ericjakobs-1

Found footage is usually a good excuse for shoddy camera-work and in the Visit that's all to apparent. The movie is a slow starter and this being an M. Night Shyamalan movie you hope and wait (and wait) for the twist to kick you and to return the goodies. When it does I couldn't help but feel disappointed. The acting is rather fair. Deanna Dunagan is actually quite good. There is a scene at the end that in spite of the reasonable effort put into it should have been left on the cutting room floor. You'll know it when you see it.

It's been called a return to form for M. Night Shyamalan by some. But is isn't even on par with the Happening in my opinion. And I loved the 6thsense, Unbreakable, Signs and The Village. This one is just not in the same league.

But if you liked that turd of a movie called paranormal activity then you will probably like this. If you want to see something refreshing watch Hidden instead.

I felt compelled to review this movie looking at the huge number of people who gave this movie a 4 or less. I rated it a seven though a 7.4 would be closer to the final mark. Technically the movie is astounding with very realistic backdrops. It seems to me that this is the way Egypt, or at least parts of it, must have looked like at the time. I have visited many of Egypt's monuments and at least these appear to be well represented. The cinematography is remarkable and the 3D works well for the first 20 minutes (the effect always wears off for me after that) The acting of the leads was very effective. Christian Bale was as intense as ever portraying Moses and his reluctance to lead as well as his inner struggle became apparent. Joel Egerton gave a very nuanced performance as Ramses. All other roles are rather small and some of the talent could be regarded as wasted but why view it like that? Ben Kingsley, Sigourney Weaver and Aaron Paul do more than just make mere cameo appearance so things could have been far worse. This story does not allow much time for developing all the characters and in my opinion it does not need to. So the story-line is not one on one with the one in the old testament. That hardly means it is offensive and certainly not that its less history accurate.

-Spoiler Alert-

What is interesting is the way one of the Pharaohs consultants explains the plagues. This may not be to the liking of all Christians. Perhaps some of them would have preferred that Dinosaurs would have been included to help create the grand monuments. Talk about historically accurate ;-). This is clearly not a tale of submission to religion. It is more a tale of doubt and it may perhaps inspire people to take a fresh look at ancient writings and question the occurrences in much the same way Moses is doing in this movie. All in all the movie is entertaining. It may not be Scott's best but than again he has an awful lot to live up to.

On paper the story of Bride Flight might be told in 5 sentences but it's all executed in a convincing fashion with a keen and convincing eye for locale and historic atmosphere. The movie is about three women that fly to find their future in New Zealand in the fifties. On the plane is a man that will influence and tie their lives together in an unforeseen manner. The strength of the movie lies in the characters and the convincing way they are portrayed. Waldemar Torenstra is very convincing as the charismatic and Deanesque Frank that makes the other male characters (but not their performers) pale in comparison. Karina Smulders is delicious with her big naive gazing eyes. In fact the whole cast turns in solid performances and the young and old versions of the characters are very much in line with each other. All in all it's not an epic movie like "de Tweeling", director Ben Sombogaard previous movie, but it increasingly takes you by the throat as the story unwinds and relationships become clearer. A pity we did not see more of Rutger Hauer though.