MAIN CAST; Matthew McConaughey, Christian Bale, Izabella
IMDB Storyline
It is twenty years in the future, and the planet has been devastated by vicious fire-breathing dragons. The last vestiges of humanity now struggle for survival at remote outposts. In a ruined castle in the English countryside, Quinn is desperately trying to hold together a band of frightened, restless survivors. As a boy, Quinn watched his mother die protecting him from one of the beasts, and is still haunted by the memory. One day, a group of American rogues shows up, led by a brash, tough-guy named Van Zam. He claims to have discovered a way to kill the dragons once and for all, and enlists Quinn's help. But doing so will force Quinn to confront his own frightening memories. This, and Quinn's responsibilities to those that are under his protection, results in a battle of wills between the two men. In the end, events cause them both to realize that they must work together to defeat the monsters--both without and within. Written by LOTUSB1973
WHAT I LIKED
This is like King Arthur loses his kingdom and is transported in time to a world gone wrong. Quinn is challenged by Van Zam to defend what is left of man kind against the beast. I sometimes wonder who Quinn is fighting, the beast, his people or Van Zam. If there was ever a great movie about the challenges of leadership this is one of them. You could ask "how do you keep control of your kingdom when it's already burnt to a crisp?" But yet this is not Ahab looking for his whale. I like the feeling of being 20 years in the future but still has a feel of the deep past of King Arthur, could Van Zam be Merlin with all the tech he brings to the fight. Van Zam has more of the King Arthur or Game of Thorns look but he is the American. However when you see his magic, which is not magic but high tech you are quickly brought back to what to what the core of the movie is about.
WHAT I DID NOT LIKE
The victory over the Dragons was to easy, yes they paid a price. But you would think while they where fighting the dragons for 20 years, with all the guided missile tech, someone would have aimed for the mouth with more then a C4 tipped arrow way before.
Movie was rated PG-13, very fair rating and could be a family movie
I gave the movie a 7 on IMDB
I did see this movie on the big screen and did buy it on DVD and it is on my list to upgrade to Blue Ray
Whenever a movie based on the Bible comes out of Hollywood the debate begins of how close it was to the story of the Bible, and even the best Biblical representations has problems with production or length. I think it would be impossible to give a total accurate description of any great Bible story unless the movie would be at least six hours long.
For me I enjoyed the movie, I was totally entertained by the special effects, and the over all story based on the Book of Exodus. When ever I watch a movie based on a Bible story I always tell myself they where not there when this story went down and nor was I, we only know what the writers of the Bible told us and no more. For example in the movie The Passion of the Christ directed by Mel Gibson there was one lighthearted moment when Jesus was showing his mother Mary a dinning table with chairs he created, because we all know Jesus was a carpenter, Mary laughed and said it would never happen. OK it was not in the Bible, but I have no problem giving Jesus the credit for the table and chairs, I was not there when it was created and I don't know what Jesus built when he was a carpenter and no one else does. I was not offended when that happened in the movie.
In my opinion the 1956 movie The Ten Commandments directed by Cecil B. DeMille will always be my standard of a Biblical movie, and even that movie had a few issues, but not many. it was a complete explanation of the events in the book of Exodus from the Bible. And I said it was a explanation,it was still not the Bible. If you want to understand all the events of the Ten commandments story,you will have to study the story from the Bible and not Hollywood productions.
When I left the movie last night I enjoyed it but I kept thinking to myself, Why can't I see Moses instead of Christian Bale like previous movies that he had done. In some reviews it has been said that the cast of the movie let the director down. There might be some explanation of that with a recent interview with Christian Bale from Screenrant.com
“The biggest issue was about how much you could include because [the
story] is so dense, you really could make an 8-hour-length film,” Bale
said of early discussions he had with Scott about the film. “You really
had to make a choice about how far you went with the story. It’s called ‘Exodus‘ for a reason, it’s not called ‘Moses.’
Steve Zailian who wrote the screenplay really felt it was a story of
revolution so it’s his story up through the Exodus, you can see we went
up through the crossing of the Red Sea, but it was tricky.”
So was he not focused on Moses?
I am surprised by this approach from him because of his previous roles like the Batman trilogy, 3;10 to Yuma and Terminator Salvation, where he convinced me of the reality of the characters he was playing. While I was watching the movie I forgot about Christian Bale and seen Batman or what ever character he was portraying. I am thinking this is unusual for me to be seeing him this way, then Bale said this from Screenrant.com
“The very first film I rented immediately after meeting with Ridley and
while I was still trying to get my head wrapped around it, thinking
whether it was something that could be possible, I went and rented The Life of Brian,
which is a favorite film of mine, a beautifully made film,” Bale
revealed with a smile. “The point being that not only do I enjoy that
film but anything where you are approaching it from a very earnest point
of view can have the potential to become TheLife of Brian
very quickly, so it was sort of the guiding light throughout and I must
confess, “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” was kind of always
humming through my head. And then after that I rented Mel Brooks’ History of the World: Part 1.
You have to get it out of your system. You have to have humor with
something that is as earnest as this and as heavy as this, you have to
add an element of comedy during your everyday life during filming
because otherwise it becomes too exhausting.”
I am sorry, I take any story from the Bible very serious, why would he start his research from a comedy? I am sure there is a better wayto research a rolelike Moses then a comedy movie. I am sorry to say that I am disappointed in Bale looking at the role of Moses this way and it explains why the reviews say the cast let the director down and I can agree with that.
I believe when they make Biblical movies these days that the directors and producers are more interested in being politically correct and are not focused on telling a story from the Bible. I mean any thing about Jesus or the Bible is taken out of public places. The Ten Commandments has been removed from court houses across the country. How and why would we expect the" dyed in wool atheist" as Ridley Scott describes himself in a interview to make a heart felt movie from the Bible? Ridley Scott made a great movie based on a story from the Bible, not a religious family movie.
I am what most people would call a Evangelical Christian, however I am not offended at the movie because I know what I am watching I know who wrote it and directed it and I also understand the world we live in today. For me I agree with the reviews but I still enjoyed the story. I don't care how great of a actor or director you are, you can't do a Bible story unless you believe in where the story comes from
