Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

n

nExodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

n

nDirector: Ridley Scott

n

nCast: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Torturro, BennKingsley, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul

n

nEvery time Ridley Scott makes a movie I consider it a giftnfrom a cinematic god, so of course I was pumped when I heard that Scott wouldnbe directing this biblical ‘Magnus opus’, it seems right up his alley fornvarious reasons. Number one is the fact that he is a master at making thenfantastic believable, no matter how complex or how out there, he can make itnreal. This is something a lot of directors’ continually try to attempt yet failnhorribly at; just take one look at Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C. (2008) and you’llnsee what I mean. Secondly, Egyptian civilization, pyramids and huge columnsnhave always formed a huge part of Ridley Scott’s film aesthetic. Actually,nwhile watching certain scenes in Exodus, I got a few Blade Runner (1982) flashbacks.nTake a look at Blade Runner again and you’ll see just how influenced by the Egyptianncivilization Blade Runners art design was, you’ll see pyramids all over thenplace. So anyhow, with Exodus, Ridley Scott went from the futuristic pyramidsnseen in Blade Runner, to depicting the actual first pyramids ever made, which in a way brings Ridley Scott’s cinematic career full circle.

n

nCurrently we’re going through a religious revival innHollywood, I guess this is an attempt to infuse society with ‘belief’ as a waynto reinforce religious ideals in society, something I’m completely againstnbecause I imagine, like John Lennon, a world without religion, where we can benthe rulers of our own destiny. But  alas,nwe live in a world where the grand majority of people are under mind control,nand religion plays a huge part of that. Yet, oddly enough I find these biblicalnmovies fascinating anyways because I seem them for what they are, stories,nfantasies meant to enlighten us entertain us and maybe show us a thing or two along the way; nothing more.nSo, this review comes from a non believer who still finds movies like thisnentertaining. I mean, I loved the heck out of Cecil B. Demille’s The TennCommandments (1956)! That film is so entertaining, so theatrical and sonfreaking epic! Of course, Ridley Scott had a lot on his plate, he not only had thenresponsibility of pleasing all those millions of Christians out there bynkeeping things somewhat faithful to biblical cannon, he also had to turn in annentertaining film that surpasses anything we’d seen before in terms ofnspectacle. Question is, did he achieve it?

n

n

nA lot of things went right with this movie, for example, its scope brought to mind those old biblical movies like Ben-Hur (1959) and Cleopatra (1963),nthese are films filled with thousands of extras and incredible sets, wardrobenan art direction. I’m happy to say that that’s the kind of film you get withnExodus: Gods and Kings. You certainly won’t feel like you are being shortnchanged with this movie, you’ll see the millions up on the screen. The detailnpaid to minutiae, is amazing. The carvings on the swords, the thrones, thenwalls, is just stunning, you’ll believe this is the Egypt of the bible, thenfilm is very convincing in my book.  

n

n

nOne of the things that matters the most for a film of thisnkind to be successful is that it has to be faithful to the bible, or else thencore audience will boycott the movie. In this sense I predict that theaters willnbe packed with religious folks, as opposed to say a film like Noah (2014),nwhich got everything wrong by changing the story around so much that itnalienated its target audience. Religious people didn’t get the Noah that theynwanted, so they didn’t exactly back the movie up, if anything some Christians went to see Noah simply to see how wrong Aronofsky got their beloved biblical tales. This doesnnot happen with Exodus: Gods and Kings which sticks pretty closely to thenbible. Sure Ridley Scott takes a few artistic liberties here and there, butnoverall the story you get is the story that’s in the bible. Moses becomes thenleader of the Hebrews, becomes their savior and with gods help, he frees themnfrom the oppressive choke of the Egyptians.

n

n

nMy only problem with the film is that the story is way toonepic for one film. This story could have easily been divided into two or threenfilms and it could have been told better. As it is, at times I felt like the storynwas going in fast forward, skipping important moments that you’d expect to see. We go through the ten plagues, suddenly boom, we’re traveling through the desert, suddenly boom, we’renat the red sea, and boom it’s Ten Commandments time. Biblical events feelnrushed, and a lot of important moments where left out. For example, the momentnin which Moses turns his staff into a snake, or the moment when the Israelites get tired ofnwaiting for Moses to come down from Mount Sinai so they build their own god and start worshiping a golden calf, then god opens the ground andnswallows them up for being unfaithful to him. Why leave stuff like that out? Inguess the movie would have been  four hours long if they did, which is why I say thisnfilm could have easily been turned into two films.  This is the reason why DeMille’s The TennCommandments (1956) was divided into two segments, with an interlude for you tongo tinkle. In his version, DeMille didn’t cut corners, he told the full thing and took hisnsweet time to do it. He’s cut of the film is ten minutes short of four hours!nThe problem is that Scott decided to tell the tale in one film, and my opinion,nthe story suffered because of this. Ridley Scott either chose tontell an incomplete tale, or a lot of footage was left in the cutting room floornand we might get to see it eventually in a directors’ cut. Still, the filmnremains amazing, remains epic, it’s just missing certain key moments that onlyntrue Christian fanatics will notice were left out.

n

n

nThis film has gotten some heat because supposedly it’snemotionless, but I disagree; I actually think it had a lot of emotion. There arensome truly tender moments between Moses and his wife where we see a kinder,ngentler side to the great leader. I guess what people are referring to is thatnRidley Scott decided to go with a more believable way of telling this story, he avoided augmenting the supernatural elements whenever he could. Inmean, sure we see lots of miracles happen (the ten plagues are simply amazing)nbut Scott found a way to explain most of them scientifically, they aren’t justnmagical events. Even the parting of the Red Sea seems like the tide simply goes down in intensity till the people can simply walknthrough, Moses doesn’t use his staff like it was a magic wand on this one. I guess we could say the film isn’t overly dramaticnor theatrical and whenever it can it simply avoids the supernatural. This might take some as a surprise, especially for those who arenexpecting a huge special effects driven film or operatic performances. Here theneffects are used with subtlety, yet when they appear they are a true wonder.nPerformances are also toned down when compared to Charlton Heston’s old timentheatrics.

n

n

nI enjoyed the amazing cast here, the only downside is that we have a lot of good actors in minor roles. John Torturro plays the pharaohnwhich took me by surprise. Ben Kingsley plays a Hebrew elder, but again, so underused. I mean, here we got Sigourney Weaverndoing next to nothing on this film, same goes for Aaron Paul, but whatever, I hear the original cut of this film was reportedly four hours long, so we might benseeing more of these actors on a directors’ cut of the film, who knows. Final words is,nRidley Scott had a huge tale to tell here and even with these compromises I’venmentioned, we still got an amazing film that can be appreciated by both the Christiansnwho want to see their fantasies brought to life on the silver screen and bynthose film lovers who just want to see a good film. This is without a doubt anstrong film and if you ask me, one of the best of the year.

n

n

n