Exodus: Gods and Kings

It has become somewhat fashionable to dismiss Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments because of the arcane Victorian era dialog. But I have to say that Ridley Scott's version of Exodus while technically proficient will never become the Passover viewing treat that DeMille's film has become.

Cousins Moses and Ramses are friends and rivals for the affections of the Pharoah who is Ramses dad. But when it is discovered that Moses is actually the son of Hebrew slaves that his mother Pharoah's sister drew him out of the Nile the succession of the Pharoah's line is secure.

What's not so secure is the kingdom itself as the Hebrews who came over as a family of 13 kids several centuries earlier now are in the thousands and are slaves and they ain't happy about it. In the funny way things work out in life, the adopted Egyptian prince is in fact the promised leader who is going to lead them back from whence they came which is Canaan.

In DeMille's version the dialog may be arcane, but it is also uplifting and inspiring and delivered by the ultimate DeMille leading man Charlton Heston. Yul Brynner as Ramses in that version was the arrogant Pharoah enjoying all his princely prerogatives. They made an evenly matched pair of foes and with them scrapping over Anne Baxter the conflict got personal as well as religious.

Christian Bale as Moses and Joel Edgerton as Ramses just don't give you people you can identify with.

DeMille was always good with crowds. Note how uplifting the liberation of the Hebrews is in his film. Also the small little vignettes of the various people in the crowd. They are a family/nation in his version. All they are is in Scott's version lumpen proletariat.

Whose idea was it to have the voice of God be that of a petulant child? Instead of the pyrotechnical wizardry of DeMille the Ten Commandments are given almost matter of factly by a kid to Christian Bale.

We've gone beyond Cecil B. DeMille in the art of film making. But there a things in his craft that he was the top, far and above anyone else. Not even a Ridley Scott should try.

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

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.

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?

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.