicate. It holds up a mirror to our own society, using a historical setting to give context to our own time. It’s the sort of film that generates discussion and how people relate to and engage with matters of faith and engaging with other people on a deeper level. I believe any film that can generate deep discussions of this nature out of mutual respect deserves my admiration.
<img class="image" src="http://www.screencapped.org/movie/k/albums/movies/kingdomofheaven/caps/kohu_08098.jpg" alt="" width="1920" height="816" border="0" />
Ultimately, I believe this film has aged like a fine wine, and I hope over time it engenders further interest about the middle ages as it did to me. It’s very entertaining, but very emotional and its themes are resonant to this day. Ridley Scott has had the last laugh because it’s the version that everyone will recommend over the theatrical release. It remains my favourite medieval war epic, and still an overlooked gem in my opinion. �U
�V_� f�������� ��
� ?� g<img class="size-medium wp-image-153 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
Oliver Stone’s <em>Alexander</em> is a fascinating creature of a film; one that I have already a curious liking for yet one I cannot deny its many flaws. It’s a strange film that alternates between being a striking vision of Antiquity and a bizarre acid trip of excess and strange direction choices that makes <em>300</em> look tame by comparison. You can tell Oliver Stone poured all his heart and soul into the telling of Alexander’s story and sticking true to the history. For this review, I will look at the ‘Revisited’ cut; it’s the longest (therefore also the most challenging) but also one with perhaps the most to offer as a biopic and an epic recounting the life and exploits of one of history’s greatest conquerors.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.oliverstone.com/images/made/uploads/images/alexander-revisited_460_380_tl_2_tr_2_s_c1_center_top.png" alt="Image result for alexander revisited" width="460" height="380" />
In Alexandria, Egypt, 283 BC, Pharaoh Ptolemy I (Anthony Hopkins) recites his memoirs alongside Alexander to his scribe Cadmus, serving as the framing device for the film with Ptolemy as the narrator, alluding to other events off-screen while the film focuses on some of the key moments in the life of Alexander. In this edition, we are introduced to Alexander (Colin Farrell) in 331 BC just before the Battle of Gaugamela against King Darius III of the Persian Empire. Among his loyal generals are Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Antigonus (Ian Beattie), Cleitus (Gary Stretch), Parmenion (John Kavanagh), Philotas (Joseph Morgan), and the younger Ptolemy (Elliot Cowan). The battle commences, and despite the Persians’ overwhelming numbers, Alexander wins the day through superior tactics and claiming Babylon in the name of Macedonia. He confides with Hephaistion of his ambitions to travel to and conquer the far corners of the world.
Between these exploits, we see flashbacks<span style="font-size: 1rem;"> Alexander’s life as a young prince (Connor Paolo) and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and his tutor Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His already tenuous relationship with his father King Philip II (Val Kilmer) is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydice, the niece of Attalus. After the assassination of Philip, Eurydice’s claim to the throne is destroyed; Alexander becomes king and fulfils his father’s intended campaign to conquer Persia.</span>
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/21/Alexander-Gaugamela.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 screencaps" width="820" height="340" />
The acting has been a subject of debate and ridicule, with many of the key actors attracting criticism for their performances. I myself can enjoy such theatrical performances, having seen a number of Greek plays where this type of acting is commonplace. Farrell looks the part of Alexander and sportingly throws himself into the action scenes, and he does have a fair few scenes that show off his confidence and passionate leadership well, but not enough. Because Farrell has more of an everyman quality to him, he doesn’t nail the enormous charisma you think would be associated with a great leader of men. In other scenes he becomes like a character in a Greek play with over the top expressions and mood swings, the worst of which happen with Jolie’s Olympias. Speaking of which, Jolie is another strange casting as Olympias, overdoing her Albanian accent, eating up the scenery and being very unsettling and not in a fun way. Kilmer has some good scenes with both Alexander actors, and his Irish accent seemed to work well enough, but when he goes into over the top drunken rants it’s almost as bad as Jolie.
Leto gives an okay performance as the calm, as<span style="font-size: 1rem;">suaging Hephaistion to Farrell’s wildly passionate Alexander; however they don’t have enough chemistry to really believe that they’re lovers. Despite some good scenes in the first half, Hephaistion seldom has much screen time with Alexander in the second half and we mostly get longing stares between the couple. Hopkins provides a solemn, soothing narration to the film and conveys the memory of a man who has seen the world and is thinking of his youth with nostalgia. Rosario Dawson does a good job as the Bactrian princess, Roxana, holding her own despite having very limited screen time. Plummer gives a lot of worldly personality as Aristotle, having a great scene with the young Greeks who would follow Alexander. Cowan (w</span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">ho looks like he could reasonably pass for a young Anthony Hopkins), Kavanagh, Morgan and Stretch all function well as generals to Alexander, but sometimes go for theatrics like some of the A-listers. </span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Familiar faces appearing in surprising early roles include Toby Kebbell as Pausanias, the killer of Philip, Ian Beattie as General Antigonus, Rory McCann as Craterus the soldier. In brief but impressionable roles include Tim Piggot-Smith as the omen reader, and Brian Blessed is a welcome sight as young Alexander’s wrestling tutor.</span>
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-37ff4db61d9c33c804f9dd8d4ef68113" alt="Related image" width="602" height="250" />
This is a very well-polished film, on par with the likes of <em>Gladiator</em>, <em>Troy</em> and <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> for technical prowess. For the vast majority of the film, the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic. The hot orange colours of Gaugamela and vibrant colours of Babylon and Bactria capture the exotic look of the eastern countries. The pastoral hills and town of Pellas, Macedonia have a lush pastoral purity to them, and the verdant jungles and temples of India are beautifully shot with a greater level of contrast and colour. He excels in capturing the vastness and insanity of the battles. There is one area where the cinematography jumps the gun badly which I will highlight later.<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://sentsmemory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/babylon.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander babylon" width="820" height="337" />
The realization of the great Babylon through massive sets and CGI is stunning, and surprisingly much of it holds up. In fact, the locations, sets, art direction, sound design, and the overall splendour of its visuals almost make me want to recommend viewing <em>Alexander</em> on that level. A lot of work and detail has gone into the making of the weapons, armour and costumes ranging from the plainer togas and uniforms of the Macedonians to the and rich, opulent, colourful attire of the various eastern cultures. Admittedly, the makeup on Kilmer’s Philip and blond locks of Farrell’s Alexander do leave much to be desired. And the CGI eagle close-ups don’t look at all real, definitely a case of being too ambitious with the VFX.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Elephant.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="340" />
The Battle of Gaugamela is an incredible achievement in historical battle filmmaking, Stone films as much of the vast Macedonian and Persian armies in-camera as possible, with impressive wide shots of the Macedonian phalanxes, Persian infantry battalions, Persian chariots and the cavalry on both sides. CGI is used to give a sense of scale of both armies, but is primarily used from a bird’s eye view and only when necessary. The fighting is filmed at close quarters and has a frenetic energy and character to it, emulating the chaos of ancient warfare. The action scenes are bloody and shocking to behold, but no less than one should expect considering this period of warfare. Comparing Gaugamela to Hydaspes in India, it’s clear how much worse and bloodier a battle it was as the Greeks find themselves further away from home. The elephants gave me goose-bumps they thundered into view and laid waste to the Greek phalanx, and we see soldiers tossed about, gored and crushed underfoot. I keep wondering “how did they do it?” with the use of very real and very dangerous elephants and hundreds of armed extras in such an enclosed environment. If nothing else, both of these battles deserve far more attention for their prowess of execution. There is no escaping the hellishness of war, and no glorification of its aftermath.
The score by Vangelis is one of his most overlooked and finest I have heard, with a versatile array of atmospheric ethnic instrumentations that invoke the ancient world. The score soars to heroic heights that rival Hans Zimmer’s score for <em>Gladiator</em> at the Battle of Gaugamela, and for the many softer scenes it shows a melancholic, soulful quality that sets it apart from other scores in this genre. The closing credits theme ‘Titans’ has a mythic, inspiring personality to it that fires up the imagination with images of battle and victory.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.californiaherps.com/films/filmimages/alexander3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie philip" width="820" height="344" />
The film operates on two timelines, one chronicling Alexander’s eastern conquests up until his death in Babylon, and another that follows Alexander from his youth to becoming king of Macedonia. The use of a stylized map of the ancient world, in addition to Ptolemy’s narration, is a useful tool to help the audience keep track of Alexander’s conquests. On a storytelling level, introducing Alexander through the Battle of Gaugamela is an effective hook and allows us to see the Macedonian conqueror at his prime as one would imagine him, before we see more of what he was as a prince. The tone subtly shifts from one of mythic and heroic character to a darker tone, stripped of the glorification of Alexander in the first act. Similarly, the battles become more bloody and hellish to reflect this gradual shift. The Revisited Cut plays up the idea that Darius arranged the assassination of Philip in the first act, giving legitimacy to Alexander’s invasion, and this idea of stripped away over time as a ruse created by Alexander to fire the Greeks up for war. The contrast of scenes allow for a greater contrast of where Alexander came from and how and why he met his end.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Darius.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie hd screencaps" width="820" height="340" />
However, this structure is not without its problems. Before the Battle of Gaugamela, we’re introduced to Alexander’s generals at a breakneck speed at a rushed pace, and only half of them are forgotten about as the film rolls on. This has a similar problem to <em>Troy</em> in attempting to integrate the Homeric hymns ascribing qualities to the generals that sound pretentious in English. The enemy armies at Gaugamela and Hydaspes are one-dimensional and ultimately function as basic obstacles, so you don’t really root for the Greeks to triumph as much as you would compare to the Spartans and the Persians in <em>300</em> or to understand the drama and sometimes shared heroism and ideals on both sides like in <em>Troy</em>. There just isn’t much personality given to the Persians, Bactrians or Indians.
Oddities are aplenty here, some work and others unsurprisingly don’t. The choice to give the Macedonian characters Irish accents, while strange at first, eventually ceased to bother me as it was an effective method of establishing differences between the more civilized Greeks with upper class English accents. Stranger examples that include the use of a lion’s roar overlaid over the cheering Macedonian army at Gaugamela, and the approaching elephants' footsteps literally make the earth tremble and they themselves sound more monster than animal. Whole sequences are filmed to show off dancing girls and various pleasures of the flesh; beautifully shot to be sure but pretty much exist for their own sake.
<img class=" wp-image-226 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Babylon-500x208.png" alt="" width="529" height="220" />
Then there are some flat out goofy scenes like Alexander and his men interacting with monkeys in India as though they were a tribe of their own, even Hopkins’ venerable narration can't save it. Strange edits, such as jarring alternating shots between characters and scene transitions such as the Battle of Hydaspes take even me out of the movie. The strangest of all is the Battle of Hydaspes in which the whole battle turns to a horrific magenta red netherworld of insanity when Bucephalus is killed in battle. Stone really should not have gone for this visual decision as it makes the battle more difficult to perceive and falls into melodrama. The writing between Alexander and Olympias is dripping with oedipal and Freudian scenes, and yes it’s as gross as you would expect, and the fact that Jolie hardly ages while Alexander lives into his thirties doesn’t help matters. In the many scenes where tempers flare and fight break out amongst the characters, helped with alcohol, this is where the film's melodrama really becomes its undoing. Tempers flare again when a ragged and exhausted Alexander is forced to quell a mutiny in his army, and it’s difficult to watch because of how needlessly over the top it is.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected problems with <em>Alexander </em>is Alexander himself for one key reason. What <em>Gladiator</em> had is a relatable, underdog hero like Russell Crowe’s Maximus. <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> had a stunning ensemble cast to compensate for the shortcomings in its main lead. The Alexander of <em>Alexander</em> is more like Joaquin Phoenix’s tortured Prince Commodus: a young man born into privilege and haunted by ruling class family dysfunction and neurosis, and most of the people he’s surrounded with don’t have the charm or likability to hold the film together. Most people just aren’t going to find as much to root for in this kind of character. Had Ptolemy been the main character and been a witness to the highs and lows of Alexander's career, maybe the film would have had more of a stable foundation from a main character standpoint.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-227 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Eagle-500x210.png" alt="" width="500" height="210" />
There are three prominent animal symbols in the film. The eagle, which is a symbol of Zeus, is a frequent companion of Alexander’s conquests as an omen for victory, and is seen when Alexander first rides Bucephalus. Eagle heraldry appears in Babylon, and one last time an eagle hallucination appears just before he dies, as though Zeus himself had descended to take him. Snakes are another recurring motif, as extensions of Olympias’ sensualized treatment of her young son, just as a snake wraps its coils around its human bearer. They are symbols of the cult of Dionysus, whom Olympias was a part of. Living snakes and snake symbols are presented whenever Alexander feels vulnerability or sickness, and manifest as a hallucination of Olympias as a Gorgon. Roxana wears snake arm braces, establishing parallels between Alexander and Roxana and his parents, indicating a repetition of history. While it is very blatant, the image of the snake killing the eagle as it flies is an obvious indication that Olympias’ manipulations and toxic attitude ultimately killed her son. With hardly any dialogue, Alexander and his horse Bucephalus becomes a legitimate highlight of the film. Bucephalus also plays a similar role to these animal symbols, as a symbol of his virility, health and passion for conquest. When Bucephalus is killed in battle, Alexande��C�4? g�������� ��
� p����r’s resolve to conquer is destroyed as well.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-228 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ptolemy-500x211.png" alt="" width="500" height="211" />
The life of Alexander echoes many of the Greek mythic heroes, and Stone seems to indicate that Alexander was the last of these men to rise and fall in such a fashion. The theme of mythology appears first as a series of speeches about heroes from Philip to young Alexander, but this becomes integral to the core of the film. We see Alexander atop Bucephalus charge a rampaging elephant, and the two animals rear on their hind legs and in an image that looks like something out of high fantasy. The way Stone shoots Alexander's triumphs in which there is something almost divine about them, the animal motifs, and the exotic locales seem even more wondrous to the audience. That's where it occurred to me; <em>Alexander</em> is about myth-making, and how myths are born and how the pursuit of greatness and eternal glory will always invoke a great cost. Using Ptolemy’s account as a framing device, as he struggles to reconcile Alexander’s towering legacy with the man he was in life, we understand why the film indulges in such theatrical excess – because it is an extension of Ptolemy’s mythmaking. That no matter his failings in life or the manner in which he died, Alexander still created left a legacy that endures more than any story so that he himself has become mythicized by history. Just as Achilles lived fast and died gloriously, so does Alexander.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tnoxNlxIQI/UfvOw63KYrI/AAAAAAAAJSo/TSwA09gNpWk/s1600/Alexander+3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 philip" width="615" height="393" />
While the Revisited cut of <em>Alexander</em> provided a better film than I dared to expect, it is hampered by many of the same flaws that plague the theatrical cut, namely its many bizarre apparitions of style, flawed writing and many excessively over the top performances. I don’t take any shame in saying it’s a better movie than the reputation that preceded it and that I enjoyed it enough to see it again and study it properly. While I don't expect my analysis of the film to go over well with everyone, I hope I have encouraged a few curious people to investigate for themselves. <em>Fortune favours the bold</em>. �ɳg�� h�������� ��
� ?� i<img class="size-medium wp-image-153 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
Oliver Stone’s <em>Alexander</em> is a fascinating creature of a film; one that I have already a curious liking for yet one I cannot deny its many flaws. It’s a strange film that alternates between being a striking vision of Antiquity and a bizarre acid trip of excess and strange direction choices that makes <em>300</em> look tame by comparison. You can tell Oliver Stone poured all his heart and soul into the telling of Alexander’s story and sticking true to the history. For this review, I will look at the ‘Revisited’ cut; it’s the longest (therefore also the most challenging) but also one with perhaps the most to offer as a biopic and an epic recounting the life and exploits of one of history’s greatest conquerors.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.oliverstone.com/images/made/uploads/images/alexander-revisited_460_380_tl_2_tr_2_s_c1_center_top.png" alt="Image result for alexander revisited" width="460" height="380" />
In Alexandria, Egypt, 283 BC, Pharaoh Ptolemy I (Anthony Hopkins) recites his memoirs alongside Alexander to his scribe Cadmus, serving as the framing device for the film with Ptolemy as the narrator, alluding to other events off-screen while the film focuses on some of the key moments in the life of Alexander. In this edition, we are introduced to Alexander (Colin Farrell) in 331 BC just before the Battle of Gaugamela against King Darius III of the Persian Empire. Among his loyal generals are Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Antigonus (Ian Beattie), Cleitus (Gary Stretch), Parmenion (John Kavanagh), Philotas (Joseph Morgan), and the younger Ptolemy (Elliot Cowan). The battle commences, and despite the Persians’ overwhelming numbers, Alexander wins the day through superior tactics and claiming Babylon in the name of Macedonia. He confides with Hephaistion of his ambitions to travel to and conquer the far corners of the world.
Between these exploits, we see flashbacks<span style="font-size: 1rem;"> Alexander’s life as a young prince (Connor Paolo) and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and his tutor Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His already tenuous relationship with his father King Philip II (Val Kilmer) is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydice, the niece of Attalus. After the assassination of Philip, Eurydice’s claim to the throne is destroyed; Alexander becomes king and fulfils his father’s intended campaign to conquer Persia.</span>
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/21/Alexander-Gaugamela.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 screencaps" width="820" height="340" />
The acting has been a subject of debate and ridicule, with many of the key actors attracting criticism for their performances. I myself can enjoy such theatrical performances, having seen a number of Greek plays where this type of acting is commonplace. Farrell looks the part of Alexander and sportingly throws himself into the action scenes, and he does have a fair few scenes that show off his confidence and passionate leadership well, but not enough. Because Farrell has more of an everyman quality to him, he doesn’t nail the enormous charisma you think would be associated with a great leader of men. In other scenes he becomes like a character in a Greek play with over the top expressions and mood swings, the worst of which happen with Jolie’s Olympias. Speaking of which, Jolie is another strange casting as Olympias, overdoing her Albanian accent, eating up the scenery and being very unsettling and not in a fun way. Kilmer has some good scenes with both Alexander actors, and his Irish accent seemed to work well enough, but when he goes into over the top drunken rants it’s almost as bad as Jolie.
Leto gives an okay performance as the calm, as<span style="font-size: 1rem;">suaging Hephaistion to Farrell’s wildly passionate Alexander; however they don’t have enough chemistry to really believe that they’re lovers. Despite some good scenes in the first half, Hephaistion seldom has much screen time with Alexander in the second half and we mostly get longing stares between the couple. Hopkins provides a solemn, soothing narration to the film and conveys the memory of a man who has seen the world and is thinking of his youth with nostalgia. Rosario Dawson does a good job as the Bactrian princess, Roxana, holding her own despite having very limited screen time. Plummer gives a lot of worldly personality as Aristotle, having a great scene with the young Greeks who would follow Alexander. Cowan (w</span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">ho looks like he could reasonably pass for a young Anthony Hopkins), Kavanagh, Morgan and Stretch all function well as generals to Alexander, but sometimes go for theatrics like some of the A-listers. </span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Familiar faces appearing in surprising early roles include Toby Kebbell as Pausanias, the killer of Philip, Ian Beattie as General Antigonus, Rory McCann as Craterus the soldier. In brief but impressionable roles include Tim Piggot-Smith as the omen reader, and Brian Blessed is a welcome sight as young Alexander’s wrestling tutor.</span>
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-37ff4db61d9c33c804f9dd8d4ef68113" alt="Related image" width="602" height="250" />
This is a very well-polished film, on par with the likes of <em>Gladiator</em>, <em>Troy</em> and <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> for technical prowess. For the vast majority of the film, the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic. The hot orange colours of Gaugamela and vibrant colours of Babylon and Bactria capture the exotic look of the eastern countries. The pastoral hills and town of Pellas, Macedonia have a lush pastoral purity to them, and the verdant jungles and temples of India are beautifully shot with a greater level of contrast and colour. He excels in capturing the vastness and insanity of the battles. There is one area where the cinematography jumps the gun badly which I will highlight later.<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://sentsmemory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/babylon.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander babylon" width="820" height="337" />
The realization of the great Babylon through massive sets and CGI is stunning, and surprisingly much of it holds up. In fact, the locations, sets, art direction, sound design, and the overall splendour of its visuals almost make me want to recommend viewing <em>Alexander</em> on that level. A lot of work and detail has gone into the making of the weapons, armour and costumes ranging from the plainer togas and uniforms of the Macedonians to the and rich, opulent, colourful attire of the various eastern cultures. Admittedly, the makeup on Kilmer’s Philip and blond locks of Farrell’s Alexander do leave much to be desired. And the CGI eagle close-ups don’t look at all real, definitely a case of being too ambitious with the VFX.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Elephant.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="340" />
The Battle of Gaugamela is an incredible achievement in historical battle filmmaking, Stone films as much of the vast Macedonian and Persian armies in-camera as possible, with impressive wide shots of the Macedonian phalanxes, Persian infantry battalions, Persian chariots and the cavalry on both sides. CGI is used to give a sense of scale of both armies, but is primarily used from a bird’s eye view and only when necessary. The fighting is filmed at close quarters and has a frenetic energy and character to it, emulating the chaos of ancient warfare. The action scenes are bloody and shocking to behold, but no less than one should expect considering this period of warfare. Comparing Gaugamela to Hydaspes in India, it’s clear how much worse and bloodier a battle it was as the Greeks find themselves further away from home. The elephants gave me goose-bumps they thundered into view and laid waste to the Greek phalanx, and we see soldiers tossed about, gored and crushed underfoot. I keep wondering “how did they do it?” with the use of very real and very dangerous elephants and hundreds of armed extras in such an enclosed environment. If nothing else, both of these battles deserve far more attention for their prowess of execution. There is no escaping the hellishness of war, and no glorification of its aftermath.
The score by Vangelis is one of his most overlooked and finest I have heard, with a versatile array of atmospheric ethnic instrumentations that invoke the ancient world. The score soars to heroic heights that rival Hans Zimmer’s score for <em>Gladiator</em> at the Battle of Gaugamela, and for the many softer scenes it shows a melancholic, soulful quality that sets it apart from other scores in this genre. The closing credits theme ‘Titans’ has a mythic, inspiring personality to it that fires up the imagination with images of battle and victory.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.californiaherps.com/films/filmimages/alexander3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie philip" width="820" height="344" />
The film operates on two timelines, one chronicling Alexander’s eastern conquests up until his death in Babylon, and another that follows Alexander from his youth to becoming king of Macedonia. The use of a stylized map of the ancient world, in addition to Ptolemy’s narration, is a useful tool to help the audience keep track of Alexander’s conquests. On a storytelling level, introducing Alexander through the Battle of Gaugamela is an effective hook and allows us to see the Macedonian conqueror at his prime as one would imagine him, before we see more of what he was as a prince. The tone subtly shifts from one of mythic and heroic character to a darker tone, stripped of the glorification of Alexander in the first act. Similarly, the battles become more bloody and hellish to reflect this gradual shift. The Revisited Cut plays up the idea that Darius arranged the assassination of Philip in the first act, giving legitimacy to Alexander’s invasion, and this idea of stripped away over time as a ruse created by Alexander to fire the Greeks up for war. The contrast of scenes allow for a greater contrast of where Alexander came from and how and why he met his end.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Darius.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie hd screencaps" width="820" height="340" />
However, this structure is not without its problems. Before the Battle of Gaugamela, we’re introduced to Alexander’s generals at a breakneck speed at a rushed pace, and only half of them are forgotten about as the film rolls on. This has a similar problem to <em>Troy</em> in attempting to integrate the Homeric hymns ascribing qualities to the generals that sound pretentious in English. The enemy armies at Gaugamela and Hydaspes are one-dimensional and ultimately function as basic obstacles, so you don’t really root for the Greeks to triumph as much as you would compare to the Spartans and the Persians in <em>300</em> or to understand the drama and sometimes shared heroism and ideals on both sides like in <em>Troy</em>. There just isn’t much personality given to the Persians, Bactrians or Indians.
Oddities are aplenty here, some work and others unsurprisingly don’t. The choice to give the Macedonian characters Irish accents, while strange at first, eventually ceased to bother me as it was an effective method of establishing differences between the more civilized Greeks with upper class English accents. Stranger examples that include the use of a lion’s roar overlaid over the cheering Macedonian army at Gaugamela, and the approaching elephants' footsteps literally make the earth tremble and they themselves sound more monster than animal. Whole sequences are filmed to show off dancing girls and various pleasures of the flesh; beautifully shot to be sure but pretty much exist for their own sake.
<img class=" wp-image-226 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Babylon-500x208.png" alt="" width="529" height="220" />
Then there are some flat out goofy scenes like Alexander and his men interacting with monkeys in India as though they were a tribe of their own, even Hopkins’ venerable narration can't save it. Strange edits, such as jarring alternating shots between characters and scene transitions such as the Battle of Hydaspes take even me out of the movie. The strangest of all is the Battle of Hydaspes in which the whole battle turns to a horrific magenta red netherworld of insanity when Bucephalus is killed in battle. Stone really should not have gone for this visual decision as it makes the battle more difficult to perceive and falls into melodrama. The writing between Alexander and Olympias is dripping with oedipal and Freudian scenes, and yes it’s as gross as you would expect, and the fact that Jolie hardly ages while Alexander lives into his thirties doesn’t help matters. In the many scenes where tempers flare and fight break out amongst the characters, helped with alcohol, this is where the film's melodrama really becomes its undoing. Tempers flare again when a ragged and exhausted Alexander is forced to quell a mutiny in his army, and it’s difficult to watch because of how needlessly over the top it is.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected problems with <em>Alexander </em>is Alexander himself for one key reason. What <em>Gladiator</em> had is a relatable, underdog hero like Russell Crowe’s Maximus. <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> had a stunning ensemble cast to compensate for the shortcomings in its main lead. The Alexander of <em>Alexander</em> is more like Joaquin Phoenix’s tortured Prince Commodus: a young man born into privilege and haunted by ruling class family dysfunction and neurosis, and most of the people he’s surrounded with don’t have the charm or likability to hold the film together. Most people just aren’t going to find as much to root for in this kind of character. Had Ptolemy been the main character and been a witness to the highs and lows of Alexander's career, maybe the film would have had more of a stable foundation from a main character standpoint.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-227 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Eagle-500x210.png" alt="" width="500" height="210" />
There are three prominent animal symbols in the film. The eagle, which is a symbol of Zeus, is a frequent companion of Alexander’s conquests as an omen for victory, and is seen when Alexander first rides Bucephalus. Eagle heraldry appears in Babylon, and one last time an eagle hallucination appears just before he dies, as though Zeus himself had descended to take him. Snakes are another recurring motif, as extensions of Olympias’ sensualized treatment of her young son, just as a snake wraps its coils around its human bearer. They are symbols of the cult of Dionysus, whom Olympias was a part of. Living snakes and snake symbols are presented whenever Alexander feels vulnerability or sickness, and manifest as a hallucination of Olympias as a Gorgon. Roxana wears snake arm braces, establishing parallels between Alexander and Roxana and his parents, indicating a repetition of history. While it is very blatant, the image of the snake killing the eagle as it flies is an obvious indication that Olympias’ manipulations and toxic attitude ultimately killed her son. With hardly any dialogue, Alexander and his horse Bucephalus becomes a legitimate highlight of the film. Bucephalus also plays a similar role to these animal symbols, as a symbol of his virility, health and passion for conquest. When Bucephalus is killed in battle, Alexander’s resolve to con��*�g i�������� ��
� \����quer is destroyed as well.
<img class="size-medium wp-image-228 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ptolemy-500x211.png" alt="" width="500" height="211" />
The life of Alexander echoes many of the Greek mythic heroes, and Stone seems to indicate that Alexander was the last of these men to rise and fall in such a fashion. The theme of mythology appears first as a series of speeches about heroes from Philip to young Alexander, but this becomes integral to the core of the film. We see Alexander atop Bucephalus charge a rampaging elephant, and the two animals rear on their hind legs and in an image that looks like something out of high fantasy. The way Stone shoots Alexander's triumphs in which there is something almost divine about them, the animal motifs, and the exotic locales seem even more wondrous to the audience. That's where it occurred to me; <em>Alexander</em> is about myth-making, and how myths are born and how the pursuit of greatness and eternal glory will always invoke a great cost. Using Ptolemy’s account as a framing device, as he struggles to reconcile Alexander’s towering legacy with the man he was in life, we understand why the film indulges in such theatrical excess – because it is an extension of Ptolemy’s mythmaking. That no matter his failings in life or the manner in which he died, Alexander still created left a legacy that endures more than any story so that he himself has become mythicized by history. Just as Achilles lived fast and died gloriously, so does Alexander.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tnoxNlxIQI/UfvOw63KYrI/AAAAAAAAJSo/TSwA09gNpWk/s1600/Alexander+3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 philip" width="615" height="393" />
While the Revisited cut of <em>Alexander</em> provided a better film than I dared to expect, it is hampered by many of the same flaws that plague the theatrical cut, namely its many bizarre apparitions of style, flawed writing and many excessively over the top performances. I don’t take any shame in saying it’s a better movie than the reputation that preceded it and that I enjoyed it enough to see it again and study it properly. While I don't expect my analysis of the film to go over well with everyone, I hope I have encouraged a few curious people to investigate for themselves. <em>Fortune favours the bold</em>. �곏^� j�������� �+0
� ,�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-232 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/HenryV-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
On this last review of my ‘Thirteen Days of Epics’ series, I felt compelled to shed some light on a film that is already a fusion of history with fiction with Kenneth Branagh’s cinematic adaptation of William Shakespeare’s <em>Henry V</em>. While it isn’t as big or expensive as the previous films I’ve reviewed, this is certainly one of the strong ones, ranging from rousing and uplifting to harrowing and melancholic. For a film that’s nearly thirty years old it’s relatively old fashioned approach feels all the more appropriate for the material and the setting. And it happens to be St Crispin’s Day, so all the better!
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://michaelpjensen.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Photo_Stephen_Simms_Jay_Villers_Fabian_Cartwright_and_Derek_Jacobi.220224008_large.png" alt="Image result for henry v 1989 derek jacobi" width="699" height="393" />
The film is framed through the narrator or Chorus (Derek Jacobi), a modern day speaker who introduces the film and provides narration for each new act, whilst integrated into the medieval surrounding.
England, 1415: to prevent King Henry V from passing a decree that might confiscate property from the church, the Bishop of Ely and the Archbishop of Canterbury convene to talk the king into invading France, claiming him to be the rightful heir to the throne. Their cause is supported by the Duke of Exeter (Brian Blessed), and Henry agrees to press his claim to the French crown and threatens with war if he is denied. Montjoy (Christopher Ravenscroft), a representative of the Dauphin, delivers the Dauphin’s response: a chest of tennis balls. After Montjoy is dismissed by the calm but insulted king, Henry starts to plan his campaign.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNmZkOWUyOGMtNDA5ZS00YTMxLTgxMjAtM2VjYzk3MThhZDJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTQxMTIxMTk@._V1_.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="590" height="393" />
All of the cast, being of thespian background, lend themselves to Shakespeare’s style and convey the emotion and intent through the archaic dialogue. Branagh absolutely holds this film together with his performance as Henry, as all things a king should be while still having his subtle foibles. Above all he is very believable as a king, and to me his Saint Crispin’s Day speech trounces the famous “once more unto the breach” scene and Branagh’s passion really shines through.
Blessed’s larger than life presence is kept somewhat restrained in this film, but even in his subtlest of speeches he leaves a tremendous impression, but he does have plenty of moments to let loose and be the actor we know and love him as. Judi Dench’s brief but very dynamic memorable turn as inkeeper Mistress Quickly, her eulogy for Fallstaff is beautifully acted and very emotional. Ravenscroft plays Montjoy as an earnest and respectful figure, even in the face of Henry’s ire and scorn from the English nobles. Emma Thompson is very charming, gleeful and radiant as Princess Catherine, flawlessly nailing the French accent, and the scene between her and Henry has genuine tenderness between them. Paul Scofield makes King Charles VI out to be a tragic and sympathetic figure, and portrays the king’s pain and careworn bearing beautifully. Geraldine McEwan is also quite likable as Princess Catherine’s handmaiden, also affecting a thick and dainty French accent. Ian Holm is terrific as the testy but affable Welsh soldier Fluellen, having a particularly wonderful scene with Branagh’s Henry. Coming off of <em>Empire of the Sun</em>, Christian Bale does a good job as the humble luggage boy and stands out among the other great thespians in this film. Jacobi’s incredible voice and stage presence allows the narration of the Chorus to leap off the screen and fire you up every time. Richard Briers, Geoffrey Hutchings and Robin Stephens as Bardolph, Nym and Pistol all perform their parts well as heavily flawed, desperate and cantankerous soldiers in the English army. Daniel Web’s officer, Gower, stands out in particular among the other soldiers. Robbie Coltrane as John Falstaff shows a lot of subtle emotion and great screen presence, and leaves a good impression.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.mgmchannel.com/data/uddir/files/view_13_5013237_jpg.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="624" height="393" />
The film is filled with stark lighting and atmosphere, making the most out of some relatively simple sets. The visual style of Branagh’s film is grittier and more realistic than that of Lawrence Olivier’s 1944 adaptation, with the depiction of Agincourt as a rain-drenched, muddy field strewn with bodies, resembling the trenches of Europe in the First World War. This sense of desperation and vulnerability among both English and French armies keeps the film from appearing too one-sided, while it is by its nature a very pro-England story. This muddy plain also adds to the reason why the French knights in all their heavy armour were beaten by the English longbowmen, because they are depicted as weighed down, impeded and blinded by the inclement conditions.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://thedrunkenodyssey.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/henry-v-4.png" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="725" height="393" />
While the costumes are very well designed, worn and gritty and retain a degree of authenticity to the period, but the chainmail does look hopelessly artificial. Brian Blessed is the only actor who didn’t need to wear a light armour costume for the filming of this scene, he wore a whole suit of genuine heavy plate armour and chainmail. The makeup for the soldiers covered in blood, sweat and mud looks exactly as one would expect from a battle of this nature. The battle is shot to a grounded and gritty standard, highlighting its horror and brutality without resorting to gratuitous gore and dismemberment for its own sake. No doubt Ridley Scott would make a more visually arresting battle, but the Branagh is not compelled to dedicate more time to it than necessary. While there aren’t that many extras seen on these sets or locations, the weight and grandness of the events is still maintained throughout, and the focus on a smaller number of soldiers allows for a greater level of intimacy and attachment to the characters.
The score by then-newcomer Patrick Doyle is ranging from rousing and triumphant to atmospheric and suspenseful to emotional and sweet. The theme for the St. Crispin’s Day speech is inspiring and beautiful, having a classical quality to it akin to John Williams; the way it continues to rise as the speech proceeds is still beautiful.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZmY0ODg4MTktZjQ5Yy00NWFhLTljMmItYmY3NWU5NThmODQ1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjkxMjM5Nzc@._V1_.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="598" height="393" />
<em>Henry V</em> has been discussed and analysed by academics and critics from a variety of fields in play and film form. It has been heralded traditionally as a rallying call for England, and that is still conveyed in this film but with a bit more visual nuance to it. Henry walks the fine line between being a protagonist the audience can be invested in and another power hungry king. While Branagh is the main reason this iteration of Henry works, you see him struggle to maintain his army. When disguised as a soldier named "LeRoy", keeping his face half obscured in darkness indicates the somewhat underhanded nature of this tactic. By contrast, the innocence of Catherine is accentuated by the cinematography. Her scenes have an almost dreamlike quality to them, as though she herself were omitting a heavenly glow, and having a noticeable effect on Henry.
The three and a half minute tracking shot of King Henry carrying the by across the battlefield littered with English and French corpses to “Non Nobis Domine” and Patrick Doyle’s score is some of the best visual storytelling in any film I have seen in a single shot. English and French dead lie all around the survivors, wounded boys are carried off by soldiers, leafless trees match the similarly lifeless landscape, and sharp wooden stakes pierce the darkened sky. The expressions on the combatants as they look to each other and behold the king as another one of them move me every time. It captures the tragedy of the war and the bloodied king humbling himself to carry a dead child through muddy fields amidst lords and common soldiers. Without the need to flaunt a cast of thousands, the impact, emotion and weight of that scene speaks volumes, as if he were carrying the whole weight of the battle on his conscience.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.frockflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/0210944_7441_MC_Tx360.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v princess catherine" width="666" height="360" />
There are some alterations to give certain scenes context in the film. Branagh incorporated flashbacks using extracts from <em>Henry IV</em>, <em>Part 1 </em>and<em> Part 2</em> in which Henry interacts with the character of Falstaff, who, in Shakespeare’s <em>Henry V</em>, is never seen apart from being announced as dead by Mistress Quickly. These are allowable changes, and contrast the younger Henry among his soldiers with Henry as the King struggling to keep his soldiers together.
While there is much to praise in this film, Branagh sometimes has an issue with balancing out tone. After the hellish Siege of Harfleur, we’re introduced to Princess Catherine in a light-hearted, frivolous scene where she tries to pronounce English words. The scene is done entirely in French, and while it’s very well acted it does seem a bit at odds with the rest of the film. Then we see her joy melt away as she sees her father and the dauphin on their way to a war council. It’s also strange that the film has a host of British actors playing French lords without the accent, yet only Thompson and McEwan affect an accent. Henry goes from eloquent and fiery battle commander to stammering like a teenage boy in Catherine’s presence, and it does feel a bit too innocent considering this is not long after Agincourt. Ultimately, these scenes are so well acted and charming in of themselves, despite the tonal shifts, that I cannot regard them as flaws significant enough to harm the film.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://thatmomentin.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/henry_v_crispins_day_small.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v st crispin's day speech" width="639" height="350" />
The success of this film lies in its more grounded, earnest approach while still maintaining the rousing and heroic aspects of the Shakespeare play. The combination of Branagh’s directorial vision, his own stellar performance and the sublime work from the ensemble cast elevate the already commendable production values for a modestly budgeted film and wed the spirit of the historical epic to one of Shakespeare’s most rousing plays, while still retaining just enough modern sensitivity to the material to translate it in a way that can, and likely will, be regarded as exemplary to all generations. �+0g�v� k�������� �[�
� ,�����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-232" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/HenryV-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
On this last review of my ‘Thirteen Days of Epics’ series, I felt compelled to shed some light on a film that is already a fusion of history with fiction with Kenneth Branagh’s cinematic adaptation of William Shakespeare’s <em>Henry V</em>. While it isn’t as big or expensive as the previous films I’ve reviewed, this is certainly one of the strong ones, ranging from rousing and uplifting to harrowing and melancholic. For a film that’s nearly twenty years old it’s relatively old fashioned approach feels all the more appropriate for the material and the setting. And it happens to be St Crispin’s Day, so all the better!
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://michaelpjensen.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Photo_Stephen_Simms_Jay_Villers_Fabian_Cartwright_and_Derek_Jacobi.220224008_large.png" alt="Image result for henry v 1989 derek jacobi" width="699" height="393" />
The film is framed through the narrator or Chorus (Derek Jacobi), a modern day speaker who introduces the film and provides narration for each new act, whilst integrated into the medieval surrounding.
England, 1415: to prevent King Henry V from passing a decree that might confiscate property from the church, the Bishop of Ely and the Archbishop of Canterbury convene to talk the king into invading France, claiming him to be the rightful heir to the throne. Their cause is supported by the Duke of Exeter (Brian Blessed), and Henry agrees to press his claim to the French crown and threatens with war if he is denied. Montjoy (Christopher Ravenscroft), a representative of the Dauphin, delivers the Dauphin’s response: a chest of tennis balls. After Montjoy is dismissed by the calm but insulted king, Henry starts to plan his campaign.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNmZkOWUyOGMtNDA5ZS00YTMxLTgxMjAtM2VjYzk3MThhZDJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTQxMTIxMTk@._V1_.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="590" height="393" />
All of the cast, being of thespian background, lend themselves to Shakespeare’s style and convey the emotion and intent through the archaic dialogue. Branagh absolutely holds this film together with his performance as Henry, as all things a king should be while still having his subtle foibles. Above all he is very believable as a king, and to me his Saint Crispin’s Day speech trounces the famous “once more unto the breach” scene and Branagh’s passion really shines through.
Blessed’s larger than life presence is kept somewhat restrained in this film, but even in his subtlest of speeches he leaves a tremendous impression, but he does have plenty of moments to let loose and be the actor we know and love him as. Judi Dench’s brief but very dynamic memorable turn as inkeeper Mistress Quickly, her eulogy for Fallstaff is beautifully acted and very emotional. Ravenscroft plays Montjoy as an earnest and respectful figure, even in the face of Henry’s ire and scorn from the English nobles. Emma Thompson is very charming, gleeful and radiant as Princess Catherine, flawlessly nailing the French accent, and the scene between her and Henry has genuine tenderness between them. Paul Scofield makes King Charles VI out to be a tragic and sympathetic figure, and portrays the king’s pain and careworn bearing beautifully. Geraldine McEwan is also quite likable as Princess Catherine’s handmaiden, also affecting a thick and dainty French accent. Ian Holm is terrific as the testy but affable Welsh soldier Fluellen, having a particularly wonderful scene with Branagh’s Henry. Coming off of <em>Empire of the Sun</em>, Christian Bale does a good job as the humble luggage boy and stands out among the other great thespians in this film. Jacobi’s incredible voice and stage presence allows the narration of the Chorus to leap off the screen and fire you up every time. Richard Briers, Geoffrey Hutchings and Robin Stephens as Bardolph, Nym and Pistol all perform their parts well as heavily flawed, desperate and cantankerous soldiers in the English army. Daniel Web’s officer, Gower, stands out in particular among the other soldiers. Robbie Coltrane as John Falstaff shows a lot of subtle emotion and great screen presence, and leaves a good impression.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.mgmchannel.com/data/uddir/files/view_13_5013237_jpg.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="624" height="393" />
The film is filled with stark lighting and atmosphere, making the most out of some relatively simple sets. The visual style of Branagh’s film is grittier and more realistic than that of Lawrence Olivier’s 1944 adaptation, with the depiction of Agincourt as a rain-drenched, muddy field strewn with bodies, resembling the trenches of Europe in the First World War. This sense of desperation and vulnerability among both English and French armies keeps the film from appearing too one-sided, while it is by its nature a very pro-England story. This muddy plain also adds to the reason why the French knights in all their heavy armour were beaten by the English longbowmen, because they are depicted as weighed down, impeded and blinded by the inclement conditions.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://thedrunkenodyssey.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/henry-v-4.png" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="725" height="393" />
While the costumes are very well designed, worn and gritty and retain a degree of authenticity to the period, but the chainmail does look hopelessly artificial. Brian Blessed is the only actor who didn’t need to wear a light armour costume for the filming of this scene, he wore a whole suit of genuine heavy plate armour and chainmail. The makeup for the soldiers covered in blood, sweat and mud looks exactly as one would expect from a battle of this nature. The battle is shot to a grounded and gritty standard, highlighting its horror and brutality without resorting to gratuitous gore and dismemberment for its own sake. No doubt Ridley Scott would make a more visually arresting battle, but the Branagh is not compelled to dedicate more time to it than necessary. While there aren’t that many extras seen on these sets or locations, the weight and grandness of the events is still maintained throughout, and the focus on a smaller number of soldiers allows for a greater level of intimacy and attachment to the characters.
The score by then-newcomer Patrick Doyle is ranging from rousing and triumphant to atmospheric and suspenseful to emotional and sweet. The theme for the St. Crispin’s Day speech is inspiring and beautiful, having a classical quality to it akin to John Williams; the way it continues to rise as the speech proceeds is still beautiful.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZmY0ODg4MTktZjQ5Yy00NWFhLTljMmItYmY3NWU5NThmODQ1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjkxMjM5Nzc@._V1_.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="598" height="393" />
<em>Henry V</em> has been discussed and analysed by academics and critics from a variety of fields in play and film form. It has been heralded traditionally as a rallying call for England, and that is still conveyed in this film but with a bit more visual nuance to it. Henry walks the fine line between being a protagonist the audience can be invested in and another power hungry king. While Branagh is the main reason this iteration of Henry works, you see him struggle to maintain his army. When disguised as a soldier named "LeRoy", keeping his face half obscured in darkness indicates the somewhat underhanded nature of this tactic. By contrast, the innocence of Catherine is accentuated by the cinematography. Her scenes have an almost dreamlike quality to them, as though she herself were omitting a heavenly glow, and having a noticeable effect on Henry.
The three and a half minute tracking shot of King Henry carrying the by across the battlefield littered with English and French corpses to “Non Nobis Domine” and Patrick Doyle’s score is some of the best visual storytelling in any film I have seen in a single shot. English and French dead lie all around the survivors, wounded boys are carried off by soldiers, leafless trees match the similarly lifeless landscape, and sharp wooden stakes pierce the darkened sky. The expressions on the combatants as they look to each other and behold the king as another one of them move me every time. It captures the tragedy of the war and the bloodied king humbling himself to carry a dead child through muddy fields amidst lords and common soldiers. Without the need to flaunt a cast of thousands, the impact, emotion and weight of that scene speaks volumes, as if he were carrying the whole weight of the battle on his conscience.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.frockflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/0210944_7441_MC_Tx360.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v princess catherine" width="666" height="360" />
There are some alterations to give certain scenes context in the film. Branagh incorporated flashbacks using extracts from <em>Henry IV</em>, <em>Part 1 </em>and<em> Part 2</em> in which Henry interacts with the character of Falstaff, who, in Shakespeare’s <em>Henry V</em>, is never seen apart from being announced as dead by Mistress Quickly. These are allowable changes, and contrast the younger Henry among his soldiers with Henry as the King struggling to keep his soldiers together.
While there is much to praise in this film, Branagh sometimes has an issue with balancing out tone. After the hellish Siege of Harfleur, we’re introduced to Princess Catherine in a light-hearted, frivolous scene where she tries to pronounce English words. The scene is done entirely in French, and while it’s very well acted it does seem a bit at odds with the rest of the film. Then we see her joy melt away as she sees her father and the dauphin on their way to a war council. It’s also strange that the film has a host of British actors playing French lords without the accent, yet only Thompson and McEwan affect an accent. Henry goes from eloquent and fiery battle commander to stammering like a teenage boy in Catherine’s presence, and it does feel a bit too innocent considering this is not long after Agincourt. Ultimately, these scenes are so well acted and charming in of themselves, despite the tonal shifts, that I cannot regard them as flaws significant enough to harm the film.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://thatmomentin.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/henry_v_crispins_day_small.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v st crispin's day speech" width="639" height="350" />
The success of this film lies in its more grounded, earnest approach while still maintaining the rousing and heroic aspects of the Shakespeare play. The combination of Branagh’s directorial vision, his own stellar performance and the sublime work from the ensemble cast elevate the already commendable production values for a modestly budgeted film and wed the spirit of the historical epic to one of Shakespeare’s most rousing plays, while still retaining just enough modern sensitivity to the material to translate it in a way that can, and likely will, be regarded as exemplary to all generations. �[��{ l�������� �=
� ,�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-232 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/HenryV-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
On this last review of my ‘Thirteen Days of Epics’ series, I felt compelled to shed some light on a film that is already a fusion of history with fiction with Kenneth Branagh’s cinematic adaptation of William Shakespeare’s <em>Henry V</em>. While it isn’t as big or expensive as the previous films I’ve reviewed, this is certainly one of the strong ones, ranging from rousing and uplifting to harrowing and melancholic. For a film that’s nearly twenty years old it’s relatively old fashioned approach feels all the more appropriate for the material and the setting. And it happens to be St Crispin’s Day, so all the better!
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://michaelpjensen.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Photo_Stephen_Simms_Jay_Villers_Fabian_Cartwright_and_Derek_Jacobi.220224008_large.png" alt="Image result for henry v 1989 derek jacobi" width="699" height="393" />
The film is framed through the narrator or Chorus (Derek Jacobi), a modern day speaker who introduces the film and provides narration for each new act, whilst integrated into the medieval surrounding.
England, 1415: to prevent King Henry V from passing a decree that might confiscate property from the church, the Bishop of Ely and the Archbishop of Canterbury convene to talk the king into invading France, claiming him to be the rightful heir to the throne. Their cause is supported by the Duke of Exeter (Brian Blessed), and Henry agrees to press his claim to the French crown and threatens with war if he is denied. Montjoy (Christopher Ravenscroft), a representative of the Dauphin, delivers the Dauphin’s response: a chest of tennis balls. After Montjoy is dismissed by the calm but insulted king, Henry starts to plan his campaign.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNmZkOWUyOGMtNDA5ZS00YTMxLTgxMjAtM2VjYzk3MThhZDJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTQxMTIxMTk@._V1_.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="590" height="393" />
All of the cast, being of thespian background, lend themselves to Shakespeare’s style and convey the emotion and intent through the archaic dialogue. Branagh absolutely holds this film together with his performance as Henry, as all things a king should be while still having his subtle foibles. Above all he is very believable as a king, and to me his Saint Crispin’s Day speech trounces the famous “once more unto the breach” scene and Branagh’s passion really shines through.
Blessed’s larger than life presence is kept somewhat restrained in this film, but even in his subtlest of speeches he leaves a tremendous impression, but he does have plenty of moments to let loose and be the actor we know and love him as. Judi Dench’s brief but very dynamic memorable turn as inkeeper Mistress Quickly, her eulogy for Fallstaff is beautifully acted and very emotional. Ravenscroft plays Montjoy as an earnest and respectful figure, even in the face of Henry’s ire and scorn from the English nobles. Emma Thompson is very charming, gleeful and radiant as Princess Catherine, flawlessly nailing the French accent, and the scene between her and Henry has genuine tenderness between them. Paul Scofield makes King Charles VI out to be a tragic and sympathetic figure, and portrays the king’s pain and careworn bearing beautifully. Geraldine McEwan is also quite likable as Princess Catherine’s handmaiden, also affecting a thick and dainty French accent. Ian Holm is terrific as the testy but affable Welsh soldier Fluellen, having a particularly wonderful scene with Branagh’s Henry. Coming off of <em>Empire of the Sun</em>, Christian Bale does a good job as the humble luggage boy and stands out among the other great thespians in this film. Jacobi’s incredible voice and stage presence allows the narration of the Chorus to leap off the screen and fire you up every time. Richard Briers, Geoffrey Hutchings and Robin Stephens as Bardolph, Nym and Pistol all perform their parts well as heavily flawed, desperate and cantankerous soldiers in the English army. Daniel Web’s officer, Gower, stands out in particular among the other soldiers. Robbie Coltrane as John Falstaff shows a lot of subtle emotion and great screen presence, and leaves a good impression.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.mgmchannel.com/data/uddir/files/view_13_5013237_jpg.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="624" height="393" />
The film is filled with stark lighting and atmosphere, making the most out of some relatively simple sets. The visual style of Branagh’s film is grittier and more realistic than that of Lawrence Olivier’s 1944 adaptation, with the depiction of Agincourt as a rain-drenched, muddy field strewn with bodies, resembling the trenches of Europe in the First World War. This sense of desperation and vulnerability among both English and French armies keeps the film from appearing too one-sided, while it is by its nature a very pro-England story. This muddy plain also adds to the reason why the French knights in all their heavy armour were beaten by the English longbowmen, because they are depicted as weighed down, impeded and blinded by the inclement conditions.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://thedrunkenodyssey.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/henry-v-4.png" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="725" height="393" />
While the costumes are very well designed, worn and gritty and retain a degree of authenticity to the period, but the chainmail does look hopelessly artificial. Brian Blessed is the only actor who didn’t need to wear a light armour costume for the filming of this scene, he wore a whole suit of genuine heavy plate armour and chainmail. The makeup for the soldiers covered in blood, sweat and mud looks exactly as one would expect from a battle of this nature. The battle is shot to a grounded and gritty standard, highlighting its horror and brutality without resorting to gratuitous gore and dismemberment for its own sake. No doubt Ridley Scott would make a more visually arresting battle, but the Branagh is not compelled to dedicate more time to it than necessary. While there aren’t that many extras seen on these sets or locations, the weight and grandness of the events is still maintained throughout, and the focus on a smaller number of soldiers allows for a greater level of intimacy and attachment to the characters.
The score by then-newcomer Patrick Doyle is ranging from rousing and triumphant to atmospheric and suspenseful to emotional and sweet. The theme for the St. Crispin’s Day speech is inspiring and beautiful, having a classical quality to it akin to John Williams; the way it continues to rise as the speech proceeds is still beautiful.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZmY0ODg4MTktZjQ5Yy00NWFhLTljMmItYmY3NWU5NThmODQ1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjkxMjM5Nzc@._V1_.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="598" height="393" />
<em>Henry V</em> has been discussed and analysed by academics and critics from a variety of fields in play and film form. It has been heralded traditionally as a rallying call for England, and that is still conveyed in this film but with a bit more visual nuance to it. Henry walks the fine line between being a protagonist the audience can be invested in and another power hungry king. While Branagh is the main reason this iteration of Henry works, you see him struggle to maintain his army. When disguised as a soldier named "LeRoy", keeping his face half obscured in darkness indicates the somewhat underhanded nature of this tactic. By contrast, the innocence of Catherine is accentuated by the cinematography. Her scenes have an almost dreamlike quality to them, as though she herself were omitting a heavenly glow, and having a noticeable effect on Henry.
The three and a half minute tracking shot of King Henry carrying the by across the battlefield littered with English and French corpses to “Non Nobis Domine” and Patrick Doyle’s score is some of the best visual storytelling in any film I have seen in a single shot. English and French dead lie all around the survivors, wounded boys are carried off by soldiers, leafless trees match the similarly lifeless landscape, and sharp wooden stakes pierce the darkened sky. The expressions on the combatants as they look to each other and behold the king as another one of them move me every time. It captures the tragedy of the war and the bloodied king humbling himself to carry a dead child through muddy fields amidst lords and common soldiers. Without the need to flaunt a cast of thousands, the impact, emotion and weight of that scene speaks volumes, as if he were carrying the whole weight of the battle on his conscience.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.frockflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/0210944_7441_MC_Tx360.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v princess catherine" width="666" height="360" />
There are some alterations to give certain scenes context in the film. Branagh incorporated flashbacks using extracts from <em>Henry IV</em>, <em>Part 1 </em>and<em> Part 2</em> in which Henry interacts with the character of Falstaff, who, in Shakespeare’s <em>Henry V</em>, is never seen apart from being announced as dead by Mistress Quickly. These are allowable changes, and contrast the younger Henry among his soldiers with Henry as the King struggling to keep his soldiers together.
While there is much to praise in this film, Branagh sometimes has an issue with balancing out tone. After the hellish Siege of Harfleur, we’re introduced to Princess Catherine in a light-hearted, frivolous scene where she tries to pronounce English words. The scene is done entirely in French, and while it’s very well acted it does seem a bit at odds with the rest of the film. Then we see her joy melt away as she sees her father and the dauphin on their way to a war council. It’s also strange that the film has a host of British actors playing French lords without the accent, yet only Thompson and McEwan affect an accent. Henry goes from eloquent and fiery battle commander to stammering like a teenage boy in Catherine’s presence, and it does feel a bit too innocent considering this is not long after Agincourt. Ultimately, these scenes are so well acted and charming in of themselves, despite the tonal shifts, that I cannot regard them as flaws significant enough to harm the film.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://thatmomentin.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/henry_v_crispins_day_small.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v st crispin's day speech" width="639" height="350" />
The success of this film lies in its more grounded, earnest approach while still maintaining the rousing and heroic aspects of the Shakespeare play. The combination of Branagh’s directorial vision, his own stellar performance and the sublime work from the ensemble cast elevate the already commendable production values for a modestly budgeted film and wed the spirit of the historical epic to one of Shakespeare’s most rousing plays, while still retaining just enough modern sensitivity to the material to translate it in a way that can, and likely will, be regarded as exemplary to all generations. �= |F� m�������� ���
� ,�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-232 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/HenryV-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
On this last review of my ‘Thirteen Days of Epics’ series, I felt compelled to shed some light on a film that is already a fusion of history with fiction with Kenneth Branagh’s cinematic adaptation of William Shakespeare’s <em>Henry V</em>. While it isn’t as big or expensive as the previous films I’ve reviewed, this is certainly one of the strong ones, ranging from rousing and uplifting to harrowing and melancholic. For a film that’s nearly thirty years old it’s relatively old fashioned approach feels all the more appropriate for the material and the setting. And it happens to be St Crispin’s Day, so all the better!
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://michaelpjensen.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Photo_Stephen_Simms_Jay_Villers_Fabian_Cartwright_and_Derek_Jacobi.220224008_large.png" alt="Image result for henry v 1989 derek jacobi" width="699" height="393" />
The film is framed through the narrator or Chorus (Derek Jacobi), a modern day speaker who introduces the film and provides narration for each new act, whilst integrated into the medieval surrounding.
England, 1415: to prevent King Henry V from passing a decree that might confiscate property from the church, the Bishop of Ely and the Archbishop of Canterbury convene to talk the king into invading France, claiming him to be the rightful heir to the throne. Their cause is supported by the Duke of Exeter (Brian Blessed), and Henry agrees to press his claim to the French crown and threatens with war if he is denied. Montjoy (Christopher Ravenscroft), a representative of the Dauphin, delivers the Dauphin’s response: a chest of tennis balls. After Montjoy is dismissed by the calm but insulted king, Henry starts to plan his campaign.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNmZkOWUyOGMtNDA5ZS00YTMxLTgxMjAtM2VjYzk3MThhZDJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTQxMTIxMTk@._V1_.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="590" height="393" />
All of the cast, being of thespian background, lend themselves to Shakespeare’s style and convey the emotion and intent through the archaic dialogue. Branagh absolutely holds this film together with his performance as Henry, as all things a king should be while still having his subtle foibles. Above all he is very believable as a king, and to me his Saint Crispin’s Day speech trounces the famous “once more unto the breach” scene and Branagh’s passion really shines through.
Blessed’s larger than life presence is kept somewhat restrained in this film, but even in his subtlest of speeches he leaves a tremendous impression, but he does have plenty of moments to let loose and be the actor we know and love him as. Judi Dench’s brief but very dynamic memorable turn as inkeeper Mistress Quickly, her eulogy for Fallstaff is beautifully acted and very emotional. Ravenscroft plays Montjoy as an earnest and respectful figure, even in the face of Henry’s ire and scorn from the English nobles. Emma Thompson is very charming, gleeful and radiant as Princess Catherine, flawlessly nailing the French accent, and the scene between her and Henry has genuine tenderness between them. Paul Scofield makes King Charles VI out to be a tragic and sympathetic figure, and portrays the king’s pain and careworn bearing beautifully. Geraldine McEwan is also quite likable as Princess Catherine’s handmaiden, also affecting a thick and dainty French accent. Ian Holm is terrific as the testy but affable Welsh soldier Fluellen, having a particularly wonderful scene with Branagh’s Henry. Coming off of <em>Empire of the Sun</em>, Christian Bale does a good job as the humble luggage boy and stands out among the other great thespians in this film. Jacobi’s incredible voice and stage presence allows the narration of the Chorus to leap off the screen and fire you up every time. Richard Briers, Geoffrey Hutchings and Robin Stephens as Bardolph, Nym and Pistol all perform their parts well as heavily flawed, desperate and cantankerous soldiers in the English army. Daniel Web’s officer, Gower, stands out in particular among the other soldiers. Robbie Coltrane as John Falstaff shows a lot of subtle emotion and great screen presence, and leaves a good impression.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.mgmchannel.com/data/uddir/files/view_13_5013237_jpg.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="624" height="393" />
The film is filled with stark lighting and atmosphere, making the most out of some relatively simple sets. The visual style of Branagh’s film is grittier and more realistic than that of Lawrence Olivier’s 1944 adaptation, with the depiction of Agincourt as a rain-drenched, muddy field strewn with bodies, resembling the trenches of Europe in the First World War. This sense of desperation and vulnerability among both English and French armies keeps the film from appearing too one-sided, while it is by its nature a very pro-England story. This muddy plain also adds to the reason why the French knights in all their heavy armour were beaten by the English longbowmen, because they are depicted as weighed down, impeded and blinded by the inclement conditions.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://thedrunkenodyssey.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/henry-v-4.png" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="725" height="393" />
While the costumes are very well designed, worn and gritty and retain a degree of authenticity to the period, but the chainmail does look hopelessly artificial. Brian Blessed is the only actor who didn’t need to wear a light armour costume for the filming of this scene, he wore a whole suit of genuine heavy plate armour and chainmail. The makeup for the soldiers covered in blood, sweat and mud looks exactly as one would expect from a battle of this nature. The battle is shot to a grounded and gritty standard, highlighting its horror and brutality without resorting to gratuitous gore and dismemberment for its own sake. No doubt Ridley Scott would make a more visually arresting battle, but the Branagh is not compelled to dedicate more time to it than necessary. While there aren’t that many extras seen on these sets or locations, the weight and grandness of the events is still maintained throughout, and the focus on a smaller number of soldiers allows for a greater level of intimacy and attachment to the characters.
The score by then-newcomer Patrick Doyle is ranging from rousing and triumphant to atmospheric and suspenseful to emotional and sweet. The theme for the St. Crispin’s Day speech is inspiring and beautiful, having a classical quality to it akin to John Williams; the way it continues to rise as the speech proceeds is still beautiful.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZmY0ODg4MTktZjQ5Yy00NWFhLTljMmItYmY3NWU5NThmODQ1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjkxMjM5Nzc@._V1_.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v 1989" width="598" height="393" />
<em>Henry V</em> has been discussed and analysed by academics and critics from a variety of fields in play and film form. It has been heralded traditionally as a rallying call for England, and that is still conveyed in this film but with a bit more visual nuance to it. Henry walks the fine line between being a protagonist the audience can be invested in and another power hungry king. While Branagh is the main reason this iteration of Henry works, you see him struggle to maintain his army. When disguised as a soldier named "LeRoy", keeping his face half obscured in darkness indicates the somewhat underhanded nature of this tactic. By contrast, the innocence of Catherine is accentuated by the cinematography. Her scenes have an almost dreamlike quality to them, as though she herself were omitting a heavenly glow, and having a noticeable effect on Henry.
The three and a half minute tracking shot of King Henry carrying the by across the battlefield littered with English and French corpses to “Non Nobis Domine” and Patrick Doyle’s score is some of the best visual storytelling in any film I have seen in a single shot. English and French dead lie all around the survivors, wounded boys are carried off by soldiers, leafless trees match the similarly lifeless landscape, and sharp wooden stakes pierce the darkened sky. The expressions on the combatants as they look to each other and behold the king as another one of them move me every time. It captures the tragedy of the war and the bloodied king humbling himself to carry a dead child through muddy fields amidst lords and common soldiers. Without the need to flaunt a cast of thousands, the impact, emotion and weight of that scene speaks volumes, as if he were carrying the whole weight of the battle on his conscience.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.frockflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/0210944_7441_MC_Tx360.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v princess catherine" width="666" height="360" />
There are some alterations to give certain scenes context in the film. Branagh incorporated flashbacks using extracts from <em>Henry IV</em>, <em>Part 1 </em>and<em> Part 2</em> in which Henry interacts with the character of Falstaff, who, in Shakespeare’s <em>Henry V</em>, is never seen apart from being announced as dead by Mistress Quickly. These are allowable changes, and contrast the younger Henry among his soldiers with Henry as the King struggling to keep his soldiers together.
While there is much to praise in this film, Branagh sometimes has an issue with balancing out tone. After the hellish Siege of Harfleur, we’re introduced to Princess Catherine in a light-hearted, frivolous scene where she tries to pronounce English words. The scene is done entirely in French, and while it’s very well acted it does seem a bit at odds with the rest of the film. Then we see her joy melt away as she sees her father and the dauphin on their way to a war council. It’s also strange that the film has a host of British actors playing French lords without the accent, yet only Thompson and McEwan affect an accent. Henry goes from eloquent and fiery battle commander to stammering like a teenage boy in Catherine’s presence, and it does feel a bit too innocent considering this is not long after Agincourt. Ultimately, these scenes are so well acted and charming in of themselves, despite the tonal shifts, that I cannot regard them as flaws significant enough to harm the film.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://thatmomentin.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/henry_v_crispins_day_small.jpg" alt="Image result for henry v st crispin's day speech" width="639" height="350" />
The success of this film lies in its more grounded, earnest approach while still maintaining the rousing and heroic aspects of the Shakespeare play. The combination of Branagh’s directorial vision, his own stellar performance and the sublime work from the ensemble cast elevate the already commendable production values for a modestly budgeted film and wed the spirit of the historical epic to one of Shakespeare’s most rousing plays, while still retaining just enough modern sensitivity to the material to translate it in a way that can, and likely will, be regarded as exemplary to all generations. ����(y n�������� ��y
� %�����<img class="img-responsive aligncenter" src="http://www.impawards.com/2004/posters/van_helsing_ver3.jpg" alt="Van Helsing Movie Poster" border="0" />
What is it with Universal Pictures not being able to properly revive their classic Monster Universe? The most recent and heavily panned iteration of <em>The Mummy</em> to kick-start the “Dark Universe” serves as a reminder that they’ve had one consistent problem. All these attempted all focused on action and spectacle rather than atmosphere, suspense and most important of all a strong script. To me, their first attempt was the ultimately ill-fated <em>Van Helsing</em>. This is an overly absurd and only occasionally entertaining blockbuster that really matches the philosophy of “turn your brain off” movies. It is at least honest in what it is as a go-for-broke bonkers popcorn flick than any other subsequent attempts to revive the Universal Monsters.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-610.jpg" />
In 1887 Transylvania, Doctor Victor Frankenstein (Samuel West) creates a monster (Shuler Hensley), which his master Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) plans to use for his own ends. Frankenstein is betrayed by his assistant Igor and killed by Dracula. The monster escapes the castle but is pursued by an angry village mob to an old windmill. They set it ablaze, with the monster and the doctor’s research apparently destroyed before Dracula can use it.
One year later, monster hunter Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) returns to the Vatican in Rome, having killing the infamous Mr. Hyde (Robbie Coltrane) at the Notre-Dame Cathedral. He learns that his mission to destroy Dracula and his amnesia are penance for unremembered sins that cause nightmares. He is tasked with helping the last of an ancient Romanian bloodline, Velkan (Will Kemp) and Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale), who must kill Dracula before their ancestors may enter Heaven. Carl (David Wenham), a friar, provides Van Helsing with aid and weapons and accompanies him to Transylvania. They arrive and meet up with Anna, after successfully repelling Dracula’s brides and join forces to find Dracula and stop him from unleashing his children upon the world.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-2884.jpg" />
The cast are all over the place. Despite not having anything substantial to work with, Jackman does a good job as the reimagined Van Helsing, playing the role fairly tongue in cheek at the right times but does try to give the characters some pathos and weight. Beckinsale is far more unbalanced, with her Eastern European accent roving all over the place and failing at the forced emotional beats. Roxburgh is a campy, often comical Dracula, way over the top and never possessing any sense of menace to him; he really isn’t on the level of previous Draculas or even Imhotep in Sommers’ own <em>Mummy</em> films. Wenham tries to make his “comedic” dialogue funny but only succeeds half the time, but is more annoying than not. Hensley’s operatic and wounded performance hints at something resembling the tragic nature of the Creature buried underneath. The brides played by Elena Anaya, Sylvia Colloca and Josie Maran are a screechy and only occasionally scary trio, until they dissolve into a CGI puddle. Coltrane is clearly having fun as the cartoonishly cockney Hyde, and Armstrong lays the faux Italian accent on thickly as the Cardinal.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-2644.jpg" />
While the creature designs are mostly good and fairly faithful to what people imagine their monstrous to be, much of the CGI now looks dated and over-exploited, with obvious, digitally creature work that doesn’t hold up so well. The CGI vistas and castles, while also heavily dated, are semi-passable. The more subtle morphing effects are the best ones such as the transformation of the brides from harpies to beautiful women, thanks to the use of motion capture. Meanwhile, anything more extravagant looks pretty poor; especially the dissolving effects on one of the brides or the transformation effects on Dracula and the werewolves. The worst is the CGI vampire spawn. The few instances were prosthetics and animatronics are used go by so quickly you’d be forgiven for thinking this film didn’t have any. But to their credit, the makeup on Frankenstein’s Creature is sufficiently detailed and unique but similar in its own way.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-13692.jpg" />
For a film selling itself so much on its action and creatures to win you over, this film is very messy in that regard. Most of the action scenes are so rapidly edited and lengthy that they gradually get less exciting as the film wears on, everyone jumps around like the world they live in is one big trapeze act. The cinematography is schizophrenic and restless, the colourful and oversaturated blues and sharp contrast make it difficult to make things out. The overuse of lightning gets grating as the climax continues. There are many shots that look fantastic and many that frankly just look like sets. Little details that take you out of the movie really start to pile up, such as all the torrential rain falling on Dracula’s Castle which would have caused any remaining snow to be melted away by now, but you can clearly see the artificial snow lying where it’s placed.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-5941.jpg" />
The score by Alan Silvestri is rather fun, it revels in the over the top Gothic elements and combines them with fast paced action cues, heroic fanfares, and heavy use of a choir. There are areas where it dials back to rely on eerie and atmospheric music, but is predominantly action focused. Fortunately, the theme for Anna Valerious is one of Alan’s better themes created for this film, and could have been the standout piece in a different film.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-7053.jpg" />
One of the film’s biggest failings is the script, while Sommers’ <em>Mummy</em>films were no doubt laden with modern dialogue; here it comes across as particularly slapdash and lazy. Almost every scene contains some form of exposition to keep the plot going, and as such the characters get little in the way of development. The logical fallacies and unbelievable coincidences pile up. It tries to be suspenseful, adventurous and comedic at various beats, and very rarely succeeds at any of them, if ever depending on who you ask. The film revolves around characters being sufficiently dumb enough to fall victim to a rogues gallery of fairly transparent (sometimes literally) monsters and solve a mystery that is in of itself far too easily deduced. When characters you’re supposed to care about get killed off, there’s no emotional weight to it. The climax goes for an emotional gut punch before the very end, and it just isn’t earned.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-244.jpg" />
The film starts out well enough, with a black and white opening paying homage to the Universal Monster movies of old, but on a grander scale. Even the dodgy effects seem better masked by letting the colour go in favour for dynamic lighting. The dialogue is not much better than the rest of the film, but it’s at least closer to the mark. One almost wonders if the whole film should have been shot in black and white. I would even say that despite the CGI and overly gymnastic Mr Hyde, the interplay between Van Helsing and Hyde gives a good impression of what the film could have been as a campy blend of James Bond and Sherlock Holmes in 19<sup>th</sup> century Europe.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-1809.jpg" />
The James Bond comparisons are evident within the first twenty minutes, with the cold opening establishing the tone and setting, the agent on a character establishing mission, then reporting to his superior who details from M, I mean the Cardinal; rendezvousing with his weapons and gadgets specialist Q, I mean Carl; and finally travelling to the location of interest and meeting up with the love interest. Unfortunately, the concept doesn’t pay off as well as it could. For all his gadgets and bravado, Van Helsing really isn’t that good at his job, being at the mercy of the whim of coincidence and arbitrary plot beats.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-1577.jpg" />
I could forgive <em>Van Helsing’s</em> farcical, gratuitous action and its overblown tone if for one reason only: if it didn’t bore me. Not to say it’s boring all the way through but by the time the third act kicks in it becomes a slog to get through with set piece after set piece and nothing to hold it together. I wouldn’t call <em>Van Helsing</em> the worst summer movie ever seen, but I would say it had one of the most missed potential. It isn’t even the worst of Universal’s attempts to revive their classic monster library, and that’s saying something. The whole affair is campy, gratuitous and over the top as you can get, but all the flash and bang doesn’t amount to much. Even as a basic eye-candy turn-your-brain off film, it wears out too quickly. ��y�&%� o�������� �1
� %�����<img class="img-responsive aligncenter" src="http://www.impawards.com/2004/posters/van_helsing_ver3.jpg" alt="Van Helsing Movie Poster" border="0" />
What is it with Universal Pictures not being able to properly revive their classic Monster Universe? The most recent and heavily panned iteration of <em>The Mummy</em> to kick-start the “Dark Universe” serves as a reminder that they’ve had one consistent problem. All these attempted all focused on action and spectacle rather than atmosphere, suspense and most important of all a strong script. To me, their first attempt was the ultimately ill-fated <em>Van Helsing</em>. This is an overly absurd and only occasionally entertaining blockbuster that really matches the philosophy of “turn your brain off” movies. It is at least honest in what it is as a go-for-broke bonkers popcorn flick than any other subsequent attempts to revive the Universal Monsters.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-610.jpg" />
In 1887 Transylvania, Doctor Victor Frankenstein (Samuel West) creates a monster (Shuler Hensley), which his master Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) plans to use for his own ends. Frankenstein is betrayed by his assistant Igor and killed by Dracula. The monster escapes the castle but is pursued by an angry village mob to an old windmill. They set it ablaze, with the monster and the doctor’s research apparently destroyed before Dracula can use it.
One year later, monster hunter Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) returns to the Vatican in Rome, having killing the infamous Mr. Hyde (Robbie Coltrane) at the Notre-Dame Cathedral. He learns that his mission to destroy Dracula and his amnesia are penance for unremembered sins that cause nightmares. He is tasked with helping the last of an ancient Romanian bloodline, Velkan (Will Kemp) and Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale), who must kill Dracula before their ancestors may enter Heaven. Carl (David Wenham), a friar, provides Van Helsing with aid and weapons and accompanies him to Transylvania. They arrive and meet up with Anna, after successfully repelling Dracula’s brides and join forces to find Dracula and stop him from unleashing his children upon the world.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-2884.jpg" />
The cast are all over the place. Despite not having anything substantial to work with, Jackman does a good job as the reimagined Van Helsing, playing the role fairly tongue in cheek at the right times but does try to give the characters some pathos and weight. Beckinsale is far more unbalanced, with her Eastern European accent roving all over the place and failing at the forced emotional beats. Roxburgh is a campy, often comical Dracula, way over the top and never possessing any sense of menace to him; he really isn’t on the level of previous Draculas or even Imhotep in Sommers’ own <em>Mummy</em> films. Wenham tries to make his “comedic” dialogue funny but only succeeds half the time, but is more annoying than not. Hensley’s operatic and wounded performance hints at something resembling the tragic nature of the Creature buried underneath. The brides played by Elena Anaya, Sylvia Colloca and Josie Maran are a screechy and only occasionally scary trio, until they dissolve into a CGI puddle. Coltrane is clearly having fun as the cartoonishly cockney Hyde, and Armstrong lays the faux Italian accent on thickly as the Cardinal.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-2644.jpg" />
While the creature designs are mostly good and fairly faithful to what people imagine their monstrous to be, much of the CGI now looks dated and over-exploited, with obvious, digitally creature work that doesn’t hold up so well. The CGI vistas and castles, while also heavily dated, are semi-passable. The more subtle morphing effects are the best ones such as the transformation of the brides from harpies to beautiful women, thanks to the use of motion capture. Meanwhile, anything more extravagant looks pretty poor; especially the dissolving effects on one of the brides or the transformation effects on Dracula and the werewolves. The worst is the CGI vampire spawn. The few instances were prosthetics and animatronics are used go by so quickly you’d be forgiven for thinking this film didn’t have any. But to their credit, the makeup on Frankenstein’s Creature is sufficiently detailed and unique but similar in its own way.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-13692.jpg" />
For a film selling itself so much on its action and creatures to win you over, this film is very messy in that regard. Most of the action scenes are so rapidly edited and lengthy that they gradually get less exciting as the film wears on, everyone jumps around like the world they live in is one big trapeze act. The cinematography is schizophrenic and restless, the colourful and oversaturated blues and sharp contrast make it difficult to make things out. The overuse of lightning gets grating as the climax continues. There are many shots that look fantastic and many that frankly just look like sets. Little details that take you out of the movie really start to pile up, such as all the torrential rain falling on Dracula’s Castle which would have caused any remaining snow to be melted away by now, but you can clearly see the artificial snow lying where it’s placed.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-5941.jpg" />
The score by Alan Silvestri is rather fun, it revels in the over the top Gothic elements and combines them with fast paced action cues, heroic fanfares, and heavy use of a choir. There are areas where it dials back to rely on eerie and atmospheric music, but is predominantly action focused. Fortunately, the theme for Anna Valerious is one of Alan’s better themes created for this film, and could have been the standout piece in a different film.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-7053.jpg" />
One of the film’s biggest failings is the script, while Sommers’ <em>Mummy</em>films were no doubt laden with modern dialogue; here it comes across as particularly slapdash and lazy. Almost every scene contains some form of exposition to keep the plot going, and as such the characters get little in the way of development. The logical fallacies and unbelievable coincidences pile up. It tries to be suspenseful, adventurous and comedic at various beats, and very rarely succeeds at any of them, if ever depending on who you ask. The film revolves around characters being sufficiently dumb enough to fall victim to a rogues gallery of fairly transparent (sometimes literally) monsters and solve a mystery that is in of itself far too easily deduced. When characters you’re supposed to care about get killed off, there’s no emotional weight to it. The climax goes for an emotional gut punch before the very end, and it just isn’t earned.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-244.jpg" />
The film starts out well enough, with a black and white opening paying homage to the Universal Monster movies of old, but on a grander scale. Even the dodgy effects seem better masked by letting the colour go in favour for dynamic lighting. The dialogue is not much better than the rest of the film, but it’s at least closer to the mark. One almost wonders if the whole film should have been shot in black and white. I would even say that despite the CGI and overly gymnastic Mr Hyde, the interplay between Van Helsing and Hyde gives a good impression of what the film could have been as a campy blend of James Bond and Sherlock Holmes in 19<sup>th</sup> century Europe.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-1809.jpg" />
The James Bond comparisons are evident within the first twenty minutes, with the cold opening establishing the tone and setting, the agent on a character establishing mission, then reporting to his superior who details from M, I mean the Cardinal; rendezvousing with his weapons and gadgets specialist Q, I mean Carl; and finally travelling to the location of interest and meeting up with the love interest. Unfortunately, the concept doesn’t pay off as well as it could. For all his gadgets and bravado, Van Helsing really isn’t that good at his job, being at the mercy of the whim of coincidence and arbitrary plot beats.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-van-helsing/full/van-helsing-movie-screencaps.com-1577.jpg" />
I could forgive <em>Van Helsing’s</em> farcical, gratuitous action and its overblown tone if for one reason only: if it didn’t bore me. Not to say it’s boring all the way through but by the time the third act kicks in it becomes a slog to get through with set piece after set piece and nothing to hold it together. I wouldn’t call <em>Van Helsing</em> the worst summer movie ever seen, but I would say it had one of the most missed potential. It isn’t even the worst of Universal’s attempts to revive their classic monster library, and that’s saying something. The whole affair is campy, gratuitous and over the top as you can get, but all the flash and bang doesn’t amount to much. Even as a basic eye-candy turn-your-brain off film, it wears out too quickly. �1��o p ` � ��E� � ;S�6 : 3 4 JQ )infimum supremum F � � � � ���"����"�<ul>
<li>The Horror of Dracula</li>
<li>The Curse of Frankenstein</li>
<li>Bram Stoker's Dracula</li>
<li>Mary Shelley's Frankenstein</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/van-helsing/">Van Helsing</a></li>
<li>Dracula Untold</li>
</ul>Hallowed Halls of Horrorinheritclosedclosed247-revision-v1���"����"� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/247-revision-v1/� revision� - � � � � ���Ab���Ab � q & *�Bram Stoker's Draculapublishclosedclosed252-2��_ߙ�_� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=252� page�
P � � � ���=h���=hdracula_ver3_xlginheritopencloseddracula_ver3_xlg���=h���=h �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/dracula_ver3_xlg.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � ( � � � ���Ab���Ab � r & *�inheritclosedclosed252-revision-v1���Ab���Ab �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/252-revision-v1/� revision� F � 0 � � ���Aq���Aq � s & *�Bram Stoker's Draculainheritclosedclosed252-revision-v1���Aq���Aq �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/252-revision-v1/� revision� F V� 87 � ���A����A�<ul>
<li>The Horror of Dracula</li>
<li>The Curse of Frankenstein</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/252-2/">Bram Stoker's Dracula</a></li>
<li>Mary Shelley's Frankenstein</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/van-helsing/">Van Helsing</a></li>
<li>Dracula Untold</li>
</ul>Hallowed Halls of Horrorinheritclosedclosed247-revision-v1���A����A� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/247-revision-v1/� revision� - � @ � � ���J`���J` � t & &�Mary Shelley's Frankensteinpublishclosedclosedmary-shelleys-frankenstein���J`���J` http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=258� page�
N H � � ���FN���FNFrankenstein94inheritopenclosedfrankenstein94���FN���FN http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Frankenstein94.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � P � � ���J`���J` � u & &�Mary Shelley's Frankensteininheritclosedclosed258-revision-v1���J`���J` http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/258-revision-v1/� revision� F �� X� � ���J����J�<ul>
<li>The Horror of Dracula</li>
<li>The Curse of Frankenstein</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/252-2/">Bram Stoker's Dracula</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/mary-shelleys-frankenstein/">Mary Shelley's Frankenstein</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/van-helsing/">Van Helsing</a></li>
<li>Dracula Untold</li>
</ul>Hallowed Halls of Horrorinheritclosedclosed247-revision-v1���J����J� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/31/247-revision-v1/� revision�
^ " "^ `}
� ��^�7��^�7http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cropped-cropped-cinemascreen-3.jpgcropped-cropped-cinemascreen-3.jpginheritopenclosedcropped-cropped-cinemascreen-3-jpg��^�7��^�7 http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cropped-cropped-cinemascreen-3.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg�
: h �
� ��^����^�� publishclosedclosed269��^����^�� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/12/15/269/� nav_menu_item�
P p � � ��^⻙�^�van_helsing_ver3inheritopenclosedvan_helsing_ver3��^⻙�^� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/van_helsing_ver3.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � x � � ��^���^� � v & ;�The Ten Commandmentsinheritclosedclosed121-autosave-v1��^���^� yhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/12/15/121-autosave-v1/� revision� F � � � � ��^�噞^�� � w & ;�The Ten Commandmentsinheritclosedclosed121-revision-v1��^�噞^�� yhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/12/15/121-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � ��^� ��^� � x & ;�The Ten Commandmentsinheritclosedclosed121-revision-v1��^� ��^� yhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/12/15/121-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � ��^�홞^�� � y & 2*Troyinheritclosedclosed126-revision-v1��^�홞^�� ~http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/12/15/126-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � ��^�W��^�W � z & 3�Troyinheritclosedclosed126-revision-v1��^�W��^�W ~http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/12/15/126-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � ��^�ݙ�^�� � { & (`300inheritclosedclosed143-revision-v1��^�ݙ�^�� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/12/15/143-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � � ��^����^�� � | & J�Alexander - Revisited Cutinheritclosedclosed152-revision-v1��^����^�� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2017/12/15/152-revision-v1/� revision� ' � � � � ���墙��� � ~ & &�Jumanjipublishopenopenjumanji��ae�aU� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=287� post� F � � � " � ������� � & &�Jumanjiinheritclosedclosed287-revision-v1������� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/287-revision-v1/� revision� - W� � # � ����Z����Z<img class="wp-image-351 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CinematicAdventure-1040x601.jpg" alt="" width="741" height="428" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/the-lost-world-1925-review/">The Lost World (1925)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/king-kong-1993-review/">King Kong (1933)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/03/elephant-boy/">Elephant Boy</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/mighty-joe-young-1949-review/">Mighty Joe Young (1949)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/king-kong-1976-review/">King Kong (1976)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/jumanji/">Jumanji</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/02/28/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle/">Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</a></p>
<img class=" wp-image-352 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Ray-Harryhausen-Pictures-1040x629.jpg" alt="" width="747" height="452" />Adventure & Fantasy Filmspublishclosedclosedadventure-films��G ��F� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=291� page� F � � $ � ��������<ul>
<li>Jumanji</li>
</ul>Adventure Filmsinheritclosedclosed291-revision-v1�������� #http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/291-revision-v1/� revision�
: � � % � ����Z����Z publishclosedclosed293����Z����Z http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/293/� nav_menu_item�
: � � ' � ���嚙��� publishclosedclosed295���嚙��� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/295/� nav_menu_item� F l �D ( � ���� ���� <ul>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/jumanji/">Jumanji</a></li>
</ul>Adventure Filmsinheritclosedclosed291-revision-v1���� ���� #http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/291-revision-v1/� revision� ' � � � ) � ��9|���9|� � � & )�Jumanji: Welcome to the Junglepublishopenopenjumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle��9|���9|� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=297� post� ' � � � * � �������� � � & �All The Money in the Worldpublishopenopenall-the-money-in-the-world���A���A http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=298� post� F � � � + � �������� � � & >All The Money in the Worldinheritclosedclosed298-revision-v1�������� *http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/10/298-revision-v1/� revision� F � � , � ���9���9 � � & �All The Money in the Worldinheritclosedclosed298-autosave-v1���9���9 *http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/10/298-autosave-v1/� revision� F � � - � ���d���d � � & �All The Money in the Worldinheritclosedclosed298-revision-v1���d���d *http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/10/298-revision-v1/� revision� F � � . � ���A���A � � & �All The Money in the Worldinheritclosedclosed298-revision-v1���A���A *http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/10/298-revision-v1/� revision� F � � / � ��� ��� � � & *NEl Cidinheritclosedclosed214-autosave-v1��� ��� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/10/214-autosave-v1/� revision� F � � 0 � ��� H��� H � � & *jEl Cidinheritclosedclosed214-revision-v1��� H��� H �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/10/214-revision-v1/� revision� F �( � 6 � ��9|���9|� � � & )�Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungleinheritclosedclosed297-revision-v1��9|���9|� )http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/02/28/297-revision-v1/� revision� ' � 0 � 7 � ��B g��B g � � & %The Shape of Waterpublishopenopenthe-shape-of-water��B g��B g http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=311� post� F � 8 � 8 � ��B g��B g � � & %The Shape of Waterinheritclosedclosed311-revision-v1��B g��B g 7http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/03/01/311-revision-v1/� revision� -
D� @� > � ��[t���[t�<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://historynet.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/image/2008/100greatestwesterns/stagecoach.jpg" alt="Image result for western movies" width="600" height="265" />
<ul>
<li>A Fistful of Dollars</li>
<li>For a Few Dollars More</li>
<li>The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly</li>
</ul>The Wild Westpublishclosedclosedthe-wild-west-2��[tə�[t� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?page_id=318� page�
: H � @ � ��[t���[t� publishclosedclosed320��[t���[t� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/03/13/320/� nav_menu_item� F
P � A � ��[t���[t�The Wild Westinheritclosedclosed318-revision-v1��[t���[t� >http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/03/13/318-revision-v1/� revision�
: X � B � ��[t���[t� publishclosedclosed322��[t���[t� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/03/13/322/�
nav_menu_item� F
D� ` C � ��[tə�[t�<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://historynet.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/image/2008/100greatestwesterns/stagecoach.jpg" alt="Image result for western movies" width="600" height="265" />
<ul>
<li>A Fistful of Dollars</li>
<li>For a Few Dollars More</li>
<li>The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly</li>
</ul>The Wild Westinheritclosedclosed318-revision-v1��[tə�[t� >http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/03/13/318-revision-v1/� revision� F �h � E � ���+����� � � & 0�Ben-Hurinheritclosedclosed185-revision-v1���+����� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2019/04/05/185-revision-v1/� revision� F � p � F � ���, ��� � � & 1Ben-Hurinheritclosedclosed185-revision-v1���, ��� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2019/04/05/185-revision-v1/� revision� F "� x � H � ��?i���?Y� � � & 6�Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cutinheritclosedclosed219-autosave-v1��?i���?Y� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/219-autosave-v1/� revision� F "� � � I � ��?g���?W� � � & 6�Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cutinheritclosedclosed219-revision-v1��?g���?W� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/219-revision-v1/� revision� F "�� � J � ��?i���?Y� � � & 6�Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cutinheritclosedclosed219-revision-v1��?i���?Y� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/219-revision-v1/� revision� F "� � � K � ��?j:��?Z: � � & 7 Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cutinheritclosedclosed219-revision-v1��?j:��?Z: �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/219-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � L � ��?l���?\� � � & I�Alexander - Revisited Cutinheritclosedclosed152-revision-v1��?l���?\� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/152-revision-v1/� revision� F � � � M � ��?mJ��?]J � � & '�300inheritclosedclosed143-revision-v1��?mJ��?]J �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/143-revision-v1/� revision� F � ��� N � ��?p���?`� � � & !The Vikingsinheritclosedclosed209-revision-v1��?p���?`� �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/209-revision-v1/� revision� p6�2�.�)�&#"x �'� &; c���s� q�������� �PT
� *���<img class="size-medium wp-image-253 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/dracula_ver3_xlg-336x500.jpg" alt="" width="336" height="500" />
The boldly-titled <em>Bram Stoker’s Dracula</em> is one of Francis Ford Coppola’s more divisive films; an elegantly-designed Gothic horror tale that humanizes the frightful Dracula and overcomes a few flaws with notable performances, fascinating exploration of the source material's themes and an overwhelming atmosphere. Thanks to an eerie and operatic style and some strong turns, its a solid interpretation of Bram Stoker’s novel, despite being frustratingly shy of perfection.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-912.jpg" />
In 1462, Prince Vlad the Impaler (Gary Oldman) of the Transylvanian Order of the Dragon sets forth to battle the Turks in defence of the church. He returns home to find that his love Elisabeta (Winona Ryder) has committed suicide after learning false news of his battlefield death, damning her soul in the eyes of the church. Driven mad with grief and believing God has betrayed him, Prince Vlad desecrates his chapel and renounces God, vowing unto the powers of Hell to avenge his beloved’s death. In a fit of rage, he stabs the cross with his sword and drinks the blood that pours out, thus becoming a vampire.
In 1897, young English clerk Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is sent to Transylvania to seal the the purchases of London property by Count Dracula, leaving his fiancée Mina Murray (Ryder) at her friend Lucy’s (Sadie Frost) home. He arrives at the Count’s castle and concludes his business with Dracula, who in turn discovers a photo of Mina and recognizes her as his lost love reborn. Harker is held hostage by the Count’s three vampire brides, allowing Dracula to sail for London with boxes of his native soil that allow him to keep his powers. He arrives disguised as the handsome Prince Vlad, and begins seducing Mina, and she in turn feels torn between the Prince’s charms and her engagement to Harker. Shortly after Dracula’s arrival, Lucy’s circle of male friends call in the strange Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), who appears in pursuit of the vampire. One night, Dracula drinks the blood of Lucy, ultimately claiming her life, and drawing Van Helsing, a vengeful Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes) and two other accomplices to end Dracula’s flight of terror, before Mina is completely taken in by his charm.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-1447.jpg" />
Oldman is in top form as Dracula, playing him up as a tortured soul who has fallen into darkness and devilry. Yet he has a sense of humanity and a desire for love, ultimately turning in the very best performance of the movie. Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing has been called hammy and eccentric on many occasions, and I say: so what? If one spends his whole life hunting and combating supernatural foes and ailments, he will be a touch mad and aloof. Hopkins is a joy to watch. Ryder is suitably elegant, well-mannered and sweet as Mina, a bit like Snow White, and conveys the tender moments with Oldman very nicely. They do have good chemistry together. Frost as Lucy is overtly slutty and even over-the-top at times, but is a good foil to Ryder’s modesty. Tom Waits as Renfield is suitably insane and creepy, sometimes more than Dracula himself. The supporting cast of Elwes, Richard E. Grant and Billy Campbell turn in good performances alongside Hopkins as vampire hunters. Alas, old Keanu is the one everyone cites as this movie’s downfall for his hopeless attempts at a British accent and stiff expressions. I will admit, almost anyone other than Reeves would have been more suitable, and by the third act he’s hopelessly wooden. He gives the impression of being overly pompous and stiff; he is trying but his role amounts to an annoyance on screen.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-7919.jpg" />
I admire Coppola’s efforts to break away from the old stereotypes associated with Dracula; Oldman makes his Count more romantic, visceral and human, and thus more terrifying. In not trying to mimic the performances of Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, Oldman's Dracula is very much his own. But admittedly, the giant arse-shaped wig is not an advisable design choice. Coppola also brings in the newspaper clippings and journal entries from the Stoker novel to drive the plot forward. The costumes capture the late Victorian era, especially the opulent dresses of Mina and Lucy, which come with a lot of strange, elaborate designs inspired by nature, giving them a very creepy and otherworldly appearance. Dracula’s varied attire includes a blood-red suit of armour resembling flayed flesh, the famous aristocrat’s gown and bizarre hairstyle, and the disguises as Prince Vlad in London. Each of them reflect different stages of the character through the film and drawing on certain facets of Dracula mythology.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-12876.jpg" />
The use of traditional effects over CGI as well as a sign of Coppola’s reverence to old Hollywood tricks keeps the movie from being dated. Another very impressive technical achievement is the makeup effects on Oldman as the older Dracula, his werewolf incarnation, and in his monstrous bat form, and each is impressive to behold. With every variation, I was stunned at how detailed and realistic each version was, making the supernatural more believable. The classic images of Gothic horror including stone churches, castles in the fog, wolves in wintry woods, and graveyards are brought out by the crisp cinematography. Even a visual as simple as a Turkish crescent moon looming over Eastern Europe is so effective at conveying time, place and context that you're hooked throughout the film.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-2704.jpg" />
The score by Wojciech Kilar is absolutely beautiful. It magnificently captures the horror, overwhelming darkness, tragic romance and even the thrills of the story, particularly excelling in the low, brooding motifs for Dracula. The recurring motifs for Dracula help to portray him as a man with two distinct sides: one as a monster to be feared and the other as an ancient lover in need of redemption, and the music helps play those themes out in the film elegantly.
The use of colour to give character to the various locations, from pallid greys of Dr Seward’s insane asylum, lush blues and greens of Lucy’s mansion, and the sensual and demonic reds and dark shadows of Dracula’s castle.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-12161.jpg" />
The visual effects never feel like an illusion but an organic presence, using miniatures, forced perspective, detailed matte paintings and clever camera tricks. The combination of in camera effects makes the film feel like a throwback to the same style of film-making as the Hammer productions and 1930s Universal monster pictures. I have a few complaints, however. The direction is occasionally unfocused and almost schizophrenic, and sometimes a scene might be intercut with a few shots from another, or be edited in a somewhat jumpy fashion. Every now and then, a strange scene happens in a scene that lacks narrative reason or context, like Lucy’s fan service scene in the rain.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-2187.jpg" />
Despite being a faithful adaptation of the overall plotline of Stoker’s novel, it’s apparent that the romance between Mina and Dracula is a new addition to the story, extrapolating on the novel’s themes of love, lust, sexuality, and repulsion of the stiff Victorian mannerisms personified by Harker. It does make sense that Vlad becomes Dracula in the film, feeding into Stoker’s inspiration for the titular character in Vlad the Impaler, seeing how his bloodthirsty nature and passion for his beloved kept him going for hundreds of years. The story is told through diary entries from numerous individuals' point of view, just like in the book. James v. Hart manages to blend the two styles effortlessly and manages to keep the film from falling into the "show-don't-tell" trap.
Lucy’s impurity is built up over time, from the keeping of erotic books to way she flirtatiously engages with three handsome potential suitors, leading up to an unnerving (if not exactly subtle) shadow of Dracula looming over her, her male friends and Lucy. This visual shorthand is a good way of building an atmosphere of uneasiness.
Once again, the conceit of putting the author’s name in the title only goes so far. While many of Stoker’s themes and narrative beats are carried through, the movie still brings in a lot of invented elements that don’t gel with the novel especially well. There is a strongly sensual element which Coppola exploits in the scenes between Oldman and Ryder. Such additions are not necessarily a bad thing, but it does distance the story from its title. Dracula is played more akin to a fallen angel rather than the spawn of the Devil in this film. We see him sacrifice everything to protect his country, and we see his loss and overwhelming betrayal when he vows to avenge his beloved after feeling betrayed by God. At the same time, you don't feel unsympathetic to Jonathan Harker because he's put through Hell by Dracula, and he still pushes through to reunite with Mina.
While he’s not exactly sympathetic, there is a sense of remorse and fondness for his past life expressed in Oldman’s performance. It’s almost tempting to believe that the good man he once was is buried under centuries of pain and vengeance, and the ending has a bittersweet tenderness to it. By placing emphasis on the romance between Dracula and Mina, it becomes a story about Dracula's redemption in the eyes of his reincarnated wife.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-1515.jpg" />
Ultimately, <em>Bram Stoker’s Dracula</em> is a beautifully-designed Gothic horror with an undercurrent of tragedy. The scares hold up to this day, and the combination of sumptuous costumes, atmospheric sets and timeless visual effects make it all the more memorable. It is a compelling and well-written film that manages to attain emotional resonance. If you can overlook Reeves’ wooden performance in favour of the finely tailored theatricality of Oldman and Hopkins, this is a worthy addition to the Dracula myth. �PT��ң r�������� �U
� *���<img class="size-medium wp-image-253 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/dracula_ver3_xlg-336x500.jpg" alt="" width="336" height="500" />
The boldly-titled <em>Bram Stoker’s Dracula</em> is one of Francis Ford Coppola’s more divisive films; an elegantly-designed Gothic horror tale that humanizes the frightful Dracula and overcomes a few flaws with notable performances, fascinating exploration of the source material's themes and an overwhelming atmosphere. Thanks to an eerie and operatic style and some strong turns, its a solid interpretation of Bram Stoker’s novel, despite being frustratingly shy of perfection.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-912.jpg" />
In 1462, Prince Vlad the Impaler (Gary Oldman) of the Transylvanian Order of the Dragon sets forth to battle the Turks in defence of the church. He returns home to find that his love Elisabeta (Winona Ryder) has committed suicide after learning false news of his battlefield death, damning her soul in the eyes of the church. Driven mad with grief and believing God has betrayed him, Prince Vlad desecrates his chapel and renounces God, vowing unto the powers of Hell to avenge his beloved’s death. In a fit of rage, he stabs the cross with his sword and drinks the blood that pours out, thus becoming a vampire.
In 1897, young English clerk Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is sent to Transylvania to seal the the purchases of London property by Count Dracula, leaving his fiancée Mina Murray (Ryder) at her friend Lucy’s (Sadie Frost) home. He arrives at the Count’s castle and concludes his business with Dracula, who in turn discovers a photo of Mina and recognizes her as his lost love reborn. Harker is held hostage by the Count’s three vampire brides, allowing Dracula to sail for London with boxes of his native soil that allow him to keep his powers. He arrives disguised as the handsome Prince Vlad, and begins seducing Mina, and she in turn feels torn between the Prince’s charms and her engagement to Harker. Shortly after Dracula’s arrival, Lucy’s circle of male friends call in the strange Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), who appears in pursuit of the vampire. One night, Dracula drinks the blood of Lucy, ultimately claiming her life, and drawing Van Helsing, a vengeful Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes) and two other accomplices to end Dracula’s flight of terror, before Mina is completely taken in by his charm.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-1447.jpg" />
Oldman is in top form as Dracula, playing him up as a tortured soul who has fallen into darkness and devilry. Yet he has a sense of humanity and a desire for love, ultimately turning in the very best performance of the movie. Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing has been called hammy and eccentric on many occasions, and I say: so what? If one spends his whole life hunting and combating supernatural foes and ailments, he will be a touch mad and aloof. Hopkins is a joy to watch. Ryder is suitably elegant, well-mannered and sweet as Mina, a bit like Snow White, and conveys the tender moments with Oldman very nicely. They do have good chemistry together. Frost as Lucy is overtly slutty and even over-the-top at times, but is a good foil to Ryder’s modesty. Tom Waits as Renfield is suitably insane and creepy, sometimes more than Dracula himself. The supporting cast of Elwes, Richard E. Grant and Billy Campbell turn in good performances alongside Hopkins as vampire hunters. Alas, old Keanu is the one everyone cites as this movie’s downfall for his hopeless attempts at a British accent and stiff expressions. I will admit, almost anyone other than Reeves would have been more suitable, and by the third act he’s hopelessly wooden. He gives the impression of being overly pompous and stiff; he is trying but his role amounts to an annoyance on screen.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-7919.jpg" />
I admire Coppola’s efforts to break away from the old stereotypes associated with Dracula; Oldman makes his Count more romantic, visceral and human, and thus more terrifying. In not trying to mimic the performances of Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, Oldman's Dracula is very much his own. But admittedly, the giant arse-shaped wig is not an advisable design choice. Coppola also brings in the newspaper clippings and journal entries from the Stoker novel to drive the plot forward. The costumes capture the late Victorian era, especially the opulent dresses of Mina and Lucy, which come with a lot of strange, elaborate designs inspired by nature, giving them a very creepy and otherworldly appearance. Dracula’s varied attire includes a blood-red suit of armour resembling flayed flesh, the famous aristocrat’s gown and bizarre hairstyle, and the disguises as Prince Vlad in London. Each of them reflect different stages of the character through the film and drawing on certain facets of Dracula mythology.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-12876.jpg" />
The use of traditional effects over CGI as well as a sign of Coppola’s reverence to old Hollywood tricks keeps the movie from being dated. Another very impressive technical achievement is the makeup effects on Oldman as the older Dracula, his werewolf incarnation, and in his monstrous bat form, and each is impressive to behold. With every variation, I was stunned at how detailed and realistic each version was, making the supernatural more believable. The classic images of Gothic horror including stone churches, castles in the fog, wolves in wintry woods, and graveyards are brought out by the crisp cinematography. Even a visual as simple as a Turkish crescent moon looming over Eastern Europe is so effective at conveying time, place and context that you're hooked throughout the film.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-2704.jpg" />
The score by Wojciech Kilar is absolutely beautiful. It magnificently captures the horror, overwhelming darkness, tragic romance and even the thrills of the story, particularly excelling in the low, brooding motifs for Dracula. The recurring motifs for Dracula help to portray him as a man with two distinct sides: one as a monster to be feared and the other as an ancient lover in need of redemption, and the music helps play those themes out in the film elegantly.
The use of colour to give character to the various locations, from pallid greys of Dr Seward’s insane asylum, lush blues and greens of Lucy’s mansion, and the sensual and demonic reds and dark shadows of Dracula’s castle.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-12161.jpg" />
The visual effects never feel like an illusion but an organic presence, using miniatures, forced perspective, detailed matte paintings and clever camera tricks. The combination of in camera effects makes the film feel like a throwback to the same style of film-making as the Hammer productions and 1930s Universal monster pictures. I have a few complaints, however. The direction is occasionally unfocused and almost schizophrenic, and sometimes a scene might be intercut with a few shots from another, or be edited in a somewhat jumpy fashion. Every now and then, a strange scene happens in a scene that lacks narrative reason or context, like Lucy’s fan service scene in the rain.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-2187.jpg" />
Despite being a faithful adaptation of the overall plotline of Stoker’s novel, it’s apparent that the romance between Mina and Dracula is a new addition to the story, extrapolating on the novel’s themes of love, lust, sexuality, and repulsion of the stiff Victorian mannerisms personified by Harker. It does make sense that Vlad becomes Dracula in the film, feeding into Stoker’s inspiration for the titular character in Vlad the Impaler, seeing how his bloodthirsty nature and passion for his beloved kept him going for hundreds of years. The story is told through diary entries from numerous individuals' point of view, just like in the book. James v. Hart manages to blend the two styles effortlessly and manages to keep the film from falling into the "show-don't-tell" trap.
Lucy’s impurity is built up over time, from the keeping of erotic books to way she flirtatiously engages with three handsome potential suitors, leading up to an unnerving (if not exactly subtle) shadow of Dracula looming over her, her male friends and Lucy. This visual shorthand is a good way of building an atmosphere of uneasiness.
Once again, the conceit of putting the author’s name in the title only goes so far. While many of Stoker’s themes and narrative beats are carried through, the movie still brings in a lot of invented elements that don’t gel with the novel especially well. There is a strongly sensual element which Coppola exploits in the scenes between Oldman and Ryder. Such additions are not necessarily a bad thing, but it does distance the story from its title. Dracula is played more akin to a fallen angel rather than the spawn of the Devil in this film. We see him sacrifice everything to protect his country, and we see his loss and overwhelming betrayal when he vows to avenge his beloved after feeling betrayed by God. At the same time, you don't feel unsympathetic to Jonathan Harker because he's put through Hell by Dracula, and he still pushes through to reunite with Mina.
While he’s not exactly sympathetic, there is a sense of remorse and fondness for his past life expressed in Oldman’s performance. It’s almost tempting to believe that the good man he once was is buried under centuries of pain and vengeance, and the ending has a bittersweet tenderness to it. By placing emphasis on the romance between Dracula and Mina, it becomes a story about Dracula's redemption in the eyes of his reincarnated wife.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-1515.jpg" />
Ultimately, <em>Bram Stoker’s Dracula</em> is a beautifully-designed Gothic horror with an undercurrent of tragedy. The scares hold up to this day, and the combination of sumptuous costumes, atmospheric sets and timeless visual effects make it all the more memorable. It is a compelling and well-written film that manages to attain emotional resonance. If you can overlook Reeves’ wooden performance in favour of the finely tailored theatricality of Oldman and Hopkins, this is a worthy addition to the Dracula myth. �UMʰ s�������� �%
� *���<img class="size-medium wp-image-253 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/dracula_ver3_xlg-336x500.jpg" alt="" width="336" height="500" />
The boldly-titled <em>Bram Stoker’s Dracula</em> is one of Francis Ford Coppola’s more divisive films; an elegantly-designed Gothic horror tale that humanizes the frightful Dracula and overcomes a few flaws with notable performances, fascinating exploration of the source material's themes and an overwhelming atmosphere. Thanks to an eerie and operatic style and some strong turns, its a solid interpretation of Bram Stoker’s novel, despite being frustratingly shy of perfection.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-912.jpg" />
In 1462, Prince Vlad the Impaler (Gary Oldman) of the Transylvanian Order of the Dragon sets forth to battle the Turks in defence of the church. He returns home to find that his love Elisabeta (Winona Ryder) has committed suicide after learning false news of his battlefield death, damning her soul in the eyes of the church. Driven mad with grief and believing God has betrayed him, Prince Vlad desecrates his chapel and renounces God, vowing unto the powers of Hell to avenge his beloved’s death. In a fit of rage, he stabs the cross with his sword and drinks the blood that pours out, thus becoming a vampire.
In 1897, young English clerk Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is sent to Transylvania to seal the the purchases of London property by Count Dracula, leaving his fiancée Mina Murray (Ryder) at her friend Lucy’s (Sadie Frost) home. He arrives at the Count’s castle and concludes his business with Dracula, who in turn discovers a photo of Mina and recognizes her as his lost love reborn. Harker is held hostage by the Count’s three vampire brides, allowing Dracula to sail for London with boxes of his native soil that allow him to keep his powers. He arrives disguised as the handsome Prince Vlad, and begins seducing Mina, and she in turn feels torn between the Prince’s charms and her engagement to Harker. Shortly after Dracula’s arrival, Lucy’s circle of male friends call in the strange Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), who appears in pursuit of the vampire. One night, Dracula drinks the blood of Lucy, ultimately claiming her life, and drawing Van Helsing, a vengeful Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes) and two other accomplices to end Dracula’s flight of terror, before Mina is completely taken in by his charm.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-1447.jpg" />
Oldman is in top form as Dracula, playing him up as a tortured soul who has fallen into darkness and devilry. Yet he has a sense of humanity and a desire for love, ultimately turning in the very best performance of the movie. Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing has been called hammy and eccentric on many occasions, and I say: so what? If one spends his whole life hunting and combating supernatural foes and ailments, he will be a touch mad and aloof. Hopkins is a joy to watch. Ryder is suitably elegant, well-mannered and sweet as Mina, a bit like Snow White, and conveys the tender moments with Oldman very nicely. They do have good chemistry together. Frost as Lucy is overtly slutty and even over-the-top at times, but is a good foil to Ryder’s modesty. Tom Waits as Renfield is suitably insane and creepy, sometimes more than Dracula himself. The supporting cast of Elwes, Richard E. Grant and Billy Campbell turn in good performances alongside Hopkins as vampire hunters. Alas, old Keanu is the one everyone cites as this movie’s downfall for his hopeless attempts at a British accent and stiff expressions. I will admit, almost anyone other than Reeves would have been more suitable, and by the third act he’s hopelessly wooden. He gives the impression of being overly pompous and stiff; he is trying but his role amounts to an annoyance on screen.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-7919.jpg" />
I admire Coppola’s efforts to break away from the old stereotypes associated with Dracula; Oldman makes his Count more romantic, visceral and human, and thus more terrifying. In not trying to mimic the performances of Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, Oldman's Dracula is very much his own. But admittedly, the giant arse-shaped wig is not an advisable design choice. Coppola also brings in the newspaper clippings and journal entries from the Stoker novel to drive the plot forward. The costumes capture the late Victorian era, especially the opulent dresses of Mina and Lucy, which come with a lot of strange, elaborate designs inspired by nature, giving them a very creepy and otherworldly appearance. Dracula’s varied attire includes a blood-red suit of armour resembling flayed flesh, the famous aristocrat’s gown and bizarre hairstyle, and the disguises as Prince Vlad in London. Each of them reflect different stages of the character through the film and drawing on certain facets of Dracula mythology.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-12876.jpg" />
The use of traditional effects over CGI as well as a sign of Coppola’s reverence to old Hollywood tricks keeps the movie from being dated. Another very impressive technical achievement is the makeup effects on Oldman as the older Dracula, his werewolf incarnation, and in his monstrous bat form, and each is impressive to behold. With every variation, I was stunned at how detailed and realistic each version was, making the supernatural more believable. The classic images of Gothic horror including stone churches, castles in the fog, wolves in wintry woods, and graveyards are brought out by the crisp cinematography. Even a visual as simple as a Turkish crescent moon looming over Eastern Europe is so effective at conveying time, place and context that you're hooked throughout the film.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-2704.jpg" />
The score by Wojciech Kilar is absolutely beautiful. It magnificently captures the horror, overwhelming darkness, tragic romance and even the thrills of the story, particularly excelling in the low, brooding motifs for Dracula. The recurring motifs for Dracula help to portray him as a man with two distinct sides: one as a monster to be feared and the other as an ancient lover in need of redemption, and the music helps play those themes out in the film elegantly.
The use of colour to give character to the various locations, from pallid greys of Dr Seward’s insane asylum, lush blues and greens of Lucy’s mansion, and the sensual and demonic reds and dark shadows of Dracula’s castle.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-12161.jpg" />
The visual effects never feel like an illusion but an organic presence, using miniatures, forced perspective, detailed matte paintings and clever camera tricks. The combination of in camera effects makes the film feel like a throwback to the same style of film-making as the Hammer productions and 1930s Universal monster pictures. I have a few complaints, however. The direction is occasionally unfocused and almost schizophrenic, and sometimes a scene might be intercut with a few shots from another, or be edited in a somewhat jumpy fashion. Every now and then, a strange scene happens in a scene that lacks narrative reason or context, like Lucy’s fan service scene in the rain.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-2187.jpg" />
Despite being a faithful adaptation of the overall plotline of Stoker’s novel, it’s apparent that the romance between Mina and Dracula is a new addition to the story, extrapolating on the novel’s themes of love, lust, sexuality, and repulsion of the stiff Victorian mannerisms personified by Harker. It does make sense that Vlad becomes Dracula in the film, feeding into Stoker’s inspiration for the titular character in Vlad the Impaler, seeing how his bloodthirsty nature and passion for his beloved kept him going for hundreds of years. The story is told through diary entries from numerous individuals' point of view, just like in the book. James v. Hart manages to blend the two styles effortlessly and manages to keep the film from falling into the "show-don't-tell" trap.
Lucy’s impurity is built up over time, from the keeping of erotic books to way she flirtatiously engages with three handsome potential suitors, leading up to an unnerving (if not exactly subtle) shadow of Dracula looming over her, her male friends and Lucy. This visual shorthand is a good way of building an atmosphere of uneasiness.
Once again, the conceit of putting the author’s name in the title only goes so far. While many of Stoker’s themes and narrative beats are carried through, the movie still brings in a lot of invented elements that don’t gel with the novel especially well. There is a strongly sensual element which Coppola exploits in the scenes between Oldman and Ryder. Such additions are not necessarily a bad thing, but it does distance the story from its title. Dracula is played more akin to a fallen angel rather than the spawn of the Devil in this film. We see him sacrifice everything to protect his country, and we see his loss and overwhelming betrayal when he vows to avenge his beloved after feeling betrayed by God. At the same time, you don't feel unsympathetic to Jonathan Harker because he's put through Hell by Dracula, and he still pushes through to reunite with Mina.
While he’s not exactly sympathetic, there is a sense of remorse and fondness for his past life expressed in Oldman’s performance. It’s almost tempting to believe that the good man he once was is buried under centuries of pain and vengeance, and the ending has a bittersweet tenderness to it. By placing emphasis on the romance between Dracula and Mina, it becomes a story about Dracula's redemption in the eyes of his reincarnated wife.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/199/2-bram-stoker-dracula/full/dracula-movie-screencaps.com-1515.jpg" />
Ultimately, <em>Bram Stoker’s Dracula</em> is a beautifully-designed Gothic horror with an undercurrent of tragedy. The scares hold up to this day, and the combination of sumptuous costumes, atmospheric sets and timeless visual effects make it all the more memorable. It is a compelling and well-written film that manages to attain emotional resonance. If you can overlook Reeves’ wooden performance in favour of the finely tailored theatricality of Oldman and Hopkins, this is a worthy addition to the Dracula myth. �%��i� t�������� ��T
� &�����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-259" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Frankenstein94-327x500.jpg" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
Following on the heels of <em>Bram Stoker’s Dracula</em>, Francis Ford Coppola took to the role of producer while handing the directing reigns to Kenneth Branagh on <em>Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein</em>. The film is a reasonably faithful adaptation of the novel, and like Coppola’s <em>Dracula</em>, this one has its critics and defenders. I am in the latter group, but I still understand that there are flaws that hold it back from potential greatness.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://foundationsofliterarystudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/frankenstein-1994.png" alt="Related image" width="653" height="393" />
The reckless Captain Walton (Aidan Quinn) is attempting to reach the North Pole in the midst of a frozen sea, putting his own crew at risk. Out of the icy wasteland emerges a ragged stranger, followed by the bellowing cries of an unseen monster that kills the crew’s dogs. Recognizing the captain’s obsession, the stranger reveals he is Victor Frankenstein (Branagh) of Geneva, and recounts his story in flashback.
We meet Victor as the child of wealthy Baron Frankenstein (Ian Holm) and his wife, Caroline (Cherie Lunghi), growing up very much-loved alongside his adopted sister, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter). His mother dies in childbirth, thus a guilt-ridden Victor resolves to find a way to cure death itself. Once he begins studying in Ingolstadt, he meets a fellow doctor named Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce), and a scientist named Professor Waldman (John Cleese), who shows him how electricity can re-animate dead tissue. Frankenstein continues these experiments, including bringing a dead frog back to life, to the condemnation of Professor Krempe (Robert Hardy). Victor learns that Waldman succeeded in creating life, but Waldman refuses to share the journal in order to prevent Victor repeating his mistakes. Waldman is murdered by a lunatic trying to avoid a compulsory smallpox vaccine. At the cost of isolating himself from friends and family, Victor begins pursuing his ambitions to create life. Using body parts from the murderer, victims of a cholera plague and Professor Waldman’s brain, Frankenstein is able to bring the Creature (Robert De Niro) to life. But instead of creating an ubermensch, the final form is a deformed and unseemly monster, and Frankenstein realizes his error too late and shuns his creation. Saddened by the experiences in the world, the Creature learns how he was created and that Frankenstein is responsible; he burns down the abandoned cottage and heads to Geneva, vowing revenge on his creator.
<img id="screenshot14" src="http://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/1953_14.jpg" usemap="#imgmap_27754" width="728" height="410" border="0" />
Bearing the brunt of the overacting is Branagh; I admire his passionate and emotionally-driven performance, but he really needed to be more subtle in many more scenes. De Niro brings a lot of pathos and thoughtfulness to the Creature, at once a childlike innocent when treated well and he becomes filled with hate and revenge when abused. He’s one of the more subtle parts of the movie. Carter is suitably sympathetic and tender as Elizabeth, bringing a lot of energy and emotion to a rather limited role. The romance between Victor and Elizabeth feels very earnest and tender, heightening the tragic fate of the characters. Hulce is personable as Clerval, and bounces off Branagh’s exuberant Frankenstein nicely as the more straight character. Cleese plays the role of Waldman completely straight, hinting towards a man almost unhinged by his dark past; for a comedic actor he has a very serious presence in this film. Richard Briers has some very tender scenes with De Niro and is one of the warmer characters in the story. Hardy, Holm and Lunghi pull off their roles well and complement the 19th century setting, despite their limited screen time. However, I do think Quinn is miscast; playing Captain Walton far too brusquely and too much of a delusional man, which doesn’t counterbalance his hints towards madness.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i2.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Frankenstein6.jpg?fit=1600%2C900" alt="Related image" width="699" height="393" />
The classic Universal <em>Frankenstein</em> does loom large over <em>Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein</em>, but I admire the film’s approach to differentiate it from the past incarnations. There’s no Igor (a Hollywood creation), showing Frankenstein as being isolated in his obsession. Aesthetically, the Creature is very impressive and looks as though he could have been made by multiple human parts, with heavy stitching and realistic deformity, even showing signs of healing as the film progresses. I also like how it takes a while for the Creature to manage to articulate words, like a child learning to speak for the first time. The elaborate sets have an operatic grandness to them, and are still more grounded than the sets in <em>Bram Stoker's Dracula</em>, and really set up the moody and broken-down atmosphere of the 1800s, illustrating the injustice and instability of society at that time. The sprawling contraptions that give life to the creature are certainly an imaginative addition. The key horror elements come from the immense levels of anatomical horror, as well as the psychological fear of losing your loved ones through obsession.
Patrick Doyle provides a very powerful score with a lot of brass and fast energy, accentuating the tension, brooding tones and providing a great instrumental for the Creature’s creation as well as a love theme for Victor and Elizabeth. But oftentimes, its energy feels misplaced and more restrained music would have worked for scenes that demanded a more considered approach. When it is quieter, it succeeds in underscoring the emotion and themes of the story.
<img id="screenshot17" src="http://images2.static-bluray.com/reviews/1953_17.jpg" usemap="#imgmap_27758" width="728" height="410" border="0" />
The cinematography is somewhat inconsistent; the scenes in Frankenstein’s happier times have an almost dreamlike quality, which works considering it’s Victor remembering his youth, whereas the scenes in Ingolstadt and many of the Creature’s scenes are foggy and grey. It serves its purpose in setting up the mood, but visually it feels cold. When Victor goes about his work, the editing and camera work gets very manic and often doesn’t allow for atmosphere to sink in, zooming around and attempting to drive up the tension, only be to be pure overload. Aside from the unnecessary and poorly-translated prologue and epilogue that come straight from the novel, the beginning feels awfully rushed as we breeze past Victor’s childhood and see him perform extraordinary but unlikely experiments to show his intellect. The pace often rushes before slowing down on important scenes, but more time should have been delegated to Victor’s adolescence to highlight his relationships.
The presence of the Bride has proved divisive; many see it as a blatant deviation that pushes Victor beyond likability, and others see it as a tribute to the Universal movie <em>The Bride of Frankenstein</em>. Indeed, the whole subplot involving Victor bringing his wife back to life is extrapolated from the novel, where Victor destroys the Creature’s would-be companion before he could animate it. And yet, thematically, when Victor dances with the intended bride of the Creature to Doyle’s ball dance music, it is a truly creepy and unhinged scene, showing how low Frankenstein has fallen that he would rather be with a melding of two of the closest women in his life than let them both lie in peace. It displayed how Victor’s selfishness and disregard for the consequences wrought so much misery and pain. The climax is a fiery blaze, with the house going up in smoke due to the Bride killing herself with a kerosene lamp set alight, and while visually-impressive, it’s honestly overdone.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w1280/eUhGqCRzPDb6bw01Mb9aHBXVjnM.jpg" alt="Related image" width="699" height="393" />
One thing the film does well is the relationship between Frankenstein and the Creature. The Creature wants to ruin Frankenstein’s life and cause him pain for creating him as a flawed man, as well as abandoning him, but still considers him his father. He comprehends human ideas such as family, possession of a soul, and love, possibly due to the parts he’s comprised of, but the idea that Frankenstein created a being with a soul of its own is a tempting one. We see Victor built up as a man with flaws, virtues and aspirations, and so he seems very much realized in my mind, going from an ambitious, manic scientist to a defeated, humbled soul. Their scenes together are written with the appropriate level of subtlety, and are possibly the best scenes, as the audience’s sympathy switches from Frankenstein to the Creature and back again.
<img id="screenshot5" src="http://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/1953_5.jpg" usemap="#imgmap_27745" width="728" height="410" border="0" />
Like Coppola’s <em>Dracula</em>, <em>Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein</em> is ultimately a Shakespearean tragedy with moments of horror. I might be in the minority, but I did sympathise with many of the characters, including Victor, the Creature, Elizabeth, Clerval, and Frankenstein’s household. The parts that are over-the-top are countered by the slower, quieter scenes with De Niro as the Creature. It’s emotionally effective, theatrical in style and boasts a solid cast. Shelley’s vision for <em>Frankenstein</em> was “The Modern Prometheus,” and I think it can be enjoyed on those merits, rather than that of a straight horror film.
��T��b� u�������� ��
� &�����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-259" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Frankenstein94-327x500.jpg" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
Following on the heels of <em>Bram Stoker’s Dracula</em>, Francis Ford Coppola took to the role of producer while handing the directing reigns to Kenneth Branagh on <em>Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein</em>. The film is a reasonably faithful adaptation of the novel, and like Coppola’s <em>Dracula</em>, this one has its critics and defenders. I am in the latter group, but I still understand that there are flaws that hold it back from potential greatness.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://foundationsofliterarystudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/frankenstein-1994.png" alt="Related image" width="653" height="393" />
The reckless Captain Walton (Aidan Quinn) is attempting to reach the North Pole in the midst of a frozen sea, putting his own crew at risk. Out of the icy wasteland emerges a ragged stranger, followed by the bellowing cries of an unseen monster that kills the crew’s dogs. Recognizing the captain’s obsession, the stranger reveals he is Victor Frankenstein (Branagh) of Geneva, and recounts his story in flashback.
We meet Victor as the child of wealthy Baron Frankenstein (Ian Holm) and his wife, Caroline (Cherie Lunghi), growing up very much-loved alongside his adopted sister, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter). His mother dies in childbirth, thus a guilt-ridden Victor resolves to find a way to cure death itself. Once he begins studying in Ingolstadt, he meets a fellow doctor named Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce), and a scientist named Professor Waldman (John Cleese), who shows him how electricity can re-animate dead tissue. Frankenstein continues these experiments, including bringing a dead frog back to life, to the condemnation of Professor Krempe (Robert Hardy). Victor learns that Waldman succeeded in creating life, but Waldman refuses to share the journal in order to prevent Victor repeating his mistakes. Waldman is murdered by a lunatic trying to avoid a compulsory smallpox vaccine. At the cost of isolating himself from friends and family, Victor begins pursuing his ambitions to create life. Using body parts from the murderer, victims of a cholera plague and Professor Waldman’s brain, Frankenstein is able to bring the Creature (Robert De Niro) to life. But instead of creating an ubermensch, the final form is a deformed and unseemly monster, and Frankenstein realizes his error too late and shuns his creation. Saddened by the experiences in the world, the Creature learns how he was created and that Frankenstein is responsible; he burns down the abandoned cottage and heads to Geneva, vowing revenge on his creator.
<img id="screenshot14" src="http://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/1953_14.jpg" usemap="#imgmap_27754" width="728" height="410" border="0" />
Bearing the brunt of the overacting is Branagh; I admire his passionate and emotionally-driven performance, but he really needed to be more subtle in many more scenes. De Niro brings a lot of pathos and thoughtfulness to the Creature, at once a childlike innocent when treated well and he becomes filled with hate and revenge when abused. He’s one of the more subtle parts of the movie. Carter is suitably sympathetic and tender as Elizabeth, bringing a lot of energy and emotion to a rather limited role. The romance between Victor and Elizabeth feels very earnest and tender, heightening the tragic fate of the characters. Hulce is personable as Clerval, and bounces off Branagh’s exuberant Frankenstein nicely as the more straight character. Cleese plays the role of Waldman completely straight, hinting towards a man almost unhinged by his dark past; for a comedic actor he has a very serious presence in this film. Richard Briers has some very tender scenes with De Niro and is one of the warmer characters in the story. Hardy, Holm and Lunghi pull off their roles well and complement the 19th century setting, despite their limited screen time. However, I do think Quinn is miscast; playing Captain Walton far too brusquely and too much of a delusional man, which doesn’t counterbalance his hints towards madness.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i2.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Frankenstein6.jpg?fit=1600%2C900" alt="Related image" width="699" height="393" />
The classic Universal <em>Frankenstein</em> does loom large over <em>Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein</em>, but I admire the film’s approach to differentiate it from the past incarnations. There’s no Igor (a Hollywood creation), showing Frankenstein as being isolated in his obsession. Aesthetically, the Creature is very impressive and looks as though he could have been made by multiple human parts, with heavy stitching and realistic deformity, even showing signs of healing as the film progresses. I also like how it takes a while for the Creature to manage to articulate words, like a child learning to speak for the first time. The elaborate sets have an operatic grandness to them, and are still more grounded than the sets in <em>Bram Stoker's Dracula</em>, and really set up the moody and broken-down atmosphere of the 1800s, illustrating the injustice and instability of society at that time. The sprawling contraptions that give life to the creature are certainly an imaginative addition. The key horror elements come from the immense levels of anatomical horror, as well as the psychological fear of losing your loved ones through obsession.
Patrick Doyle provides a very powerful score with a lot of brass and fast energy, accentuating the tension, brooding tones and providing a great instrumental for the Creature’s creation as well as a love theme for Victor and Elizabeth. But oftentimes, its energy feels misplaced and more restrained music would have worked for scenes that demanded a more considered approach. When it is quieter, it succeeds in underscoring the emotion and themes of the story.
<img id="screenshot17" src="http://images2.static-bluray.com/reviews/1953_17.jpg" usemap="#imgmap_27758" width="728" height="410" border="0" />
The cinematography is somewhat inconsistent; the scenes in Frankenstein’s happier times have an almost dreamlike quality, which works considering it’s Victor remembering his youth, whereas the scenes in Ingolstadt and many of the Creature’s scenes are foggy and grey. It serves its purpose in setting up the mood, but visually it feels cold. When Victor goes about his work, the editing and camera work gets very manic and often doesn’t allow for atmosphere to sink in, zooming around and attempting to drive up the tension, only be to be pure overload. Aside from the unnecessary and poorly-translated prologue and epilogue that come straight from the novel, the beginning feels awfully rushed as we breeze past Victor’s childhood and see him perform extraordinary but unlikely experiments to show his intellect. The pace often rushes before slowing down on important scenes, but more time should have been delegated to Victor’s adolescence to highlight his relationships.
The presence of the Bride has proved divisive; many see it as a blatant deviation that pushes Victor beyond likability, and others see it as a tribute to the Universal movie <em>The Bride of Frankenstein</em>. Indeed, the whole subplot involving Victor bringing his wife back to life is extrapolated from the novel, where Victor destroys the Creature’s would-be companion before he could animate it. And yet, thematically, when Victor dances with the intended bride of the Creature to Doyle’s ball dance music, it is a truly creepy and unhinged scene, showing how low Frankenstein has fallen that he would rather be with a melding of two of the closest women in his life than let them both lie in peace. It displayed how Victor’s selfishness and disregard for the consequences wrought so much misery and pain. The climax is a fiery blaze, with the house going up in smoke due to the Bride killing herself with a kerosene lamp set alight, and while visually-impressive, it’s honestly overdone.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w1280/eUhGqCRzPDb6bw01Mb9aHBXVjnM.jpg" alt="Related image" width="699" height="393" />
One thing the film does well is the relationship between Frankenstein and the Creature. The Creature wants to ruin Frankenstein’s life and cause him pain for creating him as a flawed man, as well as abandoning him, but still considers him his father. He comprehends human ideas such as family, possession of a soul, and love, possibly due to the parts he’s comprised of, but the idea that Frankenstein created a being with a soul of its own is a tempting one. We see Victor built up as a man with flaws, virtues and aspirations, and so he seems very much realized in my mind, going from an ambitious, manic scientist to a defeated, humbled soul. Their scenes together are written with the appropriate level of subtlety, and are possibly the best scenes, as the audience’s sympathy switches from Frankenstein to the Creature and back again.
<img id="screenshot5" src="http://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/1953_5.jpg" usemap="#imgmap_27745" width="728" height="410" border="0" />
Like Coppola’s <em>Dracula</em>, <em>Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein</em> is ultimately a Shakespearean tragedy with moments of horror. I might be in the minority, but I did sympathise with many of the characters, including Victor, the Creature, Elizabeth, Clerval, and Frankenstein’s household. The parts that are over-the-top are countered by the slower, quieter scenes with De Niro as the Creature. It’s emotionally effective, theatrical in style and boasts a solid cast. Shelley’s vision for <em>Frankenstein</em> was “The Modern Prometheus,” and I think it can be enjoyed on those merits, rather than that of a straight horror film.
���hu� v�������� �J�
� ;�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-133 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ten_commandments_ver3-327x500.jpg" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Cecil B. DeMille </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Aeneas MacKenzie, Jesse L. Lasky Jr., Jack Gariss, Fredric M. Frank</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Cecil B. DeMille </strong>
<strong>Studio: Cecil B. DeMille Productions, Paramount Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> The Book of Exodus</em></strong>
<strong>Release Date: 5th October, 1956</strong>
Despite not knowing fully what to expect, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> was a suitably epic experience from start to finish, and made me want to believe that the golden years of Hollywood could come again. As someone who has a strong admiration, nostalgia and affection for the animated epic <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>, I do feel somewhat foolish for putting off seeing the second and better known of Cecil B. DeMille’s adaptations of the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, I will only refer to that film on occasion to bring up how <em>The Ten Commandments</em> adapts the story of <em>Exodus</em> in its own way.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://content.moviery.com/87/009787/9.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt has ordered the death of all firstborn Hebrew males, but one mother, Yochebel (Martha Scott), saves her infant son by setting him adrift in a basket on the Nile. The Pharaoh’s daughter, Bithiah (Nina Foch), finds the basket and decides to adopt the boy, naming him Moses. However, her servant Memnet recognizes the baby’s Hebrew heritage and retains the Levite cloth he was wrapped in.
Prince Moses (Charlton Heston) grows up to become a successful general, and falls in love with Princess Nefretiri (Anne Baxter), but she must marry the next Pharaoh. While working on the building of a city for the jubilee of Pharaoh Sethi (Cedric Hardwicke), Moses meets the stonecutter Joshua (John Derek), and saves an elderly woman, revealed to be Yochebel, from being crushed, scolding the cruel master builder, Baka (Vincent Price). Moses reforms the treatment of slaves on the construction, but Prince Rameses (Yul Brynner) charges him with planning an insurrection. Nefretiri learns of Moses’ true parentage when Memnet shows the piece of Levite cloth, a shocked Moses follows Bithiah to Yochebel’s house where he meets his birth mother and family. Moses saves Joshua from death by strangling Baka, in vengeance for the Egyptian taking advances to Joshua’s love, Lilia (Debra Paget). Dathan (Edward G. Robinson) the overseer spies on this and rats Moses out to Rameses. Moses is banished to the desert and Rameses becomes the next Pharaoh. He joins a Bedouin tribe who worship the God of Abraham, and marries Sephora (Yvonne De Carlo), daughter of Jethro (Eduard Franz). After several years of peace, Moses sees the burning bush on the summit of Mount Sinai and hears the voice of God and vows to return to Egypt to free the Hebrews.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://cinemafanatic.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the_ten_commandments_yul_brynner_edward_g_robinson.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="605" height="338" />
The cast is phenomenal, with a fair bit of theatricality and scenery chewing that comes with the territory. Heston’s Moses has a commanding presence, confidence and charisma both as Prince of Egypt and as Deliverer, you believe that he has the wisdom and strength of spirit to inspire thousands to follow him, and it helps that he matches the classical look of Moses to a tee. Heston also provides the deep, booming voice of God as one would imagine Him in the Old Testament. Brynner portrays Rameses as a cold, vain and conniving man both as a prince and as Pharaoh, without a shred of regret in his manner and bearing barely concealing a quietly simmering rage for any moment of defiance. Both he and Heston are ideal foils for each other, both as confident in themselves as they are in their beliefs. The beautiful Baxter and is given a great many scenes to shine, possessing multi-layered chemistry with Heston and Brynner; you see past the beauty and royal charm to see the cold, vindictive woman beneath that.
De Carlo brings out Sephora’s strength and wisdom, and is an ideal opposite to Baxter’s Nefretiri. Heston and De Carlo act very well opposite each other and you do get a sense that Sephora really is the woman that Moses should be with, but I don’t think there’s much chemistry between them. Derek is a likable ally to Moses, channelling a bit of Errol Flynn in his youthful appearance and heroic stunts early on. Robinson has a great turn as the slimy and manipulative Dathan, and Price is very easy to detest as the cruel and lustful Baka. Hardwicke makes the most out Pharaoh Sethi, having a particularly strong, emotional scene with Heston when he is forced to banish his adopted son. Foch and Scott work wonderfully in the two mother figures to Moses. In other more small but crucial and well-acted roles, Paget is sweet and emotionally on point as Lilia, Franz as the jocular and kind Jethro, Judith Anderson as Memnet, and John Carradine and Olive Deering as Aaron and Miriam.
As a feast for the senses, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> is a mesmerizing achievement. With legions of extras and animals filling a multitude of sets, the vast scale of the film is astonishing. While not as detailed as more recent recreations of Ancient Egypt in other portrayals of the period, the colourful Old Hollywood look of the sets do have a certain charm to them. This isn’t so much a “real life” recreation of Ancient Egypt, but it feels dreamlike in a way that percolates through the whole film. The variety and colour of the costumes bring vibrancy to the big screen; looking faithful to the period for the most part but sometimes there are some that stick out like sore thumbs, such as the horned helmeted guards in the Egyptian palace
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments3.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="750" height="339" />
The cinematography by Loyal Griggs captures the vast, beautiful landscapes and intricate kingdom of Ancient Egypt, allowing the audience to appreciate the scale of the production. The use of colour, such as dark deep red skies to indicate tyranny and oppression and lighter colours to indicate hope enhance the impact of the imagery. We see the Egyptian palace become gradually drained of warmth and colour throughout the film, as though the realm itself had been bled by Rameses’ tyranny and as a reflection of Moses’ rejection of his former home.
John P. Fulton used a variety of practical and photographic effects to realize Ancient Egypt for a captivated audience. Fulton’s effects included the building of Sethi’s Jubilee treasure city, the Burning Bush, the fiery hail from a cloudless sky, the Angel of Death, the composites of the Exodus, the Pillar of Fire, the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the parting of the Red Sea as the final tour de force. But the most visually effective of the plagues is the long hanging black mist that symbolizes the tenth plague’s visitation upon Egypt; the slow way it glides across the streets has an unnerving effect. The gathering of clouds and the parting of the Red Sea are equally ambitious and incredible to behold. Other effects such as the subtle morphing effects on the snakes still intrigue me to this day. The visual portrayal of God and how he reveals himself to Moses is very faithful to traditional portrayals in classical artwork; the burning bush has a golden glow about it and the pillar of fire. But I have to admit, the pillar of fire reminds me of something out of Disney’s <em>Fantasia</em>. It’s artistically pleasing to be sure, but doesn’t quite feel “real”.
Considering these are special effects from the 1950s, one can’t help but marvel at their ambition and attention to detail. The burning bush and fiery columns of fire are depicted through animation, and while both are highly detailed and have a certain romantic quality to them. A lot of the visual effects, while impressive for the time, are somewhat dated. The optical effects splicing close-up sets with actors with the wide vistas area mixed bag, many of them work well enough but some could have used a bit more of a polish and suffer from prominent black outlines. Regardless, of these noticeable technical hiccups, they don’t detract from the experience in any way at all.
The score by Elmer Bernstein is as inspiring as it is powerful; with soaring, Wagnerian horns, trumpets and drums that conjure themes of freedom and righteous rebellion, the chief among these serves as the recurring heroic motif of the film. The gentler string melodies are well tailored to the intimate and emotional scenes and invoke something of a spiritual sense to them.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://earnthis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/capture4.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="699" height="393" />
The dialogue often lifts from the Book of <em>Exodus</em> and has a timeless appeal, but can sometimes dip into melodrama. The main source of humour comes from the dry interplay and banter between the royalty of Egypt, as well as some lighter moments provided by Sephora’s sisters or Dathan being rightfully put in his place. The flowery, poetic speeches from Moses and Rameses, while dated to many ears, work in my eyes to convey gravitas and antiquity of the setting.
The notion of family division is more emphasized rather than brotherly division. Moses and Rameses never act like brothers in any scene, and that makes their enmity more black and white and makes Rameses a more despicable character throughout. This works for the type of film it is with clearer cut heroes and villains. Moses and his adopted Egyptian family are shown to be flourishing while he’s ignorant of his Hebrew heritage, and when he is compelled to do right by his true people it puts a wedge between him and Sethi. The impact of that rift is felt through the performances and the heartbreak of Sethi and Bithiah. While it plays out well among the Egyptian royal family, it isn’t as keenly felt for Moses’ new family. Even when Moses and Sephora have their son together he spends much of the third act separate from his family, undercutting the parallels between his newfound family and his old Egyptian one. The depiction of both mothers as equally sympathetic and invested in Moses wellbeing does offer a kinder light to the Egyptian side of the conflict.
Moses’ own arc, amidst the physical transformations he undergoes from prince to wanderer and saviour, is the search for and discovery of belief in something greater than him to live up to. That for all the worldly power he could have used as prince and king, he was ultimately far more powerful because he had found faith. You get the sense that he is disappointed in God for not directly helping his people but you believe that the passage of time makes him a kinder man. The nature versus nurture theme does lean heavily towards nature here, as it seems as though Moses’ heritage afforded him greater compassion while the true-born Egyptian Ramses and Nefretiri are presented with all the ambition and duplicity of their position. His natural compassion allows for better treatment of the slaves without injuring the kingdom the way Rameses does as Pharaoh. You get an idea of the kind of stable but still fairer Egypt that Moses could have created were he Pharaoh. You do get the feeling that Rameses’ jealousy of Moses and barely subdued feelings of inadequacy are the driving factors for his anger and ambition. In allowing his vanity and contempt to rule him, Rameses is often the prognosticator of his own downfall
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://media-cdn.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2016/03/24/1458852051_0wJiVjLyp2--1-_t755_hde37d95367be0fab21949e1878952fc27ac3815d.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments moses" width="698" height="393" />
As one of the quintessential message movies, the aspect of faith is at the forefront of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. The advanced yet savage character of Ancient Egypt, where great monuments and cities are raised but death and cruelty are commonplace, makes the need for a unifying presence of decency and justice more compelling. It is, in DeMille’s own words, a story of the birth of freedom, that most basic human desire to live on one’s own terms, and is applied to all races, rather than forcibly submit to the whims of a tyrant. As the story about how the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, race is a fundamental theme within this story. As someone who lacks a strong connection to faith and to God, I found that the message of faith was not particularly subtle (or at least when compared to <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>), but it’s theatrical in a way that still relies on a lot of showing rather than telling. The applicability and truthfulness of the message itself still transcends how it’s delivered.
For all the strengths I have highlighter earlier, I do have a select few flaws with the film. The narration by DeMille himself helps to convey the vastness of the setting and allow us to truly feel as though we’re walking beside the characters of the piece. However, it can get somewhat self-important and the striking imagery is often enough to convey the themes of the story. At over three and a half hours long and filled with scenes of excellent cinematography but little going on, it’s a film that requires patience to experience it. While the Egyptian and Hebrew cast is primarily made of Caucasian actors, the passion on display and richness of the script and story makes it easy to invest in. Even if you had this same high calibre script and directorial vision, you could not pull such casting off again. The relegation of the other plagues to simple mentions was a bit disappointing, not to say the other visualizations of the plagues underwhelmed but the sense of desperation and urgency by seeing the totality of plagues beleaguering the kingdom is somewhat stifled.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments-07.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments red sea" width="601" height="337" />
While <em>The Prince of Egypt</em> emphasizes the strife between brothers while keeping the message of faith intact, the element of faith is more pronounced here and the belief in the rebuttal of tyranny and the value of all mankind, regardless of race or creed is more prominent. Despite what few quibbles I have, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> remains ambitious, inspiring and epic in every sense of the word. The message and themes can and still do transcend across barriers of belief and lives up to it’s ancient source material. �J��z�� w�������� �.
� ;�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-133 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ten_commandments_ver3-327x500.jpg" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Cecil B. DeMille </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Aeneas MacKenzie, Jesse L. Lasky Jr., Jack Gariss, Fredric M. Frank</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Cecil B. DeMille </strong>
<strong>Studio: Cecil B. DeMille Productions, Paramount Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> The Book of Exodus</em></strong>
<strong>Release Date: 5th October, 1956</strong>
Despite not knowing fully what to expect, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> was a suitably epic experience from start to finish, and made me want to believe that the golden years of Hollywood could come again. As someone who has a strong admiration, nostalgia and affection for the animated epic <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>, I do feel somewhat foolish for putting off seeing the second and better known of Cecil B. DeMille’s adaptations of the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, I will only refer to that film on occasion to bring up how <em>The Ten Commandments</em> adapts the story of <em>Exodus</em> in its own way.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://content.moviery.com/87/009787/9.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt has ordered the death of all firstborn Hebrew males, but one mother, Yochebel (Martha Scott), saves her infant son by setting him adrift in a basket on the Nile. The Pharaoh’s daughter, Bithiah (Nina Foch), finds the basket and decides to adopt the boy, naming him Moses. However, her servant Memnet recognizes the baby’s Hebrew heritage and retains the Levite cloth he was wrapped in.
Prince Moses (Charlton Heston) grows up to become a successful general, and falls in love with Princess Nefretiri (Anne Baxter), but she must marry the next Pharaoh. While working on the building of a city for the jubilee of Pharaoh Sethi (Cedric Hardwicke), Moses meets the stonecutter Joshua (John Derek), and saves an elderly woman, revealed to be Yochebel, from being crushed, scolding the cruel master builder, Baka (Vincent Price). Moses reforms the treatment of slaves on the construction, but Prince Rameses (Yul Brynner) charges him with planning an insurrection. Nefretiri learns of Moses’ true parentage when Memnet shows the piece of Levite cloth, a shocked Moses follows Bithiah to Yochebel’s house where he meets his birth mother and family. Moses saves Joshua from death by strangling Baka, in vengeance for the Egyptian taking advances to Joshua’s love, Lilia (Debra Paget). Dathan (Edward G. Robinson) the overseer spies on this and rats Moses out to Rameses. Moses is banished to the desert and Rameses becomes the next Pharaoh. He joins a Bedouin tribe who worship the God of Abraham, and marries Sephora (Yvonne De Carlo), daughter of Jethro (Eduard Franz). After several years of peace, Moses sees the burning bush on the summit of Mount Sinai and hears the voice of God and vows to return to Egypt to free the Hebrews.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://cinemafanatic.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the_ten_commandments_yul_brynner_edward_g_robinson.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="605" height="338" />
The cast is phenomenal, with a fair bit of theatricality and scenery chewing that comes with the territory. Heston’s Moses has a commanding presence, confidence and charisma both as Prince of Egypt and as Deliverer, you believe that he has the wisdom and strength of spirit to inspire thousands to follow him, and it helps that he matches the classical look of Moses to a tee. Heston also provides the deep, booming voice of God as one would imagine Him in the Old Testament. Brynner portrays Rameses as a cold, vain and conniving man both as a prince and as Pharaoh, without a shred of regret in his manner and bearing barely concealing a quietly simmering rage for any moment of defiance. Both he and Heston are ideal foils for each other, both as confident in themselves as they are in their beliefs. The beautiful Baxter and is given a great many scenes to shine, possessing multi-layered chemistry with Heston and Brynner; you see past the beauty and royal charm to see the cold, vindictive woman beneath that.
De Carlo brings out Sephora’s strength and wisdom, and is an ideal opposite to Baxter’s Nefretiri. Heston and De Carlo act very well opposite each other and you do get a sense that Sephora really is the woman that Moses should be with, but I don’t think there’s much chemistry between them. Derek is a likable ally to Moses, channelling a bit of Errol Flynn in his youthful appearance and heroic stunts early on. Robinson has a great turn as the slimy and manipulative Dathan, and Price is very easy to detest as the cruel and lustful Baka. Hardwicke makes the most out Pharaoh Sethi, having a particularly strong, emotional scene with Heston when he is forced to banish his adopted son. Foch and Scott work wonderfully in the two mother figures to Moses. In other more small but crucial and well-acted roles, Paget is sweet and emotionally on point as Lilia, Franz as the jocular and kind Jethro, Judith Anderson as Memnet, and John Carradine and Olive Deering as Aaron and Miriam.
As a feast for the senses, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> is a mesmerizing achievement. With legions of extras and animals filling a multitude of sets, the vast scale of the film is astonishing. While not as detailed as more recent recreations of Ancient Egypt in other portrayals of the period, the colourful Old Hollywood look of the sets do have a certain charm to them. This isn’t so much a “real life” recreation of Ancient Egypt, but it feels dreamlike in a way that percolates through the whole film. The variety and colour of the costumes bring vibrancy to the big screen; looking faithful to the period for the most part but sometimes there are some that stick out like sore thumbs, such as the horned helmeted guards in the Egyptian palace
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments3.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="750" height="339" />
The cinematography by Loyal Griggs captures the vast, beautiful landscapes and intricate kingdom of Ancient Egypt, allowing the audience to appreciate the scale of the production. The use of colour, such as dark deep red skies to indicate tyranny and oppression and lighter colours to indicate hope enhance the impact of the imagery. We see the Egyptian palace become gradually drained of warmth and colour throughout the film, as though the realm itself had been bled by Rameses’ tyranny and as a reflection of Moses’ rejection of his former home.
John P. Fulton used a variety of practical and photographic effects to realize Ancient Egypt for a captivated audience. Fulton’s effects included the building of Sethi’s Jubilee treasure city, the Burning Bush, the fiery hail from a cloudless sky, the Angel of Death, the composites of the Exodus, the Pillar of Fire, the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the parting of the Red Sea as the final tour de force. But the most visually effective of the plagues is the long hanging black mist that symbolizes the tenth plague’s visitation upon Egypt; the slow way it glides across the streets has an unnerving effect. The gathering of clouds and the parting of the Red Sea are equally ambitious and incredible to behold. Other effects such as the subtle morphing effects on the snakes still intrigue me to this day. The visual portrayal of God and how he reveals himself to Moses is very faithful to traditional portrayals in classical artwork; the burning bush has a golden glow about it and the pillar of fire. But I have to admit, the pillar of fire reminds me of something out of Disney’s <em>Fantasia</em>. It’s artistically pleasing to be sure, but doesn’t quite feel “real”.
Considering these are special effects from the 1950s, one can’t help but marvel at their ambition and attention to detail. The burning bush and fiery columns of fire are depicted through animation, and while both are highly detailed and have a certain romantic quality to them. A lot of the visual effects, while impressive for the time, are somewhat dated. The optical effects splicing close-up sets with actors with the wide vistas area mixed bag, many of them work well enough but some could have used a bit more of a polish and suffer from prominent black outlines. Regardless, of these noticeable technical hiccups, they don’t detract from the experience in any way at all.
The score by Elmer Bernstein is as inspiring as it is powerful; with soaring, Wagnerian horns, trumpets and drums that conjure themes of freedom and righteous rebellion, the chief among these serves as the recurring heroic motif of the film. The gentler string melodies are well tailored to the intimate and emotional scenes and invoke something of a spiritual sense to them.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://earnthis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/capture4.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="699" height="393" />
The dialogue often lifts from the Book of <em>Exodus</em> and has a timeless appeal, but can sometimes dip into melodrama. The main source of humour comes from the dry interplay and banter between the royalty of Egypt, as well as some lighter moments provided by Sephora’s sisters or Dathan being rightfully put in his place. The flowery, poetic speeches from Moses and Rameses, while dated to many ears, work in my eyes to convey gravitas and antiquity of the setting.
The notion of family division is more emphasized rather than brotherly division. Moses and Rameses never act like brothers in any scene, and that makes their enmity more black and white and makes Rameses a more despicable character throughout. This works for the type of film it is with clearer cut heroes and villains. Moses and his adopted Egyptian family are shown to be flourishing while he’s ignorant of his Hebrew heritage, and when he is compelled to do right by his true people it puts a wedge between him and Sethi. The impact of that rift is felt through the performances and the heartbreak of Sethi and Bithiah. While it plays out well among the Egyptian royal family, it isn’t as keenly felt for Moses’ new family. Even when Moses and Sephora have their son together he spends much of the third act separate from his family, undercutting the parallels between his newfound family and his old Egyptian one. The depiction of both mothers as equally sympathetic and invested in Moses wellbeing does offer a kinder light to the Egyptian side of the conflict.
Moses’ own arc, amidst the physical transformations he undergoes from prince to wanderer and saviour, is the search for and discovery of belief in something greater than him to live up to. That for all the worldly power he could have used as prince and king, he was ultimately far more powerful because he had found faith. You get the sense that he is disappointed in God for not directly helping his people but you believe that the passage of time makes him a kinder man. The nature versus nurture theme does lean heavily towards nature here, as it seems as though Moses’ heritage afforded him greater compassion while the true-born Egyptian Ramses and Nefretiri are presented with all the ambition and duplicity of their position. His natural compassion allows for better treatment of the slaves without injuring the kingdom the way Rameses does as Pharaoh. You get an idea of the kind of stable but still fairer Egypt that Moses could have created were he Pharaoh. You do get the feeling that Rameses’ jealousy of Moses and barely subdued feelings of inadequacy are the driving factors for his anger and ambition. In allowing his vanity and contempt to rule him, Rameses is often the prognosticator of his own downfall
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://media-cdn.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2016/03/24/1458852051_0wJiVjLyp2--1-_t755_hde37d95367be0fab21949e1878952fc27ac3815d.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments moses" width="698" height="393" />
As one of the quintessential message movies, the aspect of faith is at the forefront of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. The advanced yet savage character of Ancient Egypt, where great monuments and cities are raised but death and cruelty are commonplace, makes the need for a unifying presence of decency and justice more compelling. It is, in DeMille’s own words, a story of the birth of freedom, that most basic human desire to live on one’s own terms, and is applied to all races, rather than forcibly submit to the whims of a tyrant. As the story about how the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, race is a fundamental theme within this story. As someone who lacks a strong connection to faith and to God, I found that the message of faith was not particularly subtle (or at least when compared to <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>), but it’s theatrical in a way that still relies on a lot of showing rather than telling. The applicability and truthfulness of the message itself still transcends how it’s delivered.
For all the strengths I have highlighter earlier, I do have a select few flaws with the film. The narration by DeMille himself helps to convey the vastness of the setting and allow us to truly feel as though we’re walking beside the characters of the piece. However, it can get somewhat self-important and the striking imagery is often enough to convey the themes of the story. At over three and a half hours long and filled with scenes of excellent cinematography but little going on, it’s a film that requires patience to experience it. While the Egyptian and Hebrew cast is primarily made of Caucasian actors, the passion on display and richness of the script and story makes it easy to invest in. Even if you had this same high calibre script and directorial vision, you could not pull such casting off again. The relegation of the other plagues to simple mentions was a bit disappointing, not to say the other visualizations of the plagues underwhelmed but the sense of desperation and urgency by seeing the totality of plagues beleaguering the kingdom is somewhat stifled.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments-07.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments red sea" width="601" height="337" />
While <em>The Prince of Egypt</em> emphasizes the strife between brothers while keeping the message of faith intact, the element of faith is more pronounced here and the belief in the rebuttal of tyranny and the value of all mankind, regardless of race or creed is more prominent. Despite what few quibbles I have, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> remains ambitious, inspiring and epic in every sense of the word. The message and themes can and still do transcend across barriers of belief and lives up to it’s ancient source material. �.�� x�������� ��)
� ;�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-133 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ten_commandments_ver3-327x500.jpg" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Cecil B. DeMille </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Aeneas MacKenzie, Jesse L. Lasky Jr., Jack Gariss, Fredric M. Frank</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Cecil B. DeMille </strong>
<strong>Studio: Cecil B. DeMille Productions, Paramount Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> The Book of Exodus</em></strong>
<strong>Release Date: 5th October, 1956</strong>
Despite not knowing fully what to expect, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> was a suitably epic experience from start to finish, and made me want to believe that the golden years of Hollywood could come again. As someone who has a strong admiration, nostalgia and affection for the animated epic <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>, I do feel somewhat foolish for putting off seeing the second and better known of Cecil B. DeMille’s adaptations of the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, I will only refer to that film on occasion to bring up how <em>The Ten Commandments</em> adapts the story of <em>Exodus</em> in its own way.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://content.moviery.com/87/009787/9.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="699" height="393" />
Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt has ordered the death of all firstborn Hebrew males, but one mother, Yochebel (Martha Scott), saves her infant son by setting him adrift in a basket on the Nile. The Pharaoh’s daughter, Bithiah (Nina Foch), finds the basket and decides to adopt the boy, naming him Moses. However, her servant Memnet recognizes the baby’s Hebrew heritage and retains the Levite cloth he was wrapped in.
Prince Moses (Charlton Heston) grows up to become a successful general, and falls in love with Princess Nefretiri (Anne Baxter), but she must marry the next Pharaoh. While working on the building of a city for the jubilee of Pharaoh Sethi (Cedric Hardwicke), Moses meets the stonecutter Joshua (John Derek), and saves an elderly woman, revealed to be Yochebel, from being crushed, scolding the cruel master builder, Baka (Vincent Price). Moses reforms the treatment of slaves on the construction, but Prince Rameses (Yul Brynner) charges him with planning an insurrection. Nefretiri learns of Moses’ true parentage when Memnet shows the piece of Levite cloth, a shocked Moses follows Bithiah to Yochebel’s house where he meets his birth mother and family. Moses saves Joshua from death by strangling Baka, in vengeance for the Egyptian taking advances to Joshua’s love, Lilia (Debra Paget). Dathan (Edward G. Robinson) the overseer spies on this and rats Moses out to Rameses. Moses is banished to the desert and Rameses becomes the next Pharaoh. He joins a Bedouin tribe who worship the God of Abraham, and marries Sephora (Yvonne De Carlo), daughter of Jethro (Eduard Franz). After several years of peace, Moses sees the burning bush on the summit of Mount Sinai and hears the voice of God and vows to return to Egypt to free the Hebrews.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://cinemafanatic.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the_ten_commandments_yul_brynner_edward_g_robinson.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments hd screencaps" width="605" height="338" />
The cast is phenomenal, with a fair bit of theatricality and scenery chewing that comes with the territory. Heston’s Moses has a commanding presence, confidence and charisma both as Prince of Egypt and as Deliverer, you believe that he has the wisdom and strength of spirit to inspire thousands to follow him, and it helps that he matches the classical look of Moses to a tee. Heston also provides the deep, booming voice of God as one would imagine Him in the Old Testament. Brynner portrays Rameses as a cold, vain and conniving man both as a prince and as Pharaoh, without a shred of regret in his manner and bearing barely concealing a quietly simmering rage for any moment of defiance. Both he and Heston are ideal foils for each other, both as confident in themselves as they are in their beliefs. The beautiful Baxter and is given a great many scenes to shine, possessing multi-layered chemistry with Heston and Brynner; you see past the beauty and royal charm to see the cold, vindictive woman beneath that.
De Carlo brings out Sephora’s strength and wisdom, and is an ideal opposite to Baxter’s Nefretiri. Heston and De Carlo act very well opposite each other and you do get a sense that Sephora really is the woman that Moses should be with, but I don’t think there’s much chemistry between them. Derek is a likable ally to Moses, channelling a bit of Errol Flynn in his youthful appearance and heroic stunts early on. Robinson has a great turn as the slimy and manipulative Dathan, and Price is very easy to detest as the cruel and lustful Baka. Hardwicke makes the most out Pharaoh Sethi, having a particularly strong, emotional scene with Heston when he is forced to banish his adopted son. Foch and Scott work wonderfully in the two mother figures to Moses. In other more small but crucial and well-acted roles, Paget is sweet and emotionally on point as Lilia, Franz as the jocular and kind Jethro, Judith Anderson as Memnet, and John Carradine and Olive Deering as Aaron and Miriam.
As a feast for the senses, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> is a mesmerizing achievement. With legions of extras and animals filling a multitude of sets, the vast scale of the film is astonishing. While not as detailed as more recent recreations of Ancient Egypt in other portrayals of the period, the colourful Old Hollywood look of the sets do have a certain charm to them. This isn’t so much a “real life” recreation of Ancient Egypt, but it feels dreamlike in a way that percolates through the whole film. The variety and colour of the costumes bring vibrancy to the big screen; looking faithful to the period for the most part but sometimes there are some that stick out like sore thumbs, such as the horned helmeted guards in the Egyptian palace
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments3.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="750" height="339" />
The cinematography by Loyal Griggs captures the vast, beautiful landscapes and intricate kingdom of Ancient Egypt, allowing the audience to appreciate the scale of the production. The use of colour, such as dark deep red skies to indicate tyranny and oppression and lighter colours to indicate hope enhance the impact of the imagery. We see the Egyptian palace become gradually drained of warmth and colour throughout the film, as though the realm itself had been bled by Rameses’ tyranny and as a reflection of Moses’ rejection of his former home.
John P. Fulton used a variety of practical and photographic effects to realize Ancient Egypt for a captivated audience. Fulton’s effects included the building of Sethi’s Jubilee treasure city, the Burning Bush, the fiery hail from a cloudless sky, the Angel of Death, the composites of the Exodus, the Pillar of Fire, the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the parting of the Red Sea as the final tour de force. But the most visually effective of the plagues is the long hanging black mist that symbolizes the tenth plague’s visitation upon Egypt; the slow way it glides across the streets has an unnerving effect. The gathering of clouds and the parting of the Red Sea are equally ambitious and incredible to behold. Other effects such as the subtle morphing effects on the snakes still intrigue me to this day. The visual portrayal of God and how he reveals himself to Moses is very faithful to traditional portrayals in classical artwork; the burning bush has a golden glow about it and the pillar of fire. But I have to admit, the pillar of fire reminds me of something out of Disney’s <em>Fantasia</em>. It’s artistically pleasing to be sure, but doesn’t quite feel “real”.
Considering these are special effects from the 1950s, one can’t help but marvel at their ambition and attention to detail. The burning bush and fiery columns of fire are depicted through animation, and while both are highly detailed and have a certain romantic quality to them. A lot of the visual effects, while impressive for the time, are somewhat dated. The optical effects splicing close-up sets with actors with the wide vistas area mixed bag, many of them work well enough but some could have used a bit more of a polish and suffer from prominent black outlines. Regardless, of these noticeable technical hiccups, they don’t detract from the experience in any way at all.
The score by Elmer Bernstein is as inspiring as it is powerful; with soaring, Wagnerian horns, trumpets and drums that conjure themes of freedom and righteous rebellion, the chief among these serves as the recurring heroic motif of the film. The gentler string melodies are well tailored to the intimate and emotional scenes and invoke something of a spiritual sense to them.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://earnthis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/capture4.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments egypt" width="699" height="393" />
The dialogue often lifts from the Book of <em>Exodus</em> and has a timeless appeal, but can sometimes dip into melodrama. The main source of humour comes from the dry interplay and banter between the royalty of Egypt, as well as some lighter moments provided by Sephora’s sisters or Dathan being rightfully put in his place. The flowery, poetic speeches from Moses and Rameses, while dated to many ears, work in my eyes to convey gravitas and antiquity of the setting.
The notion of family division is more emphasized rather than brotherly division. Moses and Rameses never act like brothers in any scene, and that makes their enmity more black and white and makes Rameses a more despicable character throughout. This works for the type of film it is with clearer cut heroes and villains. Moses and his adopted Egyptian family are shown to be flourishing while he’s ignorant of his Hebrew heritage, and when he is compelled to do right by his true people it puts a wedge between him and Sethi. The impact of that rift is felt through the performances and the heartbreak of Sethi and Bithiah. While it plays out well among the Egyptian royal family, it isn’t as keenly felt for Moses’ new family. Even when Moses and Sephora have their son together he spends much of the third act separate from his family, undercutting the parallels between his newfound family and his old Egyptian one. The depiction of both mothers as equally sympathetic and invested in Moses wellbeing does offer a kinder light to the Egyptian side of the conflict.
Moses’ own arc, amidst the physical transformations he undergoes from prince to wanderer and saviour, is the search for and discovery of belief in something greater than him to live up to. That for all the worldly power he could have used as prince and king, he was ultimately far more powerful because he had found faith. You get the sense that he is disappointed in God for not directly helping his people but you believe that the passage of time makes him a kinder man. The nature versus nurture theme does lean heavily towards nature here, as it seems as though Moses’ heritage afforded him greater compassion while the true-born Egyptian Ramses and Nefretiri are presented with all the ambition and duplicity of their position. His natural compassion allows for better treatment of the slaves without injuring the kingdom the way Rameses does as Pharaoh. You get an idea of the kind of stable but still fairer Egypt that Moses could have created were he Pharaoh. You do get the feeling that Rameses’ jealousy of Moses and barely subdued feelings of inadequacy are the driving factors for his anger and ambition. In allowing his vanity and contempt to rule him, Rameses is often the prognosticator of his own downfall
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://media-cdn.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2016/03/24/1458852051_0wJiVjLyp2--1-_t755_hde37d95367be0fab21949e1878952fc27ac3815d.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments moses" width="698" height="393" />
As one of the quintessential message movies, the aspect of faith is at the forefront of <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. The advanced yet savage character of Ancient Egypt, where great monuments and cities are raised but death and cruelty are commonplace, makes the need for a unifying presence of decency and justice more compelling. It is, in DeMille’s own words, a story of the birth of freedom, that most basic human desire to live on one’s own terms, and is applied to all races, rather than forcibly submit to the whims of a tyrant. As the story about how the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, race is a fundamental theme within this story. As someone who lacks a strong connection to faith and to God, I found that the message of faith was not particularly subtle (or at least when compared to <em>The Prince of Egypt</em>), but it’s theatrical in a way that still relies on a lot of showing rather than telling. The applicability and truthfulness of the message itself still transcends how it’s delivered.
For all the strengths I have highlighter earlier, I do have a select few flaws with the film. The narration by DeMille himself helps to convey the vastness of the setting and allow us to truly feel as though we’re walking beside the characters of the piece. However, it can get somewhat self-important and the striking imagery is often enough to convey the themes of the story. At over three and a half hours long and filled with scenes of excellent cinematography but little going on, it’s a film that requires patience to experience it. While the Egyptian and Hebrew cast is primarily made of Caucasian actors, the passion on display and richness of the script and story makes it easy to invest in. Even if you had this same high calibre script and directorial vision, you could not pull such casting off again. The relegation of the other plagues to simple mentions was a bit disappointing, not to say the other visualizations of the plagues underwhelmed but the sense of desperation and urgency by seeing the totality of plagues beleaguering the kingdom is somewhat stifled.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.filmapia.com/sites/default/files/filmapia/pub/scene/scene/tencommandments-07.jpg" alt="Image result for the ten commandments red sea" width="601" height="337" />
While <em>The Prince of Egypt</em> emphasizes the strife between brothers while keeping the message of faith intact, the element of faith is more pronounced here and the belief in the rebuttal of tyranny and the value of all mankind, regardless of race or creed is more prominent. Despite what few quibbles I have, <em>The Ten Commandments</em> remains ambitious, inspiring and epic in every sense of the word. The message and themes can and still do transcend across barriers of belief and lives up to it’s ancient source material. ��) �: y�������� �m
� 2*����
<img class="size-medium wp-image-136 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/troy_ver7-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<em>Troy</em> is a film I’ve been aware of for many years, but seldom had enough interest to see for myself, despite my interest in history and Greek mythology. At the time, the removal of the more obvious fantastical elements annoyed me. Having finally seen the version most preferred by director Wolfgang Petersen, I ultimately deem this to be a well-made and fairly entertaining action film suffering from issues of protagonist likability and inconsistent writing.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://movies.homeofthenutty.com/albums/TroyDCPart1/Troy0714.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
In the late 12th century BC, Achilles (Brad Pitt) is the greatest champion of King Agamemnon (Brian Cox) of Mycenae during the Trojan War. Meanwhile, Prince Hector (Eric Bana) of Troy and his younger brother Paris (Orlando Bloom) negotiate a peace treaty with Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), King of Sparta and younger brother of Agamemnon. Paris, however, is having a secret love affair with Menelaus' wife, Queen Helen (Diane Kruger), and smuggles her aboard their homebound vessel, enraging Hector. Upon learning of this, Menelaus meets with Agamemnon and asks his help in taking Troy. Agamemnon agrees, since it will give him control of the Aegean Sea. On Nestor (John Shrapnel), King of Pylos' advice, Agamemnon has Odysseus (Sean Bean), King of Ithaca, persuade Achilles to join them. In Troy, King Priam (Peter O'Toole) is dismayed when Hector and Paris bring Helen, but welcomes her as a guest and decides against sending her home, since Paris will likely follow her and be killed, choosing instead to meet the Greeks in open battle. Achilles leads his Myrmidons to take the Trojan beach, along with his cousin Patroclus (Garett Hedlund), and seizes the Temple of Apollo and claims Briseis, priestess of Apollo and cousin to Hector.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-3658.jpg" />
Like many of the epics I have seen, this has a great cast but the performances vary. Pitt certainly looks the part of Achilles and commits his energy and physical prowess to the many action scenes, overall it’s a good performance but sometimes his accent wanders a bit. Bana is on top form as Hector; his manner and bearing convey a brave, seasoned warrior prince with strong convictions and love for his family and kingdom driving all his actions, and like Pitt he is as much a powerhouse actor in battle. Cox is suitably despicable as the scenery-chewing Agamemnon, and Gleeson brings out a truly savage, leery and unsavoury quality to Menelaus, and both are believable as brothers. The ever-dependable Bean is sublime casting as Odysseus, with his dry wit and down to earth persona. It’s a shame he never got to play the character again in a full adaptation of <em>The Odessey</em>. O’Toole is magnificent as the tragic King Priam, he has all the composure of a mythical king and his emotional expressions speak volumes; any one of his crying scenes is a moving sight to behold. Julie Christie appears in one scene as Thetis, mother of Achilles, and conveys the pain of a mother brave enough to allow her son to choose his fate even if it means ever seeing him again. Byrne has many bittersweet scenes as the world-weary and resilient Briseis, and Saffron Burrows as Andromache; both ladies are wonderful actresses and do their best with what they’re given. On the weaker side of things, Bloom and Kruger are both really bland as Paris and Helen respectively, yes she is very beautiful but lacking in personality or conviction, Bloom’s Paris has similar faults but does resemble Bana enough to pass for his younger brother and is admittedly saddled with a thankless and hated role. Hedlund is passable as Patroclus, but does come off as whiny and ineffectual at times. Other acting veterans such as Julian Glover as King Triopas, James Cosmo as General Glaucus of Troy and Nigel Terry as the Trojan priest Archeptolemus all turn in great supporting performances
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/b0/9a/93b09ab734d2d8a95aeb1af6354b9ad4--minoan-film-stills.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="736" height="306" />
The strongest aspect of the film is the action scenes, and to Petersen’s credit they are very well realized. Using real life tactics employed by the Ancient Greeks and framed in a manner that allows the viewer to feel immersed in the thick of battle. In this more violent cut, the stab wounds and bloody slashes hold serious weight to them. Importantly, the gore works because it’s not done out of gratuity but as a demonstration of the price of war. The main fight between Achilles and Hector has some incredible choreography and an element of suspense to it, even when you know what fate awaits Hector. When it comes to the sack of Troy itself, Petersen’s direction brings out the injustice and sheer awfulness of the destruction of this beautiful city and its citizens by the Greeks.
There is a certain visual correspondence in the depiction of the Trojan army in contrast to the various Greek armies. The Trojans are adorned in beautiful silvery armour and blue tunics and uniforms, Achilles is also seen dressed in blue and his armour, as well as that of the other Myrmidons, has more of a shine to it. By contrast, the majority of Greek characters and their armies have more of a muddy brown look to their armour and uniforms, Agamemnon himself looking far more of a barbarian than the ones that the Greeks themselves would have called “barbarian.”
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/d7/6f/48d76fec11ae434ddab98643f956a070.jpg" alt="Image result for troy screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The cinematography by Roger Pratt captures the colour, vibrancy and enormity of the city of Troy, as well as the epic scale and brutality of the battles. Like many modern period epics, CGI is used to help heighten the film’s scale and most of it is well integrated. Sometimes the CGI is sometimes easy to spot, such as the massive Greek fleet sailing towards Troy or the necessary enlarging of the Greek army for various sweeping shots, but it is allowable given the greater emphasis on physical actors and locations for the vast majority of the film.
The score by James Horner is solid doesn’t rank among my favourites of his. While the background music is serviceable, it really flourishes in the battle scenes, particularly the heroic leitmotif which appears when Achilles and the Myrmidons are in the heat of battle. There are some creative flourishes like the celebratory horns of Troy or the playful cellos when Achilles and Patroclus are training. But the score is also littered with “Horner-isms” that have been heard in a lot of his other scores, particularly the ominous trumpet leitmotif for the Greek army. Overall, it’s not a bad score but one that could have been greater, had he more time to work at it. An addition to the music from the Director's Cut is the use of Danny Elfman’s theme for <em>Planet of the Apes </em>during the pivotal fight between Hector and Achilles. As someone who listens to a lot of film soundtracks, it is an odd decision to hear a familiar piece from a different film with a different composing style.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11400000/Hector-Andromache-hector-and-andromache-11440448-1920-800.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="342" />
The script by David Benioff is a broad and loose adaptation of Homer’s <em>Iliad</em>, and sometimes suffers from trying to take on aspects of the poem that wouldn’t work in a film. A lot of the dialogue is littered with straightforward exposition, sometimes repeating familiar themes and titles or stating what the audience can see or deduce for themselves. The attempt to include more Homeric speeches and mannerisms is also a mixed bag. Benioff and Petersen try to integrate the style of Homer into the dialogue but it often sounds a tad off from the weaker members of the cast. However, an elongated insult that worked best in Homer’s medium could be condensed on film to… unintentionally amusing results. Achilles’ angry “You sack of wine!” exclamation is one such example. Despite that, most of the characters get good development and leave an impression across the three hour running time, which fortuitously flows at a good pace despite that length.
The decision to focus on Achilles, as was the case in <em>The Iliad</em>, makes the film come dangerously close to lacking a strongly likable protagonist. For long stretches of time, Achilles is not very likeable at all because of his arrogance and vengeful behaviour, he is basically a mercenary in search of the one battle to make him a legend, only to find peace where he least expects to where he does soften up somewhat. Hector is very likable but is ultimately doomed before the whole story can conclude, Odysseus is off screen for a long time and the eloped couple don’t inspire any love from the audience. The decision to focus on the human element mostly works but there are some vague allusions to the presence of the gods. The scene with Thetis is the only scene that indicates the presence of gods and goddesses; she is presented walking in the shallow pool by the sea as a hint of her identity as a goddess of the sea. Achilles defaces the statue of Apollo and eventually loses his cousin, and ultimately cannot be with the woman he loves. So this leaves the possibility open that the gods are manipulating events unseen. The homosexual love between Achilles and Patroclus is sadly omitted in this film, and regardless on how you feel about such partnerships the relationship between these two men was one of the driving plot points for <em>The Iliad </em> and to water it down and alter their relationship to being cousins takes a lot of the dramatic punch out of the story.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-5671.jpg" />
There are noble heroes and incorrigible cowards on both sides, and the underlying tragedy comes from not only the destruction of the magnificent city but the fact that brave men are pitted against each other either in service of tyrants or doomed causes. Agamemnon fully buys into his deluded belief that he is unifying all of Greece underneath one banner, but there’s no doubt in any scene that he is a bloodthirsty warmonger and Troy is hardly a threat to the whole Aegean. Faith is also brought into question, as a reflection of the uncertainty of the early 2000s. The Trojan priests blindly worship the gods, and then thank them for all of their victories despite the efforts of the Trojan soldiers and this reaches a terrible conclusion in with the reveal of the infamous Trojan Horse. Both the priests and the soldiers were driven by abstract ideals into making decisions that cost a great many lives.
The element of fate and human flaws driving life-changing decisions is shown through. Every character ends up getting what they deserve, no more no less. Achilles wanted his name remembered and chased fame in spite of Agamemnon’s lack of honour. He got fame, but not without the price that came with it. Paris gave in to lust and desired a romantic escapade with Helen. He got what he asked for and the catastrophe that come with it. His name is effectively mud forever for inviting doom upon Troy and surviving while his brother fought and died valiantly. Hector, despite his moral character, still inadvertently contributed to the war coming to Troy. If he had done his duty, sailed back and returned Helen to Menelaus, then the war would not have happened. He killed Patroclus, though by accident, and thus faced retribution at the hands of Achilles. Odysseus designed a treacherous move against the Trojans, and paid ultimately for it for the next twenty years away from Ithaca.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-6275.jpg" />
Even at its best,<em> Troy</em> does feel like there is potential for a far more poetic and moving film than what we’re presented. Peterson’s direction, the cinematography, the costuming, and the effects are all to the standard that this epic story deserves, and the script itself is not too far from a truly great adaptation. Still, it is a good edition to the period piece epic genre and one I was pleased to enjoy. �m��
w z�������� �5
� 3�����
<img class="size-medium wp-image-136 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/troy_ver7-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Wolfgang Petersen</strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: David Benioff</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Wolfgang Petersen, Diana Rathbun, Colin Wilson</strong>
<strong>Studio: Shepperton Studios, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> The Iliad</em> by Homer</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 14th May, 2004</strong>
<em>Troy</em> is a film I’ve been aware of for many years, but seldom had enough interest to see for myself, despite my interest in history and Greek mythology. At the time, the removal of the more obvious fantastical elements annoyed me. Having finally seen the version most preferred by director Wolfgang Petersen, I ultimately deem this to be a well-made and fairly entertaining action film suffering from issues of protagonist likability and inconsistent writing.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://movies.homeofthenutty.com/albums/TroyDCPart1/Troy0714.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
In the late 12th century BC, Achilles (Brad Pitt) is the greatest champion of King Agamemnon (Brian Cox) of Mycenae during the Trojan War. Meanwhile, Prince Hector (Eric Bana) of Troy and his younger brother Paris (Orlando Bloom) negotiate a peace treaty with Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), King of Sparta and younger brother of Agamemnon. Paris, however, is having a secret love affair with Menelaus' wife, Queen Helen (Diane Kruger), and smuggles her aboard their homebound vessel, enraging Hector. Upon learning of this, Menelaus meets with Agamemnon and asks his help in taking Troy. Agamemnon agrees, since it will give him control of the Aegean Sea. On Nestor (John Shrapnel), King of Pylos' advice, Agamemnon has Odysseus (Sean Bean), King of Ithaca, persuade Achilles to join them. In Troy, King Priam (Peter O'Toole) is dismayed when Hector and Paris bring Helen, but welcomes her as a guest and decides against sending her home, since Paris will likely follow her and be killed, choosing instead to meet the Greeks in open battle. Achilles leads his Myrmidons to take the Trojan beach, along with his cousin Patroclus (Garett Hedlund), and seizes the Temple of Apollo and claims Briseis, priestess of Apollo and cousin to Hector.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-3658.jpg" />
Like many of the epics I have seen, this has a great cast but the performances vary. Pitt certainly looks the part of Achilles and commits his energy and physical prowess to the many action scenes, overall it’s a good performance but sometimes his accent wanders a bit. Bana is on top form as Hector; his manner and bearing convey a brave, seasoned warrior prince with strong convictions and love for his family and kingdom driving all his actions, and like Pitt he is as much a powerhouse actor in battle. Cox is suitably despicable as the scenery-chewing Agamemnon, and Gleeson brings out a truly savage, leery and unsavoury quality to Menelaus, and both are believable as brothers. The ever-dependable Bean is sublime casting as Odysseus, with his dry wit and down to earth persona. It’s a shame he never got to play the character again in a full adaptation of <em>The Odessey</em>. O’Toole is magnificent as the tragic King Priam, he has all the composure of a mythical king and his emotional expressions speak volumes; any one of his crying scenes is a moving sight to behold. Julie Christie appears in one scene as Thetis, mother of Achilles, and conveys the pain of a mother brave enough to allow her son to choose his fate even if it means ever seeing him again. Byrne has many bittersweet scenes as the world-weary and resilient Briseis, and Saffron Burrows as Andromache; both ladies are wonderful actresses and do their best with what they’re given. On the weaker side of things, Bloom and Kruger are both really bland as Paris and Helen respectively, yes she is very beautiful but lacking in personality or conviction, Bloom’s Paris has similar faults but does resemble Bana enough to pass for his younger brother and is admittedly saddled with a thankless and hated role. Hedlund is passable as Patroclus, but does come off as whiny and ineffectual at times. Other acting veterans such as Julian Glover as King Triopas, James Cosmo as General Glaucus of Troy and Nigel Terry as the Trojan priest Archeptolemus all turn in great supporting performances
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/b0/9a/93b09ab734d2d8a95aeb1af6354b9ad4--minoan-film-stills.jpg" alt="Image result for troy hd screencaps" width="736" height="306" />
The strongest aspect of the film is the action scenes, and to Petersen’s credit they are very well realized. Using real life tactics employed by the Ancient Greeks and framed in a manner that allows the viewer to feel immersed in the thick of battle. In this more violent cut, the stab wounds and bloody slashes hold serious weight to them. Importantly, the gore works because it’s not done out of gratuity but as a demonstration of the price of war. The main fight between Achilles and Hector has some incredible choreography and an element of suspense to it, even when you know what fate awaits Hector. When it comes to the sack of Troy itself, Petersen’s direction brings out the injustice and sheer awfulness of the destruction of this beautiful city and its citizens by the Greeks.
There is a certain visual correspondence in the depiction of the Trojan army in contrast to the various Greek armies. The Trojans are adorned in beautiful silvery armour and blue tunics and uniforms, Achilles is also seen dressed in blue and his armour, as well as that of the other Myrmidons, has more of a shine to it. By contrast, the majority of Greek characters and their armies have more of a muddy brown look to their armour and uniforms, Agamemnon himself looking far more of a barbarian than the ones that the Greeks themselves would have called “barbarian.”
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/d7/6f/48d76fec11ae434ddab98643f956a070.jpg" alt="Image result for troy screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The cinematography by Roger Pratt captures the colour, vibrancy and enormity of the city of Troy, as well as the epic scale and brutality of the battles. Like many modern period epics, CGI is used to help heighten the film’s scale and most of it is well integrated. Sometimes the CGI is sometimes easy to spot, such as the massive Greek fleet sailing towards Troy or the necessary enlarging of the Greek army for various sweeping shots, but it is allowable given the greater emphasis on physical actors and locations for the vast majority of the film.
The score by James Horner is solid doesn’t rank among my favourites of his. While the background music is serviceable, it really flourishes in the battle scenes, particularly the heroic leitmotif which appears when Achilles and the Myrmidons are in the heat of battle. There are some creative flourishes like the celebratory horns of Troy or the playful cellos when Achilles and Patroclus are training. But the score is also littered with “Horner-isms” that have been heard in a lot of his other scores, particularly the ominous trumpet leitmotif for the Greek army. Overall, it’s not a bad score but one that could have been greater, had he more time to work at it. An addition to the music from the Director's Cut is the use of Danny Elfman’s theme for <em>Planet of the Apes </em>during the pivotal fight between Hector and Achilles. As someone who listens to a lot of film soundtracks, it is an odd decision to hear a familiar piece from a different film with a different composing style.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11400000/Hector-Andromache-hector-and-andromache-11440448-1920-800.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="342" />
The script by David Benioff is a broad and loose adaptation of Homer’s <em>Iliad</em>, and sometimes suffers from trying to take on aspects of the poem that wouldn’t work in a film. A lot of the dialogue is littered with straightforward exposition, sometimes repeating familiar themes and titles or stating what the audience can see or deduce for themselves. The attempt to include more Homeric speeches and mannerisms is also a mixed bag. Benioff and Petersen try to integrate the style of Homer into the dialogue but it often sounds a tad off from the weaker members of the cast. However, an elongated insult that worked best in Homer’s medium could be condensed on film to… unintentionally amusing results. Achilles’ angry “You sack of wine!” exclamation is one such example. Despite that, most of the characters get good development and leave an impression across the three hour running time, which fortuitously flows at a good pace despite that length.
The decision to focus on Achilles, as was the case in <em>The Iliad</em>, makes the film come dangerously close to lacking a strongly likable protagonist. For long stretches of time, Achilles is not very likeable at all because of his arrogance and vengeful behaviour, he is basically a mercenary in search of the one battle to make him a legend, only to find peace where he least expects to where he does soften up somewhat. Hector is very likable but is ultimately doomed before the whole story can conclude, Odysseus is off screen for a long time and the eloped couple don’t inspire any love from the audience. The decision to focus on the human element mostly works but there are some vague allusions to the presence of the gods. The scene with Thetis is the only scene that indicates the presence of gods and goddesses; she is presented walking in the shallow pool by the sea as a hint of her identity as a goddess of the sea. Achilles defaces the statue of Apollo and eventually loses his cousin, and ultimately cannot be with the woman he loves. So this leaves the possibility open that the gods are manipulating events unseen. The homosexual love between Achilles and Patroclus is sadly omitted in this film, and regardless on how you feel about such partnerships the relationship between these two men was one of the driving plot points for <em>The Iliad </em> and to water it down and alter their relationship to being cousins takes a lot of the dramatic punch out of the story.
<img class="mfp-img" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-5671.jpg" />
There are noble heroes and incorrigible cowards on both sides, and the underlying tragedy comes from not only the destruction of the magnificent city but the fact that brave men are pitted against each other either in service of tyrants or doomed causes. Agamemnon fully buys into his deluded belief that he is unifying all of Greece underneath one banner, but there’s no doubt in any scene that he is a bloodthirsty warmonger and Troy is hardly a threat to the whole Aegean. Faith is also brought into question, as a reflection of the uncertainty of the early 2000s. The Trojan priests blindly worship the gods, and then thank them for all of their victories despite the efforts of the Trojan soldiers and this reaches a terrible conclusion in with the reveal of the infamous Trojan Horse. Both the priests and the soldiers were driven by abstract ideals into making decisions that cost a great many lives.
The element of fate and human flaws driving life-changing decisions is shown through. Every character ends up getting what they deserve, no more no less. Achilles wanted his name remembered and chased fame in spite of Agamemnon’s lack of honour. He got fame, but not without the price that came with it. Paris gave in to lust and desired a romantic escapade with Helen. He got what he asked for and the catastrophe that come with it. His name is effectively mud forever for inviting doom upon Troy and surviving while his brother fought and died valiantly. Hector, despite his moral character, still inadvertently contributed to the war coming to Troy. If he had done his duty, sailed back and returned Helen to Menelaus, then the war would not have happened. He killed Patroclus, though by accident, and thus faced retribution at the hands of Achilles. Odysseus designed a treacherous move against the Trojans, and paid ultimately for it for the next twenty years away from Ithaca.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/200/4-troy/full/troy-movie-screencaps.com-6275.jpg" />
Even at its best,<em> Troy</em> does feel like there is potential for a far more poetic and moving film than what we’re presented. Peterson’s direction, the cinematography, the costuming, and the effects are all to the standard that this epic story deserves, and the script itself is not too far from a truly great adaptation. Still, it is a good edition to the period piece epic genre and one I was pleased to enjoy. �5
b7�` {�������� �`3
� (`����<img class="size-medium wp-image-144 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/three_hundred_ver10_xlg-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Zack Snyder </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: , Kurt Johnstad, Michael B. Gordon</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Mark Canton, Bernie Goldmann, Gianni Nunnari, Jeffrey Silver,
</strong>
<strong>Studio: Legendary Pictures, Virtual Studios, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> 300</em> by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 9th March, 2007</strong>
Despite appearances, <em>300</em> is the sort of film that sells itself as a pretty mindless action film, delivers on that in spades, but manages to do so in a visually creative and surprisingly self-aware fashion without necessarily being “about more” like many films in this genre. It’s a deceptively simple concept that’s executed better than one would expect.
The story is framed as a tale recited by the Spartan soldier, Dilios (David Wenham), to a Spartan army. In 478 BC, messengers of the Persian Empire arrive at the gates of Sparta demanding “earth and water” as a token of submission to King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). King Leonidas I (Gerard Butler) responds my killing the messengers, effectively declaring war on Persia. He visits the Ephors, proposing a strategy to drive back the numerically superior Persians. The Ephors, having been bribed by messengers from Xerxes, consult the Oracle and decree that Sparta will not go to war during the Carneia Festival. Nevertheless, Leonidas gathers three hundred of his best soldiers in the guise of his personal bodyguard. At Thermopylae, Leonidas encounters the deformed Spartan Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), who despite his wishes is unable to fight in formation due to his deformity and has no choice but to leave embittered and angry. Using their superior fighting skills and the Hot Gates to their advantage, the Spartans repel wave after wave of the Persian army, meanwhile Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rouse the Spartans to aid their king and outmanoeuvre the schemes of the corrupt Spartan politician, Theron (Dominic West).
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wYpqhdIXMpk/U6YuoTemerI/AAAAAAAAAJw/BxQXrquMtuk/s1600/300-movie-screencaps_com-3133.jpg" alt="Image result for 300 screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The majority of the acting in this film is of the over the top variety. Butler practically devours the scenery as the epically loud, possibly mad Leonidas, but still delivers on the quieter and more subtle scenes. Headey is particularly strong and compelling as Gorgo, having a fiery determination that simmers beneath her elegance; in a film that’s very male dominated her performance allows her to stand toe to toe with the warriors and kings in this film. Santoro is imposing and charismatic as Xerxes, leaving a strong impression despite not having a lot of screen time. Wenham nails Dilios as the scarred storyteller and provides necessary narration to the film. Among the Spartan troops, Vincent Regan has a lot of emotional scenes as Captain Artemis, and Michael Fassbender appears as the wild yet skilled Stelios in one of his earliest major film roles, both give really good performances for basically being standard warrior side characters. West is a slimy and thoroughly detestable political figure as Theron, and Peter Mensah is memorable as the Persian messenger.
As one of the most noteworthy things people watch this film for, the action is beautifully shot, revelling in the primal Spartans on display, each individual frame looks like a Renaissance painting in motion with the combined gritty style of the graphic novel. The cinematography by Larry Fong is incredible, his visuals have great depth of field, contrast and an instantly recognizable dark and grim but still eye-catching colour palette, and this would define Fong as a master of stylized and gritty fictional worlds for many years to come. There’s no doubt that 300 is successful in being faithful to the aesthetic and panels of Frank Miller’s Spartan epic.
A combination of martial arts techniques were employed to make the action scenes more flowing and dynamic, in addition to the historic phalanx formation which is only used in the early stages of the battle. Obviously the Spartans did not walk into battle half naked and had bronze armour of their own, but the Persians really did wear little to no armour in addition to a simple uniform, and had highly inadequate weaponry and shields and mainly relied on overwhelming numbers. I mention this because despite the exaggerated imagery of the film, the very core of the concept of highly trained warriors against legions of barely trained slave-fighters is given greater emphasis.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AjqImSjaYiM/UEKlLKSQ3cI/AAAAAAAAC9o/35qXF_BwPNs/s1600/wb16.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="341" />
This is an example of filming on a green screen environment done well, rather than being photorealistic but the stylized and exaggerated aesthetic is very pleasing to the eye. What set work is present for the town of Sparta itself or other locations is fairly minimal but does its job well enough. The CGI backgrounds and landscapes still look pretty good, while the creatures are obviously digital creations but in a way that works within the context of this film. The CGI blood is gratuitous, often to the point of hilarity, and yet it goes with the tone. In not aiming to be photorealistic they’re able to get away with a lot more absurd and crazy imagery and sequences. The makeup on the Persian elite forces and Ephialtes is very hideous and monstrous, comparable to the work done by Weta Workshop. Its not the only time Snyder vaguely alludes to the fantasy films of Peter Jackson.
The score by Tyler Bates is a combination of heavy chorus singing, guitar music, percussive drums and heavy metal. This bizarre concoction works for the type of film that this is, and there are a number of striking cues such as ‘Returns a King’ when the choir swells to enormous proportions. This cue is closely based off one of the tracks from the film <em>Titus</em> by Eliot Goldenthal, and whether or not you feel this is copying another composer’s work too blatantly you can’t deny its impact.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://clawtv.cn396iwnnfhyi.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/youtu.be-UrIbxk7idYA-2.jpg" alt="Image result for 300 screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
It is historically authentic and bat-crap crazy at the same time, thanks to the framing device of Delios recounting and embellishing the story for his Spartan audience, explaining why the Persians and Ephialtes are portrayed as more monstrous than human. Other such liberties include the fact that Xerxes was not an androgynous giant, the Immortals were not deformed Samurai warriors, they didn’t use rhinos and elephants at Thermopylae, and Ephialtes was not a deformed hunchback. Miller and Snyder use the prologue to introduce the concept of the <em>agoge</em> and the brutal militaristic lifestyle of Spartans to weed out the weak and produce invulnerable warriors. Right off the bat, you see the kinds of cruelties inflicted on the Spartan boys to make them the kind of warriors we see in the film, but this is hardly a sympathetic city state. Had the balance been off and the film could have come across as a case of pitting one lesser evil against a much greater one, but we gain a connection to the Spartan warriors because of the very real human connections shared as brothers in arms, as fathers and sons and husbands and wives. The script is laden with the laconic sensibilities of the Spartans, as written down by both Frank Miller and Lynn Varley in the original graphic novel. It’s impressive that many quotable lines have emerged from this film.
Maybe it’s just me, but I found more allusions to <em>The Lord of the Rings</em> than anyone could simply write off as coincidence. Such examples include the presentation of Ephialtes as a skulking, treacherous Gollum-like character, several Persian monsters resembling Orcs and Uruk-Hai, and the depiction of wolves and elephants as more like Wargs and Oliphaunts from Middle-earth. Whether these are intentional similarities on Snyder’s part or not, it’s interesting to see how one expresses affection for one’s artistic influences in their own work.
Obviously the plot about a smaller, scrappier army going up against a host numbering many hundred thousand strong in defence of home, family, honour and freedom is a tale as old as the hills. But here it takes on a somewhat different form: the Spartans are presented as a culture with a religion and mythology, with Delios likening them to Hercules as a shared ancestor, but they don’t adhere to it in the same dogmatic and superstitious degree as the Persians who perceive Xerxes as a living god-king. Whether or not Xerxes thinks he really is a god-king, the image of divine power he projects and indeed how the Spartan audience perceive him his paramount so the theme of rationality versus superstition. The Ephors are presented as just as monstrous and deformed as the Persians, as relics from a bygone era of superstition and blind mysticism and worship of the gods. While none of these elements are brought up in great detail, they are lingering in the background of the story.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://urancientworldincinema.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/elephants.png" alt="Image result for 300 elephants" width="820" height="380" />
Ultimately, <em>300</em> is a film that’s able to succeed by eschewing pretentiousness. <em>Troy</em> and <em>Alexander</em> are more realistic looking films with a commendable level of historical accuracy, but both also aspire for greatness and because of that higher level of expectation, even with their best merits, they ultimately fall short of their intended marks. <em>300</em> by comparison is a case where a fairly simplistic story is given such a strong sense of visual and directing identity that its entertainment factor ends up outweighing its flaws or visual departures from historical fact. �`3���� |�������� ��
� ?� }<img class="size-medium wp-image-153 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Oliver Stone </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Oliver Stone, Christopher Kyle, Laeta Kalogridis</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Thomas Schühly, Jon Kilik, Iain Smith, Moritz Borman</strong>
<strong>Studio: Intermedia Films, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 24th November, 2004</strong>
Oliver Stone’s <em>Alexander</em> is a fascinating creature of a film; one that I have already a curious liking for yet one I cannot deny its many flaws. It’s a strange film that alternates between being a striking vision of Antiquity and a bizarre acid trip of excess and strange direction choices that makes <em>300</em> look tame by comparison. You can tell Oliver Stone poured all his heart and soul into the telling of Alexander’s story and sticking true to the history. For this review, I will look at the ‘Revisited’ cut; it’s the longest (therefore also the most challenging) but also one with perhaps the most to offer as a biopic and an epic recounting the life and exploits of one of history’s greatest conquerors.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.oliverstone.com/images/made/uploads/images/alexander-revisited_460_380_tl_2_tr_2_s_c1_center_top.png" alt="Image result for alexander revisited" width="460" height="380" />
In Alexandria, Egypt, 283 BC, Pharaoh Ptolemy I (Anthony Hopkins) recites his memoirs alongside Alexander to his scribe Cadmus, serving as the framing device for the film with Ptolemy as the narrator, alluding to other events off-screen while the film focuses on some of the key moments in the life of Alexander. In this edition, we are introduced to Alexander (Colin Farrell) in 331 BC just before the Battle of Gaugamela against King Darius III of the Persian Empire. Among his loyal generals are Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Antigonus (Ian Beattie), Cleitus (Gary Stretch), Parmenion (John Kavanagh), Philotas (Joseph Morgan), and the younger Ptolemy (Elliot Cowan). The battle commences, and despite the Persians’ overwhelming numbers, Alexander wins the day through superior tactics and claiming Babylon in the name of Macedonia. He confides with Hephaistion of his ambitions to travel to and conquer the far corners of the world.
Between these exploits, we see flashbacks<span style="font-size: 1rem;"> Alexander’s life as a young prince (Connor Paolo) and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and his tutor Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His already tenuous relationship with his father King Philip II (Val Kilmer) is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydice, the niece of Attalus. After the assassination of Philip, Eurydice’s claim to the throne is destroyed; Alexander becomes king and fulfils his father’s intended campaign to conquer Persia.</span>
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/21/Alexander-Gaugamela.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 screencaps" width="779" height="323" />
The acting has been a subject of debate and ridicule, with many of the key actors attracting criticism for their performances. I myself can enjoy such theatrical performances, having seen a number of Greek plays where this type of acting is commonplace. Farrell looks the part of Alexander and sportingly throws himself into the action scenes, and he does have a fair few scenes that show off his confidence and passionate leadership well, but not enough. Because Farrell has more of an everyman quality to him, he doesn’t nail the enormous charisma you think would be associated with a great leader of men. In other scenes he becomes like a character in a Greek play with over the top expressions and mood swings, the worst of which happen with Jolie’s Olympias. Speaking of which, Jolie is another strange casting as Olympias, overdoing her Albanian accent, eating up the scenery and being very unsettling and not in a fun way. Kilmer has some good scenes with both Alexander actors, and his Irish accent seemed to work well enough, but when he goes into over the top drunken rants it’s almost as bad as Jolie.
Leto gives an okay performance as the calm, as<span style="font-size: 1rem;">suaging Hephaistion to Farrell’s wildly passionate Alexander; however they don’t have enough chemistry to really believe that they’re lovers. Despite some good scenes in the first half, Hephaistion seldom has much screen time with Alexander in the second half and we mostly get longing stares between the couple. Hopkins provides a solemn, soothing narration to the film and conveys the memory of a man who has seen the world and is thinking of his youth with nostalgia. Rosario Dawson does a good job as the Bactrian princess, Roxana, holding her own despite having very limited screen time. Plummer gives a lot of worldly personality as Aristotle, having a great scene with the young Greeks who would follow Alexander. Cowan (w</span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">ho looks like he could reasonably pass for a young Anthony Hopkins), Kavanagh, Morgan and Stretch all function well as generals to Alexander, but sometimes go for theatrics like some of the A-listers. </span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Familiar faces appearing in surprising early roles include Toby Kebbell as Pausanias, the killer of Philip, Ian Beattie as General Antigonus, Rory McCann as Craterus the soldier. In brief but impressionable roles include Tim Piggot-Smith as the omen reader, and Brian Blessed is a welcome sight as young Alexander’s wrestling tutor.</span>
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-37ff4db61d9c33c804f9dd8d4ef68113" alt="Related image" width="727" height="302" />
This is a very well-polished film, on par with the likes of <em>Gladiator</em>, <em>Troy</em> and <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> for technical prowess. For the vast majority of the film, the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic. The hot orange colours of Gaugamela and vibrant colours of Babylon and Bactria capture the exotic look of the eastern countries. The pastoral hills and town of Pellas, Macedonia have a lush pastoral purity to them, and the verdant jungles and temples of India are beautifully shot with a greater level of contrast and colour. He excels in capturing the vastness and insanity of the battles. There is one area where the cinematography jumps the gun badly which I will highlight later.<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://sentsmemory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/babylon.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander babylon" width="776" height="319" />
The realization of the great Babylon through massive sets and CGI is stunning, and surprisingly much of it holds up. In fact, the locations, sets, art direction, sound design, and the overall splendour of its visuals almost make me want to recommend viewing <em>Alexander</em> on that level. A lot of work and detail has gone into the making of the weapons, armour and costumes ranging from the plainer togas and uniforms of the Macedonians to the and rich, opulent, colourful attire of the various eastern cultures. Admittedly, the makeup on Kilmer’s Philip and blond locks of Farrell’s Alexander do leave much to be desired. And the CGI eagle close-ups don’t look at all real, definitely a case of being too ambitious with the VFX.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Elephant.jpg" alt="Related image" width="762" height="316" />
The Battle of Gaugamela is an incredible achievement in historical battle filmmaking, Stone films as much of the vast Macedonian and Persian armies in-camera as possible, with impressive wide shots of the Macedonian phalanxes, Persian infantry battalions, Persian chariots and the cavalry on both sides. CGI is used to give a sense of scale of both armies, but is primarily used from a bird’s eye view and only when necessary. The fighting is filmed at close quarters and has a frenetic energy and character to it, emulating the chaos of ancient warfare. The action scenes are bloody and shocking to behold, but no less than one should expect considering this period of warfare. Comparing Gaugamela to Hydaspes in India, it’s clear how much worse and bloodier a battle it was as the Greeks find themselves further away from home. The elephants gave me goose-bumps they thundered into view and laid waste to the Greek phalanx, and we see soldiers tossed about, gored and crushed underfoot. I keep wondering “how did they do it?” with the use of very real and very dangerous elephants and hundreds of armed extras in such an enclosed environment. If nothing else, both of these battles deserve far more attention for their prowess of execution. There is no escaping the hellishness of war, and no glorification of its aftermath.
The score by Vangelis is one of his most overlooked and finest I have heard, with a versatile array of atmospheric ethnic instrumentations that invoke the ancient world. The score soars to heroic heights that rival Hans Zimmer’s score for <em>Gladiator</em> at the Battle of Gaugamela, and for the many softer scenes it shows a melancholic, soulful quality that sets it apart from other scores in this genre. The closing credits theme ‘Titans’ has a mythic, inspiring personality to it that fires up the imagination with images of battle and victory.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.californiaherps.com/films/filmimages/alexander3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie philip" width="760" height="319" />
The film operates on two timelines, one chronicling Alexander’s eastern conquests up until his death in Babylon, and another that follows Alexander from his youth to becoming king of Macedonia. The use of a stylized map of the ancient world, in addition to Ptolemy’s narration, is a useful tool to help the audience keep track of Alexander’s conquests. On a storytelling level, introducing Alexander through the Battle of Gaugamela is an effective hook and allows us to see the Macedonian conqueror at his prime as one would imagine him, before we see more of what he was as a prince. The tone subtly shifts from one of mythic and heroic character to a darker tone, stripped of the glorification of Alexander in the first act. Similarly, the battles become more bloody and hellish to reflect this gradual shift. The Revisited Cut plays up the idea that Darius arranged the assassination of Philip in the first act, giving legitimacy to Alexander’s invasion, and this idea of stripped away over time as a ruse created by Alexander to fire the Greeks up for war. The contrast of scenes allow for a greater contrast of where Alexander came from and how and why he met his end.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Darius.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie hd screencaps" width="762" height="316" />
However, this structure is not without its problems. Before the Battle of Gaugamela, we’re introduced to Alexander’s generals at a breakneck speed at a rushed pace, and only half of them are forgotten about as the film rolls on. This has a similar problem to <em>Troy</em> in attempting to integrate the Homeric hymns ascribing qualities to the generals that sound pretentious in English. The enemy armies at Gaugamela and Hydaspes are one-dimensional and ultimately function as basic obstacles, so you don’t really root for the Greeks to triumph as much as you would compare to the Spartans and the Persians in <em>300</em> or to understand the drama and sometimes shared heroism and ideals on both sides like in <em>Troy</em>. There just isn’t much personality given to the Persians, Bactrians or Indians.
Oddities are aplenty here, some work and others unsurprisingly don’t. The choice to give the Macedonian characters Irish accents, while strange at first, eventually ceased to bother me as it was an effective method of establishing differences between the more civilized Greeks with upper class English accents. Stranger examples that include the use of a lion’s roar overlaid over the cheering Macedonian army at Gaugamela, and the approaching elephants' footsteps literally make the earth tremble and they themselves sound more monster than animal. Whole sequences are filmed to show off dancing girls and various pleasures of the flesh; beautifully shot to be sure but pretty much exist for their own sake.
<img class=" wp-image-226 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Babylon-500x208.png" alt="" width="705" height="293" />
Then there are some flat out goofy scenes like Alexander and his men interacting with monkeys in India as though they were a tribe of their own, even Hopkins’ venerable narration can't save it. Strange edits, such as jarring alternating shots between characters and scene transitions such as the Battle of Hydaspes take even me out of the movie. The strangest of all is the Battle of Hydaspes in which the whole battle turns to a horrific magenta red netherworld of insanity when Bucephalus is killed in battle. Stone really should not have gone for this visual decision as it makes the battle more difficult to perceive and falls into melodrama. The writing between Alexander and Olympias is dripping with oedipal and Freudian scenes, and yes it’s as gross as you would expect, and the fact that Jolie hardly ages while Alexander lives into his thirties doesn’t help matters. In the many scenes where tempers flare and fight break out amongst the characters, helped with alcohol, this is where the film's melodrama really becomes its undoing. Tempers flare again when a ragged and exhausted Alexander is forced to quell a mutiny in his army, and it’s difficult to watch because of how needlessly over the top it is.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected problems with <em>Alexander </em>is Alexander himself for one key reason. What <em>Gladiator</em> had is a relatable, underdog hero like Russell Crowe’s Maximus. <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> had a stunning ensemble cast to compensate for the shortcomings in its main lead. The Alexander of <em>Alexander</em> is more like Joaquin Phoenix’s tortured Prince Commodus: a young man born into privilege and haunted by ruling class family dysfunction and neurosis, and most of the people he’s surrounded with don’t have the charm or likability to hold the film together. Most people just aren’t going to find as much to root for in this kind of character. Had Ptolemy been the main character and been a witness to the highs and lows of Alexander's career, maybe the film would have had more of a stable foundation from a main character standpoint.
<img class=" wp-image-227 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Eagle-500x210.png" alt="" width="702" height="295" />
There are three prominent animal symbols in the film. The eagle, which is a symbol of Zeus, is a frequent companion of Alexander’s conquests as an omen for victory, and is seen when Alexander first rides Bucephalus. Eagle heraldry appears in Babylon, and one last time an eagle hallucination appears just before he dies, as though Zeus himself had descended to take him. Snakes are another recurring motif, as extensions of Olympias’ sensualized treatment of her young son, just as a snake wraps its coils around its human bearer. They are symbols of the cult of Dionysus, whom Olympias was a part of. Living snakes and snake symbols are presented whenever Alexander feels vulnerability or sickness, and manifest as a hallucination of Olympias as a Gorgon. Roxana wears snake arm braces, establishing parallels between Alexander and Roxana and his parents, indicating a repetition of history. While it is very blatant, the image of the snake killing the eagle as it flies is an obvious indication that Olympias’ manipu��&52 }�������� ��
�
�����lations and toxic attitude ultimately killed her son. With hardly any dialogue, Alexander and his horse Bucephalus becomes a legitimate highlight of the film. Bucephalus also plays a similar role to these animal symbols, as a symbol of his virility, health and passion for conquest. When Bucephalus is killed in battle, Alexander’s resolve to conquer is destroyed as well.
<img class=" wp-image-228 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ptolemy-500x211.png" alt="" width="699" height="295" />
The life of Alexander echoes many of the Greek mythic heroes, and Stone seems to indicate that Alexander was the last of these men to rise and fall in such a fashion. The theme of mythology appears first as a series of speeches about heroes from Philip to young Alexander, but this becomes integral to the core of the film. We see Alexander atop Bucephalus charge a rampaging elephant, and the two animals rear on their hind legs and in an image that looks like something out of high fantasy. The way Stone shoots Alexander's triumphs in which there is something almost divine about them, the animal motifs, and the exotic locales seem even more wondrous to the audience. That's where it occurred to me; <em>Alexander</em> is about myth-making, and how myths are born and how the pursuit of greatness and eternal glory will always invoke a great cost. Using Ptolemy’s account as a framing device, as he struggles to reconcile Alexander’s towering legacy with the man he was in life, we understand why the film indulges in such theatrical excess – because it is an extension of Ptolemy’s mythmaking. That no matter his failings in life or the manner in which he died, Alexander still created left a legacy that endures more than any story so that he himself has become mythicized by history. Just as Achilles lived fast and died gloriously, so does Alexander.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tnoxNlxIQI/UfvOw63KYrI/AAAAAAAAJSo/TSwA09gNpWk/s1600/Alexander+3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 philip" width="615" height="393" />
While the Revisited cut of <em>Alexander</em> provided a better film than I dared to expect, it is hampered by many of the same flaws that plague the theatrical cut, namely its many bizarre apparitions of style, flawed writing and many excessively over the top performances. I don’t take any shame in saying it’s a better movie than the reputation that preceded it and that I enjoyed it enough to see it again and study it properly. While I don't expect my analysis of the film to go over well with everyone, I hope I have encouraged a few curious people to investigate for themselves. <em>Fortune favours the bold</em>. �⣭@S ~�������� ��b
� &���<img class="img-responsive aligncenter" title="Click to View Extra Large Poster Image for Jumanji" src="http://www.impawards.com/1995/posters/jumanji_ver1.jpg" alt="Jumanji Movie Poster" border="0" />
<em>Jumanji</em> is one of those family films that left a profound impact on me as a kid, largely due to the premise of a magical board game that unleashes wild animals and other jungle terrors into the real world. It was also down to the charisma of late leading man Robin Williams. As I return to it after the the release of the semi-sequel <em>Welcome to the Jungle</em>, I do notice its flaws, largely in the special effects and simplicity of the story. Yet, I feel the concept itself, a well-told message and the strong performances of our lead actors are solid enough that it holds up.
<img src="http://www.nerdediva.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/594971.jpg" width="1171" height="637" />
In 1969, a lonely and bullied boy named Alan Parrish (Adam Hann-Byrd) is drawn to the sound of drums coming from a buried supernatural board game that was buried underground a hundred years earlier. That night, Alan has a falling out with his father, Sam (Jonathan Hyde), for wanting to send him to boarding school to continue the family business without letting Alan have a say in the decision, and prepares to run away from home. However, his close friend Sarah Whittle (Laura Bell Bundy) hears the drum beat of the game and they both learn of its magical properties when she unleashes a swarm of bats and Alan gets sucked into the dark jungles of the game until the dice reads five or eight. Sarah runs away as the bats chase her through the night, leaving the game unfinished.
In 1995, two orphaned siblings named Judy (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter (Bradley Pierce) have moved into the abandoned Parrish house and discover the game in the attic whilst their aunt is out of town. After a couple of turns releasing three giant mosquitos and a gang of monkeys, Peter rolls a five and frees Alan (Williams) and a lion. Alan is shocked to learn that his disappearance caused his parents to die in sorrow and the closure of his father’s shoe factory made the town fall on hard times, learning too late that his father loved him greatly. In order to stop the inhabitants of Jumanji from destroying his town, Alan, Judy and Peter convince Sarah (Bonnie Hunt) to join them in finishing the game, surviving its many challenges, and undoing all the damage caused by it.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-7067.jpg" width="698" height="380" />
The acting from the adults walks the right balance of comedic and sincere, and the younger characters come across believably thanks to director Joe Johnston’s early experiences working alongside child actors. Williams balances a childlike sense of humour, as well as a more determined and emotional side from living in the jungle for twenty-six years yet you believe that he is essentially a boy in an adult's body, and is ultimately the reason why the film is so beloved and remembered. Hunt is enjoyably eccentric as Sarah, harboring a similar level of childishness from repressing her memories of the fateful discovery of the game, and has good chemistry with Williams. Dunst is both very subdued and amusing as Judy and Pierce, while not having as much to do as his co-stars, is likable as Peter. In the tradition of Peter Pan, Hyde plays Alan’s father with a stern authority, and the Jumanji hunter, Van Pelt, with almost psychopathic viciousness. Also providing humorous turns are David Alan Grier as Carl Bentley, a hapless police officer barely surviving some of the game's dark consequences, and Bebe Neuwirth as Aunt Nora, in similar situations. Lastly, Hann-Byrd is likeable enough as a younger Alan, but Bundy is just okay as the younger Sarah.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-3431.jpg" width="704" height="383" />
By now, most if not all of the CGI animals have not aged particularly well, as seen especially with the monkeys, but the animatronics used for the vines, spiders, crocodile and the lion still hold up pretty well. Though dated, the CGI is still very energetic and creative, and the argument could be made that the animals' more stylized and exaggerated appearances are deliberate, creating an uncanny valley effect. Ray Harryhausen himself often advocated against special effects looking too realistic to maintain that escapist and imaginative quality. The set for the vine-overrun house is incredible to look at and has a spooky atmosphere to it. Indeed, it does conjure up the sort of atmosphere a little kid would have when imagining a jungle in “Darkest Africa” with great use of fog and darkness. The jungle itself is never seen but Alan’s memories of it leave a strong impression that can fire one’s imagination as well as keeping the mystery of Jumanji intact. Thomas Ackerman's cinematography feels very much in line with the Amblin films produced by Steven Spielberg of the period. I like the sharp contrast in the time periods; in the 60s, the town is sunny and cheerful in an almost Rockwellian fashion, and in the 90s, the town is shown in the autumn filled with litter, closed-down shops, homeless people and graffiti, with the dilapidated factory driving home visually the depth of Alan's mistake.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-288.jpg" width="464" height="252" />
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-4177.jpg" width="473" height="257" />
One of the more understated elements is the score by James Horner. Aside from the ominous drum-beat that marks the presence of the game and the threat of the Jumanji encounters, the score brings out the sadness of Alan discovering that his home has gone downhill. The score builds up a sinister atmosphere and creates the sense that the game is somewhat sentient. The action cues range from similarly ominous and grand to more manic and playful with the appearances of the monkeys and the pelican. Even though the film isn’t very long, by the end you come away feeling you’ve gone through Alan’s adventure, and the happy ending feels very much earned.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-8021.jpg" width="680" height="370" />
Much of the humour is rather corny, ranging from slapstick to subtle aside glances, but the adult cast, especially Williams and Hunt, put their hearts into the script and makes it leap off the page. And yet mixed in with this variety of humour are some well realized emotional moments. The weight of Alan’s disappearance hits the audience hard because we see the consequences of his disappearance from his hometown of Brantford. The tone throughout the 1995 setting is very somber and reflective, underscoring Alan’s growth from lost child into a man. I found the idea of Hyde playing both Van Pelt and Sam Parrish a smart move, showing Alan to still be afraid of his father, and having to overcome that in order to grow into manhood.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-10788.jpg" width="706" height="384" />
The key character moments work well for the most part. We see Alan’s lack of courage, lack of self-esteem and his estrangement from his father. Some may feel that Alan’s falling out with his father over the boarding school is rather rushed, but with Sam’s focus on family status and tradition over his son’s well-being, it’s more understandable. Alan's growth from boy to man is aided by the presence of Peter, whom he starts to show more respect and understanding towards throughout the film. My only real complaint is that, because of Judy and Peter’s introverted personalities at the beginning, it does feel hard to get connected with them at first. While not a long film, the pacing does drag a bit before the siblings discover the game. When Alan comes out of the game and they meet up with Sara, the energy picks up and it becomes easier to feel invested in the characters.
Looking back at some early reviews when the film first came out, many critics claimed that the visual effects and vicious encounters diminished the story and would frighten younger audiences, ultimately rendering the message of facing one’s childhood traumas moot. However, I beg to differ. To highlight my emotional attachment to this film, I must get personal for a moment; a couple of years ago, this film really helped me in bonding with my father after many months of growing apart. My dad saw a lot of himself in Alan as a child, and we both loved the ending where he reconciles with his father, again seeing much of ourselves in the two characters.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-9098.jpg" width="731" height="398" />
Despite recent concerns that due to the very outdated CGI effects and comparatively restrained directorial sensibilities compared to modern blockbusters, I believe<em> Jumanji</em> works because children can be engaged by the idea of a magical board game, and later come back to find the more mature storytelling. Seeing it again recently with two younger viewers and seeing that it's three main attributes; the sense of adventure throughout, the blend of (admittedly family friendly) suspense and comedy, Robin Williams' subtle and heartfelt performance serving as the heart of the film helped it hold up in its own way. Ultimately, it succeeded at being what it was… a family film with a unique premise and hopefully a rewarding message. It deserves to be remembered well among Robin's better films. ��b�.� �������� �R
� &���<img class="img-responsive aligncenter" title="Click to View Extra Large Poster Image for Jumanji" src="http://www.impawards.com/1995/posters/jumanji_ver1.jpg" alt="Jumanji Movie Poster" border="0" />
<em>Jumanji</em> is one of those family films that left a profound impact on me as a kid, largely due to the premise of a magical board game that unleashes wild animals and other jungle terrors into the real world. It was also down to the charisma of late leading man Robin Williams. As I return to it after the the release of the semi-sequel <em>Welcome to the Jungle</em>, I do notice its flaws, largely in the special effects and simplicity of the story. Yet, I feel the concept itself, a well-told message and the strong performances of our lead actors are solid enough that it holds up.
<img src="http://www.nerdediva.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/594971.jpg" width="1171" height="637" />
In 1969, a lonely and bullied boy named Alan Parrish (Adam Hann-Byrd) is drawn to the sound of drums coming from a buried supernatural board game that was buried underground a hundred years earlier. That night, Alan has a falling out with his father, Sam (Jonathan Hyde), for wanting to send him to boarding school to continue the family business without letting Alan have a say in the decision, and prepares to run away from home. However, his close friend Sarah Whittle (Laura Bell Bundy) hears the drum beat of the game and they both learn of its magical properties when she unleashes a swarm of bats and Alan gets sucked into the dark jungles of the game until the dice reads five or eight. Sarah runs away as the bats chase her through the night, leaving the game unfinished.
In 1995, two orphaned siblings named Judy (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter (Bradley Pierce) have moved into the abandoned Parrish house and discover the game in the attic whilst their aunt is out of town. After a couple of turns releasing three giant mosquitos and a gang of monkeys, Peter rolls a five and frees Alan (Williams) and a lion. Alan is shocked to learn that his disappearance caused his parents to die in sorrow and the closure of his father’s shoe factory made the town fall on hard times, learning too late that his father loved him greatly. In order to stop the inhabitants of Jumanji from destroying his town, Alan, Judy and Peter convince Sarah (Bonnie Hunt) to join them in finishing the game, surviving its many challenges, and undoing all the damage caused by it.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-7067.jpg" width="698" height="380" />
The acting from the adults walks the right balance of comedic and sincere, and the younger characters come across believably thanks to director Joe Johnston’s early experiences working alongside child actors. Williams balances a childlike sense of humour, as well as a more determined and emotional side from living in the jungle for twenty-six years yet you believe that he is essentially a boy in an adult's body, and is ultimately the reason why the film is so beloved and remembered. Hunt is enjoyably eccentric as Sarah, harboring a similar level of childishness from repressing her memories of the fateful discovery of the game, and has good chemistry with Williams. Dunst is both very subdued and amusing as Judy and Pierce, while not having as much to do as his co-stars, is likable as Peter. In the tradition of Peter Pan, Hyde plays Alan’s father with a stern authority, and the Jumanji hunter, Van Pelt, with almost psychopathic viciousness. Also providing humorous turns are David Alan Grier as Carl Bentley, a hapless police officer barely surviving some of the game's dark consequences, and Bebe Neuwirth as Aunt Nora, in similar situations. Lastly, Hann-Byrd is likeable enough as a younger Alan, but Bundy is just okay as the younger Sarah.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-3431.jpg" width="704" height="383" />
By now, most if not all of the CGI animals have not aged particularly well, as seen especially with the monkeys, but the animatronics used for the vines, spiders, crocodile and the lion still hold up pretty well. Though dated, the CGI is still very energetic and creative, and the argument could be made that the animals' more stylized and exaggerated appearances are deliberate, creating an uncanny valley effect. Ray Harryhausen himself often advocated against special effects looking too realistic to maintain that escapist and imaginative quality. The set for the vine-overrun house is incredible to look at and has a spooky atmosphere to it. Indeed, it does conjure up the sort of atmosphere a little kid would have when imagining a jungle in “Darkest Africa” with great use of fog and darkness. The jungle itself is never seen but Alan’s memories of it leave a strong impression that can fire one’s imagination as well as keeping the mystery of Jumanji intact. Thomas Ackerman's cinematography feels very much in line with the Amblin films produced by Steven Spielberg of the period. I like the sharp contrast in the time periods; in the 60s, the town is sunny and cheerful in an almost Rockwellian fashion, and in the 90s, the town is shown in the autumn filled with litter, closed-down shops, homeless people and graffiti, with the dilapidated factory driving home visually the depth of Alan's mistake.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-288.jpg" width="464" height="252" />
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-4177.jpg" width="473" height="257" />
One of the more understated elements is the score by James Horner. Aside from the ominous drum-beat that marks the presence of the game and the threat of the Jumanji encounters, the score brings out the sadness of Alan discovering that his home has gone downhill. The score builds up a sinister atmosphere and creates the sense that the game is somewhat sentient. The action cues range from similarly ominous and grand to more manic and playful with the appearances of the monkeys and the pelican. Even though the film isn’t very long, by the end you come away feeling you’ve gone through Alan’s adventure, and the happy ending feels very much earned.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-8021.jpg" width="680" height="370" />
Much of the humour is rather corny, ranging from slapstick to subtle aside glances, but the adult cast, especially Williams and Hunt, put their hearts into the script and makes it leap off the page. And yet mixed in with this variety of humour are some well realized emotional moments. The weight of Alan’s disappearance hits the audience hard because we see the consequences of his disappearance from his hometown of Brantford. The tone throughout the 1995 setting is very somber and reflective, underscoring Alan’s growth from lost child into a man. I found the idea of Hyde playing both Van Pelt and Sam Parrish a smart move, showing Alan to still be afraid of his father, and having to overcome that in order to grow into manhood.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-10788.jpg" width="706" height="384" />
The key character moments work well for the most part. We see Alan’s lack of courage, lack of self-esteem and his estrangement from his father. Some may feel that Alan’s falling out with his father over the boarding school is rather rushed, but with Sam’s focus on family status and tradition over his son’s well-being, it’s more understandable. Alan's growth from boy to man is aided by the presence of Peter, whom he starts to show more respect and understanding towards throughout the film. My only real complaint is that, because of Judy and Peter’s introverted personalities at the beginning, it does feel hard to get connected with them at first. While not a long film, the pacing does drag a bit before the siblings discover the game. When Alan comes out of the game and they meet up with Sara, the energy picks up and it becomes easier to feel invested in the characters.
Looking back at some early reviews when the film first came out, many critics claimed that the visual effects and vicious encounters diminished the story and would frighten younger audiences, ultimately rendering the message of facing one’s childhood traumas moot. However, I beg to differ. To highlight my emotional attachment to this film, I must get personal for a moment; a couple of years ago, this film really helped me in bonding with my father after many months of growing apart. My dad saw a lot of himself in Alan as a child, and we both loved the ending where he reconciles with his father, again seeing much of ourselves in the two characters.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-9098.jpg" width="731" height="398" />
Despite recent concerns that due to the very outdated CGI effects and comparatively restrained directorial sensibilities compared to modern blockbusters, I believe<em> Jumanji</em> works because children can be engaged by the idea of a magical board game, and later come back to find the more mature storytelling. Seeing it again recently with two younger viewers and seeing that it's three main attributes; the sense of adventure throughout, the blend of (admittedly family friendly) suspense and comedy, Robin Williams' subtle and heartfelt performance serving as the heart of the film helped it hold up in its own way. Ultimately, it succeeded at being what it was… a family film with a unique premise and hopefully a rewarding message. It deserves to be remembered well among Robin's better films. �RXۂ ��������� �<
� )�����<img class="img-responsive aligncenter" title="Click to View Extra Large Poster Image for Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle" src="http://www.impawards.com/2017/posters/jumanji_welcome_to_the_jungle_ver5.jpg" alt="Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle Movie Poster" border="0" />
<em>Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</em> is probably one of the most vigorous examples of a "pleasant surprise" film-going experience in recent memory. What started out as a movie pegged by fans of the original <em>Jumanji</em> to be a shallow cash-grab and an insult, and hampered by some very aggravating trailers, not only turns out to be a good film and follow-up to the 1995 fantasy adventure film but far more successful than anyone expected it to be. While I am with the general consensus that it is a fun romp, feeling in part like a throwback to action adventure films of the 90s, I do feel that there were ways in which they could have shored up their connections to the original and other elements that would have also helped it stand on its own.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.the-heroes-universe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Young-Jumanji-Characters.jpg" alt="Related image" width="706" height="353" />
Four students in Brantford High School are placed in detention together: shy, geeky Spencer Gilpin, who is writing essays for his former jock friend, Anthony "Fridge" Johnson, while shallow, Instagram-obsessed Bethany Walker and antisocial wallflower Martha Kaply both disrespected their respective teachers during class. Assigned by the school's principal to clear out its basement, the four kids find the Jumanji game, now transformed from a board game into a five-player action-adventure console game. With one of the playable characters (video game avatars) inaccessible, the teens select the others, and are teleported into the game. They find themselves in a jungle, each now in the forms of their game avatars. Spencer is a tough, muscular explorer named Dr. Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson), Fridge is a short zoologist named Franklin "Mouse" Finbar (Kevin Hart), Martha is a gorgeous commando and martial art expert named Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan), and Bethany is an overweight, male cartographer named Professor Sheldon "Shelly" Oberon (Jack Black). They learn from Nigel (Rhys Darby), an NPC guide, that the big-game hunter, Russel Van Pelt (Bobby Cannavale), wants to obtain a jewel, the "Jaguar's Eye", allowing him to manipulate Jumanji's animals. To escape the game, the players must return it to an enormous jaguar statue and call out "Jumanji", all the while facing the various trials and tribulations the game has to offer.
<img src="http://cinemavine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-2.png" width="1366" height="563" />
If one bit of casting with the four main actors was off, I think it could have undone the film completely. The Rock acting shy and awkward without turning into a nerd stereotype is really funny and quite charming yet still having considerable presence and charisma. Hart is funny, but ultimately the weakest of the bunch because he’s really playing to his usual character role of a small person with a huge personality. Black is surprisingly convincing as a high school girl trapped in an overweight middle aged man’s body, and he makes Bethany’s arc of becoming less self-absorbed and more caring believable and even genuine. Gillan does well at portraying an awkward girl in an athletic body, handling herself very well in the action scenes, but really shines at being a bad flirt. Nick Jonas appears at the halfway point as a surprise character, and generally he does quite well (better than I expected, as not really a Jonas brother fan), acting like a teenager right out of the 90s. While he does have a cool and creepy look to him, Cannavale does what he can as a very one dimensional villain and mostly hams up the part for all its worth. Darby is funny as a one note NPC, repeating himself when asked abnormal questions in the same jocular tone. As the kids themselves in the real world, Morgan Turner, Alex Wolff and Madison Iseman appear to be of the right age for teenagers and act the part well enough, but Ser’Darius Blain just looks and sounds too old for the part, even if it serves in-game the juxtaposition later on. Marc Evan Jackson is fairly funny in a brief but somewhat expositional role as the school principal.
Although there are less of them compared to the first films, the CGI animals are pretty average looking, some looking better than others like the Hippo encounter and the Rhino stampede. At the same time, however, all of them certainly look better than, say, the CGI monkeys from the first film. The combination of CGI and solid production design on the exotic bazaar, temples and jungle monuments hold up better and make the world of the game something you could almost want to explore as a real video game, playing to those “Darkest Africa” tropes that the board game of the first film did. The action scenes and stunts are fun to watch, being filmed mostly in camera, but still allowing for a few larger than life sequences like a helicopter being chased by stampeding rhinos.
<img src="http://ilarge.lisimg.com/image/14771998/1118full-jumanji%3A-welcome-to-the-jungle-screenshot.jpg" />
It is a very pretty film, with vibrant greens and a warm tropical feel. However, the Hawaiian jungles to me don’t really strike me as scary in any way (unless it’s Spielberg directing those scenes); I think they could have picked a more exotic locale that could be seen as the same “deepest, darkest jungle” which Alan strongly hinted at in the first film. Weakened connections like that do make it feel more like a remake or another film entirely with the Jumanji name strapped on rather than a true sequel.
Henry Jackman is a very hit and miss composer for me, sometimes producing decent scores but other times not so much; fortunately, this is one of his stronger entrees; A full orchestral score with some stylistic debt owed to Alan Silvestri and Danny Elfman during the peak of their respective careers, its very percussive and brassy and in someways a more militaristic and bombastic follow-up to James Horner's emotional and exotic score from the original film. The iconic Jumanji drums do make a return, albeit with somewhat of a makeover, sounding perhaps more exciting and less ominous. Curiously enough parts of the main theme, which in of itself is quite memorable, hearkens back to the iconic "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" from <em>The Wizard of Oz</em>.
<img src="http://cinemavine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-1.png" width="1366" height="564" />
The film does struggle to find its footing at first with the main characters all being stereotypes; the jock, the nerd, the popular girl and the wallflower. All of which are played annoyingly straight at first with little depth to them. However, it does add to the juxtaposition of these high schoolers in vastly different bodies. Seeing these four actors play against the type, in lieu of a movie like <em>Freaky Friday</em>, is the most fun aspect of the film. The majority of jokes really land; two of the best had me laughing hard on repeated viewings. One that I really wish wasn't in the trailer: the exploding Kevin Hart cake gag, and the other was Karen Gillan’s amazingly awkward “flirting” attempts. They even make a penis joke not only funny but kind of clever as well, something I thought was impossible. The premise of a girl accidentally being stuck in a male avatar is not played cynically or cruelly, and the fact that they avoid that and Black himself is the most consistently fun actor of the bunch is impressive. Video game tropes played for jokes, like the aforementioned Nigel character as a deliberately one note NPC character, and a flashback being framed as a video game cut-scene. The tone of the comedy is more centred on teenagers and broader, but the film is more light-hearted overall than the original.
<img src="http://cinemavine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-5.png" width="1366" height="563" />
It’s interesting that the film plays more to the broad strokes of <em>The Wizard of Oz</em> in a similar vein to how the first film did to Peter Pan. Each of the characters comes into Jumanji flawed or in need of a lesson of some kind, and they come out of the game matured people. Basic stuff, sure, but it is there. The film sort of pushes a theme of the four kids having only “one life”, which is somewhat ironic at first as they have three lives in the Jumanji game, but it takes on a more sincere tone by the third act. There is a potentially great central theme in there but it’s just not as fleshed out as it could have been. I believe that more could have been done with this premise, what if for example there were some bullies who became characters in the game, or if Van Pelt's appearance was based on a criminal, abusive parent, or teacher? Something that could really scare one of the protagonists like the original Van Pelt did for Alan Parrish. To be honest, I’m still not sure why he’s called Van Pelt to begin with, the name could have been different and it would have given him more of an identity. The most he has going for him are his abilities and army of henchmen, so the psychology of the original Van Pelt is lost.
Even though the Jumanji board game does appear right at the beginning, hey fudge the exact details of the game ending up on a beach, even linking back to the original town in the first film. It's a small and easily overlooked detail. The setting is Alan Parrish’s hometown of Brantford, noticeably updated for the 2010s. They also homage Robin Williams’ character about halfway through the film to confirm that this is the same jungle that this character survived for 26 years in, its simple but effective and sweet in its execution.
<img src="https://static0.srcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Jumanji-Welcome-to-the-Jungle-cast.jpg" width="1274" height="637" />
<em>Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</em> is fairly entertaining, had a nice sense of fun and spectacle, and made me chuckle every now and again, exceeding my then-low expectations, mainly thanks to its four lead actors. But the weak villain and lack of tension is obvious, the humour did have its misses, and admittedly it does have enough heart to get by but not as much as the Robin Williams film. The best thing is the main cast and the action adventure throughout, and it delivers on that successfully. �<l|�� ��������� �^�
� �����<img class="aligncenter" src="https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/data/000/137/665/original/ATM_One_Sheet.jpg" width="353" height="523" />
Okay, let me get this off my chest right now: Ridley Scott is a goddamn bad-ass. To touch briefly on the Kevin Spacey situation that broke out in the latter half of last year, this film had to either sink or swim based on Scott's ability to reshoot all the crucial scenes with Spacey as J. Paul Getty with Christopher Plummer in the role. And all within less than a fortnight. That to me indicated that Scott and the people behind the film were committed to making this film work, and wash out the taste of . And was all that additional money and resources well spent? Is <em>All The Money in the World</em> worth that kind of last minute dash to the finish line, and where does it fit in Ridley Scott's pantheon of films? Fortunately, it succeeds as a strongly directed hostage thriller, mixed with a comparatively slight character study of Getty himself and his family, held up by phenomenal performances by Michelle Williams and Plummer.
In 1973, 16-year-old J. P. "Paul" Getty III (Charlie Plummer), grandson of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), is kidnapped in Rome by an organized crime ring. The kidnappers demand a ransom of $17 million from Paul's mother, Gail Harris (Michelle Williams). Through flashbacks we learn that Paul's parents are divorced and Gail rejected any alimony in exchange for full custody of her children in the divorce settlement, so she does not have the means to pay the ransom. She travels to Getty's estate to implore him to pay the ransom, but he publicly refuses, stating that it would encourage further kidnappings on his family members. The media picks up on the story, with many believing Gail to be rich herself and blaming her for the refusal to pay the ransom. Meanwhile, Getty asks Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg), a Getty Oil negotiator and former CIA operative, to investigate the case and secure Paul's release.
As the true protagonist of the film, Williams as Gail Harris is incredible, coming across as a believably frazzled yet tough and determined woman, willing to put her life on the line to get her son back, providing the film it's much needed heart in an otherwise cynical and fairly bleak film. Christopher Plummer in the now widely talked about role of J. Paul Getty is <em>perfect </em>casting. Not only does he resemble Getty in appearance and has a similar enough voice, the mannerisms are often uncanny at times, commanding your attention with sheer presence and slightly off-beat mannerisms. While not always a great actor, Wahlberg does very well here, with a role that lends itself to his relatively narrower set of acting skills, oftentimes overshadowed by Williams but certain revelations regarding his character (regarding his range of skills as a former operative) make his casting click that much more. As a relatively new actor, Charlie Plummer (<em>no</em> <em>relation</em> to the former) delivers a captivating performance as the kidnapped grandson, generating sympathy despite his characters' privileged background. Romain Duris as Cinquanta, one of the abductors, leaves a chilling impression whilst still showing believable humanity to his role as Getty III's sort-of caretaker and hiding his native French accent flawlessly. Of note is the fascinating captor-prisoner relationship formed between them that you easily believe thanks to their performances. In supporting roles, Marco Leonardi as Mammoliti, Cinquanta's boss is a standout among Getty III's kidnappers. Timothy Hutton as Getty's attorney provides a good, grounded performance, while Andrew Buchan depicts an average man gradually becoming increasingly debased and stunted as John Paul Getty Jr, Getty III's father.
The cinematography by Darius Wolszki is very strongly dark and desaturated, to the point of being grey and lifeless in Getty's main scenes. This particular aesthetic is probably pushed a tad too hard, even if it does serve a point. Not to say it's a constnatly ugly looking film; the way they frame the narrow, winding streets, or the wide Roman roads of the Italian cities towns at night are particular standouts, Rome is beautifully shot, and every camera move has a purpose and drive behind it. In almost every scene where Getty is featured in a sustained scene, he is steeped in luxury and riches, especially his vast English Tudor estate, decked with paintings, tapestries and suits of armour, dimly lit and shot expertly by Scott and Wolszki. It adds to the grand, almost kingly presence he's accrued for himself, leaves an indelible impression, much like the vast halls of Charles Foster Kane
Tension and suspense rides high during the many scenes with Getty III and the kidnappers, keeping you wondering just what they're going to do to him next and if he can indeed escape and reunite with his family. There are times when you wonder if there is hope for him, only for the rug to be pulled from underneath in crucial moments.
The score by Daniel Pemberton is very good, displaying solid, often exciting action cues, but thrives with the sinister, operatic (also making effective use of a choir) and grand musical cues in the presence of Getty and his vast displays of opulence, at times channeling the ominous themes of Commodus from Hans Zimmer's <em>Gladiator</em>, whilst also having a spring and energy to it.
The film’s narrative jumps around in time at the very beginning – in order to establish both how John Paul Getty made his fortune and how his grandson, John Paul Getty III, became an important part of his life – but unfolds in a linear fashion thereafter, zeroing in on the younger John Getty’s kidnapping. The pace is admittedly slow and unsteady at first, and the story itself felt rather dry and difficult to get invested. While it gives context to what we see later in the film, the narration in the first few scenes is a tad forced and doesn't really matter in the long run. By the second half, those flaws in the first half are largely rectified and it kicks into another gear.
In the last few years, we've seen major blockbusters undergo reshoots in (sometimes vain) attempts to change a movie almost from the ground up. This is without doubt an example of how reshoots should be done, making second runs at crucial scenes and seamlessly editing them together tightly and efficiently. However, flashback scene of Getty meeting in the Saudi desert contains rather a noticeable green-screen effect around the parts of the frame which Plummer has been spliced into. And the CGI touch-ups on Plummer to make him appear younger are exactly successful. Ultimately, given the expensive nature of the re-shoots, more so with the location shoot, this is forgivable as time and resources were constrained at around this time just before its release.
While it doesn't dive deeply into the corrosive and corrupting influence of vast wealth on the human psychology, it does display how miserable that existence is, steeped in grey and an almost complete lack of colour. It drives home how soulless this man is. In this case, Scott's chosen style is tied to the subtext of the film. Interestingly, the moments of bonding between Getty and his young grandson felt genuine, making Getty's refusal of the ransom (even with the calculated logic behind his refusal) even more unsettling. Similarly, the initial depiction of wealth and luxury from a viewpoint of a poorer family makes the transition into it's darker, grimier reality that much more powerful. This leaves Williams to carry the film for the most part, and showing a well disguised but never lost sense of faint optimism in the face of a dire situation.
Ultimately, <em>All The Money In The World</em> is a film that gradually grows on me over reflection. Taking aside the moving of Earth and Heaven to save the film from controversy, this is one of Ridley Scott's better films, thanks largely to an engaging and believable script, trademark cinematography and standout performances, and overcoming a handful of narrative and structural shortcomings. �^��穠 ��������� 逖
� >����<img class="aligncenter" src="https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/data/000/137/665/original/ATM_One_Sheet.jpg" width="353" height="523" />
Okay, let me get this off my chest right now: Ridley Scott is a goddamn bad-ass. To touch briefly on the Kevin Spacey situation that broke out in the latter half of last year, this film had to either sink or swim based on Scott's ability to reshoot all the crucial scenes with Spacey as J. Paul Getty with Christopher Plummer in the role. And all within less than a fortnight. That to me indicated that Scott and the people behind the film were committed to making this film work, and wash out the taste of . And was all that additional money and resources well spent? Is <em>All The Money in the World</em> worth that kind of last minute dash to the finish line, and where does it fit in Ridley Scott's pantheon of films? Fortunately, it succeeds well
In 1973, 16-year-old J. P. "Paul" Getty III (Charlie Plummer), grandson of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), is kidnapped in Rome by an organized crime ring. The kidnappers demand a ransom of $17 million from Paul's mother, Gail Harris (Michelle Williams). Through flashbacks we learn that Paul's parents are divorced and Gail rejected any alimony in exchange for full custody of her children in the divorce settlement, so she does not have the means to pay the ransom. She travels to Getty's estate to implore him to pay the ransom, but he publicly refuses, stating that it would encourage further kidnappings on his family members. The media picks up on the story, with many believing Gail to be rich herself and blaming her for the refusal to pay the ransom. Meanwhile, Getty asks Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg), a Getty Oil negotiator and former CIA operative, to investigate the case and secure Paul's release.
As the true protagonist of the film, Williams as Gail Harris is incredible, coming across as a believably frazzled yet tough and determined woman, willing to put her life on the line to get her son back, providing the film it's much needed heart in an otherwise cynical and fairly bleak film. Christopher Plummer in the now widely talked about role of J. Paul Getty is <em>perfect </em>casting. Not only does he resemble Getty in appearance and has a similar enough voice, the mannerisms are often uncanny at times, commanding your attention with sheer presence and slightly off-beat mannerisms. While not always a great actor, Wahlberg does very well here, with a role that lends itself to his relatively narrower set of acting skills, oftentimes overshadowed by Williams but certain revelations regarding his character (regarding his range of skills as a former operative) make his casting click that much more. As a relatively new actor, Charlie Plummer (<em>no</em> <em>relation</em> to the former) delivers a captivating performance as the kidnapped grandson, generating sympathy despite his characters' privileged background. Romain Duris as Cinquanta, one of the abductors, leaves a chilling impression whilst still showing believable humanity to his role as Getty III's sort-of caretaker and hiding his native French accent flawlessly. Of note is the fascinating captor-prisoner relationship formed between them that you easily believe thanks to their performances. In supporting roles, Marco Leonardi as Mammoliti, Cinquanta's boss is a standout among Getty III's kidnappers. Timothy Hutton as Getty's attorney provides a good, grounded performance, while Andrew Buchan depicts an average man gradually becoming increasingly debased and stunted as John Paul Getty Jr, Getty III's father.
The cinematography by Darius Wolszki is very strongly dark and desaturated, to the point of being grey and lifeless in Getty's main scenes. This particular aesthetic is probably pushed a tad too hard, even if it does serve a point. Not to say it's a constnatly ugly looking film; the way they frame the narrow, winding streets, or the wide Roman roads of the Italian cities towns at night are particular standouts, Rome is beautifully shot, and every camera move has a purpose and drive behind it. In almost every scene where Getty is featured in a sustained scene, he is steeped in luxury and riches, especially his vast English Tudor estate, decked with paintings, tapestries and suits of armour, dimly lit and shot expertly by Scott and Wolszki. It adds to the grand, almost kingly presence he's accrued for himself, leaves an indelible impression, much like the vast halls of Charles Foster Kane
Tension and suspense rides high during the many scenes with Getty III and the kidnappers, keeping you wondering just what they're going to do to him next and if he can indeed escape and reunite with his family. There are times when you wonder if there is hope for him, only for the rug to be pulled from underneath in crucial moments.
The score by Daniel Pemberton is very good, displaying solid, often exciting action cues, but thrives with the sinister, operatic (also making effective use of a choir) and grand musical cues in the presence of Getty and his vast displays of opulence, at times channeling the ominous themes of Commodus from Hans Zimmer's <em>Gladiator</em>, whilst also having a spring and energy to it.
The film’s narrative jumps around in time at the very beginning – in order to establish both how John Paul Getty made his fortune and how his grandson, John Paul Getty III, became an important part of his life – but unfolds in a linear fashion thereafter, zeroing in on the younger John Getty’s kidnapping. The pace is admittedly slow and unsteady at first, and the story itself felt rather dry and difficult to get invested. While it gives context to what we see later in the film, the narration in the first few scenes is a tad forced and doesn't really matter in the long run. By the second half, those flaws in the first half are largely rectified and it kicks into another gear.
In the last few years, we've seen major blockbusters undergo reshoots in (sometimes vain) attempts to change a movie almost from the ground up. This is without doubt an example of how reshoots should be done, making second runs at crucial scenes and seamlessly editing them together tightly and efficiently. However, flashback scene of Getty meeting in the Saudi desert contains rather a noticeable green-screen effect around the parts of the frame which Plummer has been spliced into. And the CGI touch-ups on Plummer to make him appear younger are exactly successful. Ultimately, given the expensive nature of the re-shoots, more so with the location shoot, this is forgivable as time and resources were constrained at around this time just before its release.
While it doesn't dive deeply into the corrosive and corrupting influence of vast wealth on the human psychology, it does display how miserable that existence is, steeped in grey and an almost complete lack of colour. It drives home how soulless this man is. In this case, Scott's chosen style is tied to the subtext of the film. Interestingly, the moments of bonding between Getty and his young grandson felt genuine, making Getty's refusal of the ransom (even with the calculated logic behind his refusal) even more unsettling. Similarly, the initial depiction of wealth and luxury from a viewpoint of a poorer family makes the transition into it's darker, grimier reality that much more powerful. This leaves Williams to carry the film for the most part, and showing a well disguised but never lost sense of faint optimism in the face of a dire situation.
Ultimately, <em>All The Money In The World</em> is a film that gradually grows on me over reflection. Taking aside the moving of Earth and Heaven to save the film from controversy, this is one of Ridley Scott's better films, thanks largely to an engaging and believable script, trademark cinematography and standout performances, and overcoming a handful of narrative and structural shortcomings. 逖 uXM ��������� �"
� ���<img class="aligncenter" src="https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/data/000/137/665/original/ATM_One_Sheet.jpg" width="353" height="523" />
Okay, let me get this off my chest right now: Ridley Scott is a goddamn bad-ass. To touch briefly on the Kevin Spacey situation that broke out in the latter half of last year, this film had to either sink or swim based on Scott's ability to reshoot all the crucial scenes with Spacey as J. Paul Getty with Christopher Plummer in the role. And all within less than a fortnight. That to me indicated that Scott and the people behind the film were committed to making this film work, and wash out the taste of . And was all that additional money and resources well spent? Is <em>All The Money in the World</em> worth that kind of last minute dash to the finish line, and where does it fit in Ridley Scott's pantheon of films? Fortunately, it succeeds as a strongly directed hostage thriller, mixed with a comparatively slight character study of Getty himself and his family, held up by phenomenal performances by Michelle Williams and Plummer.
In 1973, 16-year-old J. P. "Paul" Getty III (Charlie Plummer), grandson of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), is kidnapped in Rome by an organized crime ring. The kidnappers demand a ransom of $17 million from Paul's mother, Gail Harris (Michelle Williams). Through flashbacks we learn that Paul's parents are divorced and Gail rejected any alimony in exchange for full custody of her children in the divorce settlement, so she does not have the means to pay the ransom. She travels to Getty's estate to implore him to pay the ransom, but he publicly refuses, stating that it would encourage further kidnappings on his family members. The media picks up on the story, with many believing Gail to be rich herself and blaming her for the refusal to pay the ransom. Meanwhile, Getty asks Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg), a Getty Oil negotiator and former CIA operative, to investigate the case and secure Paul's release.
As the true protagonist of the film, Williams as Gail Harris is incredible, coming across as a believably frazzled yet tough and determined woman, willing to put her life on the line to get her son back, providing the film it's much needed heart in an otherwise cynical and fairly bleak film. Christopher Plummer in the now widely talked about role of J. Paul Getty is <em>perfect </em>casting. Not only does he resemble Getty in appearance and has a similar enough voice, the mannerisms are often uncanny at times, commanding your attention with sheer presence and slightly off-beat mannerisms. While not always a great actor, Wahlberg does very well here, with a role that lends itself to his relatively narrower set of acting skills, oftentimes overshadowed by Williams but certain revelations regarding his character (regarding his range of skills as a former operative) make his casting click that much more. As a relatively new actor, Charlie Plummer (<em>no</em> <em>relation</em> to the former) delivers a captivating performance as the kidnapped grandson, generating sympathy despite his characters' privileged background. Romain Duris as Cinquanta, one of the abductors, leaves a chilling impression whilst still showing believable humanity to his role as Getty III's sort-of caretaker and hiding his native French accent flawlessly. Of note is the fascinating captor-prisoner relationship formed between them that you easily believe thanks to their performances. In supporting roles, Marco Leonardi as Mammoliti, Cinquanta's boss is a standout among Getty III's kidnappers. Timothy Hutton as Getty's attorney provides a good, grounded performance, while Andrew Buchan depicts an average man gradually becoming increasingly debased and stunted as John Paul Getty Jr, Getty III's father.
The cinematography by Darius Wolszki is very strongly dark and desaturated, to the point of being grey and lifeless in Getty's main scenes. This particular aesthetic is probably pushed a tad too hard, even if it does serve a point. Not to say it's a constnatly ugly looking film; the way they frame the narrow, winding streets, or the wide Roman roads of the Italian cities towns at night are particular standouts, Rome is beautifully shot, and every camera move has a purpose and drive behind it. In almost every scene where Getty is featured in a sustained scene, he is steeped in luxury and riches, especially his vast English Tudor estate, decked with paintings, tapestries and suits of armour, dimly lit and shot expertly by Scott and Wolszki. It adds to the grand, almost kingly presence he's accrued for himself, leaves an indelible impression, much like the vast halls of Charles Foster Kane
Tension and suspense rides high during the many scenes with Getty III and the kidnappers, keeping you wondering just what they're going to do to him next and if he can indeed escape and reunite with his family. There are times when you wonder if there is hope for him, only for the rug to be pulled from underneath in crucial moments.
The score by Daniel Pemberton is very good, displaying solid, often exciting action cues, but thrives with the sinister, operatic (also making effective use of a choir) and grand musical cues in the presence of Getty and his vast displays of opulence, at times channeling the ominous themes of Commodus from Hans Zimmer's <em>Gladiator</em>, whilst also having a spring and energy to it.
The film’s narrative jumps around in time at the very beginning – in order to establish both how John Paul Getty made his fortune and how his grandson, John Paul Getty III, became an important part of his life – but unfolds in a linear fashion thereafter, zeroing in on the younger John Getty’s kidnapping. The pace is admittedly slow and unsteady at first, and the story itself felt rather dry and difficult to get invested. While it gives context to what we see later in the film, the narration in the first few scenes is a tad forced and doesn't really matter in the long run. By the second half, those flaws in the first half are largely rectified and it kicks into another gear.
In the last few years, we've seen major blockbusters undergo reshoots in (sometimes vain) attempts to change a movie almost from the ground up. This is without doubt an example of how reshoots should be done, making second runs at crucial scenes and seamlessly editing them together tightly and efficiently. However, flashback scene of Getty meeting in the Saudi desert contains rather a noticeable green-screen effect around the parts of the frame which Plummer has been spliced into. And the CGI touch-ups on Plummer to make him appear younger are exactly successful. Ultimately, given the expensive nature of the re-shoots, more so with the location shoot, this is forgivable as time and resources were constrained at around this time just before its release.
While it doesn't dive deeply into the corrosive and corrupting influence of vast wealth on the human psychology, it does display how miserable that existence is, steeped in grey and an almost complete lack of colour. It drives home how soulless this man is. In this case, Scott's chosen style is tied to the subtext of the film. Interestingly, the moments of bonding between Getty and his young grandson felt genuine, making Getty's refusal of the ransom (even with the calculated logic behind his refusal) even more unsettling. Similarly, the initial depiction of wealth and luxury from a viewpoint of a poorer family makes the transition into it's darker, grimier reality that much more powerful. This leaves Williams to carry the film for the most part, and showing a well disguised but never lost sense of faint optimism in the face of a dire situation.
Ultimately, <em>All The Money In The World</em> is a film that gradually grows on me over reflection. Taking aside the moving of Earth and Heaven to save the film from controversy, this is one of Ridley Scott's better films, thanks largely to an engaging and believable script, trademark cinematography and standout performances, and overcoming a handful of narrative and structural shortcomings. �"��H� ��������� ��t
� �����<img class="aligncenter" src="https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/data/000/137/665/original/ATM_One_Sheet.jpg" width="353" height="523" />
Okay, let me get this off my chest right now: Ridley Scott is a goddamn bad-ass. To touch briefly on the Kevin Spacey situation that broke out in the latter half of last year, this film had to either sink or swim based on Scott's ability to reshoot all the crucial scenes with Spacey as J. Paul Getty with Christopher Plummer in the role. And all within less than a fortnight. That to me indicated that Scott and the people behind the film were committed to making this film work, and wash out the taste of . And was all that additional money and resources well spent? Is <em>All The Money in the World</em> worth that kind of last minute dash to the finish line, and where does it fit in Ridley Scott's pantheon of films? Fortunately, it succeeds as a strongly directed hostage thriller, mixed with a comparatively slight character study of Getty himself and his family.
In 1973, 16-year-old J. P. "Paul" Getty III (Charlie Plummer), grandson of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), is kidnapped in Rome by an organized crime ring. The kidnappers demand a ransom of $17 million from Paul's mother, Gail Harris (Michelle Williams). Through flashbacks we learn that Paul's parents are divorced and Gail rejected any alimony in exchange for full custody of her children in the divorce settlement, so she does not have the means to pay the ransom. She travels to Getty's estate to implore him to pay the ransom, but he publicly refuses, stating that it would encourage further kidnappings on his family members. The media picks up on the story, with many believing Gail to be rich herself and blaming her for the refusal to pay the ransom. Meanwhile, Getty asks Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg), a Getty Oil negotiator and former CIA operative, to investigate the case and secure Paul's release.
As the true protagonist of the film, Williams as Gail Harris is incredible, coming across as a believably frazzled yet tough and determined woman, willing to put her life on the line to get her son back, providing the film it's much needed heart in an otherwise cynical and fairly bleak film. Christopher Plummer in the now widely talked about role of J. Paul Getty is <em>perfect </em>casting. Not only does he resemble Getty in appearance and has a similar enough voice, the mannerisms are often uncanny at times, commanding your attention with sheer presence and slightly off-beat mannerisms. While not always a great actor, Wahlberg does very well here, with a role that lends itself to his relatively narrower set of acting skills, oftentimes overshadowed by Williams but certain revelations regarding his character (regarding his range of skills as a former operative) make his casting click that much more. As a relatively new actor, Charlie Plummer (<em>no</em> <em>relation</em> to the former) delivers a captivating performance as the kidnapped grandson, generating sympathy despite his characters' privileged background. Romain Duris as Cinquanta, one of the abductors, leaves a chilling impression whilst still showing believable humanity to his role as Getty III's sort-of caretaker and hiding his native French accent flawlessly. Of note is the fascinating captor-prisoner relationship formed between them that you easily believe thanks to their performances. In supporting roles, Marco Leonardi as Mammoliti, Cinquanta's boss is a standout among Getty III's kidnappers. Timothy Hutton as Getty's attorney provides a good, grounded performance, while Andrew Buchan depicts an average man gradually becoming increasingly debased and stunted as John Paul Getty Jr, Getty III's father.
The cinematography by Darius Wolszki is very strongly dark and desaturated, to the point of being grey and lifeless in Getty's main scenes. This particular aesthetic is probably pushed a tad too hard, even if it does serve a point. Not to say it's a constnatly ugly looking film; the way they frame the narrow, winding streets, or the wide Roman roads of the Italian cities towns at night are particular standouts, Rome is beautifully shot, and every camera move has a purpose and drive behind it. In almost every scene where Getty is featured in a sustained scene, he is steeped in luxury and riches, especially his vast English Tudor estate, decked with paintings, tapestries and suits of armour, dimly lit and shot expertly by Scott and Wolszki. It adds to the grand, almost kingly presence he's accrued for himself, leaves an indelible impression, much like the vast halls of Charles Foster Kane
Tension and suspense rides high during the many scenes with Getty III and the kidnappers, keeping you wondering just what they're going to do to him next and if he can indeed escape and reunite with his family. There are times when you wonder if there is hope for him, only for the rug to be pulled from underneath in crucial moments.
The score by Daniel Pemberton is very good, displaying solid, often exciting action cues, but thrives with the sinister, operatic (also making effective use of a choir) and grand musical cues in the presence of Getty and his vast displays of opulence, at times channeling the ominous themes of Commodus from Hans Zimmer's <em>Gladiator</em>, whilst also having a spring and energy to it.
The film’s narrative jumps around in time at the very beginning – in order to establish both how John Paul Getty made his fortune and how his grandson, John Paul Getty III, became an important part of his life – but unfolds in a linear fashion thereafter, zeroing in on the younger John Getty’s kidnapping. The pace is admittedly slow and unsteady at first, and the story itself felt rather dry and difficult to get invested. While it gives context to what we see later in the film, the narration in the first few scenes is a tad forced and doesn't really matter in the long run. By the second half, those flaws in the first half are largely rectified and it kicks into another gear.
In the last few years, we've seen major blockbusters undergo reshoots in (sometimes vain) attempts to change a movie almost from the ground up. This is without doubt an example of how reshoots should be done, making second runs at crucial scenes and seamlessly editing them together tightly and efficiently. However, flashback scene of Getty meeting in the Saudi desert contains rather a noticeable green-screen effect around the parts of the frame which Plummer has been spliced into. And the CGI touch-ups on Plummer to make him appear younger are exactly successful. Ultimately, given the expensive nature of the re-shoots, more so with the location shoot, this is forgivable as time and resources were constrained at around this time just before its release.
While it doesn't dive deeply into the corrosive and corrupting influence of vast wealth on the human psychology, it does display how miserable that existence is, steeped in grey and an almost complete lack of colour. It drives home how soulless this man is. In this case, Scott's chosen style is tied to the subtext of the film. Interestingly, the moments of bonding between Getty and his young grandson felt genuine, making Getty's refusal of the ransom (even with the calculated logic behind his refusal) even more unsettling. Similarly, the initial depiction of wealth and luxury from a viewpoint of a poorer family makes the transition into it's darker, grimier reality that much more powerful. This leaves Williams to carry the film for the most part, and showing a well disguised but never lost sense of faint optimism in the face of a dire situation.
Ultimately, <em>All The Money In The World</em> is a film that gradually grows on me over reflection. Taking aside the moving of Earth and Heaven to save the film from controversy, this is one of Ridley Scott's better films, thanks largely to an engaging and believable script, trademark cinematography and standout performances, and overcoming a handful of narrative and structural shortcomings. ��t�4~~ ��������� ��
� �����<img class="aligncenter" src="https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/data/000/137/665/original/ATM_One_Sheet.jpg" width="353" height="523" />
Okay, let me get this off my chest right now: Ridley Scott is a goddamn bad-ass. To touch briefly on the Kevin Spacey situation that broke out in the latter half of last year, this film had to either sink or swim based on Scott's ability to reshoot all the crucial scenes with Spacey as J. Paul Getty with Christopher Plummer in the role. And all within less than a fortnight. That to me indicated that Scott and the people behind the film were committed to making this film work, and wash out the taste of . And was all that additional money and resources well spent? Is <em>All The Money in the World</em> worth that kind of last minute dash to the finish line, and where does it fit in Ridley Scott's pantheon of films? Fortunately, it succeeds as a strongly directed hostage thriller, mixed with a comparatively slight character study of Getty himself and his family, held up by phenomenal performances by Michelle Williams and Plummer.
In 1973, 16-year-old J. P. "Paul" Getty III (Charlie Plummer), grandson of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), is kidnapped in Rome by an organized crime ring. The kidnappers demand a ransom of $17 million from Paul's mother, Gail Harris (Michelle Williams). Through flashbacks we learn that Paul's parents are divorced and Gail rejected any alimony in exchange for full custody of her children in the divorce settlement, so she does not have the means to pay the ransom. She travels to Getty's estate to implore him to pay the ransom, but he publicly refuses, stating that it would encourage further kidnappings on his family members. The media picks up on the story, with many believing Gail to be rich herself and blaming her for the refusal to pay the ransom. Meanwhile, Getty asks Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg), a Getty Oil negotiator and former CIA operative, to investigate the case and secure Paul's release.
As the true protagonist of the film, Williams as Gail Harris is incredible, coming across as a believably frazzled yet tough and determined woman, willing to put her life on the line to get her son back, providing the film it's much needed heart in an otherwise cynical and fairly bleak film. Christopher Plummer in the now widely talked about role of J. Paul Getty is <em>perfect </em>casting. Not only does he resemble Getty in appearance and has a similar enough voice, the mannerisms are often uncanny at times, commanding your attention with sheer presence and slightly off-beat mannerisms. While not always a great actor, Wahlberg does very well here, with a role that lends itself to his relatively narrower set of acting skills, oftentimes overshadowed by Williams but certain revelations regarding his character (regarding his range of skills as a former operative) make his casting click that much more. As a relatively new actor, Charlie Plummer (<em>no</em> <em>relation</em> to the former) delivers a captivating performance as the kidnapped grandson, generating sympathy despite his characters' privileged background. Romain Duris as Cinquanta, one of the abductors, leaves a chilling impression whilst still showing believable humanity to his role as Getty III's sort-of caretaker and hiding his native French accent flawlessly. Of note is the fascinating captor-prisoner relationship formed between them that you easily believe thanks to their performances. In supporting roles, Marco Leonardi as Mammoliti, Cinquanta's boss is a standout among Getty III's kidnappers. Timothy Hutton as Getty's attorney provides a good, grounded performance, while Andrew Buchan depicts an average man gradually becoming increasingly debased and stunted as John Paul Getty Jr, Getty III's father.
The cinematography by Darius Wolszki is very strongly dark and desaturated, to the point of being grey and lifeless in Getty's main scenes. This particular aesthetic is probably pushed a tad too hard, even if it does serve a point. Not to say it's a constnatly ugly looking film; the way they frame the narrow, winding streets, or the wide Roman roads of the Italian cities towns at night are particular standouts, Rome is beautifully shot, and every camera move has a purpose and drive behind it. In almost every scene where Getty is featured in a sustained scene, he is steeped in luxury and riches, especially his vast English Tudor estate, decked with paintings, tapestries and suits of armour, dimly lit and shot expertly by Scott and Wolszki. It adds to the grand, almost kingly presence he's accrued for himself, leaves an indelible impression, much like the vast halls of Charles Foster Kane
Tension and suspense rides high during the many scenes with Getty III and the kidnappers, keeping you wondering just what they're going to do to him next and if he can indeed escape and reunite with his family. There are times when you wonder if there is hope for him, only for the rug to be pulled from underneath in crucial moments.
The score by Daniel Pemberton is very good, displaying solid, often exciting action cues, but thrives with the sinister, operatic (also making effective use of a choir) and grand musical cues in the presence of Getty and his vast displays of opulence, at times channeling the ominous themes of Commodus from Hans Zimmer's <em>Gladiator</em>, whilst also having a spring and energy to it.
The film’s narrative jumps around in time at the very beginning – in order to establish both how John Paul Getty made his fortune and how his grandson, John Paul Getty III, became an important part of his life – but unfolds in a linear fashion thereafter, zeroing in on the younger John Getty’s kidnapping. The pace is admittedly slow and unsteady at first, and the story itself felt rather dry and difficult to get invested. While it gives context to what we see later in the film, the narration in the first few scenes is a tad forced and doesn't really matter in the long run. By the second half, those flaws in the first half are largely rectified and it kicks into another gear.
In the last few years, we've seen major blockbusters undergo reshoots in (sometimes vain) attempts to change a movie almost from the ground up. This is without doubt an example of how reshoots should be done, making second runs at crucial scenes and seamlessly editing them together tightly and efficiently. However, flashback scene of Getty meeting in the Saudi desert contains rather a noticeable green-screen effect around the parts of the frame which Plummer has been spliced into. And the CGI touch-ups on Plummer to make him appear younger are exactly successful. Ultimately, given the expensive nature of the re-shoots, more so with the location shoot, this is forgivable as time and resources were constrained at around this time just before its release.
While it doesn't dive deeply into the corrosive and corrupting influence of vast wealth on the human psychology, it does display how miserable that existence is, steeped in grey and an almost complete lack of colour. It drives home how soulless this man is. In this case, Scott's chosen style is tied to the subtext of the film. Interestingly, the moments of bonding between Getty and his young grandson felt genuine, making Getty's refusal of the ransom (even with the calculated logic behind his refusal) even more unsettling. Similarly, the initial depiction of wealth and luxury from a viewpoint of a poorer family makes the transition into it's darker, grimier reality that much more powerful. This leaves Williams to carry the film for the most part, and showing a well disguised but never lost sense of faint optimism in the face of a dire situation.
Ultimately, <em>All The Money In The World</em> is a film that gradually grows on me over reflection. Taking aside the moving of Earth and Heaven to save the film from controversy, this is one of Ridley Scott's better films, thanks largely to an engaging and believable script, trademark cinematography and standout performances, and overcoming a handful of narrative and structural shortcomings. ��/�
� ��������� �"
� *N����<img class="size-medium wp-image-215 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ElCid-329x500.png" alt="" width="329" height="500" />
<em>El Cid</em> is one of those films which I know was a well-respected success story at the time of its release and one that carries the label of classic, but not one I hear mentioned in the same conversations as <em>Spartacus </em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em>. In giving the film a watch, I felt that there was certainly a lot to admire and wish people would take more notice of; from Heston’s passionate performance to the themes of unification against fanaticism set against a sumptuous production. However, it does have its flaws that keep it from reaching its full potential.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/attachments/el-cid4-jpg.7887/" alt="Image result for el cid screencaps" width="640" height="277" />
Don Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (Charlton Heston), on the way to his wedding with Doña Ximena (Sophia Loren), rescues a Spanish town from an invading Moorish army. Two of the Emirs, Al-Mu’tamin of Zaragoza (Douglas Wilmer) and Al-Kadir of Valencia (Frank Thring) of Valencia, are captured. After escorting his prisoners to Vivar and seeing that peace will not come from others' bloodthirsty desire for revenge, Rodrigo releases the Moors on condition that they pledge never again to attack King Ferdinand of Castile’s (Ralph Truman) lands. The Emirs proclaim him “El Cid” (meaning “the lord” and swear allegiance to him. For this act of mercy, Don Rodrigo is accused of treason by Count Ordóñez (Raf Vallone).
When the charge is repeated in court, they are supported by Ximena's father, Count Gormaz (Andrew Cruickshank), the king’s champion. Rodrigo's aged father, Don Diego (Michael Hordern), once himself the champion, angrily calls Gormaz a liar. Gormaz strikes Don Diego with a glove, challenging him to a duel. Rodrigo asks Gormaz to come meet privately, begging him several times to “have pity” and instead ask Diego for forgiveness for accusing Rodrigo of treason. Gormaz refuses, and Rodrigo kills him in a duel, to which Ximena swears revenge. Rodrigo wins the approval of King Ferdinand, collecting tribute from Moorish vassals. On the death of Ferdinand, his younger son, Prince Alfonso (John Fraser), tells the elder son Prince Sancho (Gary Raymond), that Ferdinand divided the kingdom: Castile to Sancho, Asturias and León to Alfonso, and Calahorra to their sister, Princess Urraca (Geneviève Page). Sancho refuses to accept anything but an undivided kingdom as his birth right, knowing Ferdinand would have been manipulated by the treacherous Urraca. General Ibn Yusuf (Herbert Lom) takes note of the strife, and plots to push the siblings into war against one another that would allow him to take over all of Spain.
Heston lends himself well to the chivalrous, kind-hearted knight Rodrigo, you really believe in the righteous fury that drives him to keep justice in an unjust realm. Loren is captivating and electrifying as Ximena, having a similar graceful and spirited air of Catherine Zeta Jones in <em>The Mask of Zorro </em>about her. Raymond as Prince Sancho and Fraser as Alfonso both have an air of magisterial entitlement and self-importance, with Fraser showing a wider range with intense fury and moments of humility. Despite appearing for a short time, Truman puts on a fine figure of a king. Page is as manipulative and cold as she is beautiful as Doña Urraca, and her relationship with her brother Alfonso portrayed as rather toxic with hints towards incest. Cruickshank does well as the stubborn, temperamental, short-sighted Count Gormaz, and in contrast to him is Hordern as the proud but kindly old father of Rodrigo. Vallone shows a dynamic turn as a misguided knight with an initially untrustworthy character. Wilmer has gravitas and jovial charisma as Mu’tamin. Thring puts on a good show as a slippery Moorish lord. Lom has a tremendous voice and presence as General Ibn Yusuf, the fury and merciless nature in his eyes make him a fierce presence on screen.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ebmfnob7ItY/maxresdefault.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="349" />
The beautiful Romanesque palace and cathedral sets and real life location shoots are all top notch, capturing that romantic vision of the Middle Ages splendidly. The division of the filming on location in Spain and some studio work in Rome is virtually indistinguishable. The vast array of extras to play peasants, soldiers and knights is very impressive, and the cinematography by Robert Krasker does well to capture the vast Spanish plains and the beautiful city of Valencia. There is a camp and faintly dreamlike quality to the whole production, with its striking colours, its vast ensemble committing to their roles, and how much it commits to its hero as a paragon of virtue and strength. You could not see a film this unabashedly romantic in style and approach. The battle scenes in the latter half are played more for splendour and rousing spectacle, while still depicting the Spanish victory as a hard-won triumph. But what spectacles they are indeed, and the finale packs a definite punch as I effectively seals the legend of The Cid in one’s memory with its closing shot. Anthony Mann pulls of a gorgeous film with many pieces working together, and deserves credit for that.
A lot of effort was put into making the fight scenes engaging and truthful to the ideals of medieval chivalry and medieval war. The duel between Rodrigo and Gormaz has a mesmerizing flow and cadence to it, the lack of music for the first half allows for the clashing of steel to leave a greater impact. The jousting tournament is shot and edited at a face yet still reasonable pace, allowing you to soak in the classic medieval tourney imagery you associate with the era. However, it did lose me when Rodrigo managed to sustain using a saddle for a shield for a good period of time, coming across as unbelievable.
The score by Miklós Rózsa has a lovely Spanish flair to it with romantic guitars and oboes, emotional string quartets and mighty trumpet sections that soar as greatly as those in <em>Ben-Hur</em>, but can at times become a touch melodramatic for its own good when it matches the theatrical emotions of the characters. For the most part it conveys the emotions of the characters and the tension between them very well and is a vital aspect of the storytelling. On a simpler level, the rhythmic five-beat drumming of Ibn Yusuf’s army conveys fear and menace very effectively.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://p0.storage.canalblog.com/02/08/110219/92152789_o.png" alt="Image result for el cid 1961" width="820" height="356" />
The script excels in building up the moral strength of Rodrigo in his legendary status as “The Cid” and the importance of a knight to be all things a knight can be in order to inspire men and move kings to do great things for their realms. This is similar to the appeal of Moses as a man who could believably inspire thousands of men in <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. However, there is some problems with this; after Rodrigo has killed Gormaz in a duel to the death he still tries to win back Ximena’s affection despite several instances where she’s made her hate for him clear, even to the point of requesting a marriage blessing from th eking. This is where the modern adage of “no means no” doesn’t carry any meaning in either this period or the mind-set with which this was written. There comes a point where you accept the melodrama and values dissonance for what it is, no more. But it is often uneven with the delivery of exposition or repetition of statements, such as Gormaz’s incessant need to remind us that he’s Ximena’s father. Writing flaws like that hold it back from a perfect score.
The Christian aspect of <em>El Cid</em> is prominently displayed in Rodrigo’s honour, sense of justice, and unyielding forgiveness, and holding that all men must be accountable for these aspects of life. Like Judah Ben-Hur and Moses, when he is pushed to his limit he comes close to breaking but the way he is able to recover himself when others are able to act according to their desire to see Spain free, inspired by his example. The portrayal of the Moors and Muslims in this film is somewhat unbalanced, as there are several who are portrayed as out and out bad guys and notable individuals who support Rodrigo’s mission to defend Spain from Ibn Yusuf. The black hosts of Ibn Yusuf are viewed as nothing less than a merciless enemy force bent on destruction. The strangeness of their alliance is pointed out by Mu’tamin as something that both Christians and Moors would call wrong. Ultimately, it’s in this unlikely unity between faiths that prevent fanaticism from laying waste to Spain. While well-intentioned, it’s not especially well fleshed out or developed to the point where you believe in the friendship between Rodrigo and Mu’tamin as much as one should.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://mindreels.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/el-cid-252550l.jpg" alt="Image result for el cid 1961" width="820" height="349" />
The romance between Rodrigo and Ximena experiences many stages of life, from youthful infatuation, to hate-filled bitterness, and finally a sense of hard-won mutual respect and genuine love. For long stretches of their time together, Ximena hates him for the killing of her father, and this feels somewhat more truthful to the medieval world where arranged marriages dominated noble society and the ideal of courtly love was a matter of fantasy or childish play. Only when they are forced to abandon their places in the Castile court do they find freedom and peace, only for the Muslim invasion to shatter that again. It’s this dynamic turn of relationship dynamics and the ways in which the world intercedes that make the romance work and easy to root for.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://alchetron.com/cdn/El-Cid-film-images-a3921236-595e-4d92-b1da-ac720ef4b38.jpg" alt="Image result for el cid final scene" width="698" height="393" />
While the details of historical accuracy in <em>El Cid</em> are highly debatable, there is no doubt that the romantic and chivalric spirit of medieval poetry is strongly distilled in this film. It is something of a unique film for being both a Hollywood epic set in medieval times before CGI would alter the course of historical film making in many ways, and it is worth checking out for its many merits. It might not be the strongest of Heston’s triad of epics, and certainly the least exposed of the bunch, but it does a great job commemorating the epic legend of Spain’s greatest knight.
�"�J ��������� �Bv
� *j����<img class="size-medium wp-image-215 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ElCid-329x500.png" alt="" width="329" height="500" />
<em>El Cid</em> is one of those films which I know was a well-respected success story at the time of its release and one that carries the label of classic, but not one I hear mentioned in the same conversations as <em>Spartacus </em> and <em>Ben-Hur</em>. In giving the film a watch, I felt that there was certainly a lot to admire and wish people would take more notice of; from Heston’s passionate performance to the themes of unification against fanaticism set against a sumptuous production. However, it does have its flaws that keep it from reaching its full potential.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/attachments/el-cid4-jpg.7887/" alt="Image result for el cid screencaps" width="640" height="277" />
Don Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (Charlton Heston), on the way to his wedding with Doña Ximena (Sophia Loren), rescues a Spanish town from an invading Moorish army. Two of the Emirs, Al-Mu’tamin of Zaragoza (Douglas Wilmer) and Al-Kadir of Valencia (Frank Thring) of Valencia, are captured. After escorting his prisoners to Vivar and seeing that peace will not come from others' bloodthirsty desire for revenge, Rodrigo releases the Moors on condition that they pledge never again to attack King Ferdinand of Castile’s (Ralph Truman) lands. The Emirs proclaim him “El Cid” (meaning “the lord” and swear allegiance to him. For this act of mercy, Don Rodrigo is accused of treason by Count Ordóñez (Raf Vallone).
When the charge is repeated in court, they are supported by Ximena's father, Count Gormaz (Andrew Cruickshank), the king’s champion. Rodrigo's aged father, Don Diego (Michael Hordern), once himself the champion, angrily calls Gormaz a liar. Gormaz strikes Don Diego with a glove, challenging him to a duel. Rodrigo asks Gormaz to come meet privately, begging him several times to “have pity” and instead ask Diego for forgiveness for accusing Rodrigo of treason. Gormaz refuses, and Rodrigo kills him in a duel, to which Ximena swears revenge. Rodrigo wins the approval of King Ferdinand, collecting tribute from Moorish vassals. On the death of Ferdinand, his younger son, Prince Alfonso (John Fraser), tells the elder son Prince Sancho (Gary Raymond), that Ferdinand divided the kingdom: Castile to Sancho, Asturias and León to Alfonso, and Calahorra to their sister, Princess Urraca (Geneviève Page). Sancho refuses to accept anything but an undivided kingdom as his birth right, knowing Ferdinand would have been manipulated by the treacherous Urraca. General Ibn Yusuf (Herbert Lom) takes note of the strife, and plots to push the siblings into war against one another that would allow him to take over all of Spain.
Heston lends himself well to the chivalrous, kind-hearted knight Rodrigo, you really believe in the righteous fury that drives him to keep justice in an unjust realm. Loren is captivating and electrifying as Ximena, having a similar graceful and spirited air of Catherine Zeta Jones in <em>The Mask of Zorro </em>about her. Raymond as Prince Sancho and Fraser as Alfonso both have an air of magisterial entitlement and self-importance, with Fraser showing a wider range with intense fury and moments of humility. Despite appearing for a short time, Truman puts on a fine figure of a king. Page is as manipulative and cold as she is beautiful as Doña Urraca, and her relationship with her brother Alfonso portrayed as rather toxic with hints towards incest. Cruickshank does well as the stubborn, temperamental, short-sighted Count Gormaz, and in contrast to him is Hordern as the proud but kindly old father of Rodrigo. Vallone shows a dynamic turn as a misguided knight with an initially untrustworthy character. Wilmer has gravitas and jovial charisma as Mu’tamin. Thring puts on a good show as a slippery Moorish lord. Lom has a tremendous voice and presence as General Ibn Yusuf, the fury and merciless nature in his eyes make him a fierce presence on screen.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ebmfnob7ItY/maxresdefault.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="349" />
The beautiful Romanesque palace and cathedral sets and real life location shoots are all top notch, capturing that romantic vision of the Middle Ages splendidly. The division of the filming on location in Spain and some studio work in Rome is virtually indistinguishable. The vast array of extras to play peasants, soldiers and knights is very impressive, and the cinematography by Robert Krasker does well to capture the vast Spanish plains and the beautiful city of Valencia. There is a camp and faintly dreamlike quality to the whole production, with its striking colours, its vast ensemble committing to their roles, and how much it commits to its hero as a paragon of virtue and strength. You could not see a film this unabashedly romantic in style and approach. The battle scenes in the latter half are played more for splendour and rousing spectacle, while still depicting the Spanish victory as a hard-won triumph. But what spectacles they are indeed, and the finale packs a definite punch as I effectively seals the legend of The Cid in one’s memory with its closing shot. Anthony Mann pulls of a gorgeous film with many pieces working together, and deserves credit for that.
A lot of effort was put into making the fight scenes engaging and truthful to the ideals of medieval chivalry and medieval war. The duel between Rodrigo and Gormaz has a mesmerizing flow and cadence to it, the lack of music for the first half allows for the clashing of steel to leave a greater impact. The jousting tournament is shot and edited at a face yet still reasonable pace, allowing you to soak in the classic medieval tourney imagery you associate with the era. However, it did lose me when Rodrigo managed to sustain using a saddle for a shield for a good period of time, coming across as unbelievable.
The score by Miklós Rózsa has a lovely Spanish flair to it with romantic guitars and oboes, emotional string quartets and mighty trumpet sections that soar as greatly as those in <em>Ben-Hur</em>, but can at times become a touch melodramatic for its own good when it matches the theatrical emotions of the characters. For the most part it conveys the emotions of the characters and the tension between them very well and is a vital aspect of the storytelling. On a simpler level, the rhythmic five-beat drumming of Ibn Yusuf’s army conveys fear and menace very effectively.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://p0.storage.canalblog.com/02/08/110219/92152789_o.png" alt="Image result for el cid 1961" width="820" height="356" />
The script excels in building up the moral strength of Rodrigo in his legendary status as “The Cid” and the importance of a knight to be all things a knight can be in order to inspire men and move kings to do great things for their realms. This is similar to the appeal of Moses as a man who could believably inspire thousands of men in <em>The Ten Commandments</em>. However, there is some problems with this; after Rodrigo has killed Gormaz in a duel to the death he still tries to win back Ximena’s affection despite several instances where she’s made her hate for him clear, even to the point of requesting a marriage blessing from th eking. This is where the modern adage of “no means no” doesn’t carry any meaning in either this period or the mind-set with which this was written. There comes a point where you accept the melodrama and values dissonance for what it is, no more. But it is often uneven with the delivery of exposition or repetition of statements, such as Gormaz’s incessant need to remind us that he’s Ximena’s father. Writing flaws like that hold it back from a perfect score.
The Christian aspect of <em>El Cid</em> is prominently displayed in Rodrigo’s honour, sense of justice, and unyielding forgiveness, and holding that all men must be accountable for these aspects of life. Like Judah Ben-Hur and Moses, when he is pushed to his limit he comes close to breaking but the way he is able to recover himself when others are able to act according to their desire to see Spain free, inspired by his example. The portrayal of the Moors and Muslims in this film is somewhat unbalanced, as there are several who are portrayed as out and out bad guys and notable individuals who support Rodrigo’s mission to defend Spain from Ibn Yusuf. The black hosts of Ibn Yusuf are viewed as nothing less than a merciless enemy force bent on destruction. The strangeness of their alliance is pointed out by Mu’tamin as something that both Christians and Moors would call wrong. Ultimately, it’s in this unlikely unity between faiths that prevent fanaticism from laying waste to Spain. While well-intentioned, it’s not especially well fleshed out or developed to the point where you believe in the friendship between Rodrigo and Mu’tamin as much as one should.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://mindreels.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/el-cid-252550l.jpg" alt="Image result for el cid 1961" width="820" height="349" />
The romance between Rodrigo and Ximena experiences many stages of life, from youthful infatuation, to hate-filled bitterness, and finally a sense of hard-won mutual respect and genuine love. For long stretches of their time together, Ximena hates him for the killing of her father, and this feels somewhat more truthful to the medieval world where arranged marriages dominated noble society and the ideal of courtly love was a matter of fantasy or childish play. Only when they are forced to abandon their places in the Castile court do they find freedom and peace, only for the Muslim invasion to shatter that again. It’s this dynamic turn of relationship dynamics and the ways in which the world intercedes that make the romance work and easy to root for.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://alchetron.com/cdn/El-Cid-film-images-a3921236-595e-4d92-b1da-ac720ef4b38.jpg" alt="Image result for el cid final scene" width="698" height="393" />
While the details of historical accuracy in <em>El Cid</em> are highly debatable, there is no doubt that the romantic and chivalric spirit of medieval poetry is strongly distilled in this film. It is something of a unique film for being both a Hollywood epic set in medieval times before CGI would alter the course of historical film making in many ways, and it is worth checking out for its many merits. It might not be the strongest of Heston’s triad of epics, and certainly the least exposed of the bunch, but it does a great job commemorating the epic legend of Spain’s greatest knight.
�Bv�o]w ��������� �n�
� )�����<img class="img-responsive aligncenter" title="Click to View Extra Large Poster Image for Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle" src="http://www.impawards.com/2017/posters/jumanji_welcome_to_the_jungle_ver5.jpg" alt="Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle Movie Poster" border="0" />
<em>Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</em> is probably one of the most vigorous examples of a "pleasant surprise" film-going experience in recent memory. What started out as a movie pegged by fans of the original <em>Jumanji</em> to be a shallow cash-grab and an insult, and hampered by some very aggravating trailers, not only turns out to be a good film and follow-up to the 1995 fantasy adventure film but far more successful than anyone expected it to be. While I am with the general consensus that it is a fun romp, feeling in part like a throwback to action adventure films of the 90s, I do feel that there were ways in which they could have shored up their connections to the original and other elements that would have also helped it stand on its own.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.the-heroes-universe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Young-Jumanji-Characters.jpg" alt="Related image" width="706" height="353" />
Four students in Brantford High School are placed in detention together: shy, geeky Spencer Gilpin, who is writing essays for his former jock friend, Anthony "Fridge" Johnson, while shallow, Instagram-obsessed Bethany Walker and antisocial wallflower Martha Kaply both disrespected their respective teachers during class. Assigned by the school's principal to clear out its basement, the four kids find the Jumanji game, now transformed from a board game into a five-player action-adventure console game. With one of the playable characters (video game avatars) inaccessible, the teens select the others, and are teleported into the game. They find themselves in a jungle, each now in the forms of their game avatars. Spencer is a tough, muscular explorer named Dr. Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson), Fridge is a short zoologist named Franklin "Mouse" Finbar (Kevin Hart), Martha is a gorgeous commando and martial art expert named Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan), and Bethany is an overweight, male cartographer named Professor Sheldon "Shelly" Oberon (Jack Black). They learn from Nigel (Rhys Darby), an NPC guide, that the big-game hunter, Russel Van Pelt (Bobby Cannavale), wants to obtain a jewel, the "Jaguar's Eye", allowing him to manipulate Jumanji's animals. To escape the game, the players must return it to an enormous jaguar statue and call out "Jumanji", all the while facing the various trials and tribulations the game has to offer.
<img src="http://cinemavine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-2.png" width="1366" height="563" />
If one bit of casting with the four main actors was off, I think it could have undone the film completely. The Rock acting shy and awkward without turning into a nerd stereotype is really funny and quite charming yet still having considerable presence and charisma. Hart is funny, but ultimately the weakest of the bunch because he’s really playing to his usual character role of a small person with a huge personality. Black is surprisingly convincing as a high school girl trapped in an overweight middle aged man’s body, and he makes Bethany’s arc of becoming less self-absorbed and more caring believable and even genuine. Gillan does well at portraying an awkward girl in an athletic body, handling herself very well in the action scenes, but really shines at being a bad flirt. Nick Jonas appears at the halfway point as a surprise character, and generally he does quite well (better than I expected, as not really a Jonas brother fan), acting like a teenager right out of the 90s. While he does have a cool and creepy look to him, Cannavale does what he can as a very one dimensional villain and mostly hams up the part for all its worth. Darby is funny as a one note NPC, repeating himself when asked abnormal questions in the same jocular tone. As the kids themselves in the real world, Morgan Turner, Alex Wolff and Madison Iseman appear to be of the right age for teenagers and act the part well enough, but Ser’Darius Blain just looks and sounds too old for the part, even if it serves in-game the juxtaposition later on. Marc Evan Jackson is fairly funny in a brief but somewhat expositional role as the school principal.
Although there are less of them compared to the first films, the CGI animals are pretty average looking, some looking better than others like the Hippo encounter and the Rhino stampede. At the same time, however, all of them certainly look better than, say, the CGI monkeys from the first film. The combination of CGI and solid production design on the exotic bazaar, temples and jungle monuments hold up better and make the world of the game something you could almost want to explore as a real video game, playing to those “Darkest Africa” tropes that the board game of the first film did. The action scenes and stunts are fun to watch, being filmed mostly in camera, but still allowing for a few larger than life sequences like a helicopter being chased by stampeding rhinos.
<img src="http://ilarge.lisimg.com/image/14771998/1118full-jumanji%3A-welcome-to-the-jungle-screenshot.jpg" />
It is a very pretty film, with vibrant greens and a warm tropical feel. However, the Hawaiian jungles to me don’t really strike me as scary in any way (unless it’s Spielberg directing those scenes); I think they could have picked a more exotic locale that could be seen as the same “deepest, darkest jungle” which Alan strongly hinted at in the first film. Weakened connections like that do make it feel more like a remake or another film entirely with the Jumanji name strapped on rather than a true sequel.
Henry Jackman is a very hit and miss composer for me, sometimes producing decent scores but other times not so much; fortunately, this is one of his stronger entrees; A full orchestral score with some stylistic debt owed to Alan Silvestri and Danny Elfman during the peak of their respective careers, its very percussive and brassy and in someways a more militaristic and bombastic follow-up to James Horner's emotional and exotic score from the original film. The iconic Jumanji drums do make a return, albeit with somewhat of a makeover, sounding perhaps more exciting and less ominous. Curiously enough parts of the main theme, which in of itself is quite memorable, hearkens back to the iconic "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" from <em>The Wizard of Oz</em>.
<img src="http://cinemavine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-1.png" width="1366" height="564" />
The film does struggle to find its footing at first with the main characters all being stereotypes; the jock, the nerd, the popular girl and the wallflower. All of which are played annoyingly straight at first with little depth to them. However, it does add to the juxtaposition of these high schoolers in vastly different bodies. Seeing these four actors play against the type, in lieu of a movie like <em>Freaky Friday</em>, is the most fun aspect of the film. The majority of jokes really land; two of the best had me laughing hard on repeated viewings. One that I really wish wasn't in the trailer: the exploding Kevin Hart cake gag, and the other was Karen Gillan’s amazingly awkward “flirting” attempts. They even make a penis joke not only funny but kind of clever as well, something I thought was impossible. The premise of a girl accidentally being stuck in a male avatar is not played cynically or cruelly, and the fact that they avoid that and Black himself is the most consistently fun actor of the bunch is impressive. Video game tropes played for jokes, like the aforementioned Nigel character as a deliberately one note NPC character, and a flashback being framed as a video game cut-scene. The tone of the comedy is more centred on teenagers and broader, but the film is more light-hearted overall than the original.
<img src="http://cinemavine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-5.png" width="1366" height="563" />
It’s interesting that the film plays more to the broad strokes of <em>The Wizard of Oz</em> in a similar vein to how the first film did to Peter Pan. Each of the characters comes into Jumanji flawed or in need of a lesson of some kind, and they come out of the game matured people. Basic stuff, sure, but it is there. The film sort of pushes a theme of the four kids having only “one life”, which is somewhat ironic at first as they have three lives in the Jumanji game, but it takes on a more sincere tone by the third act. There is a potentially great central theme in there but it’s just not as fleshed out as it could have been. I believe that more could have been done with this premise, what if for example there were some bullies who became characters in the game, or if Van Pelt's appearance was based on a criminal, abusive parent, or teacher? Something that could really scare one of the protagonists like the original Van Pelt did for Alan Parrish. To be honest, I’m still not sure why he’s called Van Pelt to begin with, the name could have been different and it would have given him more of an identity. The most he has going for him are his abilities and army of henchmen, so the psychology of the original Van Pelt is lost.
Even though the Jumanji board game does appear right at the beginning, hey fudge the exact details of the game ending up on a beach, even linking back to the original town in the first film. It's a small and easily overlooked detail. The setting is Alan Parrish’s hometown of Brantford, noticeably updated for the 2010s. They also homage Robin Williams’ character about halfway through the film to confirm that this is the same jungle that this character survived for 26 years in, its simple but effective and sweet in its execution.
<img src="https://static0.srcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Jumanji-Welcome-to-the-Jungle-cast.jpg" width="1274" height="637" />
<em>Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</em> is fairly entertaining, had a nice sense of fun and spectacle, and made me chuckle every now and again, exceeding my then-low expectations, mainly thanks to its four lead actors. But the weak villain and lack of tension is obvious, the humour did have its misses, and admittedly it does have enough heart to get by but not as much as the Robin Williams film. The best thing is the main cast and the action adventure throughout, and it delivers on that successfully. �n�Ѝ�# ��������� ��
� %����<img class="aligncenter" src="https://www.citylightscinemas.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/SoW_poster.jpg" width="429" height="637" />
<i>The Shape of Water</i> is Guillermo Del Toro’s newest fantasy visual tour de force, tinged with a wistful fairytale mysticism. Hewing from a variety of “monster and maiden” stories like <i>Beauty and the Beast</i> in themes and character, and classic creature pictures like <i>The Creature from the Black Lagoon</i>, Del Toro succeeds at creating a touching story of love breaching the boundaries of species and societal norms.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cinemavine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/the-shape-of-water-movie-screencaps.png" alt="Image result for the shape of water screencaps" width="711" height="353" />
Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins) is a lonely woman working as a janitor at a secret government laboratory during the Cold War in 1962. She is mute and communicates through sign language; her only two friends are her next door neighbour, Giles (Richard Jenkins), a struggling gay advertisement illustrator, and her co-worker and interpreter Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer). The facility receives a creature in a tank, captured from the Amazon River by Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon). Curious, Elisa discovers that the creature is a humanoid amphibian (Doug Jones) and begins visiting the creature in secret, communicating with him through sign language and forming a close bond. An encounter with the Creature leaves Strickland bleeding profusely and two of his fingers severed. Seeking to exploit the creature for possible advantages in the Space Race, General Frank Hoyt (Nick Searcy) orders Strickland to vivisect him. One scientist, Robert Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg), pleads unsuccessfully to keep the being alive for further study. Elisa learns of the plans and enlists the help of Giles to help free him from captivity.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://journeysindarknessandlight.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/the-shape-of-water-movie-screencaps-7-1075x537.png?w=676" alt="Image result for the shape of water screencaps" width="676" height="338" />
The cast all do a fantastic job; Hawkins especially shines as Elisa, instilling a great deal of passion into her sign language performance and emoting so well with her eyes and expressions. Jenkins puts a lot of heart and humour into his performance, has good platonic chemistry with Hawkins, and captures the sadness of a gay man living in the 60s. Shannon is a nasty piece of work as Strickland – intimidating, cold and so casually callous in a believable way that you really fear his presence. There’s enough humanity that you really believe he is a weak man underneath all that bravado. Though covered under makeup and an elaborate suit, Jones makes a strong impression as the mysterious Creature. Spencer is charming and humorous as Zelda, instilling a sense of fun without diluting the story’s sincerity. Stuhlbarg does well as a fearful yet intelligent scientist, and Searcy is somewhat one-dimensional as the ill-tempered general, but works well with what he’s given.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://www.goombastomp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/the-shape-of-water-movie-screencaps-3.png" alt="Image result for the shape of water screencaps" width="709" height="353" />
The cinematography by Dan Laustsen does a fantastic job of creating a grimy, bleak and yet atmospheric setting, stripping away the familiar 60’s pizazz and vibrancy, and largely dominated by the colour green, giving it both a dreamlike and underwater quality. The production values are as good as one would expect from a Del Toro film, and are more impressive considering the relatively limited budget this film had, looking far better than other fantasy films with double or even ten times that budget. This attention to detail draws you in immediately.
The makeup and creature effects on Jones are another fitting tribute to Del Toro’s dedication to practical effects, looking otherworldly yet believable as a being that could exist in some remote part of the world. You really feel for this character and his plight. There is some sparing use of CGI for a few scenes, and while it is often rendered to a high standard and blends well with the practical effects, there are moments where its more noticeable and perhaps needed another polish-up.
The score by Alexandre Desplat is absolutely beautiful, alternating from light and enchanting to smooth jazz melodies, but also delivering on suspenseful action cues and overlaying each scene with atmosphere, building up the initial mystery of the Creature, and the gentle yet courageous spirit of Elisa. The way Desplat gives feeling and presence to water in music form is very commendable.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Shape_of_Water_4.jpg" alt="Related image" width="706" height="353" />
The script succeeds in making the romance and sexual attraction both compelling and organic for Elisa and the Creature, as two lonely souls falling increasingly in love as they find themselves freed in each other’s company, physically and emotionally. Indeed, all of the protagonists are misfits of some form or another, whether it’s Giles as an aging homosexual or Zelda as a blue-collar black American worker. Given the narrow and oppressive attitudes of the 60s for people who could not fit into societal norms, this serves as an ideal framing device for the romance. That sense of otherness in both human and non-human characters and how that becomes a means of bonding is woven throughout the film. Both of Elisa’s friends also have their own yearnings for belonging and a better life than they have, but are ultimately pushed away. These are the catalysts for the help they offer to Elisa when she needs it most.
Del Toro draws from two fairytales in particular: <i>The Little Mermaid</i> and<i> Beauty and the Beast</i>. The comparisons to <i>The Little Mermaid </i>emerge in Elisa’s muteness, akin to the titular mermaid character lacking a voice on dry land, and falling in love with a denizen of a forbidden other-world. The finale further supports such similarities. Naturally, it wouldn’t be a “Beauty and the Beast” kind of story without visual metaphors of inner versus outer beauty. Elisa is often pejoratively referred to as looking “plain” but has a noticeable grace and tenderness to her being, much like a traditionally youthful fairytale princess. The Creature, while somewhat frightening in appearance, is gentle and empathetic and displays benign powers that are revealed with a blue luminescent glow. There are even similarities to <i>King Kong</i>, another Beauty and the Beast story, and though much less apparent than the fairytale comparisons, the theme of taking a rare and mysterious creature from its remote tropical home for selfish and ultimately destructive purposes is central to the enmity between the Creature and Strickland. So, the story itself is not all that unfamiliar, with the real <i>Beauty and the Beast</i> being its main foundation of inspiration.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://journeysindarknessandlight.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/the-shape-of-water-movie-trailer-screencaps.png?w=676" alt="Image result for the shape of water screencaps" width="663" height="353" />
Strickland’s obsession with asserting masculine dominance over women, other men and indeed other species is, in a way, the prejudiced attitudes of Cold War America writ large. Further implications of the cattle prod he carries everywhere are also there for further interpretation. He appears to have everything any man his age could want – a family, a good house, money, authority, and patriotic aspirations, yet his sexist, racist and elitist attitudes as well as his monstrous temper casts all of that in a nasty light. Everything this man does to appear as a model citizen, such as buying a fancy new car, is undone to manifest his inner nastiness. Another metaphor of his moral decay is that of his reattached fingers turning gangrenous before the end, leaving a noticeably rotten smell and eventually oozing pus. He is essentially an American Capitan Vidal. But he is also the only example in the film of what many Americans in that period would have striven to be like, and the presentation does get heavy-handed at times.
In terms of other flaws, there is one very corny sequence in the third act where Elisa romantically fantasises about the Creature, and it honestly came off as too over-the-top for the kind of film that it was, more so because it started out very poignant and sympathetic. There are a few dialogue-focused scenes that are meant to be thematically important but honestly came off as redundant. While not a very long film, its pacing can alternate between solid and slow at times.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://gobbledygeekbtr.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/shapeofwater.jpg" alt="Related image" width="708" height="353" />
You can tell this film is a passion project for Del Toro through and through. It’s easy to pick out the similarities to classic fairytales or find its overall dark mood dispiriting, but it comes with the territory for the director. Ultimately, <i>The Shape of Water</i> is a lovingly crafted fantasy film with Del Toro’s distinctive mix of darkness, drama and heart. ����tJ ��������� 꾭
� %����<img class="aligncenter" src="https://www.citylightscinemas.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/SoW_poster.jpg" width="429" height="637" />
<i>The Shape of Water</i> is Guillermo Del Toro’s newest fantasy visual tour de force, tinged with a wistful fairytale mysticism. Hewing from a variety of “monster and maiden” stories like <i>Beauty and the Beast</i> in themes and character, and classic creature pictures like <i>The Creature from the Black Lagoon</i>, Del Toro succeeds at creating a touching story of love breaching the boundaries of species and societal norms.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://cinemavine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/the-shape-of-water-movie-screencaps.png" alt="Image result for the shape of water screencaps" width="711" height="353" />
Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins) is a lonely woman working as a janitor at a secret government laboratory during the Cold War in 1962. She is mute and communicates through sign language; her only two friends are her next door neighbour, Giles (Richard Jenkins), a struggling gay advertisement illustrator, and her co-worker and interpreter Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer). The facility receives a creature in a tank, captured from the Amazon River by Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon). Curious, Elisa discovers that the creature is a humanoid amphibian (Doug Jones) and begins visiting the creature in secret, communicating with him through sign language and forming a close bond. An encounter with the Creature leaves Strickland bleeding profusely and two of his fingers severed. Seeking to exploit the creature for possible advantages in the Space Race, General Frank Hoyt (Nick Searcy) orders Strickland to vivisect him. One scientist, Robert Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg), pleads unsuccessfully to keep the being alive for further study. Elisa learns of the plans and enlists the help of Giles to help free him from captivity.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://journeysindarknessandlight.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/the-shape-of-water-movie-screencaps-7-1075x537.png?w=676" alt="Image result for the shape of water screencaps" width="676" height="338" />
The cast all do a fantastic job; Hawkins especially shines as Elisa, instilling a great deal of passion into her sign language performance and emoting so well with her eyes and expressions. Jenkins puts a lot of heart and humour into his performance, has good platonic chemistry with Hawkins, and captures the sadness of a gay man living in the 60s. Shannon is a nasty piece of work as Strickland – intimidating, cold and so casually callous in a believable way that you really fear his presence. There’s enough humanity that you really believe he is a weak man underneath all that bravado. Though covered under makeup and an elaborate suit, Jones makes a strong impression as the mysterious Creature. Spencer is charming and humorous as Zelda, instilling a sense of fun without diluting the story’s sincerity. Stuhlbarg does well as a fearful yet intelligent scientist, and Searcy is somewhat one-dimensional as the ill-tempered general, but works well with what he’s given.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://www.goombastomp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/the-shape-of-water-movie-screencaps-3.png" alt="Image result for the shape of water screencaps" width="709" height="353" />
The cinematography by Dan Laustsen does a fantastic job of creating a grimy, bleak and yet atmospheric setting, stripping away the familiar 60’s pizazz and vibrancy, and largely dominated by the colour green, giving it both a dreamlike and underwater quality. The production values are as good as one would expect from a Del Toro film, and are more impressive considering the relatively limited budget this film had, looking far better than other fantasy films with double or even ten times that budget. This attention to detail draws you in immediately.
The makeup and creature effects on Jones are another fitting tribute to Del Toro’s dedication to practical effects, looking otherworldly yet believable as a being that could exist in some remote part of the world. You really feel for this character and his plight. There is some sparing use of CGI for a few scenes, and while it is often rendered to a high standard and blends well with the practical effects, there are moments where its more noticeable and perhaps needed another polish-up.
The score by Alexandre Desplat is absolutely beautiful, alternating from light and enchanting to smooth jazz melodies, but also delivering on suspenseful action cues and overlaying each scene with atmosphere, building up the initial mystery of the Creature, and the gentle yet courageous spirit of Elisa. The way Desplat gives feeling and presence to water in music form is very commendable.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Shape_of_Water_4.jpg" alt="Related image" width="706" height="353" />
The script succeeds in making the romance and sexual attraction both compelling and organic for Elisa and the Creature, as two lonely souls falling increasingly in love as they find themselves freed in each other’s company, physically and emotionally. Indeed, all of the protagonists are misfits of some form or another, whether it’s Giles as an aging homosexual or Zelda as a blue-collar black American worker. Given the narrow and oppressive attitudes of the 60s for people who could not fit into societal norms, this serves as an ideal framing device for the romance. That sense of otherness in both human and non-human characters and how that becomes a means of bonding is woven throughout the film. Both of Elisa’s friends also have their own yearnings for belonging and a better life than they have, but are ultimately pushed away. These are the catalysts for the help they offer to Elisa when she needs it most.
Del Toro draws from two fairytales in particular: <i>The Little Mermaid</i> and<i> Beauty and the Beast</i>. The comparisons to <i>The Little Mermaid </i>emerge in Elisa’s muteness, akin to the titular mermaid character lacking a voice on dry land, and falling in love with a denizen of a forbidden other-world. The finale further supports such similarities. Naturally, it wouldn’t be a “Beauty and the Beast” kind of story without visual metaphors of inner versus outer beauty. Elisa is often pejoratively referred to as looking “plain” but has a noticeable grace and tenderness to her being, much like a traditionally youthful fairytale princess. The Creature, while somewhat frightening in appearance, is gentle and empathetic and displays benign powers that are revealed with a blue luminescent glow. There are even similarities to <i>King Kong</i>, another Beauty and the Beast story, and though much less apparent than the fairytale comparisons, the theme of taking a rare and mysterious creature from its remote tropical home for selfish and ultimately destructive purposes is central to the enmity between the Creature and Strickland. So, the story itself is not all that unfamiliar, with the real <i>Beauty and the Beast</i> being its main foundation of inspiration.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://journeysindarknessandlight.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/the-shape-of-water-movie-trailer-screencaps.png?w=676" alt="Image result for the shape of water screencaps" width="663" height="353" />
Strickland’s obsession with asserting masculine dominance over women, other men and indeed other species is, in a way, the prejudiced attitudes of Cold War America writ large. Further implications of the cattle prod he carries everywhere are also there for further interpretation. He appears to have everything any man his age could want – a family, a good house, money, authority, and patriotic aspirations, yet his sexist, racist and elitist attitudes as well as his monstrous temper casts all of that in a nasty light. Everything this man does to appear as a model citizen, such as buying a fancy new car, is undone to manifest his inner nastiness. Another metaphor of his moral decay is that of his reattached fingers turning gangrenous before the end, leaving a noticeably rotten smell and eventually oozing pus. He is essentially an American Capitan Vidal. But he is also the only example in the film of what many Americans in that period would have striven to be like, and the presentation does get heavy-handed at times.
In terms of other flaws, there is one very corny sequence in the third act where Elisa romantically fantasises about the Creature, and it honestly came off as too over-the-top for the kind of film that it was, more so because it started out very poignant and sympathetic. There are a few dialogue-focused scenes that are meant to be thematically important but honestly came off as redundant. While not a very long film, its pacing can alternate between solid and slow at times.
<img class="irc_mi" src="https://gobbledygeekbtr.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/shapeofwater.jpg" alt="Related image" width="708" height="353" />
You can tell this film is a passion project for Del Toro through and through. It’s easy to pick out the similarities to classic fairytales or find its overall dark mood dispiriting, but it comes with the territory for the director. Ultimately, <i>The Shape of Water</i> is a lovingly crafted fantasy film with Del Toro’s distinctive mix of darkness, drama and heart. 꾭�ݒ� ��������� �A
� 0���<img class="size-medium wp-image-186 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BenHur-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
<em>Ben-Hur</em> is easily one of the greatest works of drama, spectacle, entertainment and sheer emotional storytelling that I have witnessed in my life. It lives up to its reputation as winner of eleven Academy Awards and then some, and managed to work its magic for someone who hadn’t seen this film in their formative years. It’s Wyler’s grounded, intellectually sincere direction yet larger than life scope that helps it to transcend the sometimes dismissive label of “message movie” to be something that can truly mean all things to all people regardless of belief. Like other classical epics by the likes of Cecil B. DeMille and David Lean, its the delicate balancing act between the intimate and the spectacle that Ben-Hur finds its most lasting impact, allowing it to transcend its inherent religious sentiment.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur021.jpg" />
In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O’Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah, but is committed to another. Judah’s childhood friend, the Roman citizen Messala (Stephen Boyd), is now a tribune. After several years away from Jerusalem, Messala returns as the new commander of the Roman garrison. Messala believes in the glory of Rome and its imperial power, while Judah is devoted to his faith and the freedom of the Jewish people. This difference causes tension between the friends, and results in their split after Messala issues an ultimatum to Judah. During the parade for the new governor of Judea, loose tiles fall from the roof of Judah's house. The governor is thrown from his spooked horse and nearly killed. Although Messala knows this was an accident, he condemns Judah to the galleys and imprisons Miriam and Tirzah. Judah swears to take revenge.
After three years as a galley slave, Judah is assigned to the flagship of the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins), who has been charged with destroying a fleet of Macedonian pirates. Arrius admires Judah's determination and self-discipline, and offers to train him as a gladiator or charioteer. Judah declines the offer, declaring that God will aid him in his quest for vengeance. When the Roman fleet encounters the Macedonians, Arrius orders all the rowers except Judah to be chained to their oars. Arrius’ galley is rammed and sunk, but Judah unchains the other rowers, and rescues Arrius. In despair, Arrius wrongly believes the battle ended in defeat and attempts to commit suicide but Judah stops him. They are rescued, and Arrius is credited with the Roman fleet’s victory. Consul Arrius returns to Rome with Judah as his guest, and both are honoured by Emperor Tiberius (George Relph)
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur093.jpg" />
Heston delivers one of his finest emotionally driven performances in his career, illuminating the warmth of a kind-hearted prince but also the fierce rage that seems barely contained at the slightest provocation. Boyd is fantastic as the treacherous Messala, a man with a great deal of charisma and charm but balanced with great arrogance and contempt and a physical and vocal presence to match Heston. Both actors have a believable brotherly bond and they show the subtle changes from best friends to hated enemies. Hawkins gives gravitas, iron authority and world-weariness to Quintus Arrius and becomes very liable in his own way. Harareet gives a spirited performance with a great deal of emotional range and subtle expressions, and you do believe there is love between Esther and Judah. Scott and O’Donnell are equally sympathetic and sweet as Miriam and Tirzah respectively, and leave an impression despite their limited screen time. Jaffe is sympathetic as Simonides, and Griffith is charming, boisterous and exuberant as Sheik Ilderim. Relph has a brief but memorable role as the venerable Emperor Tiberius. Some quibbles about his accent aside, Finlay Currie does a great job as narrator and as one of Wise Men, Balthasar. Frank Thring portrays Pontius Pilate as a level headed and relatively decent man despite the part he plays in the condemnation of Christ.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur293.jpg" />
The cinematography by Robert L. Surtees on MGM’s legendary Camera 65 and epically wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio is a beautiful feast for the eyes. The use of lighting gives each location a unique sense of atmosphere, ranging from the brightly lit Jerusalem, bleakly hot deserts, to the dark, dank galley of the roman ship or dark, cold hallways of the Roman fort. This is a case where capturing as much of the scenery and cast of thousands necessitates this kind of camera work. The breadth and depth of field and sublime colour demand to be seen on the largest screen possible. One of the greatest visual master strokes of the film is the fact that you do not see Jesus’ face, but the impact of his presence is tantalising. The fact that his name is never spoken also keeps it subtle, but also more mystical, intriguing and yet more real at the same time because you see him through other characters’ perspectives.
The vast and elaborate sets populated with well adorned extras bring the life and colour of Jerusalem to life. They don't look like sets; they look like real locations with history and tangibility to them. The matte paintings for the sky do look rather like paintings rather than the real thing, but that is no insult on the quality work. Other matte paintings used to expand the vistas of Palestine, Jerusalem and Rome are some of the finest ever committed to film. The miniature ships are shot in a way that allows the scale of the conflict to still seem massive and terrible. The editing, cinematography and succession of practical effects maintain the illusion of a massive naval battle.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur464.jpg" />
The chariot race is one of the most perfect sequences ever put to film, the build-up with the epic fanfares, the slow pace taking in the spectacular circus and charioteers walking in step just before they break out into a spirited gallop. The fact that it's all shot in camera, without any music, with no doubt multiple takes and a serious risk to both man and beast involved, including what looked like some serious injuries on set, only adds to the breath-taking wonder of this scene. The variety of camera angles and occasionally cutting to the cheering crowd keeps the scene dynamic and engaging without going overboard with the editing. The emotions run high as Messala desperately races against his old brother Judah, madly whipping his horses and ramming his chariot while Judah needs no such cruelty to spur his horses on. It still holds up beautifully today and cannot possibly be topped.
I’ve had the pleasure of listening to many Miklós Rózsa scores in this series, but this is in my eyes his crowning achievement. The breadth and variety of music is legendary, and each piece is memorable in its own right. The bombastic Parade of Charioteers theme, the militaristic Roman marching themes, touching romantic melodies, the tragic strings for Miriam and Tirzah, the modest yet uplifting theme for Jesus, and triumphant choruses can make the hearts of viewers soar with wonder. Similarly, the restraint on certain scenes where the music dials back to let the performances speak for themselves is just as commendable.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur432.jpg" />
Apart from some necessary narration and a few pieces of cursory dialogue, the prologue depicting the Nativity is perfect, and its visual power in the imagery presented from the Star, to the three kings, the watching shepherds and the town of Bethlehem beneath the stars have a lush, painterly feeling to them, even as we follow the three kings and see the birthplace of Jesus. The music accompanying the scene is suitably tender and quietly joyful.
Despite its epic length, Wyler uses every minute of the film wisely. Character beats are appropriately set up and flow naturally into the next scene. We see how well matched Judah and Messala are intellectually and physically, get a sense of how close their families were as children and how much Messala has changed, and we see the seeds of doubt sown before the two break apart. Despite his charisma and affable initial appearance, the film intelligently shows the darkening side of Messala with each new scene, until he is shown to be one of the most realistic and despicable villains to grace the silver screen. The fact that Messala still speaks to Judah like this is all just a game to him twists the knife even more. They very tentatively hint that there was more between Judah and Messala when the latter jokes about “unrequited love” when the former is reluctant to throw his lot in with the Romans so easily.
Judah is the sort of idealistic hero who is just flawed enough to believably exist. He knows when to be loyal to his ideals and when to bide his time respectfully in the company of Emperor Tiberius and Arrius. It’s ironic that he ends up treading the path that Messala desperately sought by the Emperor’s side, and he achieves this by being a good man and holding back from the easy path of murder. One good turn deserves another and mercy begets mercy. But Judah has his share of flaws. When faced with further complications to his mission, he is quick to anger and let that rage manifest for long stretches of time. The notion of brotherly betrayal, you buy into the love and friendship between them and thus the pain that rips them apart is all the more painful. The film is somewhat ambivalent on the whether it was the innate corruption of Rome that turned Messala into the villain he is in the film or whether he really was just a corrupt man, since we see opportunities for him to take the high road and bury the hatchet but he chooses self-advancement at every turn.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur197.jpg" />
Vengeance gave Ben-Hur no satisfaction, and all that rage is shifted from the dying Messala to Rome itself. The bitterness was so deep rooted that Esther tells him point blank that he's becoming like Messala, and his hatred and bitterness is eating away at him, more so as he watches the suffering inflicted upon Jesus as he carries the cross. The simple act of kindness from Jesus to Ben-Hur remained with him for four years and allowed him to hold onto his humanity and to repay kindness with kindness when given the chance to see that same carpenter’s son again. Even when Ben-Hur realizes that he cannot live by hate anymore, there are consequences of that feud, he lost his brother and eschewed his Roman name of Arrius to start again.
The ending of <em>Ben-Hur</em> with the healing rain is portrayed as nothing short of a miracle, and works for symbolic purposes because this had been built up to since the beginning with the Nativity and the encounters with and allusions to Jesus sprinkled throughout the film. Just as the hate that was twisting and warping Ben-Hur inside was stripped away and healed when he had a genuine encounter with Jesus and kept him from going over the edge. The message of forgiveness and relinquishing hate was effective because it was subtle and emotionally sincere to what had been seen and felt earlier in the film.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur286.jpg" />
Overall, <em>Ben-Hur </em>is a magnificent film with just as much of a far reach in terms of technical achievement as well as storytelling prowess. Like with <em>The Ten Commandments</em> and that film’s sincerity and strength in the message it sought to convey, <em>Ben-Hur</em> derives greater strength from its earnest yet grandiose approach to the thematic material and respect for its audience. It was one of the best films of 1959 and is still a ground-breaking classic to this day precisely because it continues to move and inspire audiences to this day. �AH1�� ��������� �/K
� 1����<img class="size-medium wp-image-186 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BenHur-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
<em>Ben-Hur</em> is easily one of the greatest works of drama, spectacle, entertainment and sheer emotional storytelling that I have witnessed in my life. It lives up to its reputation as winner of eleven Academy Awards and then some, and managed to work its magic for someone who hadn’t seen this film in their formative years. It’s Wyler’s grounded, intellectually sincere direction yet larger than life scope that helps it to transcend the sometimes dismissive label of “message movie” to be something that can truly mean all things to all people regardless of belief. Like other classical epics by the likes of Cecil B. DeMille and David Lean, its the delicate balancing act between the intimate and the spectacle that Ben-Hur finds its most lasting impact, allowing it to transcend its inherent religious sentiment.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur021.jpg" />
In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O’Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah, but is committed to another. Judah’s childhood friend, the Roman citizen Messala (Stephen Boyd), is now a tribune. After several years away from Jerusalem, Messala returns as the new commander of the Roman garrison. Messala believes in the glory of Rome and its imperial power, while Judah is devoted to his faith and the freedom of the Jewish people. This difference causes tension between the friends, and results in their split after Messala issues an ultimatum to Judah. During the parade for the new governor of Judea, loose tiles fall from the roof of Judah's house. The governor is thrown from his spooked horse and nearly killed. Although Messala knows this was an accident, he condemns Judah to the galleys and imprisons Miriam and Tirzah. Judah swears to take revenge.
After three years as a galley slave, Judah is assigned to the flagship of the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins), who has been charged with destroying a fleet of Macedonian pirates. Arrius admires Judah's determination and self-discipline, and offers to train him as a gladiator or charioteer. Judah declines the offer, declaring that God will aid him in his quest for vengeance. When the Roman fleet encounters the Macedonians, Arrius orders all the rowers except Judah to be chained to their oars. Arrius’ galley is rammed and sunk, but Judah unchains the other rowers, and rescues Arrius. In despair, Arrius wrongly believes the battle ended in defeat and attempts to commit suicide but Judah stops him. They are rescued, and Arrius is credited with the Roman fleet’s victory. Consul Arrius returns to Rome with Judah as his guest, and both are honoured by Emperor Tiberius (George Relph)
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur093.jpg" />
Heston delivers one of his finest emotionally driven performances in his career, illuminating the warmth of a kind-hearted prince but also the fierce rage that seems barely contained at the slightest provocation. Boyd is fantastic as the treacherous Messala, a man with a great deal of charisma and charm but balanced with great arrogance and contempt and a physical and vocal presence to match Heston. Both actors have a believable brotherly bond and they show the subtle changes from best friends to hated enemies. Hawkins gives gravitas, iron authority and world-weariness to Quintus Arrius and becomes very liable in his own way. Harareet gives a spirited performance with a great deal of emotional range and subtle expressions, and you do believe there is love between Esther and Judah. Scott and O’Donnell are equally sympathetic and sweet as Miriam and Tirzah respectively, and leave an impression despite their limited screen time. Jaffe is sympathetic as Simonides, and Griffith is charming, boisterous and exuberant as Sheik Ilderim. Relph has a brief but memorable role as the venerable Emperor Tiberius. Some quibbles about his accent aside, Finlay Currie does a great job as narrator and as one of Wise Men, Balthasar. Frank Thring portrays Pontius Pilate as a level headed and relatively decent man despite the part he plays in the condemnation of Christ.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur293.jpg" />
The cinematography by Robert L. Surtees on MGM’s legendary Camera 65 and epically wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio is a beautiful feast for the eyes. The use of lighting gives each location a unique sense of atmosphere, ranging from the brightly lit Jerusalem, bleakly hot deserts, to the dark, dank galley of the roman ship or dark, cold hallways of the Roman fort. This is a case where capturing as much of the scenery and cast of thousands necessitates this kind of camera work. The breadth and depth of field and sublime colour demand to be seen on the largest screen possible. One of the greatest visual master strokes of the film is the fact that you do not see Jesus’ face, but the impact of his presence is tantalising. The fact that his name is never spoken also keeps it subtle, but also more mystical, intriguing and yet more real at the same time because you see him through other characters’ perspectives.
The vast and elaborate sets populated with well adorned extras bring the life and colour of Jerusalem to life. They don't look like sets; they look like real locations with history and tangibility to them. The matte paintings for the sky do look rather like paintings rather than the real thing, but that is no insult on the quality work. Other matte paintings used to expand the vistas of Palestine, Jerusalem and Rome are some of the finest ever committed to film. The miniature ships are shot in a way that allows the scale of the conflict to still seem massive and terrible. The editing, cinematography and succession of practical effects maintain the illusion of a massive naval battle.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur464.jpg" />
The chariot race is one of the most perfect sequences ever put to film, the build-up with the epic fanfares, the slow pace taking in the spectacular circus and charioteers walking in step just before they break out into a spirited gallop. The fact that it's all shot in camera, without any music, with no doubt multiple takes and a serious risk to both man and beast involved, including what looked like some serious injuries on set, only adds to the breath-taking wonder of this scene. The variety of camera angles and occasionally cutting to the cheering crowd keeps the scene dynamic and engaging without going overboard with the editing. The emotions run high as Messala desperately races against his old brother Judah, madly whipping his horses and ramming his chariot while Judah needs no such cruelty to spur his horses on. It still holds up beautifully today and cannot possibly be topped.
I’ve had the pleasure of listening to many Miklós Rózsa scores in this series, but this is in my eyes his crowning achievement. The breadth and variety of music is legendary, and each piece is memorable in its own right. The bombastic Parade of Charioteers theme, the militaristic Roman marching themes, touching romantic melodies, the tragic strings for Miriam and Tirzah, the modest yet uplifting theme for Jesus, and triumphant choruses can make the hearts of viewers soar with wonder. Similarly, the restraint on certain scenes where the music dials back to let the performances speak for themselves is just as commendable.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur432.jpg" />
Apart from some necessary narration and a few pieces of cursory dialogue, the prologue depicting the Nativity is perfect, and its visual power in the imagery presented from the Star, to the three kings, the watching shepherds and the town of Bethlehem beneath the stars have a lush, painterly feeling to them, even as we follow the three kings and see the birthplace of Jesus. The music accompanying the scene is suitably tender and quietly joyful.
Despite its epic length, Wyler uses every minute of the film wisely. Character beats are appropriately set up and flow naturally into the next scene. We see how well matched Judah and Messala are intellectually and physically, get a sense of how close their families were as children and how much Messala has changed, and we see the seeds of doubt sown before the two break apart. Despite his charisma and affable initial appearance, the film intelligently shows the darkening side of Messala with each new scene, until he is shown to be one of the most realistic and despicable villains to grace the silver screen. The fact that Messala still speaks to Judah like this is all just a game to him twists the knife even more. They very tentatively hint that there was more between Judah and Messala when the latter jokes about “unrequited love” when the former is reluctant to throw his lot in with the Romans so easily.
Judah is the sort of idealistic hero who is just flawed enough to believably exist. He knows when to be loyal to his ideals and when to bide his time respectfully in the company of Emperor Tiberius and Arrius. It’s ironic that he ends up treading the path that Messala desperately sought by the Emperor’s side, and he achieves this by being a good man and holding back from the easy path of murder. One good turn deserves another and mercy begets mercy. But Judah has his share of flaws. When faced with further complications to his mission, he is quick to anger and let that rage manifest for long stretches of time. The notion of brotherly betrayal, you buy into the love and friendship between them and thus the pain that rips them apart is all the more painful. The film is somewhat ambivalent on the whether it was the innate corruption of Rome that turned Messala into the villain he is in the film or whether he really was just a corrupt man, since we see opportunities for him to take the high road and bury the hatchet but he chooses self-advancement at every turn.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur197.jpg" />
Vengeance gave Ben-Hur no satisfaction, and all that rage is shifted from the dying Messala to Rome itself. The bitterness was so deep rooted that Esther tells him point blank that he's becoming like Messala, and his hatred and bitterness is eating away at him, more so as he watches the suffering inflicted upon Jesus as he carries the cross. The simple act of kindness from Jesus to Ben-Hur remained with him for four years and allowed him to hold onto his humanity and to repay kindness with kindness when given the chance to see that same carpenter’s son again. Even when Ben-Hur realizes that he cannot live by hate anymore, there are consequences of that feud, he lost his brother and eschewed his Roman name of Arrius to start again.
The ending of <em>Ben-Hur</em> with the healing rain is portrayed as nothing short of a miracle, and works for symbolic purposes because this had been built up to since the beginning with the Nativity and the encounters with and allusions to Jesus sprinkled throughout the film. Just as the hate that was twisting and warping Ben-Hur inside was stripped away and healed when he had a genuine encounter with Jesus and kept him from going over the edge. The message of forgiveness and relinquishing hate was effective because it was subtle and emotionally sincere to what had been seen and felt earlier in the film.
<img src="http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/benhur/benhur286.jpg" />
Overall, <em>Ben-Hur </em>is a magnificent film with just as much of a far reach in terms of technical achievement as well as storytelling prowess. Like with <em>The Ten Commandments</em> and that film’s sincerity and strength in the message it sought to convey, <em>Ben-Hur</em> derives greater strength from its earnest yet grandiose approach to the thematic material and respect for its audience. It was one of the best films of 1959 and is still a ground-breaking classic to this day precisely because it continues to move and inspire audiences to this day.
Final Score: 5 / 5 �/K�]O" ��������� �iJ
� 6�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-222 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/kingdomofheaven-327x500.png" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
There are times when I am worried that a film I love won’t hold up the way I hoped it would, or I discover a new series of flaws in it that reduce it in my eyes. Thankfully, this isn’t one of those. I think the Director’s Cut of <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is a classic waiting to garner more love in the future. For this review, I am addressing the only the Director’s Cut. While I wrote a shorter review when I first joined Letterboxd, I felt compelled to elaborate my thoughts on this film. I believe <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is one of Ridley Scott’s more misunderstood films, with a message and themes that people need to take to heart regardless of faith or view on the world, for risk of repeating history.
In 1184 France, Balian (Orlando Bloom) the village blacksmith is in mourning for the death of his wife and stillborn child. Returning Crusader, Baron Godrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson), arrives in the village to declare his parentage to his only son, Balian, inviting Balian to accompany him to Jerusalem. Balian refuses at first, claiming his place is in the village, but when his half-brother the local preist reveals that he mutilated his wife’s corpse, Balian kills him in a fit of rage, burning his smithy down. Seeking absolution for his own sins as well as those of his dead wife who is damned in the eyes of the Church for committing suicide, Balian agrees to join Godfrey. Godfrey is mortally wounded in an ambush from knights sworn to the village lord. He survives for several days before succumbing to fever in Messina. Before he dies, he knights Balian and declares him his son and heir.
Balian eventually arrives in Jerusalem and allies himself with the dying masked leper king, Baldwin IV (Edward Norton) and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) the Marshall of Jerusalem. This puts him at odds with his father’s enemy, Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and the fanatical Templar Order let by Reynald of Chatillion (Brendan Gleeson). However, Baldwin’s sister and the mother to the king’s young heir, Princess Sibylla (Eva Green) takes a strong liking to Balian but their relationship is threatened by impending war. Arab leader Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) has amassed an army of 200,000 men to take back Jerusalem from the Christians who have occupied it for a century.
One of the strengths of this cast is that they look like they belong in the medieval setting. Bloom as an actor is only ever as good as his scripts, and here he plays Balian as a very emotionally distant and despondent man who grows into a courageous leader, it’s the sort of role that fits his acting capabilities even though there are actors with greater gravitas. The mesmerising Green gives me butterflies in my stomach every time she smiles, she has many emotionally charged scenes, equal parts powerful and fragile, it’s from her that I get a real sense of chemistry between her and Bloom, it’s very understated and feels genuine enough. Neeson plays the part of Godfrey wonderfully, as a man laden with regret and in search of forgiveness, communicating much through his eyes and expressions. David Thewlis typifies the ideal knight as the unnamed Hospitaller, appearing very kind and fatherly, forming a believable friendship with Neeson’s and Bloom’s characters. Csokas plays Guy with all the arrogance, contempt and unpleasant character one would imagine of a medieval lord, holding his own among this star-studded cast. Sheen is very despicable and slippery as the snivelling priest, and could pass for Bloom’s half-brother. Irons is an impressionable badass, he brings his trademark dry, snarky humour to a character with gravitas and severity to him. Edward Norton is incredible as King Baldwin, conveying his emotions and convictions beautifully from behind a silver mask with his body language, having a serene mysticism to his vocal performance. Gleeson walks the line between being theatrically insane and surprisingly subtle in his plotting and cold-blooded killer, he knows what he is. Syrian actor Massoud portrays a proud and powerful and cunning yet respectable Saladin with an incredible presence. Alexander Siddig does a great job as Imad ad-Din, Saladin’s chancellor; and Kevin McKidd’s unnamed English Sergeant is a likable tough guy. Some notable <em>Game of Thrones</em> alumni make appearances, such as Iain Glenn as Richard the Lionheart, Robert Pugh as the French village lord, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as the lord’s son.
As expected from a Ridley Scott film, the production values are some of the best ever put to film; the Middle Ages has never looked more alive and authentic before one’s eyes. This puts to shame other films that try to pass for the same period, such as <em>Braveheart</em>. The use of costuming and heraldry to identify certain factions, such as the Templars, the Hospitallers, the men at arms of Ibelin and the knights of Jerusalem is very well integrated. There is so much attention to detail in each set that you’d have to pause the film to soak it all in. Weta Workshop lent their craftsmanship to the creation of the vast armies of Christian and Muslim knights and men-at-arms, with chainmail armour that looks far superior to anything that has come before. The film remains squarely focused on the tangible, with CGI being used only as a tool to enhance the story by creating vast cities and armies, immersing us into the world. Scott captures the beauty and harshness of the Holy Land.
John Mathieson’s cinematography ranges from the bitter blue hues of winter and the murky indoor oranges in France; this is contrasted with the warmer colours of Palestine and Jerusalem. The picturesque shots of the sea, the desert and Jerusalem itself have a painterly quality to them, known from Scott’s incredible eye for visuals. Shooting on location and taking advantage of an actual castle gives another level of authenticity and realness to the film. The film draws you in with its atmosphere and sombre visuals of the barren hills, dark clouds and harsh blizzards. You get the sense of a true Dark Age, full of superstition and conflicts of interests with regards to faith.
The action scenes have grit and brutality to them that surpasses what we saw in Scott’s other historical epics. This is where the violence of the times should be put on display. The Siege of Jerusalem is depicted as nothing less than sheer brutality, the chaos and hopelessness of the battle is conveyed in every scene. Every scene is created with an overwhelming atmosphere of death and carnage. By that same token, Scott knows when to hold back and not show certain scenes like the Battle of Hattin, saving the audience’s palette for the Siege of Jerusalem. The senselessness and waste of life of war is visually demonstrated in the Templars’ attack on the unarmed caravan and the weakened Jerusalem army marching towards Hattin, to its death. This is an area where restraint makes the aftermath of the slaughter have a greater impact.
The score by Harry Gregson-Williams is excellent; tremendous use of instrumentations native to the period that accentuate the mood. You get a sense of the medieval world right from the opening shot. The use of haunting choirs, some of it sounding like church music and some of it like mosque chanting add further atmosphere to the film. Similar to <em>Troy</em>, there is a scene where music from another film is used in a crucial moment; here it is the use of Jerry Goldsmith’s score from <em>The 13<sup>th</sup> Warrior</em> for when Balian knights the remaining men at arms of Jerusalem. While it is a noticeably different style of music, it is highly effective.
The socio-political machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. We understand that Balian had experience fighting in war hence his effectiveness as a commander in the final battle, and the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving he<span style="font-size: 1rem;">r son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.</span>
Balian and Guy are presented as complete opposites of each other, where Balian builds peace between the Christians, Muslims and Jews on his land, Guy pillages Muslim caravans. Where Balian seeks and gives mercy, Guy is largely without it. The theme of mercy repaying mercy resurfaces here as Balian spares Imad ad-Din and so is shown mercy in return when he’s faced with death, and this helps Balian when he is first captured by Saladin’s army and when he is negotiating again with Saladin himself.
Vital additions of the Director’s Cut is the mention that Balian knows about siege engines and fighting on horseback, as well as a training exercise with Godfrey, which is at least better setup than simply thrusting him into the action with no build up at all. The sociopolitical machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. The the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife is also a much better hook for the character to take the crusade. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving her son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.
<em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is sometimes labelled anti-Christian, but that to me seems like simplification. There’s a lot of grey area in the depiction of Christians and Muslims and their tenuous cohabitation, as such the film makes a definite case in which there are good Christians and bad Christians. Yes the crusading side has villains like Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillon, but it also has King Baldwin, Godfrey, Tiberias and the Hospitaller. On the Muslim side, Saladin Imad ad-Din are both portrayed positively, yet there are also warmongers like the Muslim general who smirks whenever Christians are killed, the Arab warrior who tries to take Balian’s horse, and the Arab trader who says he will not offend God by associating with Christians yet still takes Christian gold. It shows the good and the bad on both sides. To me, the film isn’t anti-Christian or anti-Muslim, its anti-fanaticism and anti-tyranny, advocating the idea of the “kingdom of conscience” where a man is what he makes himself to be. The phrase “God wills it” is used by both Templars and Muslims to spur the war on, as an excuse to justify their actions. Basic human decency and the ability to balance good with bad in all of us, and how each person chooses to go about with those good and bad parts. Just because men claim to do things in the name of God doesn’t mean they truly represent the faith they claim to espouse, and only want the convenience of being able to blame something else.
When Balian survives the shipwreck, it could be sheer luck or because God spared him for greater purpose, and its open to individual interpretation. The fact the Hospitaller doesn’t have a name, is always around to give Balian crucial advice, resembles the medieval image of an angel, also gives credence to the possibility that he is literal Guardian Angel, watching over Balian up until the time comes when he has to lead the Jerusalem garrison in defence of the city. Another interesting scene in which Balian voices his lack of belief to the Hospitaller by making a bush catch fire by casting a stone at it, and when the Hospitaller disappears. The knight always appears to Balian at a time of need before riding with the Jerusalem army to Hattin. Scott keeps it ambiguous enough to allow for personal interpretation.
In addition to being a character drama than a straightforward revenge story, <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> differs from <em>Gladiator</em> in many ways. It’s not as funny as <em>Gladiator</em>, but you do get some subtle jokes in character banter and a few oddities from Reynald. It does steep us so much in the time and the place, that the specithat <em>Gladiator </em>had is lost. In doing so, it carves out its own identity with its own set of themes to communicate. It holds up a mirror to our own society, using a historical setting to give context to our own time. It’s the sort of film that generates discussion and how people relate to and engage with matters of faith and engaging with other people on a deeper level. I believe any film that can generate deep discussions of this nature out of mutual respect deserves my admiration.
Ultimately, I believe this film has aged like a fine wine, and I hope over time it engenders further interest about the middle ages as it did to me. It’s very entertaining, but very emotional and its themes are resonant to this day. Ridley Scott has had the last laugh because it’s the version that everyone will recommend over the theatrical release. It remains my favourite medieval war epic, and still an overlooked gem in my opinion. �iJ�wP ��������� 룗
� 6���<img class="size-medium wp-image-222 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/kingdomofheaven-327x500.png" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
There are times when I am worried that a film I love won’t hold up the way I hoped it would, or I discover a new series of flaws in it that reduce it in my eyes. Thankfully, this isn’t one of those. I think the Director’s Cut of <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is a classic waiting to garner more love in the future. For this review, I am addressing the only the Director’s Cut. While I wrote a shorter review when I first joined Letterboxd, I felt compelled to elaborate my thoughts on this film. I believe <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is one of Ridley Scott’s more misunderstood films, with a message and themes that people need to take to heart regardless of faith or view on the world, for risk of repeating history.
In 1184 France, Balian (Orlando Bloom) the village blacksmith is in mourning for the death of his wife and stillborn child. Returning Crusader, Baron Godrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson), arrives in the village to declare his parentage to his only son, Balian, inviting Balian to accompany him to Jerusalem. Balian refuses at first, claiming his place is in the village, but when his half-brother the local preist reveals that he mutilated his wife’s corpse, Balian kills him in a fit of rage, burning his smithy down. Seeking absolution for his own sins as well as those of his dead wife who is damned in the eyes of the Church for committing suicide, Balian agrees to join Godfrey. Godfrey is mortally wounded in an ambush from knights sworn to the village lord. He survives for several days before succumbing to fever in Messina. Before he dies, he knights Balian and declares him his son and heir.
Balian eventually arrives in Jerusalem and allies himself with the dying masked leper king, Baldwin IV (Edward Norton) and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) the Marshall of Jerusalem. This puts him at odds with his father’s enemy, Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and the fanatical Templar Order let by Reynald of Chatillion (Brendan Gleeson). However, Baldwin’s sister and the mother to the king’s young heir, Princess Sibylla (Eva Green) takes a strong liking to Balian but their relationship is threatened by impending war. Arab leader Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) has amassed an army of 200,000 men to take back Jerusalem from the Christians who have occupied it for a century.
One of the strengths of this cast is that they look like they belong in the medieval setting. Bloom as an actor is only ever as good as his scripts, and here he plays Balian as a very emotionally distant and despondent man who grows into a courageous leader, it’s the sort of role that fits his acting capabilities even though there are actors with greater gravitas. The mesmerising Green gives me butterflies in my stomach every time she smiles, she has many emotionally charged scenes, equal parts powerful and fragile, it’s from her that I get a real sense of chemistry between her and Bloom, it’s very understated and feels genuine enough. Neeson plays the part of Godfrey wonderfully, as a man laden with regret and in search of forgiveness, communicating much through his eyes and expressions. David Thewlis typifies the ideal knight as the unnamed Hospitaller, appearing very kind and fatherly, forming a believable friendship with Neeson’s and Bloom’s characters. Csokas plays Guy with all the arrogance, contempt and unpleasant character one would imagine of a medieval lord, holding his own among this star-studded cast. Sheen is very despicable and slippery as the snivelling priest, and could pass for Bloom’s half-brother. Irons is an impressionable badass, he brings his trademark dry, snarky humour to a character with gravitas and severity to him. Edward Norton is incredible as King Baldwin, conveying his emotions and convictions beautifully from behind a silver mask with his body language, having a serene mysticism to his vocal performance. Gleeson walks the line between being theatrically insane and surprisingly subtle in his plotting and cold-blooded killer, he knows what he is. Syrian actor Massoud portrays a proud and powerful and cunning yet respectable Saladin with an incredible presence. Alexander Siddig does a great job as Imad ad-Din, Saladin’s chancellor; and Kevin McKidd’s unnamed English Sergeant is a likable tough guy. Some notable <em>Game of Thrones</em> alumni make appearances, such as Iain Glenn as Richard the Lionheart, Robert Pugh as the French village lord, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as the lord’s son.
As expected from a Ridley Scott film, the production values are some of the best ever put to film; the Middle Ages has never looked more alive and authentic before one’s eyes. This puts to shame other films that try to pass for the same period, such as <em>Braveheart</em>. The use of costuming and heraldry to identify certain factions, such as the Templars, the Hospitallers, the men at arms of Ibelin and the knights of Jerusalem is very well integrated. There is so much attention to detail in each set that you’d have to pause the film to soak it all in. Weta Workshop lent their craftsmanship to the creation of the vast armies of Christian and Muslim knights and men-at-arms, with chainmail armour that looks far superior to anything that has come before. The film remains squarely focused on the tangible, with CGI being used only as a tool to enhance the story by creating vast cities and armies, immersing us into the world. Scott captures the beauty and harshness of the Holy Land.
John Mathieson’s cinematography ranges from the bitter blue hues of winter and the murky indoor oranges in France; this is contrasted with the warmer colours of Palestine and Jerusalem. The picturesque shots of the sea, the desert and Jerusalem itself have a painterly quality to them, known from Scott’s incredible eye for visuals. Shooting on location and taking advantage of an actual castle gives another level of authenticity and realness to the film. The film draws you in with its atmosphere and sombre visuals of the barren hills, dark clouds and harsh blizzards. You get the sense of a true Dark Age, full of superstition and conflicts of interests with regards to faith.
The action scenes have grit and brutality to them that surpasses what we saw in Scott’s other historical epics. This is where the violence of the times should be put on display. The Siege of Jerusalem is depicted as nothing less than sheer brutality, the chaos and hopelessness of the battle is conveyed in every scene. Every scene is created with an overwhelming atmosphere of death and carnage. By that same token, Scott knows when to hold back and not show certain scenes like the Battle of Hattin, saving the audience’s palette for the Siege of Jerusalem. The senselessness and waste of life of war is visually demonstrated in the Templars’ attack on the unarmed caravan and the weakened Jerusalem army marching towards Hattin, to its death. This is an area where restraint makes the aftermath of the slaughter have a greater impact.
The score by Harry Gregson-Williams is excellent; tremendous use of instrumentations native to the period that accentuate the mood. You get a sense of the medieval world right from the opening shot. The use of haunting choirs, some of it sounding like church music and some of it like mosque chanting add further atmosphere to the film. Similar to <em>Troy</em>, there is a scene where music from another film is used in a crucial moment; here it is the use of Jerry Goldsmith’s score from <em>The 13<sup>th</sup> Warrior</em> for when Balian knights the remaining men at arms of Jerusalem. While it is a noticeably different style of music, it is highly effective.
The socio-political machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. We understand that Balian had experience fighting in war hence his effectiveness as a commander in the final battle, and the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving he<span style="font-size: 1rem;">r son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.</span>
Balian and Guy are presented as complete opposites of each other, where Balian builds peace between the Christians, Muslims and Jews on his land, Guy pillages Muslim caravans. Where Balian seeks and gives mercy, Guy is largely without it. The theme of mercy repaying mercy resurfaces here as Balian spares Imad ad-Din and so is shown mercy in return when he’s faced with death, and this helps Balian when he is first captured by Saladin’s army and when he is negotiating again with Saladin himself.
Vital additions of the Director’s Cut is the mention that Balian knows about siege engines and fighting on horseback, as well as a training exercise with Godfrey, which is at least better setup than simply thrusting him into the action with no build up at all. The sociopolitical machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. The the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife is also a much better hook for the character to take the crusade. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving her son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.
<em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is sometimes labelled anti-Christian, but that to me seems like simplification. There’s a lot of grey area in the depiction of Christians and Muslims and their tenuous cohabitation, as such the film makes a definite case in which there are good Christians and bad Christians. Yes the crusading side has villains like Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillon, but it also has King Baldwin, Godfrey, Tiberias and the Hospitaller. On the Muslim side, Saladin Imad ad-Din are both portrayed positively, yet there are also warmongers like the Muslim general who smirks whenever Christians are killed, the Arab warrior who tries to take Balian’s horse, and the Arab trader who says he will not offend God by associating with Christians yet still takes Christian gold. It shows the good and the bad on both sides. To me, the film isn’t anti-Christian or anti-Muslim, its anti-fanaticism and anti-tyranny, advocating the idea of the “kingdom of conscience” where a man is what he makes himself to be. The phrase “God wills it” is used by both Templars and Muslims to spur the war on, as an excuse to justify their actions. Basic human decency and the ability to balance good with bad in all of us, and how each person chooses to go about with those good and bad parts. Just because men claim to do things in the name of God doesn’t mean they truly represent the faith they claim to espouse, and only want the convenience of being able to blame something else.
When Balian survives the shipwreck, it could be sheer luck or because God spared him for greater purpose, and its open to individual interpretation. The fact the Hospitaller doesn’t have a name, is always around to give Balian crucial advice, resembles the medieval image of an angel, also gives credence to the possibility that he is literal Guardian Angel, watching over Balian up until the time comes when he has to lead the Jerusalem garrison in defence of the city. Another interesting scene in which Balian voices his lack of belief to the Hospitaller by making a bush catch fire by casting a stone at it, and when the Hospitaller disappears. The knight always appears to Balian at a time of need before riding with the Jerusalem army to Hattin. Scott keeps it ambiguous enough to allow for personal interpretation.
In addition to being a character drama than a straightforward revenge story, <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> differs from <em>Gladiator</em> in many ways. It’s not as funny as <em>Gladiator</em>, but you do get some subtle jokes in character banter and a few oddities from Reynald. It does steep us so much in the time and the place, that the momentum that <em>Gladiator </em>had is lost. In doing so, it carves out its own identity with its own set of themes to communicate. It holds up a mirror to our own society, using a historical setting to give context to our own time. It’s the sort of film that generates discussion and how people relate to and engage with matters of faith and engaging with other people on a deeper level. I believe any film that can generate deep discussions of this nature out of mutual respect deserves my admiration.
Ultimately, I believe this film has aged like a fine wine, and I hope over time it engenders further interest about the middle ages as it did to me. It’s very entertaining, but very emotional and its themes are resonant to this day. Ridley Scott has had the last laugh because it’s the version that everyone will recommend over the theatrical release. It remains my favourite medieval war epic, and still an overlooked gem in my opinion. 룗��G� ��������� ���
� 6��<img class="size-medium wp-image-222 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/kingdomofheaven-327x500.png" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
There are times when I am worried that a film I love won’t hold up the way I hoped it would, or I discover a new series of flaws in it that reduce it in my eyes. Thankfully, this isn’t one of those. I think the Director’s Cut of <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is a classic waiting to garner more love in the future. For this review, I am addressing the only the Director’s Cut. While I wrote a shorter review when I first joined Letterboxd, I felt compelled to elaborate my thoughts on this film. I believe <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is one of Ridley Scott’s more misunderstood films, with a message and themes that people need to take to heart regardless of faith or view on the world, for risk of repeating history.
In 1184 France, Balian (Orlando Bloom) the village blacksmith is in mourning for the death of his wife and stillborn child. Returning Crusader, Baron Godrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson), arrives in the village to declare his parentage to his only son, Balian, inviting Balian to accompany him to Jerusalem. Balian refuses at first, claiming his place is in the village, but when his half-brother the local preist reveals that he mutilated his wife’s corpse, Balian kills him in a fit of rage, burning his smithy down. Seeking absolution for his own sins as well as those of his dead wife who is damned in the eyes of the Church for committing suicide, Balian agrees to join Godfrey. Godfrey is mortally wounded in an ambush from knights sworn to the village lord. He survives for several days before succumbing to fever in Messina. Before he dies, he knights Balian and declares him his son and heir.
Balian eventually arrives in Jerusalem and allies himself with the dying masked leper king, Baldwin IV (Edward Norton) and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) the Marshall of Jerusalem. This puts him at odds with his father’s enemy, Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and the fanatical Templar Order let by Reynald of Chatillion (Brendan Gleeson). However, Baldwin’s sister and the mother to the king’s young heir, Princess Sibylla (Eva Green) takes a strong liking to Balian but their relationship is threatened by impending war. Arab leader Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) has amassed an army of 200,000 men to take back Jerusalem from the Christians who have occupied it for a century.
One of the strengths of this cast is that they look like they belong in the medieval setting. Bloom as an actor is only ever as good as his scripts, and here he plays Balian as a very emotionally distant and despondent man who grows into a courageous leader, it’s the sort of role that fits his acting capabilities even though there are actors with greater gravitas. The mesmerising Green gives me butterflies in my stomach every time she smiles, she has many emotionally charged scenes, equal parts powerful and fragile, it’s from her that I get a real sense of chemistry between her and Bloom, it’s very understated and feels genuine enough. Neeson plays the part of Godfrey wonderfully, as a man laden with regret and in search of forgiveness, communicating much through his eyes and expressions. David Thewlis typifies the ideal knight as the unnamed Hospitaller, appearing very kind and fatherly, forming a believable friendship with Neeson’s and Bloom’s characters. Csokas plays Guy with all the arrogance, contempt and unpleasant character one would imagine of a medieval lord, holding his own among this star-studded cast. Sheen is very despicable and slippery as the snivelling priest, and could pass for Bloom’s half-brother. Irons is an impressionable badass, he brings his trademark dry, snarky humour to a character with gravitas and severity to him. Edward Norton is incredible as King Baldwin, conveying his emotions and convictions beautifully from behind a silver mask with his body language, having a serene mysticism to his vocal performance. Gleeson walks the line between being theatrically insane and surprisingly subtle in his plotting and cold-blooded killer, he knows what he is. Syrian actor Massoud portrays a proud and powerful and cunning yet respectable Saladin with an incredible presence. Alexander Siddig does a great job as Imad ad-Din, Saladin’s chancellor; and Kevin McKidd’s unnamed English Sergeant is a likable tough guy. Some notable <em>Game of Thrones</em> alumni make appearances, such as Iain Glenn as Richard the Lionheart, Robert Pugh as the French village lord, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as the lord’s son.
As expected from a Ridley Scott film, the production values are some of the best ever put to film; the Middle Ages has never looked more alive and authentic before one’s eyes. This puts to shame other films that try to pass for the same period, such as <em>Braveheart</em>. The use of costuming and heraldry to identify certain factions, such as the Templars, the Hospitallers, the men at arms of Ibelin and the knights of Jerusalem is very well integrated. There is so much attention to detail in each set that you’d have to pause the film to soak it all in. Weta Workshop lent their craftsmanship to the creation of the vast armies of Christian and Muslim knights and men-at-arms, with chainmail armour that looks far superior to anything that has come before. The film remains squarely focused on the tangible, with CGI being used only as a tool to enhance the story by creating vast cities and armies, immersing us into the world. Scott captures the beauty and harshness of the Holy Land.
John Mathieson’s cinematography ranges from the bitter blue hues of winter and the murky indoor oranges in France; this is contrasted with the warmer colours of Palestine and Jerusalem. The picturesque shots of the sea, the desert and Jerusalem itself have a painterly quality to them, known from Scott’s incredible eye for visuals. Shooting on location and taking advantage of an actual castle gives another level of authenticity and realness to the film. The film draws you in with its atmosphere and sombre visuals of the barren hills, dark clouds and harsh blizzards. You get the sense of a true Dark Age, full of superstition and conflicts of interests with regards to faith.
The action scenes have grit and brutality to them that surpasses what we saw in Scott’s other historical epics. This is where the violence of the times should be put on display. The Siege of Jerusalem is depicted as nothing less than sheer brutality, the chaos and hopelessness of the battle is conveyed in every scene. Every scene is created with an overwhelming atmosphere of death and carnage. By that same token, Scott knows when to hold back and not show certain scenes like the Battle of Hattin, saving the audience’s palette for the Siege of Jerusalem. The senselessness and waste of life of war is visually demonstrated in the Templars’ attack on the unarmed caravan and the weakened Jerusalem army marching towards Hattin, to its death. This is an area where restraint makes the aftermath of the slaughter have a greater impact.
The score by Harry Gregson-Williams is excellent; tremendous use of instrumentations native to the period that accentuate the mood. You get a sense of the medieval world right from the opening shot. The use of haunting choirs, some of it sounding like church music and some of it like mosque chanting add further atmosphere to the film. Similar to <em>Troy</em>, there is a scene where music from another film is used in a crucial moment; here it is the use of Jerry Goldsmith’s score from <em>The 13<sup>th</sup> Warrior</em> for when Balian knights the remaining men at arms of Jerusalem. While it is a noticeably different style of music, it is highly effective.
The socio-political machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. We understand that Balian had experience fighting in war hence his effectiveness as a commander in the final battle, and the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving he<span style="font-size: 1rem;">r son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.</span>
Balian and Guy are presented as complete opposites of each other, where Balian builds peace between the Christians, Muslims and Jews on his land, Guy pillages Muslim caravans. Where Balian seeks and gives mercy, Guy is largely without it. The theme of mercy repaying mercy resurfaces here as Balian spares Imad ad-Din and so is shown mercy in return when he’s faced with death, and this helps Balian when he is first captured by Saladin’s army and when he is negotiating again with Saladin himself.
Vital additions of the Director’s Cut is the mention that Balian knows about siege engines and fighting on horseback, as well as a training exercise with Godfrey, which is at least better setup than simply thrusting him into the action with no build up at all. The sociopolitical machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. The the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife is also a much better hook for the character to take the crusade. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving her son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.
<em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is sometimes labelled anti-Christian, but that to me seems like simplification. There’s a lot of grey area in the depiction of Christians and Muslims and their tenuous cohabitation, as such the film makes a definite case in which there are good Christians and bad Christians. Yes the crusading side has villains like Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillon, but it also has King Baldwin, Godfrey, Tiberias and the Hospitaller. On the Muslim side, Saladin Imad ad-Din are both portrayed positively, yet there are also warmongers like the Muslim general who smirks whenever Christians are killed, the Arab warrior who tries to take Balian’s horse, and the Arab trader who says he will not offend God by associating with Christians yet still takes Christian gold. It shows the good and the bad on both sides. To me, the film isn’t anti-Christian or anti-Muslim, its anti-fanaticism and anti-tyranny, advocating the idea of the “kingdom of conscience” where a man is what he makes himself to be. The phrase “God wills it” is used by both Templars and Muslims to spur the war on, as an excuse to justify their actions. Basic human decency and the ability to balance good with bad in all of us, and how each person chooses to go about with those good and bad parts. Just because men claim to do things in the name of God doesn’t mean they truly represent the faith they claim to espouse, and only want the convenience of being able to blame something else.
When Balian survives the shipwreck, it could be sheer luck or because God spared him for greater purpose, and its open to individual interpretation. The fact the Hospitaller doesn’t have a name, is always around to give Balian crucial advice, resembles the medieval image of an angel, also gives credence to the possibility that he is literal Guardian Angel, watching over Balian up until the time comes when he has to lead the Jerusalem garrison in defence of the city. Another interesting scene in which Balian voices his lack of belief to the Hospitaller by making a bush catch fire by casting a stone at it, and when the Hospitaller disappears. The knight always appears to Balian at a time of need before riding with the Jerusalem army to Hattin. Scott keeps it ambiguous enough to allow for personal interpretation.
In addition to being a character drama than a straightforward revenge story, <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> differs from <em>Gladiator</em> in many ways. It’s not as funny as <em>Gladiator</em>, but you do get some subtle jokes in character banter and a few oddities from Reynald. It does steep us so much in the time and the place, that the special type of energy that <em>Gladiator </em>had is lost. In doing so, it carves out its own identity with its own set of themes to communicate. It holds up a mirror to our own society, using a historical setting to give context to our own time. It’s the sort of film that generates discussion and how people relate to and engage with matters of faith and engaging with other people on a deeper level. I believe any film that can generate deep discussions of this nature out of mutual respect deserves my admiration.
Ultimately, I believe this film has aged like a fine wine, and I hope over time it engenders further interest about the middle ages as it did to me. It’s very entertaining, but very emotional and its themes are resonant to this day. Ridley Scott has had the last laugh because it’s the version that everyone will recommend over the theatrical release. It remains my favourite medieval war epic, and still an overlooked gem in my opinion. ������ ��������� �;
� 7 ����<img class="size-medium wp-image-222 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/kingdomofheaven-327x500.png" alt="" width="327" height="500" />
There are times when I am worried that a film I love won’t hold up the way I hoped it would, or I discover a new series of flaws in it that reduce it in my eyes. Thankfully, this isn’t one of those. I think the Director’s Cut of <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is a classic waiting to garner more love in the future. For this review, I am addressing the only the Director’s Cut. While I wrote a shorter review when I first joined Letterboxd, I felt compelled to elaborate my thoughts on this film. I believe <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is one of Ridley Scott’s more misunderstood films, with a message and themes that people need to take to heart regardless of faith or view on the world, for risk of repeating history.
In 1184 France, Balian (Orlando Bloom) the village blacksmith is in mourning for the death of his wife and stillborn child. Returning Crusader, Baron Godrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson), arrives in the village to declare his parentage to his only son, Balian, inviting Balian to accompany him to Jerusalem. Balian refuses at first, claiming his place is in the village, but when his half-brother the local preist reveals that he mutilated his wife’s corpse, Balian kills him in a fit of rage, burning his smithy down. Seeking absolution for his own sins as well as those of his dead wife who is damned in the eyes of the Church for committing suicide, Balian agrees to join Godfrey. Godfrey is mortally wounded in an ambush from knights sworn to the village lord. He survives for several days before succumbing to fever in Messina. Before he dies, he knights Balian and declares him his son and heir.
Balian eventually arrives in Jerusalem and allies himself with the dying masked leper king, Baldwin IV (Edward Norton) and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) the Marshall of Jerusalem. This puts him at odds with his father’s enemy, Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and the fanatical Templar Order let by Reynald of Chatillion (Brendan Gleeson). However, Baldwin’s sister and the mother to the king’s young heir, Princess Sibylla (Eva Green) takes a strong liking to Balian but their relationship is threatened by impending war. Arab leader Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) has amassed an army of 200,000 men to take back Jerusalem from the Christians who have occupied it for a century.
One of the strengths of this cast is that they look like they belong in the medieval setting. Bloom as an actor is only ever as good as his scripts, and here he plays Balian as a very emotionally distant and despondent man who grows into a courageous leader, it’s the sort of role that fits his acting capabilities even though there are actors with greater gravitas. The mesmerising Green gives me butterflies in my stomach every time she smiles, she has many emotionally charged scenes, equal parts powerful and fragile, it’s from her that I get a real sense of chemistry between her and Bloom, it’s very understated and feels genuine enough. Neeson plays the part of Godfrey wonderfully, as a man laden with regret and in search of forgiveness, communicating much through his eyes and expressions. David Thewlis typifies the ideal knight as the unnamed Hospitaller, appearing very kind and fatherly, forming a believable friendship with Neeson’s and Bloom’s characters. Csokas plays Guy with all the arrogance, contempt and unpleasant character one would imagine of a medieval lord, holding his own among this star-studded cast. Sheen is very despicable and slippery as the snivelling priest, and could pass for Bloom’s half-brother. Irons is an impressionable badass, he brings his trademark dry, snarky humour to a character with gravitas and severity to him. Edward Norton is incredible as King Baldwin, conveying his emotions and convictions beautifully from behind a silver mask with his body language, having a serene mysticism to his vocal performance. Gleeson walks the line between being theatrically insane and surprisingly subtle in his plotting and cold-blooded killer, he knows what he is. Syrian actor Massoud portrays a proud and powerful and cunning yet respectable Saladin with an incredible presence. Alexander Siddig does a great job as Imad ad-Din, Saladin’s chancellor; and Kevin McKidd’s unnamed English Sergeant is a likable tough guy. Some notable <em>Game of Thrones</em> alumni make appearances, such as Iain Glenn as Richard the Lionheart, Robert Pugh as the French village lord, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as the lord’s son.
As expected from a Ridley Scott film, the production values are some of the best ever put to film; the Middle Ages has never looked more alive and authentic before one’s eyes. This puts to shame other films that try to pass for the same period, such as <em>Braveheart</em>. The use of costuming and heraldry to identify certain factions, such as the Templars, the Hospitallers, the men at arms of Ibelin and the knights of Jerusalem is very well integrated. There is so much attention to detail in each set that you’d have to pause the film to soak it all in. Weta Workshop lent their craftsmanship to the creation of the vast armies of Christian and Muslim knights and men-at-arms, with chainmail armour that looks far superior to anything that has come before. The film remains squarely focused on the tangible, with CGI being used only as a tool to enhance the story by creating vast cities and armies, immersing us into the world. Scott captures the beauty and harshness of the Holy Land.
John Mathieson’s cinematography ranges from the bitter blue hues of winter and the murky indoor oranges in France; this is contrasted with the warmer colours of Palestine and Jerusalem. The picturesque shots of the sea, the desert and Jerusalem itself have a painterly quality to them, known from Scott’s incredible eye for visuals. Shooting on location and taking advantage of an actual castle gives another level of authenticity and realness to the film. The film draws you in with its atmosphere and sombre visuals of the barren hills, dark clouds and harsh blizzards. You get the sense of a true Dark Age, full of superstition and conflicts of interests with regards to faith.
The action scenes have grit and brutality to them that surpasses what we saw in Scott’s other historical epics. This is where the violence of the times should be put on display. The Siege of Jerusalem is depicted as nothing less than sheer brutality, the chaos and hopelessness of the battle is conveyed in every scene. Every scene is created with an overwhelming atmosphere of death and carnage. By that same token, Scott knows when to hold back and not show certain scenes like the Battle of Hattin, saving the audience’s palette for the Siege of Jerusalem. The senselessness and waste of life of war is visually demonstrated in the Templars’ attack on the unarmed caravan and the weakened Jerusalem army marching towards Hattin, to its death. This is an area where restraint makes the aftermath of the slaughter have a greater impact.
The score by Harry Gregson-Williams is excellent; tremendous use of instrumentations native to the period that accentuate the mood. You get a sense of the medieval world right from the opening shot. The use of haunting choirs, some of it sounding like church music and some of it like mosque chanting add further atmosphere to the film. Similar to <em>Troy</em>, there is a scene where music from another film is used in a crucial moment; here it is the use of Jerry Goldsmith’s score from <em>The 13<sup>th</sup> Warrior</em> for when Balian knights the remaining men at arms of Jerusalem. While it is a noticeably different style of music, it is highly effective.
The socio-political machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. We understand that Balian had experience fighting in war hence his effectiveness as a commander in the final battle, and the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving he<span style="font-size: 1rem;">r son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.</span>
Balian and Guy are presented as complete opposites of each other, where Balian builds peace between the Christians, Muslims and Jews on his land, Guy pillages Muslim caravans. Where Balian seeks and gives mercy, Guy is largely without it. The theme of mercy repaying mercy resurfaces here as Balian spares Imad ad-Din and so is shown mercy in return when he’s faced with death, and this helps Balian when he is first captured by Saladin’s army and when he is negotiating again with Saladin himself.
Vital additions of the Director’s Cut is the mention that Balian knows about siege engines and fighting on horseback, as well as a training exercise with Godfrey, which is at least better setup than simply thrusting him into the action with no build up at all. The sociopolitical machinations are more clearly defined, transforming the dry political discourses into a compelling character piece. The the emotional baggage he brings to Jerusalem regarding his deceased wife is also a much better hook for the character to take the crusade. The emotional dimension of the characters is strengthened; we come to care for them and understand their motivations, be they reluctant malice, inadvertent nobility, or anything in between. This is especially telling in Sibylla’s story; everything involving her son (who ruled briefly after Baldwin IV’s death), is presented. No longer is she a satellite character simply there to provide a love interest for Balian, and gives credence to the way her character changes throughout the film.
<em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> is sometimes labelled anti-Christian, but that to me seems like simplification. There’s a lot of grey area in the depiction of Christians and Muslims and their tenuous cohabitation, as such the film makes a definite case in which there are good Christians and bad Christians. Yes the crusading side has villains like Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillon, but it also has King Baldwin, Godfrey, Tiberias and the Hospitaller. On the Muslim side, Saladin Imad ad-Din are both portrayed positively, yet there are also warmongers like the Muslim general who smirks whenever Christians are killed, the Arab warrior who tries to take Balian’s horse, and the Arab trader who says he will not offend God by associating with Christians yet still takes Christian gold. It shows the good and the bad on both sides. To me, the film isn’t anti-Christian or anti-Muslim, its anti-fanaticism and anti-tyranny, advocating the idea of the “kingdom of conscience” where a man is what he makes himself to be. The phrase “God wills it” is used by both Templars and Muslims to spur the war on, as an excuse to justify their actions. Basic human decency and the ability to balance good with bad in all of us, and how each person chooses to go about with those good and bad parts. Just because men claim to do things in the name of God doesn’t mean they truly represent the faith they claim to espouse, and only want the convenience of being able to blame something else.
When Balian survives the shipwreck, it could be sheer luck or because God spared him for greater purpose, and its open to individual interpretation. The fact the Hospitaller doesn’t have a name, is always around to give Balian crucial advice, resembles the medieval image of an angel, also gives credence to the possibility that he is literal Guardian Angel, watching over Balian up until the time comes when he has to lead the Jerusalem garrison in defence of the city. Another interesting scene in which Balian voices his lack of belief to the Hospitaller by making a bush catch fire by casting a stone at it, and when the Hospitaller disappears. The knight always appears to Balian at a time of need before riding with the Jerusalem army to Hattin. Scott keeps it ambiguous enough to allow for personal interpretation.
In addition to being a character drama than a straightforward revenge story, <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> differs from <em>Gladiator</em> in many ways. It’s not as funny as <em>Gladiator</em>, but you do get some subtle jokes in character banter and a few oddities from Reynald. It does steep us so much in the time and the place, that the unique tone and energy <em>Gladiator </em>had is no longer in evidence. In doing so, it carves out its own identity with its own set of themes to communicate. It holds up a mirror to our own society, using a historical setting to give context to our own time. It’s the sort of film that generates discussion and how people relate to and engage with matters of faith and engaging with other people on a deeper level. I believe any film that can generate deep discussions of this nature out of mutual respect deserves my admiration.
Ultimately, I believe this film has aged like a fine wine, and I hope over time it engenders further interest about the middle ages as it did to me. It’s very entertaining, but very emotional and its themes are resonant to this day. Ridley Scott has had the last laugh because it’s the version that everyone will recommend over the theatrical release. It remains my favourite medieval war epic, and still an overlooked gem in my opinion. �;� �z ��������� �fX
� ?� �<img class="size-medium wp-image-153 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/alexander_ver3-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Oliver Stone </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: Oliver Stone, Christopher Kyle, Laeta Kalogridis</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Thomas Schühly, Jon Kilik, Iain Smith, Moritz Borman</strong>
<strong>Studio: Intermedia Films, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 24th November, 2004</strong>
Oliver Stone’s <em>Alexander</em> is a fascinating creature of a film; one that I have already a curious liking for yet one I cannot deny its many flaws. It’s a strange film that alternates between being a striking vision of Antiquity and a bizarre acid trip of excess and strange direction choices that makes <em>300</em> look tame by comparison. You can tell Oliver Stone poured all his heart and soul into the telling of Alexander’s story and sticking true to the history. For this review, I will look at the ‘Revisited’ cut; it’s the longest (therefore also the most challenging) but also one with perhaps the most to offer as a biopic and an epic recounting the life and exploits of one of history’s greatest conquerors.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.oliverstone.com/images/made/uploads/images/alexander-revisited_460_380_tl_2_tr_2_s_c1_center_top.png" alt="Image result for alexander revisited" width="460" height="380" />
In Alexandria, Egypt, 283 BC, Pharaoh Ptolemy I (Anthony Hopkins) recites his memoirs alongside Alexander to his scribe Cadmus, serving as the framing device for the film with Ptolemy as the narrator, alluding to other events off-screen while the film focuses on some of the key moments in the life of Alexander. In this edition, we are introduced to Alexander (Colin Farrell) in 331 BC just before the Battle of Gaugamela against King Darius III of the Persian Empire. Among his loyal generals are Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Antigonus (Ian Beattie), Cleitus (Gary Stretch), Parmenion (John Kavanagh), Philotas (Joseph Morgan), and the younger Ptolemy (Elliot Cowan). The battle commences, and despite the Persians’ overwhelming numbers, Alexander wins the day through superior tactics and claiming Babylon in the name of Macedonia. He confides with Hephaistion of his ambitions to travel to and conquer the far corners of the world.
Between these exploits, we see flashbacks<span style="font-size: 1rem;"> Alexander’s life as a young prince (Connor Paolo) and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and his tutor Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His already tenuous relationship with his father King Philip II (Val Kilmer) is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydice, the niece of Attalus. After the assassination of Philip, Eurydice’s claim to the throne is destroyed; Alexander becomes king and fulfils his father’s intended campaign to conquer Persia.</span>
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/21/Alexander-Gaugamela.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 screencaps" width="779" height="323" />
The acting has been a subject of debate and ridicule, with many of the key actors attracting criticism for their performances. I myself can enjoy such theatrical performances, having seen a number of Greek plays where this type of acting is commonplace. Farrell looks the part of Alexander and sportingly throws himself into the action scenes, and he does have a fair few scenes that show off his confidence and passionate leadership well, but not enough. Because Farrell has more of an everyman quality to him, he doesn’t nail the enormous charisma you think would be associated with a great leader of men. In other scenes he becomes like a character in a Greek play with over the top expressions and mood swings, the worst of which happen with Jolie’s Olympias. Speaking of which, Jolie is another strange casting as Olympias, overdoing her Albanian accent, eating up the scenery and being very unsettling and not in a fun way. Kilmer has some good scenes with both Alexander actors, and his Irish accent seemed to work well enough, but when he goes into over the top drunken rants it’s almost as bad as Jolie.
Leto gives an okay performance as the calm, as<span style="font-size: 1rem;">suaging Hephaistion to Farrell’s wildly passionate Alexander; however they don’t have enough chemistry to really believe that they’re lovers. Despite some good scenes in the first half, Hephaistion seldom has much screen time with Alexander in the second half and we mostly get longing stares between the couple. Hopkins provides a solemn, soothing narration to the film and conveys the memory of a man who has seen the world and is thinking of his youth with nostalgia. Rosario Dawson does a good job as the Bactrian princess, Roxana, holding her own despite having very limited screen time. Plummer gives a lot of worldly personality as Aristotle, having a great scene with the young Greeks who would follow Alexander. Cowan (w</span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">ho looks like he could reasonably pass for a young Anthony Hopkins), Kavanagh, Morgan and Stretch all function well as generals to Alexander, but sometimes go for theatrics like some of the A-listers. </span><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Familiar faces appearing in surprising early roles include Toby Kebbell as Pausanias, the killer of Philip, Ian Beattie as General Antigonus, Rory McCann as Craterus the soldier. In brief but impressionable roles include Tim Piggot-Smith as the omen reader, and Brian Blessed is a welcome sight as young Alexander’s wrestling tutor.</span>
This is a very well-polished film, on par with the likes of <em>Gladiator</em>, <em>Troy</em> and <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> for technical prowess. For the vast majority of the film, the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic. The hot orange colours of Gaugamela and vibrant colours of Babylon and Bactria capture the exotic look of the eastern countries. The pastoral hills and town of Pellas, Macedonia have a lush pastoral purity to them, and the verdant jungles and temples of India are beautifully shot with a greater level of contrast and colour. He excels in capturing the vastness and insanity of the battles. There is one area where the cinematography jumps the gun badly which I will highlight later.<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" style="font-size: 1rem;" src="http://sentsmemory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/babylon.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander babylon" width="776" height="319" />
The realization of the great Babylon through massive sets and CGI is stunning, and surprisingly much of it holds up. In fact, the locations, sets, art direction, sound design, and the overall splendour of its visuals almost make me want to recommend viewing <em>Alexander</em> on that level. A lot of work and detail has gone into the making of the weapons, armour and costumes ranging from the plainer togas and uniforms of the Macedonians to the and rich, opulent, colourful attire of the various eastern cultures. Admittedly, the makeup on Kilmer’s Philip and blond locks of Farrell’s Alexander do leave much to be desired. And the CGI eagle close-ups don’t look at all real, definitely a case of being too ambitious with the VFX.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Elephant.jpg" alt="Related image" width="762" height="316" />
The Battle of Gaugamela is an incredible achievement in historical battle filmmaking, Stone films as much of the vast Macedonian and Persian armies in-camera as possible, with impressive wide shots of the Macedonian phalanxes, Persian infantry battalions, Persian chariots and the cavalry on both sides. CGI is used to give a sense of scale of both armies, but is primarily used from a bird’s eye view and only when necessary. The fighting is filmed at close quarters and has a frenetic energy and character to it, emulating the chaos of ancient warfare. The action scenes are bloody and shocking to behold, but no less than one should expect considering this period of warfare. Comparing Gaugamela to Hydaspes in India, it’s clear how much worse and bloodier a battle it was as the Greeks find themselves further away from home. The elephants gave me goose-bumps they thundered into view and laid waste to the Greek phalanx, and we see soldiers tossed about, gored and crushed underfoot. I keep wondering “how did they do it?” with the use of very real and very dangerous elephants and hundreds of armed extras in such an enclosed environment. If nothing else, both of these battles deserve far more attention for their prowess of execution. There is no escaping the hellishness of war, and no glorification of its aftermath.
The score by Vangelis is one of his most overlooked and finest I have heard, with a versatile array of atmospheric ethnic instrumentations that invoke the ancient world. The score soars to heroic heights that rival Hans Zimmer’s score for <em>Gladiator</em> at the Battle of Gaugamela, and for the many softer scenes it shows a melancholic, soulful quality that sets it apart from other scores in this genre. The closing credits theme ‘Titans’ has a mythic, inspiring personality to it that fires up the imagination with images of battle and victory.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://www.californiaherps.com/films/filmimages/alexander3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie philip" width="760" height="319" />
The film operates on two timelines, one chronicling Alexander’s eastern conquests up until his death in Babylon, and another that follows Alexander from his youth to becoming king of Macedonia. The use of a stylized map of the ancient world, in addition to Ptolemy’s narration, is a useful tool to help the audience keep track of Alexander’s conquests. On a storytelling level, introducing Alexander through the Battle of Gaugamela is an effective hook and allows us to see the Macedonian conqueror at his prime as one would imagine him, before we see more of what he was as a prince. The tone subtly shifts from one of mythic and heroic character to a darker tone, stripped of the glorification of Alexander in the first act. Similarly, the battles become more bloody and hellish to reflect this gradual shift. The Revisited Cut plays up the idea that Darius arranged the assassination of Philip in the first act, giving legitimacy to Alexander’s invasion, and this idea of stripped away over time as a ruse created by Alexander to fire the Greeks up for war. The contrast of scenes allow for a greater contrast of where Alexander came from and how and why he met his end.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2014/06/22/Alexander-Darius.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander movie hd screencaps" width="762" height="316" />
However, this structure is not without its problems. Before the Battle of Gaugamela, we’re introduced to Alexander’s generals at a breakneck speed at a rushed pace, and only half of them are forgotten about as the film rolls on. This has a similar problem to <em>Troy</em> in attempting to integrate the Homeric hymns ascribing qualities to the generals that sound pretentious in English. The enemy armies at Gaugamela and Hydaspes are one-dimensional and ultimately function as basic obstacles, so you don’t really root for the Greeks to triumph as much as you would compare to the Spartans and the Persians in <em>300</em> or to understand the drama and sometimes shared heroism and ideals on both sides like in <em>Troy</em>. There just isn’t much personality given to the Persians, Bactrians or Indians.
Oddities are aplenty here, some work and others unsurprisingly don’t. The choice to give the Macedonian characters Irish accents, while strange at first, eventually ceased to bother me as it was an effective method of establishing differences between the more civilized Greeks with upper class English accents. Stranger examples that include the use of a lion’s roar overlaid over the cheering Macedonian army at Gaugamela, and the approaching elephants' footsteps literally make the earth tremble and they themselves sound more monster than animal. Whole sequences are filmed to show off dancing girls and various pleasures of the flesh; beautifully shot to be sure but pretty much exist for their own sake.
<img class=" wp-image-226 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Babylon-500x208.png" alt="" width="705" height="293" />
Then there are some flat out goofy scenes like Alexander and his men interacting with monkeys in India as though they were a tribe of their own, even Hopkins’ venerable narration can't save it. Strange edits, such as jarring alternating shots between characters and scene transitions such as the Battle of Hydaspes take even me out of the movie. The strangest of all is the Battle of Hydaspes in which the whole battle turns to a horrific magenta red netherworld of insanity when Bucephalus is killed in battle. Stone really should not have gone for this visual decision as it makes the battle more difficult to perceive and falls into melodrama. The writing between Alexander and Olympias is dripping with oedipal and Freudian scenes, and yes it’s as gross as you would expect, and the fact that Jolie hardly ages while Alexander lives into his thirties doesn’t help matters. In the many scenes where tempers flare and fight break out amongst the characters, helped with alcohol, this is where the film's melodrama really becomes its undoing. Tempers flare again when a ragged and exhausted Alexander is forced to quell a mutiny in his army, and it’s difficult to watch because of how needlessly over the top it is.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected problems with <em>Alexander </em>is Alexander himself for one key reason. What <em>Gladiator</em> had is a relatable, underdog hero like Russell Crowe’s Maximus. <em>Kingdom of Heaven</em> had a stunning ensemble cast to compensate for the shortcomings in its main lead. The Alexander of <em>Alexander</em> is more like Joaquin Phoenix’s tortured Prince Commodus: a young man born into privilege and haunted by ruling class family dysfunction and neurosis, and most of the people he’s surrounded with don’t have the charm or likability to hold the film together. Most people just aren’t going to find as much to root for in this kind of character. Had Ptolemy been the main character and been a witness to the highs and lows of Alexander's career, maybe the film would have had more of a stable foundation from a main character standpoint.
<img class=" wp-image-227 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Eagle-500x210.png" alt="" width="702" height="295" />
There are three prominent animal symbols in the film. The eagle, which is a symbol of Zeus, is a frequent companion of Alexander’s conquests as an omen for victory, and is seen when Alexander first rides Bucephalus. Eagle heraldry appears in Babylon, and one last time an eagle hallucination appears just before he dies, as though Zeus himself had descended to take him. Snakes are another recurring motif, as extensions of Olympias’ sensualized treatment of her young son, just as a snake wraps its coils around its human bearer. They are symbols of the cult of Dionysus, whom Olympias was a part of. Living snakes and snake symbols are presented whenever Alexander feels vulnerability or sickness, and manifest as a hallucination of Olympias as a Gorgon. Roxana wears snake arm braces, establishing parallels between Alexander and Roxana and his parents, indicating a repetition of history. While it is very blatant, the image of the snake killing the eagle as it flies is an obvious indication that Olympias’ manipulations and toxic attitude ultimately killed her son. With hardly any dialogue, Alexander and his horse Bucephalus becomes a legitimate highlight of t�fXΰ�� ��������� �fX
�
#����he film. Bucephalus also plays a similar role to these animal symbols, as a symbol of his virility, health and passion for conquest. When Bucephalus is killed in battle, Alexander’s resolve to conquer is destroyed as well.
<img class=" wp-image-228 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ptolemy-500x211.png" alt="" width="699" height="295" />
The life of Alexander echoes many of the Greek mythic heroes, and Stone seems to indicate that Alexander was the last of these men to rise and fall in such a fashion. The theme of mythology appears first as a series of speeches about heroes from Philip to young Alexander, but this becomes integral to the core of the film. We see Alexander atop Bucephalus charge a rampaging elephant, and the two animals rear on their hind legs and in an image that looks like something out of high fantasy. The way Stone shoots Alexander's triumphs in which there is something almost divine about them, the animal motifs, and the exotic locales seem even more wondrous to the audience. That's where it occurred to me; <em>Alexander</em> is about myth-making, and how myths are born and how the pursuit of greatness and eternal glory will always invoke a great cost. Using Ptolemy’s account as a framing device, as he struggles to reconcile Alexander’s towering legacy with the man he was in life, we understand why the film indulges in such theatrical excess – because it is an extension of Ptolemy’s mythmaking. That no matter his failings in life or the manner in which he died, Alexander still created left a legacy that endures more than any story so that he himself has become mythicized by history. Just as Achilles lived fast and died gloriously, so does Alexander.
<img class="irc_mi aligncenter" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tnoxNlxIQI/UfvOw63KYrI/AAAAAAAAJSo/TSwA09gNpWk/s1600/Alexander+3.jpg" alt="Image result for alexander 2004 philip" width="615" height="393" />
While the Revisited cut of <em>Alexander</em> provided a better film than I dared to expect, it is hampered by many of the same flaws that plague the theatrical cut, namely its many bizarre apparitions of style, flawed writing and many excessively over the top performances. I don’t take any shame in saying it’s a better movie than the reputation that preceded it and that I enjoyed it enough to see it again and study it properly. While I don't expect my analysis of the film to go over well with everyone, I hope I have encouraged a few curious people to investigate for themselves. <em>Fortune favours the bold</em>. �fX��\� ��������� 쐾
� '�����<img class="size-medium wp-image-144 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/three_hundred_ver10_xlg-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="500" />
<strong>Directed by: Zack Snyder </strong>
<strong>Screenplay by: , Kurt Johnstad, Michael B. Gordon</strong>
<strong>Produced by: Mark Canton, Bernie Goldmann, Gianni Nunnari, Jeffrey Silver,
</strong>
<strong>Studio: Legendary Pictures, Virtual Studios, Warner Bros. Pictures</strong>
<strong>Based on:<em> 300</em> by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley</strong>
<strong>Release Date: 9th March, 2007</strong>
Despite appearances, <em>300</em> is the sort of film that sells itself as a pretty mindless action film, delivers on that in spades, but manages to do so in a visually creative and surprisingly self-aware fashion without necessarily being “about more” like many films in this genre. It’s a deceptively simple concept that’s executed better than one would expect.
The story is framed as a tale recited by the Spartan soldier, Dilios (David Wenham), to a Spartan army. In 478 BC, messengers of the Persian Empire arrive at the gates of Sparta demanding “earth and water” as a token of submission to King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). King Leonidas I (Gerard Butler) responds my killing the messengers, effectively declaring war on Persia. He visits the Ephors, proposing a strategy to drive back the numerically superior Persians. The Ephors, having been bribed by messengers from Xerxes, consult the Oracle and decree that Sparta will not go to war during the Carneia Festival. Nevertheless, Leonidas gathers three hundred of his best soldiers in the guise of his personal bodyguard. At Thermopylae, Leonidas encounters the deformed Spartan Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), who despite his wishes is unable to fight in formation due to his deformity and has no choice but to leave embittered and angry. Using their superior fighting skills and the Hot Gates to their advantage, the Spartans repel wave after wave of the Persian army, meanwhile Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rouse the Spartans to aid their king and outmanoeuvre the schemes of the corrupt Spartan politician, Theron (Dominic West).
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wYpqhdIXMpk/U6YuoTemerI/AAAAAAAAAJw/BxQXrquMtuk/s1600/300-movie-screencaps_com-3133.jpg" alt="Image result for 300 screencaps" width="820" height="342" />
The majority of the acting in this film is of the over the top variety. Butler practically devours the scenery as the epically loud, possibly mad Leonidas, but still delivers on the quieter and more subtle scenes. Headey is particularly strong and compelling as Gorgo, having a fiery determination that simmers beneath her elegance; in a film that’s very male dominated her performance allows her to stand toe to toe with the warriors and kings in this film. Santoro is imposing and charismatic as Xerxes, leaving a strong impression despite not having a lot of screen time. Wenham nails Dilios as the scarred storyteller and provides necessary narration to the film. Among the Spartan troops, Vincent Regan has a lot of emotional scenes as Captain Artemis, and Michael Fassbender appears as the wild yet skilled Stelios in one of his earliest major film roles, both give really good performances for basically being standard warrior side characters. West is a slimy and thoroughly detestable political figure as Theron, and Peter Mensah is memorable as the Persian messenger.
As one of the most noteworthy things people watch this film for, the action is beautifully shot, revelling in the primal Spartans on display, each individual frame looks like a Renaissance painting in motion with the combined gritty style of the graphic novel. The cinematography by Larry Fong is incredible, his visuals have great depth of field, contrast and an instantly recognizable dark and grim but still eye-catching colour palette, and this would define Fong as a master of stylized and gritty fictional worlds for many years to come. There’s no doubt that 300 is successful in being faithful to the aesthetic and panels of Frank Miller’s Spartan epic.
A combination of martial arts techniques were employed to make the action scenes more flowing and dynamic, in addition to the historic phalanx formation which is only used in the early stages of the battle. Obviously the Spartans did not walk into battle half naked and had bronze armour of their own, but the Persians really did wear little to no armour in addition to a simple uniform, and had highly inadequate weaponry and shields and mainly relied on overwhelming numbers. I mention this because despite the exaggerated imagery of the film, the very core of the concept of highly trained warriors against legions of barely trained slave-fighters is given greater emphasis.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AjqImSjaYiM/UEKlLKSQ3cI/AAAAAAAAC9o/35qXF_BwPNs/s1600/wb16.jpg" alt="Related image" width="820" height="341" />
This is an example of filming on a green screen environment done well, rather than being photorealistic but the stylized and exaggerated aesthetic is very pleasing to the eye. What set work is present for the town of Sparta itself or other locations is fairly minimal but does its job well enough. The CGI backgrounds and landscapes still look pretty good, while the creatures are obviously digital creations but in a way that works within the context of this film. The CGI blood is gratuitous, often to the point of hilarity, and yet it goes with the tone. In not aiming to be photorealistic they’re able to get away with a lot more absurd and crazy imagery and sequences. The makeup on the Persian elite forces and Ephialtes is very hideous and monstrous, comparable to the work done by Weta Workshop. Its not the only time Snyder vaguely alludes to the fantasy films of Peter Jackson.
The score by Tyler Bates is a combination of heavy chorus singing, guitar music, percussive drums and heavy metal. This bizarre concoction works for the type of film that this is, and there are a number of striking cues such as ‘Returns a King’ when the choir swells to enormous proportions. This cue is closely based off one of the tracks from the film <em>Titus</em> by Eliot Goldenthal, and whether or not you feel this is copying another composer’s work too blatantly you can’t deny its impact.
It is historically authentic and bat-crap crazy at the same time, thanks to the framing device of Delios recounting and embellishing the story for his Spartan audience, explaining why the Persians and Ephialtes are portrayed as more monstrous than human. Other such liberties include the fact that Xerxes was not an androgynous giant, the Immortals were not deformed Samurai warriors, they didn’t use rhinos and elephants at Thermopylae, and Ephialtes was not a deformed hunchback. Miller and Snyder use the prologue to introduce the concept of the <em>agoge</em> and the brutal militaristic lifestyle of Spartans to weed out the weak and produce invulnerable warriors. Right off the bat, you see the kinds of cruelties inflicted on the Spartan boys to make them the kind of warriors we see in the film, but this is hardly a sympathetic city state. Had the balance been off and the film could have come across as a case of pitting one lesser evil against a much greater one, but we gain a connection to the Spartan warriors because of the very real human connections shared as brothers in arms, as fathers and sons and husbands and wives. The script is laden with the laconic sensibilities of the Spartans, as written down by both Frank Miller and Lynn Varley in the original graphic novel. It’s impressive that many quotable lines have emerged from this film.
Maybe it’s just me, but I found more allusions to <em>The Lord of the Rings</em> than anyone could simply write off as coincidence. Such examples include the presentation of Ephialtes as a skulking, treacherous Gollum-like character, several Persian monsters resembling Orcs and Uruk-Hai, and the depiction of wolves and elephants as more like Wargs and Oliphaunts from Middle-earth. Whether these are intentional similarities on Snyder’s part or not, it’s interesting to see how one expresses affection for one’s artistic influences in their own work.
Obviously the plot about a smaller, scrappier army going up against a host numbering many hundred thousand strong in defence of home, family, honour and freedom is a tale as old as the hills. But here it takes on a somewhat different form: the Spartans are presented as a culture with a religion and mythology, with Delios likening them to Hercules as a shared ancestor, but they don’t adhere to it in the same dogmatic and superstitious degree as the Persians who perceive Xerxes as a living god-king. Whether or not Xerxes thinks he really is a god-king, the image of divine power he projects and indeed how the Spartan audience perceive him his paramount so the theme of rationality versus superstition. The Ephors are presented as just as monstrous and deformed as the Persians, as relics from a bygone era of superstition and blind mysticism and worship of the gods. While none of these elements are brought up in great detail, they are lingering in the background of the story.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://urancientworldincinema.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/elephants.png" alt="Image result for 300 elephants" width="820" height="380" />
Ultimately, <em>300</em> is a film that’s able to succeed by eschewing pretentiousness. <em>Troy</em> and <em>Alexander</em> are more realistic looking films with a commendable level of historical accuracy, but both also aspire for greatness and because of that higher level of expectation, even with their best merits, they ultimately fall short of their intended marks. <em>300</em> by comparison is a case where a fairly simplistic story is given such a strong sense of visual and directing identity that its entertainment factor ends up outweighing its flaws or visual departures from historical fact. 쐾�� � ��������� �U
� !����<img class="size-medium wp-image-210 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TheVikings-317x500.jpg" alt="" width="317" height="500" />
Richard Fleischer’s barbarian spectacle is perhaps one of the more simple historical action films I’ve reviewed, but is a pleasantly brisk and fun affair. It indulges in all of the key aspects of Viking life, from the sailing, feasting, singing, pillaging, besieging of enemy castles and rivalries between hot-headed individuals within the community. Richard Fleischer’s keen direction, Kirk Douglas’ fiery performance, (mostly) top rate production values and excellent finale make the film worth checking out for any historical film lover.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://annyas.com/screenshots/images/1958/v-rf-01.jpg" alt="Image result for the vikings 1958 screencaps" width="640" height="272" />
The King of Northumbria is killed during a Viking raid led by the fearsome Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine). Because the king had died childless, his corrupt cousin Aella (Frank Thring) takes the throne. The king's widow, however, is pregnant with what she knows is Ragnar’s child because he had raped her during that fateful raid, and to protect the infant from her cousin-in-law's ambitions, she sends him off to Italy. By a twist of fate, the ship is intercepted by the Vikings, who are unaware of the child's kinship, and enslave him.
The boy grows into a young man named Eric (Tony Curtis). His parentage is finally discovered by Lord Egbert (James Donald), a Northumbrian nobleman opposed to Aella. While seeking sanctuary with the Vikings in Norway, Egbert recognises the Northumbrian royal sword's pommel stone on an amulet around Eric’s neck, placed there by Eric’s mother when he was a child, but tells no one. Eric incurs the wrath of Ragnar’s legitimate son and heir, Einar (Kirk Douglas), after the former orders his falcon to attack Einar, taking out one of his eyes. Eric is saved from immediate execution when the royal soothsayer Kitala (Eileen Way) warns that Odin will curse whoever kills him. He is left in a tidal pool to drown with the rising tide by Ragnar’s decree to avoid the curse, but after Kitala calls out to Odin making Erik himself to invoke his mercy, a strong wind shifts and forces the water away, saving him. Lord Egbert then claims him as his slave property to protect his rights, before Einar can return and finish him. They learn of the arranged marriage between King Aella and Princess Morgana (Janet Leigh) of Wales, and plot to kidnap the princess to ransom her in exchange for riches
Despite his position as one of the film’s several antagonists, Douglas is the most memorable and magnetic character in the film, and is clearly having fun as a dynamic, ferocious warrior with a twisted adventuresome spirit. Curtis is not particularly memorable as Eric despite being the main character, but does okay in the fight scenes and in his bitter rivalry with Douglas. Leigh does well as Morgana, and both she and Curtis go through the expected beats of romance between them. Borgnine does his best to give depth to the bloodthirsty Ragnar, and is similarly charismatic as Douglas is as his character’s son. Thring is suitably detestable and slimy as Aella, and an interesting contrast with his performance as Pontius Pilate in <em>Ben-Hur</em>. Eileen Way has a lot of good scenes as the eccentric soothsayer, and Donald is surprisingly engaging as Egbert, being quite likable and sharp-witted. Alexander Knox is also quite likable as Father Godwin.
While the action appears in short bursts during the first act and comes into swing in the third act, it feels more swashbuckling and spirited than anything you would associate with the most infamous raiders of the Dark Ages. The siege of Aella’s castle has good build-up and gets you excited for the battle to begin. While anachronistic, the use of the real Fort de la Latte in north-east Brittany, France is as good excuse as any to have a pretty well staged siege battle. For a PG rated film, there is still a fair amount of violence and a high kill count. The costumes armour and shields look pretty good, but the swords on the extras seldom look up to snuff. Fortunately, the final duel between Eric and Einar is a very satisfying sequence, with real swords, energetic editing and quickly mounting tension.
The elaborate set for the Viking mead hall with its timbered walls, tapestries, shields and messy banquet tables is a treat to behold. The use of real long-ships to sail the fjords, recreated in great detail, gives the film a sense of authenticity and realness. An animated sequence depicting the life and times of the Vikings in the vein of the Bayeux Tapestry, and while it’s a fairly simple piece of narration the visual communication still works.
The cinematography by Jack Cardiff frames the epic Norwegian landscape and the viking ships beautifully, the richness of colour is eye-catching without being as overwhelming as the technicolour spectacle of something like <em>Quo Vadis</em>. The world of The Vikings feels crisp, cold and raw, but nevertheless pure and filled with life. The film is at its most suspenseful when the Viking ships have to sail through fog, and the ominous string accompaniments and low trumpeting horns add atmosphere to the piece. There are many gorgeous shots of the Norwegian fjords and mountains, combined with Nascimbene’s music that successfully instils that sense of Nordic mythology. The film feels epic and operatic without any of the filmmaking tools we take for granted in modern blockbusters.
The score by Mario Nascimbene is a solid one; the main theme has a Wagnerian flavour to it, with complex strings and trumpet arrangements that echo that type of music. There is one sequence where the music develops into something more fun and upbeat, along the lines of the score to <em>The Adventures of Robin Hood</em>. However, there isn’t much variety and the main theme is used perhaps a bit too often.
The few truly morally good characters are powerless in this barbaric world, while the most powerful characters all display a shade of corruption and nastiness. Eric and Morgana are more or less the victims of the more manipulative or bloodthirsty characters, but are not very interesting. Still, the film does maintain an Errol Flynn sense of lightness and fun to its approach, certain scenes of characters mucking about (like Einar and his crew running across their ship’s outstretched oars) or the Vikings’ revelling in their mead hall.
The film takes a while to really get started, the scenes of intrigue in the Anglo-Saxon court are important to frame the rest of the plot but aren’t that interesting. It’s interesting that after spending much of the film at each other's throats, Eric and Einar are willing to set their feud aside to deal with a common enemy, and is the most interesting aspect of the film that doesn’t involve Vikings doing what they do best. Such was the character of rivalries between the early medieval kingdoms, forming and breaking alliances. Ultimately, Ragnar and Einar’s Viking warriors come off as a more spirited and therefore marginally likable crowd than the scheming, grovelling characters in service to Aella, no different from their king.
Although Morgana is presented as a devout Christian and Eric seeks romance with her despite his belief in the Norse gods, the film is otherwise Pagan in character. There is even a sense that the Norse gods are watching over certain characters, with Eric calling upon Odin's help when he is close to drowning, and seemingly the tides being pushed back by the wind. Even the dynamic of half-brothers coming to blows and not knowing that they share the same father feels very much in line with the Norse family sagas of old.
Ultimately, <em>The Vikings </em>is a fun, unpretentious and well-made film in its own right that delivers on what it promises and manages to evoke a sense of adventure from the period, albeit in a somewhat heightened lens. It does feel like a fairly typical old fashioned Hollywood adventure film but one with enough strong elements that make it worth a revisit. It isn’t high art like some of the historical epics I’ve reviewed, but it isn’t completely without something brainier under that strong, muscular outset. �US4R� � p � ��E� � 'A� &v JQ )infimum supremum F � � O � ��?q ��?a � � & )�Cleopatrainheritclosedclosed172-revision-v1��?q ��?a �http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/172-revision-v1/� revision�
U � P � ��?rǙ�?b�The Lost Worldinheritopenclosedthe-lost-world-poster��?r?b� Qhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Lost-World-poster.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� ' � � Q � ��?st��?ct � � &
The Lost World (1925) Reviewpublishopenopenthe-lost-world-1925-review��?st��?ct http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=337� post� F � ( � R � ��?st��?ct � � &
The Lost World (1925) Reviewinheritclosedclosed337-revision-v1��?st��?ct Qhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/337-revision-v1/� revision� ' � 0 � S � ��?vI��?fI � � & 0pKing Kong (1993) Reviewpublishopenopenking-kong-1993-review��?vI��?fI http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=339� post�
N 8 � T � ��?t���?d�Kingkongposterinheritopenclosedkingkongposter��?t���?d� Shttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Kingkongposter.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � @ � U � ��?vI��?fI � � & 0pKing Kong (1993) Reviewinheritclosedclosed339-revision-v1��?vI��?fI Shttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/339-revision-v1/� revision� F ӄ H� V � ��F㊙�Fӊ<img class="wp-image-351 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CinematicAdventure-1040x601.jpg" alt="" width="741" height="428" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/the-lost-world-1925-review/">The Lost World (1925)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/king-kong-1993-review/">King Kong (1933)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/mighty-joe-young-1949-review/">Mighty Joe Young (1949)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/king-kong-1976-review/">King Kong 1976</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/jumanji/">Jumanji</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/02/28/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle/">Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</a></p>
<img class="alignnone size-large wp-image-352" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Ray-Harryhausen-Pictures-1040x629.jpg" alt="" width="590" height="357" />Adventure Filmsinheritclosedclosed291-autosave-v1��F㊙�Fӊ #http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/291-autosave-v1/� revision� ' � P � W � ��Cx��Ch � � & &Mighty Joe Young (1949) Reviewpublishopenopenmighty-joe-young-1949-review��Cx��Ch http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=343� post�
P X � X � ��Cw���Cg�MightyJoeYoung49inheritopenclosedmightyjoeyoung49��Cw���Cg� Whttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MightyJoeYoung49.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � ` � Y � ��Cx��Ch � � & &Mighty Joe Young (1949) Reviewinheritclosedclosed343-revision-v1��Cx��Ch Whttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/343-revision-v1/� revision� F z� hR Z � ��Cy;��Ci;<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/the-lost-world-1925-review/">The Lost World (1925)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/king-kong-1993-review/">King Kong (2005)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/mighty-joe-young-1949-review/">Mighty Joe Young (1949)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/jumanji/">Jumanji</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/02/28/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle/">Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</a></li>
</ul>Adventure Filmsinheritclosedclosed291-revision-v1��Cy;��Ci; #http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/291-revision-v1/� revision� ' � p � [ � ��C|O��ClO � � & ,King Kong (1976) Reviewpublishopenopenking-kong-1976-review��C|O��ClO http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=347� post�
L x � \ � ��C| ��Cl king_kong_76inheritopenclosedking_kong_76��C| ��Cl [http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/king_kong_76.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F � � � ] � ��C|O��ClO � � & ,King Kong (1976) Reviewinheritclosedclosed347-revision-v1��C|O��ClO [http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/347-revision-v1/� revision� F � �� ^ � ��C|���Cl�<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/the-lost-world-1925-review/">The Lost World (1925)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/king-kong-1993-review/">King Kong (1933)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/mighty-joe-young-1949-review/">Mighty Joe Young (1949)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/king-kong-1976-review/">King Kong 1976</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/jumanji/">Jumanji</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/02/28/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle/">Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</a></li>
</ul>Adventure Filmsinheritclosedclosed291-revision-v1��C|���Cl� #http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/291-revision-v1/� revision�
R � � _ � ��F�8��F�8CinematicAdventureinheritopenclosedcinematicadventure��F�8��F�8 #http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CinematicAdventure.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg�
X � ` � ��F�y��F�yRay Harryhausen Picturesinheritopenclosedray-harryhausen-pictures��F�y��F�y #http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Ray-Harryhausen-Pictures.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� F ҄ �� a � ��F㖙�FӖ<img class="wp-image-351 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CinematicAdventure-1040x601.jpg" alt="" width="741" height="428" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/the-lost-world-1925-review/">The Lost World (1925)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/king-kong-1993-review/">King Kong (1933)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/mighty-joe-young-1949-review/">Mighty Joe Young (1949)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/king-kong-1976-review/">King Kong 1976</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/jumanji/">Jumanji</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/02/28/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle/">Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</a></p>
<img class=" wp-image-352 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Ray-Harryhausen-Pictures-1040x629.jpg" alt="" width="747" height="452" />Adventure Filmsinheritclosedclosed291-revision-v1��F㖙�FӖ #http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/03/291-revision-v1/� revision� F ҄ �� b � ��F�F��<img class="wp-image-351 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CinematicAdventure-1040x601.jpg" alt="" width="741" height="428" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/the-lost-world-1925-review/">The Lost World (1925)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/king-kong-1993-review/">King Kong (1933)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/mighty-joe-young-1949-review/">Mighty Joe Young (1949)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/king-kong-1976-review/">King Kong 1976</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/jumanji/">Jumanji</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/02/28/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle/">Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</a></p>
<img class=" wp-image-352 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Ray-Harryhausen-Pictures-1040x629.jpg" alt="" width="747" height="452" />Adventure & Fantasy Filmsinheritclosedclosed291-revision-v1��F�F�� #http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/03/291-revision-v1/� revision�
K �� d � ��G 7��F�7elephantboyinheritopenclosedelephantboy��G 7��F�7 http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/elephantboy.jpg� attachmentimage/jpeg� pY_�D c��4?21 ��������� ��
� )�����<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-173" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cleopatra-330x500.png" alt="" width="330" height="500" />
As one of the last of these period epics to be made in the golden age of Hollywood, <em>Cleopatra</em> was certainly a fine way to go out. Starring the incomparable Elizabeth Taylor as the titular queen, this romantic epic is a struggle between its ponderous weight and sumptuous vision of the ancient world bolstered by its magnetic cast. However, where it falters for me is its relatively light substance struggling to emerge through an inordinately paced but very visually arresting epic.
After the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC, where Julius Caesar (Rex Harrison) has defeated Pompey the Great in a brutal civil war for control of the Roman Republic, Pompey flees to Egypt, hoping to enlist the support of the young Pharaoh Ptolemy XIII (Richard O'Sullivan) and his sister Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor). Caesar follows him to Egypt, under the pretext of being named the executor of the will of their father, Ptolemy XII. Much to his dismay, Caesar is given Pompey’s head as a gift, as the highly manipulated pharaoh was convinced by his chief eunuch Pothinus (Gregoire Aslan) that this act would endear him to Caesar.
Caesar stays in one of the palaces along with his generals Agrippa (Andrew Kier) and Rufio (Martin Landau), where a slave named Apollodorus (Cesare Danova) brings him a gift. The suspicious Caesar unrolls the rug and finds Cleopatra herself concealed within. He is intrigued with her beauty and warm personality, and she convinces him to restore her throne from her younger brother, warning him that Ptolemy has surrounded the palace. To gain control of the harbour, Caesar orders the Egyptian fleet burned. The fire spreads to the city, destroying the famous Library of Alexandria to the fury of Cleopatra, but in the heat of their quarrel their passion for one another grows. The next day, Ptolemy’s offensive collapses and Caesar is in effective control of the kingdom. With Ptolemy and his court deposed, Cleopatra is crowned Queen of Egypt. The two scheme to follow in the footsteps of Alexander the Great to rule the known world, and together have a son named Caesarion whom Caesar declares as his heir to both Rome and Egypt.
Appearing twenty minutes into her own film, Taylor is the life blood of the film; she’s sly, brash, elegant and majestic, filling every single scene she appears in with sensual grace, even when she has to let loose and her shouts fill the palace halls. Harrison is highly charismatic and entertaining as Caesar, and conveys the taciturn wit of a proud, tactical man. Coming into his own in the second half of the film, Richard Burton has an air of authority and dry dignity to his Mark Antony, and when he explodes into fury and passion it’s a powerful sight to behold. Gwen Watford has an emotional and sombre turn as Calpurnia, the spurned wife of Caesar. Roddy McDowall’s taciturn Octavian is suitably cold and ambitious, and despite having less screen time than Burton and Harrison he comes into his own with a masterful, savage performance. McDowall and Burton engage in the same levels of political intrigue and verbal sparring seen in <em>Spartacus</em>. Landau and Kier are dependable as loyal and strong Roman Generals. Jean Marsh’s brief turn as Octavia has an understated air of tragedy as the Roman noblewoman spurned by Antony. O’Sullivan is fittingly arrogant and bratty as the young Ptolemy XIII, same with Aslan as the grovelling character of Pothinus, making for a fine contrast against Cleopatra. Kenneth Haigh conveys a respectful and just Brutus as a man thrust into infamy by his peers, and Danova puts in a lot of character as the loyal servant to Cleopatra.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/CleopatraAlexandriaBaja.jpg" alt="Image result for cleopatra alexandria" width="820" height="364" />
The realization of the city of Alexandria is remarkable, from the sprawling marketplaces, palace, temples and famous lighthouse. As one of the most expensive movies of its time, it certainly appears that every cent is on screen. This is one of the most immersive period settings I’ve seen. The sheer number and variety to the sets, filled with well adorned extras is a prominent feather in this film’s cap. Cleopatra’s arrival into Rome is a wondrous display of colour, vitality and the excess of Antiquity. The matte paintings and miniatures used to widen the city vistas still look great today. As a demonstration of opulence, the elaborate, nine-minute parade of heralds, chariots, dancers, soldiers and musicians passes by, culminating in Cleopatra’s entrance on a towering replica of a sphinx is still a sight to behold for its incredible scope.
The costumes and suits of armour are, mostly, up to a very high standard. With over sixty costumes allocated to Ms Taylor’s wardrobe, one can certainly admire the breadth of material befitting a Pharaoh of Egypt. I’m not wholly fond of Caesar’s golden breastplate as it looks rather cheap compared to his militaristic armour and imperial purple robes of state. The Roman shields are overdesigned in some scenes and don’t gel with the rest of the scene. The use of painted Roman frescoes to thread the events together is a stylistically appropriate device, and pays tribute to the artistic styles of the period.
The cinematography by Leon Shamroy, capturing the vast vistas of the Egyptian desert and Alexandria, is beautiful to behold. The battle scenes are elaborate but not as epic in scope, focusing on a few battalions at a time. Even in unexciting scenes we have a huge amount of things to see within the frame, especially in exterior scenes where Cleopatra is welcomed in Rome and a great procession is held in her honour. The action scenes, though there are not that many in the film, are well shot and well-choreographed. The breaking of the Siege of Alexandria is a fine demonstration of the Roman army. The Battle of Actium is another epic treat of military set pieces, with the model ships and optical effects shots blending well with the real ships. All this mayhem and death is contrasted by the shots of Antony despairingly giving into drink.
At nearly four hours long, pacing issues are abound. There is no doubt of this film’s epic scope but it just feels a tad excessive in showing off every slow yet visually impressive scene, and as sluggish as the slaves dragging the sphynx replica into Rome.
Alex North’s score takes on a more exotic flair, while still largely based on heavy use of strings and trumpets, it still retains enough of an Ancient Egyptian sound to it. There is still a lot of the militaristic drum beats and trumpets, as well as more haunting moments. It gets particularly dark and disturbing as Cleopatra witnesses the murder of Caesar by the senate.
The dialogue has a natural sounding Shakespearean tinge to it, with plenty of character exchanging snarky remarks or bursting with theatrical uproar. Unlike many historical epics where the larger than life characters seem unapproachable, there's a refreshing naturalness to the portrayals in this outing which make Cleopatra rather improbably accessible, given its setting and opulence. All three main characters are portrayed as scheming, power-hungry politicians and warlords, seeking only personal gain with the masses as helpless or enamoured spectators and nothing more. This is matched only by the equally duplicitous antagonist Octavian. But the charisma of the actors and the fact that they themselves are easily undone in the end, revealing their humanity when they’re at their weakest, makes them more human in our eyes.
Amidst Cleopatra’s struggle to retain her power and the independence of her kingdom against the juggernaut of Roman power is the love she bears for two of Rome’s greatest men that drives this story on. We see a dynamic change of dynamics between the two men with the queen of Egypt; Cleopatra and Caesar do not get along at first when their enormous egos clash, and the jives and joking reminiscent of a quarrelling father and daughter gradually matures into something more classy and palatable despite the age difference. Both have poetic and shrewd minds, so it makes sense that they gravitate towards one another and their chemistry has both tension and sensuality to them. Her relationship with Anthony is more bitter and filled with ire, but also passion and carnal attraction. While Antony is not Caesar's intellectual equal it makes him feel more out of his depth in the political world. He himself confesses that he is more a soldier than a leader. Despite his disciplined exterior, it is illustrated that Antony is more susceptible to his emotions and lust than Caesar, and that jealousy of his old master and friend helps to fuel his inevitable downfall.
The contrast between the two empires helps to drive the turbulent relationships between Cleopatra and her Roman suitors, and the destruction caused by such liaisons. At first, she is resentful of the idea of “Roman greatness built upon Egyptian greatness” as her city burns due to Caesar’s negligence. Divine comparisons and hypocrisy is touched on when cold Roman logic clashes against Egyptian spirituality, despite Caesar’s own claim of descent from a Roman goddess as Cleopatra claims to be the reincarnation of Isis. Over time, she starts to appreciate the idea that there is more to the world than just her beloved Egypt. It’s fitting that when Caesar is stabbed, he’s next to the memorial of Pompey, as it was in history, and serves as a divine vengeance for the fallen Pompey. The sense of despair and anarchy that sweeps Rome at Caesar’s funeral is of a frenetic sort, while the sombreness of the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra are more melancholic and resigned, reflective of the fates they chose versus the one Caesar fell to.
<img class="irc_mi" src="http://nowreviewing.com/CleoTomb.jpg" alt="Related image" width="600" height="273" />
Compared to other epics that came before it, <em>Cleopatra</em> tries to be far more ambitious than it needed to be. In doing, the film becomes tedious in a few areas; however the performances should keep you involved. Ultimately, Cleopatra is a beautifully shot and well written romantic epic about three would-be empire builders and the world turning about to conquer them before they could claim it for themselves. ���SA( ��������� �
�
����<img class="size-medium wp-image-336 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Lost-World-poster-393x500.jpg" alt="" width="393" height="500" />
The Lost World, directed by Harry O. Hoyt, is an influential classic; I don't think that's up for debate. It set the blueprint for every creature feature and adventure film such as King Kong, Godzilla and Jurassic Park much further down the line to follow in its wake.
Being a silent film, the acting is wholly dependent on the expressiveness of the actors. Wallace Beery is a casting Godsend as Challenger, a bushy-bearded, burly Brian Blessed figure, with nothing subtle about him; his enormous expressions and gestures convey the man's booming presence despite the silent medium. Lloyd Hughes does just fine as the everyman Edward Malone, and takes to three piece suits and adventurer garb with equal ease. Arthur Hoyt makes for a suitably stiff and bumbling Professor Summerlee and is a good foil to Challenger, but oftentimes is a bit of a wet blanket and the rest of his scenes are played for laughs involving him trying to study new insect specimens. Lewis Stone looks the part of Lord Roxton and you get the sense of his upper class sportsman personality, but has relatively little to do other than be chummy with Malone. Paula White as portrayed by Bessie Love looks suitably beautiful and spirited, but the character as a very standard love interest for a film like this in the 20s.
The story is faithful to the book in some ways and unfaithful in others. It starts out with all the same novel characterisations and motivations in place, even introducing a character related to the posthumous character Maple White, but as soon as the expedition arrives at the Plateau it diverges massively. Gone is the tribe of Natives and their intricate culture in relation to the prehistoric denizens, the Ape Men tribe is reduced to just two troublemaking specimens, a friendly monkey is added to the expedition as a Chekhov's Gun for their eventual escape (I kid you not), and the climax is completely different. The focus is largely on the dinosaur visual effects set pieces, many of which have become iconic in their own right. The T. rex killing the horned dinosaur Aguthamus and snatching a Pteranodon right out of the sky, and the fight between the T. rex and the Brontosaurus resulting in the giant herbivore falling off the cliff, and it's later rampage through the streets of London have sealed themselves as staples of many documentaries on dinosaurs in cinema and prehistoric life. On that level, the film is a triumph.
Overall this still a lavish production for the time, ranging from the streets of London to the jungles of South America, with wild animals brought to the sets to spice up the jungle scenery. What is easily the real star of the feature and the reason it is remembered the most is the combination of old school special effects to bring The Lost World to life. The best of which is the stop motion animation by Willis O'Brien, building up from the 1918 short film The Ghost of Slumber Mountain. Though outdated, the dinosaur designs are like the paintings of Charles Knight come to life against a suitably primordial background of jungles, swamps and volcanoes. Roaming around on detailed miniature jungle sets and gorgeous matte paintings, the whole spectacle has a charm to it that simply cannot be replaced by CGI. At first split screens are used to convey the scale of the dinosaurs and are quite noticeably, but later on the stop motion is blended with the live action footage and it looks quite breathtaking.
The dinosaurs are portrayed with relatively realistic behaviour for the period, travelling in herds, protecting their infants, and reacting with hostility only when something provokes them. Each model animated in great personality and energy, if not always fluidity. We get to see large numbers of the animals onscreen and the attention to detail in animating them all together cannot be understated. On that level, its ambition is rivalled only by King Kong. This is where a lot of the changes feel acceptable and at times necessary, since no such dinosaur action scenes are written in the book.
The one Ape-Man that harrasses the party, portrayed by Bull Montana, by is rather hit or miss. The make up work is impressive for the time, but always has an uncanny feeling whenever he's onscreen, and his menace is never offset especially when paired up with a real life Chimpanzee as it's co-conspirator.
The Flicker Alley blu-ray adds brand new footage, as well as colour tints to reflect the mood of certain scenes and a new full orchestra score by Robert Israel. The new score during the scenes set in the dinosaurs' domain has shades of Max Steiner's deep bass and percussive score for King Kong and similarly inspired adventure scores, and for me the experience is greatly enhanced.
There is character development, but it's quite basic. Malone goes from a timid man rebuked by his would-be fiancée, and chased by the bullheaded Challenger, to a confident and brave adventurer taking life's knocks on the chin and moves forward with a new outlook, and new love.
The book's theme of exploration for the benefit of humanity has an optimistic outlook, being written in 1912, and Challenger is celebrated for his discovery. Here he gets no such acclaim; after losing the Brontosaurus he is once again decried as a fraud as his prize swims to freedom. In the classic way of pride before the fall, the look of defeat on Challenger's face as his almost elicits sympathy for the maverick scientist, almost.
The expressiveness of the actors and the timing of the music to what's shown onscreen ensures that you're never bored throughout. In typical silent era fashion, the balance of visual humour mixed with a grand scope and spirit that walks a fine line between self parody and rip-roaring adventure. An initially buffoonish Malone knocks over ink and douses himself with an inkstained hankerchief, slips on a banana peel, and is somersaulted out of Challenger's house by the athletic and irascible professor. All good fun accompanied by the cracking score. This is contrasted by the depiction of the dinosaurs as red in tooth and claw; we see an Allosaurus actually get its guts ripped out by the horned Auguthamas, and the herbivore is killed in grisly fashion by the T. rex. While we do not see blood, the intensity is conveyed successfully. This is further capped by the pandemonium of stampeding beasts as a volcano erupts and lays waste to the plateau, all spectacularly realized.
There is a noticeably jarring flaw in the film that dates it poorly, a character named Zambo (a strong silent type in the book) who is portrayed as a bumbling fool by an actor in blackface, and it is a kind of casual racism of the period that drives a wedge between the film and contemporary audiences.
The love triangle is about what you might expect, Roxton's crush on Paula is one sided, and there's no rivalry between the two gentlemen. Even with a scene hinting of Edward's blossoming attraction before reaching the Plateau, the romance just sort of happens out of nowhere. When Edward is convinced that they will ever leave the Plateau and is prepared to marry Paula and forget about Gladys, his would-be fiancée in London. By the time they get off the Plateau, they are prepared to accept their responsibilities to society. After the climax, they find out that Gladys has married another man in Malone's absence, they happily reignite their romance. While I was never bothered by it, this development was always a detour before resuming the real entertainment of the dinosaurs.
Ultimately, The Lost World, and is both a showcase of vintage special effects at one of their peaks and a truly entertaining ride with thrills and spills to equal King Kong. I can recognize its flaws and certain aspects that don't engage me, but the overall work is always a pleasure to revisit. While it took several years to adjust to it's silent approach, as I've gotten older it has made me yearn more and more for that simpler era of spectacular cinema. � y~ ��������� �'�
�
����<img class="size-medium wp-image-336 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Lost-World-poster-393x500.jpg" alt="" width="393" height="500" />
The Lost World, directed by Harry O. Hoyt, is an influential classic; I don't think that's up for debate. It set the blueprint for every creature feature and adventure film such as King Kong, Godzilla and Jurassic Park much further down the line to follow in its wake.
Being a silent film, the acting is wholly dependent on the expressiveness of the actors. Wallace Beery is a casting Godsend as Challenger, a bushy-bearded, burly Brian Blessed figure, with nothing subtle about him; his enormous expressions and gestures convey the man's booming presence despite the silent medium. Lloyd Hughes does just fine as the everyman Edward Malone, and takes to three piece suits and adventurer garb with equal ease. Arthur Hoyt makes for a suitably stiff and bumbling Professor Summerlee and is a good foil to Challenger, but oftentimes is a bit of a wet blanket and the rest of his scenes are played for laughs involving him trying to study new insect specimens. Lewis Stone looks the part of Lord Roxton and you get the sense of his upper class sportsman personality, but has relatively little to do other than be chummy with Malone. Paula White as portrayed by Bessie Love looks suitably beautiful and spirited, but the character as a very standard love interest for a film like this in the 20s.
The story is faithful to the book in some ways and unfaithful in others. It starts out with all the same novel characterisations and motivations in place, even introducing a character related to the posthumous character Maple White, but as soon as the expedition arrives at the Plateau it diverges massively. Gone is the tribe of Natives and their intricate culture in relation to the prehistoric denizens, the Ape Men tribe is reduced to just two troublemaking specimens, a friendly monkey is added to the expedition as a Chekhov's Gun for their eventual escape (I kid you not), and the climax is completely different. The focus is largely on the dinosaur visual effects set pieces, many of which have become iconic in their own right. The T. rex killing the horned dinosaur Aguthamus and snatching a Pteranodon right out of the sky, and the fight between the T. rex and the Brontosaurus resulting in the giant herbivore falling off the cliff, and it's later rampage through the streets of London have sealed themselves as staples of many documentaries on dinosaurs in cinema and prehistoric life. On that level, the film is a triumph.
Overall this still a lavish production for the time, ranging from the streets of London to the jungles of South America, with wild animals brought to the sets to spice up the jungle scenery. What is easily the real star of the feature and the reason it is remembered the most is the combination of old school special effects to bring The Lost World to life. The best of which is the stop motion animation by Willis O'Brien, building up from the 1918 short film The Ghost of Slumber Mountain. Though outdated, the dinosaur designs are like the paintings of Charles Knight come to life against a suitably primordial background of jungles, swamps and volcanoes. Roaming around on detailed miniature jungle sets and gorgeous matte paintings, the whole spectacle has a charm to it that simply cannot be replaced by CGI. At first split screens are used to convey the scale of the dinosaurs and are quite noticeably, but later on the stop motion is blended with the live action footage and it looks quite breathtaking.
The dinosaurs are portrayed with relatively realistic behaviour for the period, travelling in herds, protecting their infants, and reacting with hostility only when something provokes them. Each model animated in great personality and energy, if not always fluidity. We get to see large numbers of the animals onscreen and the attention to detail in animating them all together cannot be understated. On that level, its ambition is rivalled only by King Kong. This is where a lot of the changes feel acceptable and at times necessary, since no such dinosaur action scenes are written in the book.
The one Ape-Man that harrasses the party, portrayed by Bull Montana, by is rather hit or miss. The make up work is impressive for the time, but always has an uncanny feeling whenever he's onscreen, and his menace is never offset especially when paired up with a real life Chimpanzee as it's co-conspirator.
The Flicker Alley blu-ray adds brand new footage, as well as colour tints to reflect the mood of certain scenes and a new full orchestra score by Robert Israel. The new score during the scenes set in the dinosaurs' domain has shades of Max Steiner's deep bass and percussive score for King Kong and similarly inspired adventure scores, and for me the experience is greatly enhanced.
There is character development, but it's quite basic. Malone goes from a timid man rebuked by his would-be fiancée, and chased by the bullheaded Challenger, to a confident and brave adventurer taking life's knocks on the chin and moves forward with a new outlook, and new love.
The book's theme of exploration for the benefit of humanity has an optimistic outlook, being written in 1912, and Challenger is celebrated for his discovery. Here he gets no such acclaim; after losing the Brontosaurus he is once again decried as a fraud as his prize swims to freedom. In the classic way of pride before the fall, the look of defeat on Challenger's face as his almost elicits sympathy for the maverick scientist, almost.
The expressiveness of the actors and the timing of the music to what's shown onscreen ensures that you're never bored throughout. In typical silent era fashion, the balance of visual humour mixed with a grand scope and spirit that walks a fine line between self parody and rip-roaring adventure. An initially buffoonish Malone knocks over ink and douses himself with an inkstained hankerchief, slips on a banana peel, and is somersaulted out of Challenger's house by the athletic and irascible professor. All good fun accompanied by the cracking score. This is contrasted by the depiction of the dinosaurs as red in tooth and claw; we see an Allosaurus actually get its guts ripped out by the horned Auguthamas, and the herbivore is killed in grisly fashion by the T. rex. While we do not see blood, the intensity is conveyed successfully. This is further capped by the pandemonium of stampeding beasts as a volcano erupts and lays waste to the plateau, all spectacularly realized.
There is a noticeably jarring flaw in the film that dates it poorly, a character named Zambo (a strong silent type in the book) who is portrayed as a bumbling fool by an actor in blackface, and it is a kind of casual racism of the period that drives a wedge between the film and contemporary audiences.
The love triangle is about what you might expect, Roxton's crush on Paula is one sided, and there's no rivalry between the two gentlemen. Even with a scene hinting of Edward's blossoming attraction before reaching the Plateau, the romance just sort of happens out of nowhere. When Edward is convinced that they will ever leave the Plateau and is prepared to marry Paula and forget about Gladys, his would-be fiancée in London. By the time they get off the Plateau, they are prepared to accept their responsibilities to society. After the climax, they find out that Gladys has married another man in Malone's absence, they happily reignite their romance. While I was never bothered by it, this development was always a detour before resuming the real entertainment of the dinosaurs.
Ultimately, The Lost World, and is both a showcase of vintage special effects at one of their peaks and a truly entertaining ride with thrills and spills to equal King Kong. I can recognize its flaws and certain aspects that don't engage me, but the overall work is always a pleasure to revisit. While it took several years to adjust to it's silent approach, as I've gotten older it has made me yearn more and more for that simpler era of spectacular cinema. �'�*'6� ��������� �[V
� 0p����<img class="size-medium wp-image-340 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Kingkongposter-246x500.jpg" alt="" width="246" height="500" />
In a way, the King Kong movies are to Hollywood what the Godzilla films are to Japanese cinema; they convey the cultural zeitgeist of the times in which they were made. From the 1933 classic from Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack right up to Jordan Vogt-Roberts’ action-heavy 2017 spectacle, Kong and his successors have been in the public consciousness throughout the history of cinema. It seems like, as technology and special effects advance over the years, Hollywood must showcase their latest developments by making a more realistic giant ape. Yet, for all their progress, Cooper and Schoedsack’s original remains the best. And just how is that so for an 84-year-old film? Let us dive in.
In 1933, a successful wildlife filmmaker, Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong), is preparing to embark on a voyage to the Far East to shoot his next picture. To satisfy the public’s desire for romance in his films, Denham invites washed up actress Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) to join in on his expedition. Along the way, Ann becomes acquainted with the gruff first mate Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot), and despite his churlish attitude, they begin to fall in love. The captain of the Venture, Englehorn (Frank Reicher), questions Denham of his real intentions, and the director reveals a map where an undiscovered island lies hidden in fog. He believes it to be the home of “Kong”, an old maritime superstition described as “neither beast nor man.”
The crew of the Venture arrives at the mysterious Skull Island and explore the natives’ village, flanked by an enormous stone wall, interrupting their ceremony. Despite the native chief attempting to bargain for Ann, the crew return to the ship without incident, but at night, the natives kidnap Ann and prepare to sacrifice her to Kong. Denham and Jack lead a team of sailors to rescue Ann, but are too late since Ann has already been taken by Kong, the giant ape of Skull Island revered as a god by the natives. Jack, Denham and over a dozen sailors face living dinosaurs and an angry Kong in order to rescue Ann.
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://drinkingbeerwatchingmovie.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/denham.png" width="743" height="418" />
The acting is very much of its time, coming off as corny to most viewers, but it is charming nonetheless. Fay Wray has a cheerful and optimistic demeanour that endears the audience to her character, but she is less interesting while she is Kong’s figure of interest and spends a lot of the film screaming and looking distressed, but Wray does a good job of using her imagination to react to something that isn’t real. Cabot is a rough and tough sailor who has a soft centre, and he has a certain warmth to his voice similar to Harrison Ford, if not quite his charisma. Armstrong plays the part of Denham brilliantly, as a dry, eccentric thrill-seeker but is still charismatic and professional enough to successfully lead his team. Reicher makes for a witty and charming gentleman of a sea captain, and has good chemistry with Armstrong.
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/1CZG5gvKFUk2AvDGI0fkqkjmGQzSKMzqtreJPzxWdIMhjsMuz7HM9XzhZpwRUIWJvBC1ngyEAgzsYScHRm75oDKfC1L1NwLpI150428myNiXOTBfTCrvjKReTSKhnkAHdSZssJpCna2wngAwf-CJV9OSlKFxjknk" alt="King Kong Blu-ray - Fay Wray" width="582" height="425" />
The movie utilises every trick in the book to create its illusions, using live-action, rear-projection, stop-motion animation, miniatures, models, and matte paintings. The matte paintings in particular are very detailed; the paintings of the Wall and Skull Island are especially convincing in the medium of black and white, making the illusion more seamless. On occasion the compositing is a little dodgy, when it looks as though the actors are walking on a different set from the dinosaurs. The jungle sets convey a very chaotic and ancient-looking rainforest, adding to the wildness of Skull Island. As usual, having suspension of disbelief does help as this film depicts a Brontosaurus eating up crewmates with the same ferocity as a T. Rex. The tribe of natives is rather typical in style and appearance, and don’t strike me as intimidating compared to the other aspects of Skull Island.
The cinematography masterfully frames the New York and Skull Island scenes, and while the camera is fixed during the stop-motion scenes, it never loses the sense of size or power of the creatures. Remarkable visuals abound from Kong emerging out of the jungle to take Ann to the climax atop the then-new Empire State Building. That climax in particular heightened the contrast of the primitive and prehistoric to the modern and contemporary, and was a visually-striking and bold centrepiece.
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/King_Kong_vs_Tyrannosaurus.jpg" alt="File:King Kong vs Tyrannosaurus.jpg - Wikimedia Commons" width="606" height="450" />
There is a definite charm and personality to the old stop-motion animation which modern visual effects seldom replicate or match, and this is true of the original Eighth Wonder himself. Kong is a combination of a stop-motion figure as well as life-sized animatronics, such as a whole arm for the cast to interact with, such as a giant Kong head that could hold an actor in its mouth. Admittedly, it’s the weakest practical effect in the film with its bizarre, dopey smile. Despite the relatively crude Kong figure, effects man Willis O’Brien conveys a lot of animal qualities through his expressions and behaviours. Having Kong alternate between walking on all fours and upright distinguishes him from real gorillas and makes him a creature all his own. While not the scariest in terms of creature designs, his unpredictable behaviour makes him memorable.
The stop-motion dinosaurs by special effects wizard O’Brien are another highlight of the film, and are more convincing than the dinosaurs in his previous adventure film, The Lost World. While the dinosaurs are based on outdated depictions, inspired by the work of paleontological artist Charles R. Knight, there’s an imaginative, almost otherworldly quality to them that sets them apart from the real animals. There is a great sense of scale between the dinosaurs and Kong compared to their human victims, especially when Kong jostles the log to make the sailors fall to their deaths, or when he breaks through the natives’ gate and rampages through the village. The battle between Kong and the T. Rex is still one of the most entertaining monster fights of cinema. The way the music stops and we’re exposed to the thunderous roars of the two enemies is reminiscent of the T. Rex attack on the tour car from Jurassic Park, and adds to the visceral, impactful nature of the fight scene. Everything that involves a visual effect of some variety can trace its ancestry to this film, and the fact that it was lauded in its time is the reason why the best blockbusters exist.
The score by Max Bernstein is nothing short of a classic, and one of the most famous in the pantheon of classic films. He created a rousing, memorable theme for Kong, reflecting his bestial, larger-than-life nature. The score highlights are the bombastic opening, the intro to Skull Island where the tribal drums and horns builds atmosphere and suspense, the romantic melody for Ann and Jack, the chilling sacrifice of Ann to Kong, and the ending piece.
The script by Ruth Rose was not considered a great piece of screenwriting, but it succeeds in delivering a well-paced, highly entertaining slice of escapist fiction where anything from giant apes to mysterious islands can still be found. Retroactive recognition has made many lines iconic. Simplicity is the key; Cooper and Shoedsack own the fact that it is a pulpy jungle adventure and roll with it. Yet, the subtext of Kong’s fascination with Ann is never lost within the shuffle.
The first act builds up suspense and mystery, but never to the point when it becomes tedious, making the journey more focused and to the point. That tension continues to build when we first see Skull Island, shrouded by fog and distant tribal drums heralding the island’s presence, sparking fear and anticipation of what is to come. Kong is portrayed as a dark, distant and dangerous creature; his intentions regarding Ann are treated as somewhat ambiguous, meaning you never really know what he’s going to do to her, maintaining the suspense of the moment. He protects her and attacks when provoked like any other animal. The relationship between Kong and Ann is more driven by fear and revulsion, with Kong showing an unrequited interest in Ann and Ann being in constant terror of the giant ape.
Underneath its layers, King Kong is haunting adventure and an arresting exploration of man’s inexplicable drive to subdue nature. We come to feel less inclined to trust Denham after he reveals the nature of the expedition to the Captain and first mate; he films Ann’s first screaming shoot, and a concerned Jack says to Englehorn, “What’s he think she’s really gonna see?” At that point, Denham becomes a much darker and more ambiguous character because he is willingly taking the crew and this woman into unknown danger, and the escalation of danger only continues from there. It doesn’t take long for the crew of the Venture to be overwhelmed by the perilous journey, and the sense of retribution builds towards Kong as an emblem of the prehistoric denizens of Skull Island.
The character dynamics that seem clichéd today are still sufficient for telling the story. Even with his exploitative actions towards Kong, Denham is such a fun and likeable character in spite of his failings and there is a sense that he was misguided by the end. His successors in similar roles would have a more antagonistic stance. The romance between Ann and Jack doesn’t receive a lot of screen time so it isn’t distracting from the main attraction of the film. Remarkably, it is the only version of the romance in all of these Kong films that has the most chemistry and charm, due in part to its simplicity and playfulness between characters. Ann is no sultry temptress trying to woo Jack, and Jack is not so macho that he lacks basic sense and decency; they’re just two normal people in a dangerous situation. Their scene after the first native encounter provides a relief from the tension and concludes Jack’s brusque attitude towards Ann during the voyage. Even a tough old bean like Jack can soften up around a beauty like Ann, rather like the film’s titular ape.
There is something archaic and a bit jarring about the film’s stance on Kong as the antagonist and the crew as the heroes. In contrast to later Kong movies, Ann never feels pity for Kong and there is a clear distinction made that Kong is the monster that must be stopped, even if he is just following his instincts. Technology ultimately overpowers the prehistoric creature, and here it still has an old fashioned heroism to it; save the girl by slaying the monster. The film plays to the old 1930s attitude that surrounded gorillas as aggressive, savage beasts in the early 30s, and Kong’s characterisation reflects that. The feeling at the end is one of triumph, with only the slightest hint of tragedy at this creature taken out of his element, for, as Denham puts it at the end, “It was Beauty that killed the Beast.”
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/3318_1.jpg" alt="King Kong Blu-ray Release Date September 28, 2010 (DigiBook)" />
Despite the fairly two-dimensional human characters and special effects that may seem quaint and antiquated, King Kong is a revolutionary film and rightly deserves to be celebrated as a classic and a masterpiece in its own right. It is a movie about spectacle as much as it is one; relishing in the era of Broadway decadence, contemporary jungle adventure serials, and entirely new special effects for the era, capturing the zeitgeist of entertainment in the 30s. And yet it’s also timeless because it inspired directors and visual effects artists alike and permeated cinema for decades afterwards. �[V��|� ��������� �l
� 0p����<img class="size-medium wp-image-340 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Kingkongposter-246x500.jpg" alt="" width="246" height="500" />
In a way, the King Kong movies are to Hollywood what the Godzilla films are to Japanese cinema; they convey the cultural zeitgeist of the times in which they were made. From the 1933 classic from Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack right up to Jordan Vogt-Roberts’ action-heavy 2017 spectacle, Kong and his successors have been in the public consciousness throughout the history of cinema. It seems like, as technology and special effects advance over the years, Hollywood must showcase their latest developments by making a more realistic giant ape. Yet, for all their progress, Cooper and Schoedsack’s original remains the best. And just how is that so for an 84-year-old film? Let us dive in.
In 1933, a successful wildlife filmmaker, Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong), is preparing to embark on a voyage to the Far East to shoot his next picture. To satisfy the public’s desire for romance in his films, Denham invites washed up actress Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) to join in on his expedition. Along the way, Ann becomes acquainted with the gruff first mate Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot), and despite his churlish attitude, they begin to fall in love. The captain of the Venture, Englehorn (Frank Reicher), questions Denham of his real intentions, and the director reveals a map where an undiscovered island lies hidden in fog. He believes it to be the home of “Kong”, an old maritime superstition described as “neither beast nor man.”
The crew of the Venture arrives at the mysterious Skull Island and explore the natives’ village, flanked by an enormous stone wall, interrupting their ceremony. Despite the native chief attempting to bargain for Ann, the crew return to the ship without incident, but at night, the natives kidnap Ann and prepare to sacrifice her to Kong. Denham and Jack lead a team of sailors to rescue Ann, but are too late since Ann has already been taken by Kong, the giant ape of Skull Island revered as a god by the natives. Jack, Denham and over a dozen sailors face living dinosaurs and an angry Kong in order to rescue Ann.
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://drinkingbeerwatchingmovie.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/denham.png" width="743" height="418" />
The acting is very much of its time, coming off as corny to most viewers, but it is charming nonetheless. Fay Wray has a cheerful and optimistic demeanour that endears the audience to her character, but she is less interesting while she is Kong’s figure of interest and spends a lot of the film screaming and looking distressed, but Wray does a good job of using her imagination to react to something that isn’t real. Cabot is a rough and tough sailor who has a soft centre, and he has a certain warmth to his voice similar to Harrison Ford, if not quite his charisma. Armstrong plays the part of Denham brilliantly, as a dry, eccentric thrill-seeker but is still charismatic and professional enough to successfully lead his team. Reicher makes for a witty and charming gentleman of a sea captain, and has good chemistry with Armstrong.
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/1CZG5gvKFUk2AvDGI0fkqkjmGQzSKMzqtreJPzxWdIMhjsMuz7HM9XzhZpwRUIWJvBC1ngyEAgzsYScHRm75oDKfC1L1NwLpI150428myNiXOTBfTCrvjKReTSKhnkAHdSZssJpCna2wngAwf-CJV9OSlKFxjknk" alt="King Kong Blu-ray - Fay Wray" width="582" height="425" />
The movie utilises every trick in the book to create its illusions, using live-action, rear-projection, stop-motion animation, miniatures, models, and matte paintings. The matte paintings in particular are very detailed; the paintings of the Wall and Skull Island are especially convincing in the medium of black and white, making the illusion more seamless. On occasion the compositing is a little dodgy, when it looks as though the actors are walking on a different set from the dinosaurs. The jungle sets convey a very chaotic and ancient-looking rainforest, adding to the wildness of Skull Island. As usual, having suspension of disbelief does help as this film depicts a Brontosaurus eating up crewmates with the same ferocity as a T. Rex. The tribe of natives is rather typical in style and appearance, and don’t strike me as intimidating compared to the other aspects of Skull Island.
The cinematography masterfully frames the New York and Skull Island scenes, and while the camera is fixed during the stop-motion scenes, it never loses the sense of size or power of the creatures. Remarkable visuals abound from Kong emerging out of the jungle to take Ann to the climax atop the then-new Empire State Building. That climax in particular heightened the contrast of the primitive and prehistoric to the modern and contemporary, and was a visually-striking and bold centrepiece.
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/King_Kong_vs_Tyrannosaurus.jpg" alt="File:King Kong vs Tyrannosaurus.jpg - Wikimedia Commons" width="606" height="450" />
There is a definite charm and personality to the old stop-motion animation which modern visual effects seldom replicate or match, and this is true of the original Eighth Wonder himself. Kong is a combination of a stop-motion figure as well as life-sized animatronics, such as a whole arm for the cast to interact with, such as a giant Kong head that could hold an actor in its mouth. Admittedly, it’s the weakest practical effect in the film with its bizarre, dopey smile. Despite the relatively crude Kong figure, effects man Willis O’Brien conveys a lot of animal qualities through his expressions and behaviours. Having Kong alternate between walking on all fours and upright distinguishes him from real gorillas and makes him a creature all his own. While not the scariest in terms of creature designs, his unpredictable behaviour makes him memorable.
The stop-motion dinosaurs by special effects wizard O’Brien are another highlight of the film, and are more convincing than the dinosaurs in his previous adventure film, The Lost World. While the dinosaurs are based on outdated depictions, inspired by the work of paleontological artist Charles R. Knight, there’s an imaginative, almost otherworldly quality to them that sets them apart from the real animals. There is a great sense of scale between the dinosaurs and Kong compared to their human victims, especially when Kong jostles the log to make the sailors fall to their deaths, or when he breaks through the natives’ gate and rampages through the village. The battle between Kong and the T. Rex is still one of the most entertaining monster fights of cinema. The way the music stops and we’re exposed to the thunderous roars of the two enemies is reminiscent of the T. Rex attack on the tour car from Jurassic Park, and adds to the visceral, impactful nature of the fight scene. Everything that involves a visual effect of some variety can trace its ancestry to this film, and the fact that it was lauded in its time is the reason why the best blockbusters exist.
The score by Max Bernstein is nothing short of a classic, and one of the most famous in the pantheon of classic films. He created a rousing, memorable theme for Kong, reflecting his bestial, larger-than-life nature. The score highlights are the bombastic opening, the intro to Skull Island where the tribal drums and horns builds atmosphere and suspense, the romantic melody for Ann and Jack, the chilling sacrifice of Ann to Kong, and the ending piece.
The script by Ruth Rose was not considered a great piece of screenwriting, but it succeeds in delivering a well-paced, highly entertaining slice of escapist fiction where anything from giant apes to mysterious islands can still be found. Retroactive recognition has made many lines iconic. Simplicity is the key; Cooper and Shoedsack own the fact that it is a pulpy jungle adventure and roll with it. Yet, the subtext of Kong’s fascination with Ann is never lost within the shuffle.
The first act builds up suspense and mystery, but never to the point when it becomes tedious, making the journey more focused and to the point. That tension continues to build when we first see Skull Island, shrouded by fog and distant tribal drums heralding the island’s presence, sparking fear and anticipation of what is to come. Kong is portrayed as a dark, distant and dangerous creature; his intentions regarding Ann are treated as somewhat ambiguous, meaning you never really know what he’s going to do to her, maintaining the suspense of the moment. He protects her and attacks when provoked like any other animal. The relationship between Kong and Ann is more driven by fear and revulsion, with Kong showing an unrequited interest in Ann and Ann being in constant terror of the giant ape.
Underneath its layers, King Kong is haunting adventure and an arresting exploration of man’s inexplicable drive to subdue nature. We come to feel less inclined to trust Denham after he reveals the nature of the expedition to the Captain and first mate; he films Ann’s first screaming shoot, and a concerned Jack says to Englehorn, “What’s he think she’s really gonna see?” At that point, Denham becomes a much darker and more ambiguous character because he is willingly taking the crew and this woman into unknown danger, and the escalation of danger only continues from there. It doesn’t take long for the crew of the Venture to be overwhelmed by the perilous journey, and the sense of retribution builds towards Kong as an emblem of the prehistoric denizens of Skull Island.
The character dynamics that seem clichéd today are still sufficient for telling the story. Even with his exploitative actions towards Kong, Denham is such a fun and likeable character in spite of his failings and there is a sense that he was misguided by the end. His successors in similar roles would have a more antagonistic stance. The romance between Ann and Jack doesn’t receive a lot of screen time so it isn’t distracting from the main attraction of the film. Remarkably, it is the only version of the romance in all of these Kong films that has the most chemistry and charm, due in part to its simplicity and playfulness between characters. Ann is no sultry temptress trying to woo Jack, and Jack is not so macho that he lacks basic sense and decency; they’re just two normal people in a dangerous situation. Their scene after the first native encounter provides a relief from the tension and concludes Jack’s brusque attitude towards Ann during the voyage. Even a tough old bean like Jack can soften up around a beauty like Ann, rather like the film’s titular ape.
There is something archaic and a bit jarring about the film’s stance on Kong as the antagonist and the crew as the heroes. In contrast to later Kong movies, Ann never feels pity for Kong and there is a clear distinction made that Kong is the monster that must be stopped, even if he is just following his instincts. Technology ultimately overpowers the prehistoric creature, and here it still has an old fashioned heroism to it; save the girl by slaying the monster. The film plays to the old 1930s attitude that surrounded gorillas as aggressive, savage beasts in the early 30s, and Kong’s characterisation reflects that. The feeling at the end is one of triumph, with only the slightest hint of tragedy at this creature taken out of his element, for, as Denham puts it at the end, “It was Beauty that killed the Beast.”
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/3318_1.jpg" alt="King Kong Blu-ray Release Date September 28, 2010 (DigiBook)" />
Despite the fairly two-dimensional human characters and special effects that may seem quaint and antiquated, King Kong is a revolutionary film and rightly deserves to be celebrated as a classic and a masterpiece in its own right. It is a movie about spectacle as much as it is one; relishing in the era of Broadway decadence, contemporary jungle adventure serials, and entirely new special effects for the era, capturing the zeitgeist of entertainment in the 30s. And yet it’s also timeless because it inspired directors and visual effects artists alike and permeated cinema for decades afterwards. �lTfaa ��������� �
� &����<img class="size-medium wp-image-344 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MightyJoeYoung49-335x500.jpg" alt="" width="335" height="500" />
Sixteen years after <i>King Kong</i> made motion picture history, the same production company, director, writer, special effects artists, as well as a major star reunited on yet another film about giant apes. <i>Mighty Joe Young</i> is<i> </i>often very closely associated with <em>King Kong</em>; some say the film is paying homage to the jungle adventure films from the 30s, others say it is a loose, softer remake of the original. The main difference being that, in this film, the huge gorilla is sort of an adopted sibling to our leading lady, who both live in harmony in their native Africa and Joe is voluntarily taken to America. This time, it wasn’t an attempt to top its famous predecessor, but to simply kick back and have fun with a familiar concept.
In Tanganyika, Africa, eight-year-old Jill Young is living with her father on his ranch. While in her yard, two Africans come by with an orphaned baby gorilla. Jill so wants a pet that she trades her toys and money for him, vowing to always care for the gorilla. Her father warns her that one day the baby gorilla will not be so friendly.
Twelve years later in 1949, Max O’Hara (Robert Armstrong) and sidekick Gregg (Ben Johnson) are on a trip to Africa looking for animals to headline in O’Hara’s new Hollywood nightclub. They capture several lions to feature alongside the gorilla Joe Young, who now appears twelve feet tall. When a caged lion bites Joe’s fingers, he goes on a rampage. Max and Gregg try to rope him in as an attraction for their nightclub, but he throws both men from their horses and breaks free of their ropes. A grown Jill Young (Terry Moore) arrives, calming Joe down and chastising O’Hara and Gregg. After becoming acquainted with Gregg, Jill hears out O’Hara nightclub proposal, who tells her that she and Joe will be a huge Hollywood hit and will be rich within weeks. Needing the income, she decides she must take Joe to Hollywood, where he is the star of O’Hara’s club. At first, the show is a roaring success and both enjoy fame and fortune, but Joe longs to be free. Eventually, the unruly club patrons make Joe suffer for his stage performances, resulting in a catastrophe that threatens Joe’s life.
Apart from two of our leads, the acting is nothing special. Moore is charming enough as Jill, despite this being a fairly standard likeable lead performance, retaining the innocence and optimism of a girl who has never been to America. Armstrong is once again a delight to watch, and instead of being the maverick adventurer like Carl Denham, he is more of an eccentric showman who learns his lesson before it’s too late. Johnson is as bland, boring and wooden as a rainforest, and devoid of personality to speak of. The little girl playing young Jill in these opening scenes is also wooden. The rest of the bit parts are also fairly forgettable. Fortunately, they aren’t the real stars of the film.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-25313" src="http://www.squabblebox.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/mightyjoeyoung1949-2.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="360" />
What is easily the best part of this movie is the visual effects by Willis O’Brien and then-newcomer Ray Harryhausen. O’Brien assumes the mentor role to Harryhausen, who handled the majority of the stop-motion on Joe. Joe’s proportions are truer to real life gorillas than Kong, making him less of a monster and closer to being a confused animal. Joe’s expressions speak volumes, conveying joy, sadness or anger without seeming too cartoonish compared to the more feral Kong. The interaction between Joe, the characters and the settings of the film is also commendable. One of my favourite effects is the way footage of lions in cages is spliced together with shots of Joe interacting with the cage and setting the lion free, with the illusion being pretty seamless. Even the stop-motion lions are well animated and integrated competently with their live-action counterparts. The stunt work with the horses interacting with Joe ranges from surprisingly seamless to less than impressive, but is still a commendable achievement. The stop-motion blends in with the sets and the real environments very nicely. On the whole, the illusion is still maintained, making this debut for the great Harryhausen a very impressive one.
As with <i>King Kong</i>, matte paintings and rear/front-projection blend together to merge the plasticine Joe and his miniature sets to the real life footage. They would shoot multiple passes on the same magazine of film in order to expose specific areas of the frame on each pass; Harryhausen used a stopwatch to synchronise movement frame by frame. The results can clearly be identified as effects shots, and they have a weight and solidity that has helped stop-motion remain a recognised artform. What’s perhaps most astonishing about these sequences from a 1949 film is how successfully they integrate the live-action performances with entirely animated elements.
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMDhmZjhmZDQtYWZhZC00ZjI4LWFmMTMtYmYwZGNlMGE0NGJjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTAyNDQ2NjI@._V1_.jpg" alt="Mr. Joseph Young - IMDb" width="596" height="447" />
The music by Roy Webb is suitably tailored to the grand jungle adventure genre of the 30s, in some ways sounding like a continuation of Max Steiner’s work from <em>King Kong</em>, but not quite as memorable. It’s a decent score, bolstered by the classic song “Beautiful Dreamer” as the main theme.
Through no fault of the film, <i>Mighty Joe</i> doesn’t have the same punch as <i>King Kong</i>, mainly due to the fact that the giant ape in this film is not as dangerous as Kong and doesn’t suffer a dramatic fate. The film is certainly very light and free-spirited in tone, and has a more leisurely pace. I understand that the film is more family-friendly than <i>King Kong</i>, but at the beginning, it is rather dull. Some scenes do come off as padding, like O’Hara’s hapless attempts to mount a horse that are meant for comic relief. The use of Joe in the nightclub show, such as holding up a platform whilst Jill plays a piano, or later a tug-of-war between Joe and the ten strongmen, are engaging enough as stop-motion showpieces, but do become less enthralling as the plot is temporarily put aside for the effects to shine.
As soon as Joe gets to America, the pacing improves substantially, culminating in a tremendous, quick-paced chase in the last fifteen minutes. When the second act kicks in, the tone of the movie shifts somewhat. The action becomes bombastic and energetic, with the initial burst of action coming from a cowboy chase through the African bush, which was a pretty fresh sight in the late 40s and even to this day. The scene where a drunken Joe terrorises the club patrons and gets into a fight with the lions in the Golden Safari is pure pandemonium, with the energetic score building upon the destruction and chaos. Its surprisingly tense and thrilling for a family film. Joe gets pretty rough with some lions, and while stop-motion is used for both Joe and the lion he’s fighting in the action shots, in the very next shot a lion gets dropped from a considerable height onto a table, and it didn’t look too comfortable for the lion. Just a fair warning.
The actual climax involving the orphanage is, if I’m honest, really contrived and just comes out of nowhere without any context or build-up. Jill and Ben just see the burning building and spontaneously decide to help. One thing that stands out about it is that it’s filmed entirely in a smoky orange hue which adds to the forbidding and almost hellish atmosphere; as though this was Joe’s trial by fire before winning his freedom.
As far as the film having a thematic angle is concerned, there is a pretty scathing observation on the treatment of animals within the entertainment business. At first, the acts are good-natured and sportsmanlike, but they gradually become more and more degrading, and the customers become increasingly unsavoury as they bathe in the opulent setting, a hollow imitation of the real Africa seen from Jill’s ranch. The performers of the night club are an exaggerated portrayal of tribal Africa (something we see again in Peter Jackson’s <i>King Kong</i>), and the business becomes more and more debased until it implodes in on itself.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-25314" src="http://www.squabblebox.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/mightyjoeyoung1949-3.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="400" />
Even by the context of the 40s, this was a very old-fashioned kind of film, with the actors and screenplay infusing the storyline with a lot of cheese. The imagery of capturing wild animals is an example of the visuals you could only get away with in these less politically-correct days. The romance between Jill and Gregg is perfunctory and boring, and just comes off as time filler because of how underdeveloped it is.
At the end of the day, the original <i>Mighty Joe Young</i> would have probably remained a footnote in RKO Pictures’ movie catalogue and faded into obscurity if not for an aspiring special effects artist and his career from that point onwards. For what it is, it’s a feel-good adventure film that manages to carve out its own identity whilst still retaining many of the same components as <em>King Kong</em>. But it deserves full credit for starting the career of stop-motion artist and master of the craft, Ray Harryhausen. ��Me� ��������� ��
� &����<img class="size-medium wp-image-344 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MightyJoeYoung49-335x500.jpg" alt="" width="335" height="500" />
Sixteen years after <i>King Kong</i> made motion picture history, the same production company, director, writer, special effects artists, as well as a major star reunited on yet another film about giant apes. <i>Mighty Joe Young</i> is<i> </i>often very closely associated with <em>King Kong</em>; some say the film is paying homage to the jungle adventure films from the 30s, others say it is a loose, softer remake of the original. The main difference being that, in this film, the huge gorilla is sort of an adopted sibling to our leading lady, who both live in harmony in their native Africa and Joe is voluntarily taken to America. This time, it wasn’t an attempt to top its famous predecessor, but to simply kick back and have fun with a familiar concept.
In Tanganyika, Africa, eight-year-old Jill Young is living with her father on his ranch. While in her yard, two Africans come by with an orphaned baby gorilla. Jill so wants a pet that she trades her toys and money for him, vowing to always care for the gorilla. Her father warns her that one day the baby gorilla will not be so friendly.
Twelve years later in 1949, Max O’Hara (Robert Armstrong) and sidekick Gregg (Ben Johnson) are on a trip to Africa looking for animals to headline in O’Hara’s new Hollywood nightclub. They capture several lions to feature alongside the gorilla Joe Young, who now appears twelve feet tall. When a caged lion bites Joe’s fingers, he goes on a rampage. Max and Gregg try to rope him in as an attraction for their nightclub, but he throws both men from their horses and breaks free of their ropes. A grown Jill Young (Terry Moore) arrives, calming Joe down and chastising O’Hara and Gregg. After becoming acquainted with Gregg, Jill hears out O’Hara nightclub proposal, who tells her that she and Joe will be a huge Hollywood hit and will be rich within weeks. Needing the income, she decides she must take Joe to Hollywood, where he is the star of O’Hara’s club. At first, the show is a roaring success and both enjoy fame and fortune, but Joe longs to be free. Eventually, the unruly club patrons make Joe suffer for his stage performances, resulting in a catastrophe that threatens Joe’s life.
Apart from two of our leads, the acting is nothing special. Moore is charming enough as Jill, despite this being a fairly standard likeable lead performance, retaining the innocence and optimism of a girl who has never been to America. Armstrong is once again a delight to watch, and instead of being the maverick adventurer like Carl Denham, he is more of an eccentric showman who learns his lesson before it’s too late. Johnson is as bland, boring and wooden as a rainforest, and devoid of personality to speak of. The little girl playing young Jill in these opening scenes is also wooden. The rest of the bit parts are also fairly forgettable. Fortunately, they aren’t the real stars of the film.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-25313" src="http://www.squabblebox.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/mightyjoeyoung1949-2.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="360" />
What is easily the best part of this movie is the visual effects by Willis O’Brien and then-newcomer Ray Harryhausen. O’Brien assumes the mentor role to Harryhausen, who handled the majority of the stop-motion on Joe. Joe’s proportions are truer to real life gorillas than Kong, making him less of a monster and closer to being a confused animal. Joe’s expressions speak volumes, conveying joy, sadness or anger without seeming too cartoonish compared to the more feral Kong. The interaction between Joe, the characters and the settings of the film is also commendable. One of my favourite effects is the way footage of lions in cages is spliced together with shots of Joe interacting with the cage and setting the lion free, with the illusion being pretty seamless. Even the stop-motion lions are well animated and integrated competently with their live-action counterparts. The stunt work with the horses interacting with Joe ranges from surprisingly seamless to less than impressive, but is still a commendable achievement. The stop-motion blends in with the sets and the real environments very nicely. On the whole, the illusion is still maintained, making this debut for the great Harryhausen a very impressive one.
As with <i>King Kong</i>, matte paintings and rear/front-projection blend together to merge the plasticine Joe and his miniature sets to the real life footage. They would shoot multiple passes on the same magazine of film in order to expose specific areas of the frame on each pass; Harryhausen used a stopwatch to synchronise movement frame by frame. The results can clearly be identified as effects shots, and they have a weight and solidity that has helped stop-motion remain a recognised artform. What’s perhaps most astonishing about these sequences from a 1949 film is how successfully they integrate the live-action performances with entirely animated elements.
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMDhmZjhmZDQtYWZhZC00ZjI4LWFmMTMtYmYwZGNlMGE0NGJjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTAyNDQ2NjI@._V1_.jpg" alt="Mr. Joseph Young - IMDb" width="596" height="447" />
The music by Roy Webb is suitably tailored to the grand jungle adventure genre of the 30s, in some ways sounding like a continuation of Max Steiner’s work from <em>King Kong</em>, but not quite as memorable. It’s a decent score, bolstered by the classic song “Beautiful Dreamer” as the main theme.
Through no fault of the film, <i>Mighty Joe</i> doesn’t have the same punch as <i>King Kong</i>, mainly due to the fact that the giant ape in this film is not as dangerous as Kong and doesn’t suffer a dramatic fate. The film is certainly very light and free-spirited in tone, and has a more leisurely pace. I understand that the film is more family-friendly than <i>King Kong</i>, but at the beginning, it is rather dull. Some scenes do come off as padding, like O’Hara’s hapless attempts to mount a horse that are meant for comic relief. The use of Joe in the nightclub show, such as holding up a platform whilst Jill plays a piano, or later a tug-of-war between Joe and the ten strongmen, are engaging enough as stop-motion showpieces, but do become less enthralling as the plot is temporarily put aside for the effects to shine.
As soon as Joe gets to America, the pacing improves substantially, culminating in a tremendous, quick-paced chase in the last fifteen minutes. When the second act kicks in, the tone of the movie shifts somewhat. The action becomes bombastic and energetic, with the initial burst of action coming from a cowboy chase through the African bush, which was a pretty fresh sight in the late 40s and even to this day. The scene where a drunken Joe terrorises the club patrons and gets into a fight with the lions in the Golden Safari is pure pandemonium, with the energetic score building upon the destruction and chaos. Its surprisingly tense and thrilling for a family film. Joe gets pretty rough with some lions, and while stop-motion is used for both Joe and the lion he’s fighting in the action shots, in the very next shot a lion gets dropped from a considerable height onto a table, and it didn’t look too comfortable for the lion. Just a fair warning.
The actual climax involving the orphanage is, if I’m honest, really contrived and just comes out of nowhere without any context or build-up. Jill and Ben just see the burning building and spontaneously decide to help. One thing that stands out about it is that it’s filmed entirely in a smoky orange hue which adds to the forbidding and almost hellish atmosphere; as though this was Joe’s trial by fire before winning his freedom.
As far as the film having a thematic angle is concerned, there is a pretty scathing observation on the treatment of animals within the entertainment business. At first, the acts are good-natured and sportsmanlike, but they gradually become more and more degrading, and the customers become increasingly unsavoury as they bathe in the opulent setting, a hollow imitation of the real Africa seen from Jill’s ranch. The performers of the night club are an exaggerated portrayal of tribal Africa (something we see again in Peter Jackson’s <i>King Kong</i>), and the business becomes more and more debased until it implodes in on itself.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-25314" src="http://www.squabblebox.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/mightyjoeyoung1949-3.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="400" />
Even by the context of the 40s, this was a very old-fashioned kind of film, with the actors and screenplay infusing the storyline with a lot of cheese. The imagery of capturing wild animals is an example of the visuals you could only get away with in these less politically-correct days. The romance between Jill and Gregg is perfunctory and boring, and just comes off as time filler because of how underdeveloped it is.
At the end of the day, the original <i>Mighty Joe Young</i> would have probably remained a footnote in RKO Pictures’ movie catalogue and faded into obscurity if not for an aspiring special effects artist and his career from that point onwards. For what it is, it’s a feel-good adventure film that manages to carve out its own identity whilst still retaining many of the same components as <em>King Kong</em>. But it deserves full credit for starting the career of stop-motion artist and master of the craft, Ray Harryhausen. �� �| ��������� � �
� ,����<img class="size-medium wp-image-348 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/king_kong_76-329x500.jpg" alt="" width="329" height="500" />
Transitioning into the 70s, we leave behind the age of stop-motion apes and dinosaurs and enter the age of men in ape suits. Back before remakes of classic films became routine business, the prospect of topping King Kong must have been very tempting. For producer Dino De Laurentis and Paramount Pictures, it was all about topping Steven Spielberg’s smash hit Jaws with one of the greatest classic monsters of them all. The result is frankly one of the most poorly put together, disposable and hubristic blockbusters of the 20th century.
Fred Wilson (Charles Grodin), an executive of the Petrox Oil Company, forms an expedition to a previously undiscovered Indian Ocean island hidden by a permanent cloud bank, hoping to uncover a huge deposit of oil. Jack Prescott (Jeff Bridges), a paleontologist who wants to see the island for himself, stows away on the expedition’s vessel. Prescott warns the crew that the cloud bank may be caused by an unknown beast. Wilson orders Prescott locked up, claiming that he is really a spy from a rival oil company. While escorted to lock-up, Prescott spots a life raft which carries the beautiful and unconscious Dwan (Jessica Lange), an aspiring actress who escaped her director’s yacht after it inexplicably exploded. After determining that Prescott was telling the truth, Wilson appoints Prescott the expedition’s official photographer.
Upon arriving at the island, the team discovers a primitive tribe of natives preparing to sacrifice a girl to Kong, a mysterious creature beyond a giant wooden wall. The Natives see them and demand Dwan be offered in sacrifice to Kong for disturbing their rituals. Later that night, the natives kidnap Dwan and offer her to Kong, revealed to be a giant gorilla, who then takes Dwan to his jungle lair. Prescott leads a band of volunteers to rescue Dwan, who is starting to fall for the giant ape’s charms. After learning that the oil on the island is unusable, Wilson has other plans for Kong as a mascot for his oil empire.
The acting mostly ranges from wooden as a plank to grossly hammy. Bridges is the one actor who comes out of the film with his dignity intact; he has little to work with but he manages to give a standard early Bridges performance. Grodin is over-the-top and smarmy as oil tycoon Wilson, and because he lacks Denham’s sense of humour or adventurous spirit, he comes across as too unpleasant to keep onscreen for long. Lange debuted in this film as Dwan, and frankly, it’s a very weak performance. She’s less a character and more a blonde stereotype with a childish streak. Considering the quiet courage and resilience of Ann Darrow, I found her naive and giggly personality exasperating. The chemistry between Bridges and Lange is flat; they are trying but the bad dialogue does them no favours. Most of the supporting cast, barring a few officers, are mostly forgettable and one-dimensional.
Despite being the most prominently featured characters, Dwan, Prescott and Wilson are so under-written that it feels like nothing is accomplished with them. The pacing lacks momentum and energy; conversations between characters are awkward and stilted, dragging each scene out. Despite the film beginning with the ship leaving dock, and all of the characters being introduced there, it moves along at a snail’s pace considering how little story is told and characterisation is given. Yes, even compared to the Peter Jackson film!
To give John Guillermin some credit, the direction has more of a technical polish than most monster movies of the era, but his workmanlike style lacks atmosphere on Skull Island, while the New York scenes fare a bit better. The build-up to Skull Island is relatively believable for a film set in the 70s, since lost worlds are hard to come by in modern times. The cinematography boasts some strong visual appeal and a varied colour palette. In contrast to the Jackson movie, there are a lot of real life location shots set in Hawaii, as well as sets recreating the streets of 70s New York. The matte paintings for the ancient wall and a few of the Skull Island scenes are designed to a high standard, though many are underwhelming. The Natives’ Wall, while highly impractical as an ancient structure or as a defence against giant apes, is very stylish and cool-looking.
The score by John Barry is the single strongest redeeming feature; though sparsely used, it builds up mystery and tension, setting its own identity apart from Max Steiner’s epic score. The opening theme with its ominous trumpets and tense strings is fitting for the character, though the inclusion of a pipe organ is… bizarre. The love theme is also a nice, soothing piece, despite its application in the many questionable Kong/Dwan scenes.
Potentially suspenseful set-pieces lack the atmosphere and tension they should be conveying. Intentional scares become unintentionally hilarious, such as the kidnapping of Dwan by the natives, or the reveal of Kong himself. Even when she’s their hostage, she just lounges around looking sexy and doesn’t try to escape or look in the least bit worried. Normally, I approve of a slow build-up towards the reveal of the monster of the movie, but it’s so clumsily handled that there really is no sense of excitement or fear. It doesn’t matter if the film’s monster is seen within an hour or within twenty minutes if you can’t make me care for anyone in your movie. There is no sense of adventure or wonder; the scenes of the crew exploring the island are dry for tension or any adventure thrills, and lack even basic jungle atmosphere. Frankly, a King Kong movie without any bizarre prehistoric creatures to fight (a giant snake does not count) is like a Godzilla movie after the 1954 original without kaiju to fight, and instead, having to face up against the US Military only to constantly run away and… oh wait, never mind.
Let’s talk about the special effects. Yes, I acknowledge that Kong in this film does look a lot better than the versions created for the Japanese Godzilla series, and future make-up maestro Rick Baker (as the man in the ape suit) was only just starting to refine his craft as a master of simian special effects. Those considerations are duly noted. But honestly, it doesn’t matter; the suit for Kong is a mess. The animatronic Kong face, created by Carlo Rambaldi, lacks the animated expressions of past and future Kongs. It can even get uncomfortably leery at times. Sometimes, there’s a neat effect like the detail they put into Kong’s mechanical hand. And admittedly, the best effects scene is when Kong smashes down the wooden gate and the sense of scale and power is well-realised. But on the whole, there is very little sense of scale or presence whenever this version of Kong is onscreen. When he walks around on two legs, he never feels like an ape or a unique creature, but rather a man in a suit. But the worst is the horrendously fake-looking life-sized Kong robot that was only used for a few short edits when Kong breaks out of his cage. The marketing implied that a life-sized Kong robot would portray Kong as opposed to an animated figure. They were lying, since Baker in a rudimentary ape costume is the real feature.
Then there’s the relationship between Dwan and Kong: I don’t buy it. Because it goes through the motions of a typical Beauty and the Beast romance without really giving a damn about its story, it comes off as creepy. When Kong smiles at Dwan it’s just weird, especially considering how dissimilar Kong is from real apes. And please, don’t get me started on the scene when he blows air in Dwan’s face. Even after being captured and ogled by Kong for god knows how long, Dwan decides she loves Kong at the very end and pleads the helicopters not to shoot him. Forget Belle or Ann Darrow, Dwan is the one with Stockholm Syndrome! The amount of sexual overtones regarding their relationship is done in very poor taste, especially when Wilson and Jack describe Kong as “horny” or that he wants to “rape” Dwan. It doesn’t help that Kong acts like a giant pervert in this film either; him smelling Dwan’s scarf after the wind blows it out of her grasp? Not cool.
The film’s homages to the 1933 classic mostly fall flat; the sacrifice of Dwan to Kong is both similar and different to work in of itself, even if the reason for the natives taking Dwan makes even less sense. The log attack scene pales in comparison, and Kong fights a giant snake instead of a T. Rex. The fight itself is very badly shot and edited, with the snake appearing and spontaneously wrapping Kong in its coils. Because we don’t get any other encounters with large reptiles or dinosaurs, this fight comes off as contrived as hell. This remake is also famous for depicting Kong climbing the World Trade Centre instead of the Empire State Building, but instead of being awe-inspiring, it’s really quite uncomfortable to contemporary audiences. But that’s more a matter of hindsight than bad filmmaking.
As far as characters go, everything about Dwan’s character and presence in the film rubs me the wrong way. Her introduction is laughable and contrived, thanks to the set-up towards a spontaneously exploded ship. It’s implied her real name is “Dawn” and she switched the “a” and the “w” around to create “Dwan.” Also, her name forms the first and last initials of Ann Darrow. I cannot fathom how the writers thought this was being clever! She is characterised in broad strokes: the ditzy, shallow blonde trading on her socially-constructed attractiveness in search of fame and wealth, but without an arc or character nuance to balance that out. Even when Kong is about to be revealed to a gawking crowd, she’s too starstruck to motivate herself to either help Kong or get away, and Jack is the one to motivate her. Classy.
The 1976 film is largely influenced by its time; gas prices climbed, environmentalists cropped up everywhere, and blonde actresses were floating adrift at sea. Instead of setting Kong up as an icon of the uncharted wilderness, here he’s turned into a corporate mascot in a supposed critique of these issues. However, these updates and changes are contrived and don’t gel with the story. Without any of the build-up to Kong’s revelation and the change of the setting and motivations to be more selfish, the characters come off as shallow and unlikable, the story even more nonsensical, and the Beauty and the Beast angle despicable. We should feel sorry for Kong, but we shouldn’t want him to mate with the girl!
While his version was overlong, Peter Jackson is a huge fan of the original classic and it showed in his direction and reverence for the material. The ’76 remake simply doesn’t have the same level of heart and passion. If they really wanted to make a film that honoured the spirit of the original, then their hearts really weren’t in it. Now that we have another Kong movie set in the 70s, and a whole new context, this is about to get interesting. � ����X ��������� �M5
� ,����<img class="size-medium wp-image-348 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/king_kong_76-329x500.jpg" alt="" width="329" height="500" />
Transitioning into the 70s, we leave behind the age of stop-motion apes and dinosaurs and enter the age of men in ape suits. Back before remakes of classic films became routine business, the prospect of topping King Kong must have been very tempting. For producer Dino De Laurentis and Paramount Pictures, it was all about topping Steven Spielberg’s smash hit Jaws with one of the greatest classic monsters of them all. The result is frankly one of the most poorly put together, disposable and hubristic blockbusters of the 20th century.
Fred Wilson (Charles Grodin), an executive of the Petrox Oil Company, forms an expedition to a previously undiscovered Indian Ocean island hidden by a permanent cloud bank, hoping to uncover a huge deposit of oil. Jack Prescott (Jeff Bridges), a paleontologist who wants to see the island for himself, stows away on the expedition’s vessel. Prescott warns the crew that the cloud bank may be caused by an unknown beast. Wilson orders Prescott locked up, claiming that he is really a spy from a rival oil company. While escorted to lock-up, Prescott spots a life raft which carries the beautiful and unconscious Dwan (Jessica Lange), an aspiring actress who escaped her director’s yacht after it inexplicably exploded. After determining that Prescott was telling the truth, Wilson appoints Prescott the expedition’s official photographer.
Upon arriving at the island, the team discovers a primitive tribe of natives preparing to sacrifice a girl to Kong, a mysterious creature beyond a giant wooden wall. The Natives see them and demand Dwan be offered in sacrifice to Kong for disturbing their rituals. Later that night, the natives kidnap Dwan and offer her to Kong, revealed to be a giant gorilla, who then takes Dwan to his jungle lair. Prescott leads a band of volunteers to rescue Dwan, who is starting to fall for the giant ape’s charms. After learning that the oil on the island is unusable, Wilson has other plans for Kong as a mascot for his oil empire.
The acting mostly ranges from wooden as a plank to grossly hammy. Bridges is the one actor who comes out of the film with his dignity intact; he has little to work with but he manages to give a standard early Bridges performance. Grodin is over-the-top and smarmy as oil tycoon Wilson, and because he lacks Denham’s sense of humour or adventurous spirit, he comes across as too unpleasant to keep onscreen for long. Lange debuted in this film as Dwan, and frankly, it’s a very weak performance. She’s less a character and more a blonde stereotype with a childish streak. Considering the quiet courage and resilience of Ann Darrow, I found her naive and giggly personality exasperating. The chemistry between Bridges and Lange is flat; they are trying but the bad dialogue does them no favours. Most of the supporting cast, barring a few officers, are mostly forgettable and one-dimensional.
Despite being the most prominently featured characters, Dwan, Prescott and Wilson are so under-written that it feels like nothing is accomplished with them. The pacing lacks momentum and energy; conversations between characters are awkward and stilted, dragging each scene out. Despite the film beginning with the ship leaving dock, and all of the characters being introduced there, it moves along at a snail’s pace considering how little story is told and characterisation is given. Yes, even compared to the Peter Jackson film!
To give John Guillermin some credit, the direction has more of a technical polish than most monster movies of the era, but his workmanlike style lacks atmosphere on Skull Island, while the New York scenes fare a bit better. The build-up to Skull Island is relatively believable for a film set in the 70s, since lost worlds are hard to come by in modern times. The cinematography boasts some strong visual appeal and a varied colour palette. In contrast to the Jackson movie, there are a lot of real life location shots set in Hawaii, as well as sets recreating the streets of 70s New York. The matte paintings for the ancient wall and a few of the Skull Island scenes are designed to a high standard, though many are underwhelming. The Natives’ Wall, while highly impractical as an ancient structure or as a defence against giant apes, is very stylish and cool-looking.
The score by John Barry is the single strongest redeeming feature; though sparsely used, it builds up mystery and tension, setting its own identity apart from Max Steiner’s epic score. The opening theme with its ominous trumpets and tense strings is fitting for the character, though the inclusion of a pipe organ is… bizarre. The love theme is also a nice, soothing piece, despite its application in the many questionable Kong/Dwan scenes.
Potentially suspenseful set-pieces lack the atmosphere and tension they should be conveying. Intentional scares become unintentionally hilarious, such as the kidnapping of Dwan by the natives, or the reveal of Kong himself. Even when she’s their hostage, she just lounges around looking sexy and doesn’t try to escape or look in the least bit worried. Normally, I approve of a slow build-up towards the reveal of the monster of the movie, but it’s so clumsily handled that there really is no sense of excitement or fear. It doesn’t matter if the film’s monster is seen within an hour or within twenty minutes if you can’t make me care for anyone in your movie. There is no sense of adventure or wonder; the scenes of the crew exploring the island are dry for tension or any adventure thrills, and lack even basic jungle atmosphere. Frankly, a King Kong movie without any bizarre prehistoric creatures to fight (a giant snake does not count) is like a Godzilla movie after the 1954 original without kaiju to fight, and instead, having to face up against the US Military only to constantly run away and… oh wait, never mind.
Let’s talk about the special effects. Yes, I acknowledge that Kong in this film does look a lot better than the versions created for the Japanese Godzilla series, and future make-up maestro Rick Baker (as the man in the ape suit) was only just starting to refine his craft as a master of simian special effects. Those considerations are duly noted. But honestly, it doesn’t matter; the suit for Kong is a mess. The animatronic Kong face, created by Carlo Rambaldi, lacks the animated expressions of past and future Kongs. It can even get uncomfortably leery at times. Sometimes, there’s a neat effect like the detail they put into Kong’s mechanical hand. And admittedly, the best effects scene is when Kong smashes down the wooden gate and the sense of scale and power is well-realised. But on the whole, there is very little sense of scale or presence whenever this version of Kong is onscreen. When he walks around on two legs, he never feels like an ape or a unique creature, but rather a man in a suit. But the worst is the horrendously fake-looking life-sized Kong robot that was only used for a few short edits when Kong breaks out of his cage. The marketing implied that a life-sized Kong robot would portray Kong as opposed to an animated figure. They were lying, since Baker in a rudimentary ape costume is the real feature.
Then there’s the relationship between Dwan and Kong: I don’t buy it. Because it goes through the motions of a typical Beauty and the Beast romance without really giving a damn about its story, it comes off as creepy. When Kong smiles at Dwan it’s just weird, especially considering how dissimilar Kong is from real apes. And please, don’t get me started on the scene when he blows air in Dwan’s face. Even after being captured and ogled by Kong for god knows how long, Dwan decides she loves Kong at the very end and pleads the helicopters not to shoot him. Forget Belle or Ann Darrow, Dwan is the one with Stockholm Syndrome! The amount of sexual overtones regarding their relationship is done in very poor taste, especially when Wilson and Jack describe Kong as “horny” or that he wants to “rape” Dwan. It doesn’t help that Kong acts like a giant pervert in this film either; him smelling Dwan’s scarf after the wind blows it out of her grasp? Not cool.
The film’s homages to the 1933 classic mostly fall flat; the sacrifice of Dwan to Kong is both similar and different to work in of itself, even if the reason for the natives taking Dwan makes even less sense. The log attack scene pales in comparison, and Kong fights a giant snake instead of a T. Rex. The fight itself is very badly shot and edited, with the snake appearing and spontaneously wrapping Kong in its coils. Because we don’t get any other encounters with large reptiles or dinosaurs, this fight comes off as contrived as hell. This remake is also famous for depicting Kong climbing the World Trade Centre instead of the Empire State Building, but instead of being awe-inspiring, it’s really quite uncomfortable to contemporary audiences. But that’s more a matter of hindsight than bad filmmaking.
As far as characters go, everything about Dwan’s character and presence in the film rubs me the wrong way. Her introduction is laughable and contrived, thanks to the set-up towards a spontaneously exploded ship. It’s implied her real name is “Dawn” and she switched the “a” and the “w” around to create “Dwan.” Also, her name forms the first and last initials of Ann Darrow. I cannot fathom how the writers thought this was being clever! She is characterised in broad strokes: the ditzy, shallow blonde trading on her socially-constructed attractiveness in search of fame and wealth, but without an arc or character nuance to balance that out. Even when Kong is about to be revealed to a gawking crowd, she’s too starstruck to motivate herself to either help Kong or get away, and Jack is the one to motivate her. Classy.
The 1976 film is largely influenced by its time; gas prices climbed, environmentalists cropped up everywhere, and blonde actresses were floating adrift at sea. Instead of setting Kong up as an icon of the uncharted wilderness, here he’s turned into a corporate mascot in a supposed critique of these issues. However, these updates and changes are contrived and don’t gel with the story. Without any of the build-up to Kong’s revelation and the change of the setting and motivations to be more selfish, the characters come off as shallow and unlikable, the story even more nonsensical, and the Beauty and the Beast angle despicable. We should feel sorry for Kong, but we shouldn’t want him to mate with the girl!
While his version was overlong, Peter Jackson is a huge fan of the original classic and it showed in his direction and reverence for the material. The ’76 remake simply doesn’t have the same level of heart and passion. If they really wanted to make a film that honoured the spirit of the original, then their hearts really weren’t in it. Now that we have another Kong movie set in the 70s, and a whole new context, this is about to get interesting. �M5�s® � ����� # ��E� � 3׀ JQ )infimum supremum ' a� f � ��G���F�<img class="wp-image-356 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/elephantboy-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="376" height="556" />
This is a somewhat significant film as it was the first adaptation of a Rudyard Kipling story. What could have easily blended into the slew of other jungle pictures of the 1930s managed to become a solid film. It introduced the world to Sabu, and the career that followed from that was all thanks to the earnestness and exotic spectacle of this film.
Shouldering the role of Tomai at age twelve, Sabu makes a great debut; he’s natural, spirited, authentic and engaging in a way that few child actors at the time could be; standing very close to and riding confidently atop his magnificent elephant mount, named Kala Nag in the film, he is very much the image of Kipling’s Mowgli before eventually landing the role himself. Walter Hudd invests a great deal of personable dignity as Petersen, the British hunter leading the expedition, and even with his archetypal imperialist presentation Hudd has good chemistry and genuine friendship with Toomai. W. E. Holloway is a warm presence as Toomai’s father. Allan Jeayes makes an authoritative impression as Machua Appa, the head tracker. Bruce Gordon is a cruel yet pathetic tracker, Rham Lahl, and it’s easy to root for him to get his comeuppance. Wilfred Hyde-White as a single, but nevertheless genial, scene as the local commissioner. Of the aforementioned actors who play Indians, it is apparent they are made up to appear native and it’s easy to be distracted by that. This wasn’t unique for the time at all, and persists in several of the Kordas’ films for many years after.
<img class="aligncenter" src="http://basementrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/elephant-boy-1937-toomai-sabu-dastagir.jpg" alt="Elephant Boy (1937) Review |BasementRejects" width="531" height="387" />
The two credited directors oversaw different aspects of the filming, Robert J. Flaherty shot the scenes primarily set in India, and Zoltan Korda guided the actors and filmed them on set. This gives Elephant Boy a quasi-documentary style and approach which solidifies the idea of Toomai as an ordinary boy in an Indian community, performing day to day tasks and jobs, and makes you really feel like you're an observer to these people and this lifestyle.
Being shot on location in India, the film makes great use of the vast landscapes, from hills to jungles, and captures the romantic grandeur of the country. Having the action take place in authentic jungles adds a level of realism that no studio backlot could emulate. Every once in a while, we cut to some footage of other animals like monkeys chattering or baby elephants frollicking around; the kind of indulgence that’s allowed. As we linger over extended sequences of the expedition team at work, cutting trees and setting up a palisade, these have a documentary style to them. Man and elephant work together to raise the palisade, and the sight is truly astonishing.
As Kala Nag moves across the rugged landscapes, past temples and through villages, it feels like you’re on a grand tour with these two as our travelling companions. We see how Toomai and Kala Nag bond in different ways, through sharing fruit together, and later when the boy cleans the elephant in the river with other mahuts and riders. The fact that Sabu is able to deftly and nimbly maneuver down this enormous animal and up again lifted by the trunk, without any fear, is astonishing. The finale with the massive round up of elephants, and actors carefully coordinated in the midst of an actual stampede, is tautly edited and keeps its frenetic pace going. For a film of this budget, they were ambitious and pulled off what they set out to film.
The score by John Greenwood does a good job providing the suitable levels of romantic adventure, but also hits the right emotional beats when Toomai is at his lower moments.
Though conventional, the film delivers its coming of age arc reasonably well. Toomai wants to live up to the legacy of his father and grandfather as mahouts before him, and the film presents its obstacles to that goal convincingly. He endures prejudice, personal tragedy and is at risk of losing his elephant because of one particularly vindictive tracker, but still never loses his essential kindness and likeability.
As a depiction of the peoples and attitudes of Kipling’s era, many find this almost server-master relationship between British and Indians as uncomfortable and disagreeable but it is an aspect of history to be recognised. Toomai wants to be a hunter, and while we can question the morality of such today, it must have been a great aspiration for a boy of the British Raj to aspire to. When Petersen shoots a tiger stalking the camp, it’s portrayed as a kind of pest control which it was seen as at that time.
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://www.cageyfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ELEPHANT_BOY_01.jpg" alt="Sabu and the Kordas | Cagey Films" />
Ultimately, Elephant Boy is a brisk and solid adventure with its heart on the relationship between its titular protagonist and elephant friend and succeeds on those merits. What it presents in terms of British-Indian relations marks it a product of its time, both as a book and as a film. Still, for those who earnestly seek films made to transport and thrill, it’s a trip to India worth taking.Elephant Boypublishopenopenelephant-boy��G���F� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/?p=358� post� F a� 6 g � ��G���F�<img class="wp-image-356 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/elephantboy-338x500.jpg" alt="" width="376" height="556" />
This is a somewhat significant film as it was the first adaptation of a Rudyard Kipling story. What could have easily blended into the slew of other jungle pictures of the 1930s managed to become a solid film. It introduced the world to Sabu, and the career that followed from that was all thanks to the earnestness and exotic spectacle of this film.
Shouldering the role of Tomai at age twelve, Sabu makes a great debut; he’s natural, spirited, authentic and engaging in a way that few child actors at the time could be; standing very close to and riding confidently atop his magnificent elephant mount, named Kala Nag in the film, he is very much the image of Kipling’s Mowgli before eventually landing the role himself. Walter Hudd invests a great deal of personable dignity as Petersen, the British hunter leading the expedition, and even with his archetypal imperialist presentation Hudd has good chemistry and genuine friendship with Toomai. W. E. Holloway is a warm presence as Toomai’s father. Allan Jeayes makes an authoritative impression as Machua Appa, the head tracker. Bruce Gordon is a cruel yet pathetic tracker, Rham Lahl, and it’s easy to root for him to get his comeuppance. Wilfred Hyde-White as a single, but nevertheless genial, scene as the local commissioner. Of the aforementioned actors who play Indians, it is apparent they are made up to appear native and it’s easy to be distracted by that. This wasn’t unique for the time at all, and persists in several of the Kordas’ films for many years after.
<img class="aligncenter" src="http://basementrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/elephant-boy-1937-toomai-sabu-dastagir.jpg" alt="Elephant Boy (1937) Review |BasementRejects" width="531" height="387" />
The two credited directors oversaw different aspects of the filming, Robert J. Flaherty shot the scenes primarily set in India, and Zoltan Korda guided the actors and filmed them on set. This gives Elephant Boy a quasi-documentary style and approach which solidifies the idea of Toomai as an ordinary boy in an Indian community, performing day to day tasks and jobs, and makes you really feel like you're an observer to these people and this lifestyle.
Being shot on location in India, the film makes great use of the vast landscapes, from hills to jungles, and captures the romantic grandeur of the country. Having the action take place in authentic jungles adds a level of realism that no studio backlot could emulate. Every once in a while, we cut to some footage of other animals like monkeys chattering or baby elephants frollicking around; the kind of indulgence that’s allowed. As we linger over extended sequences of the expedition team at work, cutting trees and setting up a palisade, these have a documentary style to them. Man and elephant work together to raise the palisade, and the sight is truly astonishing.
As Kala Nag moves across the rugged landscapes, past temples and through villages, it feels like you’re on a grand tour with these two as our travelling companions. We see how Toomai and Kala Nag bond in different ways, through sharing fruit together, and later when the boy cleans the elephant in the river with other mahuts and riders. The fact that Sabu is able to deftly and nimbly maneuver down this enormous animal and up again lifted by the trunk, without any fear, is astonishing. The finale with the massive round up of elephants, and actors carefully coordinated in the midst of an actual stampede, is tautly edited and keeps its frenetic pace going. For a film of this budget, they were ambitious and pulled off what they set out to film.
The score by John Greenwood does a good job providing the suitable levels of romantic adventure, but also hits the right emotional beats when Toomai is at his lower moments.
Though conventional, the film delivers its coming of age arc reasonably well. Toomai wants to live up to the legacy of his father and grandfather as mahouts before him, and the film presents its obstacles to that goal convincingly. He endures prejudice, personal tragedy and is at risk of losing his elephant because of one particularly vindictive tracker, but still never loses his essential kindness and likeability.
As a depiction of the peoples and attitudes of Kipling’s era, many find this almost server-master relationship between British and Indians as uncomfortable and disagreeable but it is an aspect of history to be recognised. Toomai wants to be a hunter, and while we can question the morality of such today, it must have been a great aspiration for a boy of the British Raj to aspire to. When Petersen shoots a tiger stalking the camp, it’s portrayed as a kind of pest control which it was seen as at that time.
<img class="aligncenter" src="https://www.cageyfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ELEPHANT_BOY_01.jpg" alt="Sabu and the Kordas | Cagey Films" />
Ultimately, Elephant Boy is a brisk and solid adventure with its heart on the relationship between its titular protagonist and elephant friend and succeeds on those merits. What it presents in terms of British-Indian relations marks it a product of its time, both as a book and as a film. Still, for those who earnestly seek films made to transport and thrill, it’s a trip to India worth taking.Elephant Boyinheritclosedclosed358-revision-v1��G���F� fhttp://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/03/358-revision-v1/� revision� F W� 9 h � ��G ��F� <img class="wp-image-351 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CinematicAdventure-1040x601.jpg" alt="" width="741" height="428" />
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/the-lost-world-1925-review/">The Lost World (1925)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/31/king-kong-1993-review/">King Kong (1933)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/03/elephant-boy/">Elephant Boy</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/mighty-joe-young-1949-review/">Mighty Joe Young (1949)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/01/king-kong-1976-review/">King Kong (1976)</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/01/07/jumanji/">Jumanji</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2018/02/28/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle/">Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</a></p>
<img class=" wp-image-352 aligncenter" src="http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Ray-Harryhausen-Pictures-1040x629.jpg" alt="" width="747" height="452" />Adventure & Fantasy Filmsinheritclosedclosed291-revision-v1��G ��F� #http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/03/291-revision-v1/� revision� F � (�i j � ��ae䙩aU� � � & &�Jumanjiinheritclosedclosed287-autosave-v1��ae䙩aU� http://www.bestfilmreviews.co.uk/index.php/2021/04/16/287-autosave-v1/� revision� p c# ��k� ��������� �[
� &���<img class="img-responsive aligncenter" title="Click to View Extra Large Poster Image for Jumanji" src="http://www.impawards.com/1995/posters/jumanji_ver1.jpg" alt="Jumanji Movie Poster" border="0" />
<em>Jumanji</em> is one of those family films that left a profound impact on me as a kid, largely due to the premise of a magical board game that unleashes wild animals and other jungle terrors into the real world. It was also down to the charisma of late leading man Robin Williams. As I return to it after the the release of the semi-sequel <em>Welcome to the Jungle</em>, I do notice its flaws, largely in the special effects and simplicity of the story. Yet, I feel the concept itself, a well-told message and the strong performances of our lead actors are solid enough that it holds up.
<img src="http://www.nerdediva.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/594971.jpg" width="1171" height="637" />
In 1969, a lonely and bullied boy named Alan Parrish (Adam Hann-Byrd) is drawn to the sound of drums coming from a buried supernatural board game that was buried underground a hundred years earlier. That night, Alan has a falling out with his father, Sam (Jonathan Hyde), for wanting to send him to boarding school to continue the family business without letting Alan have a say in the decision, and prepares to run away from home. However, his close friend Sarah Whittle (Laura Bell Bundy) hears the drum beat of the game and they both learn of its magical properties when she unleashes a swarm of bats and Alan gets sucked into the dark jungles of the game until the dice reads five or eight. Sarah runs away as the bats chase her through the night, leaving the game unfinished.
In 1995, two orphaned siblings named Judy (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter (Bradley Pierce) have moved into the abandoned Parrish house and discover the game in the attic whilst their aunt is out of town. After a couple of turns releasing three giant mosquitos and a gang of monkeys, Peter rolls a five and frees Alan (Williams) and a lion. Alan is shocked to learn that his disappearance caused his parents to die in sorrow and the closure of his father’s shoe factory made the town fall on hard times, learning too late that his father loved him greatly. In order to stop the inhabitants of Jumanji from destroying his town, Alan, Judy and Peter convince Sarah (Bonnie Hunt) to join them in finishing the game, surviving its many challenges, and undoing all the damage caused by it.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-7067.jpg" width="698" height="380" />
The acting from the adults walks the right balance of comedic and sincere, and the younger characters come across believably thanks to director Joe Johnston’s early experiences working alongside child actors. Williams balances a childlike sense of humour, as well as a more determined and emotional side from living in the jungle for twenty-six years yet you believe that he is essentially a boy in an adult's body, and is ultimately the reason why the film is so beloved and remembered. Hunt is enjoyably eccentric as Sarah, harboring a similar level of childishness from repressing her memories of the fateful discovery of the game, and has good chemistry with Williams. Dunst is both very subdued and amusing as Judy and Pierce, while not having as much to do as his co-stars, is likable as Peter. In the tradition of Peter Pan, Hyde plays Alan’s father with a stern authority, and the Jumanji hunter, Van Pelt, with almost psychopathic viciousness. Also providing humorous turns are David Alan Grier as Carl Bentley, a hapless police officer barely surviving some of the game's dark consequences, and Bebe Neuwirth as Aunt Nora, in similar situations. Lastly, Hann-Byrd is likeable enough as a younger Alan, but Bundy is just okay as the younger Sarah.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-3431.jpg" width="704" height="383" />
By now, most if not all of the CGI animals have not aged particularly well, as seen especially with the monkeys, but the animatronics used for the vines, spiders, crocodile and the lion still hold up pretty well. Though dated, the CGI is still very energetic and creative, and the argument could be made that the animals' more stylized and exaggerated appearances are deliberate, creating an uncanny valley effect. Ray Harryhausen himself often advocated against special effects looking too realistic to maintain that escapist and imaginative quality. The set for the vine-overrun house is incredible to look at and has a spooky atmosphere to it. Indeed, it does conjure up the sort of atmosphere a little kid would have when imagining a jungle in “Darkest Africa” with great use of fog and darkness. The jungle itself is never seen but Alan’s memories of it leave a strong impression that can fire one’s imagination as well as keeping the mystery of Jumanji intact. Thomas Ackerman's cinematography feels very much in line with the Amblin films produced by Steven Spielberg of the period. I like the sharp contrast in the time periods; in the 60s, the town is sunny and cheerful in an almost Rockwellian fashion, and in the 90s, the town is shown in the autumn filled with litter, closed-down shops, homeless people and graffiti, with the dilapidated factory driving home visually the depth of Alan's mistake.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-288.jpg" width="464" height="252" />
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-4177.jpg" width="473" height="257" />
One of the more understated elements is the score by James Horner. Aside from the ominous drum-beat that marks the presence of the game and the threat of the Jumanji encounters, the score brings out the sadness of Alan discovering that his home has gone downhill. The score builds up a sinister atmosphere and creates the sense that the game is somewhat sentient. The action cues range from similarly ominous and grand to more manic and playful with the appearances of the monkeys and the pelican. Even though the film isn’t very long, by the end you come away feeling you’ve gone through Alan’s adventure, and the happy ending feels very much earned.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-8021.jpg" width="680" height="370" />
Much of the humour is rather corny, ranging from slapstick to subtle aside glances, but the adult cast, especially Williams and Hunt, put their hearts into the script and makes it leap off the page. And yet mixed in with this variety of humour are some well realized emotional moments. The weight of Alan’s disappearance hits the audience hard because we see the consequences of his disappearance from his hometown of Brantford. The tone throughout the 1995 setting is very somber and reflective, underscoring Alan’s growth from lost child into a man. I found the idea of Hyde playing both Van Pelt and Sam Parrish a smart move, showing Alan to still be afraid of his father, and having to overcome that in order to grow into manhood.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-10788.jpg" width="706" height="384" />
The key character moments work well for the most part. We see Alan’s lack of courage, lack of self-esteem and his estrangement from his father. Some may feel that Alan’s falling out with his father over the boarding school is rather rushed, but with Sam’s focus on family status and tradition over his son’s well-being, it’s more understandable. Alan's growth from boy to man is aided by the presence of Peter, whom he starts to show more respect and understanding towards throughout the film. My only real complaint is that, because of Judy and Peter’s introverted personalities at the beginning, it does feel hard to get connected with them at first. While not a long film, the pacing does drag a bit before the siblings discover the game. When Alan comes out of the game and they meet up with Sara, the energy picks up and it becomes easier to feel invested in the characters.
Looking back at some early reviews when the film first came out, many critics claimed that the visual effects and vicious encounters diminished the story and would frighten younger audiences, ultimately rendering the message of facing one’s childhood traumas moot. However, I beg to differ. To highlight my emotional attachment to this film, I must get personal for a moment; a couple of years ago, this film really helped me in bonding with my father after many months of growing apart. My dad saw a lot of himself in Alan as a child, and we both loved the ending where he reconciles with his father, again seeing much of ourselves in the two characters.
<img class="mfp-img aligncenter" src="http://caps.pictures/199/5-jumanji/full/jumani-movie-screencaps.com-9098.jpg" width="731" height="398" />
Despite recent concerns that due to the very outdated CGI effects and comparatively restrained directorial sensibilities compared to modern blockbusters, I believe<em> Jumanji</em> works because children can be engaged by the idea of a magical board game, and later come back to find the more mature storytelling. Seeing it again recently with two younger viewers and seeing that it's three main attributes; the sense of adventure throughout, the blend of (admittedly family friendly) suspense and comedy, Robin Williams' subtle and heartfelt performance serving as the heart of the film helped it hold up in its own way. Ultimately, it succeeded at being what it was… a family film with a unique premise and hopefully a rewarding message. It deserves to be remembered well among Robin'