The Imitation Game (2014)

Introduction:

What is it about eccentric geniuses that draw audiences to flock to movies about them? Is it the wonder that someone could be so smart and yet so socially awkward? Is it the fact that we admire them and yet feel superior to them? Or do we enjoy the performances that these movies deliver? Hard to say, but I will say that A Beautiful Mind may have some competition for best biography about a grumpy mathematician.

Summary:

Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a brilliant mathematician who becomes part of a team working for the British government. Their job is to crack the top secret Nazi code that will give them a much-needed advantage in the world war raging around them. Turing may be a genius but he is completely devoid of any social niceties. His abrasive nature soon gains him the ire of his entire team, especially the influential Commander Denniston (Charles Dance).

But then Turing encounters the extremely bright and pretty Joan Clark (Keira Knightley). She contributes to the team even though the entirely male group resents her presence. She is also able to help Turing learn new approaches to get his team to work with rather than against him. But time is running out. The Nazis seem to be winning every battle and there may be a spy on the team. Can Turing’s team crack the code with his new computing machine, or is this the maddest idea ever conceived of? If you are reading this on a computer, then I think you know the answer.

Good Points:

• Some really good performances supporting Cumberbatch’s excellent one
• Gives a good feeling of the multiple timeframes it covers
• Provides a look at an aspect of WWII that we don’t often see explored in film

Bad Points:

• Jumps around in the timeline for very little narrative impact
• Feels a bit routine, hitting on many of the familiar biopic routines
• Someone looking for a more thrilling side of WWII will be disappointed

Overall:

This is a film that works because of its performances and the interesting story at the heart of it. Turing and his path to break Nazi codes is a fascinating story. He is a very intriguing person and his relationships with his team and the military creates plenty of drama. Unfortunately the film feels the need to jump forward and backward in time, interrupting the narrative. It feels unnecessary and much of the information could have been delivered in other ways while keeping us to the main storyline. Worth seeing if you are interested in the subject and like the cast, but don’t expect anything too special.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 3

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 3

Total:  3

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

Enjoying the content? Click and ad before you go and support this blog.

Macbeth (2015)

Introduction:

I enjoy a good Shakespeare adaptation. Blame all those literary courses I took in college. Perhaps my favorite of the Bard’s plays is Macbeth. I really like the supernatural imagery, the battle of reason against ambition, and all the crazy medieval Scotsman yelling at each other. You don’t see too many adaptations of the Scottish play (could it be the curse?) so I relish the ones I do get. I was pretty excited to see a new version featuring Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard and sticking with the medieval setting was music to my ears. Could this be the adaptation I’ve been waiting for?

Summary:

Macbeth (Michael Fassbender) is the fearless vassal to King Duncan (David Thewlis). After engaging in a battle against a traitorous clan, Macbeth and his brother in arms Banquo (Paddy Considine) encounter three witches. These weird sisters prophesize that Mabeth will soon be king and Banquo will be the father of kings. Macbeth finds the idea interesting but maintains his loyalty. However, Lady Macbeth (Marion Cotillard) does no such thing. She believes they can make the prophecy happen, with a little push. Soon enough murder is committed, princes are blamed and Macbeth is crowned king of Scotland.

Once he tastes power and understands the means to obtain it, Macbeth begins to see enemies all around him. He targets his old pal Banquo as well as the steadfast lord Macduff (Sean Harris). But Macbeth’s fury and obsession start to look like insanity to those around him and soon an army forms to depose this tyrant. But Macbeth seeks out the witches again and they provide him with three pieces of information that convince the king he is invincible. Is it fate or will that determine the destiny of Macbeth?

Good Points:

• Some gorgeous cinematography and visual compositions
• Some unusual and effective twists on the execution of elements of the play
• The cast really seems to be engaged in the roles

Bad Points:

• Thick accents may make some of the dialogue difficult to follow
• The music is distracting and ineffective
• The pacing is glacial and the whole film lacks any energy

Overall:

Ouch. This movie hurt, and I really like this play, but man was this a misfire. It all comes down to the directorial choices. Justin Kurzel tries to imbue every line of dialogue with meaning and portentousness. This results in long gaps between lines, meaningful staring and everyone speaking as if they are so deep and serious that there is not a drop of passion or energy on the screen. When the story should deliver impact it just shambles toward you with no power at all. Such a disappointment.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 4

Music: 1

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 1

Total:  1

In Depth Review

A showdown in a personal hell.

What is Macbeth really about at its core? It is about a man who lets his desire for power overwhelm is judgment. Once he has this power, he fears to lose it, and starts to destroy everything and everyone around him in the effort to keep the power. Folded in and around this is the concept of free will. Is Macbeth a pawn of God (or the devil) or does Macbeth forge his destiny at the suggestion of the witches?

So at the very least an adaptation of Macbeth must capture these two elements and deliver them with a punch. We should see something of ourselves in the Thane turned King. But Kurzel manages to defeat both of these elements and renders the story inert. And Shakespeare should never be inert.

Let’s focus on the positive elements first. Visually, I really love where Kurzel was going with this interpretation of the play. He puts it in a medieval world that seems to still be crawling out of the dark ages. Much of the costumes, sets and armor appear to be inspired by Viking elements, giving everything a rough and earthy feel. There is no pageantry here. It is a gritty and roughhewn world these characters inhabit.

Lady Macbeth: shrouded in death.

The lighting in the movie has a very natural look, reminding me strongly of Zefferelli’s Hamlet from 1990. And like that film it brings a sense of humanity to the setting. But it also adds an interesting chill to the proceedings in this version of Macbeth. Not only does the land feel frosty cold, but the chill seeps into the performances and music. It is an interesting and effective visual style.

The two battle scenes that bookend the film are also wonderfully realized. The first occurs in a fog-shrouded heath. Shapes of armed men emerge and melt into the mist and it as the struggle plays out it creates this wonderful uncertainty to the events. The screen is bathed in blues and greys. It also reminded me of the final battle in Excalibur where Arthur faces Mordred for their apocalyptic showdown. In many ways, this battle is the start of the apocalypse for Macbeth.

The climax of the film occurs on a battlefield enshrouded by the smoke of the burning Birnam wood. Once again the figures of warriors appear and disappear in the smoke. But this time the world is a blazing orange. The fires of hell are all around Macbeth, a hell of his own making or a hell always destined for him?

These scenes are striking and will probably stick in my mind whenever I think about this version of Macbeth.

The witches see all, but what do they know?

I also liked how Kurzel took some of the supernatural elements of the story and twisted them in unexpected ways. In this version, Macbeth has two sons who die, leaving him without heirs. And don’t worry purists, Kurzel tells their stories through pure visuals, no new lines were added. The eldest boy dies during the opening battle. Macbeth is helpless to save the boy. This lad appears during the film. He is the one offering his father the dagger to slay Duncan in the famous “Is this a dagger I see before me?” monologue. He also appears as the blood-stained ghost that tells Macbeth that “none of women born may harm Macbeth”. I really like this take, as it gives a personal touch to the action, and allows us to understand Macbeth’s madness.

Even Lady Macbeth’s “out damn spot” speech is impacted by the appearance of her youngest child, whose death opens the film. Using these ghostly children is eerie and adds to both characters in a way I’ve never seen done in this play before.

But I can’t avoid it any more. I gave this film a 1, and there is a very good reason for that. I wanted to turn it off. Honestly, I was so frustrated with the viewing experience that I really considered stopping the film. But I kept hoping it was going to improve, that Kurzel was setting up his film in an unexpected way and I’d see what he was doing by the end. But nothing changed and the film limped along.

No time to enjoy our new found power. Let's
plot more murders!

There is very little passion in this version of Macbeth.  This is the story of a man who is driven by his desire for power. But Fassbender’s performance is cold and aloof. I see some simmering emotions appear here and there in the first act of the play, but they didn’t convince me of his desire for power. After the murder of Duncan, Fassbender plays the king as insane and paranoid. But it is a performance that still feels cold. A few moments allow us to feel the fear, horror and rage that the character goes through, but Fassbender often underplays them.

Lady Macbeth fares little better. Her key scenes in the first third feel distanced as well. I wasn’t feeling her desires. A few moments worked well, especially her torment when she sees the fate of Macduff’s family. But once again these moments were so few.

Both Fassbender and Cotillard have delivered excellent performances in previous films. So what happened?

Either Fassbender's falling asleep or I am.

It was the direction. Nearly all the lines are delivered slowly, with huge pauses after each sentence ends. The camera holds on the actor and then switches to the other. You get another ponderous delivery with so much gravity given to each word you wonder that the whole film doesn’t turn into a black hole right there. Then another pause as meaningful looks are shared.

I get it. You’ve got a movie dealing with murder for power. You’ve got characters who are living in a harsh and cold world. You’ve got fear dripping from every moment of the story. I can see how tackling certain key scenes in this manner would work well. But not every scene.

Case in point. The murder of Duncan takes forever to unfold. Not only are all the lines delivered in the slow style, but Macbeth takes his sweet time wandering over to Duncan’s tent and killing him. The murder itself is brutal and violent (as it should be) but lacks impact because it took so long to occur. Was Kurzel attempting to build tension? I’m not sure, but I didn’t see a man destroying his humanity for the sake of power. I just saw a really slow moving guy suddenly lash out. Didn’t know he had it in him.

Don't just stand there, do something!

To compound the problem is the issue of the accents. I appreciate that everyone went for the Scottish accent and we got plenty of Scottish actors in the film. Macbeth is the Scottish play so that is great. But even speaking this slowly I had trouble understanding some characters, and I know this play really well. My wife is less versed in this play and she had a real hard time figuring out what they were saying. To be clear, we both watch a lot of films and television from the British Isles, so accents are not usually that big of a problem. But man, this was a tough one. I really wonder if it was the sound mixing that made some of the dialogue sound so muddled.

One thing that I really think contributed to the issue was the score. Modern film scoring preferences rear their ugly head again. I don’t want to sound like a Film Score geek whining here, but we get an atmospheric score instead of a thematic one. Fine, that can still work. But instead of something that supports the film we get these odd long drawn out cello performances. They are dissonant reminding me of work for a horror film. They permeate the score adding additional weight and dourness to the whole thing. You get moments of lots of low-end string instruments churning away, creating some tension, but also distancing us from the emotions. The music feels like oppressive fear from the first moment and stays oppressive throughout. The result is that the atmosphere has no arc, it is flat and turgid. Worse it is distracting. I got pulled out of the film many times wondering what the heck the composer was going for with all that droning.

I will say the adaptation of the play works fine. This version of Macbeth has scenes removed and shortened. I didn’t notice anything vital missing, and this isn’t one of the longer plays to begin with. But the execution makes this feel like it is ten times longer than it is.

Yeah playing with your sword might be more
fun than watching this.

I’m not sure what Kurzel was going for here. He has some wonderful imagery and some really interesting concepts for executing the supernatural elements. I even like how he handled the witches. They can be tricky. Go too over the top and the whole play feels silly. But he keeps them very low key and mysterious. I think he could have gone a bit further with that idea, but what we do get works fine.

The ponderous execution of the dialogue, the dreary dourness of all the performances (the entire run of the film) and the overwhelming atmosphere of oppression and importance crushes the viewer. I didn’t feel a connection here. I didn’t feel any passion here. By trying to keep things low key, gritty and important, the life is sucked out of the story. Compare this to Ralph Fiennes powerful and passionate take on Coriolanus and the difference is clear. You can make a Shakespeare adaptation of Macbeth work if you embrace the lust for power, embrace the deep fear, embrace the paranoia and embrace that final moment of nihilism that sends Macbeth into the blade of Macduff. The emotions are what deliver that final catharsis. Without them, the story is hollow. Give this one a pass and see Akira Kurosawa’s take on the same story samurai style. Throne of Blood captures everything Macbeth is about.

You want to see Macbeth? I'll show you Macbeth!

Avoid being foul. Be fair and click an ad before you go.

Movie Musings: Trailer Pain!

Beware the Horns of Doom!

Trailers really seem to stink these days. They either give away too much plot. Or they misrepresent the film and make it look much dumber than it really is. Or they pick all the best "funny" moments or best action sequences. Then you see the actual movie and realize that you just wasted your money on a movie that could have been a trailer.  Honestly, we've got an argument for turning these into short films of one-liners and explosions. Kind of like a Michael Bay movie but much much shorter and with more character development. Ah, but I kid Mr. Bay... a little bit.

And don't get me started on the music. Honestly if I hear the Horns of Doom blasting BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA one more time I'm going go back in time.  Then I will do everything in my power to keep Hans Zimmer from using those slowed down horns in Inception. It is ridiculous at this point. I hear the Horns of Doom and I just start laughing. The last time I experienced the Horns in a trailer was for the television special for Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch... seriously. Horns of Doom for Sherlock.

Now this...

Where do I even start with this one.

Look, I'm not against a remake of Ben-Hur. The famous film from 1959 with Charleton Heston is actually a remake of a silent film from 1925. And there was a television movie version made in 2010. So yeah you can remake this film as many times as you want. It is based off a novel, and I'm guessing there were elements of the book left out of the 1959 version. You could explore those ideas in this movie. A remake of Ben-Hur isn't a horrible idea. It's not a great idea, but it's not a horrible one.

But the trailer for this version makes it look like Gladiator... again. The visual style has the desaturated look. The action has that slow-mo affect to it. All the focus seems to be on Ben-Hur's rage and anger and rage and did I mention he's an angry guy... with a beard.

So if the angry desaturated guy with the beard looks familiar that might be because of this...

Yeah Hercules doesn't look angry, more like brooding. And Clash of the Titans and the Immortals are sans beard. But there is a trend here. The thing is, Ben-Hur doesn't have to be like this. Ben-Hur isn't just about an angry bearded guy who "fights an empire".  It is about a man who loses everything, feels that revenge is his only option, and then realizes that isn't the case. Revenge leaves him empty. The movie is about redemption. Not surprising for a film that features Mr. J. Christ.

Now maybe the movie has that element and the trailer is targeted to the teen boy crowd. Ok, I get it. But the visual approach is the same thing we've seen since Gladiator. Why do they keep pulling the color out of these historical epics set in the ancient world? Gladiator used that approach in 2000. This is because Ridley Scott was going for a new look and feel to the modern epic. He drew from movies like Braveheart and Henry V, but also put his own visual stamp on it. But just because he did it, doesn't mean that is the only approach for this kind of movie. But Gladiator was super successful, so...

Color is for wussies! FREEDOM!!!!!

The real culprit here is 300. Yes the teen boys (and lots of adult males) got all riled up by 300 and saw it over and over again. The look and feel of 300 was made to two things. One was the way the original graphic novel looked. And the second was taking Ridley Scott's style from Gladiator (especially with the action scenes being "under cranked" and "over cranked) and ratcheting the whole thing up to 11.

The minute 300 became a mega-hit suddenly every movie set in the ancient world has to look extremely stylized, feature huge amounts of gore, and lots of guys with beards screaming at each other. It's getting so so old... just like the Horns of Doom.

I love reading about the ancient world. I love movies about the ancient world. Even the old cheesy ones like the 60s Hercules flicks give me some kind of joy. But this rash of angry, gory, shouty, Horn of DOOMy, desaturated movies is taking the joy right of what could be and should be an experience that transports us back to that period.

Angry saturated guy with a beard?

I honestly hope that this remake of Ben-Hur is better than the trailer makes it look. The 50s version is a classic because it is a powerful story told with amazing visual splendor and one of the best scores of the Golden Age. Seriously, Miklos Rozsa's score is usually found in the top ten list of film score fans and aficionados all over the world. The movie has its problems, but it never feels stale.

I watch the trailer for 2016 Ben-Hur and yeah, it looks real stale.

On the plus side, Marco Beltrami is doing the score. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the movie gives him enough of a palette to really unleash some epic and thematic style scoring. We'll see what happens when August rolls around.

Am I overreacting? Did the trailer work for you? Are you as sick of the Horns of Doom as I am?

Did you feel the rage with this post? Then click a ad and become a desaturated bearded angry guy!

Apollo 13 (1995)

Introduction:

I admit it, I don’t often give Ron Howard the director his due. The man made some really entertaining movies and handled some impressive and large-scale films. While he doesn’t have a distinctive visual style, his movies are always well crafted and often entertain. But one of my favorites has to be this glimpse into an incident that occurring during the Apollo moon missions that I never heard about… until this movie came out. Way to got high school history!

Summary:

Astronaut Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) is finally going to go to the moon. With Fred Haise (Bill Paxton) and Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon) at his side, they are going to make the Apollo 13 mission of 1970 one to remember. Little do they know that is going to be infamous instead of famous.

During their approach toward the moon, alarms go off followed by a horrifying sound and shaking of the module. The astronauts spring into action and find that technical and mechanical problems abound. Their oxygen is fading fast and key components of the ship are damaged beyond repair. Forget going to the moon, these three men have to worry about being able to get back to Earth. Luckily mission control has Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) and Ken Mattingly (Gary Sinise) on deck to help them out. But as the hours go by and the peril increases, the world waits to see if the Apollo 13 mission will be a tragic loss or a heroic victory.

Good Points:

• Howard captures the look of the era very well
• The film does a wonderful job building tension and anxiety
• The amazing cast does a fine job brining the movie to life

Bad Points:

• No surprises here if you know about this historical event
• Lacks some of the artistry of something like The Right Stuff
• Tom Hanks is in it… one of 1 million movies he made in the 1990s

Overall:

Just about everything in this movie works. It builds up anticipation for the Apollo 13 mission and allows you get to know the main characters. Then it puts them in peril and doesn’t let up until the final few minutes of the movie. It is a wonderful exercise in tension and suspense. But more than that, it shows how dangerous space travel was (and still is) and how it takes a huge team of people to pull off these amazing journeys. Visually the film holds up remarkably well, and despite a rather workmanlike approach to the material, this is one of Ron Howard’s best films.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 5

Sound: 5

Acting: 5

Script: 4

Music: 5

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 5

Total:  5

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.   

Public Enemies (2009)

Introduction:

Director Michael Mann does love his crime dramas. I have to admit, I love watching them. So when he revealed that he was going to tackle the story of bank robber John Dillinger, I was excited. This seemed like a great combination of period film and crime drama. Could this be Last of the Mohicans meets Heat?

Summary:

John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) is at the top of his game. He can rob banks in less than two minutes. He’s adored by the public for his dashing ways and his mantra of only taking the government’s money, not the people’s money. He lives by the Tommy gun and doesn’t care who knows it. Thing is, he’s gotten pretty darn famous in the process. This leads him to get a bit overconfident when he meets Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), who he just assumes will fall head over heals for him. Well, it takes a bit of work but Billie comes around.

Meanwhile J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) is not amused. He makes sure that Dillinger is public enemy number one and he sends his top agent after him. Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) made a name for himself taking down Pretty Boy Floyd (Channing Tatum), so he knows how to catch gun happy criminals. But Dillinger is crafty and Purvis’ resources aren’t up to the challenge. The world is changing fast, and Dillinger may find that being one of the Public Enemies is nothing but a ticket to a bloody death.

Good Points:

• Amazing production design and costumes, to pull you back in time
• Some taut and thrilling action scenes
• The acting by the whole cast is a perfect fit

Bad Points:

• The script never nails down whose story it is trying to tell
• There is a grim oppressive mood to the whole film
• The script takes some major liberties with history

Overall:

From a visual stand point this movie is worth checking out. Mann creates some memorable moments and the period detail is impressive. The acting is a nice showcase too. But the script is the real problem. You never get pulled into either Dillinger or Purvis, and the result is a cold film. Combined with the oppressive atmosphere the movie just never really grabs you. Perhaps my expectations were a bit too high, but I think this ended up being a missed opportunity.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 5

Sound: 4

Acting: 4

Script: 3

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 3

Total:  3

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

Prince of Egypt (1998)

Introduction:

In the late 1990s, Dreamworks was determined to beat Disney at it’s own game, and threw up some serious competition to the House of the Mouse with Shrek taking on Monsters Inc. and Antz taking on A Bugs Life. But they also attempted to unleash a non-computer animated film, one with a star packed cast, a familiar and yet powerful story, Broadway style songs and even borrow the Lion King’s composer, Hans Zimmer for the musical score. The question is, would all this be enough to put families in the theater?

Summary:

You may be familiar with the story of Moses (Val Kilmer) the Hebrew prince who lead his people from slavery in Egypt, talked with God and unleashed some plagues. Well, then you’re familiar with the plot to this film. But instead of going the Ten Commandments route, the film actually focuses on the relationship between Moses and his “brother” Rameses (Ralph Finnes). It is this dynamic that drives the story and makes both biblical characters more rounded and relatable.

But all the visual high points are there, including the devastating plagues, the battle between Moses and Pharaoh’s two wizards (voiced by Steve Martin and Martin Short), and the finale chase to and through the Red Sea. With the rest of the voices provided by Michelle Pfeiffer, Sandra Bullock, Jeff Goldblum, Danny Glover, Patrick Stewart, Helen Mirren and James Avery, well you’ll spend half the movie playing a guess the actor game.

Good Points:

• Some wonderful animation adding scope and power to the story
• A powerful musical score from Hans Zimmer
• The brother dynamic makes this familiar story very interesting

Bad Points:

• Some of the songs don’t quite work within the film
• Some may find the changes to the story offensive
• Feels like it is trying too hard at times

Overall:

If only they had not attempted to turn this into a musical, this could have been a real home run. The size and scope of the visuals are impressive, and bring some real power to the story. The performances are solid, with Fiennes really giving Rameses some additional depth. At times, you can feel how much they wanted to make this film a Disney-killer, by beating them at their own game. But it ends up hurting the film, which should have tried to do it’s own thing. Still, so much of it works, that it is easy to recommend to animation fans, and anyone looking for a different take on the classic story of Moses.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 5

Sound: 3

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 3

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965)

Introduction:

For a while there Charleton Heston was contractually obligated to appear only in huge sprawling historical and biblical epics. Ok, I exaggerate a little bit, but only teeny tiny bit. And while we all know about Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments, here is one you don’t hear about too often. The topic was unique, the cast was impressive and it has plenty of “epic” moments, but how come you never hear about this film?

Summary:

The year is 1508 and Michelangelo Buonarroti (Charleton Heston) is hard at work on a glorious tomb for Pope Julius II (Rex Harrison). But Pope Julius is more concerned with transforming the Sistine Chapel into something worthy of Papal power. So he demands that Michelangelo paint the 12 apostles on the ceiling. Michelangelo hates this idea, and he tells the pope that to his face. Michelangelo considered himself a sculptor first and foremost. His painting skills were merely a stepping-stone in his education. But Pope Julius insists, and when he insists – he means it.

And so a battle of wills plays out. Michelangelo eventually takes the assignment, but feels no spark of inspiration for it. He drags his feet, and makes many excuses to not work, even fleeing from Rome to escape Julius’s soldiers who have orders to drag him back to the chapel or face prison. While on the run, he is suddenly struck by inspiration – the creation of the world would be a much better and more interesting topic for the ceiling. So he returns to Rome to begin painting, much to Julius’ delight. Unfortunately Michelangelo is a perfectionist. Years drag on and the ceiling is nowhere near completion. Michelangelo begins to go blind and Julius’ health starts to fail him. Will either one survive The Agony and the Ecstasy of this creation of one of the most famous pieces of Renaissance art?

Good Points:

• A wonderful dynamic between Heston and Harrison
• Impressive scope and visuals
• Wonderful score by Alex North

Bad Points:

• Moves in fits and starts with long dialogue scenes doing little to advance the story
• The topic seems a bit strained for an “epic” style film
• The dubbing of the supporting cast may distract some viewers

Overall:

This seems a strange topic for a huge budget Hollywood epic, and at times the material seems a bit stretched. However the dynamic acting between Heston and Harrison are a real draw. Their scenes together keep the film cooking. The visuals are impressive with beautiful location shooting and impressive sets and interiors. Alex North provides a wonderful musical score. It’s an interesting film done in that classic epic style.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 4

Script: 3

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.