Movie Review: "Gladiator" (2000)

Image Source

Movie: "Gladiator"

Director: Ridley Scott
Year: 2000
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 35 minutes

A Roman General who was thought to be executed is sold into slavery and battles as a gladiator until he can unleash his revenge on the corrupt emperor Commodus, who murdered his family, killed his friend, and ordered his execution.

Movie Review: "All the Money in the World" (2017)

Image Source

Movie: "All the Money in the World"

Director: Ridley Scott
Year: 2017
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 12 minutes

The grandson and namesake of John Paul Getty, the wealthiest man in the world, is kidnapped and held for a $17 million dollar ransom. Unfortunately for the young John Paul Getty III, his billionaire oil tycoon grandfather has no intention of paying it.

True crime stories are a great source of inspiration for Hollywood. The high profile true-life kidnapping of 16-year-old John Paul Getty III is the inspiration for Ridley Scott's latest film "All the Money in the World." The film is written by David Scarpa, who only has two other writing credits to his name. It is based on the non-fiction book "Painfully Rich: the Outrageous Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Heirs of J. Paul Getty" by John Pearson. The movie stars Michelle Williams as Gail Harris, the mother of the abducted John Paul Getty III, played by Charlie Plummer. Joining them is Mark Wahlberg as Fletcher Chase, a former CIA agent who is hired by the eldest Getty to investigate the abduction. Last but not least is Christopher Plummer, who plays John Paul Getty Sr., the billionaire oil tycoon who never pays full price for anything and squeezes every last cent with an unbreakable grip. When John Paul Getty III is kidnapped, the abductors ask for a ransom of $17 million dollars, which is chump change to multi-billionaire J. Paul Getty Sr. However, he has no intention of paying the ransom, leaving the young John Paul with an uncertain future.

First, we cannot fully review this film without talking about the elephant in the room: the last minute recasting of the character of John Paul Getty, who was originally played by Kevin Spacey. It turns out, director Ridley Scott originally wanted Christopher Plummer to play this all-important role, but the studio told him to find a bigger name for the part. Thus, Kevin Spacey was hired in his stead. After Spacey's scandal broke and shocked Hollywood, Ridley Scott made the bold decision to recast Spacey's role, appointing Christopher Plummer to replace him. In a matter of weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Scott reshot all of J.P. Getty's scenes with Plummer and the rest of the cast and crew just one month before the film's release. This was a staggering, insane, risky decision, and a hefty feat at that. Unsurprisingly (but also very luckily), Christopher Plummer does a fantastic job as J.P. Getty. He is a wonderfully unlikable old son of a bitch who cares far more about dollars and cents than he does about people and relationships. The acting is tremendous not just from Christopher Plummer, but from Michelle Williams as well, who we believe is one of the most capable actresses working in Hollywood today. She puts on a hell of a performance and plays a worthy counterpart to Plummer. Charlie Plummer (no relation to the aforementioned Christopher Plummer) is also very good as the younger Getty, but he mostly has to sit and/or run around and be a hostage. Though Mark Wahlberg is more capable as Fletcher Chase than he has been in several of his more recent roles, we do feel he may be a bit of a miscast in this film.

All this being said, we can't judge a movie as a whole for the tremendous effort put in by Scott, Plummer, and the rest of the cast who swooped in at the zero hour to fix the mess created by one person. "All the Money in the World" is good, but it is not great. It is slowly paced at times and is a bit too long. It is an interesting story, but we don't really get as emotionally invested in the characters as we should for such a high-strung, nail-biting story. Ridley Scott's experience really shines through on screen, not just in the reshoots, but in the overall visual aesthetic of the film. On a technical level, "All the Money in the World" is a well put together piece of cinema, but as we said, it lacks the emotional punch, tension, and excitement we look for from a story like this. We hate to say it, but we left the theater feeling a bit underwhelmed by this movie despite its brilliant performances.

**CLICK HERE to try AmazonFresh's UNLIMITED grocery delivery for $14.99/mo!**
**TRY AUDIBLE.com and get 2 FREE AUDIO BOOKS!**

My Rating: 7/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: ~7.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 78%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?

Movie Review: "Alien: Covenant" (2017)

Image Source

Movie: "Alien Covenant"

Director: Ridley Scott
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 2 minutes

After having trouble with their ship, the Covenant, which houses a group of planetary settlers, goes off course to scout a seemingly hospitable planet. What they find is not what they expected and may very well mean their doom.

"Alien: Covenant" is a sequel to the 2012 film "Prometheus" and is a prequel of sorts to the 1979 film "Alien." It is once again directed by Ridley Scott, who directed the two aforementioned entries into this franchise. It stars an ensemble cast, which includes Michael Fassbender as the androids David and Walter, as well as Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Carmen Ejogo, Danny McBride, Demián Bichir, Callie Hernandez, Jussie Smollett, and Amy Seimetz, who make up some of the crew of the Covenant. The mission of this particular voyage is to set up a human settlement on the distant planet of Origae-6, which means the crew is made up of couples and they carry a cargo of over 2000 people in cryo-sleep, as well as numerous human embryos. After some unforeseen complications, the crew is awoken from sleep early to find many of the pods have malfunctioned and that some of the crew and passengers have passed away in the accident. Over seven years from their destination, the ship's sensors pick up a planet with an Earth-like atmosphere, one that was initially missed in their scans. Not too keen to get back into their pods, the crew decides to explore this unknown planet for their settlement instead, which we all know will be a terrible idea as they quickly find they are not alone on this strange place. 

There were a lot of questions as to what exactly "Alien: Covenant" would be in the grand scheme of the "Alien" universe. Now that we have seen it, we can say it is absolutely more of a sequel to "Prometheus" than anything else. It takes place 10 years after the events of that movie, which is referred to several times in "Covenant." We wondered if this film would start to bridge a gap between "Prometheus" (the prequel) and "Alien" (the franchise as we've known it for decades) and beginning to converge the two very distant story lines, but it really doesn't do that, apart from giving an introduction to the full-fledged xenomorph we've known as a hallmark of the series, the ones rabid internet fans clamored for post-"Prometheus." Unfortunately, it introduces them in an uninspired way.

If anything, this installment seems to be moving away from the opening of "Alien" toward some blob of pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo about mortality, birth, death, and life that happens to have Aliens in it. As Ridley Scott gets older in age and is questioning his own lived self, he presents these questions and themes to us in an all or nothing manner. He sets the film up like it's going to eventually link up these new highbrow thoughts and ideas to where the crew of the Nostromo finds the face hugger-eggs on the ship of a chest burst Engineer but never does. As such, tonally, the film feels off as this installment clearly mirrors the horror elements of the "Alien" franchise, just with 99% more obsession with the ideas about creation and faith that hovered around "Prometheus." Also, a lot of its tone mirrors that of its predecessor, making it uneven.

There are many elements to like about "Alien: Covenant," like its striking visuals and its use of practically built sets, Michael Fassbender's brilliant performance, and the surprise discovery of Danny McBride being good in something where he's not a super obnoxious loudmouth. But for us, all of these likable parts don't come together to make a fully enjoyable experience because of a few glaring instances of sub-par CGI, so many unanswered questions, so many head-scratching moments, so many dumb decisions, and way too much pretension. We left the movie underwhelmed, disappointed, and not really looking forward to where this series goes in the future.

Sign up for Amazon Prime Student and get FREE 2-Day Shipping!

**CLICK HERE to an Amazon Fire Stick!**

***CLICK HERE to buy an Amazon Fire tablet!**

My Rating: 4.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: ~6.9/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~73%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.

**To review this movie for yourself on one of the best websites on the internet, visit filmfed.com!*

Movie Review: "Prometheus" (2012)

Image Source

Movie: "Prometheus"
Director: Ridley Scott
Year: 2012
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 4 minutes

A pair of scientists discover numerous ancient artifacts with a very specific set of markings. These markings lead them to a lone moon in a remote system, one they believe holds the answer to the existence of man.

"Prometheus" is an indirect prequel to the film "Alien." It is directed by Ridley Scott, who helmed the first "Alien" movie back in 1979. It stars Noomi Rapace and Logan Marshall-Green as Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway, a pair of scientists who have been uncovering clues that will reveal conclusively where man came from. This leads them to a remote moon called LV-223. Joining them on their mission to LV-223 are Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Michael Fassbender, Sean Harris, Rafe Spall, Katie Dickie, Emun Elliot, and Benedict Wong, who make up the members of the crew and science team aboard the ship Prometheus. When they finally reach their destination and find their creators, they run into more questions than answers, and their makers aren't exactly what they expected.

When "Prometheus" was first announced, there was a lot of confusion as to whether or not it would be an "Alien" prequel. Once the film actually came out, that answer wound up being "well, sort of." "Prometheus" introduces the 'Engineers,' a race of giant aliens who bio-engineer life on hospitable planets. It is on an Engineer ship that the crew of the Nostromo find the face-hugger eggs seen in the 1979 movie. So, this giant, previously unnamed Alien winds up being a rather crucial puzzle piece to the "Alien" universe. That being said, "Prometheus" doesn't totally feel like an "Alien" film. It has a far more sci-fi drama tone due to its dealing with existential questions about creation and our own mortality. It does share a few horror elements, but lacks the tension that existed in the first two "Alien" films. It has a lot to say and certainly does so...over...and over...and over again. The tension isn't there because the peril isn't always there. By exploring these bigger questions, delving deeper into the mythos and lore of this universe, and forgoing the "baddies" that have made this franchise what it is today, expect a much more dramatic feel in this film.

As with any Ridley Scott joint, the visuals are impressive on a massive scale, and the movie overall is well shot. It is insane to see the amount of work and effort he and his crew put a into this project. Many portions look like they are CGI, but are not at all. From breathtaking planet landscapes to intricate ship designs to the look at feel of the bizarre looking Engineers themselves, there is no lack of a visual smorgasbord here.

Overall, we enjoy "Prometheus" and where it tries to go in creating a broader "Alien" universe. Critics and moviegoers alike have taken to nitpicking this film to death and we don't really understand why. Sure, the characters are a bit underdeveloped, and granted, they make questionable decisions at times, but at the end of the day, we like "Prometheus" despite having hardly any hallmarks of the franchise it is meant to introduce. Fear not, there are clearly bigger ideas on director Ridley Scott's mind, ones that may be answered in "Alien Covenant."

Sign up for Amazon Prime Student and get FREE 2-Day Shipping!

**CLICK HERE to get a FREE 30-Day trial of Amazon Prime!**

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 72%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?

Movie Review: "Thelma & Louise" (1991)

Image Source

Movie: "Thelma & Louise"
Director: Ridley Scott
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 10 minutes

Best friends Thelma (Geena Davis) and Louise (Susan Sarandon) plan a weekend getaway for some light fun and fishing. The two women stop at a bar for some drinks and a little dancing. When the guy Thelma was dancing with attacks her in the parking lot, nearly raping her, Louise shoots him. Not knowing what to do, the ladies go on the run to Mexico on a life changing cross-country road trip.

"Thelma & Louise" is crime drama directed by Ridley Scott, who earned an Academy Award nomination for his work on this film. It is written by Callie Khouri, who took home an Oscar statue for best screenplay. It stars Geena Davis as Thelma, a housewife with an overbearing, controlling, and seemingly philandering husband, and Susan Sarandon as Louise, a waitress with a tragic past who is Thelma's best friend. Louise has planned a weekend getaway for the two of them at a cabin by a lake where they can go fishing and have a relaxing few days away from their job and husband. On the drive to the lake, the ladies stop at a trucker bar for some drinks. A charming bar patron named Harlon, played by Timothy Carhart, buys them a few rounds and dances with Thelma for a bit. While Louise is in the bathroom, Harlon takes the drunk Thelma out to the parking lot where he smacks her around and tries to rape her. Louise catches him in the act and makes him stop at gunpoint, but when Harlon gets mouthy and vulgar, Louise shoots him, dead. Not knowing what to do and thinking the police won't believe their side of the story, they drive off and head for Mexico, and what was once supposed to be a peaceful, quiet weekend quickly turns into one full of police chases, robberies, soul searching, and a whole lot more.

Both Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon put on tremendous performances. Both women were nominated for the best actress Oscar, and deservedly so. Davis and Sarandon play polar opposites, but eventually, their personality paths cross as they are able to respect one another for the choices they have made and continue to make throughout their journey. They fight, they bicker, and they get mad at each other, but at the end of it all, they see eye to eye and have a deep, unabashed mutual love and admiration for one another. We cannot imagine anyone else playing these two roles. On their travels, Thelma and Louise cross paths with many different folk, the most notable of which is their encounter with a young, sweet-talking cowboy named J.D., played by Brad Pitt in the role that put him on Hollywood's radar.

In many ways, "Thelma & Louise" might be seen as a standard road trip film, but these women don't just go on a trip from Arkansas to Mexico. Rather, they go on a journey of self-discovery and an eventual fight for their lives and the restraints that society has placed upon them. Thelma breaks free from the shackles of oppression and control put on her by her tyrannical husband, and eventually, Louise is finally able to shake off the demons from the past that have been holding her back for so long. It's simultaneously crazy and depressing how relevant "Thelma & Louise" still is, 25 years later. The issues raised within its screenplay are still constantly being debated, questioned, and brought up in our society, especially when it comes to sexual assault and/or rape. It's utterly heartbreaking to hear these two women, who at the start of the film would not have hurt a fly, are essentially forced to go on the run just because they figured no one would believe them because Thelma danced and drank with the man who attempted to rape her. Some viewers might not interpret the film this way, but in a "blame first, ask questions later" world, well, it's not hard to connect A to B.

At the center of their trip and the ugly reasons for its derailment, "Thelma & Louise" juxtaposes their acts of crime with some truly beautiful cinematography of the southern United States as small town(s) USA are put on display in all their glory, good and bad. These towns and their twisty, winding roads lead them to desert landscapes and vast plains of rock and nothingness, which provide moments of calm and clarity before more impending storms for our two protagonists,

In the end, "Thelma & Louise" is a must see. This movie is dramatically impactful, and despite the reason why these two woman are on the run, it is still kind of fun, too. It offers both deep, emotionally moving moments and subject matter, as well as some lighthearted laughter. Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon sell their friendship extremely well and have a brilliant, believable chemistry. Other parts performed by the likes of Harvey Keitel, Christopher McDonald, and Michael Madsen are also excellent, but no one person ever eclipses the greatness of Sarandon and Davis. The screenplay is both insightful and depressing, and the direction by Ridley Scott is top-notch. All in all, this is a fantastic, poignant film with a kick ass ending.

My Rating: 8/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 83%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!

*We were invited to attend the 25th anniversary screening of "Thelma & Louise" by Park Circus, a group that helps classic films get distributed on the big screen. All opinions and thoughts are our own and we were not compensated for this review.

Movie Review: "Alien" (1979)

Image Source

Movie: "Alien"
Director: Ridley Scott
Year: 1979
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 57 minutes

A commercial salvage ship called the Nostromo is on its way back to earth after its latest mission. Before they get there, the ship's computer picks up what it believes is a distress beacon and wakes the crew from their cryo-sleep. According to their company contract, they must investigate any signal from possible intelligent life. There investigation results in being attacked by an unknown alien life form that attaches itself to a crew member's face. When they bring the landing crew back on the ship for medical assistance, they unknowingly unleash a deadly alien creature on board that puts the whole crew in danger. 

Would you believe it if I told you this was my first time watching the classic sch-fi horror film "Alien"? BigJ has seen it a dozen times, but today was my first viewing of it. With decades worth of hype around it, I'll have to admit, my expectations were pretty high.

This film did not disappoint.

"Alien" is the pinnacle of sci-fi horror. It has set an extremely high bar by which other films are measured. Despite it coming out in 1979, it still holds up impeccably well, even 36 years later. The movie has a very simple story, but it is executed so flawlessly that it doesn't even matter. The ship has a small crew of just over half a dozen people, and many of the actors who make up the crew have gone on to bigger things because of their work in this movie. Sigourney Weaver's part as Ripley has become iconic over the years for being one of the few strong female protagonists in a sea of Hollywood films consistently dominated by men. It's also worth noting that the role was originally written for a man, but Weaver was just so good, she owned the role and made it her own. Defining? Yes, but that's not to say she hasn't been amazing in nearly everything since 1979. The rest of the crew are played by Ian Holm as Ash, John Hurt as Kane, Harry Dean Stanton as Brett, Yaphet Kotto as Parker, Veronica Cartwright as Lambert, and Tom Skerritt as Dallas. These seven actors are the only ones who appear on camera in the whole movie...well, them and the Alien. Ohhh, the Alien. The Alien itself is such an amazingly cool, creepy design. It is by far one of the most memorable things about the film, even with a very limited screen time. It gives off such a terrifying visual. It's huge, yet there is an entire scene where it is hiding almost in plain sight and we don't even see it. The fact that a creature as large and deadly as the Alien could be so stealthy is scary as hell, making it one of the most iconic antagonists in cinematic history. Its terrifying movements and a penchant for toying with its victims shows the true mastery of the horror found here. Combine this with the already spectacular special effects and you've got the recipe for something magical. There is also a sense of isolation that runs throughout the film as well. We are the audience are made to feel the crew's chances slip away as they get feelings they might be trapped with no chance of help coming to rescue them.

"Alien" should not only be required viewing for anyone who ever wants to work on any part of a sci-fi monster movie, but it should be mandatory for everyone to see this film before they do. This is a movie that has stood the test of time and is still very revered, and rightfully so. It is a modern classic of the sci-fi genre and a standard for how every movie should be made.

My Rating: 10/10
BigJ's Rating: 10/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 97%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!
~~~~~~~~~~
Two years ago, we were watching: "The Devil's Backbone"

One year ago, we were watching: "Creatures from the Abyss"

Movie Review #320: "The Martian" (2015)

Movie: "The Martian"
Ticket Price: $9.75
Director: Ridley Scott
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 21 minutes

Image Source

After a sand and wind storm hits Mars, Astronaut Mark Watney is left stranded and presumed dead after being hit by flying debris, causing the rest of the crew to abort the mission without him aboard. Watney must now find ways to stay alive, find a way to contact NASA, and attempt to survive the possible years it may take for a rescue mission to arrive on the planet.

We had pretty high expectations for "The Martian" and it would really be hard not to based on the full-on marketing assault in the month's leading up to the film. There has been hefty buzz going around, and many people have said this film is a faithful adaptation of what is said to be one of the best sci-fi books at least in the last 20 years, maybe even ever. As per usual, we haven't read the book and can't comment on how similar they are, nor do we really care how similar they are since the film is one person's interpretation of the text. All we care about is what winds up on screen, and to be honest, what we saw was a little more than disappointing. BigJ and I disagree a little in our rating of this film, but we were both a bit unsatisfied. This is not to say "The Martian" is bad because it's not, but it simply didn't live up to the overwhelming expectations and hype set before us. We're not saying any of this because we're contrarians or hipsters, far from it, in fact. As movie reviewers, we have a duty to report and go with our gut opinions, and while most people have sung this movie's praises as a 10/10, best of the best film, to us, it's not that incredible.

First off, it is one of the better films Ridley Scott has done in a while, but that isn't exactly the highest bar considering his recent works. Above and beyond, the best part of this film are its visuals, this BigJ and I both agree on wholeheartedly. They are spectacular, much like those of "Interstellar" last year. Mars is portrayed as an epic, vast desert of nothing but craters, rocks, red dirt, and valleys. It seemed extremely realistic, even though we've never been. *insert rim-shot here* We saw the movie in 2D, as always, and it looks incredible there, but we can only imagine how eye-popping these visuals would have been in 3D. We guarantee this movie's visuals will be nominated at the Oscars in 2015 and it is very much worthy of the accolades in this respect. Moving forward, there are also some nice quippy comedy moments and the movie as a whole is surprisingly and shockingly humorous. For a person to be stranded on Mars all alone, Mark Watney, played by the charming Matt Damon, sure has a sense of humor about it all! Talking mostly to himself or to a camera, which who knew Go-Pros were so reliable even in interplanetary space travel, Damon captures the spirit of a man trying to keep himself alive as best he can in a comedic sense. Luckily, Watney as a character was the botanist of their manned mission to Mars, and if he had been, say, the mathematician, or the chemist, or the computer genius, he might not have survived as long as he did. I really liked Damon's performance and thought he performed the hell out of what he was given. BigJ disagrees with me a lot when it comes to our breakdown of the movie, especially Damon's performance. He thought it was good, not great. Apart from a little bit of depth about Watney on a surface level, where this film is most lacking is in its character development. Every other character has paper thin development and not one of them beyond Watney has an arc or change in anyway. They all fit into their stereotype at the beginning and carry these traits through to the end of the movie. There is also no emotional gravity to the situation. There are only tasks to be performed and a predetermined character to perform them. When someone achieves something, even if it was a huge gain in progress to bringing Watney back from Mars, we never really felt that big swell of emotion that makes you want to cheer for joy at what's going on on screen.

The story itself is pretty predictable and has little tension or suspense to it. There is a lot of exposition going on as many characters constantly explain what they are going to do and then they get it done, sometimes on screen and sometimes off screen to save time. It is an extremely simple story, and while the science jargon is immersive and deep, it's just that, jargon. There is really no complexity or nuance to it at all, and though some of it can be engaging, like the portion where Watney must find a way to grow food on a planet where nothing grows, when combined with this straightforward survivor tale, we couldn't help but feel underwhelmed. What we wanted was something more emotional, and what we were lacking was the fragility of Watney's experience as well as the subsequent human spirit, the rallying together of people and nations to save one soul that Damon so vigorously touted on various talk shows leading up to the film's release. We missed this completely and didn't feel many inklings of an emotional punch apart from a scene where Watney was talking about his parents. It's not just from Damon's character, either. Many of the other characters feel very flippant about what's going on, and it might just be a lack of good acting, but either way, that's how it translated onto the screen.

In a game of science, emotion, tension, and human sacrifice, we expect to feel all four of these things in a movie like "The Martian." We felt one out of four of these things. We can't help but feel like the ending was rushed a bit, too. For as much time as it spends trying to figure out a solution to get Watney home, once the day has come for him to leave Mars and attempt his journey back, it feels bing-bang-boom-finished. There's really no conviction. We wanted to be able to stand up and cheer for Mark Watney and his crew, we wanted to be able to cry when things went wrong, and we wanted to be on the edge of our seats the entire time, but we weren't. It's a good movie, but to us, it's not great, and we're sorry about it. For all the science it uses, it eschews emotional opportunities and even minor character development in the process. We're bummed about this one.

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: ~8.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~94%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?

Movie Review: "Exodus: Gods and Kings" (2014)

Image Source

Movie: "Exodus: Gods and Kings"
Director: Ridley Scott
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 30 minutes

Moses (Christian Bale) has been raised by Egyptians and is treated like a son by Pharaoh Seti (John Turturro) and treated like a brother by Seti's son Ramses (Joel Edgerton). After the death of Seti, Ramses takes the throne and appoints Moses his adviser. When Moses advises the Pharaoh to arrest the Viceroy in charge of the slave camps for embezzling from him, the Viceroy inform Ramses of rumors that have been circulating among the Israelites They believe Moses to be one of them and that he will lead them to freedom. When the Ramses finds out that Moses actually is Israeli, he cannot bring himself to have him executed, so instead, Ramses banishes Moses to the desert. Moses has moved on, settled down and started a family, but after nine years in exile, he receives a message from God that he is to lead the people of Israel to freedom. Moses reluctantly accepts the tasks and with the help of God unleashing a series of plagues upon Egypt, he starts to lead the Israelites to Kanen, but Ramses is ready to unleash his army to stop them from getting there. 

Holy whitewash, Batman!
And this time it works because Batman is actually in this movie!!!!

Lately in cinema, there have been a lot of visually epic films on screen. From the stunning 3D of "Avatar" to the massive spectacle that was "Jurassic Park," visuals can often make a positive mark on an otherwise bad movie, not that those are bad movies to say the least.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case for "Exodus: Gods and Kings."

It has been hard to write this review between the disappointment we felt during and after watching the movie and the mediocrity of the entire essence of the film itself. Mediocre is sort of being nice at this point as I have been waffling about my feelings for the past few days. There are a lot of things wrong with it, so I guess we will start with the good this film brings to the table. First, Joel Edgerton manages to prove he was a good casting choice and performs wonderfully as Pharaoh Ramses. Somewhat physically changed and sporting a chrome dome and shaved body, his bronzed appearance oozes both power and petulance. His goldened skin, jewelry and selfish, childish demeanor scream of excess and getting his way, and Edgerton really performed the hell out of this role. Christian Bale also did a good job as Moses, though I feel like I'm at my threshold with him as an actor. We get it, you're method. Moses is represented as more of a non-believer at the beginning of the film and it's not until mid-way through the movie that he eventually gets to his spiritual revelation and is placed into his anointed role. His beard was pretty epic, though. And while we're on the subject of the actors, almost everybody did a decent enough job with in the respective roles, except for a few, but more on this later. We really like that almost everyone was kept very, very dirty throughout the course of the film. Plus one for good makeup application. The score of the movie was your typical epic instrumental one, though I thought it helped carry the weight of some of the scenes that were lacking in connection, but again, more on this later. Overall, the visuals are relatively strong throughout the duration of the movie. Director Ridley Scott does a superb job in portraying the plagues of Egypt. Each plague, though first initiated by God, has a clear natural cause and effect where one incident directly leads to the cause of the next plague. This more natural portrayal might offend some moviegoers. Only the plague of Passover is straight magic and/or hand of God and the only one that isn't too exciting on screen.

Now, onto the bad, and there is a lot of cover. The worst part of the entire movie was God himself, or the messenger of God, or the voice of God, none of this is ever clearly stated. God is portrayed in this film by a young boy named Issac Andrews, who seems more like a bratty child throwing a hissy fit than a deity. Though one may expect his holiness to be a bit condescending, Andrews is overly snarky, grating on your nerves, rude, and downright annoying. It might have worked with a different child actor, but we're not even too sure about this. Scott has said in interviews that Malak, an angel messenger thingy, is pure and innocent, and this kid is anything but. The visuals, while they were mostly pretty good, when poorly executed, were overtly obvious, and sometimes, they even drifted into video game-esque territory. This was mainly seen during the final climax, which was extremely underwhelming after such a huge build-up. Sigourney Weaver plays Tuya and has literally 3 lines in the entire film. Instead of helping the movie overall, her presence is just distracting. She doesn't play a developed enough character to warrant her, a huge star in her own right, filling that role. In the end, audiences won't see Tuya, they will only see what looks like Sigourney Weaver going to a costume party. Ben Kingsley is in the film for a brief while and is wholly underutilized in our opinions. In fact, all of the Israelites are underdeveloped and Ridley Scott really fails to connect the audience to their plight. While we're on the subject of connections, there are few to be found, and where there was a connection, it was with Ramses, who is the villain and had it coming. We as an audience are supposed to connect to Moses and his journey, as well as the struggle of the Israelites, and we just don't because it's not there. Maybe Scott hoped that people's familiarity with the story of Exodus was enough to offer a preexisting connection, but this was a gamble we believe he lost. Finally, it feels like everyone in this film was on their A-game, except for Ridley Scott. He spent so much time and money investing in this story that ultimately turned out to be a flop. We don't know if he has lost his spark or if he's just getting lazy as a director. It seems like he felt this movie would be like a biblical version of "Gladiator," but the end, it's not epic enough, not developed enough, and frankly, not good enough to merit such a comparison.

My Rating: 5.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 28%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Philomena"

Movie Review: "The Counselor" (2013)

Movie: "The Counselor"
Director: Ridley Scott
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 57 minutes

Image Source

A criminal attorney (Michael Fassbender) who seems to be in need of quick money, gets involved in a drug deal with his business partner Reiner (Javier Bardem) and another friend named Westray (Brad Pitt). Something goes wrong during the process, and the cartel takes revenge out on them.

CRAPPY MOVIE IS CRAPPY.

This movie has over-complicated dialogue and an over-simplified plot. Some viewers may applaud its ambiguity, but we do not.

Things we know about this movie:
1) The Counselor is involved in a drug deal. We do not know how he is involved or what his role is in this drug deal, but he's involved somehow.
2) Something goes wrong regarding the drug deal and The Counselor and his friends get blamed. We don't know why they are blamed since we don't know their involvement, but they get blamed.
3) The drug deal is ultimately successful, but The Counselor and his friends are still in trouble. The only link between what went wrong and The Counselor is that he once bailed out a client's son for a speeding ticket he could not pay, and the son worked for the cartel and was killed.
4) We know The Counselor claims to need money, but we don't know why or how bad his money problems are, considering he's opening a club with Reiner and buying 3.9 carat rings for his fiancee.

It seems as though the more time that clicks by on the time-clock for this movie, the worse it gets. It just drags on, and on, and on, without ever getting anywhere.
This is what happens when a novelist pens a screenplay. What works on paper might not necessarily work coming out of people's mouths on screen, and that's what happens in this movie. The philosophical jargon that is spewed throughout this film is unnecessary and comes off as unnatural and humorous instead of serious and insightful.

And seriously, what's with all the gratuitous sexual references throughout the entire film? This movie just goes overboard with them. They seem unnecessary and don't further the plot at all. The are like side-notes in the film because it's not interesting enough as a whole without some sort of weird sex story thrown in the middle of a random encounter between The Counselor and Reiner. The movie alone is not enough to keep people interested, so the writers or directors felt the need to add a dozen or so sexual references sprinkled in like glistening turds throughout the film.

For a movie with such an historically strong director and such a hefty cast of fantastic actors (minus Cameron Diaz), we are sorely disappointed in this film.

PS: It never ceases to amaze us what makeup and hair artists can do to make Javier Bardem look absolutely batshit crazy by tweaking his hair just a little bit.

My Rating: 3/10
BigJ's Rating: 3.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 36%
Do we recommend this movie: AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!