Earlier in the year, we saw Darren Aronofsky's vision of Noah, which I felt was an enjoyable experience and an interesting take on the classic tale.
Now, it is Ridley Scott showing us his portrayal of the story of Moses and Ramesys. As many film fans know, there was the impressive 50's classic The Ten Commandments. It stars Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Brynner as Ramesys. It is seen as one of the best films of that decade and would definitely be a tough ask to even compete with it.
But like with Scott's version of Robin Hood, he is not too bothered about trying to beat a previous portrayal. He just wants his vision put onto the big screen for all to see.
When I originally heard about this, I had high expectations. But as it got released around the world, my anticipation levels were gradually moving down to something more satisfactory.
Capturing an "epic" seems quite hard these days compared to the golden era of epics in the 50s and 60's. With CGI doing most of the work, we do not seemed as amazed compared to the groundbreaking giant sets and the staggering amount of extras needed for various scenes from yesteryear.
We have an incredible opening set-piece that sets us up nicely for what is to come. However, the rest of the first half felt a bit slow for me. Thankfully it was not terrible, I just did not see anything new, different and even the stuff that has been done before was not even that exemplary.
Then, the second half manages to romp along really well and builds up you up nicely for the epic (yes epic) final act. Then just when I thought it was going to be a satisfying end, Scott then quickly brushes past a major moment of the story.
It felt to me that Scott did not want that moment as the centre-piece compared to its 1950's predecessor, and yet he still put it in the film. If you know the story, then you can imagine what I am talking about. So if Scott brushed over it, then I think he should not have included at all.
Despite its many problems, I did feel entertained in the end. I know there are articles of people complaining about the all white cast. 'The Ten Commandments' did that, and I don't recall them having problems with the critics.
However, one casting choice baffled me completely. It involves Sigourney Weaver's character who felt totally uninvolved, had a couple of uninteresting lines and occasionally had her face on screen just to remind everyone that she is there.
The only reason that she is in that I can think of is Sigourney's past ventures with Scott.
As for the other performances, Christian Bale did as well as expected. It was a great transformation that by the end of it, you knew him as Moses rather than the guy from The Dark Knight films.
Joel Edgerton was good as Ramesys, but I felt there could have been more interesting development. Ben Kingsley contributes as well as Kingsley can only do. A bit like Weaver, there was an odd choice in the form of John Turturro. I could not take him seriously at all, because of his previous work. But thankfully, we do not see him for long so that did not distract me from the main story.
A lot of fans will probably be expecting another Gladiator. But believe me, it is hard to replicate let alone out do a film like that.
This is a bit more mainstream by Scott's standards. There is enough epic moments in there to amaze you, but it does not manage to make you forget the problems it has. The big highlight was the bit everyone is waiting for and thankfully it does not disappoint. It really made me go "wow" and made me think better of the film that saw everything else seem pretty average.
The special effects were tip-top in the right places. But in the rest of the film, it did not have enough heft that it needs for a story such as this.
It is definitely not one that will be remembered for years to come, but there is enough in there to hold its ground and I would still recommend it just for a couple of its major set pieces.
Rating: 7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment