An Adventure 65 Million Years in the Making: 20 Years Later

This June will mark the 20th anniversary of the cinematic wide release of JURASSIC PARK on 11 June,78% Tomatometer; please don't lynch me).  But of the many adventure/sci-fi films to Spielberg's credit, JURASSIC PARK is the last that can claim the status of a classic.

1993, and this past weekend, the film was re-released into theaters with a stereoscopic 3D and IMAX conversion.  JURASSIC PARK is, to date, probably Steven Spielberg's last great movie adventure, although 2011's THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN is a strong contender that may get better with age, and I also admit to being a defender of INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008) (hey people, it has a
It's obviously not the old-fashioned adventure thrills that populate the INDIANA JONES series; these are scary adventure thrills, thematically reminiscent of Universal monster movies from the 1930's-1940's and the pulpy sci-fi morality plays of 1950's b-movie matinees.  This kind of filmmaking was a return to the form of Spielberg's JAWS (1975), a man vs. nature survival adventure-thriller populated with human entrees and introspection.
As far as setups and executions of cinematic tension go, JURASSIC PARK remains one of the most magnificent examples in all of cinematic history.  Take for instance, the Tyrannosaurus Rex introduction sequence; what really brings in the audience is the promise of seeing a big ol' T-Rex wreaking havoc up on the big screen and people getting gobbled up (because we're all a little sick), but after an hour, the Rex still has yet to show up and only a single man has become dinosaur fodder, with most of it implied.  They tease us with a goat chained to a stake meant to lure the T-Rex out to the fence, but that fails.  Then it starts to rain (always a fine dramatic touch) and the ground tremors.  There's the iconic image of the glass of water on the tour transport's dashboard, the water rippling more with each approaching thunderous impact.  Then, Lex (Ariana Richards) notices the goat is gone; the slowly building tension is then punctuated by the goat's bloody leg landing on the roof window, accompanied by the roar of the tyrannosaur.  A couple glimpses are teased, claws testing the deactivated electric fence, the dinosaur throwing back what's left of the goat.  Like Spielberg did out of necessity in JAWS, he's patient and deliberate in delivering the goods.  The tension multiplies as we get tiny tastes of the sweet stuff and scoot to the edges of our seats, yearning for more.  Then, the payoff, as the Tyrannosaurus ventures out of its paddock, and then the characters really panic.  The rain, the dark, the noise and the spectacle are all combined into a massive energy as the long-awaited dinosaur struts to let us soak it all in.  The reality of the threat is enhanced by the detail, such as the Rex's eye brought close to the window guarding Lex and Tim (Joseph Mazzello), and Lex shines a light at it, causing the beast's pupil to constrict.  Then the Tyrannosaur knocks the roof window in, with only the sheet of glass between the terrified children and the dagger-like teeth while Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Ian Malcolm watch on from their car.  After Grant and Malcolm distract the beast, we get the best kill in the movie: the Tyrannosaurus Rex eating a lawyer off of a toilet.  Brilliant.

For better or worse, JURASSIC PARK also ushered in a new era of the summer blockbuster and other big budget Hollywood films by busting down the last remaining physical barriers of imaginative filmmaking with the revolutionary technology of "photo-realistic" computer-rendered effects.  Computer generated imagery (CGI) had been utilized in many films previously, but was limited to relatively simplistic, non-organic objects such as the watery "pseudopod" in THE ABYSS (1988) and the metallic T-1000 from T2: JUDGEMENT DAY, or within an appropriate context, such as the computer-rendered world of TRON (1982).  JURASSIC PARK's dinosaurs were always intended to use state-of-the-art animatronic puppets for close-up shots of the dinosaurs and shots that required direct human interaction as appears in the finished film, but the wide shots were initially developed with stop-motion animation by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) special fx man, Phil Tippet, designed specially to include "motion blur", to make the effects look more natural (as seen on the JURASSIC PARK Blu-ray bonus material).  The results fell somewhat short of satisfactory though in the test shots, so animators at ILM began experimenting with CGI technology, and the rest is history.  The CG dinosaurs included skeletal and muscular animation layers with detailed, textured skin.  Now, I'm no Luddite, but I will say that it's unfortunate that some of today's filmmakers (*cough* *cough* Michael Bay *cough* Stephen Sommers *cough*) haven't taken a cue from the way this technology was used in JURASSIC PARK, even if out of necessity, where it was used when practical effects were physically impossible or financially unfeasible, because, while excessive CGI alone cannot break a good film, there certainly is something to be said of real-life, on-set spectacle.
For a two decades-old blockbuster, one of the most crippling effects of age can be the special effects, which often provoke laughs to contemporary audiences accustomed to the most up-to-date visuals, but surprisingly, JURASSIC PARK still does pretty well on that front.  There are certain shots of dinosaurs that have a noticeably "computery" look to them, but the well-placed use of CG effects makes such flaws relatively unobtrusive, and there are several shots that would not garner complaints in a major new movie today.  The fashion styles of a few characters are really about as dated as it gets, and the children characters are especially reminiscent of the nineties, but that's okay because, as usual, Spielberg directs them to be childlike but not irritating to the audience.  However, I must confess that young Lex's aptitude for the advanced theme park's computer system at a climactic moment strains credulity.
Some have accused the film of being little more than spectacle, as flashy but vapid special effects extravaganza, but that is an unfortunate misread, because the film is actually insightful and multi-layered.  There are meta themes and elements threaded throughout regarding the nature of technology outpacing its creators and the evolution of the outdated, and the major characters are all very richly developed.  Plus, it's fun as hell.

JURASSIC PARK  (1993)
4 out of 4 stars
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Richard Attenborough, Jeff Goldblum
PG-13 for intense science fiction terror.

The Swinging Pendulum of Cinematic Politics

It's only bad in the movies!  In real life, guns are patriotic.

The politics of the mainstream media, and more specifically, the mainstream movie industry, are surprisingly inconsistent and complex, despite what Fox News may have you believe.  It's true that there are more, and certainly more prominent, proponents of the leftist politics in the Hollywood community, but like Clint Eastwood reminded us last fall, there definitely is a political right wing to every community, including Hollywood.  You hear talk about the weird and wacky behavior of Hollywood, the leftist campaigning and what many perspectives condemn as immorality, but that's not actually because it's Hollywood.  Hollywood is like a small town community but with a higher average income and disproportionate media attention, and like any small town resident will tell you, it's all about the gossip, but that media megaphone blasts those grapevine highlights out at the whole world, and gossip is not about the flattering or restrained; it's about what's outrageous, what's incredible and what we can condemn or occasionally praise.  Leftist Hollywood is more myth than anything else.  There's a truth to gossip, but relying on that source alone, without scrutiny, is too easy and allows us to do exactly what we want by reminding us how good we are for not being as weird or immoral as others.

Many movies are easily identified as political statements and many more at least feature some sort of political statement on the side.  The outrage at a supposed majority of movies opposing our "moral" viewpoints however, seems mainly based in the desire to believe ourselves and our demographic to be persecuted, which justifies the universal tendency to sympathize more with ourselves, despite the possibly more severe suffering of others.  Most major mainstream movies actually avoid any deliberate political leanings of any sort, because even if a political statement may draw audiences that share their perspective, it will alienate those audiences of a different perspective, but when a film studio invests big money in a major movie, they want to bring in audiences of all perspectives that have money to spend.  However, most movies have some sort of agenda beyond pure entertainment, however how potent, but even then, the political leanings of those agenda-involved films is not set in one direction.  Instead, the political leanings of mainstream movies swings like a pendulum, repelled from whatever political wing stands in power.

We aren't talking in absolutes by any means; there will always be detractors, but there tends to be a higher concentration of liberally-slanted films during a Republican administration, and in contrast, a higher concentration of conservatively-slanted films during a Democratic administration.  It usually becomes most apparent if and when a political party carries on into a second term of power in the executive branch, and often a few more will trickle out during the first couple years of a new administration, having begun production during the previous administration.

For example, during the recent summer-fall election season and continuing still now, with the re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama, there has been an increased concentration of films sympathetic to conservative sentiments.  See:

Bane (Tom Hardy) works overtime to kill job creators.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (July 20):  While the politics were most likely unintentional, and Christopher Nolan has said as much in interviews, the antagonistically manipulated version of class warfare was all too well-timed with the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Much of it was inspired from Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities and the blatantly leftist 1927 film METROPOLIS, but Batman/Bruce Wayne is a member of the 1%, so applying him to a class warfare story has certain political implications.
director/co-writer
WON'T BACK DOWN (September 28):  Although it flopped at the box office, this anti-union school reform drama was a plentifully conservative Hollywood release from 20th Century Fox, co-produced with Walden Media, owned by notable far-right businessman Philip Anschutz.
HERE COMES THE BOOM (October 12): A Happy Madison MMA comedy starring Kevin James, this one was laced throughout with strong elements of American exceptionalism ideology, including an overwrought citizenship ceremony finale and pro-Americanization sub-plots; unfortunately, the Happy Madison tendency toward racism-based humor hinders the conservative messages.
RED DAWN (November 21): This remake of the 1985 cult classic was originally intended for a 2010 release, but MGM's bankruptcy delayed it until FilmDistrict bought the U.S. distribution rights and minor modifications were made for an international market.  Regardless, the finished film is thick with right-wing American ideology to an unusually extreme level, including exceptionalism, gun culture and jingoistic fantasy.
JACK REACHER (December 21): Starring Tom Cruise as a Tom Clancy-styled ex-M.P. officer and loose cannon, this action-thriller was laced throughout with pro-conservative quips, as well as a dose of pro-gun ideology with Robert Duvall as a gun-dealing ally of Reacher's.
PARENTAL GUIDANCE (December 25): A Billy Crystal/Bette Midler family comedy that happily ridicules modern parenting techniques in favor of old-time, tough-talking child-rearing , and even has Midler going nuts all over a stereotypical Russian music teacher with Soviet-era terminology.
ZERO DARK THIRTY (January 11):  This historical film about the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden has a remarkably convoluted political history; when production began, conservatives accused it of having pro-Obama sentiments (a groundless assumption based in President Obama having gave the mission order) and then accused the Obama administration of overindulging the production with government records.  Toward its release, prolific Hollywood liberals condemned the film for allegedly endorsing the Bush-era's use of "enhanced interrogation" torture, and conservatives praised the film in turn, also for allegedly depicting the Obama administration as a hindrance to the hunt for Bin Laden.  You really have to see it for yourself, but I believe that it does not condone torture or comment on Obama's policies and instead just shows what happened with impartiality and then lets the viewers decide for themselves.  Either way, it has a reputation.
THE LAST STAND (January 18):  Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to leading roles was a box office flop about an old-school border sheriff beating the hell out of Mexican drug cartels and anyone (including those pussy-footing liberals) who gets in his way.
TOP GUN 3D (February 8):  Tony Scott's 1980's classic of unintentionally homoerotic antics in the wet dream version of the U.S. Air Force got a stereoscopic 3D-conversion re-release.
A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD (February 14):  The fifth film in this Bruce Willis-starring action franchise was the truly bizarre result of an attempt to make an American exceptionalist film while being more interested in the international market than in the domestic U.S. market.
G.I. JOE: RETALIATION (March 28):  The sequel/reboot to 2009's disappointing G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA was originally slated for release in June 2012 but was held back, inexplicably, for a stereoscopic 3D conversion.  In addition to the obvious jingoistic tones, there are heavy American exceptionalist themes, an anti-nuclear disarmament plot and assorted pro-conservative quips.

Hollywood doesn't look quite so biased when you line things up like that, does it?  So where does all the talk of liberal Hollywood come from?  There's actually an incredibly complex history to all such theories, full of an unreasonable number of affecting elements, but in our contemporary culture, it can largely be traced to the non-Hollywood independent film industry and the viewing preferences of politically-related demographics.

Never has there been a president so friggin' evil.

Admittedly, Hollywood does have their own affection for the independent film industry; the films generally come ready-made, inexpensive and the studios can pick them up cheaply enough for distribution then make a suitable profit.  Also, independent films, outside of studio executive influences, are closer to what a lot of Hollywood big shots started out hoping to make; independent films don't have to try to please everyone, so they can bite who they please.  Those kinds of films get a lot of talk on their own, without massive marketing campaigns, and have an aura of importance, real or imagined, and when you're in the entertainment industry, there's a certain insecurity about winding up with a body of work completely made up vapid product.  Entertainers want to feel like they weren't just some passing pleasantry in time; they crave history's remembrance, so they find room to make statements with hopes of historical credence while the dollars are rolling in for the big escapism movies.  Anyway, independent cinema genuinely does have a solidly liberal sentiment.  There definitely is a conservative presence in the independent industry too, especially lately, with ATLAS SHRUGGED and the surprisingly successful documentary 2016: OBAMA'S AMERICA, but those political films are still a fairly minor percentage.  One simply has to take a look at the film lineups of any major film festival life Cannes of Sundance to see the impressive array of liberal propaganda in the independent industry's output, such as the pro-euthanasia winner of the 2012 Palme d'Or, AMOUR, Sundance's 2012 Grand Jury Prize: Dramatic winner, BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD, which involved various liberal elements including themes related to global warming, or almost anything Harvey Weinstein ever produced.  Most of those "liberal films" that conservative groups protest are not Hollywood products, but are instead independent films that Hollywood studios purchase the distribution rights to for inexpensive profits, such as BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005), FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (2004), MILK (2008) or THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT (2010).  Hollywood is just too timid to bet significant money on something that might seriously alienate a major paying demographic, but they admire those films enough to curate them.  What makes this high concentration of liberally-slanted independent films a bit peculiar is that independent film production can't be traced to an actual industrial body like Hollywood's closely associated set of major film studios, so there isn't an actual influence to direct blame at.  However, it is clear that independent filmmaking has a much stronger reputation for artistic value than mainstream filmmaking (of course, they can't sell their products on massive production values like Hollywood can), and artistic communities do have a very consistent

Lesbians aren't hot anymore.  Thanks Hollywood!

reputation for liberal sentiments, but the psychologists and scientists can debate the merits of all that on their own.

The effect of viewing preferences between demographics is a really interesting phenomenon in and of itself.  Although family values are certainly not exclusive to conservatives, they certainly have a much stronger interest in the "old-fashioned" family values of simpler times than liberals do, and as conservatives, naturally they are more reserved in their tastes, so the favored type of films for conservatives are "family films", where as liberals are usually more likely to venture toward novel films with edgy content and themes.  What's extremely odd though is that the family film industry, most specifically, the family film core of animation, tends to draw very liberal types of filmmakers.  The early days of Walt Disney's animation studios involved animators and other artists of less than stable backgrounds in major positions, and a few top animators were notorious alcoholics and frequenters of establishments with unsavory reputations.  Today, the Disney studios have a uniquely diverse makeup, including highly-positioned gay filmmakers.  Jim Henson's Muppet Studios have also always been a draw for leftist performers high on individuality and liberal values.  In the world of family entertainment, there's a disproportionate presence of insensitive and pompous "one percenters", flat-out antagonistic businessmen and an infinite supply of pro-tolerance, anti-violence lessons.  Among the major films marketed toward families in recent years are the environmentalism fable THE LORAX (2012), pro-tolerance PARANORMAN (2012) (although, despite the marketing, it wasn't very family friendly), pro-environmentalism WALL-E (2008) and THE MUPPETS (2011) who were antagonized by evil oilman Tex Richman.  Goodness knows why it all works out that way, but those are the films that most conservatives are seeing, and going by those films alone, yeah, you'd really think movies were all about the evil capitalists.

Jesus vs. Barabbas: The Epic Showdown!

A later entry in the 1950s-60s surge of Bible epics, KING OF KINGS is not necessarily a "great movie", but it is certainly an interesting one, even more so than some of the great Bible movies.  Produced by MGM, who had had a mega-hit with BEN-HUR only two years before, it was directed by Nicholas Ray, who had previously directed James Dean in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (1955), arguably the most famous of his three performances.  KING OF KINGS was not very well-received when released in 1961, in part because it was another in a string of recent Bible movies including the highly-acclaimed BEN-HUR (which the marketing imitated without subtlety), QUO VADIS (1951) and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956), but mostly due to its untraversed perspective on the life of Jesus Christ.
However, that's ultimately what makes it so uniquely interesting; we all know the Jesus story so well and have seen it so many times over, but KING OF KINGS tells it from the vantage point of contemporary politics in Jesus' world.  It's still the Jesus story, it still has a Nativity, miracle working, the Sermon on the Mount, the Last Supper and the Passion, but they're presented as elements woven throughout a main story about Judas Iscariot (Rip Torn) and his conflict between Jesus (Jeffery Hunter), the Messiah of Peace, and the world's interpretation of a Messiah, a warlord to vanquish the much despised Romans, possibly Barabbus (the murder released instead of Jesus in the Bible account) (Harry Guardino); while a secondary story involves the story of John the Baptist (Robert Ryan), Jesus' brotherhood to him, and this intertwined with elements of Herod Antipas' (Frank Thring) placement in the context of the story.

Jeffery Hunter as Jesus of Nazareth

Today, the film has a more positive reputation, largely due to its emphasized interest and pathos in areas of the story that are often overlooked, such as a surprisingly touching moment when Jesus visits John the Baptist in Herod's dungeon and they share a moment of comfort before John's impending beheading.  Like most Bible epics, it has some cornball moments and it isn't always as well-focused in its editing as it ought to be, but for those open to a modernist approach, and yet a faithful one, it offers an thoughtful and serviceable cinematic experience.

KING OF KINGS (1961)
2 1/2 out of 4
Directed by: Nicholas Ray
Starring: Jeffery Hunter, Rip Torn, Harry Guardino, Robert Ryan, Frank Thring, Brigid Bazlen
PG-13 for some violent content.

Nobody Died While Filming the Chariot Race

The record number of Academy Awards won by a single film to date is 11, out of the estimated maximum of 16 (given that certain awards cannot be given to the same film, i.e. Best Documentary Short could not go to the Best Picture, because Best Picture has to be a feature).  At the 31st Academy Awards, MGM was able to claim the fame of the record-holding GIGI (1958), which swept the Oscars, winning all nine of its nominations, beating the previous record of eight Oscars won by a single film.  However, the studio was in financial straits (curiously, this seems to be a regular occurrence in MGM's history).  With the rising popularity of television, and the U.S. Supreme Court's order for the studio system's monopoly of theater chains to be broken up just a decade before, MGM risked bankruptcy if their new film wasn't a major hit.  On the table was the massively-budgeted remake of BEN-HUR, based on the book Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ by Civil War Union General  Lew Wallace, which had been adapted twice before.  Development began at a proposed budget of $7 million, which soon shot to $15 million (approximately $116.5 million when considered for inflation), making it the most expensive film production to date, with the biggest sets ever built, including the 18-acre sized chariot race arena.  A further $3 million was invested in a colossal marketing campaign for the film including, as weird as it may seem today, a vast array of youth-friendly marketing tie-ins such as candy, toys and chariot-inspired tricycles, as well as perfumes, jewelry and neckties, and a "research department" to build and gauge teen interest in the film by surveying student in over 2,000 high schools across the country.
When finally released in November 1959, the daunting expenses of the production and marketing paid off with a $20.4 million margin of profit, plus another $10.1 million when re-released ten years later, which brought sighs of relief to all involved and saved the studio.  In addition, the film was a major critical hit, receiving rave reviews and nominations for 12 Academy Awards.  At the ceremony for the 32nd Academy Awards, it won a record 11 Oscars, a record that remains unbeaten to this day, and remained unmatched for a full 38 years until TITANIC (1997) won as many out of 14 nominations, and once more another six years later when THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING won a full sweep of its 11 nominations.  Today, BEN-HUR remains the standard of great Bible epics, and is often considered a close second in rankings of the greatest Hollywood epics, edged out by David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1960).
Summary of Narrative Events

Before people shook hands, there were "secret drinking arm locks"

The story is a lot like a Jewish Count of Monte Cristo, which the book's author cited as an inspiration.  It is the story of one Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston), a highly-regarded prince of Judea, who is reunited with his best childhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd), who has returned to Judea to command the Roman garrison.  Messala expects his old friend to assist him in tempering Jewish resistance to the Romans and identify influential dissenters, but Judah is loyal to his people and heritage so refuses, and Messala is left seething.  When the new Roman governor enters the city on parade, a loose tile tumbles from Judah's roof, where he and his family watches on, and the falling debris spooks the governor's mount into throwing its rider, injuring the governor.  Although the evidence is incontrovertibly in favor of Judah's innocence, Messala denies any investigation and instead has Judah, Judah's mother, Miriam (Martha Scott), and sister, Tirzah (Cathy O'Donnell), all arrested, with Judah condemned to the galleys of Roman warships and his family imprisoned indefinitely.  As Judah stumbles in the chain gain taking him to his fate through Nazareth, he is denied water by his captors, but a stranger (Jesus Christ) offers Judah water anyway.  Judah is perplexed by this kindness from a stranger, and while never forgetting the incident, Judah hardens his heart in his merciless three years of servitude as a galley slave.  In the midst of a battle (complete with makeup effects that border on humorous as men missing limbs grab at their bloody stumps with the bone cartoonishly protruding from the gore), Judah's ship is rammed through by another and sinks, but Judah escapes and saves the life of the Roman Consul (Jack Hawkins).  In return, the Consul petitions before the Roman Emperor for Judah's freedom, with success, and as several years pass in Rome, Judah becomes a famed charioteer and is officially adopted and made a Roman citizen by the Consul.  Still longing for his homeland and promised vengeance, Judah returns to Judea, intending to free his mother and sister and kill Messala.  Upon re-introducing himself to Messala, Judah demands that Messala release Miriam and Tirzah, but when Messala has his men look into the matter, they find the women, unseen since their imprisonment, have developed leprosy.  To spare their pride, Miriam and Tirzah request that their old house servant Esther (Haya Harareet) tell Judah that they've died.  Judah becomes acquainted with an Arab sheik, Ilderim, and agrees to race his stallions in a race to celebrate the new Judean governor, Pontius Pilate (Frank Thring).  In the arena, there is no law, and there he can get his revenge against Messala, who is the standing champion of the Judean race circuit, thanks in part to a penchant for fighting dirty.  Judah wins the race, and in the process, causes Messala to crash his chariot, throwing him into the raceway where he is trampled by the other racers' horses.  On his deathbed, Messala taunts Judah with the news that Miriam and Tirzah have become lepers, and Judah seeks them out in the Valley of the Lepers, despite Esther's protests on their behalf.  When Judah discovers that Tirzah is dying, he takes her and Miriam to see Jesus, whom Esther witnessed preach at the Sermon on the Mount and is said to have healed many others.  As they get to Jerusalem though, they learn that Jesus is to be crucified.  As Jesus is marched through the streets with his cross, he collapses and Judah rushes to his assistance, recognizing him as the stranger who gave him water.  As Judah witnesses the crucifixion and Christ's forgiveness to his executors, he finds his bitterness relinquished, and as the rain washes down the hill Golgotha, the blood of Christ is carried with it to Miriam and Tirzah, who are mourning in a cave with Esther, and they find their leprosy healed.
The Chariot Race- Fake Death Count: 3, real Death Count:0, the Legacy: Extensive
One of the most famous and influential scenes in cinema, and the most incredible sequence in the film, is the nine minutes-long chariot race.  Filmed with a 2.76:1 aspect ratio, one of the widest screens ever used (for reference, traditional "fullscreen" is 1.33:1, and the common U.S. widescreen is 1.85:1), the sequence has it's own "prologue" in the form of a pre-race parade in order to showcase the massive 18-acre arena set, before the actual race begins.  The chariot race is an example of one of the most influential and spectacular action sequences ever filmed, and George Lucas even created a fairly blatant homage to it with the podrace sequence in STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999), complete with an opening parade and competitors introduction and a race villain who doesn't play fair.  In fact, the main racers even share similar color schemes, such as Anakin's blue-and-gold colors, very reminiscent of Judah's, and Sebulba's orange-and-black is like Messala's red-and-black.  However, well over half of Lucas' race sequence is composed of computerized elements, and BEN-HUR has the unique thrill of being all shot on a live set.  I'm not suggesting that CG is automatically less desirable than practical effects, which is a popular sentiment amongst film circles, but one that I disagree with; I think the context of the scene needs to be considered and then the decision can be made accordingly.  But while I think that both are thrilling action sequences, there's definitely something awe-inspiring about knowing that what you're seeing had to actually be done in real life.
One of the most persistent urban legends of Hollywood pertains to the on-set demise of a certain stuntman during the race filming, and that the accident footage was included in the final cut, as indicated in the memoir of a stuntman who had worked on the film, but the story has been debunked given that the only records of an on-set death was that of producer Sam Zimbalist, who died of a heart attack at 57.  However, there was a near-death experience for a stuntman that did wind up onscreen; a stunt was planned for Judah's chariot to jump over another chariot's wreckage, but what was not planned was the stuntman being thrown into the air and out of the chariot.  Fortunately, the man only sustained a minor chin injury, and close-up footage of Heston hanging to the front of the chariot and clambering back in was shot to go along with the accidental footage.  To be fair though, it's understandable that so many have believed it when you see those charioteers trampled under the cutting hooves galloping by (dummies were used).

The spectacular chariot race, another case of a racist viewpoint blemishing something awesome

For Love of the Hollywood Bible Epic
Biblically-inspired epic films are been around since the beginning of the mainstream film industry, the earliest Bible epic of prominence being D.W. Griffith's massive silent production, INTOLERANCE, in 1916, when modern cinematography and intercutting were still being invented.  Besides the obvious scriptural source material, consistent characteristics of the sub-genre include enormous budgets in order to build dauntingly vast set pieces, so-called "cast[s] of thousands", sentimentality and often stronger violence and more revealing outfits than would otherwise be permitted.  BEN-HUR had been made twice before, once in 1907, and more prominently in 1925, but it was in the 1950s, when the Bible epic was making a comeback, that BEN-HUR brought it into a whole new level of respect.
Television had recently become a regular household presence, and it was crippling the film industry, so Hollywood was looking for gimmicks that television couldn't match.  Television couldn't spend as much money on an episode as Hollywood could for a movie, so Hollywood began banking more heavily on major movies.  B-movies toyed with "interactive" gimmickry like red-and-blue-tinted 3-D, buzzers in the seats and live show elements.  More prestigious productions gambled on revolutionary new visual and audio formats, color cinematography and sheer spectacle.  BEN-HUR dove headlong into the more respectable of these new exclusives, stretching the limits of wide scope cinematography, building the biggest sets to date, spending more money than any film prior and inventing the modern action sequence with spectacular stunt-work and destruction.  At a time when the cinema was facing an opposition of unparalleled influence, BEN-HUR re-invigorated the scene by proving what audiences had forgotten was unique to the cinematic experience, and paved the way for the modern blockbuster which, for better or worse, waited a short 16 years into the future.

BEN-HUR (1959)
4 out of 4 stars
Directed by: William Wyler
Starring: Charlton Heston, Haya Harareet, Stephen Boyd, Hugh Griffith, Finlay Currie, Frank Thring, Cathy O'Donnell, Martha Scott, Jack Hawkins
Rated G (but would probably merit a PG-13 by today's standards for some sequences of intense violence/action) 
YOU MIGHT ENJOY BEN-HUR (1959) IF YOU LIKED:
QUO VADIS (1951)
SPARTACUS (1960) 
GLADIATOR (2000)
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956)

G.I. Joseph, the Pyrotechnics Spectacular

G.I. JOE: RETALIATION
2 out of 4 stars
Directed by Jon M. Chu
Starring: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Byung-hun Lee, Jonathan Pryce, Ray Park, Adrianne Palicki, Elodie Yung, Channing Tatum, D.J. Catrona, Luke Bracey, Ray Stevenson, RZA
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of combat violence and martial arts action throughout, and for brief sensuality and language.

Well, crap.  You'd think it would be a given that an action movie, wherein the main players are super-powered soldiers and mega-ninjas, would be unavoidably awesome.  But unfortunately, G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA (2009) proved that theory wrong, and now the sequel/reboot, G.I. JOE: RETALIATION, has done the same, albeit in a different way.
With a new director, new writers and new stars, RETALIATION nonetheless follows up faithfully on the open-ended conclusion of THE RISE OF COBRA, wherein COBRA (archenemy organization to the Joes) agent/master-of-disguise, Zartan, has infiltrated the White House and is impersonating the President (Jonathan Pryce, delivering a fun and unhinged performance).  The G.I. Joes, the elite world protection force (like Team America, but with sincerity), is in the Middle East preventing terrorists (in turbans!) from obtaining nukes, when COBRA forces attack on orders by the President/Zartan, incinerating most of the Joes.  Among the survivors are the massively muscular Marvin Hinton aka Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Flint (D.J. Catrona) and Jaye Burnett aka Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki), as well as the silently stoic ultra-ninja, Snake Eyes (stuntman Ray Park, best known as Darth Maul), who's been training in the Himalayas with fellow ninja Jinx (Elodie Yung) under the tutelage of the Blind Master (RZA, sporting an odd sort of "black man's fu manchu").  The Joe's discover that the President is not who he says he is and as it turns out, he's been petitioning for worldwide nuclear disarmament so that COBRA can hijack the world with its space weapon thing, code-named Zeus.
The  obscenely thin plot is present simply to sustain over an hour-and-a-half of action set-pieces, but it can't even do that; regardless, they roll the action sequences out dutifully.  Seriously, although many movies are described as "non-stop action," few are as aptly described thus as this.  And hey, maybe that's really all that G.I. Joe should be about, but it's like they aren't even trying outside of action choreography, and worse, quite a bit of the action flirts with incoherency as it utilizes excessively rapid editing and blurry, spastic camerawork in a misguided imitation of BOURNE series.  But I guess you get what you pay for, and here you get a bulging surplus of combat and destruction, accompanied by a rattling rock soundtrack and aggressively cheesy macho/homoerotic bromancing.

A bromance made in heaven

The tone of the whole is wildly unsteady as it seems either unaware of the difference between, or whether to settle on pulp or simple juvenility; for instance, you get ninjas twirling katanas between shooting massive firearms and COBRA agents replacing the Stars & Stripes with a COBRA banner atop the White House, but then you also have tons of goofy banter and no shortage of childish fantasy embodiments.  The best way I can describe the tone of this film is like a cross between Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS trilogy and the THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS franchise, but the audience it's actually aimed at is unclear due to its sensibilities that waver between frat boy and 9-years-old boy, as the copious violence tests the possibilities of the PG-13 rating and conservative politics are laced throughout the script.
Actually, the conservative politics aren't all that surprising, and they'll be pleasing to certain demographics, although not so much to the teen and college-age audiences that the movie relies on.  Despite the popular belief, Hollywood does not quite run as liberal as thought, and while the liberal worldview is the majority opinion in Hollywood, the Hollywood product has a tendency to lean in the direction opposite of the dominant political party.  That is, most movies don't endorse an actual political view, due to the risk of alienating any audience, but the ones that do lean conservative during a liberal administration.  So in this case, the plot seriously has elements in opposition to nuclear disarmament, in fact the plan of the villains revolves around getting countries to disarm themselves of nukes, so that the villains can then swoop in on defenseless nations with their super-weapon.  Guns are on display with a pornographic panache, the international cooperation-based G.I. Joes of the last film are replaced by American exceptionalism and when Lady Jaye introduces herself undercover to Zartan/the President, she introduces herself to him as a Fox News reporter.  To my non-politically motivated dismay, he then responds with a flirtatious "that's why you look so 'fair and balanced'.  Yuck.
On the bright side, there is a magnificent action showcase of non-stop, dialogue-free ninja combat ranging from a Himalayan dojo to a sheer mountainside, lasting nearly ten minutes long.  It starts out as Snake Eyes and Jinx are taking COBRA ninja, Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) hostage, and that unfortunately involves the incoherent hand-to-hand combat where the camera chases every damn movement, but then Snake Eyes and Jinx fight to protect their prize against a squad of COBRA ninjas while repelling along a vast stretch of rocky mountainside, and that's pretty awesome.

Ninja like stealth just fine, but...guns

Also, the film is relentlessly fast-paced, and though it's exhausting and completely ignores the story, sometimes even throwing in scenes with inexplicably zero relation to the rest, i.e., a way out of place and useless prologue sequence, it does all go by with surprising quickness.
The cast does fine too, with the Rock doing his usual shtick as a charmingly charismatic macho man with a douchey look, and Jonathan Pryce is amusingly unrestrained as the villainous Zartan, disguised as the President.  Stuntmen Ray Park and Byung-hun Lee don't really need to act anyway, because their casting really is all about their stunts, so that's all good, while Channing Tatum has some funny moments as Conrad Hauser aka Duke, but his role is so inconsequential that it's a wonder that they even bothered to bring him back at all.  As Flint, it's easy to forget that D.J. Catrona is even in this, as he lacks any screen presence and basically just fills in space.  Bruce Willis makes an appearance as the original G.I. Joe, General Joe Colton, and plays it with dry humor, although his best lines have already been heard in the advertising.  Just on the side, as a fun bit of trivia, the young rookie, Mouse, who is featured early on as a member of Duke and Roadblock's team, is played by Joseph Mazzello, who played John Hammond's grandchild, Tim Murphy, in JURASSIC PARK (1993).
I don't think RETALIATION fulfills the not-to-hard-to-fulfill promise of being better than THE RISE OF COBRA, but it does do its own thing, and even if you didn't realize it was possible, there is definitely more action.  As usual, it's a matter of taste.

YOU MIGHT ENJOY G.I. JOE: RETALIATION IF YOU LIKED:
FAST FIVE (2011)
TRANSFORMERS (2007)
THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS (2012)
BATTLESHIP (2012)
RED (2010) 

The Most Faithful Bible Film was Made by a Gay Marxist

Pier Paolo Pasolini is widely recognized as one the most important directors of cinema with the realm of film scholarship and study, but in today's world, this once tremendously controversial world figure is unlikely to ring any bells in the minds of all but a few.  His films were not widely appealing, nor were they meant to be so; he was a pretentious slave to his art if there ever was one, but while his Italian "art-house" films are rarely seen by the average moviegoer, his works have had a significant influence on the state of cinema today.  He first arrived on the film industry scene 1961 with ACCATTONE!, which introduced a new and ultra-grim form of neorealism in a story about the seedy underbelly of post-war Italian society, and when he was brutally murdered in 1975, his final and perhaps most famous completed film was SALO, OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM (Salo o le 120 giomate di Sodoma), an almost unwatchable quasi-adaptation of the Marqius De Sade's infamous ode to sexual perversions, torture and, well, sadism.  In between those and a few other lesser-noted films, Pasolini, that figurehead of the extreme political left, an unabashed atheist, Marxist and homosexual, made what is probably still the most accurate film adaptation of the Biblical Jesus Christ: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW (1964).
In 1962, Pasolini had been invited by Pope John XXIII to engage in a dialogue with non-Catholic figures of the art community.  As described in the book Pasolini Requiem, by Barth David Schwartz, while on that trip, Pasolini became confined to his hotel room when the pope's presence had resulted in severe traffic congestion, and in his efforts to occupy his time, Pasolini discovered a copy of the Bible in his room.  After reading the four Gospels straight through, ambitions to adapt one of the them shot to the top of his priorities.  As he said in regards to his personal feelings toward religious matters, "I may be an unbeliever, but I am an unbeliever who has a nostalgia for a belief."

Enrique Irazoqui, a Spanish economics student, as Jesus

Unlike most cinematic depictions of the story of Jesus, Pasolini had no interest in creating an amalgam of the four Gospels, but instead intended to adapt only one, his choice being the Gospel of St. Matthew, preferring it to John, which he described as "too mystical", Luke, which he deemed "too sentimental", and Mark, which was "too vulgar".  Using the Gospel of St. Matthew has the main shooting script, Pasolini shot the film in rural Italy on a shoestring budget.  As per usual, he cast non-professional actors in the roles, with Jesus played by Enrique Irazoqui (with dialogue dubbed by Enrico Maria Salerno), a Spanish economics student, and his own mother Susanna as the older Mary, mother of Jesus, while the rest of the cast was assembled mainly of locals from nearby villages.  With deliberate disregard for historical or cultural accuracy, Pasolini's visual approach was based on various periods of classic Christian art, often in a mishmash of elements, such as the very Byzantine-inspired look of Jesus or the Angel of the Lord (played by Rossana Di Rocco) and the Renaissance-inspired, and entirely non-Jewish, apparel of the Pharisees.

Joseph taking Mary and Baby Jesus into Egypt

When the finished film was released in Italy, while most film critics praised the film for its noble simplicity, figures of both the political left and right reacted harshly.  At its Venice Festival premiere, right-wing Catholics picketed the film, with many outraged simply that Pasolini, that paragon of sin, had made a film about Jesus [Remember when Mel Gibson wanted to make a Maccabees film?  Not even on the same level], and others perceived the film as an attack on their right-wing, pro-capitalist politics, such as the scene of the rich young man whom Jesus instructs to sell his fine things and give to the poor (Matt. 19:16-30).  In contrast, the far political left of Pasolini's own persuasion were disdainful of the straightforward religious ideology, and Pasolini admitted a "disgust" for some of those elements which he labeled as "disgusting Pietism", but he also defended the religious nature of his film from his peers, accusing Marxists of a tendency toward conformity and unwilling to acknowledge the important human questions of spirituality and faith.  Despite the negative reaction from far right-wing Catholics, the Vatican released a list of 45 great films divided into three categories of Religion, Values and Art, with THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW listed among the Great Religious Films and praised as "completely faithful".
As such, there really not much sense giving a summary of the film's plot; the visual interpretation is the only thing about it that can differ from the Bible, but even that doesn't try anything too new.  The use of dialogue is really quite sparse, with the better part of the story told in visuals, or "pure film", but of what dialogue there is, there is not a single line that cannot be found in the Gospel of Matthew verbatim. 
When you really look at it though, it's easy to see what drew Pasolini to such fervent pursuit of the project.  Pasolini was a first and foremost a poet, which alone would have drawn him to the moving prose of the Bible, as well as classical literary and myth motifs, but perhaps most of all was a feeling of relatability he found in the Christ.  Here was a man outside of society, a man who strove to change the world, to change the injustices of society; an revolutionary who kept company with those whom society had shunned.  His leftist leanings found an ally in Christ's progressive movement and words of comfort and promise to the poor.
  It seems apparent that what Pasolini aims to convey through THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW is a question of 'What if the world had actually taken up Jesus' cause?'  What if...?

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW (Il vangelo secondo Matteo)
3 out of 4 stars
Directed by: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Starring: Enrique Irazoqui, Settimio De Porto, Rossana Di Rocco, Susanna Pasolini, Ferruccio Nuzzo
Not Rated (contains some PG-level violence)

There's No Fart Jokes in THE CROODS?!

THE CROODS

3 out of 4 stars
Directed by: Chris Sanders, Kirk De Micco
Voice Cast: Nicholas Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds, Cathrine Keener, Cloris Leachman, Clark Duke

Can you believe that a movie called THE CROODS has nearly no scatological humor to speak of, at least, none that I noticed.  Not a single flatulence gag, or even a burp.  Zilch.  Go figure.
Anyway, now that that tantalizing question is out of the way; THE CROODS is the newest animated feature from the studios at DreamWorks, the studio whose best films include the likes of SHREK (2001), SHREK 2 (2004), KUNG FU PANDA (2008) and THE PRINCE OF EGYPT (1998), while some of their lesser features have included SHARK TALE (2004), MADAGASCAR (2004), BEE MOVIE (2007) and SHREK THE THIRD (2007).  So where does THE CROODS rank on the DreamWorks Animation scale of quality?  Eh, somewhere in between, like, the upper end of in between.  It's a very good movie that's been stifled by a mediocre script; a formulaic, stale story, but one that's told in earnest with exuberance, albeit, arguably misguided.
The Croods of the title are a prehistoric family of cave-dwelling Cro-Magnons, led by their paranoid patriarch, Grug (Nicholas Cage), whose creed is "Never not be afraid," but his stereotypically rebellious teenage daughter, Eep (Emma Stone), has grown weary of her dad's rules that have helped them survive, but have kept them from living.  One night, Eep sneaks out of the cave and meets a handsomely evolved homo sapiens inventor named Guy (Ryan Reynolds), who warns her of the approaching seismic shift he calls "the end of the world".  When the earthquakes come and destroy the Croods' cave, the family is forced to venture out into the unknown world, so Grug takes Guy hostage so that they can use his fire at nights until they can find a new cave.  Included in this family expedition are Eep's mom, Ugga (Catherine Keener), the savage baby, Sandy, Eep's oafish (younger?) brother, Thunk (Clark Duke) and Ugga's cantankerous mother, Gran (Cloris Leachman), whom Grug is regularly making attempts to kill.  Predictably, Eep develops a crush on Guy, and Guy's inventions prove to be far preferential to Grug's rules, both of which threaten Grug's role as patriarch and leave him feeling out of the loop.

The obvious irony here is that the formulaic plot mechanics are in blatant contrast to the pro-thought and pro-progress themes that pervade the film, but then again, the visuals are plentifully original.
THE CROODS was written and directed by accomplished Disney alumni Chris Sanders and SPACE CHIMPS (2008) director Kirk De Micco, and while it's all too easy to suspect De Micco of the film's more significant faults, given his writing and story credits on past generic family fare like RACING STRIPES (2005) and QUEST FOR CAMELOT (1998), it's usually a combined influence on such things.  However, it is Sanders whose influence is definitely more prominent in the look, style and overall direction of the film (for reference, Sanders previously directed HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (2010) and LILO & STITCH (2002), was production designer on THE LION KING (1994), and did additional story and animation work on animated Disney features from the early to mid-nineties).  The brightly colored and stylized environments and creatures the Croods encounter on their adventures bring to mind the "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" sequence that Sanders worked on in the THE LION KING, and I don't think that, out of the abundance of creature designs, there was a single reality based creature.  Noted though, that is a bit of a partial truth in that the animals are all hybrid designs of real animals, such as a canine-like skunk with an alligator head or an ostrich with a ram's horns, but otherwise, the closest they get is a vibrantly blue and green sabertooth tiger with wildly stylized proportions.
An especially entertaining element of the animation is the frequent simulation of handheld camerawork, as opposed to the usually very clean, close-ups and master shots style most common in animation.  I'm not actually a fan of handheld camerawork, but the novelty of seeing a richly-detailed yet cartoonishly-stylized computer-rendered world through a seemingly raw perspective is really fun, especially in some of the earlier sequences.

This poster is the WORST.

Next to the visuals, the film's trump card is its humor, based in a pleasantly twisted comedic sensibility, such as a running gag involving Grug's attempts to kill off his mother-in-law, Gran, including flipping her in the air to see if she lands heads or tails to start off a football-esque egg hunt, or Eep's old teddy bear, called Crispy Bear, which is actually a dried out bear cub carcass, hence "Crispy", with her "last look of terror" still frozen on her face.  Of course, on the whole, the film has a sweet-natured heart with some genuinely moving, albeit generic, moments, though it may be a little too sweet toward the conclusion, but I'm sure parents don't mind.
And while in almost any and every other case, the rebellious teenage girl character that's become all too common in family film would be a death strike of annoyance, it's just too damn impossible to not like Emma Stone, even if its just her voice.  Her irresistible charms translate to animation vocals unblemished.  The rest of the voice cast is pretty good too, but Emma Stone...