"Exodus: God and Kings": Holy Moses!

"Exodus: Gods and Kings" Director Ridley Scott put himself in an awkward spot from the beginning. As a self-described atheist, Scott had no reason to make a film to support religion. On the other hand, one would think he would have something to say about religion, else he wouldn't have been interested in making the film.  However, he had to be a little careful on what he did say so not to offend (at least not too much) conservative evangelicals, or Christians wouldn’t go see his movie. And he needs Christians to see the movie in order to recoup his $140 million budget. So what did he do?

Not surprisingly, Scott, for the most part, took the diplomatic route and tried to please both camps. And not unlike the creators of “Noah” earlier this year, Scott and the Exodus 2014 creators took some liberty from what appears in the printed Bible. In this case, the book of Exodus. (Quick note:  when someone makes a movie based on an an existing public source, be it a Stephen King story, J.K. Rowling novel, Ernest Hemingway book, or the authors of the Bible, they open the door for their interpretation to be compared and critiqued. And that's all I'm doing!)

A good example is Scott's omission of any miraculous signs. Sure, the burning bush, release of the plagues and parting of the Red Sea are all there, but Scott seems to leave open the possibility of a natural scientific explanation or coincidence for the cause of each. At least initially. But after a sufficient amount of these “coincidences”, Scott does “succumb” and gives God the credit, but not after his attempt to place a little doubt in the minds of his audience first, and only after making God appear as a brutal, uncaring force.  Need to read more than just the book of Exodus to understand that isn't true! Unfortunately, there are many people who haven’t read the Bible who see this portrayal and don’t know better. That’s a bit disconcerning.

So yes, gone is the magical staff that Moses prominently carries and uses through God to cause various miraculous signs, including the plagues and parting of the Red Sea.  In the film, these events seem to happen without Moses even being involved. In place of a staff, Moses instead carries a sword. It’s perhaps not a coincidence that Moses is portrayed by Christian Bales, who in recent years played Batman in a trilogy of “Dark Knight” movies. Many “Caped Crusader”-esque moves can be seen during the various battle sequences Moses fights in.

Another interesting aspect that Exodus 2014 and its creators decided to implement was to keep Moses a skeptic of God until the very end of the movie, just prior to the parting of the Red Sea.  This is contrary to the Bible, which leads us to believe that Moses is on board and a believer after his burning bush encounter with God (as portrayed in the Cecil B. DeMille’s original 1956 “Ten Commandments” with Charlton Heston).  Because of this “skepticism”, Moses makes some interesting decisions throughout the rest of the movie that the Biblical Moses probably would have never dreamed of making. More on that shortly.

Getting back to the burning bush, where God for the first time summons Moses and explains His desire for Moses to return to Egypt and “set his people free”.  However, the Exodus 2014 creators decided to add a couple of caveats to this seemly simple encounter.  First, it is almost implied that Moses only saw the burning bush as a result of a concussion after being hit on the head by a rock just prior to the bush appearing.  Even his wife Zipporah, after he returned from the mountain, suggested that he did not see God, because God is not a child.

What’s that….a child you say?

And that brings us to perhaps the most compelling choice Scott made in the entire movie:  using an eleven-year-old boy to portray God. Or at least Moses perception of God. Remember, Moses is still a skeptic of God at that point. During his post-burning bush conversation with Zipporah, Moses asks her to “explain to someone like him (a skeptic) what God looks like”. That's actually a good question. So perhaps an ignorant Moses envisioned God as a child figure?  The Bible also provides examples of God manifesting Himself to and communicating with people differently (He appeared as a donkey to one person!). Moses had a son about the same age, so maybe God thought appearing as a child would be the best way to get Moses’ attention? I’d like to think that’s the case, and not the creators of Exodus 2014 implying that the Old Testament God is like an impatient little child who gets irrationally angry (which happens in the film, as the “child” God occasionally throws a fit).

Now let's get back to Moses’ skepticism of God. This approach brings a whole new dimension to Moses’ thinking and subsequent actions that the Bible doesn't seem to support. Specifically, Moses acts on his own initiative rather than by following God.  This is evident when Moses returns to Egypt to help the Israelites leave.  Rather than confronting Ramses (Pharaoh) and relaying God’s ultimatum (as in the Bible), Moses quietly assembles an army of Israelites and begins Pearl Harbor-type attacks on Egyptian forces, with the intent of causing an uprising among the Egyptian citizens against Pharaoh. After sinking a few ships and taking out some Egyptian forces, not to mention killing numerous innocent men, women and children along the way, Moses realizes that his plan is going to take too long.  An “angry” God-child re-appears and chastises Moses for what he is doing, and then tells him to “watch me”.  At that point, the distribution of the plagues begins.  From the bloody Nile River to the locusts, frogs, hail and darkness, we get them all in this version.  One thing we don’t get is Moses (and his brother Aaron) confronting Pharaoh after each one, reiterating God’s command that he release the Israelites. Moses only re-visits Pharaoh once, and that’s after the third or fourth plague.

The distribution of the plagues goes back to what I said earlier about scientific explanations and coincidences and the omission of miracles.  The first (Nile turning to blood) doesn't happen after Moses touches the river with his staff as in the Bible. Scott devised a more natural, barbaric way this could have happened (I won’t tell).  He then, at least initially, infers that the subsequent plaques could be the result of its predecessor, i.e. a domino effect.  Only after ten plaques does Scott relent that coincidence is not possible, and admits that it had to be from God.  Curiously, during the distribution of the plagues, and particularly before the last one, Moses voices his displeasure to God that innocent people are dying, and that what He’s doing is nothing short of revenge, when in fact the plaques would have ended after the first one if Pharaoh had relented. And evidently Moses forgot that he was doing the same thing earlier!  Similarly, after the last plague where each first born Egyptian male dies, Pharaoh asks Moses how he can follow a God that is a “killer of children”?  Ouch!  Again, this could have been avoided. I guess Pharaoh didn't have an issue with his father killing all first born Israelite males several decades earlier, of which Moses was nearly one. I was waiting for Moses to remind Pharaoh of that, but he never did. The writers decided to leave that out I guess.

"Exodus:  Gods and Kings" does have a few things going for it though.  Although not Biblically-backed, Moses’s gradual conversion from skeptic to devout prophet was nice to watch. He starts the film believing only in himself and ends up humbled before God. This happens towards the end of the movie when the thousands of Israelites he is leading are pinned between the Red Sea and Pharaoh’s approaching army. Broken and desperate, Moses heaves his sword into the sea, finally accepting the fact that’s it up God, not him, to lead his people to freedom.  The Red Sea soon begins to part, revealing Moses' sword, which he retrieves.  It’s not unusual for God to give you back something that you gave up for Him, so I thought that was a nice touch, whether or not it was intentional by the writers.

The visuals in the movie are exceptional, and the acting for the most part very good. I really liked Joel Edgerton as Ramses, the younger Pharaoh in particular. Christian Bale was adequate, but perhaps too strong a presence for the humble, reserved Moses.  Ben Kingsley was good as Nun, father of Joshua.  Sigourney Weaver was oddly cast as Ramses mother. She looked out of place as Egyptian royalty.  Speaking of Joshua, his role was relatively small, compared to what’s in the book of Exodus.  And Moses' brother Aaron was almost non-existent, although he played a large role in the release of the Israelites in the Bible.  As a result, I would highly suggest reading Exodus chapters 1-14 and 20 to see how what was written differs with what Ridley Scott put on screen.

I am light years from being an authority on the Bible, but I have read it more than once, so when I see a movie like this, the first thing I ask myself is how a non-Biblical person would interpret the movie if he or she didn't know anything about the Bible. That answer is what really determines whether or not I feel the need to write about it.  And this time, like after “Noah”, I really felt like I did!

Just the facts ma'am....

So what is the Bible? Who wrote it?  How much time does it cover?  What languages was it originally written in?  How many languages is it available in now?  The following should give you a little more insight on these questions and more.

• The Bible is a compilation of 66 books and letters written by more than 40 authors during a period of approximately 1,500 years. The authors were kings, fishermen, priests, government officials, farmers, shepherds, and doctors. In other words, every day folks.
• The Bible was printed in 1454 A.D. by Johannes Gutenberg who invented the "type mold" for the printing press. It was the first book ever printed.
• The Bible is still regarded as the best selling book of all time, with more than 168,000 Bibles sold or given away per day in the United States according to Gideon, Wycliffe International and the International Bible Societies.
• The Bible has also been translated into more than 2,400 languages. In comparison, the various works of William Shakespeare have only been translated into 50 languages.
• Its original Biblical text was originally written in three languages:

          - The Old Testament: Hebrew (primarily) and Aramaic (small percentage).
          - The New Testament: Greek (Koine).

The following is a detailed breakdown of the Bible:

• Books in the Bible: 66
• Books in the Old Testament: 39
• Books in the New Testament: 27
• Shortest book in the Bible: 2 John
• Longest book in the Bible: Psalms
• Chapters in the Bible: 1,189
• Chapters in the Old Testament: 929
• Chapters in the New Testament: 260
• Middle chapter of the Bible: Psalm 117
• Shortest chapter in the Bible: Psalm 117
• Longest chapter in the Bible: Psalm 119
• Verses in the Bible: 31,173
• Verses in the Old Testament: 23,214
• Verses in the New Testament: 7,959
• Shortest verse in the Bible: John 11:35
• Longest verse in the Bible: Esther 8:9
• Words in the Bible: 773,692
• Words in the Old Testament: 592,439
• Words in the New Testament: 181,253

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What to read more?  Check out Popular Sayings from....the Bible?

Popular sayings from.....the Bible?

"Cast the first stone", "a drop in the bucket", "the apple of my eye" and "sign of the times".....all well known sayings that we've heard all of our lives. But where did they come from?

Would you believe the Bible?  It's true!

Here are a few others you may have heard of that originated from the good book:

• A fly in the ointment
• A house divided against itself cannot stand
• A labor of love
• A man after his own heart
• A wolf in sheep's clothing
• At one's wits' end
• By the skin of your teeth
• Can a leopard change its spots?
• In the twinkling of an eye
• My cup runneth over
• Peace offering
• Put your house in order
• Reap what you sow
• Sign of the times
• Sharp as a two-edged sword
• See eye to eye
• The ends of the earth
• The powers that be
• White as snow
• Woe is me

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What to read more? Check out Just the facts, ma'am.

2014: The Year of the Faith-Based Movie?

Movies like Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, The Avengers, X-Men, The Amazing Spider-man, The Dark Knight and The Man of Steel have been a part of the genre that’s been dominating the big screen nearly every year in recent times: the super hero.  In 2014, however, a new genre has emerged that no one saw coming: faith-based movies.

Top grossing movies for 2014 as of Aug. 1

This year, titles like Son of God, Noah, God’s Not Dead, Heaven is For Real, and the upcoming Left Behind and Exodus: Gods and Kings are lighting up (or will be lighting up) the big screen.  And what perhaps is the most surprising part about all of this is that the ones already in the theaters have actually done very well. All, at one time or another, made the box office top 2 for at least one week. Noah made it to the number 1 spot, while Son of God, Heaven is For Real and God’s Not Dead peaked at number 2. The latter did so despite playing in 2,000 fewer theaters than the number 1 and 3 movies of that particular week. And, for a time in late March/early April, Noah, God’s Not Dead and Son of God were all in the top 10.  Finally, of the 391 movies domestically released and tracked in 2014 by Box Office Mojo, all four movies are in the top 31, and combined have racked in just over $313 million at the U.S. box office. So the interest in this subject is undeniably there.   

The thanks for this success goes out to the History Channel’s 2013 10-part, highly watched, mini-series “The Bible”. Evidently movie studio executives and producers saw this success and decided to take the faith-based movie genre out for a ride.

Being that I’m a "faith-based" guy, and have actually seen the four movies mentioned, I thought I’d give my take on them, being as unbiased as I can, in the order that were released.

Son of God (released February 28, 2014)

This 138 minute take on the life of Jesus was predominantly a rehashing of parts 6-10 of “The Bible” miniseries, with new footage spread throughout.  In essence, if you saw the miniseries, you already saw The Son of God.  Not quite sure why husband and wife creators/producers Mark Burnett and Roma Downey decided to even do this, except maybe to give people who don’t have cable TV (and thus unable to get the History Channel) a chance at watching the story.  And if that’s the case, then that’s great. 

The movie itself was good and pretty accurate scripturally. Not sure Jesus in reality was as good looking as the actor Diogo Morgado who portrayed him was (“….he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.” – Isaiah 53:2), but Morgado did a good job.

I do have one small gripe about the release of the movie on DVD.  I would think, and hope, that the main objective of the makers of a movie like this would be to get it into the hands of as many people as they could as soon as possible in order to share the story of Jesus. However, the movie was made available on Red Box a month after its release on DVD. This is typically done to give the movie a few weeks to make money on DVD and On Demand sales before being made available for a $1.20 rental. Although not an uncommon practice, I was really disappointed when that happened with this movie (this did not happen with God’s Not Dead or Heaven is For Real).  I know making money is the top priority for movie studios, but I would have hoped Burnett and Downey would have fought hard to prevent this from happening.  And maybe they did.  Again, this is an important story, and getting it in the hands of as many people as possible as soon as possible should have been a priority.

God’s Not Dead (released March 19, 2014)

I have to admit, when I first saw the title of this movie, I didn’t quite understand why it was chosen.  The company that created it, Christian-based Pureflix, produces virtually nothing but Christian movies, and quite a lot of them. Most don’t make it to the big screen, but this one did.  Some of their movies tend to be aimed more at Christians than non-Christians, so choosing the title “God’s Not Dead’, led me to believe this move was no different.  If you were a non-believer or seeker, would that title make you want to see this movie?

I was pleasantly wrong.

Although far from perfect, God’s Not Dead offers encouragement for believers and something to think about for non-believers via the various subjects and story lines throughout the movie.  Some are definitely better and more feasible than others, but the filmmakers do a nice job tying them all together at the end.  The best story line to me, by far, was the primary one in which a college student refuses his Professor’s request for the class to write and sign a piece of paper stating “God is Dead”. Doing so would allow the students to skip the toughest subject in the class. By refusing, the teacher instructs the student to prove that “God is alive” during the next four class sessions.  How the student does so is fascinating and very well written. Good knowledge for everyone.

I did have a couple of minor issues though. I was a bit surprised that only one student out of 80 in the classroom had the nerve to refuse their professor’s request. But it’s possible. A couple of characters went from passionate unbelievers to believers a bit quicker and easier than one would expect. But again, it’s certainly possible. The professor claimed to be an atheist, yet he asked his students to write “God is Dead”.  Saying that God is dead implies that God was once was alive. That doesn't sound like an atheist to me. That actually would have been one of my first questions for the professor. But as the movie progressed and we learned more about him, we understand why that was the case.

Anyhow, my issues were pretty trivial as far as the big picture goes.  The film effectively depicts the different levels of peoples religious beliefs or unbeliefs, from the atheist, to the seeker, to the ignorant, to the closest Christian.  Two characters accepted Jesus as they faced death, while others because they simply made a choice to believe. Others are given the chance but refuse it.  As a bonus, the Christian rock group “The Newsboys” make a cameo in one of my favorite scenes in the movie. Plus they sing the title song.  And the “Duck Dynasty” folks even make an appearance in a memorable scene with a reporter.

This was my favorite of the four, and worth a look.  Just keep an open mind if you do!

Noah (released March 26, 2014)

When director Darren Aronofsky stated that Noah was “the least Biblical film ever made”, we knew his version of the story of the Ark would be an interesting one. And he didn't disappoint. I wrote a full review of it back in April, and you can read it here if you’re interested:  http://drummerjeff.blogspot.com/2014/03/noahs-struggle-to-stay-afloat.html.

Heaven is For Real (released April 16, 2014)

Originally a book, Heaven is For Real unfortunately succumbs to the far too often reality of falling short as a movie. I read the book over a year ago and thoroughly enjoyed it.  So when a movie version was announced, I was cautiously optimistic (although I vowed never to be again after reading and watching “The Firm” some 20 years ago!) In case you don’t know, the book and movie are based on a true story of a four year old boy named Colton Burpo who is visited by Jesus and angels while experiencing Heaven during a life-threatening appendicitis surgery back in 2003.  In the days, weeks and months after the surgery, he reveals things he was never told and, according to his parents, couldn’t possibly have known. 

 

His father, Todd Burpo, a Pastor of a church in a small town in Nebraska, spends much of the time trying to understand and comprehend what his son is revealing. In the book, he does so via his strong faith and a supportive congregation. In fact, Burpo is constantly saying how Colton’s claims reminded him of one Bible passage or another. In the film, however, there are very few Bible references, his faith wavers, he consults non-Christian (and in one case, atheistic) council, and his church board members threaten to remove him from their church. None of which was in the book. And that, my friends, is what happens when corporate Hollywood decides to take Christian content and reshape it for a secular audience. They are so afraid that if the content is too “religious”, no matter how good the content is, the film won’t attract a large audience.  It’s all about making money, which is sad.  The makers of Noah did the same thing to an extent.

Unfortunately, the “secularization” that was done to the Heaven is Real story was so blatant that it really affected the original story. I won’t go into much detail, but one scene which bothered me that was changed for the movie involved what happened during Colton’s surgery. During the procedure, Todd escaped into a “small room” (actually, the pre-op room) where he “lashed out” at God for putting his son through what he's going through (among other things).  Sometime after the surgery, Colton specifically told his dad that he saw him yelling at God in a “small room”. Yowza! In the movie, Todd lashed out at God in the hospital’s chapel, with Colton later stating that he simply saw his dad lashing out at God.  Hardly an “oh wow” moment.  But the fact that Colton specifically mentioned (in the book) a small room is a pretty amazing revelation!  Unfortunately, that was lost in the movie. There were other examples, but I’ll stop there. 

So, given the choice, I’d recommend reading the book whether or not you see the movie. But definitely read it if you see it!

Left Behind (to be released October 3, 2014)

Also originally a best selling book, this is a remake of the 2000 movie of the same name starring Kirk Cameron. This version stars Nicolas Cage. Tim Lahaye, who co-authored the book, stated earlier this year after a screening of the movie that "It is the best movie I've ever seen on the rapture." That's encouraging! Anyhow, you can see a trailer for the movie here:   http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2165550105/.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (to be released December 12, 2014)

This is a retelling of the story of Moses and the "exodus" of the Jews from Egypt, as told in the Biblical book of Exodus. This rendition starts Batman, I mean Christian Bale, as Moses.  Terrific actor, so that should be interesting in itself.  The movie is directed by Ridley Scott, which could really be interesting. A trailer was recently released, and you can view it here:  http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1575529497/.

Hollywood and Godzilla: 0 for 2.....

Godzilla 2014

Although better than their feeble 1998 effort, and despite it's modest box office success, Hollywood still hasn't cracked the proverbial Godzilla nut.  Sure, this summer's version has a very entertaining final 20 minutes with Godzilla and two MUTO's (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms) going toe-to-toe in an epic battle of prehistoric radiation-induced monsters. But that alone doesn't make for a good movie.  And unfortunately for me, this battle couldn't make up for the prior 90 minutes. 

In a nutshell, the movie is about the discovery of two radioactive gigantic, nuclear hungry MUTOs (I don't even know how to describe them) who were somehow discovered underground in the Philippines in 1999. 

Simultaneously,  a U.S. scientist in Japan named Joe Brody, played by Bryan Cranston of "Breaking Bad" fame, has been monitoring recent and increasing seismic activity throughout the region.  His research shows that this activity is leading to something big, but his warnings fall on deaf ears. Once the inevitable happens, tragedy strikes him, his wife, and their young son. 

Joe and Ford Brody

Fast forward to current time, and the seismic pattern from 1999 is re-emerging in Japan. An older and more obsessed Brody, still living in Japan, tries to warn the new generation of scientists, again to no avail. Once the inevitable happens again, MUTO 1,
a flying male, and Godzilla are released from their underground prisons. We also learn that the MUTO 2, a land dwelling larger MUTO, had earlier been moved to a storage facility in Nevada, and has conveniently escaped as well. The two MUTOs are now trying to reunite in San Francisco to scope out an underground radiation source there. On the way, MUTO 1 snacks on a Russian nuclear sub while making a seemingly unnoticed stop in Oahu. In the meantime, a resurrected Godzilla is on the tail of both of them. Rather than destroy the two MUTOs, the U.S. Military decides it would be best to let Godzilla take care of it.  

At the same time, Brody's son Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), now in his 20's, a recent returnee from a tour of duty in the Middle East and currently living in San Francisco with his wife and child, decides to fly to Japan and help is dad.

Now I know we have to extend reality a bit for these kind of movies, but there was so much that happened during all of this that simply didn't make sense. At least to me. Here are just a few things (spoiler alert!):

• How was MUTO #2 (over 200 feet tall) transported from the Philippines to Nevada? 
• How did MUTO #1 arrive in Oahu undetected? Especially with a Russian nuclear sub in tow? 
• When did the Honolulu Airport get a tram?  
• The U.S. Military for some reason was basically portrayed as being inept and bumbling. Although set in contemporary times, they had a difficulty accurately tracking these behemoths for some reason! The Japanese military of the 1950's and 1960's gave Godzilla more of a fight than the U.S Military in this movie!
• In a matter of hours, how did these two MUTO's not only mate, but produce a slew of living embryos?
• The rescue buses were using the Golden Gate Bridge to get to Oakland. Hmm... 
• Finally, we were told early on that these MUTO's were not initially destroyed because they contained so much radiation that it would endanger millions of people. Which is bad news for everyone in the bay area and maybe California after Godzilla was through with them. Major contamination! 

Despite all of this, Godzilla did look great though, albeit a bit more buffed than his predecessors. Sounded a bit like the T-Rex in Jurassic Park, but it was still a really good rendition. Didn't appear until more than half way through the movie, but I guess that's OK. But when he finally did in Oahu, the movie for some reason, and on several occasions, would abruptly switch back to Cole and his family just as Godzilla was about to confront MUTO 1. Not sure if it was for added dramatic affect, but I got frustrated with it!  I wanted to see them fight! But we were made to wait an hour and forty minutes for that to happen in a computer-generated San Francisco (no actual filming took place there).  At one point, I wasn't sure if the main story line was Godzilla vs. the MUTOs or whether or not Ford would be able to get back to San Francisco in time to reunite with his family!

Anyhow, I'm sure you can sense my frustration. Am I being nit picky? Perhaps on some things. But I'm sensing I may not be the only one. Godzilla and it's $160 million budget raked in an impressive $93 million it's first weekend in mid-May. But as of this writing almost one month later, it's box office total is $186 million, or an average of $31 million a week. Not too shabby, but that's a pretty big drop off considering it's taken nearly a month to duplicate what it did its opening weekend.  But despite all of this, I'm actually willing to give the movie another shot.  I'll rent it from Red Box for $1.20 this time though!  

I read recently that a sequel has already been announced by the studio. I have two bits of advice for the film makers the next time around:  

Godzilla circa 1964

1. Come up with another story line that has nothing to do with radiation or nuclear energy (the 1998 movie also dealt with that). Boring. 
2. As someone who grew up watching the old Japanese Godzilla movies, one of the appealing things about those movies is that the filmmakers didn't take their subject matter seriously. There was a "campiness" about those Godzilla movies.  Both Hollywood versions went heavy on the drama and suspense. Godzilla movies are supposed to be fun! Lighten it up on the sequel!
3. Bring back Monster Zero and/or Rodan!  Or maybe remake King Kong vs. Godzilla?

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give "Godzilla" a “2”.

Netflix SN #6 - PBS British TV on a Roll

During the past two years, my wife and I have really taken an interest in a slew of British TV series that have made it to American TV, specifically on the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).  Four in particular have peaked our interest:  "Downton Abbey", "Doc Martin", "Sherlock" and "Mr. Selfridge".

Past seasons for each are available on Netflix and/or Amazon Prime instant streaming.  Here's a short write up of each:

Downton Abbey

Probably the most well-known of the four, Downton Abbey just concluded it's fourth season run on PBS this month.  Although a bit vanilla compared to the first three seasons (in particular season 2, which was my favorite), Abbey still features superb writing and top notch acting.

Downton Abby is a lavish Edwardian mansion and park nestled in the North Yorkshire landscape.  The story centers around the residents there, both the family and staff. The family is led by its patrioarch, Violet Crawley, Countess of Gratham, and her son Robert Crawley, the Earl of Grantham. Robert is married to wealthy American Cora, and the two have three daughters. The staff of personal assistants, butlers and maids, and kitchen personnel are led by Charles Carson and Elsie Hughes. If you think this sounds similar to the "Upstairs, Downstairs" series from the 1970's, then you'd be correct. Same type of thing.

Season 1 takes place just before the start of World War 1, season 2 during WW1, season 3 just after WW1 ends, and season 4 in the early 1920's. Strange thing is that hardly anyone in the show ages during that time!  Regardless, the inter-goingson between and within the family and staff is entertaining to watch. Multiple, inter-twining story-lines abound, all equally intriguing. The choreography in the show is top notch. Unlike recent period piece big budget films, there is a definite feel that you're in the early 20th century. The actors/actresses look and fit right in to the era portrayed.

Doc Martin

This comedy is about one Dr. Martin Ellingham, a noted surgeon in London who suddenly and unexplainably contracts a phobia for blood. As a result, he decides to give up his successful practice and accept a position as a general practitioner in the small fictional seaside village of Port Wenn, England, where everyone knows everyone. The series follows the socially challenged Dr. Martin as he interacts with the friendly, and sometimes odd, villagers, while following in love with one of them, school teacher Louisa Glasson.

"Doc Martin" first premiered as a series in 2004, and just concluded it's sixth season earlier this year (on US television).  "Wait a minute, that was 10 years ago. How can it only be in its sixth season?" you ask?  The series actually ran annually it's first three seasons, then every other year after that. So season seven, if there is one, won't be broadcast until 2016.

In another interesting twist, the Doc Martin character actually began as two made-for-TV BBC movies in Britain beginning in 2001. That Doc Martin, although portrayed by the same actor (Martin Clunes), was the complete opposite of the one in the 2004 series. The original Doc Martin was funny and easy going.  However, when a British TV studio bought the rights to the show, they decided that Doc Martin would be more entertaining if he had a ruff, abrupt and intolerant personality with lack of bedside manners. And in a way, they were right. But it is fun watching both versions of Doc Martin, which you can do on Netflix and Amazon instant streaming. Then decide for yourself!

Like Downton Abby, the writing and acting is superb. In addition to Clunes' Doc Martin, the characters of Glasson, Bert Large, PC Penhale, and Mrs. Tishell are worth watching out for.

Sherlock

“Sherlock” is a modern day re-telling of A. Conan Doyle’s classic “Sherlock Holmes”.  Many of Doyle’s original stores are re-created in modern England.  Holmes’ trademark cap and crummy violin playing still exist; but gone is the trademark pipe, and his well-documented drug addiction has been replaced by a cigarette chain smoking vice. 

Portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch (most recently Khan in “Star Trek into Darkness”), this Holmes has all of the brains and wit of Basil Rathbone’s original Sherlock Holmes of the 1940’s, and the spunk of Robert Downey Jr.’s most recent portrayal.  Although he can hold his own, Cumberbatch’s Holmes isn’t quite the martial arts expect of Downey Jr.’s character (which never made sense to me).  One prize Cumberbatch can claim over his predecessors though is that of fastest talker.  When he’s trying to sort out a situation in his mind, Cumberbatch goes in into ultra-fast speaking mode. It’s so fast that I sometimes have to turn on the closed captioning just to figure out what he’s saying!  And frequently the closed-captioning can’t even keep up with him!

Of course Sherlock Holmes wouldn’t be Sherlock Holmes without his sidekick, Dr. John Watson.  In this rendition, Watson is portrayed by current "Hobbit" Martin Freeman.  Freeman is quite good, actually, and is someone I particularly enjoyed in the UK’s original “The Office” show with Ricky Gervais some 10 years back.  He and Cumberbatch are a good pairing and work very well together.

Lestrade, Moriarty, Irene Adler, and the Hounds of Baskerville are all here. Andrew Scott in particular plays a very creepy, psychotic Moriarty.  In fact he won a BAFTA (British equivalent to the Emmy’s) for his portrayal. Sherlock Holmes’ mysterious brother, Mycroft Holmes, plays a big role in this rendition. We're never quite sure whose side he’s on. In an interesting side note, Mycroft is played by Mark Gatiss, a co-creator of the show and one of its head writers.  Speaking of the writing, some of the storylines are quite addicting and well-told. Lots of mystery and crime solving to be had.

Like “Doc Martin”, “Sherlock” is on an every other year schedule, with season 3 having just ended in February. Thus, 2016 will be the next appearance of Holmes and Watson. Just as well if you haven’t watched any episodes yet.  The season ending cliff-hangers after the first two seasons left viewers hanging with a lot of unanswered questions and quite a bit of mystery.  Making viewers wait two years to find out what happened really bordered on cruelty!  The creators of “Sherlock” also elected to create three 90 minute “mini-movies” each season rather than the typical 8-10 30 or 60 minute episodes.

Mr. Selfridge

“Mr. Selfridge” is the newest of the shows, and is based on the real life Harry Selfridge, an American entrepreneur who sought to build London’s largest department store in the early 20th century.  The first season of the series, which began in 2013, focused on the birth of the store in 1909 and its first year of existence.  Season 2 just started in late March and is set some four years later beginning with the 5th year celebration of the store’s opening and a looming World War I.

Selfridge is well portrayed by Emmy award winner Jeremy Piven (“Entourage”), even though he is a good ten years younger than what the real Selfridge was. The supporting cast is just as solid.  Like “Downton Abbey”, the writers/makers of the series did a great job replicating the look and feel of early 20th century England (hmm, I wonder if the Downton Abbey folks shopped at Selfridges?).  Because there isn’t a whole lot of drama to be had in a department store, “Selfridge” relies heavily on the many relationships that develop throughout the show. This includes Selfridge himself, whose father issues, infidelity and resulting unstable marriage is one of the primary subplots to the main story. There are lots of love interests and love triangles featuring many of the principles of the show, which, as a result, gives this series more of a soap opera feel.  Still entertaining though, mainly for a couple of reasons.

First, Selfridge in reality was quite a visionary and trendsetter when it came to how a department store was set up and run. For example, in 1909 the most common mode of transportation was still horse and buggy.  This meant the streets of London were not the cleanest, if you know what I mean.  To eliminate the “odor” this problem caused, Selfridge decided to set up perfume and cosmetics at the front of the store, something actually frowned upon at that time, so the store would smell good when anyone entered.  This was just one of the many of Selfridge innovations that is portrayed in the show.

The second is that the writers of the show decided to have actual well-known personalities of the time visit the store.  This included the likes of the King of England, A. Conan Doyle, rival (and friend) Frank Woolworth, explorer Ernest Shackleton, and Russian ballerina Anna Pavolva. This was a particularly nice touch, I thought. Overall this is good viewing, although it did take a few episodes for both Piven and the show to grow on us.


So there you have it. Four currently active British shows definitely worth checking out. All are part of the PBS Masterpiece Classics or Masterpiece Mystery series on your local PBS station. Past seasons (except for the latest) for all are available on either Netflix Instant view or Amazon Prime.  Since the latest seasons are still relatively recent, they are currently available for a small price.  Won’t be long before they are free as well though.

“Mr. Selfridge” is currently running on PBS Sunday nights, while “Downton Abbey” will be back in January, 2015, “Sherlock” in January 2016, and Doc Martin in February 2016.  Which provides lots of time to catch up!

"Noah" Struggles to Stay Afloat

Anyone who's been reading my blog for the past few months can pretty easily surmise that I'm a Christian. No surprise there. Being as such, I could easily trash Darren Aronofsky's interpretation of the story of Noah in the his new movie of the same name. But I'm not. Are there inconsistencies in it with what the Bible says in Genesis chapters 5-9? Sure, plenty of them. Here are just a few (spoiler alert below!):

• The "Watcher" angel-turned-rock creatures didn't exist and were added.
• Noah's sons, Shem, Japeth and Ham were much older than portrayed in the movie (Shem, the oldest was 100 when the flood occurred). Noah himself was 600 years old.
• Ham was Noah's youngest son, not Japeth.
• Although Tubal-Cain's name is mentioned in the book of Genesis, there is no further elaboration on him, thus there is no indication he led a revolt to get on the ark.
• All three sons had wives with them on the ark. Thus, there were eight people on the ark, not six (or seven, if you include Tubal-Cain).
• Shem had five sons and no daughters. He had twin daughters in the movie.
• As a result, the story line in the movie about Noah's family rescuing an infant girl and the two twin daughters she later had with Shem were added. And:
• The story line about Ham's failed attempt to bring a girl on the ark with him, and thus his blaming Noah and his eventual hatred for him was added.
• The entire story line about the Tubal-Cain character being a stowaway on the ark was added.
• There is no indication that Ham left the family upon arriving on land following the flood.
• God is basically portrayed as an impersonal, distant enmity, where in reality He spoke directly to Noah (and many other people throughout the Bible) several times, but this was never shown. The only "communication" he had with God was via a drug-induced hallucination.
• Following one of these hallucinations, Noah believed that God wanted to eliminate all humanity forever, and that his only role was to transport the animals in the ark to a post-flood "new world", and he and his family would then die a natural death, and humanity would be no more (which explains why Noah didn't want any 'pro-creating' women on the ark).  However, according to the Bible, God made it very clear to Noah before the ark was built that "Everything that is on the earth shall die. But I will establish my covenant with you", clearly indicating that He was going to use Noah and his family to re-establish the human race.
• Noah's story about the six day creation that he told his kids was a little out of order.
• The beginning of this story, which stated "In the beginning there was nothing" isn't quite right. What actually is said is "The earth was without form and void" (i.e. the earth existed, but was without form and void).

Darren Aronosky

So you get the point. This film is not a word-for-word interpretation of the Bible.  And Aronosky made it very clear from the get-go that it wasn't going to be. And he further proved it by not using the word "God" in the movie.  All such references were to "the Creator".  But in reality, the people of that day could have referred to God as "the Creator", as the word "God" didn't appear in text until Moses wrote the book of Genesis some years later.  Who knows for sure though. I'm hoping that was Aronosky's reasoning, and not that he was trying to make a point. It would really be unfortunate if he was. Regardless, I went into the movie fully prepared for all of this.  And believe it or not, I actually enjoyed a fair amount of it, and did take away some positive things.

Most notably:

• The importance of repentance:  the "Watchers", were returned to Heaven only after repenting to God (the Creator) that what they did earlier to doom them as rock creatures was wrong.
• The Tubal-Cain character shows, as does much of scripture, that it takes more than believing in God in your head to be redeemed. You must believe it in your heart. Tubal-Cain believed that "the Creator" existed, but not in his heart like Noah did. Thus he was doomed and Noah, because of his faith, was blessed.

The movie itself was a pretty wild visual.  After the first few seconds, I thought I was watching one of the "Lord of the Rings" movies.  Same look and feel.  The effects were decent, particularly the ark and flood sequences. The "Watchers" could have been made better though. Kind of cartoonish. I snickered when I first saw them, as they reminded me of Walter Brennan from the old John Wayne movies, who was frequently seen hobbling around. For the most part, the film did a pretty good job of representing the evil state humanity was in at the time, a state that convinced God to eliminate them via the flood. Ironically enough, the Bible says nothing about scores of villagers (or anyone) trying to hijack the ark as the rains began and water rose.  But it wouldn't be a stretch to think that could have actually happened.

Everything in the film that happened pre-flood I actually enjoyed for the most part. What really was a stretch to me was everything that happened on the ark post-flood.  Not to give too much away, but the whole story involving Tubal-Cain, Ham and Noah was really hard to fathom. It was obvious what Aronosky was doing though:  recreating both the Garden of Eden temptation and Cain/Abel murder scenes, with different results occurring this time. The Bible describes nothing that went on in the ark while at sea, but Aronosky's version of what might have is really out there.  Same with the other ship board story involving Shem, Ila, and their twins, and Noah's obsession to be faithful.

One final comment I had was about the ending. As the movie closed, Noah's current family consisted of himself, his wife, his sons Shem and Japeth, Shem's "mate" Ila, and their infant twin girls. Noah's other son Ham was long gone. Noah announced to the family to go and "'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth". It wasn't clear however, if it was Noah telling that, or if God had told Noah to tell them that (it was God in the Bible). Regardless, I left wondering, how are they going to do that?  I could see Shem and Ila participating, but what about Japeth?  Did he wait until the two infants grew up?  Not sure what the protocol for cousins hooking up during that time was.  Ham was off by himself in a female-less country. Would he return and hitch up with the other twin?  It would have been a lot easier, and more feasible, if Aronosky would have stuck to the Biblical story line of all three sons having wives. Maybe he thought that would have been too boring!

The acting was pretty strong. Russell Crowe was very good, and Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah and Logan Lerman as Ham particularly stood out to me. Ray Winston was pretty menacing as Tubal-Cain.

In conclusion, the most important thing the movie is doing is stirring up conversation, which is a good opportunity for Christians and non-Christians to share something in common.  There hasn't been a Biblical-based movie made that hasn't suffered from some sort of Biblical inaccuracy. That includes the grand daddy of all Biblical epics, Cecil B. DeMille's 1956 "Ten Commandments". The ultimate hope, however, is that people who see these movies not familiar with the stories are intrigued enough to pick up a Bible and read them for themselves. That's my hope at least. As a result, I definitely encourage you to read the book of Genesis, or at least chapters 5-9, before or after you see "Noah"  Or read the book of Exodus before watching the "Ten Commandments again, for that matter!

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a “3” if you read the verses, a 2 if you don't!

Monument Men Story Quite Amazing....

If nothing else, 2013 was the year of the "true event" movie.  Five of the nine movies nominated for an Oscar this year were based or inspired (some more loosely then others) on a real life incident ("American Hustle", "Captain Philips", "Dallas Buyers Club", "12 Years a Slave", and "Wolf of Wall Street").  "Lee Daniels The Butler" and "Saving Mr. Banks" were two others that did very well.  The trend continues into 2014, as another such movie recently premiered that is just as good as the ones above: "The Monuments Men".

The Monuments Men is the amazing "true story of the greatest treasure hunt in history", and focuses on an unlikely World War II platoon, tasked by President Franklin D. Roosevelt with going into Germany to rescue artistic masterpieces from Nazi thieves and returning them to their rightful owners. Not your typical platoon either, as the self-proclaimed "Monuments Men" (MM) consisted of museum directors, curators, and art historians rather than soldiers and fighters.

If being in constant, imminent danger wasn't enough for these military amateurs, the MM found themselves in a race against time to avoid the destruction of 1,000 years of culture, as the German army were under orders to destroy everything captured if anything happened to Adolph Hitler. 

Directed (and starring) George Clooney, MM was a well told, entertaining story of an event I personally knew nothing about.  But after watching it, I really admired what these people put on the line and the risks they took to achieve their goal, which, for the most part, was successful.  But not without a cost (you'll have to watch the movie to see what that is). The ironic thing is that much of the Monument Mens success wouldn't have been possible without the help of a woman. 

The character Claire Simone (played nicely by Cate Blanchett) is based on Rose Valland, the real life curator of the Jeu De Paume museum in Paris, France. Valland was left behind after much of the museum's art was captured during the Nazi occupation. She kept track of all works of art that came through the museum recording where they came from and where they went after they left the museum.  After approaching and convincing her, she ultimately provided this valuable information to the MM, who were then able to retrieve most of it.

Monument Men (and Woman) from top, l-r: Clooney, Damon,
Murray, Goodman, Dujardin, Balaban, Bonneville and Blanchett

The rest of the MM platoon includes Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin, Hugh Bonneville, Bob Balaban, and Dimitri Leonidas. Leonidas, by the way, although the lesser known actor of the group, actually played one of the more important roles in the film as a German-speaking bi-lingual American used to spy on unknowing captive German soldiers.  Much valuable information was gathered by this character's eavesdropping.

Of the core group of actors, I particularly enjoyed Dujardin (2012 Best Actor winner for "The Artist") and Balaban's portrayals of their characters. All were good though, and the story quite amazing. It was hard for me to believe it actually happened, and that this group (there were actually more than eight Monuments Men in reality) were able to achieve as much as they did with such great odds stacked against them. 

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a “3.5”.

Monday Morning Quarterback: NFC Championship - the Day After

Thought I'd share some thoughts of mine regarding yesterday's NFC Championship game:

* Kaepernick is definitely not a big game, seize-the-moment quarterback yet. Whenever the camera showed him up close during the 4th quarter, he looked like a little kid playing a man's sport. He looked lost and showed no intensity at all. He's still young....hopefully he learned something.

* The 49ers inability to play a complete game finally caught up to them. Ever since the final game of the regular season against Arizona, the 49ers have been unable to put together 60 minutes of solid football. They've been playing one great half and one mediocre one. Same thing yesterday. Got them this time.

* As I feared, the difference in talent between the "real" NFL Officials and the replacement Officials from last year isn't that much. The NFL really needs to step back and re-evaluate these inconsistent and mistake-prone "professionals". Their former boss even questioned their calls throughout the game yesterday. Not good.

* On a similar note, the "Unnecessary Roughness - leading with the head" penalty needs to be reviewable. Seems like at least once a game a penalty is called on a defender who is called for either leading with his head or hitting the head area of a receiver that when replayed isn't the case. This is frequently a game changing (or momentum changing) play, so head coaches need the option to request a replay. Especially when the officials tend to get it wrong so much.

* A Seattle vs Denver Super Bowl sounds weird. Like an all-AFC match up. After all of their years in the AFC battling the Raiders, I still have a hard time getting used to Seattle being in the NFC. Don't think I'll ever fully accept a 49er/Seahawk rivalry because of that. 49ers/Dallas, 49ers/Green Bay, 49ers/Giants yes....49ers/Seahawks: Nope.

* Seattle's "12th Man" theme is very juvenile. High School = Yes; College = Yes; the NFL = No. Embarrassment to the pro game. But that's me, an old time traditionalist....!