Sunday 9 June 2002

Pic of the day: Yes, it means "The Prince of Egypt". For good measure I saw it twice: Once with Norwegian voices, and once with English. Parts of the songs were kinda hard to get in Norwegian, ironically.

"Prince of Egypt" movie

For some reason, I've never gotten around to see this DVD, even though I've had it for months. And it's not like the place is flowing over with movies, yet. But somehow the time never felt right, till now.

So what do I think? Well, I think it wasn't quite as good as its successor, King of Dreams. In part this could be because I identify more strongly with Joseph than with Moses. Not that I was treated badly by my brothers, but there were certain others who filled the role to some extent. I also have marginally more experience with turning down married women than standing up to stubborn kings. Enough about that, I just don't identify strongly with Moses, objectively or subjectively. I didn't at all draw parallels to any part of my own life while watching it, the way I automatically did with the other.

Also I honestly prefer the songs and music of King of Dreams. Yes, they are more bland, but they are also more whistle-able. And the lyrics in the first movie seem ... disjointed, as if made by a very tired or slightly stoned person. The second were smoother. But I will admit bias because I saw the sequel first. It is a well known fact that when you see similar works of art, the first tends to leave a stronger impression and we tend to think it is better. For an example (not quite parallel) I started reading Piers Anthony's Xanth books in the middle of the series, and I still like the middle books best. Those who started at the beginning (and this seems to be fairly common) think that the series had already faded quite a bit by book 6 – while I think the first books were unripe, insecure and had not yet picked up full speed ...

***

I did love the special effects in Prince of Egypt, though. Some were absolutely hair-raising, like the scenes where the Lord's presence was manifested as white energy. A quite believable representation, and really well done. The fire & hail thing, even though probably based on a misreading, was very well done visually. Really made Egypt a place you didn't want to take your vacation that year! And the parting of the sea! Whoa! I would have seen it twice just for that one part. Again it was rather exaggerated, I think, but just fitting for the medium.

One thing they could as well have saved on for all I bother is the voice actors. Do people really recognize the voices of Michelle Pfeifer (?) and Sandra Bullock? I did not notice the famous names until the credits, and I can't say I think it mattered a lot to the movie as a whole. Given the amount of song in this film, wouldn't it be more logical to hire professional singers instead of professional good- lookers? It's an animated movie! And well animated too. Sure, it's not third millennium computer animation, but it is good, really good. Among the best of the previous millennium, I'd say...

As with the other movie, there's a lot of wild imagination early on, but the story is reined in smoothly so the high points coincide with the familiar story from the book of Genesis. It is not overly preachy - you can't really say which of the three Semitic religions the producers sympathize the most with - and the movie also tries to make you understand WHY the Pharaoh became the man he was. Recommended for the whole family, unless anything vaguely biblical gives you the creepies.