The Prince of Egpyt

Here is the finale to my two month Religious Movies Marathon, where I will review another film that you could say is a remake to Cecil B. DeMille's 1956 epic "The Ten Commandments." In 1998, DreamWorks made an animated musical version of the Exodus Chapter of the Pentateuch or Torah, called "The Prince of Egypt." I remember seeing this in the theaters back in 1998, but surprisingly people have forgotten about it over time. Why? This is actually a very good animated film, and it has become very underrated. I would consider this one of my favorite animated films. So, let's take a look at my very first animated film review: The Prince of Egypt.

In "The Prince of Egypt," they casted Val Kilmer to voice one of the most holiest men in the Bible, Moses. It's different from Heston's Moses, where he portrays Moses much like the every Man, the person who fell into his leadership as opposed to seeking it out. At first, Moses starts out in this film as more of a rambunctious, or loud, energetic young man. An internet reviewer named The Nostalgia Critic says that this Moses is like "a college student who just crashed his Dad's car." This isn't bad though because by the end it shows how far he has come in his leadership. People could say that this Moses makes him more Human because, remember, he was human as well. As opposed to Heston's performance, where he is a Superman, Kilmer's performance is more human and sympathetic.

Now in the role of Moses's brother, Rameses, they casted the man that would later go on to star in such amazing roles in "Red Dragon," and the Harry Potter series, Ralph Fiennes. Fiennes portrays Rameses as a product of his environment; a tortured soul who still loves his brother, but is also under the psychological grip of his over-bearing father, Pharaoh Seti I, voiced by Captain Picard himself, Patrick Stewart. Because of this, Fiennes plays Rameses as more tragic. You know why he is making his decisions, and how much he hates the fact that he is declaring war on his own brother. It destroys him inside, which is what Fiennes perfectly portrays here. In the part where Moses comes back and tells Fiennes that he has come back to be his enemy as opposed to his brother, it's one of the best pieces of animation that you will ever see. Sadness, anger, regret, frustration, and vengeance. According to The Nostalgia Critic, all of these emotions are portrayed in 40 seconds, which is pretty impressive. Fiennes's Rameses is more complex and sympathetic, but he can also be just as menacing as Yul Bryner portrayed Rameses in "The Ten Commandments." Fiennes makes Rameses looks like a villain right out of a Shakespeare play, which is portrayed just perfectly. They pull you into the drama by pulling you into Rameses's drama, which has to choose between family and legacy. Just about everything that you want in a character is portrayed through Fiennes.

Just like in "The Ten Commandments," this film had a large number of cast members in their line-up. A few people that I will mention are Michelle Pfeiffer voicing Tzipporah, who would later become Moses's wife, her father, Jethro, is voiced by an actor who I believe is not recognized enough, Danny Glover, Moses's siblings, Aaron, is voiced by one of the weirdest actors out there, Jeff Goldblum, and Miriam, is voiced by one of the hottest actresses who you might remember from Miss Congeniality, Sandra Bullock. Even Rameses' mother, Queen Tuya, is voiced by Helen Mirren, and Moses's biological mother, Jochebed, is voiced by Ofra Haza. Even though they have fewer cast members than "The Ten Commandments," they are given more development. Miriam and Aaron are fleshed out much more as Moses's real siblings, and Tzipporah is given more screen time as well. In this film, they meet before he actually leaves his crown. However, unlike in "The Ten Commandments," we don't see Moses's son. Rameses's servant isn't in this film either, unless Hotep and Huy as the High Priests are counted. They are voiced by two of the funniest people in show business, and really work well together in here, Steve Martin and Martin Short. They portray some of the harshness we see in "The Ten Commandments," but to The Nostalgia Critic, "they seem out of place. It's a little too gimmicky, and, for lack of a better word, cartoony." Also, Rameses's wife is left out of "The Prince of Egypt" as well, but the cast is still sympathetic.

Val Kilmer also voices God as the warm, loving God that many people have favored over the past several years. I would have to agree with The Nostalgia Critic when he says "the God in this film is a little more clever and thought out." The burning bush part looks like something out of this world, but is also more soothing and comforting. The soft, kind God that this film gives us is a much more interesting contrast, and you still feel the size and divinity when he appears. For that, the God in this film seems more like the God of love and peace than in "The Ten Commandments."

The heart of the entire story in "The Prince of Egypt" is focused on Moses and Rameses as brothers. When Moses returns to the palace, he has no idea how Rameses will react. Rameses acts like how any other brother would. The focus of the story is on their relationship, and it really works. You feel the pain both of them are going through, and how much they wish they could return back to a time to what they had. This drama makes it much more interesting. I also will agree with The Nostalgia Critic again where he says, "I also like how much more visual 'The Prince of Egypt' is." As I had mentioned that "The Ten Commandments" looks unbelievable, but "The Prince of Egypt" really used the visuals to their advantage. Not because it's animated but because they also do things differently. The part where Moses tells Tzipporah that he saw God, there is no dialogue at all. The music almost tells the story for us, we have to guess what Moses is telling Tzipporah, and her reaction of taking it all in is perfect. You really feel the emotion of this scene. Also, the part where Moses turns his staff into a snake is a bit more clever than in "The Ten Commandments." All the tricks the Priests do are portrayed through smoke and mirrors. There's a blinding light when the staffs are transformed, so you could say they switched them when nobody could see. Now that's a really clever way out. The songs as well, surprisingly, help tell the story too. Not only do they move it along, but they also show what the characters are going through, as well as enhance both the joy and suffering that everyone has to deal with. Though at time, they do seem a little sporadic or occasional. Like "The Ten Commandments," "The Prince of Egypt" does have the Soap Opera annoyance sometimes as well. There are just some moments that feel really forced. For instance, if you look at the comedy in the first half, it doesn't really feel all that natural, and the best comedic moments are the ones that added to the drama. If you look at the desperation in Goldblum's voice when stopping Miriam from telling Moses who they really are. However, I will give the bad comedy credit by help generating the "corniness of nostalgia", as The Nostalgia Critic put it. Although, you can say that nostalgia can be corny, which I have seen some pretty corny nostalgic stuff before, and it's a pleasant time that you want to return to where everything seemed simpler. It works in this film because later they are growing a great contrast to the drama.

Even though there are problems in "The Prince of Egypt," and there are elements in "The Ten Commandments" that are better, "The Prince of Egypt" just had better drama because they knew the focus had to be on Moses and Rameses, the brothers. This is where the drama and the interesting conflict comes from and takes place. They knew that was the most fascinating element, where people could mostly sympathize with. It will make you realize why the story is so good. It brings out good characters, from good writing, from a good story.

Well there you have it. This concludes my marathon on Religious films. I hope you all enjoyed them, and stay tuned for more of my film reviews coming at you. I'll see you next time.

Jinnah

Who would have thought that a movie would come out about Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of modern Pakistan? Well, it happened. In 1998, director and writer Jamil Dehlavi made the movie, "Jinnah," which was historically accurate, and another one of my favorite movies. Here is the basic synopsis:

"Biography of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, played by Christopher Lee, the founder of modern Pakistan is told through flashbacks as his soul tries to find eternal rest. The flashbacks start in 1947 as Jinnah pleads for a separate nation from the Muslim regime, infuriating Lord Mountbatten, played by James Fox. Mountbatten then tries to enlist Gandhi, played by Sam Dastor, & Nehru, played by Robert Ashby, to persuade Jinnah to stop his efforts. Gandhi sides with Jinnah, which upsets Nehru. However, Jinnah turns down the offer to become prime minister and the film takes another slide back to 1916, which reveals all of the political implications that have occurred" (IMDB).

Now, in the movie, Jinnah falls in love with Rattanbai ('Ruttie') Jinnah (who would go by the name Maryam, even though she never used that name), played by Indira Varma, who is a Parsee that coverts to Islam when she turns 18. Jinnah's sister, Fatima, played by Shireen Shah, is a political activist in her own way and refuses to get married so that she can come along with Jinnah on "the long road of his destiny." This journey is very painstaking, as along the way, Jinnah asks an English officer, "Are we just cannon fodder?" and says that the deadly carnage he has seen of hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen in the name of independence: "I died a million deaths myself."

"Jinnah" goes away from the straight and narrow path by having The Narrator, played by Bollywood actor Shashi Kapoor, trying to get into a computer that has all of the data stored from the future, while traveling alongside Jinnah back in time, while reminiscing on his life. With these debates between Jinnah the older statesman and Jinnah the young, ambitious, who calls himself a "soldier in the service of the birthright of Pakistan," played by Richard Lintern, lighten the conventional picture-period format. The main attraction of the movie: Christopher Lee. What was very shocking was that Lee looked exactly like Mohammed Ali Jinnah in the movie.

According to Expat, a UK reviewer for IOFILM, he has stated that "Consummately well filmed, "Jinnah" pays painstaking attention to period detail - barring, perhaps, the supernatural cleanliness of even the marauding crowds - and prides itself on its historical accuracy. Extensive research using such primary sources as Lord and Lady Mountbatten's diaries and interviews with Jinnah's private secretary and his daughter affords the political discourse a sense of authority and authenticity. Still, the spectral interventions notwithstanding, "Jinnah" reads at times like unstirring stretches of history-book speechifying - but watching it is a palatable way to learn about the people behind the birth of a nation" (IOFILM).

One part that you can easily feel the pain for Mohammad Ali Jinnah is when his daughter, Dina Wadia, played by Vaneeza Ahmed (younger Dina was played by Nafees Ahmed), who he had through his second marriage with 'Ruttie,' (Jinnah was first married to Emibai Jinnah, who also happened to be his cousin) leaves him to go marry a Christian businessman named Neville Wadia. He urged her to marry a Muslim, but she reminded him that he did not marry a woman who were Muslims, but only converted afterwards. They became estranged from one another, and she did not come to Pakistan until his funeral.

Christopher Lee himself has said, "The most important film I made, in terms of its subject and the great responsibility I had as an actor was a film I did about the founder of Pakistan, called Jinnah. It had the best reviews I've ever had in my entire career - as a film and as a performance. But ultimately it was never shown at the cinemas" (Wikipedia). Not only did he say his performance was the best he ever did, but also stressed the importance of the film. You should watch this film, because it is historically accurate about Mohammad Ali Jinnah, or also known by his title, Quaid-i-Azam (Great Leader) and Baba-i-Qaum (Father of the Nation). If you would like to know about his lifestyle, and what he went through to get Pakistan's independence, then give this film a watch. Especially since Christopher Lee does an amazing job in this film.

Anyways, tune in next week where I will do my very first blog review on an animated film that you could say is another remake to "The Ten Commandments," but geared more towards children.

Lion of the Desert

As you all may recall from last week, I had said that Syrian American film producer and director, Moustapha Akkad, made two films about Muslims. I reviewed his first one, "The Message," last week, and now for this week, I will review the second film he directed and produced, "Lion of the Desert," which came out in 1981. Here are the plot summaries that you can find on IMDB:

"In the Fascist Italy Pre-World War II of Benito Mussolini, played by Rod Steiger, the cruel General Rodolfo Graziani, played by Oliver Reed, is directly assigned by Il Dulce to fight in the colonial war in Libya to vanquish the Arab nation. However, his troops are frequently defeated by the national leader Omar Mukhtar, played by the late Anthony Quinn, and his army of Bedouins. But the Butcher of Ethiopia (Graziani) and Libya uses a dirty war against the natives, slaughtering children, women and aged people, to subdue Mukhtar. Omar Mukhtar is an Arab Muslim rebel who fought against the Italian conquest of Libya, just prior to World War II. It exposes the savage means by which the conquering army attempted to subdue the natives. Between two world wars, a struggle for freedom took place in the African desert. This movie is the historicaly accurate story about the Libyan resistance leader, Omar Mukhtar, who led the Libyan resistance against the Italian oppressors from 1911-1931. The movie takes place during the reign of Mussolini."

This film was well photographed by Jack Hildyard, which shows a never-ending series of battles in the desert. However, if you're wondering if the entire film is taken place on the battlefield, it's not. There are moments of interruption which shows the Italian planning rooms or Bedouin planning escapes. On top of that, there are montages that show the violent ways the invaders are eventually captured by the Bedouins. NY Times writer, Vincent Canby, said when he reviewed this film, "These scenes are effective in the way that all scenes showing oppressors and oppressed usually are."

Anthony Quinn, who seems to have appeared in a lot of religious films when he was alive, portrays Mukhtar well, and gets the trait down that Mukhtar hated war, but is still fighting as if he is doing Allah's duty. Canby says about Quinn, "It cannot be a coincidence that his carefully stressed beliefs in a fundamental kind of Islam evoke the image of Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, where most of the film was shot, nor that the Libyan leader sees himself as the leader of that part of the Moslem world that rejects the international policies of someone like President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt." Mukhtar was a brilliant leader, but unfortunately did not really use the resources that he had.

There are also times in the film where it shows similarities of Mukhtar's position in the Arab society and of Yasir Arafat, the chairman of Palestine Liberation Organization. An example of this is when the Italians refuse negotiations with Mukhtar because he does not represent an independent nation, like Yasir Arafat.

Canby has also said in his review, "I suspect also that the movie wouldn't be unhappy if we should equate the camps the Italians put the Bedouins into with the Palestine refugee camps in Lebanon and even the Nazi concentration camps, though there are no gas ovens in sight in the film." And why should they? This is during the second World War, a war that everyone knows everything that happened. However, this part of the World War 2 chapter is not really known by a lot of people, which they should watch and know if they would like to know something about the war that they didn't know before.

"Lion of the Desert" is a clever film, unfortunately it's probably a film that the viewer "will take what one took into it," according to Canby. Including in the cast are Raf Vallone as Diodiece, a good but "weak" Italian soldier, and John Gielgud as Sharif el-Gariani, a "bad" Bedouin who works with the enemy. Also, before I forget, besides Anthony Quinn, who was in "The Message," he is joined once again with Irene Papas as Mabrouka. Every single one of the actors in this film do a, hands down, awesome performance and really bring the history out of the film.

Well, there you have it, I have reviewed both of Akkad's films about Muslims that he directed and produced. Tune in for next week, where I review a film about a certain Pakistani leader that was responsible for making Pakistan, and is also very historically accurate.

The Message

There is one Syrian American film producer and director named Mustapha Akkad who you might remember as the Executive Producer for the Halloween Series, from the first film up until "Halloween: Resurrection." He only directed and produced two movies about Muslims, and they're just amazing. Both of them make it into my favorite films list, and I will review both of them. Let's start off with the 1976 film, "Mohammed, Messenger of God," or simply called in the U.S.A., "The Message." As always, here is the plot that you can find on Wikipedia:

"The film follows Muhammad (PBUH) starting with Islam's beginnings in Mecca in which the Muslims are persecuted for their beliefs, the exodus to Medina, and ending with the Muslims' triumphant return to Mecca. A number of crucial events, such as the Battle of Badr and Battle of Uhud are depicted, and the majority of the story is told from the point-of-view of peripheral individuals such as Hamza ibn `Abd al-Muttalib (Muhammad (PBUH)'s uncle), played by the late, and great actor Anthony Quinn, Abu Sufyan (the leader of Mecca), played by Michael Ansara, and his wife Hind bint Utbah (enemies of Islam who later become Muslims themselves), played by Irene Papas."

What is good about this movie, that unlike in Christianity (now I'm not trying to say one is better than the other or that this shouldn't be done in a Christian movie) is that you do not "ever" see a person playing the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). There is a sign, like a light organ music that makes you feel that he has arrived and you can sense his presence, but there has never been an actor who has portrayed him ever. At the beginning of the film, there is a note that says, "The makers of this film honour the Islamic tradition which holds that the impersonation of the Prophet offends against the spirituality of his message. Therefore, the person of Mohammad will not be shown." This rule carried on to his wives, his daughters, and his son-in-laws, and the first caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali). His words were repeated by someone else like Hamza, Zayd (played by Damien Thomas) and Bilal (played by Johnny Sekka). Whenever the Prophet (PBUH) entered, the film was cut to his point of view and others would nod to the unheard dialogue. The closest the film did came to depicting the Prophet (PBUH) or his immediate family are when it is viewed by Ali's famous two-pronged sword Zulfiqar during the battle scenes, a glimpse of a staff in the Kabah or Medina scenes, and the Prophet's (PBUH) camel, Qaswa.

In an interview, Akkad said, "I did the film because it is a personal thing for me. Besides its production values as a film, it has its story, its intrigue, its drama. Beside all this I think there was something personal, being Muslim myself who lived in the west I felt that it was my obligation my duty to tell the truth about Islam. It is a religion that has a 700 million following, yet it's so little known about it which surprised me. I thought I should tell the story that will bring this bridge, this gap to the west."

The New York Times, when they reviewed this film, said "when the film was scheduled to premier in the U.S., another Muslim extremist group staged a siege against the Washington D.C. chapter of the B'nai B'rith under the mistaken belief that Anthony Quinn played Mohammed in the film, threatening to blow up the building and its inhabitants unless the film's opening was cancelled. The standoff was resolved" after the deaths of a journalist and policeman, but "the film's American box office prospects never recovered from the unfortunate controversy."

Now for a little history. Don't complain, you all need to learn something. The Quaraysh was against the Prophet (PBUH) because they were in charge of the Kabah, and they said that the Prophet (PBUH) was a threat to their money and economy and was afraid they would lose everything. As a result, the Prophet (PBUH) took a Hijra, which is when he emigrated from Mecca to Medina.

In 624 was the Battle of Bahr, an attack of the Meccan caravan, and it became a battle with the Quaraysh tribe. This was the first Muslim victory.

A year later, in 625, was the Battle of Uhud, which was the first Muslim defeat, and the Prophet (PBUH) was injured in that battle.

Four years later, in 629, was the Conquest of Khaybar, this is north of Medina, and where the Jewish people had lived. In the next year, 630, was when the Kabah and Mecca were captured, and the farewell pilgrimage took place in 632 and the Prophet (PBUH) passed.

After the Prophet (PBUH) had passed away, problems had arisen with the Rashidun. This is just a touch base on what the film covers during the years of the Prophet (PBUH). You can see the movie and watch any kind of documentary that talks about this in great detail.

If you want a history over the Prophet (PBUH) that everyone in Islam follows because he is the one whose main source in his life was the Holy Book, Quran, his Hadith and Sunna, his Sira, and the Constitution of Medina, then you will be in for a really nice piece of history. Akkad really got this film down pat with the history and everything is right in the historically accurate way. Tune in next week where I review the second film that Akkad directed and produced about Islam, which is also one that you should check out.