Exodus: Gods and Kings

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?

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

This film tackles a story that had already been tackled very well in previous films. The most famous of them all is the epic "The Ten Commandments" with Charlton Heston as the definitive Moses. Other filmmakers have tried to replicate this Moses story with different actors or even in animation, but the 1956 classic remains secure in its place.

This year, yet another attempt is made by director Ridley Scott with big star Christian Bale as Moses, a combination is too promising to ignore. So despite the lukewarm to negative early reviews, I wanted to see and judge this film for myself.

We all know the story of Moses from the book of Exodus. He was a Hebrew who grew up in the Egyptian palace side by side with Pharaoh's own son Ramses. When Moses' real origin was revealed, he was exiled. There in the wilderness, he obeys God's orders by way of the burning bush to return to Egypt to ask the new Pharaoh to set the Hebrews free from slavery. Only after God sent ten dreadful plagues did Ramses relent. Moses led the Hebrews across the Red Sea and into the Promised Land of milk and honey.

This film is basically faithful with the biblical story, with the advantage of higher technology in special visual effects to create grander vistas and more realistic plagues. It tried to inject some scientific logic into the supernatural events, particularly the Red Sea crossing. However, the explanation for the turning of water into blood was quite a stretch. Moses did not have a staff that turned into a snake nor part the Red Sea. The Angel of Death scenes were presented curiously just like the way it was done on "The Ten Commandments"!

The lackluster portrayal by the actors added to the coldness of the film. I don't know if Christian Bale did not make a very good Moses. He felt like he was going through the motions here, no passion whatsoever. Joel Edgerton was totally wrong as Ramses. He looked ill at ease the whole film, and it was obvious from the posters alone! The presence of Ben Kingsley, Sigourney Weaver and Aaron Paul in cast were wasted in small unremarkable roles.

Some people may expect this to be a religious film. However, the whole film felt soul-less, and this made the long 150-minute running time seem so unbearably slow. The very way God was portrayed did not sit very well with me. God in this film was personified as an imperious young boy who was projected to be mercilessly violent and vindictive. There was no hint of compassion nor magnanimity here. Moses was even arguing against God. The film felt like it had an anti-God undertone, even atheistic, which was uncomfortable for me. This is yet another disappointing Biblical film debacle this year, though I would not consider as bad as the total disaster that was "Noah". 4/10.

Let me say immediately. Visually, technically, this film is a wonder and for that alone it deserves to be seen but then. Oh brother. Christian Bale, one of my favorites among the post-De Niro crop, is cast as Moses, you know? Moses - the man chosen by God for his humbleness. Christian's Moses blazes with self confidence. The Godly horrors known as plagues are a cinematic jaw dropping experience but when it returns to the actual drama. Oh brother. How can it possibly be? When the great Ridley Scott made his Robin Hood (did you see it?)his star Russell Crowe went to a talk show to promote the movie and called the Erroll Flynn version, "crap" - You see? I think that's at the center of the problem.

I went into this film with an open mind. I have enjoyed Ridley Scott movies in the past, particularly Gladiator which is the same genre of film as this. Unfortunately, I was left feeling extremely disappointed. Although this is a classic, biblical story that most movie-goers are likely already familiar with, the film-makers have decided to pad this ancient tale with over-the-top action scenes, as well as one-note characters that feel more like cardboard cut-outs as opposed to actual human beings. The most shameful aspect of the film is the part that I was most looking forward to : The Actual Plague. While I was hoping to see harrowing images of Egypt being decimated in a genuinely frightening tale, we are instead bombarded with fake looking CGI that simply left me dry. The plague feels more like a computer montage than an actual scary event.Terrible script. Weak performances. An over-reliance on CGI instead of CHARACTERS and STORY! Overall, just a bad film. Didn't help that they chose big named actors instead of people that looked more like Ancient Egyptians. Pass.