House of Reynolds - 147 - Risen

Risen offers a fresh perspective on a timeless story, driven by a standout performance from Joseph Fiennes and an intriguing first half. However, the film struggles to maintain its momentum and tone, leading to a somewhat disjointed viewing experience. If you're open to a reinterpretation of biblical events and can overlook some narrative inconsistencies, Risen might provide a thought-provoking cinematic experience.

Episode Transcript

(00:03):
Welcome to the nerd Pulty, Brothersand sisters. Welcome to house Lights.

(00:23):
I am John Mills, and Iam pleased to welcome you all back here
as we continue our exploration in theHouse of Reynolds, where we are looking
at the works of Kevin Reynolds,famed Hollywood director and helmer of such movies
as Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, water World, and the movie we're
talking about today, Risen, whichcame out in twenty sixteen, and it

(00:46):
deals with a very interesting topic.And joining me for this discussion is Roman
Prefect Darren Moser and Roman Tribune TristanRiddell as we pursue this topic and try
to figure out what it is thatmakes this movie work. Tristan, you've

(01:06):
been hard at work on this casefor some time now, and welcome.
And so I want to ask youto just let's just jump right in here,
because you know, everybody presumably hasgone over to Apple Podcasts and given
us a rating and review for houseLights, So we appreciate that. Thank
you very much. If you haven't, you have time to go do that
now. It demands it, Yeah, Caesar, you know what the Emperor

(01:30):
demands it because he wants peace inthe Apple Podcasts reviews when he shows up
in Judea. But Tristan, youcome to this movie and I just I
want to ask you that when thisfilm came out in twenty sixteen, was
it even anywhere remotely on your radar? Were you aware that this was hitting

(01:52):
theaters or is this one that justslipped right by you? Well, you
know, I really looked jess Findsperformance because I thought it was really intense
and it just really liked how,you know, like he would, you
know, like he would really enunciatewith what he was talking about. And
I totally didn't have to turn onthe subtitles, so it was this was

(02:15):
a really good, I think portrayalof showing the other side of the event
of Joshua and his rise up untilyou know, that's a terrific point because
with the sound levels in this film, turning on subtitles makes you feel like
it's a foreign film set in adifferent era. Yeah, because you need

(02:38):
them sometimes to understand less aramaic thanyou know, the passion, So you
know, it has that going foritself. Under Caesar, what is Caesar's
you know, I think that's thatis that is very very true. That
is very true. You know,we're we're moving on, We're moving on.

(02:58):
I'm sorry I go on to Ilike. I love Joseph Fines,
I really do. I think hegives a great performance. But good lord,
there was so much mumbling in thismovie. But see that. That's
one of the things that I wouldget at. Where boy, we're going
in full board right off the bat. I agree with you. There are
moments and it's not just Fines wherethe talking is. I have actually excellent

(03:23):
hearing. It's a joke in thehouse because I hear stuff that everybody thinks,
you know, people shouldn't be ableto hear, and I'm like,
I heard that and it just completelyflies by everybody else. I would lay
that squarely on post production, becauseif they can go back and they can
amp up Banes lines in the DarkKnight Rises to make everybody happy, they

(03:46):
could have fixed this in post Ithink didn't they Some of them they did.
You can tell when it's a rerecorded and when it's an amped up.
But and I wish they never hadquite frankly, just keep up.
But I can tell you that Iwould lay this at the feet of the
production because the actor is giving whathe's being asked for on set, and

(04:11):
it would not be the first productionin history for the sound engineer to sit
there and say, maybe a littlemore gain here, maybe you know,
maybe we can just tweak this,just a touch to make it. But
to answer to answer your question,I know, I had no idea this
movie existed. I don't remember seeinga trailer. I don't remember seeing a
poster. I saw nothing about thismovie, not a single thing. I

(04:34):
didn't even hear about this movie untilmy parents told me about it. Where,
you know, because my parents theylike watching Christian films, you know,
like stuff you've never heard of,maybe stuff with Kirk camer and I
don't know, And so when thiscame about, they're like, you know,
no, Trystan, you got tosee this one. And I'm like,
okay, yeah, sure, okay, su sure, Like yeah no,

(04:54):
I'll totally take the time to watchit. But then, you know,
later on to find out like,oh wait, no, jez Joseph
Finds is in it? Oh directedby Kevin Reynolds. Oh this is legit,
Like this isn't fireproof with Kirk Cameron, Like this is a legit movie.
I'm glad you mentioned that, andDarren, I'll kick it over to
you because this likewise slipped past me, and I will I will completely own

(05:15):
up to the fact that I frequentlyhave had friends say, oh, no,
this is a great Christian film.You should see it, and you
know, just putting it out inthe open, because we have put it
out in the open before. Allthree of us were men of faith.
We are Christians, and so youwould think we're a target audience sort of
thing. But to Tristan's point,when somebody's like, oh you got to

(05:36):
watch this Christian movie, I'm kindof like, it's okay. I like
to watch things with production value.But Darren, did you know about this
movie. Is this a movie whereyou saw it and you said, oh
wow, this is coming out,this looks like something I want to see
or is this something that likewise snuckpast you when it came out in twenty
sixteen. We saw this in theaters. It came out in like February of

(05:58):
that year, so it's kind ofhitting that pre Easter crowd. You know,
obviously it's an Easter story. Butyeah, it's it's funny because you
know, will often rewatch. We'llbe watched this pretty much every Easter,
just it's you know, that's thattime to watch. As much as I
love throwing on the Passion of theChrist, you know, every Easter,
because that's that's like popping in Schidler'slist, you're not quite ready for it.

(06:24):
Every every that's like a once adecade watch. That's yeah, yeah,
stay with you. It does so. But I would almost say that
this movie is is kind of acompanion to it where it's following like if
you were doing a double feature,I think Passion of the Christ with mel
Gibson's one, and then this wouldbe a really interesting double bill. You'd

(06:46):
feel terrible at the end of it. But and then no, that that
actually that that ties in beautifully,and I think Tristan and You were about
to probably jump in there where thiswas originally under to say the same thing.
This was under development as a filmcalled The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,
and they envisioned it as, Oh, we're going to make a sequel to
Passion of the Christ. Not tosay that mel Gibson or anybody else from

(07:10):
that production was involved with it,but they viewed it as, oh,
we'll pick up the torch we'll grabthe baton and we'll run the next you
know, it's like, no,they are actually doing I think you know,
there have been rumors for that.For so, Passion Too is sort
of like an Avatar sequel. Theytalk about it constantly. I see it
released, I'm not going to buyit, that sort of thing, but

(07:31):
yeah, I know, I knowthe world kind of telling jokes and everything
like that. But it's it reallyamuses me when like when you bring that
up, they're like, oh,there's rumors that you know, there's going
to be a sequel Passion of theChrist. They're like, what are you
talking about, Like, how isthere going to be a sequel? I
was like, well, things happenedafter he died, Like you know,
right, there's a lot to talkabout. And this is one of those

(07:53):
movies that specifically, Risen is oneof those movies where they're like, yeah,
yeah, a lot of stuff happenedafter he died. It's not just
like he was crucified and then youknow, rose and then that was it.
Like no, there's there's a lotto do. And so this this
film was under development for quite awhile and Reynolds came on board and had
a hand in the script after twentythirteen, and since this is a director

(08:18):
focused podcast, I want to getright into it and say, you know,
I'll kick it to you first,Tristan, do you look at this
and you say, oh, yeah, that's a Kevin Reynolds film, Because
I when I sat down, Ididn't know Kevin Reynolds directed it, And
once I saw his name in thecredits, I immediately said, Okay,
I'm expecting a certain level of productionvalue here. Did it meet or exceed

(08:39):
those goals? Did it? Didhis name in the credits mean that you
saw a Kevin Reynolds film from thatpoint forward? No? Quite, Honestly,
and right up front, I didnot see Kevin Reynolds in this.
I was. I was a littleconfused as I was watching this because you
know, like my parents pumped itup for so long, Like I even

(09:01):
texted them where I said I waslike, oh, hey, I'm halfway
through Risin. They're like, isn'tit fantastic? And as I'm watching it,
I'm just like, it's like,well, you know, it kind
of starts off a little slow,you're a little weird, but you know,
I'm liking it more and more asit goes on and you know,
like as in that first part,even though I thought it was a little
slow at the beginning, you know, I'm looking at the cinematography, I'm

(09:22):
looking at the production value. I'mlike, oh, you know, I
bet, I bet with Risen.With this kind of timeframe, we're gonna
get a lot of you know,it's gonna be evocative of Prince of Prince
of Thieves or maybe even a littlebit of conamount of Crysto, just because
it's a period piece. But Ididn't see any of that. Like the
cinematography felt very different, very differentfrom from what we've seen before. Like

(09:46):
there was there was a lot ofoverexposed film, There was a lot of
lower angles, there was a lotof close to the camera talking even though
you couldn't understand them, And itwas not as presentational as Prince of Thieves
or kind of Money Crystal, becauselike with Prince of Thieves and kind of

(10:07):
Monty Crystal, it's very you know, Shakespearean. It's it's very like,
you know, like basically talking tothe like you're monol like you're having a
dialogue, but it's kind of amonologue and you're you know, and you're
talking to the camera and it's verybig and open, and with with Risen
it's it's it's very it's very closeto the chest. It's very just like
you know, like leaning and talking, you know, like have you're happier

(10:28):
hafier, And he just felt like, look, look, I'm looking up
the cinematographer now, and he isthe master of the sequel because he's done
like the second and third installment ofyou know, Behind Enemy Lines two Boogeyman,
three, Starship Troopers, three WrongTurn, three Mirrors two Sniper Reloaded.
So this is the first one thatI see that's kind of standing out.

(10:52):
And he did the twenty nineteen Hellboy, the one with David Harvard Harbor.
Yeah, so yeah, it althoughI want to give the director a
little more credit because I feel likeone of the things we've talked about many
times with Kevin Reynolds is that hisgift is assembling the actors and getting an

(11:16):
act what he gets out of them, and I think that is still true
in this I think, you know, yeah, Tom Felton, it's it's
really hard not to see Druco malfoy. I mean, that's gonna be kind
of that's a him thing, buthe don't want to be pretty decent.
I don't want to overtake your point. I'm totally gonna leave a finish your
point. I felt the same exactway, because like when Tom Felton come

(11:39):
on came on, I was justlike, Oh, it's Malfoy and I'm
only going to see about this season. You know, it's his name is
even Lucious, which is Malfoy's dad'sname in Harry Potter. But like after
that initial scene, like after hisfirst viewing, or like when he first
came unto the movie, I didn'tsee Malfoy anymore. I was like,
oh, cool, okay, cool, cool, cool cool, And so

(12:01):
I just want to say, yes, Darren, I completely agree with you.
Please continue. Yeah. No.And I felt similarly that after that
initial oh it's mal because I mean, he just he has that look like
you you recognize him instantly. Butno, I feel I feel he got
the right people for this particular typeof story because it's a really interesting perspective

(12:24):
story. Like I think that's whatreally hooked me from the beginning, is
this. You know you're following aI forget is he he's a tribute or
as Triturian. He's a tribune,so you're following this tribune, you know,
I'm kind of learning about the geopoliticsof Rome and how things are going.
And it's almost like a mystery becausewe know as Christians, like exactly

(12:48):
what's happened, and he has noidea, but of course he wouldn't know.
And so that is what's interesting,is, yeah, what is this
perspective of someone who doesn't have theBible in front of them and knows what's
happening, but instead they're like,oh, they're taking all of the natural
assumptions instead of the supernatural ones ofthey're like, oh, well his followers

(13:09):
stole the body, or oh thismust have been what happened. And so
it's a it's just a really cleverperspective's film, I think in general.
And that is something that Reynolds specificallybrought to it because apparently earlier versions of
the script had Peter in it muchearlier. Peter, you know, the
Rock of the Church was in itmuch earlier, and Reynolds apparently was one

(13:31):
of the ones that said, pullit back and let's focus in this confusion
with that. It's like, isthis a Peter's story or is this the
tribute story? And I think Ithink that reynolds perspective, if I remember
correctly, was basically, and I'mcondensing the point here is it's more interesting

(13:52):
to go with the skeptics point ofview. Peter's a believer, and so
it's more interesting just to focus onthe skeptics point of view because it really
leans into that detective story. ButTristan, to answer your point, I
think that some of the shot selectionstuff that you're talking about and some of
the way it's shot is a veryexperienced, intelligent director compensating for a much

(14:18):
smaller budget than people usually work with. Because if that is really tell this
was my second time seeing the film, and a lot of those tight shots,
it was like, Okay, we'regonna we've got to make the most
of what we can, so wecan't show a lot of the city.
It's very much sort of like aStar Trek sort of thing, where it's

(14:39):
like we're just going to show preciselywhere they're standing, and then we move
the camera over ten feet. They'reat a different location now. And I
would have a million budget, whichis not a lot in twenty sixteen,
dollars when you made a movie thatwas almost two hundred million dollars, and
then you in nineteen nineties money andthen in twenty seeing these money. Yeah,

(15:01):
in two thousands of money, you'remaking a twenty million dollar movie.
Your career has followed a specific trajectorythat is the inverse of what most directors
want to pursue, which is nota knock on Reynolds. I'm just saying,
like most directors are catering budget ofLord of the Rings. If that
that's that's the catering budget for theproduction staff on on Lord of the Rings.

(15:22):
Basically, yeah, I mean that'sthe thing is that I didn't really
feel the production I should say lackof production value, except in that first
battle where they're going uphill. Likeit was cool because like they used the
whole turtle thing and like they climbedup the turtle and everything like that,
but it was so narrow it feltI'm not trying to be a jerk,

(15:46):
but it almost felt laughable. Iwas like, this is your opening fight,
Like you're you're going, yeah,let me ask you this then,
and Dared, I'll throw it toyou first. Do you think think that
that opening shot was necessary for thetrajectory of the character, or do you
think it would have been better simplyto have him start coming back covered in

(16:08):
blood with a little bit of narrationgoing to pilot, so that you get
the sense of, like, thisis a guy that's been in the trenches
and now he's back. Do youthink they or do you think that while
we can look at the limited productionbudget and that opening battle, do you
think it alleviates that problem or doyou think it creates more problems? No?

(16:30):
I think they needed it because Imean, anytime you can show versus
a narration or a scrolling text itsays and then the tribute left the bloody
beat, like that is not gonnawork. But I think it goes into
the fact that this is just thisguy's life. This is Thursday. For

(16:51):
us, it's like the most miraculoustime of history, but for him,
he's like and so you need tofeel that monotony of I'm smelly, I
just was in this fight. Yeah, I gotta go check in from my
orders, Like it has to feellike every other day, but it's the
whole day without the other day.Yeah, So no, I would I
would say it, Yeah, yes, could they have put a little more

(17:15):
money, you know, a couplemore denius into it, sure, but
it works for what it is.I would much rather keep it. And
this is all armchair quarterbacking sort ofstuff, but I probably would have done
a scaled down version where it's likeafter the battle and you see all the
bodies laying everywhere, and then hewalks up and because I think the real

(17:37):
payoff of that scene is when theyhave the rebel leader Barrabas sitting there and
he says, Oh, the Messiahis going to come and then Rome will
be laid lower whatever the specific lineis, and he looks at him,
he goes, all right, welltill then and he kills him with a
shot to the head. Like that'sthe essence of the moment. Like if
I see bodies everywhere, I knowit's the end of a battle, and

(17:59):
you and maximize that limited budget byjust getting to that one scene. Again,
film too, where they like showthe aftermath because they don't show the
battle that we don't have the moneyfor. That could have worked. I
guess it just depends on striking thatbalance. I liked the scene because because
of the reasons that Darren talked aboutI like the purpose of the scene.

(18:22):
I should say I like the purposeof the scene because I feel like if
you had a more experienced cinematographer whereyou you would you would utilize more of
what you what you had where you'rejust like, don't show the whole literal
uphill battle, you know, likedo tights do frenetic cinematography failings? Like

(18:48):
I want to be yeah in putthe key like you're in the middle of
the of the shield turtle back,Like that would be amazing. That's the
thing is like have the camera inthe crap, you know, like in
the battle where who don't know what'sgoing on. It just needs to be
chaos. That's all it needs tobe. Is just needs to be chaos.
This is his every day, thisis his Thursday. And then he

(19:08):
finally gets out of it and thenmaybe they've they've conquered whatever. He's back
at base camp. I don't know, he's at the end of the hill,
and then they bring the rebel leaderto him, you know, like
it just needs to be craziness,and then we have that whole but not
today thing because I think him asa leader of men, he's in with
his men he's not like I'm gonnago stand on that hill and you guys

(19:30):
go fight and die, and itestablishes what kind of a person he is,
what kind of man he is.Well, I also give credit because
even though it's sort of a trope, I enjoy the fact that it does
show him in the midst of thebattle with everybody and they give him.
Granted, it's a trope, butit's one that I like where he has
a couple of moments where he justdodges his head a little bit to the

(19:51):
side as the arrow flies by,to give you the sense of like he's
he's just he's such a seasons aseasoned veteran. Yeah, yeah, I
love that. I don't care howmany times it's used. I don't care
how many times. Let's see,I love it. I love it.
Yeah, he's just so hyper awareof everything that's going on in a battle.
He's like, Okay, you're notbecause that's important though, because he
is a person of status, heis a leader, and so that is

(20:14):
coupled with what happens later and thefact that he is the skeptic and he
is I mean when and it's notCaesar, but his his higher up is
like, oh, he just abandonedus, like that has to meet that
means more. But he's this kindof mid yeah with Pilot versus oh he's
foot Soldier number seven, Like okay, well, the story could happen to
him, but it would have avery different impact. You know. Speaking

(20:37):
of Pilot and Darren, I'll goahead and throw this view because you mentioned
Pilot. We've seen a lot ofinterpretations of Pilot through the years. Yeah,
one of the things, I'm notgoing to spoil it by giving my
opinion of it, but what wasyour opinion of the way they portrayed Pilot
in this Do you think that thiswas a pilot that you believe, Like,

(21:00):
do you believe that this pilot couldhave existed in this moment in time?
Or is this a two showy sortof pilot that's like Okay, we're
gonna have a symbolic Roman guy.That's too much. Yeah, I mean,
it's got to be puncious pilot,because it's this is puncious pilot story.
But it is weird to see Pilotand not the the scene, the

(21:23):
whole you know, freeing Barabbas andlike all of like that is this is
like seeing the Aftermath Pilot like,which is kind of weird, but I
can also picture it as being someother mid level bureaucrat like I don't it
has to be pilot. Pilot ispart of Jesus's story. As far as

(21:45):
is it showy or piece of it, I don't know. It's hard to
place. I just I want asmuch screen time of Clavius, like,
like, the more we spend withhim, I think the better in general,
because he is just it's his eyesthat we're supposed to see through.
So I would even sacrifice, youknow, all their shots for that same

(22:10):
question to you, Tristan, isthis Pilot too showy? Is he too
herod in Jesus Christ Superstar? Oris this a or is this a bureaucrat
that you believe came out and saidwhat the buzz i was? Like,
Okay, yeah, I guess Jezout right. This is probably my favorite
portrayal of Pilot in cinema because Pilotwas a frigging monster, Like he was

(22:37):
a horrible person who did horrible things, And this guy could go either way,
Like when you look at him,like you see him as bureaucrat,
you see him as bureaucrat Number seven, because he's you know, he's freaking
out about the Emperor, he's freakingout about the higher ups coming and visiting
him and everything like that. Butyou know that he would do what needs

(22:57):
to be done in order to techthis province and protect his own position.
And so I could totally see himbeing a monster without actually seeing him be
a monster. Like, since wetalked about Passion of the Christ, I
hated that portrayal of Pilot really isoh my gosh, yes, like the
whole Like like when when we seePilot, who's introspective, when it's just

(23:18):
like, oh what is you know? What is truth? What is truth?
You know, it's like they showhim as some sort of reluctant philosopher,
and Passion of the Christ and Pilotwas not a reluctant philosopher whatsoever.
And so I want to see himeither as a monster or as a bureaucrat,
and we see him as a bureaucrat. Here, Uh, well,
song, as we're talking about bureaucratsand people who are protecting their possession of

(23:41):
power, want to see one morething. I'm sorry when I go ahead,
go ahead, So okay, Soone thing I did appreciate. Was
like Darren, where you talked abouthow you know, this is the aftermath,
like this is we don't like Pilot'skey thing is you know, washing
his hands of it and you knowthe know in you know, crucifying Jesus.

(24:02):
I liked that when he was talking, when he was telling Clavius,
like, oh, you know,like I crucified him when he said that
he's literally washing his hands in thein the pond or whatever and like in
the decorative pond. And I wasjust like, that's a nice touch.
I like that. Like maybe it'sa little on the nose, but I
liked it. No, it wasa nice touch. It wasn't like this

(24:23):
I literally did these motions and thenhe was crucified, you know. But
but speaking of bureaucrats and people wholike to protect their power, and Darren,
I'll throw this you in terms ofthe san Hedrin who come and you
know, Caiaphas comes up and he'she's he's talking with Pilot, same sort
of question. There is a flairfor the dramatic when presenting them. Do

(24:45):
you feel that this is a morerooted in believable history sort of group that
comes to Pilot to petition for certainthings like do you get the sense of
subtle political maneuverers or is this atoo flat no? I think again,
overall, I will say that it'sa really well cast movie. You know,

(25:10):
you have all these bit parts thatyou could think of as just bit
parts, but they have to worktogether. If one of them feels like
this guy feels like he fell outof twenty sixteen, like that's not gonna
work. You know, this needsto feel like you need to not break
the Thursday illusion. And I thinkthese guys just act like romans are like
what we expect romans to be.But but I mean, you know,

(25:33):
the Jewish Council and specific coming tohim, right, like are they because
you know, again yeah, thewhole not to go back to Jesus Christ
Superstar every time, but like therecan be a very showy like like thing,
right. I I thought it wasappropriate because I think, you know,
like they they showed that there arepeople of that, Like there were

(25:56):
was high level people in Judaism whosympathize with Jesus, and there was high
level people in Judaism who didn't.And the people who didn't, they weren't
twirling their mustache as you know whatwe as we've seen in stories and we've
seen in previous movies. You knowit Pharisees, it all would have worked
out and Christy been here forever.It's like, not, no, it

(26:18):
was they were bureaucrats. They're they'repeople in positions of power who were wanting
to protect their power. Whether they'reJewish, whether they're Roman, whether they're
Chinese, whether they're British, whetheror they're American. That is what bureaucracy
is. It doesn't matter what nationality, what ethnicity, what faith they were.
If you're in a position of power, you want to protect that power.

(26:38):
And that's what they showed, andthey did it without the mustache whirling.
Yeah, I agree. I alwaysI found it to be a really
interesting and also what I found interestingabout I guess you could say the subtext
of it was the big act hadbeen done and so they were just showing
up knowing they'd already asked for thehuge favor from Pilot, and they're like,

(27:02):
you know, just as a sidenote, just you know, it
could hurt us both if a certainthing happened. We think that like they're
much more they know they'd ask forthe big favor, and they've spent almost
all of their political capital, andso they want to really gingerly bring up
a couple of things like it mightbe good to do something additional, but

(27:22):
you're gonna proclaim it, right,You're gonna proclaim it? Yeah, right,
right, right, right right.I didn't say I declared it now
in terms of bankruptcy, right,In terms of these these performances, in
terms of the production value, interms of finding Reynolds Darren, do you

(27:45):
get the sense of a director whois and I mentioned this only because I
don't see any other credits to Reynolds'sname. He's seventy one. Now,
I think, does this feel likea Swan Song movie? Because this is
the last thing on his filmography rightnow? Does this feel like something where
somebody is coming in and doing itand this is his last why not moment?

(28:10):
Like where he says, Okay,I've done everything I've set out to
do. I can hang my haton this and walk away. Does it?
Do you get that sense? Likewhat I'm trying to get at is
a lot of times when it's adirector's last movie, they really want to
go out with flair and they reallywant to make sure that you watch their
last movie. There's this is theirbig thing. I fully expect that when

(28:33):
Christopher Nolan does his last movie,he's going to accidentally crack the planet in
half. Right, He's going toshoot in actual space. He's actually going
to shoot on the moon for hislast movie. Yeah. I mean again,
it's all conjecture. It could havebeen that, Yeah, this is
his last film, and this iswhat he was given. So it's like,

(28:53):
I gotta make do with what Igot. It's not the it's not
water World two. It's not somebig, you know, showy kind of
spectacle. But but this movie,it's a religious movie it and that has
a lot of connotations with it.It's got a smaller budget. You have
to kind of tiptoe around it alittle bit, like you you know,

(29:18):
there's an expectation of kind of whatyou're putting forth. And I think he
is spending his directorial capital in theyou know, the skeptic outsider looking in
view like that. You could seehis choices in the direction of this,
and like I've said many times,like and also the assembling of the actors

(29:41):
and what he gets out of them. But yeah, I guess as a
Swan song it you know, hey, if this is my final movie,
you know, I would say that'sa great note to hit it. It
made money. It made forty sixworldwide off a twenty million budget. Like
that's not bad. It's doubled,and then some that's yeah, it's not
like a two hundred million dollars andit was never going to be like you

(30:03):
could put anyone on this and it'snot going to be a two hundred dollars
box office movie. It's just not. It doesn't have the story and the
you know, the audience to generatethat. So yeah, again, this
is all conjecture on his thought process, but I could see him just being
like, yeah, they I coulddo that. I'm assuming he's a Christian.

(30:25):
I don't know if he is,per se, but it would feel
odd for a non Christian to wantto tackle this particular story. I feel
like he hits it with a goodnuance. But yeah, I'm not surprized
with the creatives in the industry.Yeah I think that. I think that.
I mean, we have Life ofBrian on one side, and we

(30:47):
have you know, Risen. Oneof my favorite is a freaking masterpiece,
but one of my favorite minor anecdotesis Ann Rice, the novelist who wrote
Who's Who's most famous for her Interviewwith the Vampire. She wrote the Interview
of the Vampire books and a wholebunch of other books. She started to
write books about the early childhood ofJesus. Okay, I don't know.

(31:11):
I can't remember exactly how she gotstarted, but she wasn't a Christian,
and she was just like, Iwant to I want to write about that,
and so in her research and asshe writing this, she's like,
oh, damn, I'm a Christiannow, this guy's real. Okay,
she became a Christian through the material, and I love that story. I
love that kind of thing where youjust she gets she immersed herself in Jesus

(31:33):
and became a Christian because of it, even though she wasn't when she started.
But she she started the project justbecause she was fascinated with it.
I feel like there's there's plenty oftimes when when creatives are fascinated with the
story of Jesus, like you know, Scorsese, you know, like,
I have no idea if he's aChristian, but he did a movie he
was, he was raised as such, and last Sentation of Christ is a

(31:59):
really well, I mean smartin Scorsesey. He's pretty good at what he does.
It's a fascinating film. It's areally fascinating film. And I remember
specifically the really really fervent protest aboutthe film that was rough at the time.
It was it was something else thathappened at the time. But it's

(32:23):
a really well made and interesting film. I think that when you have this
topic, I agree, it's easilyvery fascinating because there are so many angles
from which to attack it. Youknow, we've made several references to Passion
of the Christ, and I actually, I actually think, even though I'm

(32:44):
a believer, that one of themost startlingly important statements that that movie makes
is about political dissent and how simplysaying something the crowd doesn't want to hear
when the crowd believes a certain thingresults in a specific outcome for you.
That it's always dangerous to go againstthe political will of everyone, which I've

(33:10):
just always found an interesting aspect tothe story. But this story doesn't deal
specifically with that. This is askeptic coming to believe. So I think
that whether Reynolds was a Christian ornot become secondary because the mission statement of
the film is obvious from the beginning, like this is this is the thing
I struggle with, and trist I'lltoss it back to you as much as

(33:30):
I might be able to sit thereand say, oh, I can see
Reynolds here. I can see inthe specifically in the bath scene where where
they're sitting there and Pilot is talkingto him about his ambitions and where do
you see yourself going next? Ican see Reynolds in there a little bit

(33:51):
in terms of the colors of thescene, like because we're specifically watching it
through that perspective, there were certainthings where I said, this looks like
something that would have been shot andcount of Monte Cristo or Robin Hood.
It looks like that. I canI can see that because that's one of
the few scenes that's actually very warmin this movie. Because we get a

(34:14):
lot of stark white, a lotof stark desert, we get heat,
but not warmth. And I thinkwith that particular scene, it's two men,
you know, connecting on a levelthat we don't. We don't see
that much throughout the movie, andwhere he's talking about peace he's talking about
you know, you know, gettinga piece, getting a piece of land,

(34:34):
you know, like having a familyand just you know, it was
basically his Maximus moment talking to MarcusAurelius saying I want to go home,
you know, but Clavius is sayinghe wants to build a home. And
so yeah, I think, yeah, I totally could see that in Prince
of Thieves or or kind of MontyCrystal. Yeah. Yeah, I think
out of the entire piece, that'sprobably the most Reynolds I agree with you

(34:58):
on that. I mean when hestarted turning the dial, letting more and
more steam into the bathroom and like, yeah, that was that was a
weird direct callback. I don't thinkit fit. But hey, you know,
you gotta put your signature like JohnMood with the gubs. You know,
you just gotta you just gotta figureout what it is. Two men
in a very stevy room. It'smy signature. I got it, gotta
do it. I know that Ihave to ask though, because this is

(35:19):
a question I love to ask,and Darren, I'll throw it to you
first because Tristan hates talking about thistype of stuff. The score did anything
from this score resonate with you orwas this just and off the shelf?
So the screeny score, I meanit was it had its moments, but
I mean, you know me,I'm like, if there's not a you

(35:40):
know, John william esque theme forJesus every time we see him on screen,
it's hard for me to remember it. And I'm just so used to
that kind of audio queue. So, I mean, again, I don't
have much to say on the score. Really, it's it's it leads you

(36:00):
through the emotion points. But honestly, more the more emotional parts for me
was like you know, when they'rein the upper room and they're like this
is where it was like those momentslike and something about the you know again
at the at the grave, youknow, like seeing Yeah, just things

(36:22):
like that impacted me more. Idon't know, I don't know much to
say about the score itself. John, if you like started that sentence with
Man's it was weird that this moviedidn't have a score. You know,
it was like Network where there wasno music. I'd be like, oh,
yeah, okay, cool, that'sinteresting. I didn't notice that,

(36:42):
but yeah, I believe it,Like I couldn't. I couldn't tell you
a single note. I couldn't tellyou a single note. And that's what's
so odd to me is when yougo to Last Temptation of Christ, Passion
of the Christ, greatest story evertold, the usually accompanied by this sense

(37:02):
that the composer comes in and says, Oh, okay, it's big thing.
I really gotta, I really got, I really got to step up
to this. And I wonder ifit's more a product of the fact that
they're not dealing with the Jesus storyin specific as a target. They're dealing
with this guy's story, which isa smaller side story. So it's a
smaller scale sort of thing. There'sno Super Bowl with this, like there's

(37:25):
no you know, like like theytreat Jesus, because we see the end
of Jesus's crucifixion, you know,like, but it's not treated as this
big triumphant things. It's not treatedas like, oh my God, like
even with the earthquake, you know, it's treated like a what the hell
is that? You know, likein any other movie that's gonna be like

(37:46):
the whole he did do with thegirl in the Spider's Web, Tristan the
same composer. I don't know that. Yeah, that wasn't a good thing,
dear movie, you'd like that's allmovies. It's funny. It's funny
you mentioned the earthquake because of thefact that Lucius says, Poseidon must be

(38:07):
angry, and Lucius is a Roman, he should have say said Neptune.
But that's okay because you know,yeah, whatever I mean it. The
Roman stole the Greek gods anyway,so it's doesn't matter. Oh well,
they he's old schools stolen. Theyyou know what, they rebooted the Greek
gods. They win in and theyhave it's a lot more sweating. I

(38:31):
want to talk about the structure alittle bit about this movie because this is
something that kind of pissed me off. So in the in the opening of
the film, it's very much CSIJerusalem, you know, like it kind
of felt that way where you youknow, Clavius is the guy who's who's

(38:51):
trying to figure out this whole Jesusthing. And a side note, I
really appreciate that they pronounced it properly, that it was Yeshua not Jesus,
like, not this Anglico way ofsaying it. So we're looking for j
C. He's somewhere, He's somewherehere well name is John Doe, j
C. Hewhere blame the Greeks forthe way they wrote it, and then

(39:12):
the Romans the way they transliterated it. So yeah, no, I did
appreciate that. So, like,even though it was kind of slow and
kind of at the beginning, forme, I appreciate what they were doing.
But the problem is is that theopening was it's okay. This movie
was the epitome of the opposite ofshow, don't tell. This was tell,

(39:32):
don't show, and I think thatkind of hurts it because of the
nature of what it is. It'sit's this guy, you know, investigating
what he hasn't seen, and allthe interesting parts happen off screen, and
that's frustrating. But if you doit like something like True Detective or Mine

(39:52):
Hunter, you know that is theinvestigation is the interesting part. But with
this movie, the investigation was probablythe least interesting part because of how it
was treated, where you're just like, I'm not like I know this story,
like I know how this is going, so there's no mystery. Are
okay, okay? I want toI want to hear your disagreement. I

(40:13):
totally do and but there was ahuge tonal shift once he actually sees Jesus
alive, which I really liked,Like it was it was really cool because
they kind of skirted that line fora long time for like the first half
of the movie. You're like,okay, so like there's no outright determination
that Jesus is the son of God, that Jesus isn't full of crap.

(40:37):
Like it was very much like ayou know, we have no idea because
it's all just from Clavia's perspective.But then when he sees Yeshua among the
disciples as an audience, I'm kindof like I see that, I'm like,
oh, you know, like I'mpointing at the screen. I'm just
like, oh my god, it'shim. It's him, you know.
And that and and that's a reallycool moment that's hard to tailor because you

(40:58):
know, like as Christians, webelieve in Jesus, the historical Jesus and
the and the Christian Jesus. Andthen when when you actually see him on
screen, even though we've seen himdead on screen, like see him Risen
were you know, I was excitedwhen I when I saw that. I
know about you guys, but thenafter that it was almost like a completely
different movie, and so it feltvery odd to me. And so John,

(41:19):
I want to hear what you thinkabout the about the investigation in the
opening. I think the I thinkthe investigation works as it's constructed, specifically
because this is not I think thatReynolds smartly constructs a film that does not
lean too hard into the fact thata lot of people in the audience it's
preaching to the converted, and heinstead approaches the film as this is a

(41:45):
guy where this is his job.He doesn't really want to be doing it.
He's tired of having to deal withthis crap. He just wants to
go and he just doesn't even wantto really be doing this. And I
think it really actively in its toneand it's pacing, communicates the idea that

(42:05):
this is a guy where he's notexpecting to find anything special. He's expecting
to do his job and go tobed and just have it over with and
great. At the end of thethird day, I've sealed this tomb.
I've sealed the crap out of thistomb. You'd have to have an army
to get this tomb open. Youasked me to seal it, and I

(42:27):
way over delivered on this. Thereis zero percent chance anybody's getting in here
without a small army to move everythingaround. So he's just very he's tired,
and I appreciate that. I thinkthat is what makes the scene when
he sees everybody gathered in the upperroom. I think that's what makes it
so effective because it is the momentwhere he suddenly realizes, oh, I

(42:52):
really didn't expect to find this.This is not at all what I thought
this was going to lead to,and he's absolutely gobsmacked, and I think
that's I think that's what is oneof the things that makes the movie work
as well. So, Darren,do you want to be the tiebreaker here?
Tristan and I are just disagreeing aboutthis part, But do you want

(43:13):
to be the tiebreaker? Who?Who? Where do you fall on this
scale? I believe in Jesus,guys, I'm sorry, I'm just I'm
in the in the mind now moviesaccomplished its goal. Yeah, I wasn't
a believer before. Not just kidding, that's totally not true now, Yeah,

(43:34):
No, I like, like Tristansaid, I like that tonal shift
pre the what's it called him seeingJesus and seeing like things happening, and
I like that change. It's butyeah, it when you were talking about
like True Detective or mine Hunter orman Hunter, mine Hutter, whatever that
one Mine Hunter earlier. Like it'sfunny because like I I know, we

(43:58):
know that Jesus story. It's notlike we need to be shown it again.
But that is kind of one ofthe differences of this movie and that
you don't show like the difference ofit's not like they're showing us the audience
what happened and then the character doesn'tknow. They're not showing anybody and you
just kind of you read the book, so you know what happened, like

(44:20):
that the world has read the book. The book, you know, the
most bestseller book called the Bible.It's been around for a while. But
yeah, now I don't know.It's all that to say is I think
it's trying to do that. I'mnot showing you that part the interesting part
because you already know it, butbecause it's I don't know, it's it's

(44:42):
in this weird predicament because it isthe Christ's story, which is a very
known so it's like you almost kindof need to show a little more of
it, because then you're showing yourtone of it. I don't know,
I see see again, like it'shis, it's it's his story. And
for somebody who's not even there,he's not even in town when this is

(45:04):
going on, and he comes back, he's like, oh, by the
way, I crucified a guy,I need to go take care of it.
And he's like he's literally still coveredin blood and filth and he's like,
oh, okay, I can't evenall right, all right, I'm
still working, Okay, okay,like that. Initially thought it was going
to be like I thought the storywas going to be like the centurion you
know who, you know, piercedhis side and all of that, like

(45:28):
actually hands on and not Joe wasover the hill during that day, I
mean, which again is the waythey took the story. And I think
it's a really interesting one. Butyeah, it's kind of second hand,
you know it. It's like CSILas Vegas and CSI, you know,
La Crossover. You weren't in townwhen it happened, but we need you

(45:51):
to pull you in on this caseso you can figure out where this Yeshua
is. And I think I thinkthat I think that additionally, the you
have the the the you know,the upstairs room, and while you don't
have all of the lead up andhe was out of town while this is
all happening, you still see himperform a miracle and cure the leper.

(46:15):
And then you have the actual ascension, which, boy, they they actually
leaned into you know, little littleshowiness there on that ending. I was
I was wondering how they're going tohandle that. I was like, are
they actually going to see him goup? Like are we gonna see him
float to Evan because that's that's whathappened to the Bible, And but it's

(46:37):
not very cinematic, but they pulledit off, like with him being at
the at sunrise where you can't reallysee him anymore, but then the camera
does that quick tilt up just atthe last second to show him ascending into
heaven. I was like, thatwas very cinematically done well. And then
you have that sort of like concussionwave hit them. Yeah, that that's
really to your end. There waslike, you know, hey fever all

(47:00):
around like there was like like likeit was Paul and everywhere in particulates in
the air. I would say,actually that as well. It's when he
sees Jesus performed the miracle of curingthe leper. I think that's actually the
most emotionally affecting moment, and Ienjoy the fact that that feels like a

(47:23):
real payoff moment where even after hehas the moment in the upper room and
he is he's going along, he'sthere's still some of that skepticism left and
like that's the final moment, andI think Finds plays it really really well
of him going okay, this wow, all right, this is all this

(47:44):
is legit, this is really thereal deal. Okay, Like I think
it really has a good impact tothat scene. Well, even like Bartholo
Mule, which is hard I can'tsay that would name Bart. He you
know, he's like, you know, like Fins asked him, like you
know, like why you know,I mean, why did you follow him?

(48:06):
Like if if you didn't really know, if you if you had your
doubts, like why did you followhim? And then you know, he
cures leper and then Bart says,you know, like oh that's why,
you know, speaking of which Ithink what doesn't say He's just gesturing like
m right, that will smith me. Yeah, I think, I think

(48:27):
to show it's this This movie frustratesme because there's so many things that I
like and there's so many things thatI don't, and I think, like
to go back to Bartholomule. Iloved that scene with Clavius and barthol Lemule
because I love the betrayal that StephenHagen did for barthel Lemule, because he

(48:49):
is like he's like, he's likemy God, like I had, I
got to meet my God, Igot to talk with him, I got
to touch him. He died,he came back, and God's real,
you know, like he was likehe was super excited. This was not
Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth portrayal, like where everyone's just like dour,

(49:10):
super serious, you know, likeand like everybody is just like just like
a Bible quoting robot, you know, like, no, like this is
these are these were real people experiencingreal emotions and going through real traumatic events,
but yet real joy and knowing thatGod is real and that you know,
like you got to meet him andyou're gonna be the You're gonna be

(49:31):
one of the leaders that spread theword throughout nations and like Bartholomil knows that,
and he is just the epitome ofthat. I love that betrayal.
But then we have the Mary Magdalenescene, which felt like a repeat of
that but yet done in a muchdifferent way. And and like I think,

(49:52):
once we got to that scene,I'm just like, oh my god.
You know, it's just like,oh, I got it's dragging.
And also, once again, Iate, I hate that they made Mary
Magdalen a prostitute, you know,like I'm so sick of that and popular
culture and move on, Let's moveon. She wasn't a prostitute, you
know, like this was a mistakein history. Let's move on, let's

(50:12):
not propagate this in pop culture.And it's just it was one of those
things where it it felt like arepeat. One worked, one didn't.
And I think that was a lotof what happened in this movie, where
we see one thing that doesn't work, and then another thing that doesn't,
and then we see one thing thatdoes work and then another thing that doesn't.
It felt very back and forth,back and forth, and I think
like the structure those moments frustrate me. Well, it definitely sounds like something

(50:37):
frustrated you about this film, soI think we'll toss it to you first
in terms of your rating, yourfinal rating for Risen release in twenty sixteen,
the last film we are going totalk about for House of Reynolds,
and it appears to be the lastfilm that Kevin Reynolds has directed or will

(50:58):
direct, Tristan. Where do youcome in for your ratings with Risen?
I think the performances are what reallymake this movie, and in Darren you
were spot on about like what makesthat Kevin Reynolds film is bringing a cast
together the right people at the righttime. I thought Fines, Felton,

(51:21):
Firth, Curtis, you know,other days, like everybody did a fantastic
job. And I love how it'scrazy that Cliff Curtis is the most accurate
portrayal of an a cinematic Jesus thatwe've seen, and he's of Maori descent.
I think that's crazy. I thinkit's I think it's crazy that he

(51:42):
was smiley in Training Day. Butthat's just me. But I loved Peter
the Rock Simon or Simon the RockPeter aka Dwayne Johnson. No, I
really I loved his performance in thisI thought he was great. I thought
it was a little silly. APeter would have known better than to sneak
up behind a trained Roman soldier withwater. You could have just walked straight

(52:05):
towards him. You didn't need tosneak up behind him. I mean,
I think it deserved to get itscalf slid, you know, sliced open.
But it was There's so much,you know, I've talked on and
on. There's so much that workswith this movie. There's so many great
little moments. I loved the thethe casual brutality of the crucifixion because you
know, like we talked about this, like there's there's so many other cinematic

(52:27):
movies where that is the end game. That is the big deal. That's
the super Bowl, you know,like that is that is something that is
that is huge, that's high,Like that's the climax. That's where every
you know, like you know,composers like this, I'm bringing my a
game here here, I you know, I don't even think there was music.
And then when they dropped one ofthe guys who was crucified, when
they just dropped him on the ground, the camera didn't cut away. You

(52:50):
saw that body drop on the crosson the ground and it was final and
it was devastating, and it wascasual. You're like, this is Tuesday.
They just throw them in the pit, you know, behind like unceremoniously,
And that's how it was with theRomans. I mean, they gave
out crucifixions like parking tickets, andit's yeah, I mean, it's that's

(53:15):
the thing. It's just like,there's so much that that works, but
there's just the structure and that andthe schizophrenic duality of the pacing. It
just honestly, like, I givethis a two and a half. I
think this this movie is I don'tthink this is a great movie. I
don't think this is necessarily a goodmovie. I think it's it fights itself

(53:36):
too much, and so I giveit a two and a half as mediocre,
not bad, but not good either. Wow. So, Darren,
given the fact that you spoiled atthe beginning of the show that you watch
this film semi regularly, I'm guessingyou might have landed higher than a two
and a half. So I'm curiousto know where you come in with your
rating. Yeah, no, I'mgiving it a three. I think it's

(53:58):
a you know, maybe every oneto two years. You know, there's
some Easters where we're busy and we'renot like, oh but we gotta find
time to sit down and watch Risen, Like, but I it's it's the
beginning of the church. It's theit's that next day after, you know,
after Easter, and it's kind ofthis fresh breath of air of like,

(54:23):
look at what was started and lookat how it began, and it's
it's it's a nice new take onon that story. Really well acted.
Again, you know, not thebest. It's not winning Oscars left and
right, but for for what hepulled together for a twenty million budget,
Like, it's a dang good moviefor a religious topic story, you know

(54:49):
that is not focusing on the bigclimax of the Bible, but instead like,
well what happened on the next page, you know. So yeah,
I've given it a three. Coolwith what I gave Water World Ulysses cut,
I think, yeah, I thinkif this is his swan song,
I'd be proud of it. Thisis you know, a very decent movie

(55:12):
and like I've said, I isrewatchable. I do enjoy. You know,
we're watching it. It's not tooyou know, it's got impact,
but it's not too violent or tooyou know, a little mumbly, like
like Kristen said. But that's whyI got invented subtitles. I feel like
pad, I shouldn't say that,you know, don don't be ashamed of

(55:35):
that. That's a good deal.The audio engineering is definitely ah. I
think he read the book first.That's I don't think they're gonna top that.
I actually wind up coming in higherthan either one of you. When
I first watched the film, Iwound up giving it a four. And
that is because I think partially Iwas so shocked that a Christian product that

(56:00):
I had never heard of was decentlyput together. Listen, I saw Fireproof,
and I remember friends of mine saying, oh, Fireproof is a great
movie. And I looked at it. I was like, oh, okay,
I love and respect you. Andthis was the same production company,
dude, this was the same productioncompany. And my Proof made bank.

(56:22):
But it was not a good movie. It was not a good movie,
and I do I did not likeit. But that movie made money.
Christians will just make it rain withmovies like that. And I think it's
crazy that a firm that's the nameof the Christian Production Company of front,
which is the most successful production Christianproduction company. Film Production Company of all

(56:43):
time is a Sony subsidiary, andyeah, Filos thirty three mill but it
made it on a five hundred thousanddollars budget. Yeah, yeah, it's
all it's all proportional for sure.Yeah. I think probably if you look
at if you compare the box offices, it's one of those things where maybe
the lesson of this one for themwas it doesn't matter whether we spend half

(57:06):
a million or twenty million, We'regoing to make forty million, and you
know, so they've sort of foundtheir cap. But I gave it a
four the first time I watched it. I'm giving it a three and a
half this time because I think it'san effective film. I think it's an
interesting film. I like the performances. I appreciate the fact that Reynolds does

(57:28):
not rely on portrayals of these charactersprevious to his film. This feels like
somebody making their own version of history. This is not somebody saying, well,
I got to portray Pilot this waybecause of this, or I got
to portray the sand Hedron this waybecause of this, or I have to
make it this way because of this, This is somebody with the wisdom to

(57:49):
say, no, it's my movie. I will make this the way I'm
going to make it. So Igive it a three and a half.
It could go up in the future, I don't know. Depends on emotional
mood, but that's where I willland with it. So that ends our
tour of the House of Reynolds,and we're going to be doing something a
little bit differently starting next week.Where we are going to do It's like

(58:13):
this is going to be one ofthose things where we're going with a theme
more than a singular director because wethink it'll be a lot of fun,
sort of like when we did ourexploration of the Bond character and how different
directors brought different things to it.We are going to go into the Wing
of King Arthur and we are goingto examine the Arthurian legend as interpreted by

(58:35):
a wide range of directors and studiosthrough time, bringing us all the way
up almost to the very modern day. But we will be kicking it off
next week. The Wing of KingArthur starts with the Disney classic question mark
The Sword in the Stone from nineteensixty three. So get on over to
Disney Plus if this is one ofthe ones they haven't taken off of the

(58:59):
service yet, and join us nextweek. Here on Houselights join the Revolution,
Join the Nerd Party.