Exodus: Gods and Kings

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?

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 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.

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.

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.