ironhorse_iv Review of Exodus: Gods and Kings

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

A lot of people might exodus out of the theater for this, but for me. It wasn't that bad.

[6/10 · 20 December 2014]

Ridley Scott goes biblical! I think certain people in Hollywood are living in the old school approach to making epics. They were born or live through the years that biblical sword and sandals films were hits like 1956's The Ten Commandments, 1959's Ben Hur, and 1961's King of Kings. Clearly, they want to remake those epics to fit the modern age. Clearly, it's not those types of epics that the main audience wants to see, anymore these days. I think a lot of people have a love/hate relationship with religion. Some people clearly see films like these as force propaganda tools to keep people still interested in theology in a world that clearly exploring more means. Others see it, as a joke, because a lot of modern day Christian films are pretty preachy, the acting is terrible and stilted, the cameras predictable and boorish, and the post-production sound and music integration cliché and clumsy. In all, there is a small group of people that would see a film like this; the deeply religious, who mostly will pick apart it for its inaccurates and those who want to see something new, out of these, but can't find themselves too engage in the story. 2014 was a big year of bible type films, and sadly, most of them got bad reviews. In my opinion, this movie is a lot better than 2014's Noah or 2014's Left Behind, big time. Directed by Ripley Scott, the movie retells the story of the Old Testament story of the Exodus, by adding state of the art visuals and 3D immersion. By doing that, he hopes to bring new life to the story of the defiant leader Moses (Christian Bale) as he rises up against the Egyptian Pharaoh Rameses (Joel Edgerton), on a quest to let his people go. In my opinion, this film is not in the level of 1999's animation film, Prince of Egypt in story-telling. Prince of Egypt seem more faithful to the source material. You really get into the drama of that film. You really felt the struggles of the Hebrew slaves in that film and felt happy when they came to their freedom. You don't really see much of the mistreatment of the Hebrew in this film. In Prince of Egypt, you really felt the breakdown of the brotherhood between Moses and Rameses in that movie, and felt the depth of it, both find themselves in other side. In this film, the film doesn't really focus on their relationship, at all. You barely sense that they are even family. In Prince of Egypt, you felt the possibility of redemption, as Moses come from narcissistic clueless boy to a peaceful loving leader. In this film, Moses is a crazy murderer; whom by the end of the film is still, a crazy murderer type leader. In Prince of Egypt, you felt the faith that the Hebrew people had, and understood, why they would believe in God. In this film, the movie doesn't show any faith in its subject matter, making it seem like believing in God is something, a crazy person might do. This movie lacks heart. Yes, it's more accuracy to maybe what really happen, but its lacks the story-telling to make it, very entertaining. It's the same way, that the previous, Ridley Scott's film 2010's Robin Hood fails to do. It forgets to make it a good time fairy tale movie, rather than a real life harsh drama that most people don't want to see. Still, there were a few 'inaccurates', this film had, that might need another closer look. One is the Biblical plagues. Most of them have been removed or replace in this film version. Some of them, are really out of place, like the killer alligators sequence. I like how the movie really try to find natural causes for the plagues, but comes off, as off putting. You don't put logic in a very illogic story like the bible. It's like exposing, the magic trick to people. People don't want to see that. Honestly, if they, really wanted to seem more accuracy. I wonder why didn't, they have the crossing of the sea of reeds, rather than the red sea? Nor why, didn't the film was set during the 1550 BCE, during the reign of Ahmose. The date of 1270 BC where Ramesses II was the Pharaoh is not accepted by most Bible scholars. It would make more sense, if they put it during Ahmose's reign. Another big complain about the film is the casting of white actors in ethic lead roles. I find this complain, a bit overdramatic. Personal, I don't find anything wrong with the actors, they choice to lead the film, since the film does put good main stream actors in those roles. Would, I like to have ethic actors, play the role? Sure, but I'm pretty OK with Joel Edgerton and Christian Bale in these roles. I do give the movie, some credit for having multiple Middle Eastern and North Africans in support roles. Some people called for a boycott of the film, due to the race matter, and I find them to be taking it too serious. Overall: Exodus is the theological foundation of the Bible. Sadly, this movie didn't tell that story that well. However, it's not the worst, retelling of a biblical story, but if you want a good version of the story. Watch 1999's Prince of Egypt. It's a film that really is underrated and deserve more credit. If you choice to watch this, I can still recommended it. It's not that bad.