El desafiante líder Moisés se levanta contra el faraón egipcio Ramsés II, poniendo a seiscientos mil esclavos en un viaje monumental de escape de Egipto y su aterrador ciclo de plagas mortal... Leer todoEl desafiante líder Moisés se levanta contra el faraón egipcio Ramsés II, poniendo a seiscientos mil esclavos en un viaje monumental de escape de Egipto y su aterrador ciclo de plagas mortales.El desafiante líder Moisés se levanta contra el faraón egipcio Ramsés II, poniendo a seiscientos mil esclavos en un viaje monumental de escape de Egipto y su aterrador ciclo de plagas mortales.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 6 nominaciones en total
Opiniones destacadas
It's not any one thing especially that is particularly so wrong with Exodus: Gods and Kings, but an overall gloom and doom that befalls the film, the deadly serious tone, that keeps it from reaching to a higher plain of epic-filmmaking existence. Scott takes this tale SO seriously, indeed, that he has things like a stern-faced child as the voice of the "I Am". Which is fine, except that there is nary a moment of any kind of other emotion from this child actor throughout than of whining. At least when Scorsese had a child as a 'God'-like being in Last Temptation of Christ it was for a shorter period of time, and for a more specific purpose. If there was a point to be made about this child as a "God" - perhaps as his way of criticizing religion as the God of the Old Testament being a brutal eight year-old - it could have had an impact... if the rest of the film around it wasn't so thuddeningly dull.
Why is this so dull? When you have this much money at your disposal, you got to try to make as much of a HUMAN connection, to make the drama really stand out (this was something another filmmaker in 2014, Aronofsky with Noah, actually understood and really made palpable and intense amid the spectacle). Or, go the other way into broad and campy material. Scott is just there to shoot a lot of this much the way he did Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood - in other words, substitute out the pyramids with colisseums, or castles, or other things, and you'd have similar hyper-kinetic action (sometimes but not always too fast) and actors who are well-trained and versed and there to do the work, but not much more.
Actually, those other films, even Robin Hood, would be preferable to sit through again than Exodus. There's just no joy or excitement to the filmmaking; the closest part where it really gets engaging and exciting and full of 'Wow' material are the plagues. Those work well, just as eye-candy. People in the cast like Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton, as Moses and Ramses respectively, are giving it their all - or as much as the script is asking them too, which is pretty similar relatively scene to scene (Ramses rarely is anything other than a "God"-type d***head). But other actors are completely wasted amid the scenery and effects: Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul, Ben Kingsley, they're only there to look on with awe and "huh" moments, or deliver exposition glumly. Ewen Bremmer, of all actors, as the sort of court-jester-summarizer of the plagues steals the show far as supporting players go.
It's all just flat, monotonous story-telling, and for all of those moments - that mid-section with the plagues - that are visually striking and cool-looking, there's still not much investment with the characters. We know how this will play out, but what do Scott and his screenwriters do to add anything extra aside from that been-there-done-that "lived-in" dirty quality? Uh... extra violence (albeit just up to the line of R-rated)? An opening battle? For all of the intensity of the two main actors, and the tremendous special effects, it's practically wasted on a story that is 90 minutes shorter than DeMille's 1956 Ten Commandments, feels long and sluggishly paced - this despite the fact that certain other characters who could add some human dimension (like Moses' wife) are underdeveloped and under-utilized. Just put the actor there, prop-like, shoot, go on with the next scene.
Where's a good 'Golden Calf' sequence when you really need one?
Why is this so dull? When you have this much money at your disposal, you got to try to make as much of a HUMAN connection, to make the drama really stand out (this was something another filmmaker in 2014, Aronofsky with Noah, actually understood and really made palpable and intense amid the spectacle). Or, go the other way into broad and campy material. Scott is just there to shoot a lot of this much the way he did Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood - in other words, substitute out the pyramids with colisseums, or castles, or other things, and you'd have similar hyper-kinetic action (sometimes but not always too fast) and actors who are well-trained and versed and there to do the work, but not much more.
Actually, those other films, even Robin Hood, would be preferable to sit through again than Exodus. There's just no joy or excitement to the filmmaking; the closest part where it really gets engaging and exciting and full of 'Wow' material are the plagues. Those work well, just as eye-candy. People in the cast like Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton, as Moses and Ramses respectively, are giving it their all - or as much as the script is asking them too, which is pretty similar relatively scene to scene (Ramses rarely is anything other than a "God"-type d***head). But other actors are completely wasted amid the scenery and effects: Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul, Ben Kingsley, they're only there to look on with awe and "huh" moments, or deliver exposition glumly. Ewen Bremmer, of all actors, as the sort of court-jester-summarizer of the plagues steals the show far as supporting players go.
It's all just flat, monotonous story-telling, and for all of those moments - that mid-section with the plagues - that are visually striking and cool-looking, there's still not much investment with the characters. We know how this will play out, but what do Scott and his screenwriters do to add anything extra aside from that been-there-done-that "lived-in" dirty quality? Uh... extra violence (albeit just up to the line of R-rated)? An opening battle? For all of the intensity of the two main actors, and the tremendous special effects, it's practically wasted on a story that is 90 minutes shorter than DeMille's 1956 Ten Commandments, feels long and sluggishly paced - this despite the fact that certain other characters who could add some human dimension (like Moses' wife) are underdeveloped and under-utilized. Just put the actor there, prop-like, shoot, go on with the next scene.
Where's a good 'Golden Calf' sequence when you really need one?
I have never written a review in IMDb. This is my first time. Why? Because the movie hasn't been released in USA yet, and I just watched in India. Seeing just 5 reviews, I wanted to give mine too.
What's up with Hollywood? Other than spectacular visuals and 3-D, they don't seem to care enough about anything else. In Exodus, by the famed director Ridley Scott, he surpassed many elements in visual effects. I have never ever seen so detailed visuals of ancient buildings, slums of slaves, and huge ocean waves and what not. 3-D adds a lot of pleasure in viewing such effects.
That's it! There is nothing more that I could appreciate. It feels very empty. No emotions at all. Acting by Christian Bale is quite alright, but it is nothing special. Some scenes are memorable. But the lack of good writing, script, and no contribution from other actors diminish the effect of Bale as well. It is hard to imagine the same guy directed Gladiator (I haven't seen Aliens and blade runner). But there is everything missing in Exodus that made Gladiator a hit.
At many places, it is boring, even if the cinematography and visual effects are great. In the beginning, you would feel as if Ridley took you to the ancient Egyptian world, just because of the small details shown in the effects. However, any interest or so will end in next 10 minutes or so, when the story starts lacking.
So, my question remains. What's up with Hollywood? Is this much technology and huge funding to such directors destroying the creativity. Why no body cares about character building and good script? At one level, it feels extremely sad that with this budget and this talent in technology, even a slight efforts and honesty towards script, story, and dialogue can take such movies to a masterpiece level. But...no! "We are going to earn a lot of money. You are going to enjoy watching the magnificent sequence of millions of frog jumping in ancient buildings. Call it even?" Really?
What's up with Hollywood? Other than spectacular visuals and 3-D, they don't seem to care enough about anything else. In Exodus, by the famed director Ridley Scott, he surpassed many elements in visual effects. I have never ever seen so detailed visuals of ancient buildings, slums of slaves, and huge ocean waves and what not. 3-D adds a lot of pleasure in viewing such effects.
That's it! There is nothing more that I could appreciate. It feels very empty. No emotions at all. Acting by Christian Bale is quite alright, but it is nothing special. Some scenes are memorable. But the lack of good writing, script, and no contribution from other actors diminish the effect of Bale as well. It is hard to imagine the same guy directed Gladiator (I haven't seen Aliens and blade runner). But there is everything missing in Exodus that made Gladiator a hit.
At many places, it is boring, even if the cinematography and visual effects are great. In the beginning, you would feel as if Ridley took you to the ancient Egyptian world, just because of the small details shown in the effects. However, any interest or so will end in next 10 minutes or so, when the story starts lacking.
So, my question remains. What's up with Hollywood? Is this much technology and huge funding to such directors destroying the creativity. Why no body cares about character building and good script? At one level, it feels extremely sad that with this budget and this talent in technology, even a slight efforts and honesty towards script, story, and dialogue can take such movies to a masterpiece level. But...no! "We are going to earn a lot of money. You are going to enjoy watching the magnificent sequence of millions of frog jumping in ancient buildings. Call it even?" Really?
Exodus is yet another big budget Hollywood movie, the other being Noah, to be based on a biblical story. This time, it is about Moses.
Christian Bale stars as Moses, who I believe was a good choice for the role and did pretty well. Can't say the same for Ramses, the evil Pharaoh. Joel Edgerton wasn't bad per say, but he didn't give this bad evil-ish vibe that I wish was present. The movie's writing is at fault here too.
The second half of the movie, starting from the plagues till the end, was great. I loved the plagues and their presentation, they were thrilling and frightening. Would have been even better if there was some breathing room given to them and if there was more suspense created, but oh well. The finale was again Epic, with the red sea rushing back and all. Being a Ridley Scott film, you can surely expect a visual spectacle, and this movie certainly had many. Beautiful views of Egypt, epic scope, great overhead shots, great cinematography all in all.
The CGI was mostly great. Egypt was beautifully realized and we get to feel its grandness. There were a few instances where green screen use was apparent. Soundtrack was decent, but I was kinda disappointed by it. Was hoping to have at least one great track that really gets you going.
Now, the movie had it fair share of flaws. The first half or so got slow pretty soon after the epic opening battle and kinda got boring. The personal stuff, aside from Moses and Ramses conflict, wasn't interesting and bogged down the movie. Also, a child messenger representing God and all the talks that followed was really underwhelming. Would have been better if it was just a voice or something, they could have used Liam Neeson's voice. But my biggest complaint with the movie is that how anti-climatic the quintessential moment was, and I'm of course talking about the splitting of the Red sea. I was in so much anticipation about finally seeing that moment realized perfectly thanks to modern CGI and with Ridley Scott at helm, only to be extremely disappointed by seeing it reduced to nothing but a steady receding of the water. WTF Ridley Scott. I get that they were going for a more realistic approach or whatever, but CMON, somethings aren't meant to be changed/meddled with.
Overall, even with the flaws, I still did like the movie. Don't hesitate to watch it because of the hate it got as majority of it is from extreme religious people or extreme atheists. Just go in with an open mind and you might enjoy it. If nothing else, you can't deny the grandeur and epicness of it.
7.8/10
Christian Bale stars as Moses, who I believe was a good choice for the role and did pretty well. Can't say the same for Ramses, the evil Pharaoh. Joel Edgerton wasn't bad per say, but he didn't give this bad evil-ish vibe that I wish was present. The movie's writing is at fault here too.
The second half of the movie, starting from the plagues till the end, was great. I loved the plagues and their presentation, they were thrilling and frightening. Would have been even better if there was some breathing room given to them and if there was more suspense created, but oh well. The finale was again Epic, with the red sea rushing back and all. Being a Ridley Scott film, you can surely expect a visual spectacle, and this movie certainly had many. Beautiful views of Egypt, epic scope, great overhead shots, great cinematography all in all.
The CGI was mostly great. Egypt was beautifully realized and we get to feel its grandness. There were a few instances where green screen use was apparent. Soundtrack was decent, but I was kinda disappointed by it. Was hoping to have at least one great track that really gets you going.
Now, the movie had it fair share of flaws. The first half or so got slow pretty soon after the epic opening battle and kinda got boring. The personal stuff, aside from Moses and Ramses conflict, wasn't interesting and bogged down the movie. Also, a child messenger representing God and all the talks that followed was really underwhelming. Would have been better if it was just a voice or something, they could have used Liam Neeson's voice. But my biggest complaint with the movie is that how anti-climatic the quintessential moment was, and I'm of course talking about the splitting of the Red sea. I was in so much anticipation about finally seeing that moment realized perfectly thanks to modern CGI and with Ridley Scott at helm, only to be extremely disappointed by seeing it reduced to nothing but a steady receding of the water. WTF Ridley Scott. I get that they were going for a more realistic approach or whatever, but CMON, somethings aren't meant to be changed/meddled with.
Overall, even with the flaws, I still did like the movie. Don't hesitate to watch it because of the hate it got as majority of it is from extreme religious people or extreme atheists. Just go in with an open mind and you might enjoy it. If nothing else, you can't deny the grandeur and epicness of it.
7.8/10
This is a well known story and I have also seen the '56 movie 'The Ten Commandments'. So in this film could not foresee the modification, but it did in a slight manner like the later 'Noah' movie. The best part was the visuals, the graphics were so good, hard to resist the pleasure if you are vfx geek like me. That's the reason I love modern movie, especially remake of a classic like 'King Kong'. The problem in this flick was lie in the story telling.
As we know, Ridley Scott is an excellent narrator, but this movie was too short even though it ran 150 minutes. I felt it was just a brief, I mean there were no details or depth in the important scenes. You will know what I'm saying if you had watched '56 movie I mentioned in a above paragraph. That's drawback for the first timers at a same time advantage for not to fall in boredom for those who have already seen other versions. Christian Bale, awesome; Joel Edgerton, good; Ben Kingsley, never required; Aaron Paul, totally waste.
Overall, not cleverly stablised in the scenes that are very important, especially the final one about ten commandments should have been extended a little bit with a moral message. If it was a Peter Jackson movie, definitely it would have been a trilogy with an aggregated time of over 500 minutes. This movie was an entertainer like I enjoyed it than the message deliverer. Must be watched for the amusement and for the pleasure in updating technical aspect of the narration rather than inspiration.
7.5/10
As we know, Ridley Scott is an excellent narrator, but this movie was too short even though it ran 150 minutes. I felt it was just a brief, I mean there were no details or depth in the important scenes. You will know what I'm saying if you had watched '56 movie I mentioned in a above paragraph. That's drawback for the first timers at a same time advantage for not to fall in boredom for those who have already seen other versions. Christian Bale, awesome; Joel Edgerton, good; Ben Kingsley, never required; Aaron Paul, totally waste.
Overall, not cleverly stablised in the scenes that are very important, especially the final one about ten commandments should have been extended a little bit with a moral message. If it was a Peter Jackson movie, definitely it would have been a trilogy with an aggregated time of over 500 minutes. This movie was an entertainer like I enjoyed it than the message deliverer. Must be watched for the amusement and for the pleasure in updating technical aspect of the narration rather than inspiration.
7.5/10
A movie need not be a mirror that you gaze into to somehow discover your own soul, the human condition or much of anything at all. It is quite alright to watch a movie for a little harmless entertainment. Ah, but there are those of our species that wish each event could be crafted to teach a lesson, or right a wrong or bend the mind of the uneducated to a certain point of view. They are happiest when they exert a little control over you, citizen! Those people just bore me to tears.
I found this to be an enjoyable 'Biblical Epic' type of film with above average acting, cinematography and direction. I believe that if a person has two hours to spend and wants a little diversion this will do. It is a work that represents the 'spectacular' genre these days and is well worth the time and rental fee.
On the other hand, if a person wants historical accuracy they should probable seek out a documentary and cross their fingers – the era handled by Scott isn't all that well known and there is much disagreement about the Jewish migration out of Egypt. At the time, nobody was taking pictures or tweeting about the experience. As a result, almost all we know about that time is either speculation or mythology or both. (Those that argue about the 'accuracy of this movie really tickle me.) Of course, this movie deals with religious topics. You already knew that I bet. If you are going to watch Exodus for religious reasons look out! If you are really devout, you will find it weak. If you are without religion, you will find it too strong. If you practice the faith of Rameses you will no doubt be offended. Happy entrails to you.
Ff you like to get your religion from someplace other than from a Ridley Scott movie you will be OK on the faith issue. I was neither converted nor offended.
And, if you are looking for cinema that will either reaffirm your political beliefs or teach you something really, really deep then bypass this. It is a movie, not some sort of brain add-on that will make you a better person or symbolically pat you on the back for being so accurate, either left or right, in your politics.
Chris Bale is good as Moses. I know, easy for me to say (I never met Moses) but I think he is good. Bale's character develops and grows as the story goes on and though he's a little young I can buy him as the patriarch. Joel Edgerton is a good Rameses. No, he isn't Egyptian by birth. But, he is all the Rameses I looked forward to and he's appropriately cruddy when the need arises. Pharaohs are a spoiled bunch and Joel conveys that quality well. Maria Valverde is effective in her role as Mrs. Moses. She is a model, by the way, and a woman that is skilled at appearing glamorous. Ben Kingsley gets to play the Ben Kingsley part. I really have no problems with his casting and he does his version of Ben Kingsley quite well.
Several of the named talents have very small, insignificant roles. That is too bad for them, I am sure. But there screen time doesn't harm the movie.
The more spectacular elements of the story are done well. Plagues, parting waters, theological discussions with you-know-who, all pulled off skillfully. Sex is quite muted (less than pre-Hayes stuff)and the gore isn't all that gory (for the most part) so I think it is OK for the kiddies. This isn't history a la Pasolini.
Way back then things were probably quite rotten for many of the residents. This movie shows the conditions without bleeding all over the screen. I think that is a plus. But the sense of struggle for an oppressed minority is effectively conveyed.
In short a rather good movie! If you wish, you can believe those that would rather (ahem) make your thoughts their concern to the point that they direct your behavior. Or, you can trust good old me, I promise that for a modern day Old Testament epic this one is dandy.
I found this to be an enjoyable 'Biblical Epic' type of film with above average acting, cinematography and direction. I believe that if a person has two hours to spend and wants a little diversion this will do. It is a work that represents the 'spectacular' genre these days and is well worth the time and rental fee.
On the other hand, if a person wants historical accuracy they should probable seek out a documentary and cross their fingers – the era handled by Scott isn't all that well known and there is much disagreement about the Jewish migration out of Egypt. At the time, nobody was taking pictures or tweeting about the experience. As a result, almost all we know about that time is either speculation or mythology or both. (Those that argue about the 'accuracy of this movie really tickle me.) Of course, this movie deals with religious topics. You already knew that I bet. If you are going to watch Exodus for religious reasons look out! If you are really devout, you will find it weak. If you are without religion, you will find it too strong. If you practice the faith of Rameses you will no doubt be offended. Happy entrails to you.
Ff you like to get your religion from someplace other than from a Ridley Scott movie you will be OK on the faith issue. I was neither converted nor offended.
And, if you are looking for cinema that will either reaffirm your political beliefs or teach you something really, really deep then bypass this. It is a movie, not some sort of brain add-on that will make you a better person or symbolically pat you on the back for being so accurate, either left or right, in your politics.
Chris Bale is good as Moses. I know, easy for me to say (I never met Moses) but I think he is good. Bale's character develops and grows as the story goes on and though he's a little young I can buy him as the patriarch. Joel Edgerton is a good Rameses. No, he isn't Egyptian by birth. But, he is all the Rameses I looked forward to and he's appropriately cruddy when the need arises. Pharaohs are a spoiled bunch and Joel conveys that quality well. Maria Valverde is effective in her role as Mrs. Moses. She is a model, by the way, and a woman that is skilled at appearing glamorous. Ben Kingsley gets to play the Ben Kingsley part. I really have no problems with his casting and he does his version of Ben Kingsley quite well.
Several of the named talents have very small, insignificant roles. That is too bad for them, I am sure. But there screen time doesn't harm the movie.
The more spectacular elements of the story are done well. Plagues, parting waters, theological discussions with you-know-who, all pulled off skillfully. Sex is quite muted (less than pre-Hayes stuff)and the gore isn't all that gory (for the most part) so I think it is OK for the kiddies. This isn't history a la Pasolini.
Way back then things were probably quite rotten for many of the residents. This movie shows the conditions without bleeding all over the screen. I think that is a plus. But the sense of struggle for an oppressed minority is effectively conveyed.
In short a rather good movie! If you wish, you can believe those that would rather (ahem) make your thoughts their concern to the point that they direct your behavior. Or, you can trust good old me, I promise that for a modern day Old Testament epic this one is dandy.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaTo prepare for his role as Moses, Christian Bale read the first five books of the Bible, the Quran, as well as Louis Ginzberg's classic, "Legends of the Jews," and Jonathan Kirsch's "Moses, A Life."
- ErroresIn several scenes, Ramses is depicted in bed with many luxurious pillows. Ancient Egyptians did not use pillows, instead they used elaborately carved wooden headrests to sleep on.
- Créditos curiososFor my brother, Tony Scott
- ConexionesFeatured in The Comfort Zone: Christian Bale's "Exodus" Movie (2014)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Exodus: Gods and Kings?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Exodus: Gods and Kings
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 140,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 65,014,513
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 24,115,934
- 14 dic 2014
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 268,175,631
- Tiempo de ejecución2 horas 30 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta