Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

 

<Yeah, maybe Hibi, but I have to say that I disagree with some of the opinions that have been expressed in this thread about the special effects being "dated". I think they still actually hold up pretty darn well, overall.>

 

 

I agree 100%, Dargo. We can be a club of TWO and I'll consider myself in most excellent company.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}I wound up watching part of the BIG 10 Sat night (nothing else was on). Boring in parts, but entertaining in others. (WHO wrote that dialogue???) *Does anyone ever notice when the Sea falls back again. The chariots and Egyptians are just standing around and not advancing on the Hebrews???? Why are they just waiting around for the water to fall on them??*

Okay, all 72 hours of the film are available on youtube and I finally tracked down the sequence sos I could check it out.

 

I dunno, I don't think it's as glaringly obvious as you do, I can see what you mean, but- I dunno, it doesn't really bug me...or at least not as much as the fact that the horses kick up a lot of *dust* when crossing the path *where the sea was moments ago*...or Yul Brynner's horribly hammy reaction shot when the sea closes on the troops...or the fact that the Hebrews apparently travelled with a gaggle of free-range ducks as part of their entourage.

 

 

Seriously, nothing undercuts the drama/tension of a scene like a bunch of quacking ducks- who seem slightly confused about the whole undertaking (which is perfectly understandable.)

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Apr 1, 2013 8:26 PM

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Apr 1, 2013 8:32 PM

came up with better title for post in the shower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

{font:arial, helvetica, sans-serif}*Yul Brynner's horribly hammy reaction shot when the sea closes on the troops...*

 

A "horribly hammy reaction shot" to one viewer is great DeMillian drama to this one. I've always thought that Brynner's performance was the best in this film. Sometimes Heston's Moses is just too stilted and booming voice grand for my preference.

 

Somewhere I heard Heston comment that he thought Brynner was the best actor in the film. Spot on, Chuck! {font}

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

this is the last quarter of the film on youtube. Skip ahead to 59:00 into it to see the whole sequence (there is a seperate clip of just the parting of the Red Sea, but it doesn't feature the closing.)

 

ps- I think the special effects are pretty damn good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, you know what: I just re-watched the scene, and yes: you do make a good point. That first shot of the sea closing is marred by the fact that the Egyptians are just sort of hanging around.

 

Blame it on DeMille's advancing age or the second unit director or the visual effects guys or the fact that the scene was such a *massive* undertaking, it's easy to see how some i's and t's missed the dots and crosses.

 

ps- the dry, dusty sea floor bothers me more though.

 

pss- the animated film The Prince of Egypt did a great job with the sequence. I still recall the shot of the shark gliding along the wall of the parted sea.

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Apr 1, 2013 8:47 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh sure, Brynner was a wonderful actor and he's good (as I recall) in the rest of the film, but his reaction shot esp- *body language* (which I'm sure was dictated entirely by DeMille) is the stuff of silent film/stage theatrics.

 

I understand why DeMille wanted it that way, it would've been right thirty years earlier, but it's not right here.

 

(to me at least)

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Apr 1, 2013 8:45 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Addison, after just seeing a scene in which the Red Sea has opened up and then swallowed all of Ramese's troops, I have no problem viewing a few theatrical dramatics by Yul Brynner in reaction to that moment. In fact, it seems very appropriate. To me, at least. (You know DeMille wouldn't have had it any other way).

 

In any event, while I wouldn't call myself a fan of Yul Brynner (too many mediocre films didn't help), I have always enjoyed his acting in this film. He has screen presence to match that of Charlton Heston, and gives a much more persuasive performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a DeMille picture, it holds up much better for me than *King Of Kings*, his silent "masterpiece". Watched a bit of "King" early this morning, and was eye-rolling at the over emoting done by most of the cast. Yeah, I know in silents the eggagerated facial and body movements are required to get the parts across. But it really wouldn't have hurt to make Jesus NOT look like he's ready to burst into tears in almost every scene. Plus, some of the biblical accuracy didn't seem to be all that accurate.

 

But I WILL not say anything bad about it's cinematography! Outstanding doesn't even begin to do it justice.

 

As far as *The Ten Commandments*, well, I've said all I could about it in another thread. In spite of all the flaws I could point out, effects, plot or performances, I still think it's a wonderful movie.

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<Addison, after just seeing a scene in which the Red Sea has opened up and then swallowed all of Ramese's troops>

 

 

Think of the bright side. Rameses lives on every time a guy reaches for that brand of you know what.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

{font:arial, helvetica, sans-serif}*Think of the bright side. Rameses lives on every time a guy reaches for that brand of you know what.*

 

And maybe some guys are thinking of Yul Brynner's macho dramatics when they use you know what, too. {font}

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's been a few years since I saw King of Kings but I recall being quite impressed by it. I believe it was DeMille's personal favourite of his career.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't disagree more concerning THE KING OF KINGS. H. B. Warner's portrayal of Jesus is very subdued. There is no real overacting by him or most anyone else in the cast. And Jacqueline Logan might have been the most beautiful actress ever to play Mary Magdalene. The whole cast is remarkable with William Powell as the unrepentant thief, William Boyd as Simon of Serine, Victor Varconi as Pilot, and the list goes on and on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TomJH wrote:}{quote}Addison, after just seeing a scene in which the Red Sea has opened up and then swallowed all of Ramese's troops, I have no problem viewing a few theatrical dramatics by Yul Brynner in reaction to that moment. In fact, it seems very appropriate. To me, at least. (You know DeMille wouldn't have had it any other way).

>

>

>

> In any event, while I wouldn't call myself a fan of Yul Brynner (too many mediocre films didn't help), I have always enjoyed his acting in this film. He has screen presence to match that of Charlton Heston, and gives a much more persuasive performance.

I think DeMille intended for the role of Rameses to be done by someone who

would project just as powerful a presence as Heston as Moses.

 

I think Yul Brynner pulled it off brilliantly.

 

Jake in the Heartland

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brynner had the right HAIR( or lack thereof) for the part!

 

What's puzzled me is this: Moses supposedly had his brother Aaron do most of the talking because Moses was believed to be somewhat poor at public speaking. Which makes sense to have the marvelous sounding JOHN CARRADINE play the part of Aaron. But HESTON had a wonderful speaking voice, too, which makes me wonder why he landed the role of Moses. IF "historical" fact is your goal, that is.

 

And wasn't it tragic that Moses, after wandering the desert for 40 years, would settle the Israelites in the only spot in the Middle East WITHOUT any OIL?

 

Getting back to *King Of Kings,* I suppose after seeing the '61 version, followed by *The Greatest Story Ever Told* and later viewing HISTORY CANNEL'S last segment of *The Bible,* I was probably "Jesused out", and couldn't view the silent "Kings" with any sense of seriousness.

 

Of all the "Life of Jesus" movies I've seen, the television mini-series *Jesus of Nazareth* is the one that makes more sense to me. Especially the crucifiction, which showed Jesus bearing a crossbar rather than a gigantic cross that's usually seen in classical artists renditions. Director Franco Zeffirelli felt this was more accurate, as that even though the crucifiction of Christ has more significance to modern day Christians, the crucifiction had NO significance to the Romans, and the sentence would have been carried out just like any other. Since the crossbars were used over and over due to the scarcity of wood in the region, the cross that's shown in most other Life of Christ movies would have been used over and over too, and Jesus wouldn't have been the only unlucky one to have been crucified on it.

 

Plus I've been told that the nails wouldn't have gone through the palms of the hands, as they couldn't handle the weight and would have torn through the sides. the nails, instead, went through the wrists of the condemmed. It is THIS little known fact that the Vatican uses to debunk false claims of stigmata. Most of the Testament movies show the victim's arms supported by ropes, which would give the nail-through-the-palms display credence, but I doubt even THAT insignificant consideration would have been given by the Romans. DeMille's Jesus didn't even HAVE ropes, and HE was the only one of the three who was nailed. Another misstep by C.B.

 

Sepiatone

 

Edited by: Sepiatone on Apr 2, 2013 12:25 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how he kept that ponytail on? Glue? They skipped over Moses' wandering for 40 years in about 30 seconds of narration. (I guess nothing important happened during that time)....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, nothin' happened at all...well, except for all that time they spent lookin' for but NEVER findin' any oil(as Sepia just alluded to). And which was of course covered in that little remembered book of the Bible...wait for it..."Exxonadus".

 

(...and which of course DeMille decided to gloss RIGHT OVER in his movie!!!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Yeah, you'd think the sea floor would be a bit muddy. Guess God took care of that........

From Exodus 14:

 

 

^21^ Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, ^22^ and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I dislike about "The Ten Commandments" on ABC is the record number of commercials that are shown, stretching the movie to almost five hours on either side of prime time. I remember one year I rented the movie from Blockbuster intending to watch it at the same time as the annual ABC telecast. But I forgot that the movie began at 6 p.m. Central Time and started my video viewing an hour late. Thanks to all of the commercial breaks, I caught up with the ABC version about the time that the Israelites were preparing to leave Egypt en masse! And I finished long before the network version showed Moses waving farewell from the mountaintop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hibi wrote: I wonder how he kept that ponytail on? Glue? They skipped over Moses' wandering for 40 years in about 30 seconds of narration. (I guess nothing important happened during that time)....

 

Hibi-

I Think Yul Brenner's hair appliance was held with spirit glue, like they use for beards and sideburns. It would have been the adhesive (skin safe) available at the time. Do you notice how still he keeps his head in the movie?

 

I know the 40 years do seem to slip by pretty quickly, but I guess DeMille thought one day day just looks like another in the desert and how long has the audience been sitting?

 

h4. Another Fact about the production: The **** in the Wilderness scenes took 3 weeks to shoot..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...