Also, one other thing that bothered me a little bit was that it was a time paradox story. Humans from the future to give us a hand to survive. If they hadn't, we wouldn't have survived, but if we didn't survive, they wouldn't exist. Paradoxes are really overused in sci fi, IMHO.

I need to see this movie, I feel left out with all this blacked out conversation going on!!

That's the spirit! Just make sure you go to a theater w/a good sound system. This movie has bass that will rattle your fillings.

Interesting script to final movie comparison: http://www.blastr.com/2014-11-10/how-fi ... nal-script

Need I say, spoilers?

I saw Jupiter Ascending this evening. It actually turned out to be pretty ok. It's only getting 22% on Rotten Tomatoes but it was a lot more like a 50-55% movie, LOL. It had eye-popping visuals, a lot of action, and did a pretty good job of establishing a mythology. In some ways, it reminded me of Guardians of the Galaxy or The Fifth Element, except without the humor.

Hmmm a semi positive review. From everything I heard, I was preparing for a disastrous bomb of epic proportions. I don't know if I will catch it at the theater or put it on my Netflix queue.

I wanted to go see it upon watching the trailer, but the reviews have been unkind. One local newspaper said it was "dangerously on the verge of incomprehensibility."

I have just come to accept that what passes for "reviews" these days is just usually one person's heavily biased opinion; and that more often than not, it differs quite a bit from mine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but that's not what a review is... especially when you go as far as calling yourself a 'critic'.

Sadly, many 'fun films' like this get unfavorable reviews, yet I'm willing to bet the upcoming '50 Shades' film will somehow get better reviews...

I couldn't agree more, Rosere.

Sadly, in the case of Jupiter Ascending, it is one of those movies that upon watching the trailers, I was left feeling: "Man, this looks so gorgeous, and could be very cool... yet, it has all the earmarks of being potentially just downright awful."

Then you read reviews that pretty much confirm your fears, telling you that perhaps your gut instinct was right.

I'm all for seeing movies on my own and making my own decisions. I've lost count of how many times critics have savaged something I quite enjoyed, or gushed over something I found zero merit in. However, sometimes they do get it right in the greater scope of mass opinion.

Olorin just posted a movie review based on (what else?) his opinion, which like any opinion, is biased.

Why is a personal opinion about a movie any better or more honest or unbiased (see above) than one in the public media?

I don't disagree about critics. I typically watch movies I want to watch and I don't feel any guilt about liking a movie or disliking a movie that goes against the popular consensus on Rotten Tomatoes or what have you.

I value Olorin's opinion more so than those guys, as I "know" Olorin. I might not have any clue what he looks like in person, but I know and respect his opinion more than any newspaper, thinks he/she is better than everyone else critic.

With all that said, I did go see Imitation Game a couple weekends back and I thought it was a great movie. A little slow at times, but its not a big boom action movie, I thought a few scenes kinda dragged on here and there.

[quote=""Deimos""]Olorin just posted a movie review based on (what else?) his opinion, which like any opinion, is biased.

Why is a personal opinion about a movie any better or more honest or unbiased (see above) than one in the public media?[/quote]

I suppose the point Rosere was making is that a movie critic, by definition, *should* be informed and have a good enough grasp of what makes a movie work or not beyond the basics, and provide a review that contains a high degree of professionalism and unbiased objectivity.

More than 90% of the time that doesn't happen because the internet has given everyone a voice, and therefore everyone's a critic. Even those that profess to do it for a living and try to be unbiased cannot help but be so because mechanics aside, you can only keep personal preference out of this job so much.

The only difference here is that, Olorin being a fellow forum member who's opinion we esteem and regard well, is generally more valuable to us than moviezhaXXorzftw!!11's opinion on some random movie website. We tend to gravitate toward the opinion of someone we know rather than the unknown.

Other than that minor caveat, you are absolutely right.

[quote=""Valkrist""]
...
Other than that minor caveat, you are absolutely right. [/quote]

A rather Costco-sized "minor caveat", but I get what you are saying.

[quote=""Valkrist""]I wanted to go see it upon watching the trailer, but the reviews have been unkind. One local newspaper said it was "dangerously on the verge of incomprehensibility." [/quote]

I can tell you right now I would never trust the opinion of that particular critic in any future reviews. I have a certain degree of hearing loss, and while there were times the hugely loud IMAX sound drowned out the dialog, I had no problem following the plot. I suspect your local paper person just doesn't like space operas, had had a bad day, or had some other sort of non-merit beef against it.

Also, I think the Wachowskis are suffering the fate of George Lucas. They had big initial critical and commercial success with The Matrix, and the critics have seemingly decided en masse to dis everything since then. Of course, it could be that everything they've done since then has been lousy. I don't know...this was their first non-Matrix movie I've seen. A friend whose opinion I generally trust saw Cloud Atlas and while he didn't exactly rave about how good it was, he thought it was a good effort. His main problem was that there were SO many stories and you got them all in such little segments that you couldn't figure out what it was about. That's probably in part a problem inherited from the source material.

[quote=""Valkrist""]

I'm all for seeing movies on my own and making my own decisions. I've lost count of how many times critics have savaged something I quite enjoyed, or gushed over something I found zero merit in. However, sometimes they do get it right in the greater scope of mass opinion.[/quote]

I am all for seeing a movie myself and forming my own opinion. Unless a movie is REALLY getting trashed, or selectively trashed by critics whose opinions I find reliable, I will go see it if it looks like something I think I want to see.

Now that said, I did not go see Winter's Tale last year. I read the book many years ago, probably in the 80s, and thought it was an intriguing story. I would imagine that it would be hard to do it justice in a 2-hour movie. Yet they made a movie, and I thought the trailers looked good. However, it only got 13% on Rotten Tomatoes, and that scared me off from seeing it.

[quote=""Deimos""]Why is a personal opinion about a movie any better or more honest or unbiased (see above) than one in the public media?[/quote]

Because I am the Emissary of the Valar, that's why! Kidding aside, I think the other folks answered this pretty well, but to that I will add that I've seen a lot of movies, and a lot of space opera movies, and have a feel for the genre. While JA was by no means perfect, I did find it brought something new to the genre.

Also, I sometimes go into movies like this with the Ebert Principle. Did the movie accomplish what it set out to? This was a popcorn movie. It was entertaining, gorgeous to look at, had actors in it I like, and I'd certainly rather see something like it than Furious 7 (whose trailer I've had the misfortune of seeing twice recently).

[quote=""BladeCollector""]I might not have any clue what he looks like in person, but I know and respect his opinion more than any newspaper, thinks he/she is better than everyone else critic.
[/quote]

I am a very handsome gentleman of a certain age.

That aside, I am somewhat tickled by having somehow engendered so much discussion on this topic!

What I meant was: a lot of folks say that they would "never let a movie reviewer's opinion (i.e. a review) sway them to seeing (or not seeing) a movie."

Yet those same people will see (or not see) a movie based on a friend's report of it.

What I am pointing out is that in both situations someone has given a "review"; the only difference is one is "professional" and available to the public, and the other is more private, so to speak.

But if you see (or don't see) a movie based on the latter's [private] report, well, you have still let someone else sway you.

So I thinks it's kind of silly for anyone to say they never let a review determine whether or not they'll see a movie. Most people do in fact let "reviews" sway them a lot of the time...even folks here on the forums.

[quote=""Deimos""]What I meant was: a lot of folks say that they would "never let a movie reviewer's opinion (i.e. a review) sway them to seeing (or not seeing) a movie."

Yet those same people will see (or not see) a movie based on a friend's report of it.

What I am pointing out is that in both situations someone has given a "review"; the only difference is one is "professional" and available to the public, and the other is more private, so to speak.

But if you see (or don't see) a movie based on the latter's [private] report, well, you have still let someone else sway you.

So I thinks it's kind of silly for anyone to say they never let a review determine whether or not they'll see a movie. Most people do in fact let "reviews" sway them a lot of the time...even folks here on the forums.[/quote]

I understand. But what it comes down to is simply a question of who the person wants to trust: some professional stranger out in media land, or a person they feel they know and whose opinions on other topics they believe they share.

I almost always see films based on my past e xp erience with certain writers and directors. For example, I'm going to see anything Ridley Scott does, or the Wachowskis, Scorcese, David Fincher, Nolan, and a few dozen others who rarely let me down.

When it comes to films by 'new' film makers that I have never heard of before, I do listen to what certain friends say, some more than others, but never 'professional' reviewrs. Other than than friends, I have gotten pretty good at breezing through comments on forums or Amazon's user reviews to determine if a movie by an unknown (to me) film maker may be something I would be interested in. It is such a wide range of people commenting that somewhere in the middle you get a much better idea if it is something you would like than one individual 'professional' reviewers opinion.

I recently watched a film called Mr. Nobody based on a few Amazon comments that peaked my interest. Fantastic movie. A few nights ago I watched Ridley Scott's/Cormac McCarthy's last film The Counselor because of the track record Ridley's films I like, and the fact that I have rarely seen anything Michael Fassbender was in that I did not like. It got scathing reviews from what I recall people saying. Some people just don't like or get McCarthy's (the writer) style, but that is right up my alley, so I really liked it.

Its a very similar situation here. People can write a review about a new UC LOTR/Hobbit item on a website... but I am probably going to TRUST the opinions of my fellow UC forums members first.

Reviews do sway us, but as has been mentioned... we put more trust in certain people than others. I have seen some critically acclaimed, Oscar nominated crap fests before

I'm always behind on new films.
I haven't seen Interstellar yet, but I'm sure I'll enjoy it even though I've read some of the blackout comments here.
Obviously the film grabs a lot from science/physics etc. All of which I e xp ect to be debunked eventually; Though I won't bother stating why (so don't ask ).

Sometimes a review will deter me from seeing a film in the theater. Exodus Gods & Kings being one of them. Simply put, one review stating that Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments was better & "Noah" was better, was enough for me to know I need not waste my money. I'll Redbox that one eventually.

Though long in waiting, I just watched X Men Days of Future Past.
This was the best of this franchise IMO.
Deeper, gripping, not just comic book entertainment.

And for those of you who enjoy a well written, superbly cast film that plays out with substance; I recommend The Judge.

There is always cliche drama, and then there is drama as it is meant to be.
I only have two hands to offer a thumbs up

[quote=""Thranduil""]Sometimes a review will deter me from seeing a film in the theater. Exodus Gods & Kings being one of them. Simply put, one review stating that Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments was better & "Noah" was better, was enough for me to know I need not waste my money. I'll Redbox that one eventually.[/quote]

Exodus wasn't awful but Redbox may well be the way to see it (since it's out of the theaters, that's essentially your only choice now). But The Ten Commandments was definitely better. And nobody but nobody will ever top Yul Brynner's performance as Rameses. He could swagger even in defeat. I'm not generally a fan of the very mannered acting style of pre-1970s movies, but Brynner was brilliant.

Sometimes I am just too lazy and/or cheap to go to the movies. There are my "musts" but those are usually comic book movies or LOTR/Hobbit type movies. Sometimes I like to just watch in the comfort of my recliner.

I mentioned a few posts up that I went and saw Imitation Game. It was a great movie, but not one I would typically go see in the theater, but some friends wanted to go see it, so I did. That would have been one that I typically would have just got from Netflix.

I am a huge fan of the classic epics like Ten Commandments, Spartacus, Ben Hur, et cetera. Comparing Exodus to Ten Commandments is like comparing apples to oranges. Two completely different styles of film making and story telling.

The wife and I saw it in the theater and thought it was an incredible movie. I was actually surprised to hear later that it was getting awful reviews and it made me wonder what the heck movie those reviewers saw. Well, I guess I was not really surprised because practically every big budget Epic gets slammed by them these days, including Ridley's previous one, Kingdom of Heaven, and even the recent Noah film. Both or which I liked very much.

I think that for most people it is very hard to shake off The Ten Commandments and just watch Exodus as its own creature. You can't help but compare. TTC was loaded with pomp and pageantry in every frame, while Exodus is very much a modern, gritty, color-desaturated (except for that croc blood!) affair. Like Kingdom of Heaven, there was a longer cut which was whacked down for theatrical release. Hopefully the longer cut will be released on BD so we all get a chance to see it. The longer cut of KoH was much more engrossing and satisfying than the theatrical cut, and the same might likely hold true for Exodus.

One of the things that kind of rubbed me the wrong way about Exodus was the portrayal of God. OK, it's a given that a modern movie wasn't going to portray God like DeMille did, but presenting him as a rather petulant child struck a wrong note for me. That, along with the suggestion of the Plagues as something that could have just been a string of bad, but natural, coincidences, seems like the movie is trying to mess with the sensibilities and beliefs of the faithful who go to see it. Now, I say that as someone who is very wary of fundamentalism and its "culture war" in America. But does Hollywood have to gig them and lend support to their belief that they are being oppressed and ridiculed? I never read any reviews of this movie and don't know if that issue was ever raised, but I could definitely believe people would react that way.

I've stopped watching movies that portray God whether as a person (George Burns?), a thing, a voice, an aura, whatever. Or portrayals of Jesus. I didn't even like Aslan/Jesus in the Lion, Witch and Wardrobe....and I'm a [Catholic] Christian.
The portrayals always miss the mark, meaning the "mark" I have in my mind as to how I think the portrayal should be done....(never mind that God is pure spirit, so how do you show that????) Anyway...I don't watch any of them.

[quote=""Olorin""]I think that for most people it is very hard to shake off The Ten Commandments and just watch Exodus as its own creature. You can't help but compare. TTC was loaded with pomp and pageantry in every frame, while Exodus is very much a modern, gritty, color-desaturated (except for that croc blood!) affair. Like Kingdom of Heaven, there was a longer cut which was whacked down for theatrical release. Hopefully the longer cut will be released on BD so we all get a chance to see it. The longer cut of KoH was much more engrossing and satisfying than the theatrical cut, and the same might likely hold true for Exodus.

One of the things that kind of rubbed me the wrong way about Exodus was the portrayal of God. OK, it's a given that a modern movie wasn't going to portray God like DeMille did, but presenting him as a rather petulant child struck a wrong note for me. That, along with the suggestion of the Plagues as something that could have just been a string of bad, but natural, coincidences, seems like the movie is trying to mess with the sensibilities and beliefs of the faithful who go to see it. Now, I say that as someone who is very wary of fundamentalism and its "culture war" in America. But does Hollywood have to gig them and lend support to their belief that they are being oppressed and ridiculed? I never read any reviews of this movie and don't know if that issue was ever raised, but I could definitely believe people would react that way.[/quote]

That was not God. The burning bush was, but the child was an angel delivering the messages of God to Moses. There were a couple of cues in the film indicating this, including Moses actually calling him a messenger.

I did not take the 'natural' e xp lanations of the plagues as a string of coincidences, but more the mechanisms God used to deliver the plagues. If God created the universe to follow his set of physical laws, He does not need to defy them to create His plagues, He just needs to nudge them to have the effect He wants. Did you catch the shooting star heading downward when Moses was praying the night before the waters parted? That was an asteroid or meteor that caused a tidal wave in the distance, which pulled all the water from the farthest point, where Moses was. The wave coming back was the water returning.

I suppose an atheist or agnostic could interpret the plagues in the movie one way and a believer another, but it is quite a stretch in my mind to think every one of those things was just a coincidence as portrayed in the movie.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]That was not God. The burning bush was, but the child was an angel delivering the messages of God to Moses. There were a couple of cues in the film indicating this, including Moses actually calling him a messenger.

I did not take the 'natural' e xp lanations of the plagues as a string of coincidences, but more the mechanisms God used to deliver the plagues. If God created the universe to follow his set of physical laws, He does not need to defy them to create His plagues, He just needs to nudge them to have the effect He wants. Did you catch the shooting star heading downward when Moses was praying the night before the waters parted? That was an asteroid or meteor that caused a tidal wave in the distance, which pulled all the water from the farthest point, where Moses was. The wave coming back was the water returning.

I suppose an atheist or agnostic could interpret the plagues in the movie one way and a believer another, but it is quite a stretch in my mind to think every one of those things was just a coincidence as portrayed in the movie.[/quote]


Can you say "tsunami"?

Honestly, I did not get that the child was an angel, not God. When I see the movie again (and I probably will at some point), I'll watch for that.

Whether I saw the meteor, I don't recall. But I got the impression that the tornadoes (water funnels) evident in the Red Sea sequence were being presented as the cause of the water withdrawing. In any event I myself did not take the various events as all being of purely coincidental origin, as I know the story of the Exodus and know that these were the plagues visited upon Egypt. I'm merely saying that the way they were presented was almost as if the filmmakers wanted to allow viewers to interpret that these were random events but that the people e xp eriencing them came to perceive as divine intervention.

For that matter, that idea is presented in TTC itself. Rameses tries to e xp lain away a number of the plagues: a mountain spewed red clay into the Nile, the water turned red, the fish died, flies feasted on the dead fish, frogs fled from the water, etc. However in that movie, we are not allowed to believe that e xp lanation as we see Moses initiating some of the plagues as the agent of God. It's never in doubt what's going on. To me, Scott's movie left that door open just a crack. It's a perfectly valid way to make a movie (it is just a movie after all); I just wondered whether anyone got their nose out of joint over it.

There is a line in the film where Moses is yelling at the kid and says something like 'why am I talking to a messenger'. The kid is also named Malak in the credits, which is an Old Testament word for angel. Ridley was also asked if he was an angel in an interview and confirmed he was a 'messenger of God, or a more popular word might be angel'.

Regarding a a longer directors cut, nothing has been announced except the theatrical cut. Ridley said about a month ago that the theatrical cut was his 'directors cut' and that a longer cut would not be released, just 30 minutes or so of deleted scenes. I hope he changes his mind.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Ridley said about a month ago that the theatrical cut was his 'directors cut' and that a longer cut would not be released, just 30 minutes or so of deleted scenes. I hope he changes his mind.[/quote]

Ridley typically says this of all his movies, claiming that the final edit, the theatrical cut, is his intended vision, and therefore his 'director's cut.' In the end though, we always seem to get either an extended version or at least an altered version of his movies come out. I don't know whether it's due to studio pressure to release another version and double-dip into home video sales, or if Ridley is simply going back on his word and providing us with secondary versions that ultimately end being regarded as director's cuts anyway.

I won't get into Blade Runner because the history of that one is long and fraught with interference, but we did get the 'director's cut' of Black Hawk Down, Alien, Kingdom of Heaven, and Gladiator, just to name a few. I would almost bet my life that we will get a similar treatment for Exodus.

[quote=""Deimos""]Can you say "tsunami"? [/quote]
That's where Ridley got the idea. Reading about the massive underwater earthquake off the coast of Italy in 3000BC, except he decided to change it to a meteor or asteroid, as those have also caused tsunamis drainage in the past.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Ridley typically says this of all his movies, claiming that the final edit, the theatrical cut, is his intended vision, and therefore his 'director's cut.' In the end though, we always seem to get either an extended version or at least an altered version of his movies come out. [/quote]

Not really. If you look at almost all of his films since 2000, only every other film got an extended cut (they are all 'directors' cut's), any every other one did not. The Counselor just got one, which Ridley said it would beforehand, so by his track record, and what he has said about Exodus, it won't.

He also has announced extended cuts many times before the home video release - Gladiator, KOH, The Counselor, et cetera. When Prometheus was still in theaters he said there would be no longer cut, just deleted scenes, and that is all we ever got.

That said, I still hope he does release an Extended Exodus.

OK, I'll buy off on the angel e xp lanation. I totally missed that first time around, and hadn't read anything about the movie beforehand, so I just assumed it was supposed to be God. I suppose it's not the first time angels have been portrayed as totally human. The angels in Jesus of Nazareth (the tomb scene) appeared to be gardeners. I suppose it would be a little over the top for angels to be portrayed with big wings. And a literal portrayal of some of the descriptions in the Bible, like the 4-faced angel that appeared in an X-Files episode, would be pretty freaky...not to mention challenging to appear to someone without bystanders saying "*** was that?"

It's unfortunate if it doesn't get a longer cut. However, all this discussion has really made me want to see it again. Hmmm, it's coming out on BD on March 17....

Yeah, Ridley even said in that same interview I referenced that he did not like the idea of an angel associated with having wings. I don't either, for that matter, because they did not.

I had never really thought much about whether the Bible says angels have wings or not, other than to ask what would a spirit being need of wings?

In the bible they look like men and don't have wings. Abraham confused them with men when he first encountered them. It gets confusing because Revelations states an angel flies, although it does not say he has wings.

Some people think that seraphim and cherubim, which did have wings, are also angels, but the Greek and Hebrew words for angel are never used when describing either. In Ezekial it states that satan was originally a cherub. Some people consider him a fallen angel by tradition, so conclude that since cherubs have wings and he was also an angel, then angels have wings! But he is never actually called a angel in the Bible, just a cherubim, and in Corinthians it even is says he disguised himself as an angel, implying he clearly was not one.

Interpretive Biblical discussions can get kind of like discussions of the Silmarillion

[quote=""Nasnandos""]There is a line in the film where Moses is yelling at the kid and says something like 'why am I talking to a messenger'. The kid is also named Malak in the credits, which is an Old Testament word for angel. Ridley was also asked if he was an angel in an interview and confirmed he was a 'messenger of God, or a more popular word might be angel'.[/quote]

Malak is close, but the Hebrew is actually Malaki and does indeed mean God's messenger.

[quote=""Olorin""]I had never really thought much about whether the Bible says angels have wings or not, other than to ask what would a spirit being need of wings?[/quote]

There are various accounts of cheribim having wings, some having multiple wings. Isaiah's description of the seraphs he saw had 6 wings. The Ark of the covenant has 2 cheribim on it's lid and clearly states their wings touched each other.

Essentially most angels are simply described as ministering spirits.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]In the bible they look like men and don't have wings. Abraham confused them with men when he first encountered them. It gets confusing because Revelations states an angel flies, although it does not say he has wings.

Some people think that seraphim and cherubim, which did have wings, are also angels, but the Greek and Hebrew words for angel are never used when describing either. In Ezekial it states that satan was originally a cherub. Some people consider him a fallen angel by tradition, so conclude that since cherubs have wings and he was also an angel, then angels have wings! But he is never actually called a angel in the Bible, just a cherubim, and in Corinthians it even is says he disguised himself as an angel, implying he clearly was not one.

Interpretive Biblical discussions can get kind of like discussions of the Silmarillion [/quote]

You're right about the interpretive discussion, I guess we'll find out eventually.
Paul was warning that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light in Corinthians. Which is exactly what he did when he spoke to Mohammad and claimed to be Gabriel according Salmon Rushdi's Satanic Verses. Thus we see all too clearly these days the ideology of ISIS, they might as well be saying, 'and Charles Manson was his prophet'.

As far as biblical films are concerned, I just wish they use the scripture and mix the artistic licensing in with it as DeMille did.
What's wrong with the burning bush? Parting the Red Sea with a high wind? Etc.

You're right Olorin, Brynner's performance was superb.

That guy who made Noah blew it with the story line, he could have made that film an Academy Award winner for Russel Crowe if he had a clue.

[quote=""Thranduil""]Malak is close, but the Hebrew is actually Malaki and does indeed mean God's messenger.[/quote]

Malaki is a Hebrew boy name, but it means the same thing. It is Malak (or mal'akh) for the singular and Malakim for the plural in Hebrew. Or Malaa'ikah, Mal'ak, Melek (et cetera) depending if you are referring to the Semitic, Aramaic, Hebrew, (et cetera). All variations of the same word, same meaning.

[quote=""Thranduil""]As far as biblical films are concerned, I just wish they use the scripture and mix the artistic licensing in with it as DeMille did.
What's wrong with the burning bush? Parting the Red Sea with a high wind? Etc.[/quote] DeMille already did it, but his version did not exactly follow scripture to the T either. The parting of the Red sea is shown as instantaneous in his film. The Bible says it took all night for the water to be driven away, which is how it happens in Scott's movie, just not by wind. Although there was plenty of wind and cyclones shown.

DeMille's version invented plenty and both departed from and left out things from the Biblical account quite a bit too, including inserting lots of stuff from non Biblical sources like the Quran. The film makers were criticized at the time for it too. Just two different ways of telling the same story.

Well, isn't this a nice, civilized discussion about religious topics! Normally, we would try to steer discussion away from religion, just as we would sports or politics, because they can be so divisive. However, it looks like discussing religious related things may be possible without getting into an evangelizing war.

You guys obviously know a lot more about the Bible than I do. True confessions: I have never read it. I went to Sunday School and church all the time when I was a kid, I had and read the entire set of The Bible Story, which is that set of books that retells the Bible for little kids, that you always used to see in doctor's offices. I've read lots of Bible verses. And I've read a lot about the Bible and religion (thanks to Wikipedia).

So, what are the differences between cherubim, seraphim, and angels? I always thought the first two were just varieties of angels.

And about the original nature of the Evil One, I think the common conception is that he was an angel named Lucifer (the bearer of light), but when he fell he became referred to as Satan. However, I have read that the two entities were not original associated with each other in Judeo-Christian thought.

[quote=""Olorin""]Well, isn't this a nice, civilized discussion about religious topics! Normally, we would try to steer discussion away from religion[/quote]

Hmm...I thought we were discussing two different film adaptations of a book, not religion.

[quote=""Olorin""] But The Ten Commandments was definitely better. And nobody but nobody will ever top Yul Brynner's performance as Rameses. He could swagger even in defeat. I'm not generally a fan of the very mannered acting style of pre-1970s movies, but Brynner was brilliant.[/quote]

Brynner's Rameses mannerisms...his "swagger" as you call it...is a repeat of his character of the King of Siam in the original Broadway Musical The King and I (1951). You can see the same mannerisms in the film version of the King and I (1956), the same year The Ten Commandments was made. He pretty much acts the same [signature pose: arrogance, with fists on hips] for both the Siamese King and Rameses.

[quote=""Deimos""]Brynner's Rameses mannerisms...his "swagger" as you call it...is a repeat of his character of the King of Siam in the original Broadway Musical The King and I (1951). You can see the same mannerisms in the film version of the King and I (1956), the same year The Ten Commandments was made. He pretty much acts the same [signature pose: arrogance, with fists on hips] for both the Siamese King and Rameses.[/quote]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The Digital Bits reports that a Fox rep has stated that "X-Men: Days of Future Past: The Rogue Cut" will be out on disc late summer. 2D only; the extra material was not finished in 3D.

Excellent, been waiting for this announcement as I never bothered to pick up the TE once I heard there was an extended version coming. Could care less about no 3D.

So curious about the new Terminator Genesis movie and the new Jurassic Park movie.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Excellent, been waiting for this announcement as I never bothered to pick up the TE once I heard there was an extended version coming. Could care less about no 3D.[/quote]

I did get the TE of DOFP because there was no firm release date (for that matter, there still isn't), and I didn't want to wait years without the title, holding out for what might have been just vaporware. I'm hoping that when the new cut comes out, it will also include the TE by seamless branching, and I can ditch the old disc. For the moment, I'm out of room in my DVD/BD racks!

So yesterday, I saw "Chappie," the latest from Neill Blomkamp. I did not dislike the movie but really the only way one can accept this movie is as a fairy tale or morality play. It cannot be seen with an e xp ectation that characters are going to behave logically or even be otherwise believable characters. Except possibly for Chappie himself, just about every other character is completely one-dimensional, which I guess is all the depth they need to drive the plot forward.

Blomkamp's first move, District 9, was favorably reviewed and was a relatively subtle (at least by later standards) look at racism. Subtlety went out the window, or out the airlock, with Elysium, which did not fare as well with the critics. There's no attempt at subtlety in Chappie, or plot depth, or anything. It's almost at the level of Transformers 2 in terms of being solely driven by set pieces (though it's about 10,000 times better than Transformers 2, which was one of the lamest movies I've seen in the last ten years). I hate to say this, but the progression in Blomkamp's movies does not bode well for Alien 5. I fear that by the time it appears, it may consist solely of block words saying "RIPLEY, GOOD; ALIEN, BAD."

Some time back, we had a lively discussion of Exodus: Gods and Kings. Well, The Digital Bits just reviewed the video release: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/item/exod ... -deluxe-bd

In a nutshell: Movie...meh, presentation on home video...great. But the take-home here is that Ridley Scott said in one of the supplements or in the commentary that there will be NO extended cut.

OK, so the summer movie season is in full swing. Recent movies I've seen....

Ex Machina: very good, thought-provoking.

Mad Max: Fury Road: the best movie ever to come out of development hell, and a good movie in its own right. It's the best of the Mad Max movies, IMHO (though bear in mind I haven't seen the second one, which is most people's fave).

The Poltergeist remake: It wasn't awful, especially considering it was in development hell for quite a few years, and there were some good updates and riffs on the original movie. But a great movie, it was not. I don't regret seeing it, but It can never compare to the original, which is a classic.

Tomorrowland: leave your cynicism at the door, and you should enjoy it. The art design is great, really capturing a retro feel, including the 60s-era notion of what the future would look like. And even though it's a message movie, it's delivered in such a way, as part of the innocent/naive imagining of what the future could be like, that it goes down pretty easy instead of inducing a lot of eye-rolling like Wall-E.

Next up: San Andreas. There are no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes yet, which is never a good sign, but who goes to a disaster movie for plot or acting? This is all about seeing buildings leveled by nature gone wild, and based on the trailers, it should deliver that in spades.