Joseph: King of Dreams

Sensibly released during the Christmas and Hanukah exchanging of gifts, “Joseph: King of Dreams,” released in 2000, undeniably will be on the shelves forever. The first direct-to-video animated movie from DreamWorks, this is a follow-up – or, if you like to call, a prequel – to the other Bible animated masterpiece, “Prince of Egypt.” Joe Leydon stated in his review, “Unlike many similar small-screen sequels from Disney, however, “King of Dreams” has just as much cross-generational appeal as its predecessor, and doesn’t make the mistake of skewing primarily toward moppets.” In other words: This is family entertainment in the best meaning of the word, for many families will be ultimately thankful.

Leydon stated, “Fancifully embellishing Biblical narrative, “King of Dreams” takes a respectful but hardly reverential approach to dramatizing events described in the Book of Genesis. (To preempt possible criticism, pic begins by acknowledging “artistic and historic license has been taken.”)”

At the time according to screenwriters Eugenia Bostwick-Singer, Raymond Singer, Joe Stillman and Marshall Goldberg, Joseph (Ben Affleck), the favorite son of Judah (Mark Hamill) is sold into slavery by his jealous half-brothers (Tom Virtue, Steven Weber, Jeff Bennett, Jess Harnell (who also voiced Wakko from "Animaniacs") and Matt Levin), and taken from the fertile mountain of Canaan to faraway Egypt.

Sold to Potiphar (James Eckhouse), captain of the Pharaoh’s (Richard McGonagle) guard, Joseph proves to be a hard-working and capable servant. Unfortunately, Joseph also gets an eye from Zuleika, voiced by Judith Light, Potiphar’s skinny wife. When he refuses her romantic offers, she lies that results in putting him in jail. Joseph does survive – and succeed – through his truly tested belief in God, and his innate ability to interpret dreams.

Leydon said, “Although “King of Dreams” largely downplays the religious elements that loomed so large in “Prince of Egypt,” the vidpic stops far short of secularism. Indeed, the best of the songs by John Bucchino, “Better Than I” and “What Road Lies at Your Feet,” are unabashedly soaring anthems that accept and celebrate the divine. Both tunes have potential to become standards for both mainstream entertainers and Christian music performing artists.”

Directors Robert Ramirez and Rob LaDuca effortlessly combine a variety of animation styles, running the scale from Vincent Van Gogh-influenced dream scenes to computer-generated graphics in a pretentious nightmare.

Leydon credits, “Among the well-cast vocal talents, Ben Affleck makes a thoroughly persuasive and aptly compelling transition from feckless youth to wise adult as Joseph, while Jodi Benson (of “Little Mermaid” fame) hits the right notes of girlishness and seriousness as Asenath, Joseph’s eventual wife, who encourages her husband to forgive the trespasses of his half-brothers.”

Leydon goes on to say, “Chief among the extra features offered in the DVD edition of “Joseph: King of Dreams” is an “outtakes” section that will be of interest to movie buffs and animation aficionados who might wonder how pics evolve from the drawing-board stage.”

Leydon continues, “Co-directors provide storyboard illustrations and interesting commentary as they explain why they plotted, then discarded, a seriocomic depiction of the newly enslaved Joseph’s arrival in Egypt.” Ramirez and LaDuca picked a more serious way, heavily enhancing the final product of the scene that appears in the completed movie.

In the end, if you liked “Prince of Egypt,” then you should check this one out as well. I know this is a direct-to-video film, but it’s still a good one to see. It’s short, straight to the point, and actually tells the story in a quick, straightforward way. There is not filler but does add a lot of the major points that were in the Bible. Definitely see this one if you haven’t, I say it’s worth a watch.

Thank you for joining in on my second entry of “Religious Epic Month.” Stay tuned tomorrow for a review on two films that are equivalent to the James Bond series that I'm really looking forward to seeing.

Barabbas

Our next installment today is the 1962 classic, "Barabbas." What was the last thing that happened to the punished thief, Barabbas, which is stated in the Bible that he was spared from crucifixion by Pontius Pilate when he might have spared Jesus Christ? Bosley Crowther stated in his review, "That unresolved question is answered — suppositionally, at least — in a huge, turgid color film, "Barabbas," which came, appropriately, to the DeMille last night." 

Here is what happened to him, according to the film: He spend a long life in miserable slavery – and he still was put on a cross. 

Crowther stated, "During his years of cruel enslavement in a Sicilian sulphur mine, as a farm hand for a Roman consul and as a third-string gladiator in Rome, he was endlessly puzzled and troubled about the man who died in his stead." He kept trying to understand Christianity, the religion that the followers of Christ believed in, but he just couldn't understand it somehow. The rule of "love-thy-brother" was too deep for him. He still hadn't understood completely when he was crucified for having helped to set fire to Rome. 

This may feel like a strange and delicate fiction that looks like a three-hour film – and that it is, without a doubt, when you see how everything resolves. Crowther stated, "For what there is of simple beauty and possible symbolic point in "Pär Lagerkvist's haunting fable, upon which the film is based, either has been missed or is undeveloped in the uncertain script of Christopher Fry, and the spiritual subtlety of it has been buried under 10 tons of spectacle." 

Crowther goes on to say, "Now the man Barabbas, as played by Anthony Quinn, is but a great brute of a fellow who falls into and endures a succession of melodramatic adventures that are the raptures of a spectaclemaker's dreams." When he is captured in a fight with Roman soldiers (which is after he has seen Christ crucified, the evidence of the Resurrection and a girl, played by Silvana Mangano, stoned to death for worshipping Him), he is slaved in a mind, where the labor is long and tiring. Barabbas goes through this exile with amazing pain. 

Then, after the mine has exploded and he has come out with a friend, played by Vittorio Gassman, with much difficulty, he goes through another painful set of years as a draft horse on a field. Finally, enlisted as a gladiator, he goes through an entire period of training and fighting in the arena with thousands of participants or audience members. 

Anthony Quinn is an amazingly believable. He grunts and sweats and struggles with more believable vengeance and effort than any actor we could think of. And the difficult stuff is horrifying. The explosion of the mind and the gladiatorial fights are as bloody as we think of. The producer, Dino De Laurentiis, who made this film in Italy, did not waste expanse to match it, as much, with "Spartacus" and "Ben-Hur." Also, Richard Fleischer, the director, has, as Crowther states, "dipped a bit from those wells." 

However, there is no personal drama. Barabbas is just a huge fool, and no one else is really developed to give much interest or sympathy. Gassman as the mind friend and an early Christian does great in his role. Crowther said, "He makes a handsome suffering zealot, but he gets dumped like everyone else." Among those are Arthur Kennedy as Pontius Pilate, Mangano as the worship girl, Harry Andrews as the Apostle Peter and Jack Palance as a gladiatorial champ. 

Even before the intermission, interest and point are not in here. What's here is a long and massive flounder in a great deal of blood, sweat and pain. 

Despite all of this, "Barabbas" is a good epic to check out. This is a believable movie about a man who did not understand Christianity, as there must be a lot of people today that don't completely grasp it. If you have seen any of the others I have reviewed, don't miss this one. 

Stay tuned next week to see what I review to end "Religious Epic Month."

Ben-Hur

Next up in “Religious Epic Month” is the 1959 classic, “Ben-Hur.” This film won 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture after it came out. William Wyler directed this epic production with 350 speaking roles and over 50,000 extras. Frederic and MaryAnn Brussat said this in their review, “The long-awaited DVD contains the following special features: commentary by Charlton Heston; the new digitally remastered picture and final soundtrack; screen tests of the cast; the addition of the seldom-heard Overture and Entr'acte music by Miklos Rozsa; a behind-the-scenes documentary, Ben-Hur: The Making of an Epic; the original theatrical trailer; and an on-the-set-photo gallery featuring Wyler, producer Sam Zimbalist, cameraman Robert Surtees, and others.”

The film is told by events in the life of Christ starting with his birth in a stable where the three kings give their gifts and end with a marvelous healing after the crucifixion. The main theme of “Ben-Hur” is forgiveness. Brussat mentioned, “Henri J. M. Nouwen has written: "The only people we can really change are ourselves. Forgiving others is first and foremost to healing our hearts."” That’s true, but with a long process and a painful journey can be when a vengeful person has turned to stone!

Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is an affluent prince in Jerusalem when his childhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd) returns as second-in-command with the Roman army in Palestine. This determined young man is a passionate believer in the Emperor and wants to make an impact on him by restoring law and order to the country. When Ben-Hur refuses to give him the names of Jews against the Roman rule, Messala ends the friendship.

When an accident happens during the welcome parade for the new governor, played by Mino Doro, Messala blames Ben-Hur and imprisons him into slavery. His mother (Martha Scott) and sister (Cathy O’Donnell) are placed in a dungeon. His loyal warden (Sam Jaffe) is beaten while his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet), waits for her master to come back.

While walking through the desert, Ben-Hur and the other slaves reach Nazareth. There a nice and compassionate man gives the dehydrated Ben-Hur a cup of water that energizes his body and restores his soul. During his three years as an oarsman on Roman Ships, Ben-Hur’s want for revenge is what keeps him alive. After rescuing the captain, played by Jack Hawkins, of the ship, Ben-Hur is taken to Rome where he is a successful as a chariot racer. Tiberius, played by George Relph, adopts Ben-Hur as his son, but he decides to return to Jerusalem where he is reunited with Esther. Ben-Hur and Messala face off against one another in a thrilling chariot race in front of the Jewish people in games hosted by Pontius Pilate, played by Frank Thring. Afterwards, he returns the kindness of Jesus of Nazareth, played by Claude Heater, by offering him a cup of water as he is carrying the cross to Golgotha.

“Ben-Hur” is famous for its shows but it is most inspiring in the small moments. The harsh treatment of Jesus is really helpful – we never see his face. Perhaps the most believable scene is when we look over Jesus’ shoulder to the look on the face of a Roman soldier at the well in Nazareth – the man just steps back from his godly presence. Near the end of the film, Jesus being taken to the cross gives a powerful cure to Esther and everyone, and Ben-Hur’s vengeful heart begins to change.

Bear in mind: this film is really long. If you can sit through an over three hour movie, that’s actually a job well done. However, if you watch it in parts, like I did because I was exercising, then that is probably better. People might say this is boring and the chariot race is the only worth watching scene, but that’s wrong. You should see the whole movie.

Look out next week when we look at the next epic in “Religious Epic Month.”

Demetrius and the Gladiators

In "Demetrius and the Gladiators," released in 1954, which Twentieth Century-Fox has made in Cinema Scope and color as a sequel to its film version of "The Robe," Bosley Crowther said in his review, "the boys out on Pico Boulevard have cast off the wraps, as it were, and got right down to the business of making a good old-fashioned Roman circus film." 

The conflict of Christian faith versus pagan ruling, which was really the issue for discussion in most of the two hours of "The Robe," as Crowther states, "underlies the dramatic action in this sequel at the Roxy, to be sure, but the conflict between the two forces is expressed in more direct and muscular terms." 

Now the focus of Demetrius, "The Robe's" freed Christian slave, who – along with Caligula and Peter – is the only recurring character in this film, is, as Crowther said, "not of such paralyzing gravity that it keeps him from wading in, when occasion demands, and knocking tigers and gladiators all over the place. Nor is his spirituality so unswerving that he doesn't backslide just a bit when the young wife of Claudius vamps him and hauls him off to a villa by the sea." 

In all honesty, you have to credit Producer Frank Ross and Philip Dunne, the writer who made this film out of everything instead of "The Robe." It looks like they understood that religion may make people go to church, but it has to be more besides the action to get them in the seats. 

Crowther said, "And so they have millinered this saga along straight Cecil B. Devotional lines, which means stitching on equal cuttings of spectacle, action, sex and reverence." They have got Demetrius, reprised by Victor Mature, as a prisoner of the Romans and a selectee at the gladiator school. Crowther described, "This place, which has a strong resemblance to the training camp of the Chicago Bears, is presided over (of all people!) by the fellow who played Fatso in "From Here to Eternity."" It doesn't take long before Demetrius is not only taking abuse but also finding good reasons to do so, gracefully. 

At the same time, his holy resistance to Susan Hayward, who plays the wife of Barry Jones' stumbling Claudius, breaks eventually before the hissing passion of Hayward and a few jabs of circumstance. That's not until Michael Rennie, as Peter, arrives like an accountant and tells him that he needs to get himself together. 

Crowther said, "Meanwhile, Mr. Ross, Mr. Dunne and Director Delmer Daves have dropped in a vast lot of slamming and banging of gladiators, dancing by gauzy handmaidens, rolling around on the floor by assorted female entertainers and general raising of hob." Here and there, Jay Robinson, who didn't get tired of playing the role of Caligula, the evil emperor in "The Robe," makes the gracious effort to finish what he started in the same role. If we never see him again, we will not be sad. 

The description says that the film starts were "The Robe" left off. It does – and they've included a part of the Crucifixion part from the previous movie as a type of dream. Crowther said, "But that is the sum and substance of it." This one is not more like "The Robe," than either of them is like nature or Roman history. 

If you saw "The Robe" and you loved it, then definitely check this one out. It's actually a good sequel, which got more praise than "The Robe." If you find it, give it a watch, but make sure you have seen "The Robe" first. 

Look out next week for the next installment in "Religious Epic Month." 

The Robe

For this entire month, I will be looking at other religious epics that I have recently finished watching. Let’s kick things off with the 1953 classic, “The Robe.”

This is not hard to grasp. The adaptation that Gina Kaus made from the late Lloyd C. Douglas’ best-selling novel and the screenplay that Philip Dunne has made have emphasized physical action more than the drama of feelings and words. The power of Christ’s presence and spirit on a Roman tribune’s slave and, eventually, on the tribune is not done in clear view. It is just made as a guess on the events that follow. The consequence is that the inspiration of Christ’s spirit, which is the essential part of this story, is just through a process of elimination from the powerful music and the expressions in eyes.

Bosley Crowther stated in his review, “And when these eyes appear in faces that often loom upon the screen in close-ups of mammoth proportions, and when the music surges and swells from magnified multiple speakers that make up the system's stereophonic sound, the violent assault upon the senses dissipates spiritual intimacy.”

Likewise, the slow pace in many of the major scenes and the details of the story, which has the movie last more than two hours, makes to affect the heavy senses with a feeling of honest boredom.

Crowther mentioned, “However, the vastness of the images upon the sixty-eight by twenty-four-foot screen, the eye-filling vigor of the action and the beauty of some of the shots compensate with fascinations and excitements that keep the customer upright in his chair.” The performances by the actors are – from everything – remarkably done well.

Crowther noted, “Richard Burton, the young English actor who distinguished himself previously in Twentieth Century Fox "My Cousin Rachel," is stalwart, spirited and stern as the arrogant Roman tribune who has command of the crucifixion of Christ and who eventually becomes a passionate convert through an obsession about the Savior's robe.” Jean Simmons is likable and passionate as the Roman maid who loves this daring man, Victor Mature is well-build and mercurial as the early converted Greek slave.

Michael Rennie is serious and excellent as Simon Called Peter, who they call “the big fisherman.” Dean Jagger is full of faithfulness as a nice convert and Jay Robinson is twisted and harsh as Caligula. Sever other actors are in here in minor roles depending on the situations that Director Henry Koster had viewed.

It is necessary that Christ is look on as a wide-robed person on a faraway mountain and a tortured, blurry victim hung on the heavy Cross. In this regard the movie has pride and limitation.

All of this said, I know that the movie wasn’t well-received by critics, but I thought this was a powerful religious epic that everybody should see. Don’t listen to the bad reviews, just see it for yourselves to find out. Let me tell you, I think this is worth it.

Check in next week when I look at the sequel to this movie in “Religious Epic Month.”

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.