Today, my favorite "Bible" movie is still DreamWorks' amazing 98-year-old "Egyptian Prince".
In the foreseeable future, this position is absolutely unbreakable as long as the arrogant and lustful atmosphere of Hollywood cannot be stopped.
In 2014, there were two large-scale productions that were based on the immortal and famous "Bible", but did not care about the voice of the religious circle and did not respect the original consciousness: Darren Aronofsky's "Noah", Ridley Scott's Pharaohs and the Gods. The funny thing is that 80% of my criticism of the former can be placed on the latter as it is.
And in the final analysis, the blame lies with director Ridley Scott himself.
For such an old man who is about to turn 80, we can see that the whole film has no surprises from beginning to end, no innovation, boring and procrastinating opening, weak ending, and listless backbone. And the story flow is almost exactly the same. Putting aside the original book, you can see the huge shadow of "The Prince of Egypt" and even "The Ten Commandments" everywhere.
The lack of emotion in characterization is a common problem in the film. Paper-like supporting roles: Sigourney Weaver and Ben Kingsley don't know where they are, not to mention the little fan Aaron Paul; John Turturro knows it, but unfortunately he doesn't have the expressive power of that pharaonic temperament . Ramses is the protagonist, but the image of the bastard who has never changed makes people speechless. Has anything changed after having a baby? Will it change from a jerk to a father figure?
no. Will not.
Moses? But it's just another routine image in the dark in recent years, or from the dark tide, how different is it from the depressive vegetarians in "Noah"? Only pursuing the complexity of the characters and not caring about the three-dimensional characters, paranoia and a series of mental problems will naturally continue to develop their influence as common diseases in the future.
What a good shepherd, so mad.
What? Talking about acting in a big production? are you kidding me?
In the wrong direction, it is useless to try hard. Not only is there a problem with Bell's portrayal, but the portrayal of Moses throughout the film has a serious problem of evading the emphasis. Our director is not shooting a great hero who leads the Hebrews out of Egypt, but a former general who is pushed out by his adopted brother and turned to lead the revolution.
What is even more ridiculous is that this general only trains troops in the film and does not fight.
Ridley Scott, who is used to filming epic blockbusters, feels uncomfortable when he doesn't shoot. A good "Exodus", with a Harry Potter-style forehead prophecy, okay, you can add a fight.
Then came the feature film, how did you start a war between the Hebrews and the Egyptians that didn't exist in the first place?
The answer is that the old man can't pick it up either.
Epic is not endless preparation and war. And the director has to add preparations and wars that have no effect on the plot. And in the end, when the two armies were in the middle of the Red Sea, and when the swords were drawn, they were about to fight, and they were scared away and driven away.
Are you kidding yourself?
Ridley Scott, who had long lost his courage, grabbed the atheist's foot-binding cloth and made the whole film extremely dull and boring. From beginning to end, the most moving scene is: To my brother: Tony Scott (death).
Yes, Ridley Scott is an atheist.
I don't know what was going on in 20th Century Fox's mind. Just for the grandeur of the scene, for the so-called epic effect, I just let an old man who has no respect for the content to be filmed come to film a film full of courage, conviction, A story of redemption.
"Convince yourself that the story in the film works first"? "Religion is the greatest source of all evil"? "Everyone persecutes other people in the name of God, and ironically, they worship the same God"?
Atheism is not terrible, but exposing one's ignorance in the name of atheism is the most terrible.
Once the atheistic tone is established, Moses' paranoia is almost certain. The disaster relief with a strong symbolic meaning was forcibly solved by the so-called science. Divide the Red Sea? It must have been a tsunami.
But who can this convince? Who are you trying to convince?
Even the characters in the film themselves were unwilling to believe this, and the scientific officer was hanged to death.
What if you can't figure it out? Just put it there and wait.
So he left behind a nondescript deformed expression of the eldest son of Egypt, and a self-righteous whim to engrave the Ten Commandments.
Do you understand the prophecies that are everywhere?
People who do not have any savior behavior are just praised as saviors in the process of no description.
This kind of unpredictable and deformed experience has a similar experience in the final season of the American TV series "Spartacus": it is obviously a confrontation and conflict over the years, but it is stunned or forced to be like a week.
Do you think this is a religious movie? Wrong, this is just another unbearable, vacuous, technical but soulless art film mixed with Roland Emmerich-esque disaster scenes.
As a result, in addition to viewers who have no understanding of the Bible, or the same disrespect, and lack of movie viewing experience, and fake movie fans who simply enjoy exquisite pictures and special effects, they can get some feelings from it, and countless self-righteous piles are formed. The Tower of Babel must be ignored.
When it was released, the media complained that there was no black man in the story of Africa. This is late, obviously you are a dark man when you open the battle. You are majestic.
The real thing to complain about is obviously the story of Egypt, and there are horses everywhere.
Is it that hard to find a camel, even if it was filmed on American soil?
But anyway, I haven't rotten "Noah".
http://i.mtime.com/cydenylau/blog/7882514/
View more about Exodus: Gods and Kings reviews
